Is it any wonder...

...that the public dislikes politicians, especially those in Congress?

Here's the best recent example of this:

I'm traveling this week, and the car I have has satelite radio. All the talk shows have segments highlighting the Senate Majority Leader's letter to Clear Channel Radio flaming Rush Limbaugh's use of the words "phony soldier." It doesn't matter that Rush's use is in reference to a debunked video of a person misrepresenting his service (he flunked out of basic training and didn't serve in Iraq as he claimed), it's still good for a Senate sponsored spanking.

What is so infuriating about this is that the politicians (mostly Democratic) are accusing Limbaugh of being less than Patriotic, and not supporting the troops. Excuse me?!?!? Exactly what have these various Democratic politicians been doing but calling the troops far worse names than what Limbaugh has falsely been accused of? Just look at Jack Murtha's comments for starters, and you get the idea.

While Rush can get on your nerves with some of his shameless self-promotion and ego boosts, he does bring out many points that would otherwise escape the media's attention. And this brings the ire of the Liberal politicos in this attempt to smear him and otherwise discredit his show and others like his.

Here's the point: The hypocrisy that the Liberal politicians have demonstrated is absolutely disgusting. It is no wonder that the approval rates for Congress are the lowest that have been in years, lower than the President.

Personally, I would vote each and every one of them out and start with a clean slate, and that includes a clean slate of all the Presidential candidates too. We need people, not politicians, running this country. People with common sense(!), integrity, and a selflessness that is not evident in today's government. People who are driven by a sense of public service, not power. I'm tired of the career politicians taking our tax dollars and lining their pockets or the pockets of their cronies with it. It is time to get the money and power out of politics and put the service back in. But then, I can be an idealistic you-know-what at times...

Yeah, I know, when pigs fly under their own power...

Coming Back to Civilization?

Coming back from a long, restful vacation is always interesting. One always wonders how fast reality displaces that peaceful feeling.

Mine came real fast. My desk at work earned a PhD while I was gone (that’s Piled Higher & Deeper), and I was assigned two more projects while I was gone to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Worse, I needed to come up with a presentation on one of those new projects by the end of the week, and still keep all the other projects running. I felt like a juggler with one arm tied behind his back trying to keep all the balls in the air. Sigh… There went the stress relief…

But the time away allowed Mrs. Common Sense and I some much needed time alone, and the unforgettable memories that make up any marriage. We had not been on an extended vacation away from home for 10 years. We were due, big time.

However, the world goes on, and one again wonders what is coming around the bend next.

For instance, OJ Simpson is back in trouble with the law. I have no idea how his latest run-in is going to shake out, and in some respects, I don’t care. I believe that this person got away with two murders, aided and abetted by the inept prosecution & law enforcement that is in Los Angeles, and the judge & jury that had no idea what they were doing. In some respects, that case shows how woefully inadequate our justice system is in dealing with celebrities and other high-profile cases – it becomes a popularity contest instead of justice & closure for the victims (or their families).

And this idiocy isn’t limited to celebrities either. The protests in Jena, Louisiana over the initial charging of 6 black youths with attempted murder over the beating of a white youth is incredible. While the initial charge was over the top, if the colors of the victim and defendants were reversed, the protesters would be screaming “hate crime” and nothing short of life imprisonment. From MSNBC.com:

The six black teens were charged a few months after three white teens were accused of hanging nooses in a tree at their high school. The white teens were suspended from school but weren’t prosecuted. Five of the black teens were initially charged with attempted murder. That charge was reduced to battery for all but one, who has yet to be arraigned; the sixth was charged as a juvenile.

The beating victim, Justin Barker, was knocked unconscious, his face badly swollen and bloodied, though he was able to attend a school function later that night.

The only crime here was the assault of the victim by the 6 defendants. While the act of hanging the nooses from the tree is disgusting, the act didn’t break any laws. But that’s not going to dissuade the race-baiters and activists from a good protest.

Where I have problems with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their ilk (yes, ilk) is that they are not as color-blind nor as for equal treatment for all persons under the law as they would have you believe. No, they want their race to have special treatment. Multiple cases and incidents for both of these “gentlemen” speak for themselves if you care to do the research. The history there is that they stir things up, not resolve the problems or injustices.

Here’s my case in point: If they were as color-blind as they say they are, they would be pushing for hate-crime charges on the 6 black defendants. After all, didn’t the 6 black defendants beat up a white victim? And if past cases are to be used as examples, it shouldn’t matter what provocation took place – a physical assault took place.

And that’s the fallacy of “hate-crime” legislation. As far as I’m concerned, all crime is hateful in one respect or another. Hate crime legislation is not for the protection of the minority from the majority, but to provide additional penalties for crimes based entirely on hate. Which is another problem – how do you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what a person is thinking or what really motivated him to commit a crime? Justice should be blind, and race (or any of the other hate-crime labels) should not enter into the mix. Entering criminal charges based on crimes with differing race, beliefs, or other criteria as factors can be just as discriminatory as the actions the accused is charged with.

While the above may crank off some of the readers of this post (and I can just hear this one coming) and think that I’m a racist, please stop and be intellectually honest with yourself. Do you really think that one race is superior than another? Do you hate a person’s race or skin color? I don’t on either count.

In many respects, this incident is something that has been blown completely out of proportion by activists. I’m not saying that nothing happened of a racist nature (there was), but calling attention to this event in this manner does nothing but present an “us versus them” attitude which numbs the message that they supposedly want to get across – equal justice. No, they want the defendants freed and not prosecuted for the assault. There is the injustice – do the crime, do the time, not freedom for the criminal.

And they wonder why people, in general, ignore these protests, and distrust the justice system.

Let’s not even start on Congress’s lowest approval rating ever, HRC’s health care plan or promised tax hikes, or Dan Rather suing CBS… 

Katrina +2 Years

This past week saw the two-year anniversary since Hurricane Katrina put New Orleans under water.  Of course, the news agencies were all over this, citing failure after failure of the government to address the needs of the storm victims.  And in some respects, they are right.

In other respects, what else would anyone expect from government?  Government, by and large, is a taker, not a giver.  Government is very quick to take a portion of your paycheck in taxes, but very slow in distributing funds (just the paperwork takes weeks to process).  If I remember correctly, there are still portions of Florida that are still in recovery mode from Hurricane Andrew from 1992.

Government failed the people of New Orleans.  First and foremost was the Mayor of New Orleans, who didn't order an evacuation of the city with the resources he had available to him (remember the infamous pictures of the drowned school buses?).  He had plenty of time to implement disaster plans, but for some reason, didn't.  Second was the Governor, who stuck her head in the sand and didn't call the National Guard to assist in evacuating the city, nor to provide relief efforts until days afterward the disaster.  Last was the Federal Government, but not for the delay with FEMA aid.

The fault there was that there were numerous studies done and billions of dollars allocated for the levies to be reinforced.  The levies were not reinforced as needed, but the funds diverted for other projects as deemed by various Federal politicians.  I lay the blame squarely on the Federal government in not making sure that the funds were spent where best needed.  (link here)

The other problem that I see is that the people of New Orleans (and other places in the United States) believe that the Government will take care of them, no matter what.  The sad reality is that Government will not take care of them, and it is not the responsibility of the Government to take care of the individual's needs.  We are being lead to believe to the contrary, but where in the Constitution does it state specifically that the Government is to take care of the individual?  It doesn't, but we have been lead down that path, and we have blindly followed.

While I'm not a fan of Rudy Giuliani, he made this statement:

Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself.

When I listen to some of the stories brought out this past week, some of them are truly heart-wrenching, others are not.  When I hear of people moaning and groaning that the Government isn't taking care of them and doing nothing to help improve their situation, my sympathy for that person hits a new low.  When I hear of people trying to improve their situation by taking matters into their own hands, and requesting assistance to finish up that last part of putting their lives back together, then they have my admiration.

People need to take responsibility for themselves, period.  Yes, there are those that need help to get back on their feet.  But I oppose the "cradle to grave" or as Right-minded Frank would say "womb to tomb" support that certain segments of our society feels that they are entitled to.  But I digress...

