30 August 2008

Just one, please

Very well, we now have the line-up of the major parties for the fall:  Sen. Obama/Sen. Biden and Sen. McCain/Gov. Palin.

Can I choose just one?

I want the one without the Sen. in front of their name.

Gov. Sarah Palin.

No, really!  I don't agree with all of her positions, but she has more on the ball than the other three.

What?  "Experience"?

Ok, remove her experience as Governor, Mayor and heading up her own fishing business and what is left in the way of Executive experience amongst the other three?  Heading up a squadron is nice, but that is military leadership, not Executive experience in my book... if someone had to go and defend budgets, project cost expenditures and do the five-year out-cycle projections, that would be heading into military-executive experience.  That is why the 'ticket punching' in the military is necessary for advancement: it gets you into other areas of experience and gives a demonstration of your ability beyond combat leadership and equivalent of civilian-realm execution.

Sen. Obama's time on the failed Annenberg Challenge?  Well, just where did the money go?  Why doesn't he want to talk about it, and Bill Ayers and the money?  Look, if the guy is a failure at that and won't come clean about it, then how the hell can anyone vote for him?  It is 'Executive experience'... negative, yes, but some is better than none, isn't it?  We have had many failures in business and public projects that would be able to recover from those failures as they learned their mistakes.

That leaves Sen. Biden, and he has been in the Senate so long he has forgotten what the world outside of it looks like.  Before that its, what, three years as a lawyer?  Executive experience for him is nil.

So, I have a successful businessman, successful mayor of a small town for many years and successful Governor of a State bordering Putin's Russia, plus having worked a successful deal with Canada on an oil pipeline.

Executive experience?

1 out of 4.

Too bad she isn't at the top of the ticket.

Unfortunately, no matter how good a tactical move, even strategic move this is by Sen. McCain, I have the rest of his record to deal with.  If Gov. Palin is sent on an outreach to the old 'Rust Belt' States and in through the Appalachia from central NY State through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North and South Carolina to Georgia, plus Michigan, Colorado... then I will start to see something different from the McCain campaign.  Those regions play on Sarah Palin's strengths of having blue collar roots, leading a small business and being on the last, great wilderness of America and being more of a frontiersman than we have seen in over a generation on the political scene.  Her personal strengths and background will play very well in those regions.

If that is the strategic move by Sen. McCain, then the Republican Party may just survive, because there is a whole group of folks throughout those States that started walking out of the Democratic Party in 1968.  Reagan could entice them, but did not fundamentally change the Party to bring them in.  That frontier spirit is still alive and is the single largest rift in America since its founding.  These are the areas where women had to be strong as the wilderness was lethal, and where the men helped to cut a new life from that wilderness for their families.  Later they would slowly move to bend steel to their will along with those who were poor that came to help with good jobs.  They sought the frontiers of the West and finally Alaska.

To bring them in requires that Republicans stop moralizing and start enforcing their ethics on those things they claimed about small government, limited spending, low taxation, and protecting the Nation with her friends and allies in liberty.  Get this god damned government out of trying to do so much and interfere in our lives of freedom and liberty.  For that is the wilderness our founders wandered into - the great belief that each man should accomplish as best he can and society support its wholeness while government protects it.  That is the view of Thomas Paine in Common Sense, and I support it fully as it is rational and an excellent observation.

Government is not a 'solution' to anything: it is our accumulation of negative liberties used sparingly so that we can rest assured that they will not be abused in our names.  They are not good, those things we invest in government, and trying to make them into good assuredly destroys us.  At best we seek equal protection under the law, without government supporting some over others.

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

- President Andrew Jackson's Bank Veto Message, 10 JUL 1832 (Source: The Avalon Project)

Our negative liberties are not evil, but their exercise by individuals would destroy society and civilization.  Those that live in wilderness see the Laws of Nature and abide by them and remember that society is precious, just as government is necessary.  "Reform" only is necessary when government has forgotten its place and tries to displace society in many places and utilize negative liberties of coercion and twists them to those means.  Those liberties protect us when applied to criminals or those seeking to make Public or Private War upon us.  They only become evil in their abuse against the citizenry and civilization when government no longer keeps to its limited place.

Gov. Palin, from what I have seen, can bring this message home as she has demonstrated ethics against her own party in the case of corrupt Republicans and 'The Bridge to Nowhere'.  In the single case where there has been a 'scandal' she has so opened her doors to investigation that no subpoena's needed to be issued as all came willingly when asked.  She 'walks the walk' and does not seek to provide special favors to some over others in regulations, unlike the other three who have each supported that... which is why I am allergic to voting for them as they have demonstrated more than enough twisting of the laws to special interests against the humble members of society, seeking to lift some up over others by race, gender or nation of origin.

She is a deep breath of fresh air in the fetid swamp of this Presidential election cycle.

There is a case to be laid out for a new direction of the Republican Party towards tradition, ethics and limited government.

I doubt that the 'maverick' will ever go that far.

But a strong fisherman from the Bering Sea?

She is the 'Deadliest Catch' this cycle.

Because it is 'Tougher in Alaska'.

A serving of moose stew, if you please.

Sphere: Related Content

25 August 2008

Greatest moral failure

At The Thirty-Thousand they have up a transcript of the Saddleback Civil Forum, which featured both Presidential presumptive nominees, and there are some things that, really, do bring up problems.  When asking Sen. Obama about the greatest moral failure of his life, Sen. Obama came out with:

Obama: Well, in my own life, I'd break it up in stages. I had a difficult youth. My father wasn't in the house. I've written about this. There were times where I experimented with drugs and I drank in my teenage years. And what I trace this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And you know, I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about —

[Warren: I like that. I like that.]

It's about ... absolutely ... but look, you know, when I find myself taking the wrong step, I think a lot of times it's because I'm trying to protect myself instead of trying to do God's work.

[Warren: Yeah, fundamental selfishness.]

And so that, I think, is my own failure.

Now here you have something that actually rings true!  Yes, it does tend to all be about him, doesn't it?  And yet, when he criticizes America's greatest mortal failure, here is what he comes up with:

Obama: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we ... still don't abide by that ... basic precept in Matthew that: 'whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.' And that notion of — that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not ... thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class.

I mean, there's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about the least of these.

Ah, so very leftist this 'America can't do right because we just don't do enough' while outspending every other industrialized nation on the planet, per person, in charitable giving.  Not to speak of government help.  I've looked at that before, and no matter which way you cut it, be it cash, per capita, time volunteered... all of those are owned in the top spot by the American people.  But, of course, we don't count when it comes to these things... I mean we still have poor folks!  Which, in any competitive economic system you will *always* have a top and bottom 5%.  And the poor in America live much, much better than most 'middle class' people elsewhere on the planet.  In some countries our poor would be wealthy, if living in awful conditions... but that is due to having a rich nation that provides much for us, not a poor one with rich leaching off of their poor cousins.

What Sen. Obama forgot to tell you is that he has BOTH these moral failings: narcissism and being a miser towards the poor.

Or at least one poor man.

His 26 year old half-brother who he has met twice in Kenya.

That individual, George Hussein Onyango Obama, lives in a hut on $1... a month.  Three cents a day, give or take.

Andrew Breitbart on 26 AUG 2008 in the Washington Times reports on this, as only an Italian magazine and two London papers have actually done anything on this story.

Perhaps Sen. Obama would trot out not 'being his brother's keeper' as an excuse for doing nothing.

Growing up with poor relatives, not only in the US but in Poland, I was very familiar of sending money to them, 'slipping them a 5-spot' or bringing food over or taking someone out for shopping and a meal.  We couldn't get much together for packages to Poland in the Communist era, but the family did what we could, being basically lower-middle class and having some parts of the family done-right poor.  Poor, but not angry, not railing against government save for its asinine ways, not looking for a hand-out as family provided for them.

The American people understand poor relatives or those that have personal problems, and accepted that they at least had opportunity because of their relatives who did well.

Add this to the long list of problems I have with Sen. Obama: criticizing others for the faults that he has and not working to fix.  That is more than hypocritical when it involves family...

 

Honor

Do as you say.

Say what you mean.

Mean what you do.

Sphere: Related Content

24 August 2008

Sen. Obama lost in the wilderness of his own delusions

He's so new that he is passe, so great that he hasn't done a thing worthy of note that people feel compelled to say they support him.

And his supporters?

Heh.

Got that knock on the front door yesterday morning after Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama decided to put Sen. Joe Biden on the ticket. Yes a man and woman in their late 50's/early 60's showed up to ask me if I had thought about my choice for President. Joy, oh rapture, no? They were, of course, Obama-rama-ding-dongs. Look, I can't help that as I have zero respect for Sen. Barack Obama and quite a lot of disrespect for the felons, terrorists, and Chicago Machine politics that he has used to get himself into such a 'hope 'n change' place like Washington that he couldn't even be bothered to address the problems of Chi-town's machine. Well, he can't help that, they are his backers, after all.

Still, you have to love the con-job being pulled that will get out two such young looking near retirees out on a Saturday morning to canvass for him. Virginia is, of course, a swing state. And you know the script, I presume, so the bare lead-in is necessary, but the man did most of the talking:

'Have you thought about who you are going to vote for this election?'

-Why, yes, yes I have.

'Have you thought about Barack Obama?'

-I've examined him, yes. [I always try to remain cordial, respect elders, etc. Even if they are goofballs.]

'Will you be voting for him?'

-No, no I won't.

'Will you be voting for Sen. McCain?'

-Probably not, depends on different factors.

'Will you be voting for a third pary?'

-No, no I won't.

'Will you be voting?'

-Yes, yes I will.

'I see... who will you be voting for in the Senate race?'

-I am still making up my mind. [Perhaps it is time for a write-in campaign? What a mess this place is.]

'How about the Representative's race, will you be voting for Frank Wolf or [insert non-descript name of Democratic candidate here]

-That depends, does she think a trip to Syria as a good thing to do? I've pretty much had it with Congressmen supporting foreign dictators and tyrants.

'... ahh... I see... You aren't registered for a party. Do you consider yourself a Democrat?'

-No, I don't.

'A Republican?'

-No.

'Do you have any affiliation towards a party?'

-I'm a Jacksonian.

'Ah... a... a what?'

-A Jacksonian.

'We don't see many of those around anymore.'

-You would be surprised.

[Now the woman asks] 'What is a Jacksonian?'

-We are a live and let live people. While we support liberty everywhere, we can only safeguard our own, but to those that befriend us as friends and allies, we should stand with them to help them defend their liberty. If we cannot stand with our friends and allies in the world in their support of liberty then who should we stand with? It is a great good to help those seeking liberty to stand up and teach them to defend themselves to secure their own liberty as best as they can. We believe that the greatest gift we have is our liberty used via charity and good works. We do not hand over things to government that rightfully belong in our hands as the people, as government is the place we put our negative liberties so that we may have the greatest exercise of our positive ones. It is not a political philosophy but a way of living life that is good and honest. [Highly paraphrased, but you get the idea. I do not seek active antagonizing, that reflects poorly upon me as an individual]

[The woman continues] 'Who are you supporting this election?'

-No one. None are worthy of my support.

[Back to the man] I see. Thank you for your time. May we leave some literature for you to read?

-Of course. [The landfills don't mind.]

'Have a good day then.'

-And to you both. Thank you.

Ah, the light was dawning on someone there, in those misty hours where the sun had not yet made the dew chase away from the grass... but we have a north facing house, that is pretty normal. Still if you add up the 'live and let live', 'keep government small', 'support friends and allies', 'support charity', 'support liberty', and 'you are measured by those you do support in liberty', then you get a pretty fair thumbnail-sketch of things as the need for the Civil Sword should be rare but not seen as unnecessary. People like to concentrate on the latter and miss the former, and how much Jacksonians do value their friends in this world. Of course the denigration of those seeking to give respite or succor to tyrants, despots and dictators does point out the great lacks of Sen. Obama: he hasn't seen a one he won't meet with to 'seek peace'.

Just like Neville Chamberlain. And a number of the later rulers of Rome once the barbarians were at the gates.

Yes, a disturbing undertone there that will nibble at the conscience of two people who should be wiser for their age.

Their race? Does it matter? Black, white, asian, jewish, hispanic... if you are a citizen you deserve the respect of not having that matter, and those who bring it up are generally Democrats. We are supposed to be equal before the law with no 'set-asides' or 'special interests' or 'quotas', but to be equal under the due process of law both on the criminal and civil side, as citizens. I have said the same, basic, overlay to people of many different ethnic extractions because we are all created equal and all citizens of this great nation. Those who play 'favorites' end up with names like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Hussein [really, that isn't against the Senator!], bin Laden, Mugniyah, Ceauşescu... dictators, tyrants, despots, mass-murderers, terrorists - THEY play favorites. Not a good thing to emulate, that.

There is one other thing that has shown up since the Biden naming for VP candidate, and that is this bit from (H/t: Allahpundit at Hot Air) a Rasmussen poll:

Not surprisingly, Democrats were more supportive of Obama’s decision than anybody else—52% of those in his party agreed with his pick while 19% disagreed. However, just 43% of Democratic women said the presumptive nominee made the best pick while 23% disagreed.

Yes, a snap-poll and all that, so sacks of salt on the wagon. The anti-Obama sentiment amongst Democrats may have subsided from its height (about 30% from what I've seen) and the 'unity' may have brought that down to around 20%. That is pretty much the hard-core group, the PUMA group: Party Unity My Ass. This is a problem for Sen. Obama as the move to bring in Sen. Biden and not even talk to the PUMA's standard-bearer, Sen. Clinton, and the slow attempts to marginalize them and her are driving a race/gender/age based set of wedges into the Democratic Party. That work to *not* continue on with party tradition by having a traditional roll call vote for the nomination, not work with Sen. Clinton, not to even vet her for the VP slot, not to help out with a couple of fundraisers where he does more than say 'oh, and could you help Sen. Clinton, too?' each of those is a point of antagonism within the identity driven politics of the Democratic Party.

He has also forgotten what happens when a nominee *loses* in the fall: they tend to get excluded a bit from party leadership roles while always talked about as to 'how good their campaign was'. Ask Gore and Kerry on that.

And if this was an attempt at 'hope 'n change' then why did Sen. Obama pick the man who led the Iraq Study Group? Remember the folks who wanted to divide up Iraq? Apparently they both wanted to lose there.

Divide and Lose.

That should be the campaign slogan of their campaign.

It is only 'Divide and Conquer' when you do it to your enemies.

Something wholly treacherous when it is proposed for your friends.

Jacksonians also have a long memory, and that will not be forgotten.

Sphere: Related Content

22 August 2008

Arms and the common man's defense of liberty

This is, perhaps, the best time to be alive in the era of firearms.  While the long tradition of firearms goes back centuries to Chinese hand cannons and rocket launched arrows, the era of more common arms has moved from hand made, hand forged by the village smithy to small companies of the industrial revolution growing large and dominating the market for decades if not a century or more.  There has always been the streak of 'can do' work in US businesses, and the feeling that one man or woman with a vision can achieve their dreams.  If one is looking to purchase a firearm you can go to one of the large outfits and get some customizing done to suit your needs, and many of those companies have large and vocal clientele in support of each of them.  As an individual coming into the market I bring a different outlook on firearms, as witness by my writing, and business.

Supporting Amendment II, for me, requires understanding Article I, Section 10, then seeing how the liberty of the common man as applied to business allows driven individuals and ideas that take hold to give those holding them great value above and beyond money in their lives.  To support that, I then have criteria that are a bit different than most in the realm of arms, and they aren't necessarily technical excellence, although that, too, plays a role.  Let me step you through the 'rough and ready' criteria:

1)  Small Business -  If the heart of the American economy is small businesses, then it is there that I must look to uphold that more common value system of my fellow man.  Small business, to me, means a few things, not necessarily devoted to actual size of the company.  One of those things is size and getting to feel that the business is run due to stated, honest criteria that I agree with in some form.  Family run businesses that remain family run and see more than titular spots for family members is another strong criteria - I don't really care much if the next generation is just pushing papers, but if they are in the design, manufacture and testing part of the business and continuing its tradition, then that is a strong qualifier for this no matter how big the company is.  That man or woman with a dream or vision making good is another part of this, and their sticking to it and their values is extremely important no matter the company size, unless you are Microsoft.  The idea is supporting that American dream and all the Constitution, not just selected portions of it, while keeping it small, directed and personal.

2) Tradition -  The US has a good and strong history of firearms and keeping that tradition alive by ensuring that older weapons are appreciated and brought to the public so that one can get a living feel for our history is a major decider.  Here a minor American movement is seeing not only older styles of arms, going back to the muzzleloaders and percussion cap arms, but the personal touch that many of those arms had.  Be it the Revolution, Civil War or Cowboy era, these arms have a special place in American history, and as the antiques may not be that reliable due to age (or unobtainable) the modern reproduction and faithfulness to design becomes paramount.  Again dedication to mission almost certainly guarantees that this will go into the small business realm, as the strong tradition of firearms manufacturing in the US comes from that small, dedicated vision of what a good weapon is and should be.

3)  Innovation -  Of the area that the US should have under lock and key, it is the plethora of small business startups that fail.  They fail for many reasons, beyond manufacturing capability or how good the design actually is.  That said the 'following the vision' of a more perfect weapon covers a wide swath of things, beyond just good looks and minor changes to arms.  This is the category most overlooked in the US and is one where our true strength is found.  If the Kentucky Long Rifle was key to the Revolution, then it is those dedicated weaponsmiths of that time who made that gun possible and found its niche of ready purchasers that would come to shock the most powerful military of its era.

 

Those are the three, major criteria and notice that actually executing a good design is necessary, but the technical arguments for/against any particular weapon to me is, well, technical.  And so, let me put up some of the companies of interest, why they are of interest to me, and a signature weapon from each.

L.W. Seecamp and Co. -  How would you like to make a new firing design that is then used by the Big Boys?  The maker of pocket pistols has that distinction and their patented work is used by Glock, Kimber, Cold, Para Ordinance, Kahr, Springfield,Taurus... yes, good old US small business with a dedicated vision making good by having the highest honor paid to them: others wanted their work.  If you want a small weapon that is easy and safe to carry, then why go to a large manufacturer when the original company can still provide you with it?

Seecamp_Product380-Large

That is the Seecamp LWS .380, and it has a 6+1 round capacity and is about the size of a deck of standard playing cards.  Here it is the driven vision of making something for a part of the market that didn't have reliable weapons that put this on the charts along with technical innovation.  A vision led company to do one thing and do it well with technical excellence and innovation puts L.W. Seecamp and Co. on the list.  Ludwig (Louis) Wilhelm Seecamp was trained in the tradition of German gunsmithing in pre-WWII Germany and brought that to the US, and his company continues on as he founded it.  His patent has long since expired, but his company hasn't and the best homage to any innovator is to see those innovations copied and used.  If you like the Big Boys and their firing action, then perhaps you just might like the small guns that gave them that reliability.  As they say - "Size Matters".

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 3

 

Barrett Firearms Company -  I've mentioned Ronnie Barrett a few times as he was one of the first in the large bore revival movement in US firearms.  His dream was to create a .50 cal sniper rifle that would be accepted by the US Army, and when his weapon came up for test it would pass with flying colors, to become the M107 Sniper Rifle.  This puts him in an elite class of gunsmiths who have had total control over their design from start to finish and then would sell that design to the US Army:  Samuel Colt, John Browning,  and Eugene Stoner.  His innovative work came at a perfect time, when needing to reach out and hit someone in Afghanistan would matter a great deal.

With confirmed kills at distances that make your eyes water squinting into the distance, this gun can not only do the job and do it well.  Perhaps the Barrett Company didn't like the Macmillan TAC-50 and the Hornady Round getting the longest confirmed kill in Iraq, so they have designed a new cartridge, the Barrett .416 which will go long with a more stable flight and remain supersonic at well past a mile.  Although the day of needing a computer to hit longer than that in a reliable fashion is dawning, one must give credit to Ronnie Barrett and his dedication to firearms which would drive the competition to compete with an all American one man design.  Tag line - "Dependable. Reliable. Well-designed."

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 5

 

Kahr Arms - Where Amendment I and Amendment II meet is with Justin Moon, son of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and Kahr Arms.  Here there is the simplicity of loving firearms and the frustration of not finding just that one weapon that he wanted, and he would explain it:

I had been licensed to carry in New York State since I was 18 and had looked for an ultra-compact 9mm pistol. However, to my chagrin, I could not find a pistol with the quality of construction and features in design which I felt were appropriate for a carry gun. Therefore, I decided to design an ultra-compact 9-mm. pistol that I could carry. I spent the summer and much of my senior year designing the mechanical layout of the pistol and prototyping various designs concepts. By the time I graduated I had pretty much solved all the conceptual problems that hindered the manufacture of the pistol that I had in mind. From there I partnered with Saeilo to move to prototype the pistol and prepare for production.

