Thursday, August 27, 2020

Ancient European Power Structure Pushing Racial Division, Disunity

Jesuit-Catholic Reporter writer touts specious 'logic' to subvert a broader-based political movement

Arturo Sosa S.J. - 31st Superior General Jesuit Order

Mike Jordon Lansky - senior communications manager for the Jesuit Conference in Washington, D.C.

Claira Janover - Harvard graduate, video poster child for jesuitical social division

How people thus respond has its implications, e.g. whether they respond more wisely or foolishly.

Such is evident with the spin by a Jesuit writer for National Catholic Reporter

Blog | Young Voices

Saying 'All Lives Matter' misses the mark

People hug after taking part in a prayer circle July 10 following a Black Lives Matter protest in the wake of multiple police shootings in Dallas. (CNS/Carlo Allegri, Reuters)
Almost every day, I drive past an auto repair shop that has a huge banner covering its street-facing side. It reads, "All Lives Matter / God Bless & Protect Our Police Officers."

On the surface, there's nothing about these two sentences I disagree with at all: I believe that each and every person matters because all are created in the image and likeness of God, and that it is good to pray for the protection of police officers in the line of duty. But each time I pass the banner, I catch myself feeling angry and sad.

The phrase "All Lives Matter" has appeared over the past few years as a direct retort to the Black Lives Matter movement, which itself was launched in response to the repeated killings of unarmed black men, women and children by law enforcement around the country. The movement is laser-focused on this injustice and our collective inability to address it in any meaningful way.

This systemic killing and abuse of power is wrong, the movement asserts, and in the face of this unimaginable injustice, it is essential to proclaim that black lives matter.
"All lives matter," some reply, most often in defense of police officers, who are also the targets of violence. So what's wrong with the wider scope of this phrase?

A few weeks ago, I saw this viral comic strip by Kris Straub floating around the internet.

Further, "All Lives Matter" misses the point because it suggests that saying that black lives matter is the same as saying that only black lives matter. The movement is intentionally narrow, shining a spotlight on one horrific injustice. Of course every person matters, and of course there are so many other injustices that require attention, including violence directed toward police officers. But as Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson said in a recent interview with CNN, you don't go to a breast cancer rally and shout, "Colon cancer matters!"

No.  The proper analogy would be Cancer Matters.  

Prioritising something is hardly saying that something else does not matter.  

So would we thus see breast cancer victims shut down conversations for not dealing exclusively with their form of cancer?  That we should not discuss matters of diet, environment, medicine, relevant to cancer in general, because we should be simply focused upon ourselves than broader society

Or, given the Kris Straub cartoon's "logic"- as one would simply aim the water at the house on fire, while not forgetting the need for a reliable water supply infrastructure- a topic mattering to all.

By instead showing the water being applied to the house not on fire, next to the house that is on fire, the cartoonist - Kris Straub - is just being sarcastic in a way to show that the position that he has been ordered to take is so absurd, that people should be able to do so on their own.

So how and why would we even see some sort of intrinsic conflict between saying "Black Lives Matter" and saying "All Lives Matter"?

Why would we want to shut down conversation between people of differing ethnicities and situations, like say the hypothetical example of breast cancer victims shunning communication regarding cancer in general?

All means all, and thus includes Blacks.
Unless of course it is less about people and more about hindering the Black Lives Matter movement from developing into a broader movement encompassing a greater segment of society.  More about keeping people more divided, in order to protect the status quo.  

A strategic means of shutting down potential conversations about oppressive laws in general. 

Such is what can be expected by those more in the know about some of the political history of the Roman Catholic Church and its Jesuit Order.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Mislabeling of Ethanol Fuel: "E-85" is "E51-E-83"

"E-85" as the name implies, 85% Ethanol

Yet the Ethanol content is, at best 83% and as little as 51%, yet is still labeled as "E-85"

"Flex Fuel" should actually read "Flexible Recipe Fuel"

E>51% - <84%

E85 is an abbreviation typically referring to an ethanol fuel blend of 85% ethanol fuel and 15% gasoline or other hydrocarbon by volume.