When I think of Government assisting the population, I always think of this quote:

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. - Ronald Reagan

Enough said...

Pardon Me!?!

Let's get one thing straight – Lewis “Scooter” Libby has not been pardoned by President Bush. His sentence has been commuted. He still pays a $250,000 fine, and will not be able to practice law. If he was pardoned, then he wouldn't have to pay the fine and he would be allowed to practice law.

So he didn't pull a Bill Clinton, who seemed to pardon almost everyone around him for similar and worse crimes. So why are the Democratic candidates (especially HRC) making so much of this? In a word – politics.

The problem that the Democratic candidates have is that they are not running against President Bush in the next election. They really don't have anything else to showcase what they stand for. National or universal healthcare is an issue that might fly at first blush, but if anyone with half a brain thinks about it for any length of time, this is one elephant that no one wants in the same room. All the candidates have stated is that they will raise taxes on the wealthy, but they differ on who exactly fits in that category. They also want to repeal the tax cuts that helped boost the economy (and exactly what do they think this will do?) They can try to hang their hats on Iraq, and they might get some traction there, but again, they are not running against Bush. And let's not even talk about the “culture of corruption” - both parties have major problems with this one.

So they are left with trying to make political hay over a commuted sentence. Big deal. But since they decided to bring up the rhetoric a notch or two, why don't we chew on this one for a couple of minutes...

Why don't we start with the Democrats favorite son, the former President Bill Clinton. Looking at his pardon record at the US Department of Justice, there are so many pardons that he issued it is unbelievable. Some of the most notorious are Marc Rich, who was pardoned while he was still evading authorities and after his family made a $1,000,000 “donation” to the DNC. Then there were the FALN pardons timed to help his wife gain the New York Puerto Rican vote in her successful bid for the Senate. Or how about his brother's drug sentence? All in all, Bill Clinton pardoned and commuted the sentences of over 180 people for various crimes.

Compare Bill Clinton to his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, who only pardoned and commuted the sentences of 78 people. The current President, George Bush, currently has a paltry 117 pardons and commutations.

In all fairness, many of the pardons issued by all the Presidents were for run of the mill items. But some really stand out, and others are for the same types of offenses. But the political rhetoric is incredible!!

So now the Democratic Presidential hopefuls are screaming at the top of their lungs, “Unfair! Unfair!” to which could I say “Can it!!” Or maybe we should keep quiet and let these buffoons continue to shoot themselves in the foot. After all, the more noise they make, the more scrutiny they bring upon themselves (especially HRC), and the more attention they will garner on their many faults.

News Bytes & Comments

Haven't posted for over a week, and that's just not good.  Son is graduating from high school, so there's all that to get arranged & taken care of.  He's also trying to get a job, and find a roommate for his assisted living arrangements.  We think he has found a place to live, but there are so many details that need to be worked out.

Then there's the job.  Have a project that's going to take up most of my time for the next 6 weeks.  It's good that I have a job considering the state of the automotive industry in Michigan.  It's bad that the OT will cut into what little free time that I have to write.

Upshot is that posting will be light or non-existent for the next few weeks.  Don't worry - I'll be back!!  Stay tuned and keep commenting.

But before I go, here's a few headlines and comments that have shown up in the past week:

Immigration Bill Pulled

The Senate immigration bill has been pulled from the floor of the Senate.  This just might kill this horrible piece of legislation, but there are those who state that it will be back.  I hope not...

Paris Hilton Out of Jail

Yep, she's out of jail, but not out of trouble.  Now it's house arrest for 40 days with a rather unstylish electronic ankle bracelet.  Why we care about what happens to this protected airhead is beyond me.

Democratic Candidate Debate

Verbal body slams were the on the agenda for this debate.  It was interesting that the candidates attacked each other as much as they attacked the President.  But there's no way I would vote for any of them.  Obama is becoming a Black Militant.  Edwards is bordering on the left-wing fringe.  Clinton is stiff and smarmy, and who really wants Bill back in the White House?

Democratic Candidates Express Faith

Faith in what?  Didn't hear anything on the sound bites that resembled anything but self-promotion.

Republican Candidate Debate

Much more agreeable debate.  Were at least courteous in their disagreements with each other's opinions, & didn't stoop to character assassination.

Republican Candidates Express Faith

At least there were a couple that stated that their faith was based on God and Jesus Christ, and done so in a way that promoted God and not themselves.

Jefferson Charged

William Jefferson (D-LA) finally has been charged with multiple counts of criminal activities.  About time.

Time to go.  Stay tuned!

Cindy Sheehan Resigns

As many of you probably already know, Cindy Sheehan has “resigned” from the protest over the Iraq war. The event as described in a MSNBC article has several snippets that I would like to comment on.

In what she described as a “resignation letter,” Sheehan wrote in her online diary on the “Daily Kos” blog: “Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

I’m sorry that America is not the country you want it to be. I’m not exactly happy about all of the things that happen here, but I am not naïve enough to believe that if I parade around the world protesting that everyone is going to follow my lead and do the same.

“I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement.”

And that’s exactly what will happen if you go out and protest. There will be repercussions of some nature from the opposition, especially from parents in a similar situation. Whether you will be strong enough to weather the criticism is something that is not for the faint-hearted.

When she had first taken on Bush, Sheehan was a darling of the liberal left. “However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used.”

“…would rather live under Hugo Chavez than George W. Bush.” (Hardball, July 5, 2006, with guest host Norah O'Donnell)

Sheehan said she had sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war. What she found, she wrote, was a movement “that often puts personal egos above peace and human life.”

Congratulations, Cindy, you just found out you was used by the liberals to further their agenda. Once you outlived your usefulness, you were discarded like yesterday’s garbage. Making statements of wanting to live in a Socialist country with an anti-America dictator running it did nothing but make you appear like a wacko and make you a liability. Politics (and politicians) do not respect personal sacrifice, nor do they care about anything but the advancement of their personal agendas.

“Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.”

I can do nothing but agree with her statement (surprise!!). We are a fickle nation with misplaced priorities and limited attention spans.

Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for FreeRepublic.com, which has held pro-troop rallies and counter-protests of anti-war demonstrations, said dwindling crowds at Sheehan's Crawford protests since her initial vigil may have led to her decision. But he also said he hopes she will now be able to heal.

"Her politics have hurt a lot of people, including the troops and their families, but most of us who support the war on terror understand she is hurt very deeply," Taylor said Tuesday. "Those she got involved with in the anti-war movement realize it was to their benefit to keep her in that stage of anger."

I agree with Miss Taylor. Cindy Sheehan has always struck me as a person with a deep amount of pain over her son’s loss. I think she started asking why her son died, and couldn’t come to terms with it. I do hope that she finds peace, and hopefully, heal the wounds that the loss of her son created.

In Flanders Fields

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army

Freedom Isn't Free...

...it must constantly be paid for in pain, blood, and lives.

This Memorial Day weekend, let us not only celebrate and remember the sacrifices of those soldiers, sailors, and airmen that have given their lives for this country and all it stands for, but the people behind them.  The wives, families, and friends that they left behind with the memories of their passing and lives should also be remembered.  Often, it is the ones left behind that carry the most pain.

My father is a Korean War Veteran.  He doesn't speak of what went on over there - he prefers to remain silent on the horrors that he witnessed.  He gave my mother a picture, which I now have, of him in Korea.

I had two cousins that were in Vietnam.  One didn't come back, and the other one probably shouldn't have.  Their respective mothers keep pictures on the mantle.

One of my friends spent two tours in Iraq.  He made it back without a problem, but I know the unit he was with.  He saw some action, but I'm too polite to ask him what happened over there.

Everyone reading this post knows someone within their family or circle of friends that has been in the military.  Those families that have their sons & daughters in the military dread that knock on the door or the ring of the phone telling them that someone they love is gone.  Even though this may not come to pass, this is their sacrifice - the waiting for that notice that they pray will never come.

These people all deserve our thanks - living and the dead - for their respective sacrifices for the freedom we all enjoy.

