Hi Everyone,
OK so maybe it isn't actually the wild west, but it definitely will be the wild, wild south. There is a change coming that I believe will not have the outcome that the politicians are expecting. Changes like this will be detrimental to the health and welfare of its citizens. What am I talking about? I am talking about how the state of Georgia has decided that it is a good thing for all licensed gun owners to be able to carry their firearms almost anywhere. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, a Republican, signed the state's Safe Carry Protection Act. Where will they be able to carry their firearms as of July 1, 2014? How about bars, schools, churches and government buildings that don't have, no gun rules and non-secure areas in airports. The licensed gun owners would be able to carry their firearms without restrictions. The new law also allows school districts to decide whether they want their employees to carry a firearm.
Of course the NRA, (which touts a membership of 5 million, which is a very small minority of Americans), says that Georgia's new law, according to USA Today, is "the most comprehensive pro-gun reform legislation introduced in recent history." The gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org believes that the law will, "restore our right to carry and be allowed to protect ourselves anywhere we go," executive director Jerry Henry stated. Also remember that the NRA has fought any attempts to just tighten restrictions on acquiring a gun license.
This new, lack of common sense law even removes a restriction that prevented those convicted of certain misdemeanors from getting a gun permit. In addition, this law will unbelievably deny police the ability to detain a person, "for the sole purpose of investigating whether such a person has a weapons carry license." Which means if you can't be stopped by police to check to see if one has a carry license, why get a carry license in the first place? Finally, this idiotic law establishes an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force of a violent attack.
You've got to be kidding!!! What is happening with this country? If you listen to and believe what the NRA says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well this is the hypothetical scenario I could and probably would see happening after 7/1. Of all the places guns should never be mixed with is bars, where alcohol is served. So there are 2 guys drinking at a bar when an argument ensues. One pulls out his gun and shoots at the other, but misses him. Someone behind the intended target gets shot and the injured person returns fire, but because he was shot, misses his intended target and shoots another innocent bystander and so on and so forth. Then the headlines would read, 10 killed and many more hurt in drunken shooting melee at some bar. Come on, we all know someone that if they drink too much, they take on a different persona and could and would do something stupid. Now suppose that person carried a firearm. Would they be able to restrain themselves? Remember that since the police can't detain someone to check if they have a carry license, why even get a carry license?
Can anyone tell me why this law is a good idea? This law will fail like Florida's, Stand your ground law is failing now. I don't see people feeling safer with this law, but rather more unsafe and afraid with the potential of innocent people getting injured or killed in places where guns were never allowed previously. More guns in public places means more shootings. This law should really be called, the guns everywhere law.
Once again, politicians don't have or won't use any common sense in passing another asinine law. Now it seems that this law will only die after one to many real people die. Go figure! Remind me not to visit Georgia any time soon.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunday, April 13, 2014
2 fer, part deux
Hi Everyone,
For only the second time, I am giving you all 2 quickies today. Every once in a while I find a quote that someone said and to me, makes so much sense that I have to share it.
#1) This is from William Graham Sumner, (1840-1910). "All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of the earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others." This certainly seems true even today.
#2) In today's Sunday paper, there is an article in the Money section about the price of beef. The bottom line is that this country is facing the highest beef prices in 3 decades. This is true with both consumers and restaurant owners. Additionally, it doesn't matter which cut of beef you want, London Broil, T-Bone, Prime Rib, Rib Eye, Hamburger meat, etc., etc. all the prices have risen.
The news media has been talking about a beef shortage since last year when a terrible drought forced many cattle ranchers to sell off their herds prematurely, before they would be normally ready. There were no grasslands and the cost of hay was too expensive to feed their herds. So I figured that, that was the reason for the sharp increases in beef prices we are seeing now. But, oh boy was I wrong! Another part of this equation and is just as equally important, is the growing export demand from countries such as China and Japan. Now that part of the equation was never mentioned in other news outlets. Seems that there is quandary with our US owned cattle ranchers. Keep the price increases to a lesser amount by not selling so much overseas or continue selling overseas and keep the price increases to the max. With 25% price increases so far, how high will the price of beef go?
