Stem cells: getting it exactly wrong

I do disagree with President Obama's decision on stem cells... but then I also disagree with President Bush's decision on the matter, also.  Yet they took exactly opposite views, how could I disagree with both of them?

Is it a matter of detail?  You know, what was and was not in the decisions?

No.

Let me take a bit from Yuval Levin's post on 09 MAR 2009 from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, I will bold parts of interest:

Almost eight years ago, on the evening of Aug. 9, 2001, a new president addressed the nation about the complex challenge he confronted in deciding whether and how the federal government should support embryonic-stem-cell research. Rather than just announce the decision he had reached, George W. Bush took his national television audience through the process he had followed over the preceding months as he wrestled with that "complex and difficult issue."

[..]

Listening that night, one could tell that Bush sought a way to champion science and ethics together, rather than force an impossible choice between them. And the policy he proposed carved out such common ground.

The federal government had never before provided funding to research that relied on the destruction of embryos, but some human embryos had been destroyed using private funds. The lines of cells derived from those embryos already existed, and the "life or death" decision, as Bush put it, had already been made and could not be undone. He decided to permit federal support for projects using those existing lines, but not for work that relied on the destruction of embryos in the future. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos," he said.

Ok, this also dovetails with my abortion position which no one likes, but that is key to my disagreement with both Presidents:

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.

Do you notice where I place this decision?

Do I place it at the federal level?

No.

This is an area not given to the federal government, but to the States and the people, as seen in Art. I, Sec. 8:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

When you get a birth certificate is it from the federal government or the State government?  You will find that the decision of citizenship is determined by the States with equality of decision to be applied to all States.  That does not mean that the States are to be lock-step, but to afford basic provisions that are equivalent in that of other States for its citizens.

Further, Mr. Levin then goes on to abrogate the rights of the States in asserting the following:

As he did so, Obama also chose to repeat the familiar cliché that the Bush policy was a betrayal of science. In his administration, he argued, "we make scientific decisions based on facts and not ideology." The facts of the Bush administration's funding of the research, its support for science funding more generally, and the emergence of alternatives to embryo destruction seem not to count. And the fact that every human embryo is a living human being seemed unworthy of mention.

If embryos are, indeed, human beings, then if the federal government decides *that* then they are, automatically by being human beings in the United States, citizens.  The ancient concept of 'birthright', of the necessity of being born to become a citizen is obviated in extending protection to embryos.  The subject of morality in what can and cannot be done is not one that is suited to the federal level, but one that is well suited to the diversity of cultures in the States.  When the States decide that embryos are human beings, they will then have taken the step to extend full citizenship rights (as minor and dependent status) to embryos.  And yet the status of birthright remains: it is an extremely conservative part of our culture that puts forth that surviving birth is an important junction in one's life.

That cultural value pre-dates the Christian religion by quite some centuries, and is a touchstone for determining citizenship.  This is not something that can be danced around as it is a moral-based decision that is, indeed, not left up to science, but is left up to society.  Society expresses itself through these organs known as 'government' and in a federalist system the lowest level is given the widest leeway in making decisions and the highest has very little input into the matter.  Congress is given the immigration and naturalization power for citizenship, but it is NOT given the birthright determination power: that continues to rest with the States as witness the birth certificate.

In his article of 10 MAR 2009 Mr. Levin would then touch upon one of the primary reasons we don't hand this stuff to the federal government, if he would only realize that:

This is a dangerous misunderstanding. Science policy questions do often require a grasp of complex details, which scientists can help to clarify. But at their core they are questions of priorities and worldviews, just like other difficult policy judgments.

Modern science offers tremendously powerful means of knowing and doing. It is the role of elected policymakers to consider the knowledge that science offers and the power it gives us, and to balance these with other priorities -- be they economic as in the case of environmental policy, strategic as in the case of nonproliferation or moral as in the case of embryonic stem cells. In all these areas, politics ought to govern, with science merely its handmaiden. Science is a glorious thing, but it is no substitute for wisdom, prudence or democracy.

The reason you don't want the federal level to decide these things is that it is the LEAST representative of all governments: it can offer, at best, sweeping generalities and is NOT well suited to fine scale details.  Indeed, it is the people who make this decision in society and it is for policy makers to examine society and NOT set their own agendas.  Public policy should follow the will of the people at the most local level and the federal government should not interfere in things not given to them  to decide.  That is the negative construction of powers in the Constitution where very little is given to the federal government and all other decisions are held by the States and the  people.

When society has come to no set decision, when the States have not put down a set of laws that are generally equivalent, it is NOT up to the federal government to do that for the States and the people as that reverses the role of our representative system to have the least representative tell society what to do, when it should be the other way around.  Mr. Levin even gives further evidence of this, even though he is trying to make it into something else:

What you think of his policy depends on what you think of the moral status of embryos. If (as modern biology informs us) conception initiates a human life, and if (as the Declaration of Independence asserts) every human life is equally deserving of some minimal protections, government support for the destruction of human embryos for research raises profound moral problems. But if you think an embryo is not quite a person, or that its immaturity or inability to suffer pain or its other qualities mean that destroying an embryo does not amount to taking a life, the promise of stem cell science might well outweigh any doubts.