Let's Have a Reality Check - Gas Prices

No doubt everyone is noticing that the gasoline prices have shot up.  In our area, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.25, diesel is a surprising $2.75/gallon.  But where does this stand with the other necessities of life?

The average Starbucks coffee - $3.00 for an 8 ounce cup (that's $48/gallon!)

A pack of cigarettes - $4.75 (from a billboard outside a gas station)

Movie with popcorn & drink (1 person) - $14.00

Monthly cell phone bill - $50.00 (if you have a good plan & watch the minutes)

Dinner for two at a decent restaurant - $50.00

Average price for a music CD - $15.00

Gallon of milk (on sale) - $1.89

Ticket to Wrestlemania - up to $1200.00!!!

Your freedom in this country - Priceless!

Just thought that things should be put in perspective...

Transportation Energy Independence

We, as a country, need to get away from using Middle Eastern oil for our transportation needs. Why, you may ask? The short answer is that the Middle East is not the place we need to look for in guaranteeing the economic security of this country. And transportation is essential to economic growth and stability.

Part of the longer answer can be found in part of an earlier post, Energy Independence:

The oil producing region of the Middle East is under an uneasy peace at best. Suicide bombers and the conflict in Iraq are the most visible and most reported violent incidents from the area. The Palestinians have elected a known terrorist group, Hamas, as their leaders. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is among those listed in Parade Magazine as being some of the most ruthless dictatorships known with multitudes of human right violations. Of course, there is Iran making noises about wanting to join the nuclear club even though the president of Iran is clearly advocating using any and all means to wage war on Israel to wipe it off the map. Lastly, Islamic terrorists such as al–Qaeda are constantly stirring up trouble for everyone in the region.

Whether we like it or not, the United States has a vested interest in the Middle East for national security reasons. Again, according to the May 2001 Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, the United States relies on foreign oil for 52% of its needs. Should the flow of oil be interrupted, then the United States would have a severe impact dealt to its economy as all sectors (transportation, manufacturing, & energy generation) would be affected. Those groups that have accused the United States government with trading blood for oil are partially right as the Government has the duty to protect the economic welfare of the country. However, these same groups do not take the time to understand the reasons for the foreign policy sometimes enacted in the Middle East. For example: The first Gulf War was waged for a singular purpose, and that was to secure valuable oil resources in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein's control. If those resources were under the control of Hussein, then he would have been able to economically cripple the United States and the rest of the world. Those groups decried the loss of life in this conflict. One wonders what they would do or say if Hussein had control of the oil fields and turned off the oil, thus depriving them of the ability to drive to the supermarket only to find empty shelves since the food couldn't be delivered…

So what are some of the options for reducing or eliminating foreign oil for our personal transportation needs? Let’s explore a few:

Electric-Drive Technology

The battery-powered car has been around since the turn of the century. The latest commercial incarnation of this technology was GM’s EV1, which could only be leased. After only a few years, these vehicles were pulled from the market.

The main problem with pure electric-drive vehicles is their range. While the EV1 was advertised to have a range of between 60 to 80 miles on a single charge, those claims were tempered with a recommended upper limit speed to achieve that range. Often, the range was less because those speeds were not realistic when competing on a highway with other vehicles powered by an internal combustion engine.

The limitation of range and speed of these vehicles is due to the limitations of the battery technology. The batteries can only hold a limited charge, and the batteries take up space in the vehicle. Weight also becomes a consideration, so the practicality of the vehicle now becomes a compromise between range, weight, speed, and size of the vehicle. Battery technology is improving, and may one day store vast amounts of electricity in a small space, but that day is not here yet.

An alternate energy storage solution that has been proposed (and is currently be researched) is a super capacitor. A capacitor in its simplest form is a non-chemical means of storing an electrical charge (batteries use chemical reactions to generate electricity). This is a new technology, so developing a device that can be mass-produced in quantity and price is some time away.

What is not often expressed about using an electric-powered vehicle is how to charge it back up for the next use. The most often method is to plug it in to a power outlet in your garage. The problem is that the recharging of several thousand of these cars will put a burden on the power grid. Considering that during the summer in California, there are rolling blackouts due to increased usage of electricity does not bode well for charging a bunch of electric vehicles, even if it is at night. The answer to this problem is to build more power plants, but where and fueled with what? Coal pollutes worse than natural gas, and both emit the greenhouse gases that the environmentalist / Global Warming crowds oppose. Nuclear energy is a no-no with the anti-nuke crowd, and there are only so many rivers that can be dammed to furnish power (providing the site passes the environmental review and doesn’t endanger any fish).

Electric-drive vehicles have their use in limited quantities, but these vehicles will not be a wide-spread long-term solution.

Hybrid Technology

Hybrid technology has been touted as the next best step to an environmental friendly and foreign oil dependence solution. And in some respects, that is a correct assessment.

Hybrid vehicles combine an electric-drive vehicle and an internal combustion engine (gasoline or diesel) in an attempt to optimize performance while reducing fuel consumption. When the battery pack of the vehicle reaches a low charge level or the vehicle needs an added power boost (such as passing another vehicle), the engine starts up automatically, powering a generator, and thus supplying the additional power needed by the vehicle.

A variation of this technology is known as plug-in. Like the electric-drive technology that was examined above, the vehicle is plugged in a standard wall socket to initially charge the battery pack. The initial charge is only good for 20-30 miles of driving, after which the engine in the car would then generate the power needed to keep the battery charged. This method might help keep the power grid from overloading, but that remains to be seen.

As discussed in a previous post, there are some concerns that hybrids are not as environmentally friendly as they have been portrayed. The chemicals and minerals used in the current crop of batteries are obtained at a greater energy and environmental cost than what could be acceptable. Of course, this same problem affects the all-electric vehicle that was discussed above. However, advances in battery technology may help reduce these concerns and environmental impacts. But remember – the fuel to run the engine to power the vehicle on the road and charge the vehicle in the garage has to come from somewhere.

Bio-Fuels

Bio-fuels have been getting a lot of press recently as being the answer for the near and middle term solution for energy needs. Bio-fuels include ethanol (with gasoline blends and as a stand alone fuel) and bio-diesel.

Ethanol is derived from the fermentation of sugar. The source of the sugar in the United States is primarily from corn, although other sources are used in other countries. The most successful example that I can think of is Brazil, where their entire transportation energy needs are met by domestic ethanol production from sugarcane – no oil is imported to the country for energy consumption.

Bio-diesel can be derived from a number of sources. Soybeans (United States) and jatropha nuts (India) are just a couple of crops that can be raised for the purpose of manufacturing bio-diesel. Bio-mass (organic recycling) is being used in Europe. Additionally, canola oil and recycled cooking oil have also been used as fuels in diesel engines.

Bio-fuels are extremely attractive for several reasons. The first is that current internal combustion engines can use them with little or no modifications. The second is that the technology to use these fuels is known and relatively mature. The third is that this source of energy is renewable. Last, in some instances, bio-fuel can burn cleaner than petroleum-based fuel. But…

…there’s always a downside. Growing crops to turn into fuel takes land that could be used to grow food crops. In countries that must choose between growing food and growing energy, this would be a difficult position. Environmentally, this could also prove to be a disaster in the making as countries would clear land (such as rainforests) to grow these crops and thus potentially wipe out endangered species. Already there are reports from Mexico and Holland about the rising food prices or unavailability of crops for food (or beer – horrors!!).

Additional concerns would also be that there is a report that using ethanol could be bad for the environment, and could cause additional health problems (link here). Also, the miles per gallon from using ethanol is approximately 15% less than using gasoline, and 11% for biodiesel. And using these fuels will still generate certain levels of CO₂ which may not be acceptable even though they are supposedly “carbon neutral.”

Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas

From an internal company webpage that cannot be linked to the outside:

An alternative fuel is natural gas. This chiefly consists of methane (CH₄), and of all the fossil fuels, it has the lowest percentages of carbon that turns into to CO₂ on combustion. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO_x), soot and reactive hydrocarbons are also lower compared with liquid fossil fuels. One kilogram of natural gas, which is stored in pressurized tanks and therefore also called compressed natural gas (CNG), corresponds to the energy content of around 1.5 liters of gasoline. However, the low energy density compared with liquid fuels and the higher tank volume also cause disadvantages in terms of range and load area.

