Alternate Energy AKA Wood Gas

What is wood gas? It is an alternate energy that has been around for centuries. The first official documented device to make and use wood gas was in 1839. In 1901 it powered its first automobile. Until 1930, wood gas was used to heat homes and light lanterns until natural gas became plentiful. It was a well understood and renewable energy source. What happened?
Oil.
With oil and natural gas becoming abundant and more easily transported to the markets, wood gas fell out of favor until World War 2, where in some countries, such as Nazi occupied Denmark, 95% of all vehicles were powered by wood gas. Then when the war ended, petroleum based fuels ruled once again.
Oil has many advantages over wood gas. Wood gas must be made by burning biomass (wood, grass, or similar) and generally cannot be stored for any significant period of time. Wood gas is inherently dirty and requires constant maintenance to keep the machines running. Wood gas also has a lower amount of available energy by weight (or volume) and thus makes machines run with less horsepower or torque. All of these make wood gas a less desirable method for providing energy to consumers.
However, wood gas is not useless. It can run a gasoline engine with a carburetor with nearly no modification to the engine, and can run gasoline engines with fuel injectors with a small change to the computer controlled mechanisms. It is based on a renewable fuel and can run on just about any solid combustible material. It is also easily made and repaired by anyone with basic understanding of metal work, specifically welding or braising.
Wood gas is such a useful viable alternative that the United States Government actually spend time and money to research and publish a paper on using wood gas as an alternative to gasoline in a petroleum emergency!
Wood gas could be a wonderful resource for people who are located in remote areas of the country, or those that run farm equipment. Those that want to live off the grid could use wood gas to power generators and use the heat from combustion to heat their homes. Should the world oil economy collapse, wood gas could be used to keep the economy moving, though more slowly.
Take a look at wood gas. It is one of the many different methods that can be used to reduce the need for oil. It may not fit the needs for the average commuter, as it takes up to 15 minutes to get the wood gas generator up and running before you start moving the vehicle, and must be restarted every time that the vehicle sits for more than an hour. However, it may work for long distance trucking and work well for agricultural work. It can also be used to remote energy production for remote towns. In short, it isn't the solution, but it may be part of the solution.

The Auto Industry Needs Help! Or Does It?

The American major automobile manufactures have fallen on hard times. They are currently asking that the government step in and help them ride this wave of instability in the markets. Should the government help out the companies?

I think that a little help would be good. It would hopefully allow for the companies to shift gears toward more hybrids and more research into electric, natural gas and fuel cell cars.

But I don't think it is going to do much good, and here is why:

Consumers.

That is right, the auto industry can do whatever they want to try and make fuel efficient cars trucks and SUV's but in the end if they are going to fall flat, it is because of consumers. American Consumers, specifically, are an extraordinarily fickle lot. It is because of them that the automakers took such a hard hit. Lets look at the facts.

The American Automakers adjusted to a fuel shortage in the 1970's by creating small more fuel efficient cars. In 1980, you could buy a Honda CRX or a Geo Metro that got 50 mpg! What happened? When fuel prices dropped to manageable prices, consumers demanded more power, larger vehicles, and more pleasing (both visually and audibly) automobiles. Those that could push 50mpg out of their powertrains were abandoned as consumers would not buy them. In other countries, where fuel prices have remained higher due to taxes and other regulations, the MPG of vehicles stayed higher.

So why not bring in these vehicles from outside the US?

Two reasons. The first is regulations. Some safety laws and some environmental laws differ. Both of these can add weight to a car. Six airbags don't come free, in cost or in weight. Steel reinforced doors increase safety, but also increase weight.

The second is again, the consumer. These 50 mpg vehicles tansport people and good just fine, but they do so too slowly for American consumers. Would you like to drive a vehicle that took 15 seconds to get to 60 mph? That seems like forever to most American consumers. Since consumers don't like that kind of wait, they don't buy those kinda of cars. As such the automakers don't sell those cars.

Why don't the automakers just force it upon consumers? Because there is, or was, more money to be made from bigger vehicles. Why else would Honda, Toyota, and other oversea automakers make large trucks and SUV's for the American market? Toyota Tacoma or Honda Ridgeline anyone?

So what can we do? Not to much in my opinion. Because of the large reach back needed to get all the pieces together for a vehicle automakers will be unable to shift production at the speeds that oil prices fluctuate. From August 08 to November 08, fuel prices dropped from just under $4 to $2.30 average for gasoline. This is after fuel prices jumped up to $4 and stay there for many months. If automakers had shifted the majority of their stock to small fuel efficient cars, consumers would now be clamoring for bigger faster vehicles.

In the near future, even if fuel prices remain low, American consumers will continue to look for smaller more fuel efficient cars. But mark my words, if fuel stays low over the next year, possibly the next 6 months, and the economy appears to recover, sales of SUVs and trucks will jump up to near previous sales numbers.

Why? The American consumer will have forgotten about the fuel problems of before and shift back to where power and comfort are worth more than mileage per gallon.

In the end, we should help bailout the automakers to keep the workers going and prevent the collapse of the automible manufacturing capability in the United States. However, without a shift in consumer wants and spending, we may well be right back where we are now.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/130439

Obama to Close Gitmo

President Elect (PE) Obama is working to close Guantanamo Bay once reaching office. I have one big question though, why?

Has PE Obama been briefed on Guantanamo Bay? Has he seen the classified reports, or asked his staff to visit the facility? I doubt it, and highly suggest he does. Is he aware that having the 'suspected' terrorists detained is a right that was never afforded to those they beheaded, bombed or shot? I am pretty sure the Soldiers and Marines would have loved to get a trail before being blasted apart because they were 'infidels' or some other Jihadist enemy.

Why do we want to bring the 'suspected' terrorists here to America? Why do we want to give them the same legal rights that are enjoyed by American citizens? The 'suspected' terrorists are very lucky to be alive in the first place. Throughout history and war people of their status were routinely killed, never given clean, respectable quarters and a trial. We have gone to extreme lengths to make sure these people had their religious books, food that meets their needs and religious restrictions, and time to pray.

We Americans cannot pray in schools, but the 'suspected' terrorists can pray in prison!

PE Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history." How so? Going out of our way to not kill 'suspected' terrorist? Should we have simply just offed them when we had the chance?

Laurence Tribe, a legal adviser to PE Obama and a Harvard law professor, said " We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."

I agree that we need to process the people in Guatanamo Bay. However, I caution everyone to remember that these persons are there also for intelligence and security reasons. Each 'suspected' terrorist needs to be examined by PE Obama's new administration, and not a carte-blanche to everyone there and just start releasing people.

PE Obama has a lot of plans and a lot of tasks to accomplish. Lets just hope he doesn't cause more problems trying to "solve" Gitmo.

Veterans Day: Thoughs on Service

Tuesday is Veterans Day. As this will be my last Veterans Day as a Service Member, I thought it would be a good time to write down some of my thoughts.
First, to all my Brothers and Sisters in Arms, past and present, thank you for everything you do and have done. Without those who serve with me and those that have served before me, I would not be where I am today. Thank you.
Secondly, and my main thought on this day, is that I do not believe I am a hero, nor do many of my friends feel like heroes. Yet I have had people call me a hero. I have not personally killed any terrorists, nor have I even shot at one. I do not disarm bombs, nor do I clear buildings. I am an engineer, making sure that everything is running when people need to eat, sleep or relax.
I did not join the military for my country. I joined for me. Sounds selfish, I know, but I wanted money for school so I could further myself. The zeal for country is there, but it is not the main reason I joined.
However, do not make the mistake that I do not love my country or love my job! I have seen other countries and how those people love. I know first hand why the United States is the best country in the world, and I am proud to say that I am willing to do whatever is needed to defend her and her liberties.
It is that belief that I think keeps many of us in the service for 20-30 years. The willingness to devote ourselves to something greater than ourselves. We start it for many personal reasons, but at the end of the day you do it for each other, you do it for the country.
So, this Veterans Day, thank you for your support and for your well wishes, and thank you for calling us heroes. But if you want to honor our service, do something for your country and your neighbors. If you really do support your veterans, support what they worked for, the best country in the world.
God Bless the United States of American and All Those Who Serve Her!

Gay Marriage: Civil Right or Personal Choice?