Unfortunately, as we have seen so many times before, when a food price increases, we never return to the price prior to the increases. A great example is the cost of Orange Juice. Some years ago, there were frosts in Florida, that heavily damaged the citrus crops. OJ prices immediately shot up and the price never returned to pre-frost prices. AND, in a recent study, Americans now drink 40% less OJ then they did 10 or 20 years ago and the price just keep rising. What happened to Economics 101, supply and demand?
So what does this all mean? We obviously can't control Mother Nature in regards to droughts and frosts etc. But the amount of beef sold overseas can and should be controlled, especially in the event of a severe drought like what is currently happening out west. Common sense is never on the front burner with these kind of issues, but greed is, which is unfortunate for all of us.
Til next week.
Peter
For only the second time, I am giving you all 2 quickies today. Every once in a while I find a quote that someone said and to me, makes so much sense that I have to share it.
#1) This is from William Graham Sumner, (1840-1910). "All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of the earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others." This certainly seems true even today.
#2) In today's Sunday paper, there is an article in the Money section about the price of beef. The bottom line is that this country is facing the highest beef prices in 3 decades. This is true with both consumers and restaurant owners. Additionally, it doesn't matter which cut of beef you want, London Broil, T-Bone, Prime Rib, Rib Eye, Hamburger meat, etc., etc. all the prices have risen.
The news media has been talking about a beef shortage since last year when a terrible drought forced many cattle ranchers to sell off their herds prematurely, before they would be normally ready. There were no grasslands and the cost of hay was too expensive to feed their herds. So I figured that, that was the reason for the sharp increases in beef prices we are seeing now. But, oh boy was I wrong! Another part of this equation and is just as equally important, is the growing export demand from countries such as China and Japan. Now that part of the equation was never mentioned in other news outlets. Seems that there is quandary with our US owned cattle ranchers. Keep the price increases to a lesser amount by not selling so much overseas or continue selling overseas and keep the price increases to the max. With 25% price increases so far, how high will the price of beef go?
Unfortunately, as we have seen so many times before, when a food price increases, we never return to the price prior to the increases. A great example is the cost of Orange Juice. Some years ago, there were frosts in Florida, that heavily damaged the citrus crops. OJ prices immediately shot up and the price never returned to pre-frost prices. AND, in a recent study, Americans now drink 40% less OJ then they did 10 or 20 years ago and the price just keep rising. What happened to Economics 101, supply and demand?
So what does this all mean? We obviously can't control Mother Nature in regards to droughts and frosts etc. But the amount of beef sold overseas can and should be controlled, especially in the event of a severe drought like what is currently happening out west. Common sense is never on the front burner with these kind of issues, but greed is, which is unfortunate for all of us.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Money to Burn?!
Hi Everyone,
If anyone has had a job where traveling and/or overnight stays were a part of the job, your reimbursement was based on one very important factor. You had to submit your receipts in order to get reimbursed. If you lost or didn't keep your receipts, you were out of luck and didn't get reimbursed. During all my years in the corporate world, I never heard of a company that reimbursed employees without any receipts. No receipts, no payment period!
So I just read about how our New York State lawmakers get reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses when they have to travel to Albany. Our state elected politicians collect a $172.00 a day, per diem. That money is suppose to cover their hotel and meals for each and every day they are in the Capitol. The per diem is for lawmakers who come from outside of the Capitol. The lawmakers can and do also claim mileage expenses and train tickets for additional reimbursements. Recently, I was quite shocked when I read a newspaper article that our NYS lawmakers are not required to submit any receipts or documentation, what so ever, in order to receive their per diem payments. What?!
What world do our lawmakers live in? Like so many other ways, our state lawmakers work by a whole other different set of rules which private sector companies would never, ever consider or even implement for that matter. Not having to submit receipts or even documentation leads to misuse and even fraud. Consequently, there is no way to verify what the lawmakers actual expenses are. If our lawmakers had just one ounce of common sense, they would change the rules so that they would have to submit their expenses for an actual dollar for dollar reimbursement. I am not sure how much money could and would be saved if receipts were required, but I bet there would be a substantial savings to the overtaxed NYS residents. For the politicians who make extra money by actually using less than the $172.00 per diem, unfortunately, I don't see them trying to change the rules that would take away their ill gotten gains anytime soon.
