Smarter Than Thou!

A STATE OF MOBIL CONFUSION

 THERE is a---shall I call it a rumor?---floating around about the electric car.  It goes like this.  A really good electric car was developed in the 1970’s, and actually sold to humans in California.  Then the automobile manufacturers saw that this would lead to a profit disaster, because the electric car did not need gas, or maintenance, and lasted forever.  So they were taken off the road, brought out to the desert, and destroyed. 

It is never explained how privately owned vehicles were all stolen, or confiscated, without anyone noticing it, or complaining.  Nor is it ever explained why GM and Ford care about making Exxon and Gulf rich.  Car companies are not oil companies. 

Before I go further let me add this.  In 1973 I saw, with my own eyes, a plug-in electric tractor for sale at a Ford dealer.  I would think that, over 30 years later, the same technology would have been developed to the point that it could be used in cars.  And are not golf carts run on rechargeable electric power? 

My point is this.  The people who see a conspiracy against the electric car argue that the manufacturers oppose it because it was reduce their profits.  But now those same manufactures are about to go out of business.  An electric car would save them.  And yet they still won’t produce (or release) the car?  In other words, they are so committed to profit that they are willing to have none, at all.  Huh?

I have no explanation, but only questions.  

If you have questions, then subscribe to the A&E and get answers.  $30 per year.  

STOP, IN THE NAME OF LOVE!

“The View” is a women-only talk show.  I watch it, sometimes, for material for this, and for its inherent, and unintentional, humor.  Whoopee Goldberg, an alleged comic, often acts like the hostess.  I do not like her, at all, but she often does a good job, sometimes being reasonable, polite, moderate, etc.  This time Whoopee was talking about a recent vote in California.

There was a referendum on the ballot which would change the state constitution to accept marriage only a legal union between one man and one woman (at one time).  This was clearly intended to outlaw the so called “single gender marriage.”  Single sex marriage is more common on the East Coast, especially among the upper classes, and usually only on the wedding night. 

The vote confirmed marriage as it has been traditionally accepted.  In the discussion the pretty blonde chick, with a very small brain, argued that IF the homos are allowed to marry THEN, next, they probably will sue those churches which do not perform such ceremonies.  This could lead to new court decisions, and then these traditional churches could lose their status as religious institutions.  This would be a violation of freedom of religion.

Whoopee pointed out, repeatedly, that “the law” precludes this.  There is already a legal protection.  So, she said, don’t use that silly argument.  What Whoopee failed to point out is that breaking the law is PRECISELY what the whole goal is.  The homos are breaking it all the time, and by defying it, and then hope that a court will then destroy the written law, i.e. the very law which now protects churches. 

In essence, Whoopee says that we should never be afraid of criminals because they are prohibited by law from doing what they do.  All we have to do is to say “Stop in the name of the law.”  As Whoopee points out, she never went to high school.  I glad that she did not waste the place used by a more worthy candidate. 

And you can protect yourself from criminal ignorance by subscribing to the A&E.  $30 for 12 monthly issues.  

 

THE PLANE MAINLY REMAINS

RECENTLY there was a type of government conference which was supposed to deal with the problem of the delayed airline flight.  This is the situation where the passengers were already on the plane, and then they were kept there for an “excessively” long time.  The goal of the meeting was to develop a “bill of rights” for the passengers.  No one wants to sit on a plane for several hours, especially when one is not allowed to get up, or to move around, or to get something to eat or drink, etc. 

And the government conference yielded… nothing at all.  No agreement was arrived at, not even in principle.  And this seems, of course, another example of the government not being able to solve the simplest problem.  In fact, it is the exact opposite  It shows that there is intelligence and prudence in Washington after all.  I shall ex-plane.

First, despite the fact that the airlines are regulated, the relation between the airline and the passenger is primarily one of a private exchange.  The government should not be involved any more than is absolutely mandated.  Except on rare occasions---no more than twice a week---do hundreds of people die of starvation or thirst on these planes.  This is not much of a population loss in a country of 300 million. 

Second, what rules could have possibly been instituted?  Planes getting ready to take off form a line, nose to tail, on or near the runway, and not next to the terminals.  These planes do not have a reverse, like cars.  Can they safely get out of line, and go in the opposite direction, on a busy runway?  I doubt it.  What is the alternative?  Could the passengers be allowed to walk down a ramp, onto a busy runway, and then walk, between and under planes, to the terminal, without themselves becoming terminal?  Unlikely. 

What about giving them food and letting them walk about within the plane?  Suppose that the drink cart comes out, and the cause of the delay is resolved, and the plane is allowed to take off… but no it is not, because an unsafe drink cart has to be put away, first.  And, first, the cans and cups have to be collected too.  And while this is being done, this plane has lost it spot in the take-off-line, and the plane will now have to wait even longer.  The same applies if the passengers are allowed to walk around.  This is one of those many, many, situations where there are no solutions to a problem. 

This also is a prefect example of how, in order to arrive at a valid conclusion, one must reason all the way to the final end.  And it is another example of the government doing good, by doing nothing.  The only mistake was having the conference to begin with. 

 

And the A&E, to which you should subscribe, is nothing but good, too. 

    

MORE AND/OR LESS GLOBAL WARMING

THE global warming theorists, and advocates, explain that it happens this way.  We humans put stuff (mostly gases) into the atmosphere, which does not allow the heat received from the sun to “escape” back out to space.  These human greenhouse gases cause this heat to reflect back to the surface of the Earth.  Thus the globe heats us in a warming cycle. 

As I have stated, repeatedly, there is no evidence that the Earth (as a whole) is warming.  However, let us assume that it is, simply to se what would happen.  A warmer Earth means warmer air around it.  And warmer air, as we really do know, holds more water vapor.  And water vapor in the air is what clouds are made of.  So the oceans will produce more clouds.  And the warmer it gets the more clouds we shall have. 

In case you have not noticed, those loonies keep predicting that the oceans will rise and wipe out coastal areas (by next Wednesday).  This comes from melted ice caps.  However if they are correct then they are wrong.  A good deal of the increased water will be floating in the air and not flooding on the ground.  However, there is even more.

The clouds, floating around the globe, will prevent sunlight from reaching the Earth itself.  Thus it will cool off the Earth.  To put this differently:  this warming, if it takes place, will produce an automatic cooling mechanism.  If you need an analogy then consider this.  A greenhouse works because the glass allows sunlight in, and does not let the heat escape.  If the glass is covered then it cools off.  An opaque green house is only a building, which needs external and internal heating sources. 

I thought that this might reassure those of you who live in those endangered costal areas.  Relax.  You are safe for a few more days. 

And you can make yourself safer, by subscribing to the A&E, or simply send me the money.