Does anyone not want to talk about Proposition 8? Well, I haven't seen anyone that doesn't have an opinion, so I figured I would way in on it.
I believe that "Marriage" is reserved for a man and a woman through their religious beliefs. AS such, the government has no reason, and no right, to legislate "Marriage." Instead, the government should be concerned with "civil unions" as those effect the state. My solution? Everyone can have a civil union upon reaching certain requirements that do not discriminate (as they say 'race, creed, sex, etc.')
In some cultures very young children are "married" to bring rival tribes or clans into peace. The United States does not recognize these 'marriages' and nor should it. A majority (52% is a majority) of people who voted in California believe that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman. Fine. Let whatever beliefs these two groups continue by having the government stop legislating 'marriage.'By having the government issue civil unions to people that are of a certain age and any other nondiscriminatory factors this would be fair and reasonable.
The two primary reasons that the government regulates marriage are taxes and custody. If we remove this limitation and expand those elligible it would benifit may people. Couples of any sex could join in a civil union for whatever reason. I could see reasons for two people who are not in love to get a civil union for a period of time. Perhaps two adults have no other family and live together, but are good friends. With out a next of kin, what would happen to either of them if they were to become injured? Would their medical decisions be made by the state? How would take care of their bills?
They could write out living wills and powers of attorneys, but what if they missed something? And why would they want to hire a lawyer to address these items that come automatically with a civil union? To allow them access to a civil union would be fair and save both them and the government a lot of time and money over the legal wrangling should this situation occur.
In the case of gay marriage, it would become a non-issue. They would have the legal rights already afforded to 'conventional marriages' and would be equal in the eyes of the law. This would solve the issue of civil right. As for 'marriage' it would remain a personal choice. With about a 1 in 2 chance of a marriage ending in divorce, it would seem that the union is a personal choice already.
In conclusion, let us be equal in rights to everyone. The the government worry about the law and the taxes. The religious organizations can worry about marriage. We are headed this way anyway, but if we are going to change things, lets change them for the better and so that it makes the most sense and helps the most people.

The Tragedy of the UNREGULATED Commons

The Tragedy of the UNREGULATED Commons
OR
Why when everyone owns something, no one actually owns it.
I just finished reading an article today called “The Tragedy of the Commons” written by Garrett Hardin. This article got me thinking about politics and I wanted to take his ideas and put my own thoughts with it, specifically my thoughts on the “social commons” as it pertains to the American Election of 2008.
Imagine the following:
There is a town where all the land is owned by the ten families living in the town. The land is in the middle of the town and all the houses surround the field. All the families in the town own ten cows which are sold to make money. The land can only support 100 cows; anymore and the land begins to die. Everything is great and all the families make enough money to live with their families. However, one of the families realizes that if they put one extra cow in the field they can earn enough money to move to the town down the street. When the family leaves the land will recover as their eleven cows will be gone, and bring the land back to balance.
Sounds quite ordinary, right? In this example the town has decided that the land in communal and shared by everyone, thus everyone has an interest in keeping the land healthy. This logic is sound, but fails when the human element is brought in. The family has rationalized that if they hurt the commons a little, it will hurt everyone just a little and allow the family to make a great gain. But what happens when other families put more cows on the land to try and move to the same town?
In this case each family will follow the same rational. If their family can earn enough to move out, it will be better for the remaining families after they leave. So everyone starts to put more cows into the pasture. This causes the pasture to die. In order to make enough to live, each family must now put more cows on what is left of the grass thus accelerating the death of the grass.
In the end, no one family saw the land as their land and did not take ownership of the land. In fact a pure mathematical look tells us that if one family had taken the strategy, it would have worked out fine. It was when everyone else wanted the same thing that the situation fell apart. This is exactly what happened in the real world example of Boston Common. Some families bought more cattle and in the end the Common was closed to everyone.
This tragedy is occurring in our world today and is also part of the tragedy that makes many utopian ideas fail. The world oceans are over fished because they are owned by everyone but only very specific persons receive the gains. As such, each specific person will fish more to gain more, but in the end hurt everyone. Rivers and the ocean are used for pollution disposal for the same reasons as the fictitious town would use up the common grass.
So why does this apply to the 2008 Election?
Well, we have to be careful that we do not create a system of 'commons' the Americans will come to rely on. If we start to 'give away' services that everyone can use, then everyone is going to use the commons to destruction. This will obviously cause a degradation in services and an increase in cost, saving nothing and hurting everyone.
The idea of universal health care falls under this theory of over usage. While health care should be accessible by everyone as a basic service, there is a risk that if everyone MUST use a 'common' plan that they do not pay for (that is to say they pay taxes but not a usage, or deductible, fee) the the system will become overused and everyone will suffer in the end.
We cannot allow our country to let things become everyone's 'commons' as it will ultimately lead to everyone having nothing. This could be universal health care or universal wealth. If people do not feel ownership of what they are using, or a connection to the owner of what they are using, the end result will generally be destruction of whatever the 'common' is.

Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248.

"Spreading the Wealth" in the Presidential Race

That time has come and I must do what I must do. I have to way in on the presidential race.
I will preface this by saying that I am a moderate that leans more Republican in ideology than Liberal. However, as LRF and Fellow Man can attest, my full political makeup is quite complicated, and I am open to many non-traditional ideas.
The current Presidential Race in the United States of America has me worried.
At the beginning of the "Chase for the House" I was very excited about Senator Barack Obama. I found him to be articulate, smart and inspiring. I also found Congressman Ron Paul very exciting with is Libertarian views. I thought that the Wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Terror and the "dislike" of President Bush was going to force a major shift in American Politics. I honestly thought that the American Public was pushed enough with the price of oil and all of the divisive issues that change could occur for positive results.
However, now that Congressman Ron Paul is out and Senator Barack Obama is in, I have very different feelings.
My first disappointment was that Congressman Ron Paul did as poorly as he did, and that he was beaten by Senator John McCain, of whom I was not a big fan.
My second, and larger, disappointment is Senator Barack Obama.
He brought a message of Hope and Change. I agreed with those very broad ideas. I looked at his background and saw someone that hopefully was far enough removed from the Washington Scene to have independent and positive views on what Hope and Change we needed.
This, however, has failed to be the case. For many months I strained to hear what kind of change we could be hoping to see. For many months that answer did not come, hidden in vague and sometimes cryptic speech.
A key moment in this Change was when Senator Obama went to Germany and assembled a crowd of almost unseen proportions. He spoke to the crowd and gained cheers and ovations. I became confused. Why would someone running for President of the United States be campaigning in Germany? Why is my (future) Leader of my Country trying to make Germans happy? Why is he not helping me understand better how he is going to make America better?
The next key moment came as Senator Obama accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party. . . At a football stadium. . . In a faux Greek Temple. . . With thousands of raving fans, er, supporters. My faith in Hope and Change became "I hope he changes back to being articulate and smart, not a demagogue."
Alas, "Obamamaina" spread and I had to leave before I started to call it a "cult of personality." I sat on the fence, struggling to decide whether Senator McCain or Senator Obama would provide me with the better Change.
The final straw (notice how I shifted tone?) happened a few days ago when Senator Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth around".
Please excuse the following sentence:
OH HELL NO!
Socialism? Are you kidding me? I know there are some that read this and say I blow it out of proportion, but I already pay over 1/5 of my very hard earned paycheck to governments and want to keep what I have rightfully earned. To say "spread the wealth" sends shivers down my spine and hopefully makes anyone how works for a living a little scared too.
I give to charities monetarily, and I donate many hours of my time to help others, but I do not want the Government telling me I HAVE to give my money away. My income difference has nothing to do with the other guy. It is not my fault that I have more than him, the same as it is not my fault Bill Gates has more than me. I don't want Bill Gates money. He earned it, let him have it. I will earn mine and I will keep it if I choose.
Senator Obama lost my confidence and my vote when he said those words.
There it is. A long and drawn out way to announce that I am not voting for Senator Obama.
I was drawn in by the message of Change and Hope. When the type of Change that Senator Obama wanted became apparent, however, I could no longer Hope that everything would be okay.
Sorry Senator Obama, you found one belief that I am not willing to compromise. Good day to you.