If you agree with me, and you live in NYS, you should contact your state representative and tell them to end this absurd and deceitful practice. We've had enough of this kind of wasteful spending. I just don't get why politicians think they are entitled to more money then they actually spend while in Albany.
Til next week.
Peter
If anyone has had a job where traveling and/or overnight stays were a part of the job, your reimbursement was based on one very important factor. You had to submit your receipts in order to get reimbursed. If you lost or didn't keep your receipts, you were out of luck and didn't get reimbursed. During all my years in the corporate world, I never heard of a company that reimbursed employees without any receipts. No receipts, no payment period!
So I just read about how our New York State lawmakers get reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses when they have to travel to Albany. Our state elected politicians collect a $172.00 a day, per diem. That money is suppose to cover their hotel and meals for each and every day they are in the Capitol. The per diem is for lawmakers who come from outside of the Capitol. The lawmakers can and do also claim mileage expenses and train tickets for additional reimbursements. Recently, I was quite shocked when I read a newspaper article that our NYS lawmakers are not required to submit any receipts or documentation, what so ever, in order to receive their per diem payments. What?!
What world do our lawmakers live in? Like so many other ways, our state lawmakers work by a whole other different set of rules which private sector companies would never, ever consider or even implement for that matter. Not having to submit receipts or even documentation leads to misuse and even fraud. Consequently, there is no way to verify what the lawmakers actual expenses are. If our lawmakers had just one ounce of common sense, they would change the rules so that they would have to submit their expenses for an actual dollar for dollar reimbursement. I am not sure how much money could and would be saved if receipts were required, but I bet there would be a substantial savings to the overtaxed NYS residents. For the politicians who make extra money by actually using less than the $172.00 per diem, unfortunately, I don't see them trying to change the rules that would take away their ill gotten gains anytime soon.
If you agree with me, and you live in NYS, you should contact your state representative and tell them to end this absurd and deceitful practice. We've had enough of this kind of wasteful spending. I just don't get why politicians think they are entitled to more money then they actually spend while in Albany.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Say It Ain't So!
Hi Everyone,
Sometimes I get into a mood for searching weird things on the web. I like reading papers from other countries. Seems that we are more alike than not. Especially when it comes to common sense or the lack thereof. A few weeks ago, while perusing the web, an article in the Daily Mail, a British newspaper, caught my eye and then some...
The paper reported that a local new start-up manufacturer had made and sold more than 10,000 bras. Now these weren't just any ordinary bras. They were, what the company said, were high tech made bras!? Not long after women started wearing them, a few surprising problems became quite evident. The problems were unique and unprecedented stated the Daily Mail. But what was even more surprising, was the fact that the problems didn't affect the wearers what so ever. The problems affected the general public at large. What???
Apparently the support wire in these new fangled bras had been made out of a kind of copper wire that was originally and specifically designed for the sole use in very special home alarm systems. So get this... when the copper wire came in contact with nylon and body heat, it produced static electricity. The static electricity then interfered with any cell phone, tablet etc., etc., near the wearer of the bra. Then the unthinkable happened, anyone with a pace maker in close proximity to the wearer of the bra, but not the wearer, reported problems with their pace makers. The Chief Engineer of British TeleCom, Lirpa Sloof, stated that she had never heard of such a problem and that they are looking into all of the reported occurrences and will report on their findings.
Now I can't necessarily fault the company for the weird coincidences that produced the problems. Who could have foreseen such problems occurring by making bras? So who can I fault? Well, all I can say is.. April Fools!!! No such thing ever happened. What did happen was I came upon a web site called, The Museum of Hoaxes and their top 100 April Fool's. This one is #17. Oh and by the way, the phony engineer's name is April Fools spelled backwards.
Til next week.