In the United States, the exact ratio of fuel ethanol to hydrocarbon may vary according to ASTM 5798 that specifies the allowable ethanol content in E85 as ranging from 51% to 83%.[1] This is due to the lower heating value of neat ethanol making it difficult to crank engines in relatively cold climates without pre-heating air intake, faster cranking, or mixing varying fractions of gasoline according to climate. Cold cranking in cold climates is the primary reason ethanol fuel is blended with any gasoline fraction.

In Brazil, ethanol fuel is neat at the pumps, hence flexible-fuel vehicles (FFV) including trucks, tractors, motorbikes and mopeds run on E100. The 85% fraction is commonly sold at pumps worldwide (outside the US), and when specifically supplied or sold as E85 is always 85% ethanol (at pumps or in barrel). Having a guaranteed ethanol fraction obviates the need for a vehicle system to calculate best engine tune according to maximize performance and economy.
In countries like Australia where E85 is always 85% ethanol (and pump fuel with varying fractions is called "flex fuel"), performance motoring enthusiasts and motor racing clubs/championships use E85 extensively (without the need for any FFV certification). Use of alcohol (ethanol and methanol) in motor racing history parallels the invention of the automobile, favored due to inherent combustion characteristics such as high thermal efficiency, raised torque and with some advanced engines, better specific fuel consumption. In the United States, government subsidies of ethanol in general and E85 in particular have encouraged a growing infrastructure for the retail sale of E85, especially in corn growing states in the Midwest.

Is any other commercial product's labeling so lax? 

Just how was such a mis-regulations that "E-85", despite what it's name implies - 85% Ethanol -get hashed out, such as however it did in the U.S., from somewhere within Washington, D.C. swamp-play.

Imagine purchasing aspirin pills, marked 81mg and finding they actually varied between 50 and 80 mg?

Saturday, September 28, 2019

How Dare You Tell Us That Renewable Liquid Fuels Are Categorically 'Dirtier' Than Non Renewable Fuels As Petroleum

Things to consider

Maintain petroleum market-share/lie through their teeth that bio-fuels are categorically "dirtier" than petroleum, because the production costs no matter how we look at them outstrip their relative levels of combustion emmissions/pollution: differences in their respective burning.

Marc Rauch comment:

I can't say for sure, since I haven't done a count and compared it to a calendar, but it seems to me that the American oil industry has been ramping up its attacks on ethanol and trying to gain ground by adding in more 'high-powered' lapdogs to press their fallacious arguments. These minions come from universities and think-tanks (what I like to call stink-tanks).

One of the basic errors that the gasoline lapdogs make is that they act as if gasoline and petroleum diesel were some type of healthful elixir, and that in attempting to insert ethanol fuels into the market that the perfumed life-giving essence of fossil fuels are being polluted by greedy, evil farmers. This is evidenced in such recent works of deception as those articles written by John DeCicco, Research Professor at University of Michigan Energy Institute; Daniel De La Torre Ugarte, Research Professor, Department Of Agricultural And Resource Economics University Of Tennessee; and Carlisle Ford Runge, Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota. These recent 'works of tragedy' can be found at:

The reality is that gasoline and petroleum diesel fuel, along with the various additives manufactured by the oil industry, are vile deadly substances. The only possible thing that could be more harmful to the public is if the oil industry just pumped large quantities of sarin into the atmosphere. And the use of the benign word "aromatics" to refer to such additives as benzene and toluene are as much of a cruel joke as that which awaited incoming prisoners at Nazi concentration camps when they were told they were just being given a cleansing 'shower.' By the way, I didn't just reference the actions of the Nazis out of coincidence; please remember that Standard Oil did collaborate with the Nazis during World War II.