Yes, you read that right, he was designing the pistol he wanted as a junior in college.  You really can't deride the Moonies if they can get a young man to do *that*, considering what most young men are doing in college at that age.  While Kahr is part of the Moonie owned Saeilo Group, it is run by Justin Moon and his drive for a weapon that he could use that met his specifications.  Still, Justin goes beyond that to one other aspect here, and that is the historical arms arena which pretty well makes Kahr a unique company even without the Unification Church - I would be citing the company because of vision and tradition.  The tradition?  Why picking up a well known company and then continuing its work with weapons that Americans know almost instinctively at this point.  That company was Auto-Ordinance Corp. and their main claim to fame was this gem:

Thompson 1927-A1

That is the Thompson 1927-A1 sub-machine gun.  The infamous "Tommy Gun" seen in the hands of so many gangsters in Chicago and guys like Winston Churchill that it carves an almost indelible image in the American psyche.  And this is the semi-automatic pistol version:

Thompson 1927-A1 TA5

Yes, it has a 50 round barrel magazine and you can even get a 100 round barrel magazine for it, State Laws permitting, of course.  You can even get a violin case for it!  Beyond that they also do a the M1 .30 cal Carbine, to bring back memories of that weapon.   The tagline from Justin Moon -

When it came to marketing the pistol, I did not feel that Saeilo would be a "catchy" name to put on my gun. I wanted a name that was short, easy to remember, and symbolic of the high quality of manufacture. Given Germany's renown for engineering prowess and quality, I wanted a name that sounded German. That's how I came up with "Kahr."

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 3, Trad - 4, Inno - 3

 

North American Arms - Sandy Chisholm was the man who resurrected Rocky Mountain Arms under a new guise to continue the work started by Dick Casull, and the company was bought traded to other companies until it was going to be chopped by its then owner Teleflex:

I was a 10-year employee of Philadelphia-based Teleflex serving in an M&A role on the corporate staff and had been closely involved in the Talley acquisition. Similarly, after the dust settled, I was charged with the NAA divestiture. It turned out to be a difficult sale; NAA was profitable and not requiring any time, attention or other resources from the parent, who was rather stubborn on both price and terms. During the two-year period I attempted to market this business on behalf of Teleflex, I saw first-hand the capabilities of the management team and the opportunities available to the business, given just a modest investment of time, "love" and money. So, in a "Victor Kiam/Remington moment," I chose to leave the corporate world and become a small business owner, which occurred in November of 1991.

Yes, success can be its own failure and if you don't require any upper management you can often find the company you work for about to go under because its parent just doesn't need it.  Sandy Chisholm would see the same area that L.W. Seecamp and Kahr would be going into, but from a different perspective: that of pure personal protection.  Personal protection would mean something different to him than the pure concealed carry vision of Seecamp or the effective 9mm of Justin Moon:

Another ignorant remark questions the "effectiveness" of such a small weapon/round, to which I reply "I don't care about the frame size or caliber of any gun; if it's pointed at me, it will absolutely change my behavior." There are reams of evidence that show that simply brandishing a gun will avert a potentially threatening situation.

And their arms look it!  At this size of pistol you start to get into the pure limits of what you can put together, and to show how that form factor pushes design similarity, we can look at this:

NAA Guardian 380 

That is the NAA Guardian .380 with 6+1 magazine, and its design similarity to the Seecamp is obvious.  Unlike Seecamp, NAA also goes for the revolver and puts together something very different:

NAA 22 Magnum Mini-Revolver

That is the NAA .22 Magnum Mini-Revolver 5 shot.  Again the concept is small and yet durable, so it can sit in a tackle box, purse, golf bag, or glove compartment with relative safety.  These are not, of necessity, weapons meant for a one shot kill, but to change the equation of an attacker to know that they are no longer in for a zero cost confrontation should they carry it out.  That, as Sandy Chisholm points out, is an effective deterrent in a vast number of situations where no longer being defenseless, even with something like these guns, is effective against the human psyche.  If this is your need and just for yourself, then even something like these guns will change minds and possible save a life.  Yours.

Tagline - "Convenient, Reliable, and very Effective."

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 2

 

E.M.F. Company Incorporated - From the era of black powder we can get a feeling for how our forefathers made and used weapons, and seek to experience that through modern replicas of those arms.  The Early and Modern Firearms Company in California is just such a company dedicated to bringing those weapons back by using original designs and recrafting those guns of yesteryear.  Their reason for being is clearly stated:

EMF Company is a leading source of historically accurate, collectible quality reproduction firearms of the Old West and Cowboy and Civil War eras, In 1956 EMF (Early & Modern Firearms) was founded to supply the demand for the guns seen in the movies and on television. EMF became a major distributor, and then manufacturer of the Great Western, the first reproduction of the famous Colt Model 1873 SAA.

EMF's mission is to provide quality, authentic, but safe firearms at the best prices. The keystone of EMF's "Cowboy Way" is to provide friendly, personal customer service and stand behind out products.

That dedication to Early/Early Modern firearms is seen up and down their line from black powder revolvers to Sharps rifles.  Not only in outward form, but with the same cosmetic appearance given by early industrial manufacturing these guns look new but to an older way of doing things.  Those eras helped to form the modern arms industry, and the weapons have that look that we have seen from movies, photographs and drawings not only modern but of their time.  So the real introduction to them is in their work:

walker-649

The 1847 Model Walker Black Powder Revolver, .44 caliber 6 shots.

And on the long gun side:

HENRY60Steel

The 1860 Henry Rifle, .45 caliber 24" blued octagonal barrel.

These are weapons that speak to the dedication of the manufacturer to their work.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 1

 

Kel-Tec CNC Industries - Kel-Tec originally started off as Interdynamic USA which was part of Interdynamic AB of Sweden.  It introduced the KG-9 to the US market and became Intratec, and the weapon designed by George Kellgren would become the Tec-9 as Carlos Garcia took the company over and George Kellgren left it.  Under a flurry of anti-gun lawsuits because the semi-automatic Tec-9 could be converted to a full automatic weapon, Intratec went under in 2001.  George Kellgren went on to start his own, privately owned business and called it Kel-Tec and he was the chief engineer as well as owner.  Thus the strange history of Interdynamic USA from Sweden to Intratec to Kel-Tec follows the path of companies and one man who made a gun to fit a part of the market that no one else was addressing: making the lightest, flattest semi-automatic 9mm on the market.  From there Kel-Tec would also address the concealed carry market for the plainclothes police needs and continue work into the rifle market.  Thus the old Tec-9 would disappear, but find some lineage in some of the other pistols designed at Kel-Tec:

plr16_pic01

That is the PLR-16 Pistol, 5.56 NATO, 10 round or M-16 compatible magazine.  These are not weapons designed for their good looks, but for use, emphasizing function above all and breaking into the top 10 of handgun sales in the US by doing that.  Here the work of one man to just make good weapons that function as necessary shines through the spartan finish, and even such a spare outlook can have a beauty all of its own.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 2, Inno - 3

 

Magnum Research Inc. - Jim Skildum and John Risdall are the majority owners of a company that has helped change the landscape of large bore pistols to the American mainstream.  They started, however, as contract designers for the Israeli military that would become the Desert Eagle pistol.  While others would make those under contract, all the design work, patents and copyrights were with Magnum Research.  From there they would produce rifles and single action magnum revolvers as well as a new line of Desert Eagle pistols:

DE_10-inch-matt-black

That is the Mark XIX Desert Eagle Pistol in Black Oxide 10" barrel, which can be done in .357 magnum, .44 magnum or .50AE.  Also available in 6" barrel models with a variety of finishes, including the famous Tiger Stripe:

DE_Tiger-Striped

That .50AE is not something one comes to expect from a pistol, really, but the work and care taken on these pistols has won a small but devoted group of fans who swear by them.  Depending on a whole bunch of factors, I can see the use of these guns on the big game hunting scene.  If you need to stop a suddenly appearing bull Moose who has taken a disfavor to you, this is what you want as your feet are unlikely to be a rescue.  Or a sentient Mack Truck that has suddenly decided it doesn't like humanity... and even with limited defense needs, they would still be a hoot to shoot is my bet.   That and their Biggest Finest Revolver group, also show this same dedication to getting the most and most accurate handgun firepower in the hands of the common man, and for that there must be due consideration and thanks.  And it just might start a new renaissance in the American desire for the very large bore pistol.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 4

 

Navy Arms Company - Our past is never far from us and Navy Arms seeks to ensure that history is not forgotten in the realm of firearms.  Started by Val Forgett Sr. who was dubbed the Father of the Modern Replica Firearms Industry, he worked to ensure that the skills and craft of previous eras was not to be forgotten, going so far as helping to form the US International Muzzloading Team in 1976.  Val Forgett III continues on that family tradition of replicas that do more than just replicate function, but require the knowledge and wisdom of the era to back them.  Their work starts in the Flintlock era and moves forward through percussion and black powder through to the late 19th century.  On each of their pages they give some of the background to the gun, who made it and why it was important to preserve as an active gun into the modern era.  Thus we can see this from the Flintlock era:

63_Charleville_Musket

The 1763 Charleville Musket, .69 cal which the Marquis de Lafayette brought a personal delivery of 25,000 with him to the colonies during the Revolutionary war.  Beyond that they also sought out designs to some of the guns that may not have been so famous, but still played a role in our history, like this sidearm used by General J. E. B. Stuart:

LMT102

The Cavalry Model Le Mat with a ball diameter of .451, 9 shot.  These were first made in Philadelphia by John Krider, but then were made in France during the Civil War and then exported through the UK where it gained British markings as it went through Bermuda to run the blockade of the South.

Navy Arms shows more than just replica care for their traditional arms, but the desire to popularize them so that we can understand how our liberty and freedom was secured by such weapons.  Their tagline: "First with the finest in quality replica firearms"

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 5, Inno - 2

 

Charter Arms - The concealed and inconspicuous gun market has a number of companies in it that have each taken a different approach as to why they make the guns they do.  Douglas McClennahan started Charter Arms in New England came to it with his own set of reasons:

To produce a high-quality, reliable handgun that was also highly affordable.

His first gun was one for undercover police officers in a .38 special, so that they would have at least one weapon that was reliable for their work that was also safe to carry.  Charter Arms would suffer from small business buyouts, mis-understandings and stock deals that were pretty complex for the size of the company.  Doug McClenehan and his life long friend, David Ecker, owned the company and David Ecker eventually bought the place and after the stock deals and such Nick Ecker, David's son, would finally end up with sole ownership of it with a temporary name change to Charter 2000 just before the millenia and then back to Charter Arms afterwards.  The company, however, prospered due to good quality manufacturing and a lifetime warranty on all their guns, which has made them a go-to for those in need of this type of gun.  Still their original Undercover line has prospered with many variations on the theme:

Undercover_13820

That is the Charter Undercover #13820, 5-shot, .38 special +P.  They also have a very similar looking one in a .44 special, and they also do a derringer:

Charter_72213

Which covers their Dixie Derringer .22 in LR and Mag, 5 shot.  Throughout it all Charter Arms has remained dedicated to producing high quality, low cost personal defense guns for both police and civilian use.  Tagline: "Personal protection is your responsibility"

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 2

 

East Ridge Gun Company Inc. - Can't afford a Barrett and yet still want the .50 BMG rifle?  Then ERG is your best bet to look for in the competition rifle arena, and they have rifles from the very spare benchrest to their high end competition series.  As Barrett may have signaled a new beginning to the large bore target rifle skill in the US, folks like ERG are necessary to popularize the fact that a more everyday crowd can enjoy the use of such guns and still have them not cost a few major limbs.  What is interesting is that the more spare the design, the more engineering that goes into giving the shooter a stable and accurate gun, so that one at the high end is a rifle that uses a sandbag and not a bipod:

ERG_LWcompetitor

That is the ERG Lightweight Competitor 2000 and it does set one back, although only about 2/3 cost of a Barrett while this model:

ERG_shortyBlackFull

the ERG Shorty in black (also has a nice walnut version) is only about 1/3 the Barrett.  Extras not included.  For Larry Lyle this must be a passion that puts him into the area of seeking to share his enjoyment of this type of rifle with more people and it is a great encouragement to the sport of precision long-range shooting.  Apparently that is what it takes to get this sort of thing going, and I do hope they succeed in that as the solo, unaided shooter at long range is an exacting test of skill and patience rarely seen in other sports.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 3

 

Para-Ordnance - Ted Szabo and Thanos Polyzos were two boyhood friends who shared a deep passion for guns.  They started out making not a regular firearm, but an autofire paintball gun!  You have to love how some of these companies start, really.  Ted had a problem with the 1911 gun platform: it didn't carry enough rounds.  He wanted to fix that.  There were some other problems with the 1911, as he saw it, but he recognized that John Browning had known what he was doing and respected that throughout his design re-work.  He took care that his improvements were those of modern understanding of guns and manufacturing that John Browning didn't have, so that each would be incorporated into the re-design and yet still retain the original look and feel of Brownings work.  A major case was the cartridge extractor, which had proven not only troublesome but actually dangerous in the original design and that attempts to shift the extractor to outside the housing actually made problems worse, not better.  Their site tells this part and it is telling:

Szabo reasoned that Browning had used an internal extractor to avoid both the dirt and containment problems but, not having 21st Century technology, he had done the best he could with his extractor design. Using the latest CAD/CAM design computers, Szabo studied the function of the extractor and looked at what areas could be improved.

The most obvious challenge was to maintain constant extractor tension on the rim of the cartridge case. This is important because, in addition to extracting an empty case, the extractor is also vital in feeding a fresh cartridge into the chamber. By giving the extractor a greater range of movement, Szabo created not only a better extractor, but also a controlled feed capability that would improve both feeding and extracting reliability.

The other area of improvement was in the size of the claw on the extractor that comes into contact with the rim of the cartridge case. With twice the surface area on the claw, twice the surface area contacts the case for positive feeding and extraction.

When you have to change the design, recognize the original intent and don't go beyond that - take the innovative path of conservative redesign.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and if it is broke, make sure the fix makes it work like its supposed to. 

Para Ordnance is dedicated to the highest quality, highest precision and most durable weapons that can be made on the 1911A1 platform as a start, and they are setting out to demonstrate that the old fashioned way:  by torturing their guns.  The poor things!  The premier gun for this torture test is the Para PXT 1911 and they were not kidding when they said they were going to torture it

PX1445EBphoto_big

And they set out one major question:  how fast 1,000 rounds of .45 ACP could be poured non-stop through a Para PXT 1911?  The day before the test they got the gun 'warmed up' by just firing 1,000 rounds through it and cleaning it overnight.  Have to make sure everything works, right?  Then they got World Speed Shooting Champion Todd Jarrett to use his pick of ammo and a couple of folks madly refilling the magazines and the result was: 10 minutes and 44 seconds.  Which was a new world's record... and the barrel was a 'deep golden color' which probably isn't the thing you like to see in a barrel of a pistol, I would gather.  They let it cool off and then did some performance target shooting.  And then more shooting all day, until 5,000 rounds went through it of various types.  In two days it had taken 5,000 rounds, with a single cleaning between the first 1,000 and the next 4,000.   I hope they used the 14+1 mag, but then they didn't say if the reloaders were on the torture line, too.

Para-Ordnance does the 1911 and they do it well, which marks high up in the dedication line.  Plus they respect the tradition started by John Browning on the 1911A1 and stick to that as best they can.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 4, Inno - 4

 

Henry Repeating Rifles - When the Henry Rifle Co. was bought out by Winchester, way back when, a gap has been left in the hearts of many who adored the Henry Rifles and wished to bring them back.  Many replica companies offer them, but few get the inspiration to see if the ability to do the fine quality craftsmanship at an affordable price and then continue on in that spirit of the original company could be done if it were still around.  So, while Henry Repeating Rifles is in no way related to the original company, they are working to do what the original Henry:

Today, the Henry Repeating Arms Company, a descendant of the venerable gunmaker, makes its home in a historic industrial area in Brooklyn, New York. From our inception our goal has been to manufacture a line of classic, well-crafted firearms that every enthusiast would find readily affordable. Every single part in each Henry rifle is made in America, and engineered with features that other gun makers often charge twice the price for. For that reason, our corporate motto is “Made in America and Priced Right”.

Hey, if a descendent of Sam Adams can dig up the original recipe to make beer, then a descendent from the original can rediscover that part of history and start from scratch but with the same outlook of their ancestor.  Today Anthony Imperato runs the family business of Henry Repeating Rifles with a dedication to high quality reproduction, craftsmanship and innovation so that modern designs in the same spirit of the original Henry Rifles can stand next to their predecessors and be compared to them for those areas of quality, craftsmanship and design outlook.  Are they replicas?  No.  These are newly designed guns made to have the look and feel of the original guns, even while being thoroughly modern in their capabilities:

h006_bigboy_lg

That is their Big Boy Lever Action octagonal barrel, .44 Mag/.44 special, 10 rounds.  Seeing that and you understand how look and feel matters, even when it has thoroughly modern mechanisms in it.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 3

 

Shiloh Sharps Rifles - There is a difference between replica and hand made to specifications, and that latter is where Shiloh Sharps Rifles comes in.  Many other companies offer replicas, but few offer the depth of customization and original action and work that Shiloh Sharps does.  Their webpage clearly states it right up front that this is not your normal replica company:

As you look around the pages of this site, you will discover that, as with the original Sharps, our rifles are not intended for the mass market. They are for the shooter, hunter, competitor and collector who wants something special. Therefore, we will NEVER SACRIFICE quality for higher production figures. To do so would compromise the "soul" of this product, and disappoint those wishing today for the quality that was the norm in the 19th Century American firearms. We feel that Shiloh Sharps Rifles reflect the extra time and effort that go into their manufacture.

They offer exactly two rifles, at present, the Sharps 1863 and 1874, custom made.  As is the case with the variations on original manufacture, so they replicate those as best they can.  Luckily, those arms had a large number of variants, so the customer gets those to choose from, like this:

bmilitary1874

That is the 1874 Military Carbine, base, which you can then go through the drop-downs to customize against original types.  Because these are custom made and to the exacting standards both of the original guns, the customer and their own craftsmanship, these are not cheap rifles.  They also have warnings about using modern smokeless in these rifles, as its pressures are far higher than the original powder, so the customer must be skilled in the use of the traditional powder.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 5, Inno - 2

 

Rohrbaugh Firearms - The concealed carry area of arms has, apparently, grown like gangbusters and yet the problems of finding a good and reliable firearm that can actually do some damage while being small has continually driven on gun makers to try yet another caliber and see if they can create that perfect concealed carry weapon.  Here I will let the company speak for itself as to why it came about:

Like all great inventions, the Rohrbaugh 9mm was born of necessity. Over a 20-year career as a firearms instructor and handgun trainer, Karl Rohrbaugh long recognized the need for a truly effective self-defensive pistol. Time and again, his clients had complained that currently available handguns were too big and bulky to carry and conceal comfortably, and to use effectively.

Mr. Rohrbaugh also noticed that the trend among manufacturers toward making their products smaller has not produced high-quality firearms. With millions invested in their current products, manufacturers have chosen to cut corners by simply cutting back on barrels and grips to give their guns a smaller look and feel. No major manufacturer has committed to invest in the considerable new design work, R&D and retooling required to produce a truly effective smaller pistol.

So, Mr. Rohrbaugh is hitting this from the R&D and stopping power side of things, which is track that some other companies haven't taken.  To that end the company concentrates on exactly two models:

R9 and R9s weighin

The R9 on the left is the .380 ACP while the R9s is on the right in 9mm, both carry 6 rounds.  There is lots of room at the bottom, as Mr. Feynman said about machining, and that appears to be very true in handguns.  Yet a company willing to invest in research to look for new ways to save space, weight and yet not sacrifice safety will push this market and require everyone to step up their performance to cut those things while not cutting quality.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 4

 

Freedom Arms Inc. -  From the fine state of Wyoming comes Freedom Arms, specializing in revolvers.  These are not replicas, although many are made in an old west style, but modern revolvers made to custom specifications.  In the arms market there will always be a place for those specialists who keep to traditional forms of manufacturing and craftsmanship and Freedom Arms brings that to their revolvers.  Thus their work not only looks to the past but to the present and they have also joined that arena of large bore handguns with the Model 83 5-shot revolver Premium Grade:

Freedom Arms Model 83 Premium adj sights

Available in 4.75", 6", 7.5" and 10" barrels, the gun can be made to handle .357 Mag, .41 Remington Mag, .44 Remington Mag, 454 Casull, .457 Linebaugh and .500 Wyoming Express.