Housing Crisis, or Something Like It

Ah, I love it when the world is going to fall apart and destroy itself.
Why you ask? Because it never seems to be happening near me.
What is with all this about money and loans and stuff? Apparently the world is going to destroy itself over people losing their homes here in the United States.
I hate to sound callous, but I do not think this is a big problem. I care that people are getting kicked out of a place to live, don't miss understand me. I just do not see how people who overspend are my problem. Let me explain:
The culture that I have experienced is one of consumption. We must buy the latest of everything to be the 'best.' Many of my friends have bought new flat screen high definition televisions costing thousands of dollars. Many people I know have new cars, paying over $350 a month in car payments and $150 a month in insurance.
However, when the 'credit crisis' hits, it doesn't hit me. Why?
Because I have worked very hard to protect myself from it. I did not buy new cars, even though I wanted them very much. I did not buy a big screen LCD when my old TV works fine. I did not buy a next generation gaming system. But these little 'sacrifices' have allowed me to save up and take wonderful vacations, fly coast to coast on a whim, and save for my retirement. So right now I see the 'credit crisis' as a correction in the market.
It is very disappointing that people are losing their living quarters due to bad financial decisions. I think we need more affordable housing for everyone. However, not everyone can or should own a home. I still lack the financial stability to risk buying a home.
People live above their means. This is a fact for many here in the United States. This ignorant and dangerous life style is coming back and teaching us a lesson. Many people will learn the hard way that life isn't about what TV you own and what car you drive. It is about the basics and working from there. With people losing their basics (a place to live, food to eat) all the extra stuff seems kinda worthless now, doesn't it?
It is a lesson we need to learn! We do not need the Government to step in and save us from ourselves! We did it, let us handle it. Hopefully we can remember long enough to not make the same mistakes again.

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

I have found a new cause, and the cause is noble!
Repeal the 17th Amendment to the United States of America Constitution!
Here is why:

• The 17th destroyed a basic, and crucial, element to bicameral legislature
• The 17th led to the raise of special interest funding and lobbyist
• The 17th removed the strength of States against the Federal Governement
• The 17th has made Senators useless, and at the same time, all powerful.
  

Dakar, you say, what is with the doomsday attitude?
I will tell you why. The 17th is causing our wonderful (and I really mean that, the US is the best so far!) country to fall victim to petty squabbles and mob rule! Let me explain.
First, the original wording of Article I, Section III of the Constitution of the United States of America:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

This means that the Legislature of each State will elect the people to become Federal Senators. In order for a regular voter to get a person into the Federal Senate, they must vote for a State Legislator and then petition that person on whom to select.
Now the wording of the 17th Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

This means that the People choose both the House of Representative and the Senate. This removes much of the difference between the two houses and essentially makes Congress have one chamber with 2 years terms and one chamber with 6 year terms. Other than that, Congress is the same in terms of mission. Keep the People happy enough to re-elect the same Congress People back into office.
Why is the 17th bad? Here is an example of what could happen under the 17th:

A popular President lies under oath (perjury) in federal testimony. This is a grand offense, one that should cause impeachment.
The public does not believe that the popular President should be punished and tells their Federal Senators not to impeach. The Federal Senators, fearing re-election, follow the whims of the people and do not impeach, allowing the popular President to escape punishment despite breaking the law.
If the Senators answered to the States, they could have done their duty and impeached if it was found that the President did in fact lie under oath.

Don't think it could happen? Read some history about President William Clinton. The President lied under oath in Federal Testimony about a relationship with an intern and was found not guilty, despite video evidence of him lying and video evidence of him admitting it.

So if we repealed the 17th what would we gain?

• The Federal Senator would be isolated from Public whim.

The Federal Senator answers only to the State Legislators that elected him. This allows the Senator to make more controversial votes in the eyes of the public, but more necessary in the eyes of the state. It also allows the Federal Senator to do what is required of them, even if the Public does not agree. It would remove Mob Rule from the Senate so it could balance the Mab Rule of the House of Representatives, just as the Original Constitution had planned.
Also:

• The State would more influence in Federal Discussions

When issues come before Congress, Representatives and Senators decide what course of action will get them re-elected in the coming race. If the people that elect them are State Legislators, then the Senate will choose to vote in a manner that best represents their states. This allows Senators to choose unpopular legislation that may benefit their home states in the end. If the State Legislature agrees with the Senator, they are in the clear as far a staying a Senator is concerned, and the States get legislation that better serves the People of their States.
Finally:

• States would become relevant again

With each State quite literally represented in the Senate, States can determine what is best for their State Residents. This allows Federal Senators to worry more about the bigger issues of a whole country, and allows States to worry about the issues of each State. Also, if the People want the Federal Government to change something or write a new national law, they most petition both their Representative and their state government. This would allow the State Legislators to become a filter to the comments and use their knowledge and experience to define and guide the Federal Senators to best legislate for the People.

My finally reason to revoke the 17th is actually one that many people know and argue about.
Lobbyists.
Revoke the 17th and lobbyist would no longer be able to 'buy' Federal Senators.
Senators can be 'bought' if you give them enough money so the Senator can run enough adds to get elected. The Senators need the money and the adds because they must convince the People that they are the best for the job.
If the People were removed from directly electing Federal Senators, what good would all those commercials be? Not much. While it would be important for the Senators to let the people know where they stand, Federal Senators would have to explain to the State Legislators why they should be elected. They would have to go to your State Capitol and stand before your State Congress and answer questions about the votes they made.
When answering those questions, what good would a lobbyist be? Very little. The Lobbyist could offer the State Senator the money, but since the State Senator lives in the same communities as the people that elected them, so it becomes very hard to explain away shady deals. And since each State Legislator represent a small group of people, the interests that that one State Legislator is concerned with may not match the concern of the lobbyist.

Remove the 17th, and right a wrong that has been self sustaining for almost 100 years. Give the States back their power to control the Federal Government. Give your Federal Senators the room to do their job. And give yourself Federal Senators that you deserve!

Down with the 17th, this is my cause!

New Biofuel Source! It Will Save the World!

Yes, I am being sarcastic. I am tired of every new biofuels source being proclaimed as the savior of the oil crisis.
However, this story does contain some good elements for showing how new ideas can improve on old mantras. Mainly, if you can get a better biofuels plant, you can get a better biofuel.
Jatropha curcas is a plant from the tropics and has many useful properties for the biofuels market. It is also used by low income farmers in the tropics for fuel in their lanterns. This alone should make people take notice, as if it wasn't efficient, the farmers would not use it.
Positive aspects of the plant include:

• A 50 year life span for reduced planting costs.
  
• Drought resistance to lower watering needs
• Can grow in sandy soil, expanding growing area into otherwise marginal crop lands.
• Yields up to 10 times more usable fuel per acre than our current savior, corn.
  

This plant seem to have many reasons to be considered a savior of the biofuels camp. One small problem for the United States is that it prefers to grow in tropical and subtropical settings, limiting the growing area inside of the country. It is possible the hydroponics and green houses could enlarge the growing regions.
While I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call this plant a miracle, it is a promising step in a better direction than corn. Maybe some selective breeding will produce higher yields and more tolerate plants. Biofuels is promising, but lets not start swearing of the black stuff just yet.
We still have quite a ways to go, and lot more plants to grow.

The Collapse of Suburbia

Have you heard the news? Look here. Suburbia is collapsing.
Why? Well, there are many reasons apparently.

• Lending Crisis has caused home prices to go down
  
• Fuel Prices have risen
  
• Price of City Living has gone up

Each of these things individually might have been survivable, but with all three striking at once, the whole system is falling apart.
The lending crisis has caused the value of homes to fall and the cost of holding on to them to go up. This combination has strained many budgets and caused a swath of families to foreclose. As these families move out their homes are left behind, unsellable due to the current market, and begin to deteriorate. This deterioration brings with it lower home values for surrounding lots as well as havens for criminals, whether they be simple teenagers looking for some 'fun' or hard core criminals looking for hideouts. The cycle feeds upon itself and causes a subdivision to fall apart.
Fuel prices have also struck blows against the far outreaches of suburbia, eating the appeal of the suburbs using the same reasons why the suburbs were so popular to begin with. That appeal was distance from the city, the size of your car, and the square footage of living space. Now it costs too much to drive. Commutes in Washington D.C. Metro Area commonly exceed one hour each way. Now that hour equates to significant amounts of money burning off into the atmosphere. Going to work is getting expensive. SUV's, the de-facto car of Suburbia, only compounds the rising cost of gasoline. And large square footage homes cost ever increasing amounts of money to maintain, heat and cool.
Finally, the cost of living has gone up for those in the city. This causes low income families to have to move outward, away from the inflated costs. But as these families move out, they form low income communities, with statistically higher rates of crime and lower land values.
How do we solve all of this?
Well, some parts we cannot solve. The housing/mortgage crisis was of our own doing. It is gonna fix itself when the 'bubble' has finally let all of its air out. While many families may get displaced, these families were most likely living beyond their means and were unprepared for any change in routine.
As for the deterioration of communities? People need to start looking out for more than just themselves, as everyone effects everyone else. If a neighboring house has a yard full of waist high grass and bushes the thickness of the Amazon, we need to help out and cut that ourselves. While it is gonna take some time out of our day, in the end it help keep the community looking nice. If there is evidence of criminal activity nearby, do not ignore it, be proactive and stop the spread. Work a little outside your 'Suburbia Safety Bubble' and you might be surprised.
City living has always been somewhat expensive and the current rise in prices should surprise no one. However, better programs for low income housing should be pushed and/or landlords need to cut their rent prices to a lower percent of profit margin.
So Suburbia is collapsing, they say. I disagree. Suburbia is just finally growing up.