And now from the Declaration of independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

That political decision was wisely later put by the Constitution into the capable hands of the people.  We do and must respect that humans of that era were granted that status at birth as Nature's God had put a dividing line between the ability to occupy a position in society by being separated from the intimate physical contact necessary for gestation by the Laws of Nature.  Now further:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Yes we do get equal rights at creation and we then judge that via this institution known as Government which is created from society and it is to have the consent of the governed to make its decisions.

From the ancient birthright basis and our concept of restricted government powers, the reason I disagree with both Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush and the SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision is that these questions are not ones fit for the federal level as the meaning of these things must be worked out at the lowest level amongst the States and the people.  When this is kicked into the realm of the federal level, we are left with the most general formulation of government that is the least representative of all classes of government from local to State to National.

One should never quote the Declaration without understanding the context of the rights we all get and how to ensure them, and then examine the guiding principles of the Constitution to ensure that the proper questions are going to the proper levels of government.  And I do agree with Jefferson and Franklin that when we abrogate the principles and organizing powers of the government we have instituted the government, itself, must be changed or abolished.  For everyone who wants representative democracy in a republic to be fast, neat and easy, the system itself is set up to be the exact opposite as it reflects all of society in detail starting at the lowest level and working upwards.  It was made to be an inefficient system so as to keep sweeping powers out of the hands of the President, Congress and Supreme Court and deal with it at the level of the people and the States.  These grand moral and ethical decisions are the exact ones we don't hand to the federal government as it isn't set up to deal with them.  That is by design of our Constitution to safeguard our rights... the very thing that Mr. Levin is railing about.

Making a moral decision is not something we elect National politicians to do without our guidance from our more local levels, and when the people have come to no firm decision, the role of the federal government is to be quiet and to the other work necessary to safeguard the Nation so that the people in the States can make this decision.

This is an extremely conservative and federalist viewpoint: that the ways that we set up to restrict power flowing upwards means that we, the people, have to take on the heavy share of the load in figuring things out and let them slide if we can't come to a good decision.  By investing truly life or death decision making in the federal government, we hand away our very liberty and freedom that is ours to start with and always rests with us.  In attempting to shift that burden we become subjects of government, not the guiding force to government.

Plus I don't think there is a 'conservative' decision once the very liberty we have sequestered to ourselves is assumed by the federal level, save to HAND IT BACK and say that this is not where the decision MUST be made.  That is a false question when government assumes a power it should not have: that a 'conservative' or 'liberal' position is best for using it.  Neither is 'best' for using it as it resides with the people, and it is tyrannical and despotic to seek to take away the decisions of the people and vest those in the least representative form of government that isn't given this work to do.

As you may guess I disagree with a lot that the federal government does.

That is because it is no longer adhering to principles and organizing power that gives it strength and is trying to usurp powers that rest only with the people.

Until 'conservatives' can learn that there is no 'conservative' use of usurped power save to GIVE IT BACK, they will wander in the wilderness wondering why it is, exactly, that people don't like having their lives dictated to by them any more than they do by 'liberals'.  But then I find that the self-evident truth of the power residing in the people to be just that: self-evident.

And on stuff like this, we just can't shrug off our responsibility unless we enjoy the chains we will soon be fettered with by ever so efficient, neat and tidy government.  I am sure that the gulags of the Soviet Union and death camps in Nazi Germany were ever so well run... very efficient. Extremely lethal to society and the rights of the individual.

That is what you are asking for when you want representative democracy to be 'efficient'.

It will enslave you if not kill you.

Fun, in theory: DIY projects

Yes, it is project update time!

When I last updated, I was heading towards getting a parts-complete set of parts for the Pico-ITX system.  At this point the major parts are now in and I was faced with having to all the parts mounted in the Toaster from Hell.  The big point that was holding me up on that is one that should have given me caution to just buy a standard case and be done with it: lack of tools to make parts.

Really, if I had just a few minor tools I would have been finished some time ago, even lacking bells and whistle parts.  As it is I'm still lacking some bells and whistles (like getting the on-board audio system which has a non-standard header set-up) going.  Finally I decided on the 'no frills, just get this damned thing completed' agenda.  Thus I have come down to faceplates: those pieces of metal made to hold buttons and other interface things like sockets for power and USB connections.  I had decided on a CRU Dataport housing for one of the 3.5" slots in the Toaster and will go with the 2 x 2.5" SATA notebook drives in one of the housings.  In theory I can run both of those off of the IDE output from the Pico-ITX board... which requires a notebook IDE to standard IDE adapter and then a standard IDE to dual SATA adapter... made in China that last one is... don't ask me which site I scrounged it from, I couldn't tell you.  That was good.  I also found some small fans, 1" square for circulation and those are a major plus.  I previously had a Pico power supply (requires external brick adapter) for DC-DC connections and would dearly love to get an AC-DC board for the system, but that was not available when this all started.  Beyond that I've been purchasing bits'n'pieces here and there, including aluminum sheet and shim stock and all sorts of fun drill bits to adapt over to my small driver, a nibbler to take off small sheet metal pieces, and generally wishing I had a regular machine shop/mechanics shop nearby that I could rent some time from.