CNG is very attractive as a fuel that can be used to fuel internal combustion engines. I know for a fact that current engine technology can use CNG with little or no modification just by using a conventional carburetor and not fuel injectors. The main concern is the size and the weight of the tanks that would need to store CNG, and the safety of the tanks should there be an accident. Puncturing a tank could 1) be a fire hazard, and 2) have the potential to cause additional injury should the escaping gas propel an object.

An alternative to CNG is liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Many of us use this gas to fire up our grills for that cookout, but it can be used as a fuel in the same way as CNG. But it also has the same concerns.

Hydrogen Technology

Hydrogen is the potential "king" of all fuels. It burns up completely in combination with oxygen, and pure water vapor is emitted as an "exhaust gas". Some examples of regenerative production possibilities are electrolysis using regenerative electrical energy from the sun, wind, water or geothermal energy. Regenerative hydrogen can also be extracted from biomass. To provide reliable supplies for hydrogen-powered vehicles, a standalone filling station network is required.

The main problem with hydrogen is storage. Hydrogen is the smallest of all molecules, and containing the gas reliably is incredibly difficult as it tends to seep through tanks and other storage containers. This could lead to a dangerous buildup in an enclosed space. The image of the Hindenberg is always on person's mind when someone mentions hydrogen.

And therein lies an inherent problem with hydrogen. It must be stored under high pressure to store enough gas for a vehicle burning hydrogen to get a decent range. But there is hope.

There is research that may lead to a reliable and stable method of storing hydrogen. The research centers on bonding hydrogen into a metal or nano-material matrix. This would stabilize the gas from leaking into the surrounding atmosphere. The gas could then be released in a controlled fashion as to be used in a power source for a vehicle.

Which leads us into the next topic...

Fuel-Cell Technology

One of the more intriguing power sources for vehicles are fuel cells. Essentially, fuel cells generate power through an electrochemical process, much like a battery. They convert chemical energy to electrical energy by combining hydrogen from fuel with oxygen from the air. Hydrogen fuel can be supplied in two ways - either directly as pure hydrogen gas or through a "fuel reformer" that converts hydrocarbon fuels such as methanol, natural gas, or gasoline into hydrogen-rich gas. The result of this combination is water vapor and electricity.

NASA has used fuel cells for years to power its spacecraft using compressed hydrogen and oxygen with great success. The main problem with this technology is that it is expensive, but cost should come down with time and development.

Tom's Vision for Fuel Independence

From an engineering standpoint, the internal combustion engine is fairly inefficient (30 percent efficiency at best) in providing energy for our personal transportation needs. Stop to think about it – every time a cylinder fires in your engine, you get the bang to convert the energy into mechanical motion, but a great deal of heat is also generated and goes out the tailpipe.

A better way is to directly convert the fuel into energy as efficiently as possible. In my mind, the fuel cell is just about the best direct fuel to energy conversion device thus far - fuel cells can achieve 40 to 70 percent efficiency, which is greater than the 30 percent efficiency of the most efficient internal combustion engines. Technical challenges toward developing fuel cells are many – safety, fuel supply & distribution, and cost are just a few of the problems that would need to be overcome. But this will not happen overnight – it will need to occur in stages. Until those challenges have practical solutions, then here’s the direction I think we need to go:

When I was in Germany, I drove a Mercedes C230 with a diesel engine. Outside of the initial startup rattle that sounded like a truck engine turning over, the engine was quiet and powerful. Getting the car up to cruising speed (250 kph = 155mph) on the autobahn was no problem, and the response of the vehicle was excellent. Using diesel engines in passenger cars as well as trucks & SUV's while supplementing the petroleum diesel fuel supply with bio-diesel would make an almost immediate impact on how much petroleum is imported to this country. This would be the first step, but would need time to implement as this industry would need to ramp up to meet the level of demand that is currently dominated by gasoline demands. Can it be done? Yes, but the stigma of diesel engine for passenger use in this country would need to be overcome.

The second step would be to pour the development money into the R&D for both battery and fuel cell technologies. The vehicle configuration that makes the most sense to me is a battery-powered vehicle that can be recharged by a plug in and by a fuel cell for those extended trips. Such vehicles are quiet, powerful, and as a side benefit, environmentally friendly. A hydrogen infrastructure would need to be developed as well as a beefing up of the electrical power grid for the extra demand, but this is all possible.

The third step? Mr. Fusion, but that’s way out in the future, but we will need to get back to that later…

Remember you read it here first!!

The Virginia Tech Shootings

More and more information is coming out about Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech student who went on a killing spree that left 32 dead & 19 wounded before killing himself. From several accounts, this was a deeply disturbed person.

While our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all the victims of this tragedy, there are those who will take (correction: are taking) advantage of this horrendous event. For example:

The media will analyze this event trying to find out why this person acted the way he did. The victims will be glorified almost to the status of sainthood. And all of this will evaporate with the next hot news item.

The anti-gun crowd will use this event to try and further erode our 2^nd Amendment rights. Even though the weapon(s) used were legally purchased per the laws of the State of Virginia, we all know there will be a call for stricter gun laws.

Let me comment on the above examples:

As I have stated before in this blog and in the comment sections of other blogs, the media at large is an entertainment industry, not a news-reporting agency. News stories will be used, but they will be slanted and spun to provide the most interest possible to the widest audience. Ratings are king, and whatever can be done to raise the ratings will be done. What then happens is that people and the facts will be misrepresented or the full story not disclosed. And as soon as the story has run its course or interest begins to drop, then the media moves to the next hot topic.

The victims will soon be footnotes in this tragedy, but Cho will be the fodder for talk shows for the next several months. His life will be dissected in excruciating detail in an effort to find out what went wrong. Speculation will replace whatever facts that cannot be found, and the talking heads will recycle everything in different ways to present their point of view. Only when everyone is sick of hearing about Cho will the analysis cease.

I already know that the anti-gun crowd is gearing up to use this tragedy to push their agenda. I’m not sure what the requirements are in Virginia to purchase a weapon, but it sounds like there wasn’t a mental health or criminal background check, or a waiting period. At the very least, I’m predicting both of the above will shortly be introduced as bills to the Virginia Legislature.

But even then, a determined person such as Cho would have found a way to either get a weapon or some other device to carry out his mission of murder. From the reports I’ve seen, he planned this for a long time – he could afford to wait.

While Virginia Tech is a gun-free campus, Cho lived on campus. He had a weapon in violation of the rules, but obviously that didn’t matter. So the age-old argument that “if guns are banned only criminals will have guns” holds true in this case.

So if Virginia Tech was not a gun-free campus, would Cho have been stopped by a person with a legally purchased firearm and reduced the number of people killed or injured? One would like to think so, and I would like to post the following thoughts to the readers of this blog.

Why are the anti-gunners afraid of guns? They are inanimate objects just as much as the computer you are currently using to read this. They have no minds of their own and unlike a dog, will not run over and bite someone because they don’t like them. In essence, they are like a rock, unmoving unless acted upon by some external force.

Actually, what the anti-gunners are afraid of are people. Yep, people. But they are not afraid of sane, responsible people like you and I. Rather, they are afraid of people like Cho, angry and violent for no apparent reason, or of criminals wishing to do harm in the course of a crime. So their reasoning is that if guns are removed from the public, then these people would no longer have the capacity to cause harm. To which I would respond: Look what 19 people on a mission of death did with knives and boxcutters.

I would further respond with a question: If you are so afraid of people causing you harm, then who would you trust to protect you if you give up your right to self-defense? If you answered government or the police, stop to think for a second. Police cannot be everywhere at the same time nor will they be able to respond instantly to an emergency (that has been proven more times that anyone can count). And furthermore, the government is composed of people!! The argument falls apart.

I would like to close out this post with the recounting of two separate but related events that happened in 1983.