'Dirty' Energy - A Misappropriation of Resources

This is a response to Energy: why we need coal and [sic] oil and nuclear power.

Let's first define the overall problem: The world needs energy, and we are getting most of it from a finite resource base. When we run out of coal, or oil, or yellowcake, we better have an alternative.

The benefit of shifting away from 'dirty' sources has been tied to environmentalism, but I will posit that instead, the shift should happen, and should happen for economic reasons.

The finite resources available to us are better spent on creating durable goods than creating energy.

Let me address the hydrocarbons first: Coal and oil are both crucial components to certain industrial processes, ones that make our lives infinitely more comfortable. Oil is a key component of pharmacuticals, lubricants, and plastics. Our lives wouldn't be that comfortable if we couldn't make hydrocarbon-based tumor suppressants, couldn't lubricate our engines, and couldn't have plastic.

If we burn these resources for energy, we are screwing ourselves out of durable goods. The better example is coal. Here we are burning all this coal for energy, wasting it, when the resource could be better used. The second largest use for coal is in steel production. There is no better way to make steel from iron ore than through a basic oxygen converter. This process requires massive amounts of O2 and massive amounts of coke (charcoaled coal). As we mine out the Appalachian mountains, we are using up our stockpiles of low-sulfur high BTU coal. We then have to shift to the inferior coal of the Powder River basin. By using coal for energy, we are screwing ourselves out of eventual high-yield steel production. Electric arc furnaces with recycled irons and steels will not sate worldwide demand.

The other argument against coal is an opportunity-cost argument. Say we strip-mine 100 million tons of coal from West Virginia. We just got ourselves 2 billion dollars of coal. However, we just rendered many square miles into an uninhabitable, unusable, heavy metals laden wasteland. We lost the opportunity to use that land for the next 25-40 years. We could have farmed it, logged it, hunted in it, fished in it, or done any number of things. The opportunity cost of using coal is often higher than not using it. That is a problem.

So, do we want to use a finite resource for short-term benefit (namely generating electricity), or do we want to use it carefully, to create durable goods, and thus wealth.

The last point has to do with nuclear energy. Modern reactors are a fine example of how far the nuclear industry has advanced. Waste levels are fractions of what they were decades ago, and the energy source is more viable now than in years past. The problem is, nuclear energy isn't a viable solution right now.

Once nuclear plants are a certain size, the only way to construct them safely is with a monocast/monoforged containment vessel, cased in concrete. So, unless you want several hundred small plants (which is not economically viable), you need to use a monocast vessel.

Here is the kicker: We can't build the containment vessels. If we wanted to, it would take 10 years to develop the infrastructure, do a half-dozen practice castings, and finally, maybe install one. Oh, and find someone who wants to spend the tens of billions needed to do it.

Japan Steel Works, famed for its Katanas, is the only company in the world that can do precision casting/forging 600 tons at a time. Yes, competitors are gearing up, but mainly for their respective domestic markets. Besides, given recent quality assurance issues, do you really want to buy a nuclear containment vessel from China First Heavy Industries? QA is tough, especially 500-600 tons at a time. I was doing some research about precision cast parts related to a barge accident in the Northwest US, and we can barely cast 20 tons with high precision in the US. So, we are not about to cast these in the US of A.

So, the answer is: Get in line. Give Japan Steel Works $100 million, wait 9 years, give them another $250 million, wait a year, and you can take delivery of a brand new precision-cast and forged containment vessel.

Alternatively, find someone willing to drop $10 billion to build a steel plant comparable to Japan Steel's facility. Drop another $2 billion on research, tests and failed castings, and you will have a decent casting 10 years later. Maybe. Don't plan on making any more than 20 containment vessels, because that is all the US market will support. Given the sunk cost of building the plant capacity, no investor will touch it. Of course, the government could do it, but that is what Republicans call socialism, and admitting that the government can function beyond the capacity of private industry is not something that comes easily to many conservatives. Perhaps another few dozen can be sold on the export market, but we don't subsidize our steel industry enough to make it competitive in the global market.

Bloomberg article for details.

I think nuclear energy done well is a good idea, especially with newer disposal technology. It just isn't that feasible right now, and has to be thought of in a 25-year timeframe.

The bottom line with 'dirty' energy is that it is not a good direction to expand in. We have spent decades externalizing or ignoring the associated costs, and it is time to move on to energy sources that leave us less vulnerable to finite resource allocations.

Teen-Be-Gone! (Or Discrimination and Oppression?)

I guess I should have saw it coming. There are devices for sale that target teens to prevent them from loitering. How could argue with that? Break up the teens and prevent crimes, right? Everything is better.
I beg to differ.
The problem lies in how the device operates. It uses sound to annoy and drive away people who can hear high frequencies. Generally, only younger people can hear the noise as humans lose the ability to hear the higher frequencies as they age. This allows a device to emit a frequency low enough to be heard by the young, but high enough to be unheard by the old.
So why do I dislike this device?
It assaults anyone who can hear it indiscriminately. Teens, surely, but also those in their 20's and children. What about those who work in the areas? Or what if someone lives nearby? What are they to do? You cannot walk around with earplugs in all the time if you are doing what you are supposed to be doing.
Using this device at all times and indiscriminately is bad policy. Using it for specific purposes and at specific times I can support. Here are examples of using this technology correctly and incorrectly:
An example of using this technology incorrectly:
An apartment complex has an issue with loiterers. This device is installed so that the loiterers will disperse. However, young people live in this apartment so when ever they go outside they are subject to this device, even though they live there! Bad use of technology indeed!
An example of using this device correctly:
A parking lot has an issue with loiterers after a nearby stadium finished its sporting events. It has a device installed that is turned on after the completion of the sporting event. Once the parking lots has cleared or mostly cleared the device is turned back off. A good use of technology.
You can see that the biggest issue between the two examples is that the technology is used either indiscriminately or used discriminately, using the device to achieve certain results in certain situations.
Blanketing areas with high pitched sound to assault everyone with ears sensitive enough to hear it is wrong. Using technology to prevent crimes and enforce laws is fine. Lets not let technology rule over us in an attempt to gain safety or protection. Use technology correctly and we will all live better.
And for some of us, it will be a little bit quieter.

Read more about the situation here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/23/teen.be.gone.ap/index.html

PETA makes a reasonable move.

I have found a glimmer of sense from the Political Hot-Button Action Group PETA, when known as having members that splash paint on people who wear fur, and being charged with caring more about chickens than children.
PETA has offered 1 million dollars to whoever can create lab-grown meat that is affordable and takes like the real thing.
In a bold move, similar to the X Prize games for space flight, PETA has challenged scientists to put their brains to use turning their discoveries into practical advances to benefit society. Not only that, but PETA has also found a way to to fulfill its moral obligation to protect animals while at the same time providing consumers with what they want, the driving factor in any economy.
I can only hope that this is the start of a more positive light shining both on and within PETA. They have a noble cause, but the radical ideas or actions to obtain goals has placed most of PETA on the fringe of normalcy. If PETA has more ideas like this, maybe we can all begin to agree a little more.

You can read about the goals of this million dollar challenge here on cnn.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/23/peta.chicken/index.html
Or you can go to PETA's website and read about it directly:
http://www.peta.org/feat_in_virto_contest.asp

Hawaiian Sovereignty.