That last bit points out to my first idea on all of this, which was to install a two-slot frame (one 3.5" x  1" and one 3.5" x 1.5" slot next to each other with 1/8" between them T/B) so that I could then mount regular faceplates seen on the slots at the back of normal desktop computers.  I can find those pre-punched by the truckload.  To do that, however, I would have needed to pieces of equipment I don't have:  one is a drill press, so that I could get all the lovely holes worked out and tap them, and the other is a press-brake for sheet metal for nice 90 degree bends.  Access to those two would have just had me down to parts scrounging in a week and the project done in a couple of months.  Without those two pieces of equipment, I have been having a rough time of it.

Even drilling out the holes for the I/O equipment (buttons, interfaces, etc.) had nearly made me give up on the idea and just buy a case.  Early last week I was nearly at that point and was seriously pricing out cases.  But as I had other projects going and I had been looking at other sites, I remembered what one guy did with his new Ruger Mark III pistol: he took out the chamber loaded indicator.  More than that, he had sealed up the slot for it and not by welding.  When I remembered that, all the parts fit together and I was soon looking at epoxy putty and resins that would set up to be nearly as strong as steel.  And has all the workability of steel for drilling, sanding, etc.  At the moment I remembered that, I knew that I no longer had to get all the holes perfect the first time as I could hack out as much as necessary for a 'rough fit' and then putty/resin around the rough area and would then get a nice fit for the interface parts.  Beyond that for the putty, if you put a screw in and then putty around it and screw out the screw when it is half-set, you have a pre-tapped hole for that screw.  No matter how bad it looked on first hit, I could smooth in putty or resin and that would be that.

Yes, for those of us without the necessary machining equipment (and I really could use a buffing/grinding wheel too, but that is cosmetic) there are ways to 'fake it'.  I will still bitterly curse that VIA did *not* make the holes on the Pico-ITX fit into the exact holes for a hard drive: they were within a few millimeters for that.  That would have allowed for a standard drive housing adapter and shortened this process up no end sans equipment.

Once done it will be a small home-media server, and at this point I could have done better for less money, but learned far less... which tells you how much media I utilize on a monthly basis: the project is more interesting than what I watch or listen to.

 

The Mossberg 16ga. and GWA/Marlin 60 are both finished, save for one E-ring off the Marlin that is indicated on no diagrams, anywhere, for any version of the Marlin 60 and derivatives.  It functions fine as-is, but should get a modern action in there if it is needed for the long term.  Both shoot very well.

 

Had two pick-ups at a gun shop down in Manassas, which was quite amazing as both were on my long-term buy list: one for immediate and one for future needs.  One was an LW Seecamp .32 which is not for CCW but for close-quarters use for various reasons.  Shooting the LWS .32 is an interesting experience as the hammer is external and it functions a bit more like a revolver than a semi-auto.  As you pull the trigger back you can see the hammer come back and can judge just when it is you will fire.  The action on it, for being such a small pistol, is tight... and it has a recommended ammo list that now has the Speer Gold Dot at the top, with the Winchester Silvertip and Federal Hydra-Shok as the second tier preferred rounds.  As the slide has such a short travel on it, there is the distinct ability to stovepipe or jam a round when firing, and any problems with magazine feed are noticeable in that regard.  I tested a factory LWS magazine and TripleK magazine, and the TripleK had feed problems... plus the spring wasn't arranged right on the inside so that rounds tended to jam in the magazine.  It needs a better spring, really.  I suffered a total of one stovepipe and one jam off of 24 rounds and would have to give a lot of testing to say which is best as I still don't have any of the Winchester rounds in.  For a 'point in the right direction' pistol, it does its job and that is all I ask of it.

The second was a gift for my niece as she had been lusting off of the Titanium Carbon Nitride Desert Eagle from Magnum Research.  Can't say that I blame her, although it is not my color of choice... still, finding that in 50AE for hundreds less than it goes for used is a major find.  Ammo isn't cheap and she doesn't have a range to get used to it, so it sits with her until she can get back here for our new range that will take up to 50 BMG.  Came with a cheap Tasco Red Dot on it, so it should have decent accuracy for most hunting purposes.

The Thompson is in Hatfields for a bit of cutting down on the mag catch so I can use old FA mags with it.  I can't get an answer from any of the top-line Pros or shops to work on it, and Hatfields comes highly recommended... and I have no idea if the local best, Mr. Garrett, would even look at it.  So a few more weeks until that is back.  Must have for old magazine madness...

In-between the Pico-ITX and what is going on now, the concept of 'put your own gun together from parts' seemed like a great waste of time for some fun.  At the low end of that is converting a Vz. 61 Skorpion from its de-milled full auto into a semi-auto after ditching the full auto parts and getting a semi-auto frame.  I went to Military Gun Supply for the old parts kit, and Czechpoint USA for the new frame and other parts that went missing in the de-milled kit.  The former came quickly, within a few days of ordering, but the frame and parts have taken awhile to finally process through and I should be able to pick them up next week (if all goes well, etc.).  More on that in a bit.