Peter
Sometimes I get into a mood for searching weird things on the web. I like reading papers from other countries. Seems that we are more alike than not. Especially when it comes to common sense or the lack thereof. A few weeks ago, while perusing the web, an article in the Daily Mail, a British newspaper, caught my eye and then some...
The paper reported that a local new start-up manufacturer had made and sold more than 10,000 bras. Now these weren't just any ordinary bras. They were, what the company said, were high tech made bras!? Not long after women started wearing them, a few surprising problems became quite evident. The problems were unique and unprecedented stated the Daily Mail. But what was even more surprising, was the fact that the problems didn't affect the wearers what so ever. The problems affected the general public at large. What???
Apparently the support wire in these new fangled bras had been made out of a kind of copper wire that was originally and specifically designed for the sole use in very special home alarm systems. So get this... when the copper wire came in contact with nylon and body heat, it produced static electricity. The static electricity then interfered with any cell phone, tablet etc., etc., near the wearer of the bra. Then the unthinkable happened, anyone with a pace maker in close proximity to the wearer of the bra, but not the wearer, reported problems with their pace makers. The Chief Engineer of British TeleCom, Lirpa Sloof, stated that she had never heard of such a problem and that they are looking into all of the reported occurrences and will report on their findings.
Now I can't necessarily fault the company for the weird coincidences that produced the problems. Who could have foreseen such problems occurring by making bras? So who can I fault? Well, all I can say is.. April Fools!!! No such thing ever happened. What did happen was I came upon a web site called, The Museum of Hoaxes and their top 100 April Fool's. This one is #17. Oh and by the way, the phony engineer's name is April Fools spelled backwards.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Lost!?
Hi Everyone,
Who knew that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 with 239 passengers and crew could mimic the ABC TV show Lost. Almost each and every day, for the past week, the search perimeter for the missing 777 jet has increased to the point where now it includes a lot more land areas north of the Indian Ocean. When I first learned of the missing plane, I questioned why the search perimeter did not originally include the full distance the plane could fly with the amount of fuel it departed with, since there was no report or any evidence of the plane crashing.
As the investigation progressed, it is apparent that the person who was flying the plane, manually turned off the plane's transponder, which sends signals and data to whatever ground flight controllers can receive it. The person flying the plane knew exactly when to turn off the transponder, before Vietnam ground controllers would receive the plane's signals. But turning off the transponder didn't stop the plane from automatically emitting an hourly ping to the closest satellite that could receive the signal. That is how investigators were able to determine that shorty after the transponder stopped sending its signal, the plane made an almost 180 degree turn and flew back over Malaysia. Why didn't Malaysia flight controllers pick up the plane on its radar while it was flying over? After flying over Malaysia, the plane then made a few more turns before eventually heading north over the Indian Ocean. The last ping received was almost 7 hours after the transponder was turned off. But, today's blog isn't about the screw ups with the initial and continuing search efforts for the plane.
Today's blog is about just one thing, flight 370's and at least all other Boeing plane's transponders. I would like to know what idiot(s) came up with the idea and what imbecile(s) approved the idea, that plane transponders could and should be allowed to be able to be shut off by someone in the cockpit? What good does it serve by shutting it off? Of course the answer is, it does nothing good, only bad. Turning off the transponder made the plane virtually invisible, except for the hourly pings. Whoever shut it off, knew that no one could then track its whereabouts. Common sense was certainly not on any ones radar when they allowed that option available to cockpits. I mean really, what the hell were they thinking? Obviously, in hindsight, it is a terrible idea and now a plane is missing and this is 2014, not 1914. The only solution to stopping this from ever happening again, is to disconnect that option ASAP!
I certainly don't know any more info than anyone else on what exactly happened with Flight 370. But since there have been no reports of a plane crashing, or any debris found so far, here are my guesstimates as to what may have happened. 1) Maybe one of the pilots, or someone else on board, commandeered the plane to fly it to some remote landing strip to steal the plane or its cargo or take hostages. Or, 2) maybe the plane crashed on some remote, uncharted island and now the Lost TV show becomes reality. Of course I am only guessing, but no one would be guessing if that transponder had not been allowed to be turned off.
Til next week.