In response to a News Article found on cnn.com
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/01/hawaii.palace.takeover/index.html

On April 30, 2008 approximately 60 people of Native Hawaiian descent reclaimed the Royal Residence to conduct business. They did so quietly and peacefully, showing respect and dignity as they went about their work. At the end of the day, they left quietly, vowing to return to complete more business.
Why did they do this?
The group, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, rejects statehood of Hawaii and wish to return to the constitutional monarchy of their past. This and other groups claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown illegally by the United States of America.
Sounds silly, doesn't it? Not so fast!
Consider that in 1993 President Clinton issued, with U.S Congressional Approval, an apology to the Hawaiian People and "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the **active participation** of agents and citizens of the **United States** and further acknowledges that the **Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished** to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum."
That sounds like a pretty clear acknowledgment of guilt to me. Not only that, but is also sounds like a great starting point for legal action to reclaim some land on the Hawaiian Islands for a separate Hawaiian Reservation.
I support fully the actions of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, and hope they continue to use peaceful demonstrations to draw attention to their situation. As the United States goes overseas to bring freedom to those under an unwanted government, why not take a look at similar events at home? Why are the Hawaiian people not given a 'reservation' similar to other ethnic groups that occupied the United States prior to its conquest and development? These seems an unfair practice to me.
Surely some land could be placed aside and called 'Hawaiian Kingdom Reservation' and given similar autonomy as other Native American Societies have. The Royal Palace could have some time or a section of the palace set aside so the Hawaiian Reservation could conduct business in their 'rightful' place of business? I fail to see how this would cause undue burden on a country that "acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished . . . their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands."

Energy Independence, How Homeowners can Reduce Energy Needs.

Everyday there are news reports on how we are in an 'energy crisis.' We need solutions to this 'crisis' and we need them now. We need to take a look at technology available right now that works and implement it. We need to stop looking at the ‘future’ as it is getting in the way of now. We cannot allow perfect to get in the way of good enough.
In the United States approximately 21% of energy demand comes from Residential Demands. If we could reduce this by half it would save 330 Gigawatts of electricity in the United States every year. That is more than the amount produced by all the nuclear power plants in the United States combined. Or imagine turning off 15% of coal fired plants. It is a pretty big impact.
American households use on average 7,500 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electrical power a year. This depends on location as seen here. 32% of electrical demand comes from space heating alone. Another 13% to water heating. 12% goes toward lighting and air conditioning each. 70% of electrical demand is in the top 4 uses for electricity. That is a lot of power going toward just one thing, personal comfort.

But the big question is: How do we reduce residential power consumption without sacrificing our comfort?
Yes, and the solution is all around us. We see and feel it every day. It is called nature.
Okay , is it called the sun, wind, rain, and earth, but all of this can play a part in reducing residential power needs. Here is my proposal on how.
In truth the system in actually a power production system, not a conservation device. This is not the most efficient way of doing things, but it is the least intrusive to daily life, and as such more likely to fit into the average users life.
Homes need to provide an average of 3500 kWh a year. New homes need to provide 6000 kWh a year. To do so uses technology currently available and reasonably priced. When the price is rolled onto new home costs it would add less than 1% (assuming a home base cost of $175,000) of the total price.
This system would primarily use a combination of solar and wind power. Depending on location, this would be supplemented by micro hydro power. Each setup would have to be tailored to each home. The basics of the kit would be photovoltaic cells (solar cells) for electricity, solar water heater for water and space heating, and wind generators for electricity. All of the solar components could be squeezed on the roof or some could be used to make shade structures for landscaping or parking garages.
For $15000 a 7000 kWh a year system could be installed and used for new homes. This would provide the majority of power needs for the home. If conservation and green design are integrated, the house could be almost completely energy self-sufficient, minus that occasional spike in demand. Older homes could easily be retrofitted with solar panels to gather electricity to help offset some of the lighter loads drawn from the electrical grid.
If these technologies were used consistently we could lower the demand on the power grid by residential properties. These same technologies could be used to help offset commercial and industrial demands as well. Use parking lots as solar energy power plants. Place wind generators on tall buildings. There are opportunities to use current technology in positive ways for producing clean power. Let us use it, and let us use it now.

Here is a company that does exactly what I just said:
http://unlimited-energy.com/content/view/117/67/

Food, Why Ethanol is the Wrong Move

A bushel of corn was $1.86 at the end of 2005. It is now $6.10 (22 April 2008) Why? Ethanol.
The United States has jumped on the Ethanol bandwagon and is starving peoplebecause of it. The United States looked to Brazil (which uses sugar cane) as a model and tried to copy it. Only the United States didn't do the math right.
Brazil uses ethanol effectively for two reasons: A better source for ethanol and less demand.
The source plays a huge factor. Brazil, being tropical, can grow large amounts of dense sugar cane fields. On top of that, sugar cane contains
huge amounts of available sugars for ethanol production. This makes Brazil's feedstock a decent choice for ethanol production. A lower demand also means that the small amount produced has a very visible
impact on overall oil demand.
The United States has neither of these factors going for it. While the United States has amazing amounts of corn, it is only half as good as sugar cane for ethanol production. On top of that the corn grows less densely than sugar cane in the tropics. So it will take more land area to make the same amount of ethanol.
The United States also has a much larger demand for ethanol that Brazil.
Even if the production capabilities approached Brazil's, it would have a small impact on the overall demand.
So you have an inefficient system making little impact. Why else is it bad?
It takes away from feeding people.
Corn is the mainstay of the poultry, pork and beef industry. While humans generally only consume one specific type of corn (in America it is the selected sweet variety) the rest goes toward feedstock and corn meal. With the price jumping up over 3 times in as many years this impacts all the rest of the food following the chain. With corn becoming the new cash crop, other crops are shunned in favor of corn. So this makes a shortage of wheat and soybeans, which are mainstay food crops. Less supply and raising demand mean prices in these sectors rise as well.
As these prices rise, less is available for poor countries and less is sent via food subsidies. The food riots in Haiti can in some part be traced back to the ethanol misstep.
We need to look at ethanol as not a final solution, but an interim piece to the bigger picture. While ethanol is useful for certain applications, it will never be able to produce enough fuel to make a large enough impact without consuming too much arable land necessary for sustenance of the human species.

Energy, Why We Need Coal and Oil and Nuclear Power

We are being told that we need to get rid of 'dirty energy.' We are told that we cannot build any more 'dirty power' plants, instead we should build expensive (and immature) renewable plants all over the world.
But what is 'dirty energy?'
Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Nuclear Fission generated power.
Why?
All of the fossil fuels must be burnt to produce power, causing greenhouse gases to be released into the air. This is 'bad.' Nuclear fission produces radioactive byproducts that must be stored. This is also 'bad.'
Why do we need them?
Without these forms of power, modern human life ceases to exist. Communication would be completely disrupted and the modern economy would collapse. Food supplies would dwindle then disappear as packaged foods stopped being made. Transportation grids would fall apart and any sort of monetary transaction would be done in cash or barter.
If you do not believe this could happen take a look at Africa and see how life exists without clean water(electric pumps and water treatment) and cheap power.
The main reasons for getting rid of dirty power is that it hurts the environment and hurts Humans. No doubt it hurts the environment (see this blog on how to reduce that.)
However, the argument that it hurts Humans is a fallacy. Let me show you why.
My first argument is refrigeration. Without refrigeration millions of people would die. Food would spoil, supermarkets would be useless and the current density levels in cities would be unsustainable. Our food production chain would become so inefficient that is would effectively collapse. Millions would starve in the 'famine.' Note that it may be possible to produce similar amounts of food at the start of the food chain, but with food spoilage throughout the chain the end of the chain would lack the sustenance to support our current demand. Reducing heavy metal contents in the air to reduce 'possible' diseases for exposure (a few hundred, maybe thousands, of occurrences) hardly justifies millions starving to death.
My second argument is computers. Without computers, our current economy would collapse. Assuming the world economy did not collapse, the ensuing inefficiency of other data collection and processing methods would kill off millions of people. How? Modern medicine would cease to exist. Modern health care systems would disappear. Emergency response would cease to functions. Modern medicine increases the lifespan and quality of life for millions. Health care does the same. Effective emergency response (fire, ambulance and police) save thousands each year. Does less soot in the air preventing a 'possible' lung cancer or asthma case (thousands cases, admittedly) justify allowing millions to go without treatment?
Our 'dirty power' has bettered the lives of Humans for generations now. To prevent us from continuing to spread these gains in technology (which all need reliable power) is criminal. We need to expand our 'dirty power' to continue the gains around the world.
'Dirty power' saves lives. We can do better, no doubt, but right now it is better to have imperfect than not having any.

Student Flag Project

I just finished reading an article by Fox News.
It cause a lot of emotions to run through me and I thought this would be a useful topic here on this blog.
A college student (Susan Crane) in Maine (see picture) completed a Project for her class : Cultural Relationship of Art and the Personal Politic. For this class she decide to place Copies of the American Flag on the floor in a maze like pattern, then watched to see how many people would step on the flags or avoid them.