After that is the new 'hobby' of older guns I've decided to spend some time with.  As I am a late-comer to the firearms field, and we have an administration that is causing a run on some of the more popular calibers, I looked at some of the good, old weapons from wars past and put a bit down for two Russian Mosin-Nagant 91/30's.  With the demise of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc there is a large number of these guns and ammo on the market for those willing to take the time to clean one up.  They are relatively accurate, and if I could afford a Finn 39 I would have gotten one for the highest accuracy you can get from the line, but I couldn't justify that and could two of the Russian ones on the theory of:  buy two to have one reliable.

Actually, if it weren't for the economic downturn, this would become my spare time time eater.  In my family genetic make-up is latent 'packrat syndrome' which I have been able to semi-successfully fight off for years.  It will surface, now and again, with various items, but finally die out.  By restricting the scope of each resurgence and being able to part with older stuff I've gotten, I am able to keep a relatively clutter-free home.  Older arms, however, are just fascinating to me, what with my interest in warfare and such.  If I was well and able and in normal retirement, I could spend a wonderful time heading all the way back to the beginnings of armed warfare, all the way down to flintknapping.  But such is not the case, and economics now becomes a major restriction on old arms. 

How arms are designed, why they were designed and the methodologies used, and how those evolved is a study of man's creativity applied to the martial arts.  Firearms are, themselves, an examination of how mankind has evolved chemistry, metallurgy and machining to address climate, skills and field conditions for equipment.  Each improvement in any one area required an examination of all other areas involved with the equipment type and would change the methodology of warfare.  And as our modern times makes the older equipment now readily available, one can get a feel for how and why things were done the way they were.  Beyond the social area of arms, such as Cowboy Action Shooting or the Re-enactor communities, an interest in the industrial changes in mankind (in the older sense of one's industry used to produce something and not the factory/modern sense) allows for how knowledge is garnered, used and adapted to changing times.  How those things changed would have an impact on society and Nations over centuries and are part of an interlocking driving force within mankind.  To remove the martial side is to deny our origins in Nature and make us prone to the vicissitudes of those willing to become barbaric.  To remove society makes us revert to that primitive state and need to start afresh.  To remove the organs of society brings disorder and to over-apply them brings stagnation, both of which cause conflict as the natural need of mankind to ask more of himself unfettered by government is equal to the side red of tooth and claw we must restrain within our hearts.

So the Mosin-Nagant rifle starts with lovely 19th century engineering and then gets modified and used past that because of the sound thinking that went into them.  Even after their military utility had reached a minimum, and there are still some deployed by a few forces just like the Lee-Enfield, they hold a reserve for those interested in sport and history.  They lose none of their utility, and the sound design work shows through as it does with any weapon well made and cared for.  That last part is the one to deal with next which is cosmoline.  I've dealt with that for small parts, but for something like this requires a larger heating arrangement.  Thus the 'Rifle EZ-Bake Oven' made from a trashcan and other parts is what is directly next on the agenda along with finishing the Pico-ITX system.  I spent about a week trying to think of something better and more reliable: even in VA we don't get the very hot days for more than a short part of the year, and suburbia trees keep things cool and semi-shaded so no 'trashbags and rags' in the car deal would do.

If you have to do it via the 'net, like I do for most purchases, then Ron's Home & Hardware is where you will want to end up.  It became a one-stop shop for the necessities of aluminum garbage can, racks, cord, socket, etc. plus some cleaning supplies like 0000 steel wool and sand paper.  Yes, getting an aluminum garbage can shipped to you is costly, but if you need to get it all at one place and not spend time hunting around for parts, then Ron's is the place to go.  I have zero complaints on the prices as, even with shipping, they came out to less than I could buy the stuff for locally.  Of course once you get a set-up like that, for moderate heat, the question of putting a finish on other parts, say a Vz. 61 Skorpion frame, comes into the fore-front.  Being able to maintain a steady 120-185 degrees F for an hour or so puts you just in the realm of all the lower to middle cost means of blueing and coating metal.

I had thought I was going to send the major parts (frame, receiver and barrel) to a gunsmith to do.  Still might, really.

But here's the thing: have you ever looked at the mod end of the finishing/plating/painting end of the world?

I wound up at Caswell Plating and got into a quandary over what to do.  Yes the Black Oxide (blueing) kit is cheap... the Cobalt electroless not so cheap, nor the Black Krome... and that got me to thinking about exactly what I was trying to achieve with what I was doing.  I had thought of something gaudy like a Black Oxide frame and Chromed receiver to make it look like a really trashy piece of junk that just happens to fire bullets.  Also heat wouldn't effect them much.  But, exactly what is going to get hot in the gun itself?  The barrel, of course, the chamber, and maybe about the last inch or so on the receiver where the barrel comes out, ditto the frame and chamber area, plus very front of the bolt.  And as that will only be semi-auto 'shooting for fun and accuracy' (such as it may be) that leaves only 10% or so of the exterior reaching high temps.  And that leads, naturally, to paint... high temperature paint, which is also available at Caswell's in the paint area.