Peter
Who knew that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 with 239 passengers and crew could mimic the ABC TV show Lost. Almost each and every day, for the past week, the search perimeter for the missing 777 jet has increased to the point where now it includes a lot more land areas north of the Indian Ocean. When I first learned of the missing plane, I questioned why the search perimeter did not originally include the full distance the plane could fly with the amount of fuel it departed with, since there was no report or any evidence of the plane crashing.
As the investigation progressed, it is apparent that the person who was flying the plane, manually turned off the plane's transponder, which sends signals and data to whatever ground flight controllers can receive it. The person flying the plane knew exactly when to turn off the transponder, before Vietnam ground controllers would receive the plane's signals. But turning off the transponder didn't stop the plane from automatically emitting an hourly ping to the closest satellite that could receive the signal. That is how investigators were able to determine that shorty after the transponder stopped sending its signal, the plane made an almost 180 degree turn and flew back over Malaysia. Why didn't Malaysia flight controllers pick up the plane on its radar while it was flying over? After flying over Malaysia, the plane then made a few more turns before eventually heading north over the Indian Ocean. The last ping received was almost 7 hours after the transponder was turned off. But, today's blog isn't about the screw ups with the initial and continuing search efforts for the plane.
Today's blog is about just one thing, flight 370's and at least all other Boeing plane's transponders. I would like to know what idiot(s) came up with the idea and what imbecile(s) approved the idea, that plane transponders could and should be allowed to be able to be shut off by someone in the cockpit? What good does it serve by shutting it off? Of course the answer is, it does nothing good, only bad. Turning off the transponder made the plane virtually invisible, except for the hourly pings. Whoever shut it off, knew that no one could then track its whereabouts. Common sense was certainly not on any ones radar when they allowed that option available to cockpits. I mean really, what the hell were they thinking? Obviously, in hindsight, it is a terrible idea and now a plane is missing and this is 2014, not 1914. The only solution to stopping this from ever happening again, is to disconnect that option ASAP!
I certainly don't know any more info than anyone else on what exactly happened with Flight 370. But since there have been no reports of a plane crashing, or any debris found so far, here are my guesstimates as to what may have happened. 1) Maybe one of the pilots, or someone else on board, commandeered the plane to fly it to some remote landing strip to steal the plane or its cargo or take hostages. Or, 2) maybe the plane crashed on some remote, uncharted island and now the Lost TV show becomes reality. Of course I am only guessing, but no one would be guessing if that transponder had not been allowed to be turned off.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, March 9, 2014
What to Do With the Unwanted?
Hi Everyone,
For years I have read a lot about how foreign or invasive species have been damaging our ecosystems here in the United States. Invasive species includes plants and fish to mammals. I learned that one of the biggest threats to endangered species isn't hunting, climate or pollution. It is other animals, specifically, invasive species. Invasive species overrun new territory since they have no natural predators. Consequently, they upend the balance of nature and crowd out native species.
From a Time magazine article regarding the same, they comprised a list of some of the worst invasive species:
Species Country of Origin Invaded Threat
Black Spiny Tailed Iguana Central America Florida Eat anything including birds
Asian Carp Asia Missouri & Voracious eaters that disrupt Mississippi rivers the food chain. They also jump
out of water, when hear motors.
Nutria South America Gulf Coast Eat marsh grasses which destroys
wetlands. Also make holes in
levees.
Lion-fish Pacific and Indian The Caribbean Venomous spines are dangerous
oceans to fish and people.
Armadillo Central and South Texas and the Eat anything including endangered
America Gulf Coast sea turtle eggs.
So how to control these invasive species is the question? From what I have read, I believe that the common sense solution is ......... the human appetite. Yes, you read that right! According to the article, if cooked correctly, Iguana tastes like a cross between crab and chicken. Carp tastes like cod. Nutria tastes like chicken. Lionfish tastes like cod and Armadillo tastes like pork. We humans, once we have acquired a taste for certain wild foods, have the potential to over fish and over hunt them to near extinction. So where is the problem of over fishing or over hunting these invasive species? They don't belong here and eating them really makes sense. The problem that I see is getting people to try them. If they like them, they should spread the word.