My first response to reading this was one of disgust. I was initially appalled that someone would plaster the floor with the American Flag then see how many people stepped on it. This girl should be reprimanded for desecrating such an important symbol. I was taught that you should never allow this. If I went to that school I would have been trying to pick the flags up or block them off. I was genuinely offended.
Then I read further along in the article.
The student (Susan Crane) noted : "Ninety-five to 98 percent of the people didn't walk on the flags."
I cheered inside, glad that people respected the symbol that means so much to so many. I read further and discovered that the student was hoping to make people think about their patriotism by placing this symbol in their path.
This is when my disgust disappeared. I was now approving of this stunt, as her goal was increase people's awareness of their patriotism, a noble goal indeed.
However, after I finished reading the article I came to a final conclusion:
I should have supported the student's project from the start, regardless of her intentions or the methods she used to get there.
Her right to free speech should have been supported by me at all times. I wanted her school to have stopped this before it started because I disagreed with her opinions (which I assumed were negative!). I wanted her right to free speech to be infringed so I would be more comfortable.
I feel ashamed.
So I say, BRAVO!, Susan Crane, for both increasing the awareness of personal feelings of patriotism, but also (and more importantly) reminding us why free speech is important.

Link to the Fox News Story

Link to the Original Story

Image copy write:
Bobbie Hanstein photos

Economy (Opinions about Housing)

I have not voiced any opinions on the crisis with the U.S. Economy and figured it was time to share my thoughts.
I guess I will start with the 'housing crisis.'
I do not believe it is a crisis. Yes, people are losing their homes. Yes, people are getting buried under monthly housing payments. At the risk of sounding callous, SO? I fail to see how bad financial planning constitutes a crisis that my tax dollars should go toward fixing.
If the companies that sold the loans used unfair tactics, sleight of hand tricks or any other sort of illegal (or perhaps simply immoral) methods to get people these loans, then it would be different. But since all reports seem to be that people got loans using variable rates (starting a low introductory rate! Sounds like a credit card, huh?) and now that the economy took a slight downturn the rates went up and people cannot afford their homes.
NEWSFLASH!
These people never could afford their homes to begin with. If they could not afford the fixed rate loans, they had no business HOPING they could continue to pay. They gambled their lives on interest rates. If they gambled their life savings in Vegas and lost, would I be hearing about it on the news? No. Why is this gamble any different from the others?
Again, I am not dispassionate. I think that banks should offer new loans at fixed rates, or perhaps variable rates with caps. Give the people a chance to redo and start over from their mistakes. If they are behind on payments, maybe give them some extra grace time or a slightly lower rate for certain amount of time. It does the banks no go to default on all of these loans either. Work together for a solution.
However, do not involve my tax dollars in this. I understand that the 'housing crisis' is causing or is at a minimum increasing the trouble in the U.S. Economy. I understand people are losing their place to sleep. Yet, at the same time, millions of people in the United States continue to make their home payments on time despite the rise in rates. They had enough buffer to get them through this 'hard time'. Why do we, the one that planned for this, have to bail those that didn't plan out of debt?
I do not think we should. I think that we need to help these people find affordable housing. Helping them keep these homes does not qualify, because this has proven that their current living conditions are not 'affordable.'
I believe we need, as a society, to look at other nations for guidance in terms of family units. In our own country you can see from immigrants or their children that they generally have close family units, with multible generations living in the same household. Grandparents living with their children, living with their children. Many Latino and Asian cultures show this. It seems to be a viable method of both keeping a close knit family group, and providing better living conditions for all. Why not try going back towards that?
Just a thought.
Because if you can't pay your housing payment, you may end up in mom's basement anyway.

Thoughts from: Dakar

What We Need

I have finished reading an excellent book while on a long flight back from my business trip to Japan.
"What We Need (Extravagances and Shortages on America's Military)" by Barrett Tillman.
While I do not agree with everything that is says, I think that it has a good handle on the overall division within the U. S. Department of Defense concerning Big Ticket Items vs. Common Items. I will explain why the Big Ticket Items and Congress are hurting the U.S. Military by putting pet projects before basic necessities.
The budget of the DoD Is approximately 440 Billion Dollars a year. Yet, every year, the U.S. Congress receives a 'wish list' of items from each branch of service that could not be bought that year do to 'budget limitations.' 'How can this be?' you ask. With just under 4% of of the GDP going toward military hardware it would seem that the US Military would want for nothing. This, however, is not the case.
The problem lies in the BIG ticket (we are talking hundreds of millions if not billions for individual projects) vs. the little ticket (guns, ammo, armor) disparity in the Congressional Budget Game.

The budget game is actually rather simple. If you can get enough states economies involved in a projects, the more likely you will be able to keep the project running no matter what the price. The dark side of that same equation is that is becomes near impossible to get rid of a project that the military no longer wants. (see the Crusader platform)
The flip side of playing the budget game is that smaller items that do not live in multiple states do not get the same protection from cancellation or budget cuts.
With these bigger projects taking up a significant portion of the budget (and the money going to the projects MUST go toward these projects) leaving the rest of the budget to support everything else.
This means that buying tanks, guns, ammo, armor, trucks, and medicine comes from the rest of the budget. Take away from the money needed to pay for the troops, maintain their homes, pay for fuel, food, and uniforms.
Now you have even less.
These issues are rarely resolved until after this lack of budgeting becomes public news. When Humvees and Troops lacked the needed armor for the situation in Iraq, it was not until the media began to report about it that the necessary budget was appropriated to the situation. When the Veterans Administration began to show deficiencies in care due to budgeting it was not until the media made it an issue that Congress fixed the budget shortfalls.
Currently the military is experiencing shortfalls in training, people, and equipment. But as of right now the trend of the U.S. Military an Congress is to push a small lighter faster force made of few troops. While this makes for a more efficient force, it puts a greater strain on those individuals and creates a lack of 'boots on the ground' for the final phase of war, reconstitution of the taken objective.
The U.S. Military will continue to get the job done with less people, with less equipment and new technology, but the strain and sacrifice of the select few who choose to serve will grow ever greater and the public will understand their hardships less and less.
Congress must look at the whole picture, nit just budget dollars, when doing their jobs. While the budget is important, it is the people behind the DoD that make those dollars work. Congress needs to drop the pet projects.
We need to keep our current force levels, possibly expand the Army a little bit to help relieve some pressure on everyone that serves overseas, and skip a generation of equipment while we reconstitute our forces. Congress, please stop playing politics long enough to do your job!

Hello, and notes...

I'm writer II on this blog...This is my first post.

A little about myself: I'm going to stay anonymous, because it is just easier that way. Dakar and FellowMan are very good friends and have known me for years.

I guess my general political philosophy is simple. I would like to live in a society and work in an economy. One cannot exist without the other so it's all about balance for me. I take a holistic approach to the world.

At this point in time, I see society as far too vulnerable to an unstable economy. When I look at Bear Sterns or modern American health care, I see people's lives ruined over money. This is not a good thing.

We are entering this century with a great debate. What, exactly should be the roll of the government in our society and economy? Are we to drown government in a bathtub, so it is unable to respond even to natural disasters? I think most people will agree that Grover Norquist is batshit crazy on that point. Should the government back the debt of a failed financial services business, in effect socializing the risk? Well, the (supposedly conservative) Fed chair just did that. Tell me, American Taxpayer, how do you feel about the government backing $30 billion in bad debt with your money? Should financial institutions that took huge risks in the malformed and under-regulated derivatives market get such a large handout?

Yes, there is bloat in the government, and yes, Bear Sterns needed some type of government support, because it was near the bottom of a house of cards. Though the investors and bankers should suffer for their stupidity, its failure could have put the US into a recession, harming our society. As I said, I see society as far too vulnerable to an unstable economy.

This is the debate of our generation. Thank you, Dakar, for the forum.

Coming soon:
I will get these out over the next month, then probably take a break for a while.

1a-Logistics: Why people who want to be "Out of Iraq in a Year!!!" are utter fools. They could put the world at risk for the next 30 years if they had their way. Try moving the entire MNF-I in a year. 177,000 troops, plus equipment, plus supply chain, plus contractors (150,000 additional uhh...people)...Well, I will give the details soon.

1b-Logistics: Our lack of domestic heavy manufacturing infrastructure directly impacts our ability to support our troops and ourselves. The Jones Act, dams and lock gears, tax inequity in rail infrastructure and the single US-manufactured container gantry crane in existence, coming your way. Trust me. It matters.