By stressing accuracy, ballistics and the craftsmanship necessary to ensure the ballistics is used to its greatest potential, Freedom Arms represents the old school of making guns that fit the needs of the customer to the highest possible standards.  As these are not mass produced arms, the cost is commensurate with the work necessary to create them by hand.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 4, Inno - 4

 

Hi-Point Firearms - It is hard to say exactly what part of the market Hi-Point hits save that it is the low cost, lifetime guarantee end of it.  And that is 'no-questions asked' on the warranty, too, so that even if you are the third, fourth or millionth owner of the gun, if it fails, they will repair it for free.  That said, it is difficult to describe a first reaction to seeing one:

hipoint_45ACP

That is the 45ACP, 9 shot magazine pistol.  Combine low cost and guaranteed free repairs and no matter how it looks there will always be a ready market for anything with that, save, possibly, Yugos.  Still there is a thriving business and fans and simple design is often a reward on its own as far less can go wrong  with it.  Simple, easy to use, low cost, and guaranteed repairs for free means value, and most likely decent profits.  You can't knock that and I can personally see where a gun that *just works* has a very, very high value.  And since it doesn't look like a 1911, that means that the basics of innovation and trying to capture a different market are in place, and obviously working as there are many people who don't like the style of gun and would prefer something different in weight, grasp (not grip) and balance.

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 2, Inno - 2

 

Bond Arms - The Double Barrel Derringer is a classic gun and Bond Arms continues that history to the modern era as the original concealed carry gun is an active concept with them.  Because of its simplicity of action the Derringer continues to be the ready alternative to the modern semi-automatics and revolvers as the moving parts are trimmed down even more: there is less to go wrong:

Bond Arms Ranger

That is the Bond Arms Ranger with 4.25" barrels.  What Bond Arms has done is made an interchangeable barrel system so that a customer need only buy the barrels they need to the caliber they want and they can swap out barrels on-the-fly.  This allows for a form of reload in which pre-loaded barrels are kept secure until they are needed and swapped in.  For a modern Derringer that is, actually, a very, very good piece of work and innovative.  Other manufacturers may make Derringers, but by specializing Bond Arms can ensure that its market segment is well cared for and maintained and since it is a niche market, by retaining innovation it is very difficult for other manufacturers to get a significant portion of it.  And as the entire line of Derringers has interchangeable barrels for their frame it then allows the customer to decide exactly what they will need and still get variety of performance, all the way up to .410 shot shells.  And that would be some 'ace in the hole' when everything else runs out.  Tagline - "The finest in double barrel protection"

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 4, Inno - 3

 

Calico Light Weapon System - There are guns and then there is Calico.  This firm started out in the petroleum industry making specialized equipment.  They then had this strange idea that turns the idea of how to get ammunition into a firing chamber on its head... if you want innovation of a gun from top to bottom, inside and out, then what you want to look at is a Calico.  Their revolution was a feeding system called the Helical Feed Magazine and I can't recall ever having seen anything like it and yet it is so intuitively obvious that one wonders why it hasn't been done before:

LibertyIII_9mm_sm

That is the Calico Liberty III, 9mm.  What is that thing on top of it?  The 50 round magazine.  They also have a 100 round magazine available. 

Calico feed

Calico also has a speed loader, so that the 50 round magazine can be loaded in 15 seconds and the 100 in 30 seconds.  Due to the design of the magazine, there is not spring tension problems or wear if you keep it constantly loaded as the spring relies on torsion, not compression.  By redesigning the gun the spent chambers eject down, thus reducing muzzle climb.  The redesign also allows for a 5 second tool-less weapon strip.  The sights are on the magazine and adjustable so that you can adjust for distance and the offset between barrel and sight.  So that means you can have magazines of high capacity, always loaded, ready to go and an easy gun to maintain, to boot.  And the cost is very, very reasonable, to boot.  Available currently in .22LR and 9mm, soon in the 40 cal.  Tagline: "Running out of ammunition is a malfunction"

Personal rating on 5 stars: SB - 5, Trad - 3, Inno - 5

 

There are, of course, many others that I am leaving off, including LAR Manufacturing Grizzly and their .50 caliber work, Les Baer custom 1911's, Cimarron Firearms (although its hard to tell the natives from the imports), O. F. Mossberg & Sons Firearms, Wilson Combat Arms, and Nighthawk Custom arms.  But learning about the firearms market by scratching its surface in the US has given me a far greater appreciation for its scope and depth, from the custom traditional to the truly innovative.

We are truly blessed with having such capability and respect for tradition in our country.

And I can say that even restricting myself to just these businesses would still leave me with far more in the way of choices than I can readily conceive.  Because supporting liberty through small businesses doesn't mean getting short-changed.  Not by a long shot.

Sphere: Related Content

21 August 2008

Dumb Looks Still Free: Diversity?

This post started off as a series of random thoughts after reading Jeff Goldstein's post on Diversity at Protein Wisdom

Humans are a diverse lot within our species - we come in a myriad of hues, outlooks and personal views on things.  Some of these things arise from 'culture' but that cannot explain such things as 'personality' and 'attitude'.  In fact humans are allergic to actually defining and quantifying those latter, and we get some dreadfully inhuman feeling that trying to actually define something like, say, extroversion so as to factor it in to our views of self and society, and then put a means to measure it that is verifiable and quantifiable is just... well... dehumanizing.  Sort of like taking your blood pressure and factoring it in to your lifestyle so you can adjust various factors and not keel over dead due to complications from it.  Or not, as the case may be.

What?  You get your blood pressure measured?  Pretty damned unnatural, that, wanting to know what it is your body is doing in a general way - why not ignore it and just keel over when various factors finally make your system go down?  You know, just die naturally as your body intends it to?

You want to LIVE LONGER?  Damned unnatural, that.

Unless you like living, of course, then actually putting a peg on your blood pressure and other bodily functions so as to understand how they interwork and why is of importance.  While your genetic heritage will play a large part in your demise, your own actions will be a determining factor that is, actually, under your control.  As a person in a body that has multiple and diverse functions, you want to understand those functions and how they interact so as to take precautions and preventative measures in case your genetic material has some innate failings.  At that point you are working to adjust the actual function of that sub-system (be it organ or interaction of biochemicals system-wide) so as to ensure that the system continues to function well and within boundaries that are 'normal' to you as an individual.

Now that genetic heritage imparts many things to you: tendencies towards certain disorders based on ethnic heritage, similar based on familial lineage, an admixture of genes from two parents that may have recessive genes for a disorder that become dominant when taken together, and a whole host of other things, such as body morph type of your parent's background modified by that new gene suite that is yours.  Even with all conceptions being equal, and being born equal, that genetic suite will play a large role in determining how you live and how long you live.  And it has a large part to play in personality, attitude and the internal traits that will show up to you, as an individual, as you develop in your life.  That combined suite and interaction makes you something unique within the species and within the history of life:  an individual.

Just like a snowflake.

Walk up to a glacier and see the snowflakes!

No?

The properties of the water molecule and how it nucleates so as to freeze and form a crystal is based on many things, but when they are taken cumulatively they then start to form something different.  Get lots of snow and keep on adding more and reduce melt-off for a few centuries and you start to see that the oldest flakes are changing under pressure and beginning to turn into ice.  They still retain much of their background from their formation, but their individual structures have coalesced into a mass structure.  Once that is done and pressure mounts the ice begins to act as a slow moving, viscous fluid and heads downhill.  That earliest mass of individuals, now forgotten, have formed something different and created a new thing that depends on the contribution of all intervening layers from the topmost, individual flakes, to those layers of flakes getting compressed into ice to the bottom most melting under pressure and friction to allow movement of the whole mass.

When applied to human society, those historical contributions are called 'culture'.

Taken as a whole they become a new thing called 'society'.

Your individual contribution in the living stance is important: you are standing atop a vast, deep structure formed by hundreds of generations of human culture coming to coalesce into societies that are based on those cultures.  Geography then plays a role that is determinative, just like with glaciers, and allow for there to be variation of glaciers based on position, time, changes in snowfall, changes in insolation, how much of the underlying surface is entrained, and the actual composition of the snow based layers that can alter the chemistry of the glacier once they become compressed.  While all snowflakes are created equal, all glaciers are different.  Some are in places with very little snow and no melting worth counting, and thus move slowly, others get wet, rich snowfall in the tens of feet per year and turn into fast moving glaciers (as these things go), and still others get stuck in areas that are lower than surrounding mountains and actually circle around and around, finding no outlet.

When society meets geography we begin to get these things called 'states'.  These 'states' have a composition based on ethnicity, personal outlook, history of those that came before, how culture developed and along what lines, and then what is being added to the top layers as time goes on.  That pressure at the bottom begins to lose all but the most important societal and cultural memories and uses the vast bulk to engender motion of that society.  All of that takes on characteristics that are particular to geographic circumstances, so that even people of identical ethnic background will wind up with two entirely different formulations of culture and society based on geography.

The structure of a glacier, like that of a state, in no way belittles the importance of the top most individuals who happen to be part of that structure: they are necessary to the structure's continuation.  As individuals living in states we come to prefer a regularized means of adapting our needs to the general society and culture, and form an organizational structure to help ensure that this is done to our needs as individuals who are members of that greater organization.  We call these things 'nations', and they are the regularized means of actually trying to make sure our human created affairs don't implode under social, cultural and individual pressures and that a way of life continues that is amenable not only to the present generation but to past practices and 'lessons learned' by our ancestors.

Just as there are structures within your body, as an individual, that allow for your continuation of life, so, too, are there structures in a glacier that allow it to continue on its way based on geography.  Nations also have organs within them and become the accumulation point of those things that, when utilized by individuals, is a negative or detriment to the overall structure we call society and states. 

As individuals living under the Law of Nature you have complete liberty.  And you have no one to stop you save, by the Law of Nature, others exercising THEIR complete liberty upon YOU.  Since we are all created equal or start out at the equal base-state with some genetic factors, it is then incumbent upon each of us to understand that this complete suite of liberty to the individual has a high cost overhead.  'Nature red of tooth and claw' means that you are dinner to someone or something else, none excepted from the lowliest virus to the greatest predator you can name, each has perfect and complete liberty based on their heritage and will succumb to complete liberty.

The foundation of culture is understanding that some of that liberty can be passed over to a group of our fellow beings in which we will act in unison: we create culture to reduce friction and bring ourselves together in common accord for our protection and restricted exercise of those liberties that are negative to our personal survival that would be the case without our grouping them together.  That group culture has member based limits, usually pegged at between 120 and 150 individuals, after which the intergroup problems cause sub-groups to splinter off.  To create something more than that requires a society of agreed-upon common understandings and the formation of some way to organize the policing of those standards.  That organizational structure concept may have started as early as 8,000 BC, but once invented it spread like wildfire and still remains with us to this day.

That internal working order and compliance system to reinforce the common agreements amongst ourselves in the larger than 150 member group comes by a name:  government.  We have handed government the negative means to enforce compliance of the individual with society, when individuals break that common agreement.  Government is no boon to mankind, but a necessary creation of humans so that we can live together in common agreement and accord.  That expanded structure over a geographic region that may encompass many similar societies that have a larger basis for agreement becomes a National Government to protect their common State.  No other structure yet devised can protect individuals from the full suite of liberty they are born with as well as governments.  By using the coercive bulwark of following the agreed-upon structures across the societies in a Nation, government then brings the members into compliance with that common agreement.

That is this thing called Diversity with common agreement for a mutual society.

Individuals may have problems with some of the sub-structures in that society, but so long as the outward manifestations of the common agreement are held upon in public and for the common good, trying to force each individual into any greater compliance becomes an authoritarian move to utilize some other vision of what the common agreement 'should be' rather than what it is.  What is forgotten is that the Nation, like a glacier, is guided not by the top but by the bottom and the geography it has: the intervening layers take a lot to change and there is usually a huge death toll in trying to change them.

Japan lost its centuries of Imperial Military culture during World War II: the glacier that was Japanese culture hit a chasm that the underlying structure fell into taking that leading edge along with it.  Some of the partially melted and solidified layers emerged on the other side while the old Imperial culture filled the chasm and was lost.  The death toll to do that was horrific by any measure.  Once bridged that new culture retained positive aspects that helped it along, and formed a new basis for movement at the bottom.

US society had a wedge of rock that divided it for its first decades and no one knew if the structure would be considered whole or not.  Was this going to turn into two separate valleys or was this a structure that would be ground down and away by the society?  Blood joined the two parts into a whole and while still fractured in that area, the mass continues onwards in a single valley.  We still have the inclusions in American society that shows up that older stand of rock that proved to be a separation but not a division, that due to the outcome of the Civil War.  That could have proven otherwise, but did not do so and because of the outcome of that conflict the US must be addressed by society.  The original agreement that formed the Nation included that separation and reconciling it was expected to be done in a civil fashion over years.  Instead that separation had kept to a feeling that the original papering over of how the Nation was formed was to be for all time.

The actual effort to remove that separation, demonstrate that all men are created equal and that by coming into this world and being born into should not place an individual into a separate bin according to race, class, or ethnic backgrounds took that bloodshed to finally establish and remove the underpinnings of the separation.  Grinding away at the inclusions, those artifacts brought into the overall culture and finally diminishing them and removing the worse of them is not an overnight affair and takes generations.  Citing differences in culture due to that separation belies the underlying structure of seeing each individual born into the world as free and having liberty.  That liberty is not 'cost free' to exercise in restraint: we give up the negative aspects of it to government so that we may exercise the positive aspects to be better individuals and create a world where the positive aspects of liberty overwhelm its negative aspects.  That is our job at the top of the glacier of the Nation called the United States that is composed of many and diverse people.

Where Jeff Goldstein goes, and I do concur, is that modern 'Diversity' views are not set up to help bring the positives of other societies into ours while removing the negative hold-overs.  The strange concept that you can come to ANY Nation and not want to be a part of its culture and, indeed, work to establish a separate culture within the Nation is not only divisive: it is lethal.  Coming to a Nation means agreeing to the social compact of that Nation which represents the state, society and cultures of that Nation.  To do that one must partake of love of that Nation for the things it represents via that culture, society, state and government. 

If one puts forward that the ever present proviso of 'but you should criticize it for things it does wrong' then you cannot absolve yourself from that exact, same criticism if your actions are an attempt to divide, not just separate, cultures within a Nation away from the common accord.  To the profound dismay of many, it is that second aspect of 'asking questions' that rises above the common accord to cause division and dissension by trying to establish cultural enclaves and communities that do not represent the agreement to have a Nation in common.  This does not mean that there are not cultural references to other cultures, that is profound and true of the common agreement in the United States, but it does point out that it is that act of finding something that is American that will underlie all of those who wish to consider themselves to be American.  That common understanding must come first, separate of other cultures, because the United States is attempting to make a unique culture unlike any other on this planet.

'Why can't we be like everyone else?'

Because we set out to be profoundly different FROM everyone else and show a way in which liberty could be held accountable and yet its positive aspects fully emphasized to create the greatest freedom for mankind that has ever been witnessed in history.  By inserting a hyphen and creating the -American, you are creating a negative sign in the equation that puts other culture, ethnicity and 'diversity' FIRST and then subtracts American from it.  That is one of the most insidious of mental cues that can be done to a Nation as it demeans and belittles that National experience of culture, society and state and then purports that the part subtracted, after taking America away, still leaves good things that are not taken into the culture as a whole.

If they are so good, then why aren't they put forth in a way that is acceptable to EVERYONE so that we may share in that common good?  What happens is that the 'diversity' is then enhanced to try and make individuals feel SPECIAL because of that ethnic heritage, emphasize that ethnic heritage and cause divisiveness in a land where everyone is born EQUAL.  If one can subtract the American part of the hyphenated Americans and still be left with good things, then someone is not sharing their cultural wealth with the whole of the Nation and is no longer agreeing to that common cultural compact to create a NEW culture that emphasizes accountable liberty for the greatest possible positive freedom.  And the judge of the actual, positive value of those things brought in is NOT the individual, but the acceptance or lack of same of those cultural artifacts by the greater society as a whole.  That is how the good gets winnowed from the bad, and no matter how good this or that cultural trait may seem to those who practice it, they are not the final arbiters for the entirety of acceptance by society.

One area where America demonstrates tolerance is in the upkeeping of the Peace of Westphalia which established different realms for the spiritual realm of religion and the secular realm of the state.  That cultural artifact pre-dates the United States by over a century, and yet is seen as a primary inclusion into the Nation as it affords toleration of religion that does not seek to upend the common society as a whole.  That was included not only because of the obligations placed upon us by Westphalia via lineage, but also due to the wisdom of keeping religion out of the secular common good so that it would not divide peoples along those lines.  Those rallying to the fact that the founders were 'Christians' ignore that they were being 'Good Christians' and upholding the Peace of Westphalia so that the differences in Christianity would not divide the new Nation.  The most ardent supporters of that were priests and the clergy of many sects already in America as part of separate states that would form the Nation of the United States.

As that comes to pass we also tolerate a wide 'diversity' of religions, so long as they do not seek secular power to differentiate between men based upon religion.  We give high honor to those Good Christians who formed this Nation because, on the religious side, they had vehement and deep disagreements with each other and yet agreed not to let that bigotry stop them from creating a Nation that would respect all religions.  That did not stop their personal bigotry towards other religious outlooks, but it limited it to the private sphere of discourse because that is a POSITIVE liberty: discussion in society over issues of a profound moral character.  Government is restricted from that area as it cannot seek its guidance from any single source, but from the entirety of the experience of the people as represented in their majority and minority.  Neither minority or majority are allowed to dictate to society: majority rules, but minority circumscribes those things that would negatively impact the greater Nation as a whole.  In the realm of religion that actually has voice in the most personal religion possible, which is that practiced by a sole believer.

Arguments and ideas pulled from the realm of the spiritual then must face the test of the secular in being agreeable to the majority, not infringe on the minority and respect the rights of the individuals of society.  Religion can and does have a place in the public square as a source of moral guidance.  The question of the good of that guidance cannot be decided by religion for the common man, but must be represented as a good and secular force *beyond* religion.  This is one of the nastiest points of the separation of the spiritual and secular: they are not separated but have defined limits of activity upon them.  A religious doctrine may be good, upstanding and moral within that defined religion, and yet not have rigorous backing that is acceptable to the secular state and the common accord.  It can even be Christian and fail in this test, and any wishing to make religiously guided teachings a part of the common culture and law must do the exact, same thing and demonstrate the worthiness of that belief or set of beliefs to the secular whole.

Of course every secular idea has to do the same.

Some folks seem to forget that.

Because the test is equal.

'Diversity' by creating a glamour around cultural differences is not an attempt to ensure that common richness is held by the entire society, but to impute that the differences due to those things is more important than the shared, common values.  That, too, faces the secular test of culture and society before even getting to the level of the overall state.  One of the pernicious attitudes is that those cultural artifacts due to class, race or ethnicity creates something different and that those differences should be emphasized.  What that does is not create an object in the landscape to face the test of the overall state representing society, but to attempt to drive wedges into the state to break up society along those hyphenated lines.

Ghettos and poor areas in America had been the place where the new immigrants typically landed as they were poor and unfamiliar with the culture they were trying to adopt to.  Yet, those ghettos would see a great diversity over time as various ethnic groups moved through them and into larger American society.  Waves of Poles, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Dutch, Spanish, French, Russian, Lebanese, Turks, Arabs... all have or are going through an acculturization experience in which they shift from being who they were to becoming Americans.  It is only in the near modern era when a view towards uplifting that diversity and enshrining it by creating a separate culture of the ghetto would attempt to wash out that long background and create a separate experience based on race, not culture. 

Those groups, individuals and companies who seek to emphasize this are trying to create a permanent underclass and place for certain portions of the population in what is traditionally a transitory place to achievement at a personal and cultural level.  The poor in urban ghettos are only 'poor' in comparison to their fellow countrymen in the main, and not poor as compared to the majority of humanity and, indeed, the majority of all humans living and dead.  Yet that success, perhaps one of the greatest monuments to mankind where a beggar in the streets of a modern American city has more access to the keys to succeed than nearly anyone else for all of human history is, instead, used as a 'wedge issue' to divide the Nation based on monetary class and race.  If we cannot acknowledge the success that our forefathers have allowed us to build upon, then we will forever be tearing at that self-same structure to make everyone exactly equal for all of life, and thusly perpetually poor.

If race were a determinant, then the 20% of black sub-population (a.k.a. the African-American community, although blacks come from more places than just Africa) in America who have shifted from the poor ghetto to the suburban middle class would not be possible.  By trying to maintain a poverty by race culture, those seeking that end are trying to permanently curb a group of our fellow citizens into perpetual poverty and unrest.  Seeking 'reparations' for slavery is a slap in the face to the generations of those who have stood between that era of emancipation and who had worked hard, damned hard, to ensure that their children get a better life and the full recognition of their equality as men.  That 20% is not an all time statistic, but representing a shift away from the ghetto culture as black Americans come to terms with the rest of society of what it means to be black in America without trying to tear down the rest of society to do it.  But then slavery and involuntary servitude was never a sole black issue, just a majority one, and the emphasizing of race then demeans those who were WHITE and brought here in slavery and servitude or, even worse, thrown out by a mother Nation because they were given a choice that was very stark for crimes committed: leave or die.  Others would flee because they were social outcasts due to religion, sexuality, promiscuity, or just unable to get along with anyone else and they faced a certain, lethal, end if they stayed where they were.