What's the bottom line difference between gasoline/aromatics and ethanol? Here's three videos that speak volumes:

Okay, so we have the three "distinguished" professors, who might have been right at home working alongside Josef Mengele, arguing that ethanol production produces more harmful gases than the production of gasoline and diesel fuel. And one of the ways that they arrive at this spurious position is by calculating in the harmful emissions given off by the various machines used in the crop growing and ethanol delivery process. Clearly no one explained to them that storks don't find and deliver finished fossil fuel products to filling stations around the world.

And I guess these three stooges don't know about all the CO2 and other harmful gases that are emitted in the process of defending oil around the world. I guess they think that all the planes, and ships, and armored vehicles, and personnel carriers run on magic non-polluting fairy dust. And then no one explained to them that the production of all the weapons and ammunition requires energy usage. Oh, and then there's the manufacture of all the uniforms for all the service personnel, as well as all the food and the housing. And then there are the pollutants given off every time a shell or bomb explodes, and every time an individual weapon is discharged. And then all emissions used by first-responder vehicles when they are called to the scene of a related terrorist attack. And then all the harmful emissions related to cleaning up oil disasters, not to mention the bodies of all the dead animals killed as a result of the oil disasters.

While I'm on the subject of dead bodies, do you think that the three schlemiels ever consider the millions of people killed in the wars waged over oil? I have a feeling they don't.

About a day after John DeCicco and the University of Michigan published their story, MichBio, the biosciences industry association in Michigan, issued a statement about DeCicco in which they wrote:

“It's unfortunate when scientists conduct research predicated on assumptions that lead to biased results, rather than conducting a truly independent analysis,” said Stephen Rapundalo, PhD, President and CEO, MichBio. “Moreover, the Petroleum Institute’s direct funding of the research calls into question any impartiality on the part of the research team and hence the study’s conclusions.”

"In sum, this study is an attempt by the oil industry to smear the biofuels industry and stifle competition in the fuels market. It ignores the benefits of Michigan’s homegrown biofuels industry, and if its conclusions were to be valid stands to hinder a potential economic driver for Michigan and the U.S."

Moreover, Argonne National Laboratory has stated that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by an average of 34 percent compared to gasoline, even when the highly controversial and disputed theory on Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) is factored into the modeling. Additionally, Argonne has found that without ILUC included, ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 57 percent compared to gasoline.

When Daniel De La Torre Ugarte issued his report this past May, The Auto Channel (along with several others) took him to task for his oil industry paid-for conclusions. Here is what we published:


As for C. Ford Runge, he tried hitting the whole litany of oil industry created lies about ethanol. And he even quoted Emily Cassidy from the Environmental Working Group as an informational resource.

I don't think Ms. Cassidy and the entire EWG could find their way out of a paper bag that has opening at both ends. However, in reading Mr. Runge's article it's clear that all he did to collect his bounty from the oil industry was to restate the same old tired and well refuted oil industry lies.

Here's what I'd like to know: When C. Ford Runge is called a "distinguished professor," does that really mean that he's distinguished (apart) from those professors who actually know what they're talking about?

The oil industry's tutelage of professors makes a mockery of academia. But why should the oil industry care if they ultimately ruin the honor and prestige of the professors they're buying, after all they are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of soldiers, sailors and airmen to protect their filthy empire.

But there's two very interesting things about all of the oil industry's machinations to defame ethanol.

The first is that next generation automobile engines will require fuels with greater octane levels than E10 can provide. The engines will need E20, E30, E40, and so on. The only alternative is to increase the amount of benzene/toluene, which is too costly and too dangerous. So ultimately the oil industry will probably start buying up ethanol distilleries so that they can keep the profits. Won't it be funny to see how the oil industry changes its tune on ethanol?

The second thing is that many of the same cars and boats sold in America are also sold in countries like Brazil and Thailand, and they have significantly higher minimum ethanol blend mandates then the U.S. These cars and boats all work fine. This means that the warnings and warranty restrictions currently given by OEMs in America is nonsense.