2-Why LRF thinks that supporting the troops can be done while not supporting the war. And, a brief summary of what can be done to support the troops and withdraw gracefully.

More Shooting make Me Sad

A Repost from February 20, 2008

It has happened again. Another shooting an educational institution. And it makes me sad.
It makes me sad that there are people who are so mess up for one reason or another that they believe killing random people makes their suffering, their pain, their troubles, better.
I can understand somewhat the twisted logic of suicide (I AM NOT SUPPORTING OR ENCOURING SUICIDE, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS!).
But I can not even begin to understand the logic (or I guess illogic) of people that go in homicidal rages before commiting suicide. Why does the suffering and death of others make your life any better, just in time for you to take your own life?
This makes me sad.
It also makes me sad that people keep saying that more laws are going to stop this from happening. What the heck are the people thinking?
SHOOTERS DO NOT CARE FOR HUMAN LIFE, WHY WOULD THEY CARE FOR LAWS?
If you can answer that you are smarter than me. If you get to teh point that breaking one of the ten ULTIMATE laws seems like a good idea (that is a reference to the 10 Commandments, by the way) then why should 400 little gun laws get in way? Maybe because there are more of them? Go figure that one out.
At the Northern Illinois University shooting, the authorities reached the scene in 2 minutes. That is an amazing response time. Try running for 2 minutes and see how far you get. Not to far, a few hundred yards maybe? Even with that short amount of time, 5 were killed and 16 were wounded.
The only thing that could have stopped the shooter once he was in the classroom was someone in the classroom.
This is why I think that political action and grassroots organizations that say guns have no place in the classroom are wrong. Had someone was holding a legally oned, legally carried firearm, they could have stopped the shooter.
On March 7th 2007 legally armed citizens stopped what could have been senseless killing by using their firearms.
Below is quoted from wbri.com:

Armed citizens stop Memphis street shooter
copyright AP
Last Updated: 3/8/2007 2:09:14 PM

Police in Memphis say a gunman firing a pistol beside a busy city street was subdued by two passers-by who were also armed.

No one was hurt during the incident that apparently began with a minor traffic accident, but one passing car was believed hit by a bullet.

Brothers William Webber and Paul Webber told police they stopped their car and pulled their own pistols when they saw a man firing a handgun yesterday.

The brothers said they ordered the man to drop his weapon and then held him at gunpoint until police arrived a few minutes later. Police say the Webbers did not fire their pistols.

Police arrested Dementrius Roberson and charged him with reckless endangerment. Police say the Webber brothers and Roberson have licenses to carry firearms.

Paul Webber says Roberson was firing across traffic and they couldn't tell why he was shooting.

End Quote from wbri.com

As you can see from the above article, armed citizens were able to stop violence using their handguns. Had they been unarmed, the shooter would have roamed with impunity.
So when people say that guns in the classroom will only cause more violence, I ask them this:
When has not having a gun in the classroom stopped a shooter?
So stop taking away the legal right for people to carry their firearms for self protection against those who don't follow the rules.
If carrying a handgun becomes illegals, only criminals will carry handguns. Then what do we do to stop them when they have the guns and we don't?
I have no answer to that. But the university shootings seem to give a hint at that answer.

And that makes me sad.

Support of Troops and War

A Repost from May 17, 2007

It has become that time. What time is that you ask? Time when you can no longer support the troops and support the war. I
have discussed this with many of my friends over the last few years, and I believe I have finally be proven correct in my
theories. Here they are:

Theory One: If you vow to support the troops fully, you also support the war.

Theory Two: To end a war you must either; defeat the enemy or remove support/authorization for the war.

Theory Three: To remove support/authorization for the war, you must eventually remove support for the troops.

Yes, I know that the whole thing is one big theory in its own right, but they all can stand alone independently and remain true.
I will break it down by each theory then combine them all for my final points.
In theory one I state that by supporting troops, you support the war(s) they are fighting. If you give the troops all they need to fight and win, you provide the material to fight a war. If you give them the tools, the weapons, and the training, then their commanders (including the Commander in Chief, the President) will be able to fight a war when needed. This is the case with the current war. The troops are well trained, well equipped, and well armed. In battle, there is no foe that can stand against them. This allows the battles to be had and victories to be won. As long as the troops are supported, the war can continue on a logistical basis. If the weapons and tools are available, the commanders will fight the war until told to stop or until the war is won. That is their job, and they do it well.
In theory two I state that to end a war you must either defeat the enemy or remove the support/authorization for the war. If the enemy is defeated and there remains no opposition, the war is completed and success has been achieved on a strategic field. (I will not go into what constitutes a victory at this time) If the enemy remains or the objective has not been achieved, the war will continue until the objective is achieved. That is what the military does, and does it well. They do not back down, they continue to bring pressure to the fight and seek the enemy to destroy the enemy. As long as troops, tools, and weapons are available, the military will press on.
In theory three I state that to end a war the enemy must be eliminated or support/authorization must be removed. This is the most important part of the theories. The military will continue their mission as stated in theory two and as allowed by theory one. However, then it comes time for the war to end (this should be read as; when the political environment no longer supports the war as in this current conflict) there are limited methods in which to do so.
The most obvious one has already been discussed. Defeat the enemy and the war ends. If no one is left to oppose the troops, then they have no war to fight.
The second option is to end the war be declaration that the troops will no longer fight the war. (it should be noted that this does not say the troops are not WILLING to fight the war, instead they are ordered to stop their actions) In this current conflict we have reached this stage. The first option appears many years or decades away at best, and leaves only the second option. At present time the political will also seems to be unable to order the troops home, so the only remaining option to end a war is to remove the ability to fight the war.
This method of ending a war works well. It is the primary method of ending war that has work in the following conflicts;
Spanish American War, World War 1, World War 2, Cold War, Falklands War, First Iraq War, and even the Cuban Uprising/Liberation (depending on which side of the war you were on.) In all above listed, one side lost the ability to wage war effectively and were forced into surrender. In the world wars the enemy no longer had the material to support their war machines and surrendered. In the First Iraq War, the Iraqi Army was sufficiently destroyed as to have no ability to engage in battle. In none of these did the enemy surrender due to the lost will to fight, but instead the inability to resist further.
Again, we have reached this point in our current conflict. In order to end the war, the support to wage war must be removed. Once the ability to wage war is removed the conflict will end. Theory two states that commanders will fight using the tools and weapons available. If they lack the tools to complete the mission, they will not complete the mission. Granted, our military has shown an enormous ability to find the materials to wage war. (Armor not strong enough, we welded more on. Body armor too weak, we bought better armor. M-16 not powerful enough to go through concrete, we broke out the M-14 and strapped a scope on it. The list continues with defeating IED's and other items) However, if they lose the material and weapons, they cannot fight a war. They will not stand up to be shot at while having no ability to fight back.
Now we reach the final part of this discussion.
By removing the ability to wage war, thus end the war, you remove support for the troops. If the troops have the ability to fight, they will. If the troops do not have the ability to fight, they will not. If the troops are unable to fight, support for them has been lost. If support for the war has been lost, support for them will eventually be lost.
While the American People and the American Government will (hopefully) always respect those who serve, it remains impossible to support troops and not support a war. Just as a war cannot be fought with out supported troops, neither can troops be supported without support for the war they are engaged in. (See Vietnam conflict. Putting aside the stance of some being against the troops, once the ability to fight the war ended, so did the war. Plain and simple.)
It takes courage to stand up against things you do not believe in (and standing up for things you believe in takes courage,too). I respect everyone that is against and for the war. I hold nothing against those who want to end the war.
Most troops would also like to see the war over. They will, however, continue to fight the war as long as they are able to do so and are ordered to do so. That is their duty. They will do their duty until they cannot anymore.
Soon we will see what occurs with support for the war. Troops will continue to due the job, it is up to everyone else to tell them when the job is done. Hopefully, we tell them their job is done through an order, not through lack of support.