As a land of opportunity, however, if one can trace direct descent to those given the actual promise of help to a new life, then I do support that promise.  'Forty acres and a mule' represents a path given to better oneself, start a new life and work hard to establish that life in the community.  I fully and completely support a new life for those seeking it via hard work, so long as they throw away all the excuses used, now, to denigrate their forefathers for the hard work they did to give them a better life.  America should always stand up for those seeking to remake themselves as vital citizens who do not seek to denigrate or destroy society, but instead seek a better life for themselves and their children via hard work.  Because that is what forty acres and a mule WAS, and the value of the land and mule may have changed, but the value of the hard work to make something with one's own hands with those modest means is perpetual.  We have vast swaths of land that can be farmed by individual farmers who can find the means to scratch a living from the earth and any who want reparations *now* should have that exact, same offer given to them.

Sans bank account.

Sans school records.

Sans telephone.

Perhaps with the tools, seed grain and a short stack of MREs to tide them over.

A new life, a new land, a new way to demonstrate your worth to yourself by taking up those things your grandparents or great-grandparents were denied.  I am more than willing to see that for those who feel that what they have today is in any way what those who were emancipated were denied.  You cannot claim to be deprived and yet have iPods, expensive clothes, television and car as that places you ahead of the vast majority of humanity.  Not to speak of your forefathers.

To those who come here voluntarily, they have made a willful choice to adopt to a new land.  While modern electronics may make it difficult to leave one's home culture behind, it must be recognized that the physical change in venue means that the home culture is no longer operative for you, as an individual.  If you can't leave it behind, then why leave in the first place?  America is not here to attract the rich, but to attract those who wish to exercise liberty on behalf of themselves and their family.  The invocation of liberty is not to be separate but equal, but to be equal and prosper or not by your ability to live by what you can do.  In that area, the United States stands alone, culturally, as your birth does not circumscribe success for the individual: the individual does that for themselves.  Some will define success modestly, to what others see, and yet have great meaning in modest success beyond what any who achieve fame and fortune can ever find in those things.  It is not the height of the overall goal, but the steadfast work to achieve it that is the measure of a man in America.  Sadly, not all succeed, and that is in the nature of being human: we may all have an equal start in life but our gifts may not be equal to our aspirations.  While those who seek fame and fortune and then fall from the light of fame due to their lacks may have a more spectacular rise and fall, that is nothing compared to a man who sets modest goals in life and finds his gifts unequal to their achievement.

Learning is the movement to take in new knowledge and skills and then seek to apply them, then evaluate success.  Some individuals have in-born talent and tools that can make the most complex of things look ridiculously easy... until you try them.  Others come to terms with their lacks and yet their goals place them squarely in the path of their lack of talent and that individual must then ask if the goal is worth this effort on their behalf?  Finally, others will see that a single goal can be met by different paths and eschew a common way to approach things and blaze a new trail for themselves that may wind them up forever lost, but with an appreciation of what they have done and, possibly, finding an even better goal than the original.  Here there is diversity due to individuality, not by culture although that plays a part in it as individuals cannot divorce themselves from culture.

Government has very limited role to play in a land where liberty is paramount, as it is the basis of liberty for each to achieve as they are able for themselves and then live on those fruits of their labor.  Pure monetary reward is not the only measure of a man nor income, the ability to sustain a life according to how well they succeed in what they do and their satisfaction with that: that is reward.  Some individuals get rewarded in a monetary way out of all proportion to their work, they get 'rich' by doing very little in life.  That is how our culture is arranged, and if you create a cheap fad and profit from it by your understanding of human nature, then you are due the compensation in proportion to whatever you can get for that meager work.  The incredibly rich, those well off beyond all understanding of simple checkbook math, are those that can put forth those funds as they choose, and even try to influence and 'guide' the society around them through those creations.  The disdain and even hatred for George Soros is an echo of that felt for Carnegie, Rockefeller and a host of Robber Barons and 'Captains of Industry' throughout our history.  And when those individuals and groups try to get their hands on the form of power that is from the common man, namely government, the blessing of small government is witness and manifest: there is nothing there to control.  Limited government is controlled government, with restrictions upon itself that it crosses only at peril of disdain, hatred and revolution.

Here the 'diversity' is in ensuring that the common good cannot dictate to all the citizenry, so that liberty can flourish in those areas where doing good means doing well.  The moment one thinks to 'transfer wealth' or 'soak the rich' and then allow taxation upon the individual citizen to be unequal, we become unequal before the eyes of government.  Equality before the due process of law must be regular and complete across all aspects of government, and only where wealth gives power to destroy society or enslave it must government step in.  But the nature of that aid has its own peril, especially when charity that is the heart of the common man, is given to the punisher of government.  The effect of ensuring handouts to the poor, without having to do a thing to get them, is not 'good' but an enticement to stop striving completely and hand your ability to survive over to government.  That has a word in our language: slavery.

When the call to break our common agreement via amendment, to allow government to tax individuals unequally, it was promised then that this would never, ever, not once, go beyond the 'top 5%' of those who had wealth in the Nation.  To our shame, We the People bought that idea and now gave our common and collective protector and handler of the tools of punishment a way to treat the common man unequally.  That promise to 'soak the rich' went quickly by the wayside as those in the realm of government sought to create 'diversity' of taxation and find new and better ways to tax the individual as they saw fit.  Prior to that government must, by necessity, treat everyone equally because it could not differentiate on any basis amongst the citizenry.  The rich could influence society, but only in limited ways via government, and only when the tools of taxation unequally became available did discrimination BY government become a form of diversity imposed from above.  Government would not have dared to insinuate that individuals could not earn their keep, that they must accept funds from government, that not working was perfectly acceptable and that moving to government run housing that would be perfectly in-place in the USSR was a 'good thing' for the poor in America.  Yet by the 1960's 'diversity' had seen so much government power over-running the poor that this was the case.

For those of today who seek 'reparations' they really should ask how their people, once enslaved by the law were to become enslaved by the power handed to government to discriminate based on wealth.  While that slightly poisoned and addictive drug of handouts might be good in the short run, the long run is lethal to those seeking liberty and to be free.  Now that we head into an era of 'cultural sensitivity' based on any perception of any discrimination amongst minor things in life, each of those is made out to be the looming chasm of racism, sexism and a host of other maladies that are, by and large, gone from society.  Instead of individuals or society discriminating, now it is GOVERNMENT that does so by playing 'favorites' and pitting class against class, ethnicity against ethnicity, gender against gender, all to 'right wrongs' of times past which are, strangely, passed and not the present.  The very insurance of equality was equal treatment via due process of law, but the law is now very unequal in distributing goodies across society, and uplifting some at the expense of others.  That 'top 5%' pays for more than 50% of all public good, while the bottom 50% pays virtually NOTHING, which means that between 51% and 94% you see the other 50% of payments to the 'common good'.

I thought this was supposed to be an equal venture with everyone paying their way?

Just as society started to come to terms with racism was the exact, same time that government started to enforce racial quotas, racial distribution of wealth and started to dictate to a portion of the population that being enslaved to government welfare was far better than 'discrimination'.  The very thing that the poorest lobbied for, 'soaking the rich' would come back to haunt them as the rich paid the bulk of the load and those paying nothing went into virtual slavery to ensure that a government check would show up for them.  That would not only hurt this nation economically, by dooming a portion of society to perpetual servile attitudes of the 'gimme' type, and expecting hand-outs, but also it is a loss to liberty and freedom for everyone.  The very thing we now see as a bane amongst ourselves is enshrined in law and perpetuated by those seeking power in keeping those divisions in place.  What is even worse is that this was slowly devouring those who had modest jobs, and yet still were able to keep families going and enshrine an idea of self-worth through self-work and achievement.  Ending perpetual handouts is not an evil act, but one that recognizes an individual must have some dignity on their own to achieve, no matter how modestly, for themselves.  We abandoned the 'poor houses' for government mandated housing, and got ghettos that were run down the moment they were completed and fostered an idea of perpetual poverty.  No longer could the poor work together with some help from government to achieve on their own and lift themselves up out of poverty by their own hands.  Those who cried in sorrow at that plight of our fellow citizens never lived to see that turned into social isolation worse than any gulag as crime and anti-societal groups ran free in those areas.  And the actual property that was owned by citizens that was wiped out to bring this supposed good, ensured that those individuals would loose any chance to build themselves out of poverty.

Those deeply driven wedges into this state and its society are still being worked from government, no longer the problem created by society, but instead a far worse remedy than any problem it is supposed to solve.  Many of those housing projects were condemned in a short decade after opening as they crumbled into decay and the people in them had no ownership of anything, save personal goods.  In a society of monetary achievement there will always be a 'rich' and a 'poor', an upper 5% and lowest 5% that is pure math and cannot be changed save to make everyone monetarily equal and, thusly, their worth of no value whatsoever as no matter what you achieve, you are just the same as the next man.  Only government can mandate that, and become tyrannical to an absolute degree to achieve it.  It would end 'diversity' unlike any other thing on this planet and be absolutely 'fair' as it would treat everyone as servants of the state.  Yet it is in calling for that sort of 'fairness' to recognize 'diversity' that will assuredly end it.

We are a diverse people, from diverse backgrounds and diverse views.

Yet we join together to uphold liberty and equality so that we may all be equal before the punisher of government and give it no special power over any single one of us.

Because that is a good thing for all of us.

Out of diversity we become one single people, dedicated to liberty and freedom

Out of many, One.

Sphere: Related Content

19 August 2008

Dumb Looks Still Free: citizenship and abortion

If there is any complaint about my views is that they are in the negative towards politicians. Well, they are due to them being... politicians. By and large the concept of 'political expediency' across the board has left me, as a common man, feeling quite left out of things. There are no basic, matter-of-fact, common sense candidates for me to support. That is just personal, however, as I am not a gut-wrenching, emotion changing sort of voter, but one looking to uphold that which is common across society while infringing the rights of none and expanding the liberties available to us as citizens. And that puts me in a very strange place with respect to citizenship and abortion, the two very nasty things that no one likes to put together to actually address the 'abortion issue'. Even stranger is that I think one political candidate had gotten the basic premise *right* but then cannot work from there in any reasonable fashion.

Who it is, and why he fails are, to me, self-explanatory.

From the NY Sun on 18 AUG 2008 article by Russell Berman looking at Barack Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record (H/t: Hot Air's Ed Morrissey):

The presumptive Democratic nominee responded sharply in an interview Saturday night with the Christian Broadcast Network, saying anti-abortion groups were "lying" about his record.

"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.

At issue is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a bill in the Illinois state Senate that sought to protect against bungled abortions by requiring that a fetus that survived an abortion be defined as a person. Fearing that the legislation could be interpreted more broadly to protect fetuses that were not yet viable — thus threatening Roe v. Wade, abortion rights advocates pushed for an amendment that explicitly limited the scope of the bill to infants "born alive."

"Nothing in this section," the added sentence reads, "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section." A federal version with that added clause passed Congress unanimously in 2002, with the support of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy, among others. Mr. Obama said in 2004 and again on Saturday that he would have supported the federal version.

During the Democratic primary, Mrs. Clinton's campaign criticized Mr. Obama for voting "present" — instead of "no" — on the "Born Alive" bill in Illinois, which did not contain a provision protecting the Roe v. Wade decision.

The dispute flared again last week when a leading opponent of legalized abortion, the National Right to Life Committee, posted records from the Illinois Legislature showing that Mr. Obama, while chairman of a Senate committee, in 2003, voted against a "Born Alive" bill that contained nearly identical language to the federal bill that passed unanimously, including the provision limiting its scope.

The group says the documents prove Mr. Obama misrepresented his record.

Politician caught modifying his record to make it look better than it really is, and to try and hide intellectual disconnect between what he says he supported and what he actually supported.

By ancient right and tradition passed down to us from our forefathers, a fetus born alive gains a status of citizen when all proper legal jurisdictions have been applied. At times 'citizen of what country' can be a problem to figure out, but by The Law of Nations, you do get it at birth in our framework of man-made laws. It does not matter which manner of birth is applicable, and many premature and even still born fetuses in ancient days not only were given names, but proper and full burial according to custom.

One only gets their rights protected by being a citizen.

Part of the downfall of Rome was that the Empire had those in charge who thought it entirely proper to place a donkey into the Senate, or award protections to mere animals. That is why the civil law supporting citizenship at birth is important, although that does not require a Nation to give that born citizen the citizenship to that Nation if the parents are otherwise from another Nation. That, too, has lineage as seen in many modern day Nations that put that forth: citizenship is conferred from parents, while 'natural born' is the added bonus of being born in the National boundaries of that Nation by citizens of it. The US adheres to a far older common law outlook of place being decisive, but even for that lineage, it was not the only deciding factor and a child become adult could switch to the citizenship of his or her parents. That is an adult choice to make and law is a stand-in to regularize understanding and put process in place, not over-rule the individual's right to claim heritage by reason of biological birth. Do note that is a one-time affair gained at celebration of majority. The concept of 'dual citizenship' has always called allegiance into question, although it has been provided to offer succor from tyrants and despots and protection to those seeking to flee such things.

Over at RealClearPolitics, Philip Gailey looks at Sen. Obama's stance on abortion on 27 MAY 2008 citing Sen. Obama on the Illinois bill:

Speaking against a similar bill in the Illinois Senate, Obama sounded like the constitutional law professor he was before going into politics.

"Number one,'' he said, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this were a child, this would be an anti-abortion statute.''

Democrats in Congress raised the same concern about the original version of the federal legislation. Language was added to make it clear the bill would not encroach on a woman's right to choose an abortion and the measure passed without opposition.

Obama later said he would have voted for that bill.

However, critics note that in 2003, when an Illinois lawmaker again introduced a state Born Alive Infant Bill, it came with a proposed amendment that included language on protecting abortion rights identical to the federal version. The bill was never brought up for a vote in the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

That is *precisely* what the SCOTUS decision is about, and worded in the worst possible way by the SCOTUS using the 'viability' language. Sen. Obama gets the very basic fact correct, in my view: that the SCOTUS by ruling on viable fetuses had, indeed, set up a two-track affair based on location of that fetus at a given developmental stage. That is NON equal protection. He is wrong, however, in his outcome stating that it would lead to the barring of abortions because the exact, same ruling uses the viability language to state WHEN that developmental stage is: at a point where life can be sustained outside the mother or host.

There is a logic and reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision if applied to the Constitution and the States, which Sen. Obama appears to have missed. Now, I've hit this a few times, so now will from my previous writing on this topic, on 12 MAY 2007 on The Limits of Our Creation (all spelling, syntax and logic errors kept intact):

In looking at Freedoms, Rights and the People I started looking at the actual framework of the issues involved and then a whole lot more in When do your rights start? Now in this I do *not* try to figure out when someone is or is not a human but *when* there is a passing point *into* Citizenship. Now why did I do that? Because it is imperfect, of course! Far, far less than ideal but... it does head towards the common ideal of Citizenship and upholding all rights and all responsibilities. Citizenship is a damned important thing in this Nation and the Supreme Court has created a two-tier system of 'Due Process' that actually violates the outlook of the Constitution for one form of justice for All of the People. Here is what it boils down to:

1) The SCOTUS has put a 'viability test' on when an abortion may be performed,
2) What does 'viability' measure? It measures the ability to be sustained outside of the mother or host.
3) What happens when an Individual is outside the mother or host and sustainable? They are 'born'.
4) Being born of Citizens of the United States within a State of the United States or within limits set externally by Congress for such things under its Immigration and Naturalization powers makes one a Citizen.
Short, sweet and to the point: viability is a measure of Citizenship.

Yes, very reductio ad absurdum and all of that, but it does point out the thing about working with imperfect law: one can use its imperfection to achieve things that locking horns forevermore will not do. And in this extremely imperfect ruling the SCOTUS has now set up a 'two tier' system upon fetuses based on positional sustainability outside the mother or host. If a fetus is born prematurely, it gets full Citizenship Rights and coverage. At that exact same gestation point for another fetus going through normal gestation that is NOT the case. Say, that just can't be right, can it? Imperfect law, imperfect ruling leading to a non-Due Process procedure for Equal Protection. Pure idiocy, when you come right down to it. If a 'viability' test is put in place then the requirement, since it is viability to become a Citizen is being measured, then ALL such fetuses at that same point in gestation should get Equal Coverage and Due Process under the Law.

Painful, isn't it?

Enacting State-based legislation on that would *then* require *proof* that a fetus was not in the viability stage and appropriate developmental buffer zone to afford protections to unequal development due to circumstances beyond control of mother or fetus. Under this regime one can, indeed, get an abortion, but only with *proof* that the fetus was not in the gestational viability period. What that then requires is *record keeping* of sexual activity! Yes, more Red Tape! Sworn affidavits, medical exam and post-abortion exam to determine status would then be *required* so that anyone that LIES about their history in this regard can be prosecuted for murder. On the other side society, at that point in time, must afford full minor citizenship rights to such children who are gestating normally and ensure that these new Citizens are properly tracked and accounted for until their full 'birth date' or emergence from the mother or host. This infringes upon no existing set of Rights and applies responsibility to sexual activity because of its paramount importance to Citizenship. And various doctors can be appointed by the State to perform dual exams upon an individual that did NOT keep such records, and then they would attest to gestational period and abortion made available for the non-viable fetus.

This provides full rights to the unborn at the point of viability. Anything *else* then gets one looking at 'when does life begin' which really isn't a question society is set up to deal with. What society *is* set up to deal with is when an individual becomes a Citizen, so using that is not only perfectly reasonable, but then sets new standards of conduct and accountability for sexually mature individuals. That knife cuts across *both sides* of the debate as it is neutral to the debate and looks to uphold society and *not* find some sort of perfect solution. Totalitarian governments are very good at perfect solutions and their eponymous 'Final Solution'. Really, if life 'begins at conception' then it is not the abortion clinics that are mass murder facilities but In Vitro Fertilization clinics that have large numbers of fertilized eggs from generally infertile couples that need to destroy such after a period of time as they become non-viable for *anything* after a couple of years in the deep freeze. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed via that route and yet I see very little protesting around those places for doing so. Somehow that 'perfect' viewpoint needs to be adjusted to the actual, real world of a common society held by the overwhelming majority of Citizens.

What can be done, however, is to find better ways to sustain premature infants, identify better ways to identify developmental stages of gestating fetuses, and afford a bit better help to expectant mothers or hosts so as to get children that are better cared for, generally healthy and, perhaps, have some early intervention for treatment of genetic illnesses and deformities. If all the money that had been funneled into this glacially locked 'debate' had been put to something *useful* for the commonly held public society, then we might have fewer premature births, a better understanding of genetic disease and pre-born deformities and actually hold life to be a bit more sacred than we do now as an entire society.

Yes, I take the decision by the SCOTUS in its full context and then APPLY THAT to the max! It seems that no one else wants to do that, so I'm stuck out here on my lonesome sticking to the Constitution and a poorly worded SCOTUS decision.

Silly me!

By stepping away from religious and moral obligations and into personal and ethical obligations with adhering to due process under the law and applying that, you do get a solution to abortion: mothers or hosts of a fetus have the same custodial and steward responsibility starting at the point of viable survival to actually becoming a child that they would have when that child is 'naturally born'. The mother loses no rights as the law has now set the point of viability to citizenship to be amenable to technical ability to keep such a fetus alive to full maturity. The 'Born Alive Act' is a simple statement of that ancient concept: we do not discard viable life as a society.

In this view the fetus that is non-viable can still be aborted: that is not a moral absolute but a legal definition based on technical capability and the means of man.

What is open, however, is gaining more technical knowledge and competence to move that date DOWN - via investment in research, understanding of gestational development and early intervention techniques, the ability of a fetus to be cared for outside of a mother or host then leads to greater understanding of the entire cycle of life from conception to birth and will lead to children who are better cared for as the moral obligation falls on individuals to back what they want to the benefit of all while infringing none. That will not suit those bent on a moral crusade, but will satisfy the Constitution which is a mere creation of imperfect man, not of a deity. And the place where the entire 'stem cell debate' isn't at the use of stem cells, but their source: IVF clinics. It seems that utilizing such for science is not liked by a moral perspective because these genetically unique cells are given personhood, and yet it is perfectly acceptable to autoclave them by the thousands if not tens of thousands or more on an annual basis per clinic.

Luckily I am not trying to make a moral argument but one based on imperfect understanding, imperfect technology, imperfect law and imperfect people. We can and must strive to be in a more perfect Union with our fellow citizens, but that is something we agree to do by BEING citizens. That, too, is created by The Law of Nations... not the base system put down at the start by the Law of Nature red of tooth and claw.

We leave nature to the animals and protect ourselves from it.

To better perfect ourselves and our fellow man, we create new laws to protect us from nature and then hold government accountable for its actions in our name. Humanity, as a whole, fails damned often in this project, but we succeed just often enough to keep things going more or less well. It is only when I start hearing of the 'only solution' to a thing and trying to institute it by law that I begin to hear the words 'Final Solution'. I will leave the final and perfect to that which is whole and above all things in our mortal realm and see if our task of being 'more perfect' can be achieved with the tools at hand.