Someone appears to have gone wild with paint technology since I last looked at it some decades ago.  The car and cycle modders have just taken things to places where there is money in putting out truly stunning (and often truly gaudy) paints.  The Dupli-Color folks, alone, have more in shiny, liquid, color-shifting and temperature shifting paint than I can easily shake a stick at.  And here I am not having a decade and more of adjustment trying to figure out just what it all means.  Just at the high temp end, alone, I can find enough good looking car colors to keep me busy.  But for godawful gaudy I could do a Metalcast job on the receiver (presumably with basecoat if I Black Oxided it...or just anyways...) and, yes, it would become a gun not hard to miss and that no one, in their right mind, would want to steal.  Yeah, that shiny anodized look in red immediately lets you know that whoever has that gun is not entirely well.  Of course I do want the interior to get a Black Oxide treatment, at least on the frame, as that is what the old chopped-up frame had done to it and I would assume with good reason.

Now if I could figure out the temperature range of the Mirage multi-coat or Alsa Corp. Prizmacoat, then I would be in dangerous territory.  Not to speak of the Alsa Eclipse heat sensitive paint... which would let me see just which parts of the gun got hot as I use it.  Yes, add all this plus standard surface stuff like Black Oxide together and, really, it doesn't matter how 'good' the Black Oxide looks if you are going to be covering it over with something far worse and eye catching.  Really, doing that means that the cheapest Black Oxide work only serves as an adhesion layer to the paint.  Throw in a high temp enamel suitable for use where you aren't using a high output firearm, and you only leave the barrel as something that you will want to leave with a standard coating.  And as this stuff tends not to like oil and such, the baking comes first as my ability to clean cosmoline out of the trashcan once I use it for that purpose is minimal, save for disassembling the electrical parts and filling it with a degreaser after plugging holes.

If you wonder why I'm not posting: I'm busy.

I leave commentary here and there and am also cleaning up my two fictional works: my Star Trek story and Terminator cross-over story.  Those are personal projects that I am posting so that folks know I'm still alive.  I do leave commentary here and there, but it is infrequent and scattered.  I am getting ready for the months ahead... when I'm not talking, I'm doing.  And I do mean what I do.  You can see what I've talked about so you can know what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

Thanks for dropping by!

More time once I'm done having fun with DIY projects....

Dumb Looks Still Free time on: Experience

Just a short note, but it is worth putting down.

 

I think that all Americans can now agree that touting experience of running a National campaign, of any sort, is not something that can be cited for a candidate's ability to step into the office of President and actually show ability to be Presidential.

 

We can now take that off of all future campaigns as a citation for 'experience'.

What the Hamiltonians forget

Poor David Brooks is shocked (shocked!) that Barack Obama is a big government, big spending, high tax, class warfare liberal tending towards the Left if not hard left. That via Instapundit who has a nice round-up of articles of those suffering 'buyer's remorse' in supporting Barack Obama and then finding out that the contents list on the packaging actually contradicted the glitzy front panel on the box. Apparently reading the contents label of a man's political career was too difficult to do for some of those 'moderate conservative' or 'moderate' or even 'conservative' punditistas that signed on to the Barack Obama bandwagon based on the packaging glitz.

It is telling what the basis for David Brooks' particular problem was in this land of self-delusion:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”

Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.

Hamiltonianism is 'moderate'?

Alexander Hamilton was the guy who wanted a 'strong federalism' with the federal government taking on all sorts of things to guide the Nation. Foremost of which was to have federal input into the money and banking sector of the economy to help 'stabilize' it. Quite the contrary of 'limited' government, his first idea for a federal government was one that was aligned more to monarchy than republicanism. Although he would support the Constitution and compile the Federalist Papers, one suspects that the arguments of the Anti-Federalists, some few of which were arguing for a stronger set of checks and balances and more representation in the House, was something that Hamilton didn't care much for. That trend of not wanting to read and understand the full breath and scope of the founding era discussion (and some of the very personal venom that was going on) starts with Hamilton, Madison and the Federalist Papers.

Alexander Hamilton, in pushing for a type of Constitution that would see a permanent set of members in the Senate and President, was not looking towards a 'moderate' form of government but one that was, for his era, very conservative to the point of being hidebound and monarchist. His views of the elected elite having more wisdom than the common man would be moderated, and he would actively campaign for the ratification of the Constitution, but his view for a strong economic character of the National government to guide the economy is one that was fraught with problems from the very institution that he wanted: the National Bank.

I do write on this topic just a bit, and I don't mean to fetishize it, but this idea of a 'strong federal' presence in the economy, run by appointed officials in the Executive with rules drafted by the Legislative to meet petty, political goals is one that has caused problems both in the run-up and post-crash of 1927-1929 and the current housing inflation by Congressional rule changing that started in the mid-1990's but came to fruition after 2006 to present. I do so as the ills of such an institution are made when the Nation was founded and any institution trying to serve that role has the same ills that need to be addressed or it does the Nation little good to have it.