I had just gotten some food in a restaurant, and had just picked up my tray when a wild-eyed seedy looking man burst through the doors. He was carrying a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, waving it around, screaming for everyone to freeze and he wanted money. The clerk behind the counter froze, not moving, petrified with fear. He turned his attention to her, waving the shotgun under her nose demanding that she open up the cash register. Suddenly, he whirled around in my direction, fired both barrels, and fled out the door.

Good part, he missed me totally – he was using double-00 buck and the spread pattern of a sawed-off shotgun is pretty wide (the shot went all around me, missing by fractions of an inch). Bad part was the guy next to me caught two – one in the shoulder which severed an artery, and the second through his leg, which went completely through.

Of course, blood and tissue is everywhere, and I can’t hear anything from the blast. I spent the next 10-15 minutes with my hands inside this guy’s shoulder holding on to what was left of his artery trying to keep him from bleeding to death. When the paramedics arrived, they had to first motion to me that they were going to take over, and second, get my hands uncramped enough to get my hands out of the way for them to patch him up for transport. Not a good day in the least.

After this incident, I applied for and received a CCW permit (they had not caught the would-be robber). As I was taking night classes at the time, I also went the University Campus Security Office, told them what had happened, and that I had a permit to carry. While they generally did not permit students from carrying weapons on campus (professors could), they made an exception for me, considering the circumstances. Good thing, too, given what almost happened two months later.

Walking back to my car at night (I lived off-campus), a car pulled up and 4 huge guys got out. I weighed only 135 pounds at the time, and these guys weighed at least 190+ each. I started backing up while they were hooting and hollering about how they were going to “mess up the white boy” (they were black). One of them appeared to be getting something out of the back of the car (I think it might have been a baseball bat). I kept backing up, holding my briefcase in front of me while reaching around behind me under my coat to get my gun. I had just unsnapped the holster and told them that they really didn’t want to do this when a police car turned the corner.

The guy closest to the car dropped back into the car whatever he was getting and called to his buddies. Two officers got out of the car and asked what was going on. They answered nothing, and the officers told them to keep moving along (they seemed to know them). They drove off, and the officers asked me if I was OK. I told them yes, and continued to tell them that they arrived at the right time. They originally thought that I was referring to my safety until I explained that if they had not arrived when they did, some of the people they just let go would have been severely injured. I showed them my weapon (still in the holster with the safety strap off), and asked if they needed to see my permit. They looked at each other, told me no, and to be on my way.

In the first case, I was defenseless, a lamb waiting to be slaughtered should my executioner deem it was my time. In the second case, I had a chance if it came to the worst possible scenario. And you know, if the same type of incident happened at my University that happened at Virginia Tech, I would guarantee that I would go down fighting.

Again, my heartfelt sympathy, prayers, and best wishes to the families and friends of the Virginia Tech students. May you all find peace.

The Inconvenient Truth About Al Gore

Unless you have been living under a rock, Al Gore is now the High Grandmaster for the Prevention of Global Warming. Although his movie An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award for a documentary (?), I call into question his real motives for jumping on this bandwagon. But first of all, let me clarify my position on the subjects of the environment and global warming.

We all should do our part for not trashing up or poisoning our world. I make sure that the cars are in good repair so they don’t belch blue smoke all over the place & get decent mileage. I don’t pour used motor oil on the ground, but make sure that it is properly disposed of. My trash is bagged accordingly, and that all recyclables are put in the recycle bin. I use the minimum of fertilizer on my lawn, and the same could be said of pest control methods that are used around the house (two cats help here). In general, my household generates as little waste as possible, and compared to several families around me, we generate the least (we would throw away less if it wasn’t for that damn junk mail…).

I do believe that the Earth is indeed warming up, and that it is part of a natural cycle. If this were not a natural cycle, then we would still be in an Ice Age with sheets of 50’ thick ice covering where I now live. I also believe that humans, for the most part, have a minimal impact on generating the so-called greenhouse gases. For instance, volcano eruptions will spew out thousands of tons of ashes and gases into the atmosphere at a level many times that of what the human population would be able to emit in the same amount of time (links here, here, and here).  If you believe that humans can control or have an effect on what Nature does do, then humans would have been able to control & predict the weather and all sorts of natural disasters such as volcano eruptions and earthquakes.

At this point in time, computer models vary widely as to the cause and effect of global warming, and thus, any conclusions that can be made from such models (and scientists’ opinions) must be considered suspect (i.e., junk science). I recall that these same scientific communities raised the alarm back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s that the Earth was cooling, and they were warning of a new Ice Age that was coming hell-bent around the corner, and they had essentially the same data (minus a couple of decades) as they do now. This reversal calls into doubt the motives of these scientists as well, but that’s not the point of this post.

The real subject of this post is Al Gore. Can he be trusted? What are his motives? What is he really doing in the name of Global Warming? I think I may have him figured out, and of course, I have a little bit of help from my friends and the Internet. So let’s dig into this self-proclaimed savior of the Earth.

The first time I became aware of Al Gore was when he was selected and later elected to be the Vice-President opposite of Bill Clinton (just like the majority of you). With Hillary running most of the show with her health care and other initiatives, Al’s role in the Clinton Administration was minimal to say the least. But later actions and words, especially during his run for the Presidency and now during his campaign against Global Warming, showed the character of the man. Some prime examples that come to mind are:

During a photo shoot to promote environmental responsibility for water conservation, Al was photographed paddling around in a canoe, presumably to show that if everyone conserved water, everyone could enjoy the benefits of conservation. What was not widely reported was that there was a drought in the area, and that over 30,000 gallons of water was released into the stream to raise the water level 6 inches. The stream was too low, too many rocks were showing, and the canoe was bottoming out.  Not very photogenic...

During his campaign for President, Al made the claim that he invented the Internet. No, not quite, Al. Al voted on funding to expand what was then a crude communications network that was used between universities, research facilities, and the military. That expansion became the Internet that we all now use without a second thought. Fund, yes, invent, no.

During the class-action suits against the tobacco companies, Al came out and stated that tobacco was an evil curse. He carried on for several weeks until it was found out that part of the Gore fortune was made from the raising and selling tobacco leaf. He quieted down after that.

Recently, Al’s involvement in buying “carbon-offset credits” to offset the pollution from his private jet from a company that he owns in total or in part (haven’t established that yet) has been reported & commented on by various news outlets. Additionally, the energy inefficiency of the various homes that he owns throughout the country was also reported. This does not look good for a person that repeatedly states that he is for the environment and not for himself.

In understanding Al Gore, you must first understand that he is a politician through and through. He will state almost anything to garner attention, support, and accolades from the public. He is a career politician, and a shameless self-promoter, ready to favorably position himself on whatever issue that is in the public eye.

Another thing that you must understand about Al is that he is a hypocrite. It is that “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality that is revealed in the examples above. It is this elitism that is most disturbing about this man.

Finally, I believe that Al is a Liberal with a Socialist agenda. Consider this from the post Globalization:

Way back when Al Gore and Ross Perot were having a discussion (debate) on NAFTA, Al was trying to make the case for NAFTA by using the example of Valmont Electric moving their operations from Danville, Illinois to Mexico. He stated that Mexico’s standard of living would eventually rise to meet that of the United States, and businesses like Valmont would stop moving to Mexico.

Only a Socialist would want everyone to be equal in wealth, even if it is across an international border and to the detriment of your own country. Equal, of course, unless you are one of the elites calling the shots…

So what is his motive for becoming the High-Priest of Global Warming? In essence – power. He is still smarting from losing the election to Bush, and wants to stay in the public spotlight. The Democratic Party hung out the “do not apply” sign to Al after he lost the election, and this is a way of trying to get the sign taken down & back in the race for the President. But if he doesn’t get another shot at the Presidency, he can certainly get richer by speeches on Global Warming and buying carbon-offset credits from himself (of which I would almost bet that he uses as a tax-write-off). If he can swat a few noses along the way and exert power over those people who didn’t support him, then so much the better.

No, Al isn’t the wild-eyed environmentalist wacko preaching from the altar of Global Warming that some people portray him as. He is a smart & conniving man that has an agenda. And that agenda, which is to gain as much power and wealth as he can, will ruin this country and countless lives unless he is exposed for what he is – a shameless, greedy political hack. Only then will his quest for power be negated.