Sphere: Related Content

12 August 2008

Russia, Georgia, Iran, Ukraine all get connected

It is time to look back at previous posts and see what there is to see on the topics of the day, which apparently look to be a fledgling democracy that helped the US getting snuffed out by a tyrant.  Well, 'look' may not be the appropriate word at this point...

Still, we will head back in my past posts and start to examine the origins of these things, which will not start with Georgia or Russia, but Iran!  Chronologically they go first and looking at the problems there will help to give link-back to the current conflict.  That is not to say that the source of this is in Iran: it isn't.  Some of it goes back at least a thousand years or more to the ethnic groups moving through the Caucuses and that you can go back all the way to the last glacial period.  Luckily we will start with the problems that the Mullah's self-inflicted on Iran, and that starts with Iran's Oil Problem.  That spurred on some letters between myself and M. Simon at Classical Values and got us to the Oil Outlook on Iran.  From there a post at Instapundit by Glenn Reynolds on the decaying infrastructure of Iran as seen by Michael Ledeen at NRO, is all a part of much of the same work:  the Mullah's don't know how to keep a technocratic society going.  From that I will set the stage with one more post of my own on The shockwaves of 5%, where jihad meets economics.

Iran has got a problem.

It has a technically backward and socially retrograde ruling caste that has no comprehension of modern markets, modern technical infrastructure nor how to utilize one to affect the other.  Their attempts to coerce foreign producers into contracts, which then have a regime (not market) flexible pricing schedule means that you cannot forecast if anything gotten from Iran, as a company, will be higher, lower or at market prices.  Iran rewards those it likes, punishes those they don't and have been suffering an economic boycott first from the US and, lately, from Japan.  Japan took an extra step of telling *its* trading partners that it didn't look kindly towards those that support Iran.  What this has meant is that technical upkeep of the entire Iranian petroleum industry (natural gas included) has been slowly going to hell since 1979.  This has capped their oil output as no major marginal increase in oil production nor any new exploration has been run by the regime since that point in time.  It has all been private companies 'under the gun' at best, and in many cases that has not proven to be a good investment.

By subsidizing the use of gasoline and natural gas at far below market prices, these two were used uneconomically and increased the interior demand curve of them inside Iran.  When production is basically flat or on a very low marginal expansion rate, and domestic use soars the result is that the amount of difference between the production and domestic use diminishes.  This has a word associated with it:  export.

Now as Iran started out with incredible production vice its population, that could go on a good long time with no one noticing that the folks keeping the store had wandered off.  What this has meant is oil lost in the petroleum system inside Iran due to old equipment, leaks and inefficient refineries... very inefficient refineries.  Outside of normal natural gas deposits a prime way to get natural gas (one carbon atom with four hydrogen atoms called methane) is to crack longer chain molecules in crude oil at a refinery.  Lots of smaller carbon chains and single carbon atoms go flying off and these are lighter byproducts that can serve other uses.  So, beyond natural deposits, well run refineries can yield natural gas and that is a wonderful commodity on the open market and has ready buyers globally.  The main indicator for the refineries not being run well is not, immediately, natural gas but normal gasoline to put into your car.

Iran, if it had kept its refineries up to date and wasn't losing oil in them due to pure waste (inefficient methods to retain not only oil but its byproducts) should meet its internal market, even when it is subsidized.  This year Iran has had to start purchasing refined gasoline at world market prices and realized that a subsidy on *that* meant a net outflow of cash from the regime in this area.  Well, they had lots of money from the boom in the oil markets, right?

Consider that one of the best ways (and cheapest) to rejuvenate old oil fields is to re-pressurize the with a nice, stable molecule in that environment: natural gas.  The actual amount of natural gas has been declining for use in this area inside Iran for some years if not more than a decade.  We know this as after the Gazprom review of Iran's infrastructure in 2004-05 (and possibly longer) Gazprom basically said: 'forget about it'.  If a system is bad enough so that those having to tend to the old Soviet gas system in Russia don't want anything to do with it, then it is in horrific condition.  Further the only place that Iran could easily purchase natural gas was Turkmenistan.  Well, that had been going on for a long time and gas flowed easily...

Until this year, that is.

Starting in JAN 08 Turkmenistan had 'repair problems' in supplying Iran with natural gas, and it turns out the amount Iran uses is 5% of its internal market.  Yes, there has been a natural gas shortfall in Iran which it had been making up by purchasing natural gas from a neighbor.  I do have trouble imagining any petroleum exporting nation with refineries needing natural gas.  Or needing gasoline, come to think of it, given the size of the population.  Run the longer chain stuff through the refineries and aim at natural gas plus other light hydrocarbon gases.  I mean they still export oil, right?

Well, not up to the OPEC quota, no.  Iran actually has excess quota it has to sell to keep up with OPEC but can't meet the quota.  Hasn't been able to do that for awhile now.  Which meant the Saudis have been pumping like crazy to cover the Iranian shortfall because if OPEC can't make its target quotas, it soon becomes an unreliable part of the world oil market, and starts to seriously lose what market heft it has left.  Of course now Venezuela is having problems with that, too, but that is another story of another rising tyrant.

That then starts to get to the point of Micheal Ledeen's look at the Iranian electricity infrastructure which is going to hell.  Now one can posit that it is for the separation of radionucleotides, and get worried.  Another view, simpler and far more direct, is to ask: just how much of their system depends on natural gas fired electricity plants?  Even as a minor part of the infrastructure, say sub-5%, it is the first part to feel natural gas shortfall shockwaves when an outside supplier starts playing with natural gas pressure levels and amounts.  I expect the electrical grid in Iran is in about the same shape as its petroleum industry: not so good and decaying rapidly.  Now who would be playing with that natural gas supply?

To answer that requires going to the natural gas article I put up: Natural gas, crime and destruction.  One of the prominent figures trying to make the transition from the black/gray market criminal world to the gray/white market respectable world is Dmitri Firtash, who now runs Group DF (GDF).  He has been able to get control over a substantial natural gas network stretching out to the far western ex-Soviet Republics and has a particularly strong tie to the ruling regime in Turkmenistan, the place where Iran is getting its 5% of natural gas from.  GDF is the latest incarnation of a group that started way back when the Soviet regime collapsed and the first laws for moving natural gas around required that a foreign company receive Gazprom natural gas once it left Russia:  no subsidiaries or anything like that.  So a group of wily investors started up a company and proceeded to skim money from that into nefarious criminal organizations.  Russia didn't like that, ended that contract and let another one... which somehow saw the exact same people in charge of the exact same set-up under a different name.  Russia didn't like that and tried again, via Ukraine, to do this one more time and even offered a 'kitty sweetener' of $10 billion/year into the bargain.  The result was exactly the same, save the organization with ties into the blacker side of things now got a $10 billion/year bonus!

Actually, that is a pretty respectable thing to do: swindle Russia three times on the exact same deal.  And get paid for it, to boot!  Vladimir Putin has found that getting rid of this legislation is well nigh impossible because that money going *out* somehow influences things inside Russia... possibly through all those corrupt government ministers that showed up in the 1990's that can't be dislodged.  So, he has to bite the bullet and pay for the privilege of letting other folks move stuff through Russian held pipelines.  Russia does get its 'cut' but, really, to have to pay for it?

Now, lets say that you are in the natural gas business, have a huge pipeline empire full of goods that you are getting on the cheap through sweetheart deals with less than nice regimes.  Lets further posit you have a long term contract that isn't flexible to market prices with one customer and market price flexible contracts with others willing to pay a whole bunch more.  What do you do?  Pretty simple, really, stiff the inflexible, lower payback folks and sell to the higher payback ones, or just stockpile the stuff someplace.  And then hint that the low-cost contract and its folks might be able to get more natural gas if they would just pay a bit more...

You now have the situation of GDF being the centralized natural gas seller, Iran being the fixed and low cost payment group and all of Europe willing to pay double or triple that amount per cubic meter, and a huge supply of natural gas slowly filling the Ukrainian system and no one willing to pay the rent for it.  What a great deal!!  Notice how much Gazprom makes off of it?  Nada.  It gets paid for bulk movement through the Russian portion of the system.  At that point Georgia serves as a major conduit for GDF to consider *bypassing* the Russian portion and linking up with natural gas supplies through a lower fee for transport system in Georgia.  Which would cut out Gazprom from that portion of the system, although it would still have a part to play in other portions.  So long as some natural gas goes through Russia, GDF gets cash to run its supply end, and if it is just purchasing from Russia and leaving it to supply it to the Ukrainian border, so much the better.

Ukraine has been a problem for Russia as it has tried to sway things there and has found that others have more ability to do so than it does, as a number of oligarchs use the local industrial base to leverage assets in Russia ( as seen in my original Red Mafia article and After the fall of Trans World Commodities and neither of those is particularly short as they cover over a decade and an additional seven years, respectively, and are at best thumbnails of the activity).  Putin, then, has a major and increasing problem of being able to capture western Europe market share directly as the Baltic pipeline idea is bogged down, the central routes are barricaded by groups able to maneuver around the Russian bureaucracy better than he can, and to the south there is a geographical problem of not being able to have coverage to stop the flow of natural gas (and other things) via Georgia.

Considering the alternatives of trying to lobby Finland, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Denmark and a whole host of 'Green' groups to get a pipeline put in or paying for the privilege of having someone else work the European markets and getting paid in something less than hard currency or in turning off the spigot and trying to get that money train working to you, which would you choose?

Forget the northern route: it is years if not a decade or more away from getting someplace even if everyone agrees, and since there is such limited anchorage space in the Baltic Sea, that is unlikely.  Too many environmentalists in the West to allow that.

Having been swindled three times and now paying for the privilege of being swindled, trying to renegotiate a contract as things stand is out of the question: your own negotiators turned out to be in the pockets of the oligarchs last time just a few years ago.  The oligarchs have way more money and more readily kill anyone in the way than even Putin can do and he knows that.

That leaves taking over a small neighbor, ensuring that Iran can get supply from Gazprom systems (at market prices) and finally getting a transport system for oil, natural gas and other products that is under Russian control that heads to the West so that hard currency can roll in from it... and deprive an oligarch of 'extra' cash there. And as the new pipeline deal through the Bosporus Straits has been inked (Source: Global Insight), and it would be possible for Russia to consolidate all that lovely eastern flow into it... and you can finally cut out the worse of the oligarchs.  It starts with oil, of course, but natural gas is a part of it.

Russian Bosporus pipeline

And a bit of a mess in Georgia?

If you are Vladimir Putin, this must seem a prime opportunity to stiff some folks, get some real cash flowing in, remove some middlemen and consolidate trade clout.  Just one little problem:  Georgia is damned rugged country and prime for mountain warfare, and the last time a large-size Russian force tried that was a little place called Afghanistan.  I've written about Mountain warfare and what it takes, and it isn't about tanks, aircraft or lots of troops.  It is about skill, cunning, knowing the terrain and tenacity to fight without much help from anyone. 

Taking Georgia is one thing.

Holding it is quite another.

Especially as 20% of their armed forces have been trained by the US.  And as we have been reminded there is more to Victory than just 'winning'.

Sphere: Related Content

10 August 2008

The Presidential gut-check

The following is a cross-post from The Jacksonian Party.

The following is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

The small Nation of Georgia has sought, and hard, to reach out to the United States and support us, looking towards the US as a friend of liberty.  As part of that they have welcomed our training of their armed forces and have contributed the largest contingent per population size of any Nation in helping us in Iraq (Source and excellent read at Mudville Gazette).  With the current military actions of Russia over the 'breakaway' region of South Ossetia Georgia is recalling the 20% of its fighting force that it has dedicated to the mission in Iraq.  In this series of operations, Russia has been a clear antagonist towards Georgia in being the only Nation to recognize South Ossetia and then supply it with backing and encouraging it to antagonize Georgia via military means.  This is the view of Ralph Peters in his NY Post article and Anne Applebaum, who has been covering the region for years, in her WaPo columnAustin Bay looks at this is part of an ongoing way of Russia in 'working on' small Nations, citing Kosovo for historical reference.

Michael Totten had coincidentally been scheduled to head to the region and offers this piece at Slate as backgrounder, and also offers a previous piece by Anne Applebaum.

Another ally of the United States, our longest friend in Europe, Poland (Source: Polish Radio at thenews.pl), stands up against Russian intimidation and attempts to dominate Georgia.  This was done in coordination with the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as a co-release:

The presidents of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have issued a joint statement condemning what they see as the naked aggression of Russia against the independent state of Georgia, as hostilities continue in the breakaway state of South Ossetia.

The statement says: “The European Union and NATO must take up the initiative and oppose the spread of imperialist and revisionist policy in the east of Europe.”

President Lech Kaczynski told TVP public television that Poland had a mission to inform western countries, and the EU in particular, of the nature of the aggression by Moscow.

He underlined that any peacekeepers in the region must be international. “That peacekeeping troops [in South Ossetia] are only from Russia is simply a farce,” he said.

The President said that Poland would offer Georgia any help it asked for. “We are not planning to send any troops there, but anything is possible.”

Poland, if anyone cares to remember, sent light cavalry to the United States when we had none in a time of dire need by us. 

That time was called the Revolutionary War.

From this we can see how the two major party candidates reacted.

On 08 AUG 2008 Sen. John McCain said the following about this, as reported by the WaPo's Michael D. Shear:

The news reports indicate that the Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences of Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave. The government of Georgia has called for a cease fire and for resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the E.U. and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.

We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia's security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.

That is a prime 'gut-check' response by anyone wanting to be a President of the United States: a friend of liberty helping our friends to rally around liberty when it is under siege by a tyrant.

At Politico, Ben Smith on 08 AUG 2008 reported the following, starting with Sen. Obama's statement:

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”

Obama added briefly that the international community should get involved. More than an hour later, as more details of Russia’s incursion into Georgia emerged, he cited Russia more directly: “What is clear is that Russia has invaded Georgia’s sovereign — has encroached on Georgia’s sovereignty,” he told reporters in Sacramento.

[..]

John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain’s direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here,” he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia’s move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia.”

He also criticized Obama for calling on both sides to show “restraint,” and suggested the Democrat was putting too much blame on the conflict’s clear victim.

That's kind of like saying after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that Kuwait and Iraq need to show restraint, or like saying in 1968 [when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia] ... that the Czechoslovaks should show restraint,” he said.

A foreign policy adviser for Obama, Ben Rhodes, said Obama was deliberately measured in response to the conflict, balancing his disapproval of Russia’s “troubling behavior in its near-abroad region” with “the fact that we have to deal with Russia to deal with our most important national security challenges.”

Rhodes declined to discuss McCain’s statement directly, but did indirectly criticize it.

"The temperature of your rhetoric isn't a measure of your commitment to Georgian sovereignty,” he said, noting that the two candidates’ statements shared a substantive commitment to Georgia’s borders. “You don't want to get so far in front of a situation that you're feeding the momentum of an escalation.”

Critics of McCain’s stance said he’d imposed ideology on a complicated situation in which both sides bear some blame.

“McCain took an inflexible approach to addressing this issue by focusing heavily on one side, without a pragmatic assessment of the situation,” said Mark Brzezinski, a former Clinton White House official and an informal adviser to Obama.

“It’s both sides’ fault — both have been somewhat provocative with each other,” he said.

[..]

A public relations firm working for the Russian Federation pointed out Scheunemann’s lobbying past to reporters — a sign that McCain’s stance is not, for better or worse, being welcomed in Moscow — as did Obama’s campaign.

“John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan, noting that the “appearance of a conflict of interest” was a consequence of McCain’s too-close ties to lobbyists.

Scheunemann dismissed the criticism, saying he severed his ties to his firm and to his client on March 1 and noting that McCain has been a firm supporter of Georgia’s move toward the West, and away from Russia, since the Arizona senator’s first visit there in 1997.

What Sen. Obama did is come out with not only pabulum, but an unmeasured response that did not take into account Georgia's commitment to helping the United States.  While we work with Russia, we cannot consider it a friend in much of anywhere in the world where it operates.  It is a large Nation and gets consideration due to that size, but liberty and freedom are commitments that go beyond the mere size of a Nation in geography or population.  Even worse, in backing a Russian line on Mr. Scheunemann, Sen. Obama is taking sides in the conflict with the non-liberty embracing Russia against the interests of the US in promoting liberty and freedom abroad.

Further the comments of Mr. Brzezinski show the influence of his father (and both have influence in this campaign, apparently), Zbigniew, who had the unfortunate position of first backing the Shah of Iran, then trying to find if 'moderates' in Iran would take part in some sort of 'Islamic Green buffer zone' between the West and the USSR.  I have detailed Sen. Obama's problematical 'foreign policy team' along with the past views of Sen. McCain.

The one thing the Cold War did demonstrate is the United States *must* be a staunch advocate of liberty and freedom in more than just rhetoric, which is why the response from Sen. McCain demonstrating knowledge of the situation and having previously supported a Nation that supports the US is one to be respected.  As Mr. Smith notes, the view taken by Sen. Obama is a 'European one' that does not apparently recognize that Russia is also seeking to bring all of the pipelines from the Far East that supply Europe with oil and natural gas under the sway if not direct control of Russia.

In this, the most primal of gut checks for who you would vote for as President, Sen. Obama loses and clearly does so by backing a tyrannical regime's attempts to meddle in US politics and puts the blame 'equally' where the blame is unequal and weighs heavily towards one side.

By supporting a friend and ally of the US, Sen. McCain wins and if Poland seeks to step in and asks for our help in remedying the situation, then the current President should back that.

Because liberty is purchased by feeding the Great Tree with the blood of tyrants and patriots, both.

You do not play political games with those who have come to the US seeking our help in securing their own liberty and befriending our Nation in such a hard fight as in Iraq.

 

Both candidates have also had a chance to get a 'gut-check' on another issue, far closer to home, in the area of international affairs:  Mexico.

From AZ Central on 07 AUG 2008, Sean Holstege of the Arizona Republic reports the following:

Four Mexican army soldiers entered southern Arizona and pointed their rifles at a U.S. Border Patrol agent early this week, the Border Patrol said.

The incident Sunday was the Mexican military's 43rd incursion across the U.S. border since October, the agency said. However, it was unusual because firearms were involved. The Border Patrol and the Mexican government are investigating, Border Patrol spokesman Mike Scioli said.

Details remain sketchy, but the incident occurred at 2 a.m. on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation about 50 miles southeast of Ajo. The incident took place just north of the border in sight of the new border fence.

[..]

In Washington, D.C., State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said the encounter "stemmed from a momentary misunderstanding as to the exact location of the U.S.-Mexican border."

A 'border fence' is a clear demarcation line of a border.

This incident took place within sight of that fence to the North, clearly in US sovereign territory.

I have examined this previously (here) and find that Congress had the Library of Congress create a report looking at the slow incursion of money and foreign operatives with arms into Northern Mexico, and looking to disrupt and take over the old cartel based crime syndicates.  That report, in 2003, detailed influence from Russian Mafia groups, Islamic terrorist organizations, and from FARC which used to have better control over such criminal operations after it took over the old cartel businesses in the late 1990's.  Last year the monthly violence in Northern Mexico passed the violence of levels for Iraq, both heading in opposite directions with Iraq's down and Mexico's up.

As part of the influence brought by outside funds, the Mexican Federal Police and Army have been corrupted to an extent that the older cartels were unable to do.  In many cases individuals now utilize their positions of power (even in such places as the judiciary in Mexico) to aid and abet these purely criminal operations now trending towards terrorist means.

To date neither campaign nor the current President have been able to offer a clear defense of the US border and its sovereignty.  As that is done in neglecting the corrupting influence of organized crime in Northern Mexico, the violence has been spreading with criminal hit squads starting to show up in the US to take out US criminals and take over their local operations.

Many have offered that 'Sen. McCain saw clearly in Iraq on COIN'.

Very well: what is Sen. McCain's view on the COIN needs of the SW United States along the Mexican border now that Mexico is falling into a criminal based insurgency with backing from larger organized crime and terrorist groups?

Sen. Obama is absolutely clueless here and has demonstrated that for months.

Sen. McCain has done no better and some worse in not making any statement that would antagonize the Hispanic population in the US, forgetting that many came to the US to get AWAY from such situations and to be SAFE in a Nation they could call their own.

In this gut-check, they both lose, and horribly.

I expect nothing from Sen. Obama and he consistently delivers less.

I expect much from what those touting Sen. McCain have said about him: he under-performs and is often self-contradictory in his skills and ability to analyze a situation.

As both of these situations are primal defenses of liberty and freedom at home and abroad, I expect any candidate to get both of them RIGHT.  Otherwise the days of refugee camps being reported upon will not be overseas, but right here at home.

I heartily applaud giving good, hard support to our friends and allies abroad.

I damned well expect to have our own liberty and freedom protected from military incursions, criminal insurgencies and not 'helped' by a government that takes liberties in exchange for increased taxation, thus diminishing liberty further.

Defense of the Nation must include supporting those that support the US, and I look for any good signs that we will do so with Georgia as, although having problems, they DESERVE IT.

And so do WE.