These problems were addressed long before our 'modern' era in the Bank Veto Message of 10 JUL 1832 and that message catalogs the ills of the institution drafted, then, as a monopoly concern by government. In kicking off that message the prime reason that every Hamiltonian gives for wanting a National Bank is given:

A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty at an early period of my Administration to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.

And just where is the authorization for a National Bank or Federal Reserve in the US Constitution? Remember, after this Veto there would be NO National Bank or Federal Reserve that can intervene in the markets as we know it today, and that this would last for over seven decades. I see much on coinage, interstate trade, tariffs, taxation and so forth, but nothing on actually creating and controlling such an institution. In the Law of Nations that is something a National government can do, but our Constitution is a negative rights document that only gives to the federal government those things explicitly stated. If it isn't in there, it isn't there, and Hamilton who advocated for a National bank was neither being 'moderate' nor a believer in 'limited federal government' from the start, although his views would change during the Constitutional ratification process, his moves after that to still seek such an organ of government that is not explicitly given to Congress to do (or any other branch of government) is one that should be deeply troubling for 'moderates' today.

Ever hear of 'strict constuctionism'? Why is it only applied to the courts when the entire federal arrangement falls under a very strict constructional arrangement? You know, State's rights and that sort of thing... oh, right, we chucked that out with the 'Progressive' era with Teddy Roosevelt leading the way.... so sorry! I had forgotten how long the big government bug has been in the intestines of the two party system.

So, what was the first problem with the National Bank that caused it to get nixed? Well, it took far too much control of things:

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders.

You mean they actually had a corporate body you could go to and address? Not just some high-up bureaucrat that trots before Congress once in awhile, but an actual board you could find and castigate? And it was a company, too? Any relation to Freddie and Fannie? I mean the Federal Reserve, Fannie and Freddie are all exclusive clubs... I mean 'organs of government'... that are put in place by Congress, right?

Now this foreign and domestic exchange problem, does that have anything to do with something like 'market intervention' to 'stabilize the currency' and 'buying other Nation's money' to help them out? How about intervention into the domestic market for, say, setting over-night bank loan rates and home mortgage rates? But we are, at least, lucky that the leaders of, say, Freddie and Fannie aren't mere political brown-nosers appointed to reward political support by giving the individuals a lucrative job in a controlled government organ to benefit partisan needs... oh, wait, they are that. Aren't we so lucky to have the latter and not a group we can easily point to as stock holders?

The problem, of course, is that politics then, as now, played a role in who got to do what in the National Bank, and so there was a ready scheme to utilize funds for political purposes and economic enrichment of those involved in it. And this would be yet another sticking point:

An apology may be found for the failure to guard against this result in the consideration that the effect of the original act of incorporation could not be certainly foreseen at the time of its passage. The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more. This donation finds no apology in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. On all hands it is conceded that its passage will increase at least so or 30 per cent more the market price of the stock, subject to the payment of the annuity of $200,000 per year secured by the act, thus adding in a moment one-fourth to its par value. It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars. For these gratuities to foreigners and to some of our own opulent citizens the act secures no equivalent whatever. They are the certain gains of the present stockholders under the operation of this act, after making full allowance for the payment of the bonus.

Ah, a gracious President who says that those who passed the fool thing couldn't have foreseen the results that would come from it. But past problems do not require that they be promulgated: just the opposite, they are to be removed and if the basis of the institution is poorly founded then the institution must go. Giving a REWARD to those involved in the thing is just the opposite of doing that. Say, why are Fannie and Freddie get oodles of cash to hand out under the EXACT SAME regulations that CAUSED our current mess? What is up with that, anyways? Do our elected Representatives and Senators really think that these two institutions are worthy of the backing of the US government?

Still we don't have the stock prices of these institutions to worry about, we just pay and pay and pay into them with little to no accountability, as of late, and the Federal Reserve admitting that it doesn't know where up to half of the original TARP funds went. Not like we are handing out free money, or anything, heaven forefend. Mind you instead we are handing trillions more for government, the Federal Reserve and the two FMs to hand out. Can we at least get the entire boards of each of them tossed out and elect someone sane to run them? Oh, wait, those are 'political appointments' so we can't do that, we just have to trust our government... which got us into this mess in the first place.

On the foreign side, you do know that the largest debt holders in the Fannie and Freddie system are Russia and China, right? Its not like we are shoveling out hundreds of billions for a goodly portion of that to ensure that our debt holders don't get cold feet and pull out of our federal home mortgage system... yes, that's right, one of the reasons we are throwing out more cash than has ever been thrown out by any Nation in a few weeks is to make sure that our over-inflated housing market is pumped up to the benefit of these foreign debt holders. Because, you know, if they pulled their money out it might cause a 'crash'... scrambles to look at the Dow Jones hey an uptick at 6,840! Ah, well I do remember the days of the over-inflated 10,000+ Dow... you do know that percentage-wise we are pretty close to the same sort of drop as seen between 1928 and the crash of 1929, right? So given that we are already having one of the largest stock market crashes on record, just how much more painful would it be if Russia and China both left us? Russia isn't doing so hot what with the oil market in a tailspin and China laid off 2 million people and closed 70,000 factories. So we might be looking like a damned good investment right now.