And no, I don’t trust him. Not one teeny bit…

Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome

For those of you who watched Heartbreak Ridge, you would recognize the title of this post.  For those of you who don't, this is the mantra of the Marine Corps Recon Unit as stated by the character Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway (played by Clint Eastwood).  And in some respects, it is the unofficial mantra used by all of our military forces.

If any of you remember the earlier days of the current Iraq conflict, it was reported by our media that the Marine and Army forces were welding sheet metal on the Humvees because they were unarmored and offered no protection from small arms fire and shrapnel from roadside mines.  And that's a perfect example of our soldiers improvising with local materials to adapt to a situation, and overcome potential casualties.  Now, thank God, there is better protection for our troops as armor and vests became available.

But if Screamer of the House Pelosi and Moron Murtha have their way, those days could return.  Their "Slow-Bleed" political strategy of slowly withdrawing funding & support of our troops by limiting the President's options in conducting the war would have just that effect.  Who would actually suffer would be our troops, who would do the bleeding, and not necessarily in a slow, controlled fashion.

Those of you that have read my various comments on other blogs as well as on this one know that I'm not particularly thrilled that our troops are in Iraq, but we are there.  Our troops need the support & backing of everyone to accomplish the mission.  But this back-stabbing method of forcing withdrawal through a cowardly political sham thinly veiled as a public service is a disgrace.

If the Democrats are really serious about forcing the President to withdraw the troops, then put a Bill forward cutting the funding for the War through the process and vote on it.  They don't want to do this because they do not want to take responsibility of the aftermath of the withdrawal - complete civil breakdown in Iraq.  Yes, they'll take the credit for bringing the troops home, but not the mass casualties that a civil war in Iraq would bring.  But that's not their way to directly approach their goal.

It's all a political game, a strategy designed to to embarrass the President, and to keep & solidify their power.  It's not about the troops, it's a political opportunity to advance their agenda.  But the price is going to be the blood of our troops and potentially the long-range security of our country.  After all, what enemy is going to respect a country that cannot finish what it started, and commits political & ideological suicide? 

And quite frankly, it is these political-power maneuverings that disgust me.  It is no wonder that I have low opinions of our elected politicians and concerns for the long-term well being of our country.

Alternative Candidates?

Readers of this blog know how highly I regard our elected officials. For those of you who need a refresher, click here.

At this point in time, no one on the political scene really thrills me. So maybe we should have someone else in the highest elected office. So let's try...

Any other ideas?

The Thinker's Way

Once in a while, I'm able to pick up a non-electronic information source and absorb data by turning flattened solidified wood-pulp and observing the characters printed upon said flattened wood-pulp. Of course, I'm referring to that underrated object otherwise known as a book. Our children have a vague notion of what a book is since they like getting their information from the Internet, but I digress...

The book I picked up was “The Thinker’s Way” by John Chaffee. This book leads the reader through exercises to develop critical thinking skills (among other things). While I’m just beginning to read this book and absorb the concepts (and this is not something that can be done in a short time), I ran across the following passage that I thought I would share with you.

We live in a world full of closed-minded and dogmatic people, convinced they are always right. Our society has suffered a decline in values, an environment in which telling the truth, acting honestly, and treating people differently have been sacrificed in the name of the bottom line or “success.” Discriminatory attitudes toward virtually every group are commonplace, and are rivaled only by people trying to gain advantage by casting themselves as victims. Our society has become increasingly factionalized, led by pandering and often corrupt politicians who magnify these divisions for their own purposes. Children are forced to endure an educational system that is often more concerned with the transfer of information that with genuine learning, a system that emphasized conformity over personal development. We are inundated with mindless television shows, virulent hate-talk on the radio, and music played too loud to let yourself think. We are forced to deal daily with people who are irrational, disorganized, confused, and inarticulate. In many respects we are experiencing the answer to the question: “What happens when people live in an unthinking way?”

What a powerful paragraph!! How can anyone dispute these words? One can only comment and expand on these observations.

How many of us out in bloggerland have been close-minded & not willing to change when confronted with facts and opinions contrary to our own? I know that I have, but I have made changes to my value system when confronted with verifiable facts & rational arguments. There are other values that cannot be changed because to do so would change the core of my being. And I imagine that the majority of people out there are the same way.

But what many of us here in this new medium are doing is having a conversation on many different subjects. In essence, exchanging ideas and opinions to others, either to put forth our points of view and change the world in our own way, or just to rant about what we perceive to be wrong with the world, our work, or life in general. For many of us (me included), this is a chance to think about and comment on the world that we all live in, and perhaps change someone’s viewpoint in the process. Isn't that what it's all about?

Now some of you may have objected to the previous post and comments, and that's fine. Offending someone is often a risk that we all take when we write our posts. I wrote the post in such a way that would illustrate the hypocrisy of taking a stance on defending the innocent on one hand, and yet allowing them to be killed on the other. I expected to get flamed, but you'll also notice that I didn't get an answer to the question at the end of the post (probably a hard-core Liberal hasn't landed here - yet). Regardless, I wanted you to THINK about your values, and where they stood in contrast to others. Was I successful in the effort? You tell me.

The point is that it is easy to react to whatever is on the news (or posted in a blog), and dash off a ranting post or retort. But what good is that if doing so, you don’t think about what is really going on or what you’re saying? We’ve become enamored with the quick sound bite and forming an opinion from a minimum of information without a second thought. That’s dangerous. And I’ve done it, much to my regret, and so have many of you.

Perhaps it is this thought and experience that has taught me some caution over the years, the desire to dig into what the facts are and thinking about them before inserting foot into mouth. It’s also the reason that many times I’m behind the curve on many of the hot topics floating around the blogsphere. And that’s OK with me – I would much rather allow situations to develop and have the facts come out before posting erroneous information.

But then, over-analysis has its drawbacks too – anything can be analyzed to death without coming to a reasonable conclusion. For instance, I got the following email recently:

A Japanese company (reported to be Toyota) and an American company (General Motors?) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A team of senior managers was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was needed, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager and one rower.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Team Quality First Program," with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices, and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.

The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India.

But does that mean I’m not going to post an opinion on any number of topics? What do you think? Of course I’m going to post opinions & beliefs – would you think otherwise? After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong or right it may be. I just hope that my posted opinions & comments are informed and interesting to all 8 ½ readers of this blog…

Later…

Chrysler for Sale?

The buzz around Detroit these days is that DaimlerChrysler (DCx) is putting the Chrysler Division up for sale, and that GM is interested. The rumor also includes the juicy teasers that Nissan, Toyota, and Hyundai are also looking at buying the automaker. I personally don’t think any of this is going to fly.

But what if GM really does want to buy Chrysler? What would they want out of the deal?

Well, the Jeep brand-name for one. That was one of the reasons that Chrysler bought AMC way back when. But that would directly compete against the Hummer series (especially the H3). Sure, Jeep has brand-name recognition, but GM has spent millions in promoting the Hummer as a superior vehicle. I can’t see GM throwing away that much money, but then again, they’ve thrown away more on stupid projects that never saw the light of day.

Another thought would be Chrysler’s minivan market share, but it’s hard to believe that GM couldn’t drop enough money into the pot to come up with a minivan that would beat all comers. They just haven’t done this because there just isn’t enough justification for the investment.

The last thought would be the design. Chrysler’s designs are breathtaking, definitely different than what Ford or GM currently has. But if GM wants the designers, they can hire them away from Chrysler with a lot less money than what it would take to buy the company (rumored to be $5 Billion before liabilities).

On the downside is that GM is closing plants left and right. Chrysler’s recently announced restructuring plan is accelerating the cuts already planned. And if the two do merge, thousands from both companies will be out of jobs. And I guarantee that would not be good for either company – whatever brand loyalty there may be could evaporate in the wind, and investigations by the government and others would be intense.

No, I just cannot see GM buying Chrysler – just too much flak if the deal goes through. Could you imagine the amount of fallout from the Union, government, and employees of both companies? Not worth the risk, in my opinion.