Right there, along that southern border before it goes to hell, and the next deployment for major COIN operations is not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but places like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, California, Nevada... unless you really like the idea of refugee camps in such places as Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah?

America can support freedom abroad and insure our own at home:  it is a prerequisite of those running for President to understand that.

Or God Help the United States, because no one else WILL.

Sphere: Related Content

09 August 2008

All arms for the common defense

So, taking pistol training has been fascinating, to say the least, and the instructor is a good man with deep background across a wide array of firearms - he grew up in Wyoming and had learned to shoot at 5 as that is a necessary consideration for that territory.  Growing up in a socialist oriented family in Western NY didn't allow for that and I have relied upon physical ability to get me through life, but have always had a respect and appreciation for those who practiced arms of all sorts, from the modern latest and greatest fielded by the Armed Forces to the simple use of actual arms, legs and body to take care of oneself.  A bricklayer's hammer (and that with a small chisel was preferable to me for many reasons over a Estwing rock hammer) and titanium walking staff kept me in good stead through CO, UT, WY, MO over my younger days.  Although not an arms owning household while I grew up, my father did take the practical attitude towards arms that an engineer has: they were designed with function, capability, limitations and purpose.

I've kept away from most of the side-arguments on arms of 'which is better?' and always felt that the question is: better for what and for who?  This, while a modern implementation of such things actually dates pretty far back in the history of arms from those purpose created weapons to those used 'ad hoc' out of necessity.  Thus, basic pistol training concentrates on knowledge of a the gun, its form and function.  That spoke deeply to me of that self-same attitude of form, function, limitations and capability all working together in the simple complexity.  A motor vehicle has similar outlines, although the amount of simple work grows to an inordinately complex whole, where a simple 1" x 1/4" fuel filter can cause your car to stall at most unexpected times.  Living in the DC metro area, the appreciation of my time spent driving is that you can only control your actions within the limitations of your vehicle, and you have little you can do about the bozos driving around you.  Especially if they have 'diplomatic' plates, often coming from places where the concept of 'road' is a sketchy one.  You will have much better control and safety with the limited amount in a pistol than with an average modern vehicle: the actual simplicity of design is one for reliability and function.

The actual experience of firearms from the modern era is a good one, all told.  The final part of the training consisted of range time for myself and my niece: she had prior training but wanted a refresher.  While the range was a bit out of the way, it was not prohibitive and we did the rental bit for ear and eye protection, although my general safety lenses from my pre-press work serves - anything that can stop a part flying off of a press cranking out 10,000 impressions an hour will do for relatively slower velocity material.  If you don't think a printing press is dangerous, talk to some folks running the large ones, not those lovely German models made completely benign for the large office.  I had spent time on the basics of stance, as best I could on breath control and ensuring that I was hydrated.

First up was a Mk.I Ruger .22 from the same run as the 1968 Olympic Team (the Mk. III is the latest in that line).  I found it to be a good weapon to hold and utilize, and realized after the first few rounds that it was an excellent formulation of a weapon to 'teach the basics'.  My control was able to keep all but 8 rounds out of 3 magazines in a 2" x 2" area at 9 yards (which all firing was done at).  No rounds left the 8.5" x 11" sheet of 0.5" graph paper, although I had wondered where one had gotten to until the trainer pointed out it was dead center in the black.  That was one of the rounds out of the main area, and three others clipped that same 1" x 1" box.  Not bad, and it points out the experience of needing practice and a pistol sighted to me, individually.  I did the basic two-hand stance for the first two magazines and then the one-hand for the last that saw a bit more wandering inside the box where most of my rounds fell, another 3 rounds of wandering outside, but with yet another direct hit and the feeling of 'where did that go?'  There was one miss-fire in the first magazine, and long 30 count did not see it hang-fire.  Ejected, and it had been struck and the trainer indicated it may be lacking powder or primer or both.  Of the two stances the two-handed is more tiring to me, overall, especially the mid-torso and forearms while offering excellent control.  The one-handed was far less tiring, although with a bit more overall arm tiring and not as much control, although the trainer said it was good for someone who had never shot before.

I will take some grains of salt with that.

After that, and having my niece go through her rounds and giving me time to do some stretching and relaxation, came the Glock G-22 .40 caliber.  A wholly different experience with a different outlook on the gun and its manufacturing:  it is used widely by law enforcement and is a very recognizable gun due to its showing up in so many places.  It does have a kick to it and my control was not as good, although the majority from 3 short magazines (9 rounds each), demonstrated a few areas of interest:  I was over-sciencing my stance and breath control and concentrated too much on that.  Somehow the natural pick-up, accustomizing myself to the guns and ended up with first rounds that were better with both pistols than later rounds.  Another problem that had cropped up was dominant eye - apparently my body likes to switch between right and left dominance which was causing many problems in just ensuring I was aiming at the target, and I spent almost as much time putting the weapon down to try and clear that as I did in actual firing.  The trainer had me shift for a few rounds to the 'Weaver Stance' of left foot forward as if in boxing, and with two of those the shock of the gun went right to the point of my elbow.  The last magazine he had me switch to the left hand and that did improve things, but the question of that being a 'natural' handedness or just a worn out right arm will require further work.

My only real criticism with the Glock is that it felt, like many things in life, as a 'One Size Fits All, Fits None Well'.  No, I really can't explain that, save to say the Ruger felt 'natural' and a purposeful extension of myself, while the Glock didn't have that feeling.  The utility and appreciation of the engineering on the Glock is high, and it is definitely a good design.  But how do you explain picking something up and having that immediate - 'Yes, I know what this is and what it will do' -feeling?  I have felt that with other tools through the years - drills, hand saws, ratchets, bricklayer's hammer, walking staff - and even to clothing such as boots and apparel for different climates.  And it did not have that feeling of ready familiarity in either hand.

The upshot of it is: I will need a .22 for learning more about my body and how it works with guns.  I have worked on limited ambidexterity for a few things in my life, like Ultimate Frisbee in which a sudden hand shift can throw a defender fully out of position expecting a dominant hand throw.  That old self-training may be a part of it seeing the ability to switch off hands for certain tasks as important, which leaves me hand-dominant but other hand-capable.  If that is what a part of my mind and body are telling me, then it will be necessary to bring both sides up to speed on this with one-hand being better than the other, but the other still capable, as that I have always seen as a good trade-off.

Apparently even now I have much to learn about myself and yet another activity to take up my time. 

But first some days of rest - my body needs that.

And some time spent appreciating the Founders yet again.

Sphere: Related Content

08 August 2008

Of ACORN and organizers

Quite a few people have questioned exactly what a 'Community Organizer' actually *is* as one of the Presidential Candidates has said that was a job he sought to have earlier in his life.  So its time to do a bit of effects based analysis on this and look at what some of the problems 'Community Organizer' individuals and groups get into, beyond personal peccadilloes.  Starting with a most recent view is this article from JS Online by Larry Sandler presenting an article that originally appeared in the 07 AUG 2008 edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Officials are reviewing some 200 to 300 fraudulent voter registration cards, Sue Edman, the commission’s executive director, said Wednesday.

And even though the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now caught the fraud and reported it before the cards were turned in, the incident revived a four-year-old partisan debate over the integrity of Wisconsin’s voter registration process, as political groups step up efforts to sign up voters for the Nov. 4 presidential election.

“One woman called us to complain because her husband has been dead for 10 years and a voter registration was submitted,” Edman said.

In about 12 cases, deputy registrars paid by ACORN were “making people up or registering people that were still in prison,” said Carolyn Castore, ACORN’s state political director.

Yes, this is the famous sort of work done in Chicago districts to allow the dead to 'vote early' and 'vote often' long past their expired date on rock 3 from the star Sol.  Beyond that it is inventing fictional individuals so that those who have lived have never been born before.  So we have a little ACORN problem in this one, although the 2004 election, as gone over in the article, saw 1,200 people registered who could not be confirmed as actually living at a specified address or even being a resident.

Now on the first round of scratching the surface, we head over to NYT, a properly beholden paper to its partisan interests, and find this story on 09 JUL 2008 by Stephanie Strom:

Two prominent national nonprofit groups are reeling from public disclosures that large sums of money were misappropriated in unrelated incidents by an employee and a former employee.

The groups, Acorn, one of the country’s largest community organizing groups, and the Points of Light Institute, which works to encourage civic activism and volunteering, have dealt with the problems in very different ways.

Acorn chose to treat the embezzlement of nearly $1 million eight years ago as an internal matter and did not even notify its board. After Points of Light noticed financial irregularities in early June, it took less than a month for management to alert federal prosecutors, although group officials say they have no clear idea yet what the financial impact may be.

[..]

“We thought it best at the time to protect the organization, as well as to get the funds back into the organization, to deal with it in-house,” said Maude Hurd, president of Acorn. “It was a judgment call at the time, and looking back, people can agree or disagree with it, but we did what we thought was right.”

The amount Dale Rathke embezzled, $948,607.50, was carried as a loan on the books of Citizens Consulting Inc., which provides bookkeeping, accounting and other financial management services to Acorn and many of its affiliated entities.

[..]

But the fact that most of the handful of people who did not disclose the fraud when they learned of it eight years ago still work for Acorn or its affiliates concerns many of the group’s financial supporters.

The Rathke brothers had, apparently, been in cahoots to embezzle money from ACORN for their own needs.  The reason this is an ACORN problem is that instead of seeking assistance in going after such large-scale criminal activity, they tried to hush it up going via an in-house arrangement to cover-up the fraud.  When I hear those on the political Left decry Big Business (et. al.) and things like Enron, and then hear a barely audible *peep* about problems in those groups that they generally support, I do have a problem, indeed.  Plus the EIGHT YEAR cover-up and protection scheme for those doing that work starts to look more and more like how the Catholic Church treated some of its priests who were accused of various forms of child molestation.  That is not just a happenstance or accident, that is a willful conspiracy to protect those who had done wrong and knowingly doing that.

The Points of Light group are to be commended for their ability to stop an individual who was profiting off of their name via on-line consumer fraud:

Officials at Points of Light began looking into complaints about a store the organization operated on eBay and by late June had discovered what its president and chief executive, Michelle Nunn, called “abnormalities” in the business practices of an independent contractor hired to run the store, which did a brisk business auctioning travel packages and items donated to the organization.

The travel auctions were stopped immediately, Ms. Nunn said, and the store was shut down a short time later. Points of Light also posted a statement on its Web site last weekend about the problems and contacted the United States Attorney’s Office in Washington, as well as people who had bought the travel packages.

Two people who have been involved in the internal investigation at Points of Light, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it is incomplete, said it appeared that Maria Herrmann, a former Points of Light fund-raiser who was hired as an independent contractor to manage the eBay store operation, may have been auctioning off bogus trip packages.

There is a word for organizations that come clean of their own accord and seek help in dealing with problems that may be criminal in extent and could ruin the name of their organization:  ETHICAL.  That is using the internal conception of the organization to ensure that those who would seek to abuse it cannot do so and that it adheres to its fundamental principles and obligations to act in a legal manner.

A bit more on the ACORN embezzlement part of this, from the 13 JUL 2008 edition of the NY Post:

The New York Times reports that Dale Rathke - whose brother started the group back in 1970 as a vehicle to help low-income people "take back what's rightfully theirs" - embezzled nearly $1 million from ACORN back in 1999 and 2000.

Yes, that's right, the FOUNDER of ACORN and his brother are the ones involved in this scheme - not low level operatives or individuals just out to 'cook the books' to get some nice juices from them.  The NY Post then goes on to cite that this is in no way the first, only, or particular time that ACORN has had problems:

Back in the '80s and '90s, ACORN's tactics included trespassing, illegal seizure of private property, physical harassment, intimidation and outright extortion.

For example, in 1985, ACORN illegally seized 25 abandoned buildings owned by New York City and installed squatters as residents. A weak-kneed City Hall eventually gave the group title to the buildings - proving that crime can pay.

Amazingly, a large chunk of ACORN's budget is provided by taxpayers.

Much of the rest comes from gullible foundations and groups like the United Federation of Teachers - which has partnered up with ACORN in efforts to kill Mayor Bloomberg's school reform.

Yes, dear hearts, YOU are paying much of the way for this organization, that sees fit to do these things.

Dipping back a bit to 2006, the WSJ OpinionJournal has an article on 08 NOV 2006 from John Fund looking at ACORN, yet again:

The Democratic oak has grown, in part, from Acorn, a feisty, union-backed activist group. The organization says on its Web site that it "registered over 540,000 low-income and minority voters" and deployed over 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers for yesterday's elections. But after years of scandal involving its election efforts and misuse of government grants, Acorn is finally coming under scrutiny, with four of its Kansas City, Mo., workers under indictment for submitting false voter registrations. (As of this writing, all are at large.) Other states--including Pennsylvania and Maryland--are also conducting probes. Notes the U.S. attorney's office in Kansas City: "This national investigation is very much ongoing."

Founded by union organizer Wade Rathke in 1970, Acorn boasts an annual budget of some $40 million and operates everything from "social justice" radio stations to an affordable-housing arm. Still run after 36 years by Mr. Rathke as "chief organizer," it is best known for its campaigns against Wal-Mart, and for leading initiatives in six states to raise the minimum wage.

One of those states is Missouri. St. Louis election officials were so inundated with bogus Acorn-generated voter registrants that they mailed a letter to 5,000 registrants, requesting the recipients to contact them. Fewer than 40 responded. Mr. Rathke attacked the officials as "slop buckets" and claimed they had "broken the law in trying to discourage new voters illegally."

City officials scoff at that. They say it's up to Acorn to explain why over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations don't exist. "We met twice with Acorn before their drive, but our requests completely fell by the wayside," says Democrat Matt Potter, the city's deputy elections director. His election clerks were already putting in 13-hour work days and "dumping this on them isn't fair." In the past, several Democrats, including Mayor Francis Slay, have complained about bloated voter rolls leading to stolen votes.

So bad that even the party they are trying to *help* complains about them?  Or at least the party that hosts candidates they support, at any rate.  Now doing a whirl through the voter registration fraud area, there is this piece by Eric Shawn and Becky Diamond at FOXNews.com on 02 MAY 2008 about the goings-on in Washinton State in 2006:

The Supreme Court ruling earlier this week that allows states to require voters to produce photo I.D.s is drawing criticism from voter registration groups, including one that was busted for election fraud in 2006.

ACORN is trying to register one million new voters this year and brands the decision, “One more strike against the basic right to vote … that further disenfranchises people of color and low income Americans.”

But if photo I.D. requirements had been the law in Washington state, the voter fraud scandal involving ACORN in 2006 would never have happened. According to Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, the incident “was the worst case of election fraud in our state’s history. It was an outrage.”

Two years ago ACORN submitted just over 1,800 new voter registration forms, but there was a problem. The names were made up — all but six of the 1,800 submissions were fakes. Reed said he was appalled.

There is nothing more fundamental to a democratic republic and to a citizen of the United States than participating in selecting your public officials. For people to undermine that and try to perpetuate fraud on the system is an outrage,” he said.

The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms.

Yes, it is hard work to undermine a democracy, isn't it?  Having to sit out there and make up information and names, or just sit at home doing so.  Mind you, those they 'plucked' from the phone book were doing something known as 'identity theft' for fraudulent purposes.  We get on the credit card companies about that... but that is *only* money, now, isn't it?  Not something like the fundamental understanding of a citizenry to have a say in their government or NOT if they so choose.  To utilize those means to create fraudulent or utilize stolen identities to undermine a representative democracy in a republic?

ACORN would pay a measly fine of $25,000 in a settlement.

ACORN would also face investigation for voter registration fraud in Dauphin County, PA (source: Canada Free Press article of 21 JUL 2008 by Matthew Vadum).  I mean it has to say something when someone puts up a map to keep track of this stuff at RottenAcorn.

On that 'community activist' side of things, one would think that ACORN would actually try to represent the communities it is helping, no?  There are times when that is not the case, and one of the most egregious is that of the citing for the new Mets Stadium as recounted by Neil deMause at HERE magazine in JUL 2000 (H/t: Norman Oder at Atlantic Yards Report).  This has to do with the citing of the Mets Stadium in Brooklyn's Prospect Park during the Guliani Administration, and how the fields at the Parade Grounds, used by local families to hold child and youth sporting events, were to be utilized for the new stadium complex.  Local groups did organize, like the American Youth Soccer League and the actual community had coalesced to help stop the plan from going forward at the only meeting that would be held on it, and the Community Board chairman establishes that it is the City of New York that will benefit from the Mets after the taxpayers foot the bill for funding much of the stadium.  The Youth Baseball League also joined in to admonish the Administration on this as the local Brooklyn Bonnies, who had been playing for 50 years for the community had gotten no recognition on their needs which pre-exists that of the Mets.  And now comes ACORN:

Across the Brooklyn Bridge they pour: hundreds if not thousands of them, tramping across the wooden walkway from Brooklyn to their destination at City Hall on the far shore. It's hard to get a good count, because at least half the marchers aren't tall enough to appear on grownups' radar -- dozens upon dozens of girls and boys, many dressed in soccer uniforms, carrying signs reading "Save Our Fields!" and "Field of Schemes!"

The march, on the last sunny Sunday of November, has been organized by the hastily organized Save the Parade Grounds Coalition, a bunch of soccer moms (and dads, and siblings) and community residents who were less than thrilled to hear that their neighborhood park was about to become the resting place of a 4,500-seat baseball stadium. Leading the effort: the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, universally known by its acronym ACORN. (The organization began its life in Little Rock, and the "A" once stood for "Arkansas"; there's still a fair amount of confusion over the name, as when one Brooklyn newspaper cited them in print as "ACORN (find out what it means).") Matters of interest for ACORN range from welfare policy to school reform; since the previous fall, the group has been sparring with the city over the future of the Parade Grounds, in a continuing battle that has rarely emerged beyond the pages of the local community weeklies.

Spearheading ACORN's push has been Bertha Lewis, the group's lead organizer. Lewis is the sort of person who was born to chair meetings. Put her in a room with a dozen other people she's never met, and you can bet that within 10 minutes, she'll be drawing up an agenda and assigning tasks for the demonstration next Tuesday.

Practically the first words out of her mouth when contacted about Giuliani's plan for a Parade Grounds ballpark are: "We're gonna sue the bastard."

Well, that is bravado, yes, but an effective tactic?  ACORN then comes to head up this community as the next part shows:

To that end, when the first planning meeting is called following the Borough Hall hearing, a lawyer is present to update the assembled on the legal niceties of telling the mayor where to stick his ballpark plan. The listeners gathered around the conference table at ACORN's downtown Brooklyn office include AYSO parents like Mimi Parker (the woman with the clipboard from the soccer game) and neighbors of the Parade Grounds. George Dames, from the North Flatbush Youth and Community Coalition, co-chairs the meeting with Lewis.

A lawsuit is mentioned, but the talk around the conference table soon turns to a march across the Brooklyn Bridge to City Hall. Someone wants a Sunday march, because she'll be out of town on the nearest Saturday. Another voice insists that turnout will be diminished on a Sunday morning since people will still be at church. (Baffled looks from the residents of white liberal Park Slope in attendance.) "We need a name," someone else says. Minutes later, the Save the Parade Grounds Coalition is born.

What the City of New York is looking to do is pull an 'eminent domain', but this would be a case of taking public land and handing it over to private interests.  Much of that had already been happening, but nothing on the scale of the stadium complex.  The lawyers would tie things in knots, meetings would drag on through the winter:

Behind the scenes, however, plans are in motion. There had been rumblings of discontent at earlier Save the Parade Grounds Coalition meetings -- seemingly esoteric debates about how to compile a list of demands, and whether the phrase "No ballpark!" should be included. The behind-the-scenes tension breaks through one day after a court hearing.

In the hallway outside Judge Hutcherson's courtroom, George Dames and Bertha Lewis are engaged in a tremendous shouting match. Lewis, it seems, has met with EDC representatives at the ACORN offices on a Saturday afternoon with only a handful of other coalition members present; Dames charges that Lewis intentionally went ahead with the meeting without consulting the rest of the group. Lewis swears that she has no intention of cutting a deal behind anyone's back; she wants only to listen to what the city had to offer. Nothing will be decided, she promises, without the full approval of the entire coalition.

Three weeks later, a call arrives from Bertha Lewis. There's a press conference scheduled for the next day. A settlement has been reached.

In what follows ACORN would toe the City Administration's line about the Mets being a 'blessing in disguise' and that it was promised that local activities would be held by the Mets.  But all was not to be well at the news conference:

One of the speakers, meanwhile, hasn't gotten with the program. "I am not happy with this agreement," she says, as the cameras whir in silence. "What about the children who aren't part of the organized leagues? Will they be able to get permits?" Lewis and a bunch of other ACORN members surround her afterwards, arguing heatedly atop a frozen, lumpy infield as reporters watch some kids kick around a soccer ball.

Once her ACORN antagonists have departed, the woman, Annie Williams, speaks freely of her qualms about the settlement. She is president of the Woodruff Block Association, a neighborhood group whose district stretches out to the west of the Parade Grounds, a long fly ball from the proposed ballpark.