(see options for ending a war)

Illegal Immigration

A Repost from May 10, 2007

If there is a subject that makes me wonder about this country sometimes it has to illegal immigration. I am sick and tired of hearing all of these complaints and arguments over this. It should be very simple. The solution comes from the very basic principles that make a society
work;
Laws govern all people equally. If the law is broken, you pay your debt.
There, done, over with. We have laws that cover immigration. We welcome LEGAL immigrants. We sponsor persons to come to this country and make a living, prosper, form churches, whatever. We also are a nation of laws and hold everyone accountable for what they have done.
We do not and cannot allow people to just ignore the rules. We cannot right laws to allow people that break that most sacred of all rules in the public contract of ignoring the laws.
Why are we rewarding people for breaking the laws? How is giving these people amnesty going to stem the problem we have now? If we keep giving these people amnesty then more will come over to just wait out the system and see if they can survive until the next amnesty.
This sort of neglect would never fly with other criminals. Police will issue arrest warrants for speeding tickets or not having insurance on file and will go and serve those warrants. If you decide to avoid the police for years, if they eventually catch you, they will eventually
charge you. No one would be thinking about writing a law that proclaims "avoid justice long enough and we will let it slide." This sort of attitude is not the American way. The United states prosecutes hate crime, racial crimes and old mob killings decades after they occur. Why is it that the same agency do not try to go after these illegal immigrants?
My theory is a very charged one. It contains elements of willful neglect for money, and some would call it a conspiracy. But I stand by this charge;
There is no money or glory to be gained by kicking illegal immigrants out of the country.
There, I have said it. By deporting the immigrants the agencies would be spending many thousands if not millions of dollars on something that would bring in no money (if you fine them or charge them taxes, you make money) or glory (bring attention to the great job you law enforcement does by showing off high value drug busts, lawmakers give you more money to continue these major cases.) Instead if you treat it with a mild neglect you are able to save a huge amount of funding for more urgent needs. In some sense you cannot fault these agencies for feeling that way. We have some many millions of laws on the book that these courts and enforcement agencies cannot possibly charge everyone with every law they break. They would be unable to hold everyone they prosecute (thus parole and probation) or have the funding to see every case through to its end. Instead, pick up the biggest offenders and the ones that grab
the biggest media attention. Drugs, murders, gang, etc.
But immigrants are low on that list. And the American public is allowing the illegal immigrants to spin this issue as if they (illegal immigrants) were the victims.
Paris Hilton is using the same tactic with her recent appeal to the public that she should not go to jail because the system is against her and it is unfair. The public is not buying it. She drove drunk, got off in a plea bargain that included no license to drive, attend alcohol classes, and stay out of trouble. She got in trouble with the law for driving (against parole) not once, but twice, as well as racking up two ADDITIONAL charges along the way (reckless driving and DUI.) I think
she should go to jail for longer than 45 days, but I am not the judge.
Would you let Paris Hilton off the hook? What if I did the same thing?
Would you let me off the hook?
Well, I would not let you off the hook. You did something that society believes is dangerous, then when you got treated in a very gentle way, you through that back in our faces. Then too bad. Off to jail with you.
The same feelings are towards the illegal immigrants. They have broken the law. The fact that they have made friends and have families in this country does not sway or eliminate the KEY issue. They (illegal immigrants) broke the law. It does not matter how many good things you do in life. You break the law once, you pay the price. We should send them home.
By not sending them home we cheapen the work and dedication of immigrants the FOLLOWED the rules and waited years to get in the country by following the law. All we are saying to them is, good job, you got screwed. You tried hard and succeed by following all the laws we could find. You win. Oh, and the guys that didn't follow the rules, cheated, stole, and otherwise lied, they win too. Have fun!
For all of my friends in college, image this:
Lets say that to work in America you have to go to college. After you get out you can finally go to work at the job of your dreams, take a vacation, whatever. But you have to finish school first.
You work hard in school. You get 4.0 and do volunteer activities and learn a foreign language and study foreign history. You apply to get in, and after months of waiting, you get accepted. Then they ask you to pay them yearly to stay at US College, just as you expected. Four years
later you graduate, get your degree and can work in America. Yay!
I, on the other hand, go about this a different way. Instead of going to school and getting 4.0's and applying to US College, I just sneak on Campus. Then, I pretend to be a graduate and receive a degree. I pay nothing, I do not have to attend classes, and I do not even have a real degree. But I get out of school before you and then land your job.
If that happened would you be mad?
So next time you hear about illegal immigrants wanting amnesty, remember, someone else had to work hard to get the same thing they want for free. And if the illegal immigrants get what they want, then we have all went to "college" for nothing.

Change, Thoughts About

A Repost from May 10, 2007

It is something that fights us at every corner. People want change when it is good and if they are the reason for the change. But we hate change that works against us or is not of our choosing. People want change in status as long as it is upwards. People want a change in relationships, normally towards being with someone. Promotions are welcome change, and children could be a welcome or unwelcome change.
The reason for this writing is my recent experience with change. A good friend and I had built a relationship into something that I thought we were both comfortable with. Perhaps it was just I that was comfortable with it, but that makes no difference in the outcome of this tale. I
fell into a state of comfort and contentment and thought that our arrangement worked out well for all parties. Then after a trip out of the area, my friend returns. and decided that the relationship paradigm must change.
Now the reason for the change is positive for my friend. They want to get their priorities straightened out and set themselves up for success, a goal that I support completely. Ironic that the goal I respect and in some ways feel help set up and progress has now placed me in an
interesting position. With her progression she has moved herself in a positive direction, but has caused my world to turn slightly downward until I can adjust to this new item.
This brings me to my next thought. Fate is what others make it. Yes, we can all choose our own destiny in the fact that we all make our own decisions, but most of what you respond to is the decisions of others. When others try to do better by themselves it may mean that someone else must fail to achieve their goals, and in mast cases anothers failure is a requirement of success. If two people are going for the same job position, and only one can land said position. The more qualified person will generally take the slot. This will affect both, but only one in
the wanted outcome. By the more qualified applicant's decisions, he has affected the other applicant's fate/life/destiny.
Does this make either applicant responsible for what happen? Yes, in fact both are responsible. Through their decisions and opportunities they each created the outcome that occurred. Does this make them responsible to each other? I say no. Niether made the decision against the other, or for each other. The decision was independent based upon personal factors. This cretes detachment as so that responsibility is also released for the involved. It should be noted that I do draw a line at using dishonest or other immoral devices to influence outcomes, and in such cases then the immoral person is indebted to the moral one.
As for my specific situation, it pleases me to see her moving forward, as I want only the best for her. She deserves it though her convictions and her overall tenacity among other things. But it intrigues me that such a good decision for her would cause me grief and doubt. In the end it will all work out, as it always seems to do. It just takes time.

The Government Does Not Protect You!

A Repost from November 30, 2005

Here is an interesting case that has me all worked up. This case was brought to my attention by foxnews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html
“By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.”
Those are the words of foxnews.com, and put simply what is said by the Supreme Court:
“The issue presented to us is much narrower than is suggested by the far-ranging arguments of the parties and their amici. Neither the tragic facts of the case, nor the importance of according proper deference to law enforcement professionals, should divert our attention from that issue. That issue is whether the restraining order entered by the Colorado trial court on June 4, 1999, created a "property" interest that is protected from arbitrary deprivation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989). Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such entitlement for the ordinary citizen.”
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
As we can see here, the Supreme Court of the United States has just upheld that the Government has no legal responsibility to protect you from others. What? So who is supposed to protect me from other people? If it’s not the governments responsibility, surely that would indicate that only I am responsible for my safety. Yet, in this country, self defense has become more volatile than ever. Still, I dove further into this strange decision to look deeper at the precedence that has led up to this, in my opinion, amazing ruling. I looked at the above referenced DeShaney v. Winnebage, Et. Al. to learn more. “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”
Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty. Soc. Servs. Dept., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
DESHANEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL. v. WINNEBAGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

It is written clearly here what I think is a major concern for all Americans. Due Process is a very important right that we have to protect us from oppression or segregation. But realize what this decision is saying. The Clause is written ONLY to prevent the GOVERNMENT from infringing upon your rights. This is a most important distinction between the Government protecting your rights on your behalf, and the Government insuring that you have the legal right to not have the Government oppress your rights. But it does not mean the government has to protect that right FOR you. The difference is monumental. At the same time, even if they know thee is a risk for you, they are under no obligation to act by the law. One good thing is that many people in government and agencies with the government believe they have a moral obligation to protect the citizens. While this means that you may not suffer the fate of the woman in the first court case I mentioned, it doesn’t mean that it will never happen. That and in a country that prides itself on being able to live your own life as you see fit, it seem like a poor choice to let your safety fall on a few “moral” individuals. Of course the flip side is that such ‘moral’ persons may also be specifically prohibited from helping you, even if they want to.
I believe that these cases above are very interesting and I will be doing more research to better understand this development. I will also be ruminating on my opinions of self defense and the interventions against it.