So we are, basically, shoveling money out to keep the over-inflated system going and prop up Russia and China and reward them for investing in our bad economic behavior. Good job! We are now sure to get more of the same!

Now if you want to address the institutional problems of the two FMs and the Federal Reserve, we could take one of the solutions proposed for the old National Bank, and it is really something that is truly American:

It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the Government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the Government sell out the whole stock and thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers with all the powers and privileges secured in this act and putting the premium upon the sales into the Treasury?

If you think the concept of 'privatization' is only something from the mid-20th century, you have thought wrong. Here is the concept: take the entire ball of federal wax that shouldn't be there and set a market value per share and offer as many shares as there are citizens and give each person the option to get a share in the resulting corporation either through direct payment to the government or as a check box on their tax returns with each member of the household getting a share (must be a US citizen). That way these institutions must get regular oversight, are accountable to the American People and must get a regular governing system set down that is separated from the political appointments of the government and elected by the share holders.

Instead of shoveling billions to all these companies for 'bail outs' why not tell them that they must give a share of their company to each and every American Citizen, distributed via the Treasury, and then be held accountable NOT to DC but to the American People directly? That then distributes the load of the system to all citizens and allows us to determine the value, if any, these companies have by TRADING the shares in an open market. Doing that would get rid of 'government oversight' and put it in the hands of the American People without exception: it is our government handing out our money and we deserve a direct say in these spendthrift companies government wants to prop up. Every additional 'bail out' is more shares due to each citizen.

Yes that will make any elitist 'moderate Hamiltonian' go watery at the knees at the concept that the American People can make a better decision on their own destiny than our government can in the financial arena. And if these companies ever start to make money, they can pay out dividends to EVERYONE. With that done the true market value of the companies and their assets will be found and adjusted for in a period of a year or less once average citizens start dissecting them like frogs in a science class. There aren't enough regulators in government to do that, but with the economic downturn we have lots of financial analysts that are unemployed and who could do a bit of hobby work on, say, AIG or Chrysler or Fannie Mae.

You see the Hamiltonians can't come up with this sort of deal as they don't trust the average American Citizen to make a good decision for themselves. Which is why they got co-opted by the Wilsonians prior to WWI when President Wilson re-created the National Bank in the form of the Federal Reserve. Ever since then Hamiltonians have let their elitist ideas of 'limited federal government' get overwhelmed with their 'moderate' views of what government should be doing FOR government in running the Nation. Why is David Brooks ticked off? Was it that Barack Obama went overboard? Or that he is a Hamiltonian with strong Wilsonian views that tend to be elitist, condescending and authoritarian? Hamiltonians were overjoyed that Ronald Reagan spent freely and never did get around to cutting government. Really, these are the 'moderates' who take the ratchet view of government that 'once it does something it cannot be undone' and forget the truth as stated in the Declaration that governments are instituted amongst men and can be changed or abolished by them.

We repealed Prohibition.

Perhaps it is time to undo the harm done by these grotesque federal organs that advocate policies of a faction of one party ONLY, and are elitist in their views and don't give a hot damn for anything but money. We will be impoverished to continue the wrongs that were created by ill-made institutions and ill-created regulations that guided banks and the American people away from sound banking, investments, and loans and to our current economic hardships. Remember those laws are still on the books.

A real President would trust the American People and not government.

Just like President Jackson proposed in 1832 and recognizes the proper place of government:

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.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves-in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.

Perhaps it is time we heed our experience as a Nation and learn the wisdom of past acts undone.

I have had it with the prostitute we call government and the Congresscritters who act as its pimp.

And when it is our interests as a Nation being pimped off for the gains of the few, and we get the shaft, that is when, indeed, we must heed the words of Jackson and Jefferson.

We can change, to do so is hard as we will step back to the path we have not trod on for decades now. The path of liberty, freedom and equality under the law with no bias in the law for any. And get these financial institutions into the hands of the American People and NOT their elected representatives who are not up to the task of running them for us, so we must take that burden from them.

It is not too late to do so.

But time grows short.

History in the memory hole

Reading at Micky Kaus's place I came across his reaction to the President's attempt to justify the massive amounts of spending going on, that are greater than I care to think about.  He took out the three parts that he sees as major attempts by the President for this, and quotes him:

In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry.

From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age.

In the wake of war and depression, the G.I. Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. [E.A.]

First off is the Transcontinental Railroad which was first proposed in 1845 and Congress put out some bonds during the war to make it, but then this little thing known as the Civil War ate up manpower and funding for it.  Money spent in 1863 was in the most unconnected part of the country: California.  Money spent in JUL 1865 was after: the burning of Atlanta, the re-election of President Lincoln, the defeat of Lee and his surrender at  Appomattox in APR 1865, Lincoln's assassination in APR 1865, and the beginning of the Reconstruction.  California did not participate very much in the war not having a direct connection to much of anything back east, and to say that we laid railroad track from one end of the country to the other DURING the war when the 'Golden Spike' was put in on NOV 1869 is not even stretching the truth.

This is intentionally mis-stating history to sell a petty political program.