This is where I have to bring up my own experiences of eating not so normal fare. Since I am from the north east, alligator and snake are not found on menus here. During my travels for an international company, (the world's largest airline catering company, go figure), I made a few trips to Dallas, Texas. That is where, at an Outhouse Steakhouse, at different times, I tried both snake and alligator. Even though the people I was with said that they both tasted like chicken, I was a bit leery. I never knew anyone who had tried either one since it was and still not available around these parts. Much to my surprise, they both tasted great and they both actually did taste like chicken. I would have no hesitation eating them again.
I am sure there are other invasive species that I have not mentioned, lest we forget the wild boars in the Gulf Coast states. They were brought over by Spain, hundreds of years ago and now they are a huge problem, since they eat anything and everything and then some and then some more. And they taste like pork or ham or bacon.......
So to eliminate the above invasive species, my solution is to eat 'em. But first, someone has to catch them, then someone has to bring them to market, then someone has to cook them, then people have to try them and then the word must be spread. Bon Appetit!
Til next week.
Peter
For years I have read a lot about how foreign or invasive species have been damaging our ecosystems here in the United States. Invasive species includes plants and fish to mammals. I learned that one of the biggest threats to endangered species isn't hunting, climate or pollution. It is other animals, specifically, invasive species. Invasive species overrun new territory since they have no natural predators. Consequently, they upend the balance of nature and crowd out native species.
From a Time magazine article regarding the same, they comprised a list of some of the worst invasive species:
Species Country of Origin Invaded Threat
Black Spiny Tailed Iguana Central America Florida Eat anything including birds
Asian Carp Asia Missouri & Voracious eaters that disrupt Mississippi rivers the food chain. They also jump
out of water, when hear motors.
Nutria South America Gulf Coast Eat marsh grasses which destroys
wetlands. Also make holes in
levees.
Lion-fish Pacific and Indian The Caribbean Venomous spines are dangerous
oceans to fish and people.
Armadillo Central and South Texas and the Eat anything including endangered
America Gulf Coast sea turtle eggs.
So how to control these invasive species is the question? From what I have read, I believe that the common sense solution is ......... the human appetite. Yes, you read that right! According to the article, if cooked correctly, Iguana tastes like a cross between crab and chicken. Carp tastes like cod. Nutria tastes like chicken. Lionfish tastes like cod and Armadillo tastes like pork. We humans, once we have acquired a taste for certain wild foods, have the potential to over fish and over hunt them to near extinction. So where is the problem of over fishing or over hunting these invasive species? They don't belong here and eating them really makes sense. The problem that I see is getting people to try them. If they like them, they should spread the word.
This is where I have to bring up my own experiences of eating not so normal fare. Since I am from the north east, alligator and snake are not found on menus here. During my travels for an international company, (the world's largest airline catering company, go figure), I made a few trips to Dallas, Texas. That is where, at an Outhouse Steakhouse, at different times, I tried both snake and alligator. Even though the people I was with said that they both tasted like chicken, I was a bit leery. I never knew anyone who had tried either one since it was and still not available around these parts. Much to my surprise, they both tasted great and they both actually did taste like chicken. I would have no hesitation eating them again.
I am sure there are other invasive species that I have not mentioned, lest we forget the wild boars in the Gulf Coast states. They were brought over by Spain, hundreds of years ago and now they are a huge problem, since they eat anything and everything and then some and then some more. And they taste like pork or ham or bacon.......
So to eliminate the above invasive species, my solution is to eat 'em. But first, someone has to catch them, then someone has to bring them to market, then someone has to cook them, then people have to try them and then the word must be spread. Bon Appetit!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, March 2, 2014
What Goes Around Comes Around
Hi Everyone,
In this country's insatiable appetite for energy, a large underground stash of oil has been found between Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. There is a whole lot of it, but the problem is that the oil is commingled with shale rock, which makes it extremely difficult to extract the oil. A process was developed that is able to separate the oil from the shale. That process is called hydraulic fracking. The process involves drilling a deep well and under high pressure, pumping in toxic chemicals that fracks the shale rock that then separates the oil and makes extracting it easy.