In her judgment, the city has struck a deal with the wrong people. "You meet with AYSO, which is organized. You meet with the Bonnies. A lot of parents over here can't afford to put their children in these leagues. Especially when you got five or six kids, you can't pay eighty-five, ninety dollars a month, whatever it is that they charge. So the children have to wait until nine, ten o'clock at night to sneak in here and play their little bit of football, play their little bit of baseball."

Yes, these are the 'working poor' of the neighborhood, not those that have the money to play in the organized leagues.  It is interesting that ACORN was set up to help these very same people, and yet here is siding with upper-middle class organizations and hefty politicos in over-riding not only the working middle-class but working poor who benefit from these city facilities.  She would not be alone:

George Dames is also none too pleased. Chairman of the North Flatbush Youth and Community Coalition, one of the founding members of the Save the Parade Grounds Coalition, he has not even been invited to the ACORN press conference to announce the deal that has been struck.

"I don't know what ACORN's motivation is at this point," he says dispiritedly over the phone. "I think that people need to be straight-up in terms of what their issue is." He speculates that ACORN, which receives city contracts for several projects, may have been dissuaded from carrying its fight with the mayor too far.

"It seems very suspicious to me that when we had the upper hand, that the community group is the one to make a deal."

Yes, as part of the machine politics of continuing to get taxpayer money, ACORN looks to have stepped in, de-railed a local community organization, promise a lawsuit and then cut a deal behind the backs of the community with the City of New York so that ACORN would not put its funding stream at jeopardy.  From this Mr. deMause would write a book and launch its website: Field of Schemes.  In that he keeps track of the long, long, long list of professional teams looking to extract, extort and bribe their way to 'economically viable' stadiums at taxpayer expense.

At that Atlantic Yards Report posting by Norman Oder, he talks with Mr. deMause on the deal:

Q. That experience seemed to make you rather cynical about ACORN.

A. It was Bertha [Lewis] and this guy, George [Dames, from the North Flatbush Youth and Community Coalition], who was a local guy from Flatbush, who were sort of pushing the opposition to the Mets, this temporary stadium in the Parade Grounds. Everything was going pretty well for the opposition, they had this court case going, suddenly, Bertha calls me and says, Come to the press conference, we cut a deal, and George and a lot of these folks weren’t at the press conference, because they didn’t know about it.

And they had struck this deal: the Mets were basically going to give money to pet projects of ACORN, or give it to community stuff, but Bertha would be the rainmaker for it.… and Howard Golden, the borough president, was not on board with the deal: I’m still suing.

The Mets finally gave up, played at St. John’s for a year or two, and wound up in Coney Island permanently. Bertha’s deal never wound up going anywhere, Golden finally came up with money to do the renovations of the parade grounds. Bertha said: it’ll never happen any other way, at least we’ll get it renovated, we have to let the Mets in--and then it happened. It wasn’t a ton of money.

As everyone now knows the City Council and Borough President can find $10 million if they need to. So it was remarkable seeing her as this firebrand, I’m going to tell the Mets to go to hell, they will never set foot in the Parade Grounds and then do this complete sudden turnabout and she said, OK, fine, I’m on board with it.

So long as she looks good, why that's fine!  And the community?  Finally able to work its way through towards getting what it needed for renovations and continuing the fight by Howard Golden.  The Mets gave up to that... while Bertha Lewis was looking to cut a deal that made her look good and of making the best of a bad situation.  Which was actually not necessary if she had persevered.  Instead it makes ACORN look as an opportunistic organization willing to prey upon a community to fit the needs of the Administration that it is, in theory, supposed to be confronting.

The taxpayers would pay for the Mets Stadium, the community would have lost a good portion of its public land used for organized outdoor sports, and the little things done by the Mets would make ACORN shine, while helping few people in any particular way.  But at least it would keep the funding rolling in from the City!

Now, flipping over to Sen. Obama, we find Stanley Kurtz writing at National Review Online on 29 MAY 2008 about Sen. Obama and ACORN:

This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.

[..]

What has Barack Obama got to do with all this? Plenty. Let’s begin with Obama’s pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago. Few people have a clear idea of just what a “community organizer” does. A Los Angeles Times piece on Obama’s early Chicago days opens with the touching story of his efforts to build a partnership with Chicago’s “Friends of the Parks,” so that parents in a blighted neighborhood could have an inviting spot for their kids to play. This is the image of Obama’s organizing we’re supposed to hold. It’s far from the whole story, however. As the L. A. Times puts it, “Obama’s task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement” in their communities. Part of Obama’s work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like Acorn.

Why, moving into things in an apparently benign way and then seeking to twist things to the benefit of the organization you are representing?  Just like would be done in 2000 in Brooklyn?

Although the L. A. Times piece is generally positive, it does press Obama’s organizing tales on certain points. Some claim that Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, exaggerates his accomplishments in spearheading an asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. Obama, these critics say, denies due credit to Hazel Johnson, an activist who claims she was the one who actually discovered the asbestos problem and led the efforts to resolve it. Read carefully, the L. A. Times story leans toward confirming this complaint against Obama, yet the story’s emphasis is to affirm Obama’s important role in the battle. Speaking up in defense of Obama on the asbestos issue is Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.

Hey, not giving any credit to those who do the actual work is pretty much a stock 'n trade of ACORN by the time it gets to Brooklyn.  And then comes the political theater of 'direct action' of trying to stymie the ability of elected representatives from actually doing their work so that they can be heard 'by the activists'....errr... 'by the people'.  Madeleine Talbot did a lot of that, and actually helped in the early training of Sen. Obama in that area.  But Barack Obama, back before he was elected to anything, was already eyeing other goals, and so would eschew those tactics:

Does that mean Obama himself schooled Acorn volunteers in disruptive “direct action?” Not necessarily. The City Council storming took place in 1997, years after Obama’s early organizing days. And in general, Obama seems to have been part of Acorn’s “inside baseball” strategy. As a national star from his law school days, Obama knew he had a political future, and would surely have been reluctant to violate the law. In his early organizing days, Obama used to tell the residents he organized that they’d be more effective in their protests if they controlled their anger. On the other hand, as he established and deepened his association with Acorn through the years, Obama had to know what the organization was all about. Moreover, in his early days, Obama was not exactly a stranger to the “direct action” side of community organizing.

Consider the second charge against Obama raised by the L.A. Times backgrounder. On the stump today, Obama often says he helped prevent South Side Chicago blacks, Latinos, and whites from turning on each other after losing their jobs, but many of the community organizers interviewed by the L. A. Times say that Obama worked overwhelmingly with blacks.

To rebut this charge, Obama’s organizer friends tell the story of how he helped plan “actions” that included mixed white, black, and Latino groups. For example, following Obama’s plan, one such group paid a “surprise visit” to a meeting between local officials considering a landfill expansion. The protestors surrounded the meeting table while one activist made a statement chiding the officials, after which the protestors filed out. Presto! Obama is immunized from charges of having worked exclusively with blacks — but at the cost of granting us a peek at the not-so-warm-and-fuzzy side of his community organizing. Intimidation tactics are revealed, and Obama’s alliance with radical Acorn activists like Madeleine Talbot begins to make sense.

And if everyone is on the same ideological page, the question of 'race' doesn't matter as much, does it?   So when it comes time to get the 'motor-voter' bill enacted, ACORN turns to Obama who has already had extensive contacts with the organization in his pre-law school days.  From there Obama goes on to work at foundations doling out money:

Although it’s been noted in an important story by John Fund, and in a long Obama background piece in the New York Times, more attention needs to be paid to possible links between Obama and Acorn during the period of Obama’s service on the boards of two charitable foundations, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.

According to the New York Times, Obama’s memberships on those foundation boards, “allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants” to various liberal organizations, including Chicago Acorn, “whose endorsement Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.” As best as I can tell (and this needs to be checked out more fully), Acorn maintains both political and “non-partisan” arms. Obama not only sought and received the endorsement of Acorn’s political arm in his local campaigns, he recently accepted Acorn’s endorsement for the presidency, in pursuit of which he reminded Acorn officials of his long-standing ties to the group.

I've looked at these activities previously from the involvement with the organized crime part of this (here, here, here, here) and the political lobbyist side (here, here) and putting in the intimidating tactics and coercive views of ACORN, amongst others, this comes out as Leftist Machine Politician.  This is money for votes and promise to use political heft to get *more* money to those organizations that, in theory, should be non-partisan but, in fact, have a deeply partisan and divisive agenda utilizing authoritarian tactics and deal making for their own betterment.  In trying to make a 'political wing' and a 'non-partisan' wing, you end up with things like HAMAS being the 'local activist wing' of the Muslim Brotherhood.  And, do note that it is BOTH sides of ACORN, the partisan AND non-partisan side that have had legal and ethical difficulties.

Let me emphasize: just because something is legal, does not make it wholly ethical.

For an organization that is looking to get voices of the poor and such into the system of elective representative democracy, to utilize tactics that undermine or attempt to circumvent the system of registering voters is wholly unethical while technically legal.  On 25 JUN 2008 Creators Syndicate published a piece by Michelle Malkin on the problems of ACORN, its getting 40% of its funds from taxpayer sources, and the types of tactics used to circumvent the actual, technical way voters register is examined as part of it:

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including "Leon Spinks," "Frekkie Magoal" and "Fruto Boy Crispila." Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN's criminal sabotage "an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls."

The group's vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: "In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier."

That is a legal tactic, but wholly unethical in seeking to get fraudulent names into the voter registration rolls by overwhelming the system meant to ensure a regular and orderly processing of such forms.  By withholding those forms until the last day, ACORN is seeking to not only swell the rolls and put the opportunity in place to allow individuals to use those fraudulent names for voting as ACORN desires.  That, in and of itself, is the unethical part as it is a repudiation of the compact amongst the citizenry to ensure that all citizens have an opportunity to vote legally and with due process involved.  That is due process of the law working to ensure rights and is just as important, if not more important, than criminal due process.  It is the means which allows us assurance that the will of the actual, real citizens as the people of the United States have an opportunity to use their franchise right without worries of fraud.

An organization interested in 'social justice' cannot claim that undermining the actual justice of society in regularizing the voter registration process is towards a 'common good' or even a special interest good: it is an authoritarian attempt to game the system for political advantage at the expense of the citizenry.

This is in, and of, itself, bad enough.  The hypocrisy of ACORN however extends far deeper into the organization as examined by the Employment Policies Institute in a paper on ACORN updated in 2004, The Real ACORN: Anti-Employee, Anti-Union, Big-Business.  While touting its pro-Union stances and gaining support from multiple Union organizations, and helping to create the United Labor Union and fighting businesses to allow Unionization, there is a problem with its stance:

Despite its ardent public support of higher wages and union membership for all workers, ACORN has made repeated attempts to block the unionization of its own workforce while paying below-minimum wage salaries to its employees. In addition to the extensive union-busting detailed by the NLRB (see Appendix A), ACORN unsuccessfully sued the state of California to be exempted from the minimum wage. In its appeal of that suit, ACORN argued that the reduction in the number of employees resulting from the minimum wage would violate its First Amendment rights.  ACORN’s claims were labeled “absurd” by the presiding judge (see Appendix B).

Tactics such as these should come as no surprise to even a casual observer of ACORN’s history.  In 1995 the ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC)—a technically separate entity that maintains extremely close ties to ACORN, sharing office space with ACORN in several cities—was stripped of an AmeriCorps grant after it was found to be using the money as part of an illegal fundraising scheme for ACORN (see Appendix C). Indeed, a thorough reading of ACORN’s “people’s platform,” as it pertains to workers’ rights, finds ACORN in violation of more than one in four of its own guiding principles.

Yes, the very organization that wants such fine things cannot PROVIDE them for their own workforce: a 'living wage', the right to unionize and trying to ensure that everyone else should adhere to these things.  That is unethical, socially irresponsible and hypocritical all at the same time: the Trifecta of what the Left generally rails against in private organizations.  Who do they think they are?  Enron?

The EPI paper then goes over multiple specific instances of ACORN doing these things:  union busting, paying sub-'living wage' and under the legal minimum wage, running unsafe workplaces, failing to pay contracted wages.  All of these are decried by ACORN and done BY THEM.  Or, in the lovely words of the Left - exploiting the poor, endangering them by not following the law and not allowing them to earn a decent wage and then suppressing their rights to unionize to better these things.  ACORN uses its politicking to get in good with the Big Labor Unions so that they will look the other way and not complain about ACORN's activities.  Then there are pages of documentation to back these things up, so it is clear that not only are these problems on the record but often at the Federal level going all the way to Capitol Hill.

On 06 APR 2004, Thomas Ryan at FrontPageMag details the 'social activist' funding and support done by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in particular ACORN shows up, as one may have guessed as it has AHC mentioned just above:

Fannie Mae is as well culpable for funding a host of left-wing groups. Recipients of their funds include the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and the Center for Community Change. ACORN, the self-proclaimed largest left-wing activist organization in the nation, implements an anti-capitalist agenda which has roots in the National Welfare Rights Organization – a 1960’s radical group formed for the sole purpose of inundating the welfare system with enough recipients to break America’s financial back. The Center for Community Change’s goal is to “create better communities and policies” – it hopes to achieve this goal by enlisting such celebrity notables as Susan Sarandon and Russell Simmons to propagate the message to vote Democrat.

[..]

Some of the blame with regards to corporations funding of left-wing groups may fall on the regulatory policies themselves. Christopher Yablonski, from the CRC, states, “Regulatory policies often give corporations a built-in incentive to pay-off left-wing activists. For example, the financial services industry has given generously to activist groups like ACORN. ACORN uses the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to pressure lending institutions into making low-interest loans.” “By threatening to use CRA provisions to hold up federal approval of bank mergers and acquisitions,” Yablonski continued, “ACORN, its affiliates, and other ACORN-like groups have forced banks to make billions of dollars in high-risk loans. These agreements often include hefty pay-offs to activist groups that file the complaints. In 1996, ACORN affiliates across the country secured nearly $570,000 in contributions from leading companies—a 40 percent increase over 1995.”

[..]

Whereas the Enron and Tyco woes were localized to the shareholders and employees of the companies, the taxpayers themselves will feel a possible Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae scandal. Both corporations receive over $2 billion in credit from the United States Treasury, and taxpayer subsidies of an estimated $10 billion.

The house that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have built is now a shambles, with its drains siphoning money into the pockets of radical leftist groups, all the while teetering on a potentially catastrophic accounting scandal. The fact that both of these companies, and others like them, continue to fund such groups as the Center for Policy Alternatives and ACORN is evidence of a growing epidemic in which both stockholders and everyday taxpayers know little of where their money is truly going.

Yes, billions of dollars in high risk loans due to the lobbying of ACORN and other groups... that was seen in 2004.  Today's sub-prime mess?  It can be directly traced to these very same activities that puts low income individuals who would not normally qualify for a loan at risk due to that lobbying.  And who will benefit when these same borrowers go down?  Why ACORN, et. al., as they would see this as 'social injustice' while it is not even 'sustainable living' for these individuals who take out such mortgages.  Apparently the only 'green' cared about is that on dollar bills.

As if on cue they show up as the housing sub-prime mortgage problem started to escalate in Philadelphia in 2007 as seen at the City Paper's article on problems there by Ted Hesson on 09 OCT 2007, and the article is highly sympathetic to both those caught in this mess and ACORN, so do beware:

"You better get that raise and you better get that better job in the next two years if you're going to make the payment," Mason says. Foreclosure filings are up by 47 percent in the city from April 2006 to April 2007, especially in North and Southwest Philly, according to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a national housing group.

Housing groups like ACORN claim that many people stuck with these high-cost loans are victims of predatory lending: The borrowers were either deceived, ill-informed or not economically qualified. In addition, the mortgage industry has been loosely regulated in past years by the Pennsylvania Department of Banking. Before the subprime fallout, a broker applying for a license might not even undergo a criminal background check.

Philadelphia has tried to curb irresponsible lending in the past. Led by 9th District Councilwoman Marian Tasco in 2001, the city passed a law that required borrowers to get counseling before signing off on a high-cost loan, but the local ordinance was soon pre-empted by a much weaker state law.

This activist group isn't limited to just Philadelphia in its attempts to strong arm lenders it has previously encouraged to give such loans, as the story looks at Cleveland:

Cleveland doesn't blame predatory brokers — although he admits that they exist — because no one could have foreseen this sort of market crash, he maintains. Before the crisis, many people in his situation would have been able to refinance, but now they're falling behind on payments and their credit scores are suffering.

Ian Phillips, ACORN's state legislative director, reviews dozens of similar subprime mortgages each month and tries to rework the terms of the loan. ACORN has leverage against some lenders because they can organize rallies and protests against the companies, triggering negative publicity. High-cost loans, however, aren't usually sold to knowledgeable borrowers like Cleveland.

That's right: if you don't give out the loans, you are 'red lining' a community and if you DO and attempt to collect on them, you are liable for protests and rallies because you tried to be a flexible lender to low income individuals.  The context is not those who are getting hit by this mess, but by those who pressured it to exist in the first place by encouraging such poor lending practices: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And they were influential in supporting those who were 'community activists' in getting such things out in the first place - groups like ACORN and their associated housing group.

ACORN Housing Corp and ACORN have filed affidavits in their work as seen by The Consumer Rights League posting on PRNewswire at Interest Alert on 31 JUL 2008:

WASHINGTON, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The Consumers Rights League (CRL) today released newly obtained affidavits from former ACORN and Acorn Housing Corporation (AHC) employees that attest to ACORN and AHC's illegal practice of using taxpayer dollars to fund political activity.

The affidavits from two former AHC employees, obtained by CRL following the publication of its original report in June, "ACORN's Hypocritical House of Cards," make further specific and damning allegations, including:

-- AHC and ACORN were at one time being funded from a joint account, which would appear to violate the same laws highlighted by the AmeriCorps Inspector General in 1994.

-- According to a former ACORN board member and AHC employee, AHC -- which received taxpayer money -- directly used funds to support ACORN activities, including paying for rent at an office where AHC was not even a tenant.

-- Perhaps most troubling, the sworn statement of former AHC staffer Andrew Johnson suggests AHC leadership pressured employees to intentionally hide information from HUD investigators.

[..]

AHC is a federally recognized tax-exempt organization. As such it is not allowed to share funds or provide funding for ACORN. Over a three-year period surveyed for the AHC report that organization took in 40% -- or more than $7 million -- in taxpayer funds. Over the same period, AHC gave grants and paid fees totaling more than $4.6 million to ACORN-related organizations (including Citizens Consulting, from which the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke embezzled nearly $1 million).

[..]

In that case, it was found that ACORN had abused the $1 million grant from taxpayers. The practice seems to have continued as AHC has taken in millions more from public coffers. An alarming internal AHC memo from September 2004 specifically stated: "Total funding from HUD's fair housing initiatives this year is about $650,000 which will provide a good opportunity for ACORN and AHC to work together on housing issues and campaigns."

Yes, AHC lobbied HUD, took money from HUD under false pretenses.  From that money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went to them and they shifted that to ACORN.  That is *entirely* a political agenda, and attempting to hide it is a cover-up.  That is collusion if not outright conspiracy.  All aimed to cause a crisis by them, so that low and moderate income people get shafted by sub-prime loans they can't afford so that ACORN can then complain about it and AHC ask for MORE money to help these people past their problems.  Which they helped CAUSE in the first place via the affordable housing campaign.

Got that?

Perhaps it is time for an ACORN and, indeed, the whole tree to get thrown under the bus by Sen. Obama.  Although this is exactly the same organization as he came to know it.  Just like Tony Rezko's.  And Rev. Wright's.  And so many others he has had sudden revelations about these last few months.

Sphere: Related Content

05 August 2008

To those running for President

I will not believe that you care about 'greenhouse gases' while you use jet aircraft for transportation. The word for this is: hypocrisy.

I don't vote for hypocrites, even if I don't believe in 'global warming', because if you *do* then walk the walk and *prove it* as a citizen *first* by what you do.

It might just get you out of prescribing things for others that you are unwilling to do to yourself.

Just like Congress writes itself out of labor, safety and other laws the general population must abide by.

You are 'pro-labor'? Prove it and work hard to bring Congress under its own labor laws.