 

Second is the Industrial Revolution that most folks put up at the end of the 18th century to early 19th century, about the 1840's as and end point (see. Wikipedia amongst others).  The reason the US Civil War is such a major landmark in history is that it is the first time a fully industrialized foe went against a marginally industrialized one, and industrial might demonstrated that the disparity could not be made up on the battlefield where logistics was King.  It is very interesting to read Jerry Pournelle's site many times but this one seems appropriate, responding to a professor in 2005:

I don't want to sound condescending, but I am not astonished that the remedy, as seen by a professor of education, is more money. Yet I recall my 4-room 8 grade school in Capleville in the late 1930's and early 40's, and I cannot help thinking that we got a better education in 8 years in that school, from 2-year Normal School graduate teachers, than our kids now get in High School from "credentialed" teachers who have graduated from Departments of Education.

I do NOT believe the remedy is more money. The remedy is to insist on results and only pay for results. The remedy is to forget credentials and degrees and training and look at RESULTS, and fire the teachers who cannot teach. Nothing else will work. Of course we will never do that. Our schools are not for education, they are for credentialing, and that applies to grades 1-8, high school, college, and Departments of Education. You get there, you pay your fee, you get your credential; and once you have the credentials you are QUALIFIED, and can only be removed for -- well, essentially for nothing. The number of teachers fired for incompetence in the United States is so trivial as to be lost in the noise, and the only real way to lose a teaching job is to fake your credentials; if you have the credentials you are presumed to be competent even if your pupils learn nothing whatever.

Even more interesting is that the idea of secondary schools didn't start to hit until the early 20th century between 1910 to 1940 in the US.  Great Britain had learning at schools as a mostly private concern and it wasn't until 1900 that the Nation officially brought in secondary education.  Germany expanded primary education after WWI and added for-fee additional 4 years during that period, also.  This is a good full CENTURY after the Industrial Revolution and its 'aftermath'.

This is an intentional lie about history on its face.  And, no, having an ignorant speech writer isn't a help as it only points to the intellectual laxness of the speaker.

 

That brings us to the third one which is the closest to the point, but misses the point a bit.  The GI Bill passed in 1944 did, indeed, provide not only educational benefits, but home mortgage benefits to returning GIs.  As a group the GIs that would utilize these benefits the most were those returning from later wars, like Vietnam, and the great good of the first GI bill was that it allowed returning veterans to allot their money to the school of their choice: higher educational institutions had begun to over-charge GIs and raise tuition.

What created that middle-class, however, was the pent-up spending needs of a Nation that had sacrificed 50% of its GDP to war time spending.  Rationing at home and the lack of production of new items, such as cars, meant that returning GIs had back pay from military service, along with what women had earned but had lacked goods to buy at home, and that pent-up demand funded by ready cash would change the way Americans were able to live.  That *alone* would have formed the largest middle-class that the country had ever seen, as the ability to afford a home and a plot of land would create the 'suburbs' as a vibrant area of life due to the influx of new people to them.  Prior to WWII the activity of the social life of major cities was downtown, but with the appearance of suburbia that would begin to wane and the economic power wielded by families would help to create a boom in industry that would also have to supply post-war Nations that had their infrastructure devastated by the war.  That global need would put a spotlight on the untouched industrial power: the United States.

The GI Bill would play a part in that in smoothing transition for veterans, unlike what had happened in past conflicts, and that transition would allow industries to spread into new areas to create jobs.

How could those two factors do anything *but* create a new middle class?

As it was a little over half of returning WWII veterans used their benefits for higher education, while the rest continued on with their skill base and increased it by returning directly to work.  While those coming out of colleges and universities would gain a percentage increase in job pay, mostly in the middle management arena, that was only above the already high levels of wages being established by their non-university brothers.  This generation would try to move on from the war and what they remembered of the Great Depression so as to give their children a 'leg up' in life.  And yet, by 1956, poor Johnny couldn't read.  And today the rate of his not reading amongst each cohort has remained stable: no matter how much money is thrown at education there is a portion of American children that do not do well in the US education system no matter what is tried.

It is historically disingenuous to cite the government's GI Bill as 'creating' a middle class: it could do no such thing as these returning veterans would still need jobs to pay for food, clothing and other basic necessities which, for many, would be in a newly married life.  Matching up men and women who had readily available cash and the needs of a family would serve as the economic basis for creating a large middle class in America.  And while the GI Bill would help the post-war transition, and add icing on the cake of an economy that was exploding in activity, the idea that it would be the force to create that middle class is plainly nuts.

This is more than 'stretching the truth': it is not recognizing the basic social and economic forces that drive the US economy.

 

Apparently this current occupant of the White House can get away with such things and no one calling him on it, while the prior occupant would have been ridiculed for his lack of knowledge and ignorance.  Strange to think that it is the current occupant that is supposed to be so 'hip' and 'modern' and 'cool' and yet can't use Google.

Because that is part of the modern age, and there is no excuse for getting these things wrong... unless you are trying to sell a bigger lie than those being presented.

Or else you are left with the strong suspicion that, as the song goes, he really 'doesn't know much about history'...