The biggest hurdle to more fracking, at least here in New York, is it that the "jury" is still out on whether the process is a safe one; especially for community and private wells, which could be contaminated by the highly toxic chemicals. The big oil companies say the process is safe, since the oil/shale is located far deeper than aquifers used for drinking water. Opponents state the opposite and say that the process can and does contaminate underground water sources. There are even videos on line where you can see people igniting the methane gas that comes out of their home faucets. Their homes are located near where fracking already takes place. But still the big oil companies say that it is safe. My opinion is that, if a pipe is placed very deeply in the ground, there is a high potential for the pipes to either crack or separate and which consequently releases the toxic chemicals into the ground and will contaminate the aquifers. Common sense tells me not to do it. The fracking process uses a ton of water that is mixed with the chemicals that are pumped onto the ground. Having to have a steady and large supply of water means that big water towers are erected at each fracking site. But, believe it or not, fracking in and of itself is not my main point in today's blog.
Today's blog is about ExxonMobil's CEO, Rex Tillerson. He is part of the big oil companies push and spread of the fracking process and repeatedly states that it is safe and not a problem to communities located near the sites. That is until that site is located near Tillerson's home in Bartonville, Texas. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit to stop the construction of a water tower, needed for the fracking process, near HIS home. Oh the irony here. The CEO pushes for fracking near other peoples homes, but when it comes to his own home, then he is against it. If it is so safe, why is he part of a lawsuit to stop the most important component of fracking??? His NIMBY attitude is highly questionable. If it is so safe, why is he fighting an integral part of it? Maybe because it isn't so safe? I think Tillerson speaks with forked tongue. As long as it isn't near his home, in his opinion, it is OK to frack. That speaks volumes and maybe the process should continue to be looked into. What does Tillerson know that everyone else doesn't know? Time will tell.
Til next week.
Peter
In this country's insatiable appetite for energy, a large underground stash of oil has been found between Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. There is a whole lot of it, but the problem is that the oil is commingled with shale rock, which makes it extremely difficult to extract the oil. A process was developed that is able to separate the oil from the shale. That process is called hydraulic fracking. The process involves drilling a deep well and under high pressure, pumping in toxic chemicals that fracks the shale rock that then separates the oil and makes extracting it easy.
The biggest hurdle to more fracking, at least here in New York, is it that the "jury" is still out on whether the process is a safe one; especially for community and private wells, which could be contaminated by the highly toxic chemicals. The big oil companies say the process is safe, since the oil/shale is located far deeper than aquifers used for drinking water. Opponents state the opposite and say that the process can and does contaminate underground water sources. There are even videos on line where you can see people igniting the methane gas that comes out of their home faucets. Their homes are located near where fracking already takes place. But still the big oil companies say that it is safe. My opinion is that, if a pipe is placed very deeply in the ground, there is a high potential for the pipes to either crack or separate and which consequently releases the toxic chemicals into the ground and will contaminate the aquifers. Common sense tells me not to do it. The fracking process uses a ton of water that is mixed with the chemicals that are pumped onto the ground. Having to have a steady and large supply of water means that big water towers are erected at each fracking site. But, believe it or not, fracking in and of itself is not my main point in today's blog.
Today's blog is about ExxonMobil's CEO, Rex Tillerson. He is part of the big oil companies push and spread of the fracking process and repeatedly states that it is safe and not a problem to communities located near the sites. That is until that site is located near Tillerson's home in Bartonville, Texas. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit to stop the construction of a water tower, needed for the fracking process, near HIS home. Oh the irony here. The CEO pushes for fracking near other peoples homes, but when it comes to his own home, then he is against it. If it is so safe, why is he part of a lawsuit to stop the most important component of fracking??? His NIMBY attitude is highly questionable. If it is so safe, why is he fighting an integral part of it? Maybe because it isn't so safe? I think Tillerson speaks with forked tongue. As long as it isn't near his home, in his opinion, it is OK to frack. That speaks volumes and maybe the process should continue to be looked into. What does Tillerson know that everyone else doesn't know? Time will tell.
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)