What about the other companies? Let’s take a look at a couple of these companies.

Toyota has enough spare cash lying around to buy both Ford and GM, and then drive Chrysler out of business through sheer marketing. But they don’t want to buy any American plants or companies. They are doing just fine on their own without having to deal with the legacy costs of these companies, not to mention dealing with the Unions. They’re firing on all cylinders – why muck things up now?

Nissan recently tried an alliance with GM. Things fell apart, and Nissan is probably more interested in solidifying their positions in the various markets rather than stir things up.

Hyundai is an interesting company. They may want to buy Chrysler to help break deeper into the US market. But again, there are those legacy costs, and they may not have deep enough pockets to put up the money. I seem to remember that some years ago, Hyundai was nearly bankrupt, but my memory has faded somewhat.

So what’s left? Besides the above rumor & speculation, there is a theory that this is a ploy by person or persons unknown to jack up the stock prices of both GM and DCx (and if this is truly the case, then the SEC has cause to jump in and nail a few people). But there is just one more final thought.

The contract with the Union is up this year for Ford, GM, and DCx. What if this is just a ploy to get DCx’s Union to concede items at the bargaining table? DCx earlier tried to strong-arm the UAW to reduce health care benefits to the level that was conceded to Ford & GM. But since DCx was fairly profitable at the time (and paid the executives pretty healthy bonuses), that request was promptly rejected. So now the semi-subtle hint is now out there that if the UAW doesn’t play ball on DCx management’s terms, Chrysler will be sold to the highest bidder (and let the bloodletting begin).

Well, that’s my take on this rumor. It will be most interesting to see what transpires in the next couple of months.

Non-Binding Resolution?

Earlier today, in a rare Saturday session, the Senate narrowly defeated a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge to Iraq.  Does anyone think that this is anything other than political posturing?

This whole episode is most unsettling.  We all want our troops to come home.  What we differ on is the method and timing.  Do we want our troops to come home with heads held high and the mission accomplished, or heads and tails between their legs in defeat?

What I would like to ask our "representatives" is this:  If our troops come home early, then what happens to the Iraqi people?

Consider the words of a famous Democrat:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy

Should the troops leave early, I believe that Iraq will descend into chaos, and opportunistic countries like Iran and Syria would either take over Iraq in whole or in part (most likely as a puppet government).  And what happens to the freedom so recently achieved to the Iraqi people?  Gone like the wind after a sandstorm.

Perhaps one of my personal favorite Presidents had something to say about this:

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. - Ronald Reagan

But where is the moral courage of our politicians? 

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten. - John F. Kennedy

How prophetic!  Indeed, our chosen leaders, by and large, do not have the "quality of courage" to do the right and moral thing - see this war through to the end that needs to be done.  But then again,

Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. - Ronald Reagan

I don't make it any secret that I have low opinions of our politicians.  Power politics at the expense of what is right, moral, and beneficial to this country's well-being is despicable.  There's more than one post on this particular subject.  And that is exactly what today's vote was.

Of a larger concern is where the Democrats (and some of their Republican sympathizers) along with the Liberal Moonbat media will treat the radical Islamic death-seeking terrorists (including al Qaeda).  Talking will not solve this problem - action will.  The choice of action or inaction will decide the future of this country and its citizens.

I'll leave you with two more quotes:

It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. - John F. Kennedy

 

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. - Ronald Reagan

Who Is Special?

Before going on with this post, I would like to assure all of the readers of this post that I am not a racist, a bigot, and nor do I believe that any one race is superior to another. People are people, and how they conduct themselves is a reflection upon themselves, not about the color of their skin. Whether or not they want to make an issue of skin color, I leave that to the well-established organizations that have a history of such actions & views. Any comments alluding to the contrary will be subject to the Blog Comment Policy posted at the right.

As many of you know, February is Black History Month. This means that my work is now plastered with placards, posters, and art celebrating the ethnicity of Americans of African descent. I personally do not have a problem with this – everyone should be able to relate to and celebrate their heritage.

Other months and weeks celebrate Hispanic, Asian, and Native American ethnicity, and also have their own posters, art, and whatnot showing the rich culture that these groups have. And yes, there is a Gay, Lesbian, and Trans-gendered display for that community that gets put up once a year. But there is nothing celebrating the White, Caucasian, or European stock that populate this country.

Why is it that only certain groups get their days in the sun while a certain group does not? Now while I admit to being of mixed-Irish decent, St. Patrick's Day just doesn't cut it in my humble opinion. One day of revelry (?) does not make up for a month of hoopla (and even then there are some accounts that the day has a negative connotation about the Irish, but I digress). But if I or others of my ethnic background make a fuss about this apparent inequality, we are promptly branded racist, hate-mongering bigots.

This is one of the reasons that I believe that diversity, as a whole and in practice, is a sham. If we truly want to celebrate a diverse culture, we would not single out one race or skin-color for omission nor raise one up above all others. And if one ethnic group points out the inequality, they shouldn’t be flamed for it.

From another angle on the same subject, I was listening to a local radio station, and there was a statement that Detroit was the most segregated city in the United States. There was a further announcement that there was going to be a symposium to discuss the issue (translation: problem). Is this really a problem or not?

I hate to state the obvious, but people of similar ethnic backgrounds tend to band together. There is this herding instinct, one that wants to have familiar or similar faces and backgrounds around us. Be honest with yourself – do you have more friends of a similar race to yourself, or from a different race? What is your real preference? Nothing to be ashamed of – that's just the way humans are.

But the problem is that there are people thinking that this is inherently wrong behavior. These pointy-headed social engineers (PHSE) believe that to think differently than their paradigm means that you are racist and a hate-monger. Sorry, Professor PHSE, that is a false assumption for your perception of perceived problem.

The fact of the matter is that you and I most likely have more friends of similar skin color than not. This doesn’t mean that we are racist or bigoted. In fact, I get along with just about everyone whether or not they are the same skin color as I am or not. But the PHSEs don’t like this, and lobbied for laws and regulations to force the issue.

I’m not talking about the civil rights acts that guarantee everyone a fair shot at jobs, housing, or education. Rather, the ones that I am thinking of are ones that state quotas (explicit or implicit) for the same subjects: jobs, housing, and education.

As an example, there is a regulation that states that each large corporation must award a certain percentage of business to minority-based or owned suppliers. To do otherwise would incur higher taxes or fines. These businesses know this, and typically charge higher rates for their services. Is this fair to a non-minority owned business?

Another example is Michigan’s Proposal 2 that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters last election. It stated in part:

Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by this proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

And the courts are now battling the will of the people stating that this is unconstitutional! In effect, the courts are arguing that some places in these institutions should be reserved, i.e., a quota, for people that may not otherwise qualify or have the opportunity to attend school or get a job. Excuse me? Shouldn’t the best qualified people be hired for the job or an educational spot instead of a person that isn’t? Here would be my argument to the court:

Suppose that a person who does not have the ability or education is hired for the job of designing and building a highway bridge. They are contracted merely because the contract that needed to be filled was reserved for a person of that ethnic or social background. Would you want to be the first person to drive over that bridge after it’s completed?

Because of this argument, I have problems with quotas wrapped in the guise of affirmative action. Everyone should have an equal bite at the apple, but the deciding factor should be on the person's ability & merit, not race, gender, or social standing. Unfortunately, what has happened is not fair and is patronizing to those people that the affirmative action programs are supposedly helping.

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post titled Equal Diversity. In it I wrote:

Government sponsored quotas & regulations will not change people’s attitudes toward diversity. All these will do is promote division, dissension, and resentment. I have noticed in recent years an increase of these attitudes. This is NOT what Martin Luther King had in mind.

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.

So whether it is an ethnic holiday, applying for a job or education, or anything else, we should be color-blind, and so should our government, education, and employment institutions. It’s either all or nothing as far as I’m concerned – I’m fed up with the double-standards and favoritism. How about you?