Sphere: Related Content

03 August 2008

Skidmarks where rhetoric meets the road

You may have heard about the 47 US Congressmen that refused to leave the House on 01 AUG 2008.  It was the teapotted tempest with rhetoric that sounds most impressive.  The topic was drilling for oil so that the US can find a path towards an energy future, instead of being mired in its present controlled by overseas oil groups and speculators beyond the realm of Congressional reach.  From the WSJ blog post by Patrick Yoest on this, the Democrats looked to crack down on speculators, but how they will go after foreign speculators is something they don't realize they cannot do:

“Republicans are too scared to go home to face their constituents after voting against bills to force Big Oil companies to use it or lose it, demand that the President free our oil from the government stockpile and crack down on speculators,” said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

Yes that 'government stockpile' is the strategic petroleum reserve that serves as an emergency stockpile of oil kept safe in underground storage areas that can allow the US Armed Forces to operate if we suddenly lose all access to foreign oil.  It is a defensive measure, not the government sitting on a vast reserve of oil for no reason at all.  And speculators are the people who try to figure out what the actual price of oil and other commodities will be, and then put their future bids on those prices.  They win if they are right in the direction and minimal amount of change, and wrong if they get the amount or direction wrong.  We have speculators in wheat, corn, pork bellies, oranges, cotton, soy beans, nickel, cadmium, zinc, lead, platinum, gold... yes the world is rife with them.  Imagine what a sudden run up in copper prices would do to the semi-conductor industry or, even worse, gallium used in the actual semi-conductors themselves.  Silica is damned cheap for the processing, and your beach and glass recycling center can gets you tons of it.  Something like uranium is a bit harder to come by, which is why sitting on the vast reserve that is untapped in VA is a bit strange.  Seventh largest deposit on the planet that is safer to mine than coal, and less toxic.  We once had uranium mining in the Grand Canyon and witness the desolate vastness of that region because of worries over it?

These other commodities have speculators, and if you forgot the gold run-up in the 1970's, you missed the dizzying bonanza of what people would pay based on speculation that soon crashed back almost to where it started.  That did start up a whole lot of gold miners, many organizations continuing operations to this day: industry was spurred on.  Cracking down on speculators who are not under your legal control, say those in London, Paris, Bahrain, India, China, Japan... these cretins Upon the Hill do realize that they can't do that without staging a major conflict to actually take these places over, right?

Right?

And where, exactly, were these INCUMBENTS when economic war was being waged against our domestic producers in the late 1990's run by speculators paid off by a tyrant to hurt US future oil production and bring more of the market under his control?  You remember those guys?  Hailing from the UK, France, Canada, Russia, Switzerland... Oil For Food?

Where in the hell was the worry about speculation on the LOW SIDE damaging this Nation?

Those that complain today about the US not even having the capacity to get deep sea drilling rigs in place forget that they are the cause of those same capabilities disappearing from our National capability via our private concerns.  You do remember the 1990's, right?  Blue dress with stain on it?  Rip-roaring economy due to the rise in tech stocks and the Internet Bubble, along with the Telecom Bubble?  Primed by low taxes in the 1980's, remember that?

A bunch of speculators?

Now for the words of those that were in the House on 01 AUG 2008, once the recess was called, this from the WSJ blog article above:

“How many of you remember the Boston Tea Party?” Republican Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona asked the raucous crowd. “This is the Boston Tea Party!”

Texas Republican Rep. John Culberson and Michigan Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra sent play-by-play dispatches about the pep rally via Twitter, an online messaging service. Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence, a former radio talk show host, called in to one of his brethren, Rush Limbaugh, to apprise nationwide listeners of the details. Another Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady came to the House floor with suitcase in hand, saying that he’d walked out of his scheduled flight home to join the rally.

A veritable Boston Tea Party?  'No Taxation Without Representation'?  I could get behind that sort of thing, actually, but I have seen far too much go on Upon the Hill to put my money down at the start of anything there.  From the CQ Politics site, an article by Edward Epstein who covered this:

“Madame Speaker, Where art thou?’’ Ted Poe , R-Texas, shouted from the well of the House. “This room is vacant of most members of Congress. Where, oh where, has Congress gone?” he yelled to about a dozen other Republicans, tourists in the gallery, some House pages, and Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, the lone Democrat who witnessed the unusual proceeding.

This from John Gizzi at Human Events on what was going on there [bolding is mine here]:

The same lawmakers said they agreed with Pence that the President should call Congress back from its five-week respite to deal with the energy crisis. Rep. Wally Herger (R.-CA) told me outside the House floor that “We’re doing everything we can” to get President Bush to bring Congress back. As to the White House’s attitude on making this rare-but-constitutional step, Herger said, “I’d say that right now, it’s rising on his [Bush’s] agenda.”

Rep. Don Manzullo (R.Ill.) told me he would be willing to come back even though his August schedule is “packed.. . .I even have a trip to Alaska to see ANWR.”

Rep. John Carter (R.Tex.) said that the message of the angry lawmakers who kept speaking and refusing to adjourn was “the spontaneity—we all showed up on the floor [and said] ‘Give us our country back.’”

Perhaps the happiest lawmaker I spoke to today was Rep. Thad McCotter (R.-Mich.), who has long urged Republican to capture traditional conservative theory and unite with strong tactics based on issues. Using the language of the rock ‘n’roll guitarist that he sometimes is, McCotter described the day’s remarkable events as “Republican riff on Yippie Street Theater on Pelosi.”

What?  The Republicans stand for traditional conservative theory?

Since when?

I haven't seen much of that since the military was gutted in the 1990's, the government grew quite large, requiring tax cuts so that people had some money to invest, thus increasing the size of government in the 2000's, realizing that this standing up to tyrants business is not a low cost affair, wishing they hadn't gutted the military in the 1990's, bemoaning the base corruption of earmarks which they have been happily signing off upon for decades, and generally acting like a 'Democratic Lite' party, with much talk on taxes and not much action on doing any other damned thing except restricting the rights of Americans on the internet, in areas of political speech, acting like they have some say in areas wholly given to the States and the people, and generally taking high moral stances that their own members can't live up to.

Conservative Republicans?  Those who actually KEEP TO THEIR WORD?

You know, a basic conservative value of doing what you say you will do?

From Politico's Patrick O'Connor on the happenings:

Republicans shouted their remarks from the well of the House until Arizona Rep. John B. Shadegg fumbled with the public address system and finally found the correct access code allowing him to turn on the microphone.

When he did, members cheered.

In fact, members did a lot of cheering Friday.

They cheered when the lights came on. They cheered when the lights went off again. They even cheered when the crowd in the galleries applauded their remarks.

In between, they shouted, “Work! Work! Work!”

Hey! Cheering to get things working!  I mean, 'work' is a conservative value, right?  But maybe they are a bit at sea on this 'working' business.  Perhaps they don't have time to ponder their work on 4 day weekends and 5 week recesses.  Under the Republicans it was only 3 day weekends and 4 week recesses.  Such 'conservative values' this working business.  Why don't they just be 'progressive' and pare that down to a 1 day work week and a 51 week recess?

Mr. O'Connor then sums up the proceedings of what happened at the press conference:

During the press conference, at least three members announced their intent to stay in Washington — if not on the floor — until Pelosi brought lawmakers back from break to vote on an energy package. Pence even asked President Bush to command Congress to return to session.

But minutes later, this band of partisan pranksters went back to the floor, where Price told the crowd that the Republicans were wrapping up their protest to end an afternoon of rarities in the Capitol.

He and his band high-fived and exchanged hugs as they left the floor to chants of “USA! USA! USA!”

So three members staying in DC... I wish them luck, even with a powerless, silenced House.

If any of these people had those 'conservative values' and stuck to them for the last 20 years or so, they wouldn't have to stage a prank like this, now.  The members of the Boston Tea Party knew their lives were on the line and couldn't count on any outcome, save that they would make their actions known and why they were taken.  Even if they wound up six feet under or in Davy Jones' Locker.  Those men put their lives on the line to start a principled attack on a Nation that no longer respected them as citizens and deprived them of their rightful say in government.

'No Taxation Without Representation'

If they don't like Pelosi's Politboro, perhaps it is time they told their party they will do what is right with or without their party.  Because this Politboro has gotten a lot of help from their fellow members in their party who like 3 day work weeks and 5 week paid vacations.  To do *that* requires guts, dedication and much, much more work than has been done by lackluster members of the Emirate of Incumbistan, lo these many years stretching into decades.

The job is voluntary, no one pushed them to their seats.

It requires much from those that want these positions.

Long hours.

Long days.

Little if any vacation time.

Families missed.

The Nation put first.

Speaking your values.

Commitment to your values.

And working to bring those values to fruition.

Hard work.

Work.

Work.

Work.

Sphere: Related Content

02 August 2008

Solar Energy to Fuel Cell, welcome to your new lifestyle!

Update: Thank you, Victor! This article has been reworked with the section of my bad math now marked and after calculations done on the right math...

Fascinating stuff on the energy front with a MIT researchers David Nocera and Henry Dreyfus finding a new catalytic system for changing water into its constituent components: oxygen and hydrogen gas. This is, actually, excellent news, but trying to go beyond that to linking this with solar cells and other energy sources. This, by their diagram, is an electricity based system, not one depending on photons to do the work, as is seen in their diagram here:

oxygen-graphic-1

So, this utilizes the efficiency of solar panels, currently hitting around 15% of incoming sunlight, to split water and hold the gases in storage until needed later. Not only do you become your own power plant, as Prof. Nocera points out, but you also become your own hazardous gas storage area, too! Hazardous?

The hydrogen actually isn't the bad part of this system, really, although it can be quite energetic which I will get to later, but it is the oxygen. Pure, life giving oxygen does something else which is known as 'oxidize' materials. If you light a candle you are oxidizing wax via the flame to get heat, thus changing hydrocarbons into various forms of carbon (dioxide, monoxide) and some water generated by liberated hydrogen and free oxygen in the air. Pure oxygen is damned dangerous stuff around an open flame or even spark source and creates lovely, high activity oxidation reactions when ignited. What the system is leaving out is that you, to get the energy on the cheap, will need to have excess energy unused during the day to have hydrogen and oxygen you use at night to get energy out.

Then there are the pumps... pumps? Well, if you have water pressure from a distribution facility (known by many as 'main water' or even 'city water') that is taken care of for you by the pumping facility and I won't consider it in this set-up. But if you get water from your own underground source, then pumping it up to the surface and pressurizing it is a non-zero energy input to the system. The pumps, here, would be those to pressurize hydrogen and oxygen into the tanks so you don't have huge low pressure tanks to put the stuff in which would take up more space than your home has. There are non-liquid storage systems for hydrogen, namely putting it into a reversible chemical reaction with a metallic sub-strate, but that gets you constant pressure hydrogen in which the substrate releases hydrogen as pressure drops, thus maintaining a constant pressure. Neat stuff, still needs a pump. Oxygen, in theory, you could vent out into the atmosphere and then just use an atmospheric intake for reversing the procedure later. Worth examining as it eliminates the really nasty part of the system from your house, although one hopes it doesn't become a 'ticking time bomb' of a gas jet ready to ignite next to your home if this option is taken. Probably would need some pre-mix with outside air via expanded tubing and air intakes to get some of the less oxidizing parts of the air in with it before exhaust. A mere technicality.

The first part of this is the kicker, and, really, getting a greater efficiency on the solar panel side with a cheap system would be great. Even Nanosolar has problems getting to that 15% and higher purity materials cost much, much more, but they make it up in low cost per square foot of production via printing techniques and presses. As I have looked at energy quite a few times and have a post up that does a bit of an overview, I will link to that and use some of the materials from previous posts to get some of the numbers. When looking at the electricity for vehicles, just to replace automotive gasoline (not diesel or aviation gas) I came up with 1.08E+12 kWh/yr, considering energy delivered to the vehicle equivalent after removing the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine and considering in only an 85% transfer rate for storage in the vehicles (or 15% energy lost via transmission, storage, etc.). That would replace the gasoline used in 2002 I believe it was, which was 125 billion gallons. Electricity is a very good way to run a vehicle as it depends on much higher efficiency electric motors to deliver power rather than a relatively low efficiency internal combustion engine. The problem is: storing the energy.

Let me make a push for high temperature and capacity superconductors, as those would fit the bill *perfectly*. A loop of thousands or tens of thousands of strands of that sort of material would do the trick at, presumably, lower weight and near perfect efficiency. We aren't there, yet, although recent advances have gotten us to dry ice temps for superconductive materials. Ok, push given for near 100% efficiency!

[The following section is incorrect due to my poor math skills]

So lets start flipping the numbers around and see what this means on a personal scale. I will do the quick step here, but I do have links to back the numbers at the previous article:

1) Average insolation in the lower 48 is 4 kWh/sq. m./month. The tropics are pretty steady at 5 kWh/sqm/month while going northward sees higher seasonal variations. Basically, there is a lot of energy coming down through the atmosphere, although nothing like the pure stuff in the vacuum of space. If you want *real* energy, that is the place to go and to get outside the atmosphere. Diurnal frequency (variations for non-producing hours, taken into account with the above.

2) Average household energy use. Now this one gets a bevy of conflicting numbers as many divide up the energy into different types, like Underwriters Laboratories does and I will harvest a couple of numbers from them -

Annual household lighting use: 2,100 kilowatts/hour (kwh)

Annual household electricity use: 10,660 kwh / household

Of which the second is the one needed. Now this is across all families, all places, all times, etc. and isn't the cyclic energy used per day with seasonal variations. But as a starting point it gives an idea of the amount of energy the system needs to capture overall - 10,660 kWh/yr. or, divide by 12, and I will round up a bit to the easier to work with 890 kWh/month.

3) Total insolation area that gets 890 kWh/mo is 223 square meters.

4) Actual area to capture that 890 kWh/mo given a 15% conversion rate of solar cells is:

223: X as 15:100

22,3000 = 15 X

X = 1500 sq. m. (rounding generously up from 1486).

Now if you go for a much steeper price material that doubles the efficiency, you get half the area necessary (going from 15 X to 30 X) brings that down to 750 sq. m. which is something doable and you have probably seen those nice array of high efficiency cells on homes and such. Nanomaterials, however, weigh far less (even with mounting you are mounting something the weight of aluminum foil) so you could do up your home in Nanosolar. I really don't have a problem with that and if you have any yard space with, say, 15 degrees to 45 degrees clearance for viewing the sky, that would help a lot in putting up such a structure.

That is to power your home. And there are seasonal variations in the non-tropics, so you will want a bit more material for winter use as you will get less overall sunlight than the average say a 40m x 40m area (120 ft x 120 ft). The great part of Nanosolar is, in theory, it replaces your siding, gets built into roofing materials, and generally becomes thin, paste-up films you can use to put over just about everything that gets sunlight. And cheap enough to replace when damaged (in theory once they get a few more production facilities going and such).

But Prof. Nocera wants you to power your car by this system, too... an all electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle, no doubt. Time to run the numbers on cars, to see just what it is you are doing with those poor things. Lets take your nice 40 mpg non-hybrid vehicle... diesel or gasoline, both have the same energy density, so fuel doesn't matter. Average driving per car is... well, the numbers vary all over the place, but they center between 12,500 miles/year to 15,000 miles/year, with spare drivers like myself, when actively driving, having cut below that minimum, but not by much. I will use the former as the economy is changing to an online one and using economical delivery services to bring goods to your door instead of you going out and getting them.

Your average car delivers 20% of the energy from the engine to actual motion based energy for the vehicle, and the best that steel engines can do is 37% based on melting points of steel and so forth. There are many other ways to make engines, and some are trying to get into that lovely 50%+ territory, but they are also far more sophisticated than your basic 4-stroke engine. So it is time to start running the numbers:

1) Average distance driven is 12,500 miles divided by 40 miles/gallon - 312.5 gallons of gasoline. Hmmm... call it 315 gal. for utility's sake. Round numbers are easier to work with and as the works of mankind are less than efficient at most things, I round up to capture inefficiency. And obey the laws of thermodynamics.

2) Delivered energy, and lets assume with good aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, and a better than average efficiency engine that your car gets 25% efficiency in converting gasoline to motive power. That is the energy equivalent *delivered* of, again rounding up from 78.75 gallons, 80 gallons of gas or diesel.

3) Per gallon of gasoline US is 36.6 kWh (from onlinecoversion).

4) Total delivered energy to your car, per month is amount used ( 2 ) multiplied by its conversion factor (3) or 2,928 kWh/mo.

Or over 3 times what your home uses.

Time to buy up some spare property as you have a car to run!

What, more than one car?

Say, just where *is* this 'extra energy' that Prof. Nocera is talking about coming from, anyways? Even with super-efficiency, low drag, low slung, low friction vehicles, and say you cut that amount in *half* you still need more property to run your car. Your car's energy budget is actually much higher than that of your HOME.

Ok, now that you have expanded your property (neighbors? you don't need no steenkin' neighbors! you are being GREEN) and are going to see about what you have to do about the good Prof. Nocera's system. It is, as stated previously, a fuel cell which is technology that has been around for... well, conceptually the 19th century if memory serves but reliably since the 1950's and NASA's need for a compact energy source it can charge up and then have discharge as needed. As a form of battery, what fuel cells do is add energy in (electricity, by and large) and split up water into hydrogen and oxygen. They are extremely efficient at putting the two back together and getting three by-products on the catalyst material: electricity, heat, water. The 'round trip efficiency', that is the efficiency of electrical energy to crack water and then to put it back together again and get electricity is between 30% and 50%. Using a fuel cell that operates efficiently at a high temperature does get higher efficiency (up to 90%) but those operate around 1500 degrees F (800 C), which puts it into the furnace category of heat containment.

What Prof. Nocera has done is work on the front end cracking/catalyst portion, to get a better system for actually getting water to split without really noxious chemistry involved. What has to be factored in is the energy lost in splitting the water will not be returned due to heat loss and other inefficiencies in actually performing that task. Electrolysis of water can be, theoretically, very efficient, up to 50 to 80% efficient getting the molecule to split apart although more realistic numbers come in at the 30-45% range. Oh, and your efficiency goes down using air to do the work, so pure oxygen is prefered because that is another 10% or so loss, so you do want to keep the pure stuff around... All of that is part of the loss in the 'round trip efficiency': getting water to split up via electrolysis, pressurizing, utilizing oxygen vs air. Plants, as in the green, leafy kind, actually don't produce electricity, but form longer chain hydrocarbons that come in the form of carbohydrates as they much prefer to actually have a chemical diet than electrical one.

They do have a catalyst, called chlorophyll, but it is doing something a bit more difficult, which is why Prof. Nocera was so certain of the outcome. Actually, if you grew photosensitive bacteria in sunlight you can duplicate that... like algae. Although it is possible to eat some kinds of algae, we generally prefer electricity as an energy source for our homes and vehicles. That higher amount via the ceramic high temp system uses those temps on both cracking and rejoining to facilitate both, but is still not in wide use and has support problems due to the need for its operating temps and output constancy. Thus that round-trip efficiency is one of 30-50%, give or take a bit on the high end. So now we can start to see how fuel cells, operating at highest rated efficiency (not theoretical) start to look as storage systems.

1) Daily energy your vehicle needs on average - 2,928 kWh/month or, divide by thirty and round a bit, 100 kWh/day.

2) Using 45% efficiency of the entire fuel cell for round trip, means that you will need 222 kWh/day and I will round down, at this point, to 220 kWh/day or 120 kWh MORE per day just to run the fuel cell. Lead acid batteries get you 90% efficiency, just so you know.

3) Total energy via fuel cell per month: car - night charging - 6,600 kWh; the rest of your home - 890 kWh. That is, yes, 7,490 kWh.

Want an efficient lifestyle?

Plug in your car and sleep during the day, and then use the inefficient energy at night and get on 'the graveyard shift'.

Then you will be living a GREEN lifestyle by avoiding the sunlight.

No wonder Bruce Wayne gets such high marks: he is leading an energy efficient life.

[end section]

Now lets try that from the top!

The parts that can be salvaged are from the home daily use section and effeciency amounts, but my incorrect reading of my own, damned post means I need to re-do the math.

Insolation - 4 kWh/sq.m./day!

Avg. Household Use section still the same - 890 kWh/month

So, average insolation - 30 x 4 = 120 kWh/sq.m./month

Effective useful insolation using 15% efficiency per sq.m. - 18 kWh/sq.m./month from solar cells.

Thus, 18 divided into 890 gets you 49 sq.m. collection area for the average home. Yes, that number did seem wacky above and should have been an in-process tip-off... grrr...

Call it 110 sq.m. for your average home, average days, average insolation (you do get more insolation in the summer than winter, when you need it).

Your car's motive needs (absent waste, and yes I expect this is lower once you change drive train to batteries and such, but for current state of the art vehicles) - approx 3,000 kWh/mo.

Amount of solar cell space you need for your car - 18 divided into 3,000 - 167 sq.m.

Space needed for your home and car, on average - 216 sq. m. on average.

Or about 15 m per side of collection area if the energy was going directly into your vehicle, which it isn't.

That 3,000 kWh/mo has to factor in the 45% round trip efficiency of the fuel cell system - which gets you to the 6,600 kWh/mo using the fuel cell as storage. Or 366 sq. m. of colletion area, which is just a bit over 19 m per side, just for sizing.

Somehow lead acid batteries begin to look really good here... and you still wind up with the Batman lifestyle if you want a lower collection area.

The variables are: efficiency of the solar cells (and I am giving them a lot here), efficiency of the fuel cell (in theory it can get up to 80%, which is still not the 90% of lead acid batteries), and just how 'average' you live. Unless you have a different need for the hydrogen and oxygen, my bet is that you won't want a fuel cell unless it is damned cheap compared to a lead acid battery system. And a good way is found to store the gases.

Sphere: Related Content