If you like a full rundown on the myths and lies invented by the oil industry to denounce ethanol please read one or more of The Auto Channel's articles on this subject:

TRUTH ABOUT ETHANOL - 60+ page Reply to Robert Bryce's GUSHER OF LIES

Life As We Might Have Known It: What If Ethanol Was Our Primary Engine Fuel

The Rise & Fall of General Motors and the Subjugation of the Industrialized World

The Irrelevance Of BTU Rating - Big Oil's Gimmick To Hoodwink The Public

Every Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engine Ever Produced Has Been Damaged By Gasoline

Detroit News Story Goes Overboard in Slamming Ethanol

Why Do Small Engines Suffer From Ethanol Problems?

Ethanol Does NOT Suck Water Out Of The Air

-------end quote

Where is Greta Thunberg and her followers on this? 

Do they simply believe that say rapidly adopting all electric cars (not hybrids/no range extender combustion engines, no matter how small, etc), with say a Bernie Saunders $2 trillion dollar grant /mandatory combustion engine trade in-destruction, financed with an extra $8 a gallon in fuel taxes?

What of such a policy's own added spike of greenhouse gases.

METHANE JOLT - Jolt Siberian Methane- via the Russian allied U.S. Green Party?

Thursday, July 25, 2019

The Wobble Effect of Politics

Posted by yours truly, November 5, 2007

The Wobble Effect refers to how astronomers search for the planets they can't see directly, by observing the “wobble” upon the stars they orbit . By observing the seen – the star – they can "see" the unseen – the planets – by observing the latter’s effect upon the former. As such wobble is caused by gravity, and gravity is caused by rotating mass, a star's "wobble" indicates the presence of such planets.

This is definitely applicable to how our political system is run.

It is most obvious when politicians alter their stances to be synchronized with the wishes of the most powerful though not necessarily visible ...

Friday, July 19, 2019

Hypothetical: July 18, 2019

It is the 1930s. A cluster of U.S. Representatives favor to some degree the policies of the country they recently came from- Germany. Their espoused political ideology is say

(1) Pro Nazi-Hitler, including the anti Jewish Continuing Inquisition

(2) Von Vorbeck continuation of Bismark's creation the 2nd Reich, particularity with an intelligent alliance to the east of a political alliance with Jozef Pilsudski in re-establishing the Jagiellon sized Grand Poland that the Jesuits stabbed in the back in the 1600s for opposing Rome's Eastern Orthodox veneer "Uni te" Church with the Khmelnytsky Uprising and scuttling Poland's proposed Haidch Treaty 

(3) some variation of post Bismark 2nd Reich, or 

(4) Weimer Germany.

How would you characterize the phrase "go home to where you came from" to each variant of German-American U.S. politician, based upon the political ideologies reflected by the above enumerated variants of Germany

Saturday, March 23, 2019


Why are so many calling out for less ethanol, rather than greater choice and transparency?

Ensure choice.

Allow E-0 fuel for those that want it, and provide the options of greater ethanol content, E-10, E-30, E-50 etc, complete with labeling of the octane (strangely absent from every E-85 pump I have seen), BTU content (absent entirely), and eliminate the false labeling of E-50 fuels etc as E-85- which subverts people's right to build the engines that they want.

Sadly this dialogue has been hijacked by those instead more interested in sustaining a certain mercantilist status quo.

Thursday, March 14, 2019

"Sorry, your comment could not be added at this time. Please try again later"

Facebook's Zuckberg sucking up to mainland China intellectual totalitarianism

Left to right: Lui Wei, China Internet Czar, President Xi Jinping of China, Mark Zuckerberg, right, the chief executive of Facebook, in 2015 at Microsoft "Campus" in Redmond, Washington - photo NY Times- Ted S. Warren

Here is a meme that I received this "Sorry, your comment could not be added at this time. Please try again later" error message with my first 4 or 5 attempts to post.

I perceive a definite pro DNC bias in these sort of glitches.

Readers:  Observations?  Thoughts?