American Idle - The New Season

Yes, American Idle is back for another season. Yes, I purposely misspelled the last word for a couple of reasons. One is that the number of people that show up who obviously have nothing better to do. The second is that I don't want to run afoul of using a trademarked name in my blog. In this age of litigation gone wild, I just can't be too careful, especially if Simon has had a bad day...

My wife, son, and I watched the New York auditions over the weekend (recorded, of course – to fast-forward through the commercials and the screeching sour notes). It was mentioned that the show had not held auditions in the area for some time, and I think they could have passed for another couple of years. The people that they selected to make the trip to Hollyweird didn't really seem to me to having the right stuff to make it all the way. But while the train wrecks were not necessarily classic, they did stand out as being downright awful!

Never have I seen so many people think that not only did they have talent, but they could sing on-key! Of course, nothing was further from the truth. And then they would argue that they should have another chance, that they can do better, it's their dream, and all of the other rubbish that people will say when they don't get their way. But there were a couple of standouts in this category.

The first one was the gentleman (and I use the term loosely) that wore a chinchilla boa and promptly declared that he was a superstar. When confronted with the fact that he wasn't a superstar (yet) unless he made it through this round and won the contest, he had the audacity to state that he was absolutely a superstar. He knew this because his family, his friends, and his therapist all said so. Ooooooooookkkkkkkk.......NEXT!! Of course, he cussed out everyone in sight, asked to see Simon's work visa, and generally made an ass of himself. At least he has the attitude of a superstar if not the talent....

The second was a woman who stated up front that she should be the next American Idle even though she admitted that she didn't have any talent for singing whatsoever. Her argument was that if she would be taught how to sing, her success would show that she would was truly deserving of the title of American Idle. While innovative, her argument didn't pass the laugh test, and she was shown the door.

While we were talking about the show later, I thought of how many people we didn't see on the show, and that all we saw were the best and worst of the auditions. Of course, people like to watch the crashes, and try to pick out the eventual winner. The mediocre get lost in the shuffle.

So the next thought that I had on the subject was unless you are really, really good, why on earth would you want to try out for this type of a talent competition? Unless you are a person that thrives on failure, why would you think or believe that you would have a chance? Then it hit me...

These people have been brainwashed into believing that if they think good thoughts and just try, then they will get anything that they want. This is an outgrowth of the low standards that the schools have in order to build up self-esteem. Thus, any effort is rewarded with a good grade or whatever the person is trying to achieve. No wonder some of these people looked shocked when they were told that their audition was abysmal, pathetic, and downright horrible. Almost makes you sorry for them once you understand that this could be one of the first doses of reality that these people had to face. Almost...

I'm not going to go on a rant about our society's obsession with self-esteem, the school's lack of higher standards, or the inability of people to grow up in the real world. Instead, look around you in the world that you inhabit, the people you come in contact with, and then wonder how it got to be this way. I have a short, one word answer for you....

LIBERALISM!!!

'Nough said. Rant over. Flame on!!

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

That seems to be the question of the century.  War in Iraq, terrorist attacks worldwide, nuclear weapons development and missile testing by questionable nations run by despots & dictators are just the tip of the iceberg.  So what's really going on?  Why can't we all get along and have some peace in the world?

I don't profess to be a professional in psychiatry, nor am I an anthropologist.  But there are observations that I have made over the years, and classes taken in psychology & human behavior which seem to explain some of the reasons why the world seems to be going to Hell on the express train.  Then there is the history of the human race that overshadows it all.

Ah, history!!  Constantly repeated, and the human race never learns from it's mistakes.  Throughout the entire recorded history of the human race, there has been conflict and war.  Causes of this bloodshed are many as they are varied.  But these conflicts seem to boil down to three causes:  Power, wealth, and to a lesser extent,(dare I write it) sex.  Hmm....sounds like the typical human, doesn't it?

Should you care to look back at ancient history, you would find many wars fought over land (power & wealth), trade (ditto), and women.  Think of the Trojan War, and you'll get the idea.  However, power craved by various rulers throughout history has made and destroyed countless nations.  Let's fast forward to the current world situation.

Let's start with Islamic terrorists.  Should they die killing the infidel, i.e., become a martyr, their religious leaders state that they will sit on the right hand of Allah (a position of power), be fed dates and other delicacies (wealth), and receive 72 virgins to pleasure them throughout eternity (sex).  Considering that most of the suicide bombers that are blowing themselves up are poor, illiterate, and desperate, this seems like the triple play to paradise.

How about Iran's leader?  He's looking for favor from Allah if he manages to wipe Israel off the map.  Huge bonus points for killing all of the Jews.  If he succeeds and dies in the attempt, he gets to sit even closer to Allah, and gets more delicious food to eat.  Sorry, your limit is still 72 unless Allah decides to supersize your order...

In another part of the world, how about Kim Jong Il?  He wants and needs power like a drug.  Power is what keeps him the leader of North Korea and its people.  He learned this from his father, and fully intends to keep it as long as he is alive.  What does he gain from it?  Everything that he desires and more.  And if he can get more, he will.

What about all of the other dictators & despots?  Being in those powerful positions means that they control a country and its people.  It also brings great wealth, so if something goes wrong, they can then flee to a friendly country to live out the rest of their lives (or at least as long as the gold lasts).  This last is what happened to Idi Amin.  He fled Uganda and ended up in (are you ready for this?) Saudi Arabia!  He stayed in exile for over 20 years before dying in Saudi Arabia.  And I doubt that he was lonely for female company.

Last, let's travel back to the Middle East to the late Saddam Hussien.  Take the chapter of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.  As stated in a previous post, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was motivated by money.  To quote from the post:

Kuwait heavily financed Iraq in the war with Iran in the amount of a $14 Billion loan. Iraq was not in a position to repay the loan, and Kuwait was not going to forgive the debt.

There is an old saying that's very true - "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."  And in the case of many of the countries worldwide, there are no limits to what these rulers can and will do.

So how do we get along with these countries & rulers that just don't want to get along with other countries?  Diplomacy can only go so far, especially if one of the countries is not intending to honor any agreements or treaties.  The dreaded Useless Nations can pass ridiculous resolutions, silly sanctions, and corny condemnations.  All of these really don't mean much - there are plenty of countries that will help the target country get by (Saddam sure did with a little help from his friends).  So what's next?

One of the solutions to this was put forth in the comments section of the same post.  The "Just Peacemaking" theory is one solution put forth by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, which is a Quaker-based organization, and was described by Dan as:

... one point behind Just Peacemaking theory is that peace need not be something desired by both sides. For instance, in Nicaragua, the Contras were terrorists trying to overthrow the Ortega presidency. They didn't care about peace, they went around killing, raping and "disappearing" those who stood in their way.

But while they didn't care about peace, they DID have their own interests at stake. THAT's the primary idea behind Just Peacemaking theory. Every entity has their own interests at stake. The idea is, find their interests and make them see that it is not in their own best interests to continue down the paths of violence.

In Nicaragua, the Contras were receiving funding from the US. So, peacemakers realized that if US and world citizens were in the villages being attacked by the contras, the contras would not be likely to attack. Not because they cared a thing about American peacemakers, but because they were aware of political realities enough to know that if they killed Americans, their funding (already tenuous) would certainly go away.

It's actually fairly cool. Even if you're not a pacifist, this approach makes a great deal of sense if you want to avoid the expense of war (it was a whole lot cheaper to have the Witnesses for Peace go to Nicaragua than it would have been to fund an army to fight the Contras - and more effective).

While this approach sounds appealing, and probably more cost-effective than a war, but this will not work in all situations.  The particular situation that I'm referring to is the suicide bombers listed above - they are driven by religious fervor and the promise of an eternity in Paradise.  They do not have the self-preservation motivation as the Contras listed above.  The same statement could also be applied to the current leadership in Iran should they continue on the course they have set out for themselves.

So what is the answer for one country (or people) getting along with another?  That depends on the country and situation.

If a country is reasonable in negotiations through diplomacy & compromise, great!  Agreements can be worked out to the mutual advantage of each, and peace can be enjoyed by both countries.  Otherwise...

A final note:  I do not believe that the human condition will ever experience peace throughout the world at the same time.  At least not in this life...