Gas, we all want it. But at what cost?

There's many types of alternative fuels being proposed these days, but the U.S. government is primarily backing one - ethanol.

Ethanol is a "green" gas, a renewable resource. This makes it acceptable to many people. But is it safe? In a recent letter to President Bush regarding his ten-year plan to convert U.S. fuel supplies to a mixed fuel containing ethanol, the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works stated:

"Currently, under federal law, the maximum level of ethanol permitted to be blended with gasoline for use in conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, equipment and engines is 10 percent – so-called E10. There is an interest in increasing ethanol blends to 15 percent (E15), 20 percent (E20), or even 30 percent through an expedited process at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to a fuels waiver under Section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act.... Currently, there is little available data on the emission, air quality, public health, or safety impacts of mid-level ethanol. On-road and non-road engines, vehicles, and equipment (other than flexible fuel motor vehicles) are not designed to be operated on ethanol blends higher than E10. The available evidence indicates that lawn mowers, chain saws, snowmobiles, recreational boats, motorcycles, and non-flex fuel motor vehicles will produce higher evaporative and engine exhaust emissions if ethanol blends higher than E10 are used.

Ethanol blends higher than E10 are more corrosive on certain metals and plastics used in many of these products and will cause many gasoline-powered engines to run hotter and at higher RPM levels. In turn, this will result in adverse impacts on starting, durability, operation, performance, and operator safety, due to the degradation of critical components and safety devices.

To ensure there will not be damage to air quality or to consumers or their gasoline-powered products, there must be a comprehensive and scientific analysis of the impacts of ethanol blends higher than E10 in all gasoline-powered on-road and non-road engines, equipment, and vehicles." [BI-PARTISAN LETTER URGES PRESIDENT TO CONSIDER HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES RESULTING FROM INCREASED USE OF ETHANOL]

This comes at a time when "global warming" is a big issue. Many folks are making decisions based on the many reports and public figures supporting this phenomena. But how much can we believe, and are humans at fault? Well, again let's look at other sources:

"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"

"Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference" - This is a good one. Remember the UN's "Food for Oil" scandal? Think we could trust them to manage a foolish tax like this?

"Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts"

"Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference"

Do you really think ethanol would fix it? Isn't it possible that Al Gore's hype about global warming is a lot like yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre?

Think about it.........

Appreciate your freedoms

If you live in the United States, like I do, then I sincerely hope you appreciate what you have here.

Compare your existence with this:

"A woman who was gang-raped over a year ago in the Saudi capital of Riyadh was sentenced to six months in jail and 200 lashes. Her crime: Being in the car of a man who was not a relative.

She had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes on charges of violating the rigid Saudi laws on segregation of the sexes. However, the number of lashes was more than doubled because of her "attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," Arab News reported. Her lawyer's license to practice law was confiscated, and he has been summoned to a disciplinary hearing, after expressing public criticism of the original verdict.

The seven men convicted of raping the 19-year-old woman were not beheaded, but rather sentenced to between two and nine years in prison. Three of the convicts were also convicted of raping her male companion.

On Sunday, Saudi Arabian authorities carried out the kingdom's 136th beheading of the year, surpassing by far its combined totals for the two previous years. The latest victim was a man convicted of murdering another with an assault rifle.

Saudi Arabia often defends its practice of beheading by explaining that it follows an interpretation of the Quran by which the crimes of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are punished by public execution with a sword. Those convicted of sodomy, apostasy and certain other offenses can also be beheaded in the kingdom.

Nearly 40 people were beheaded in Saudi Arabia in 2006, including four women, and between 83 and 90 the year before, including two women."

Notice two things here. First, the men that raped both the woman and her male friend were given a jail sentence of less than a year, to nine years - not beheading. Second, Saudi Arabia claims it bases it's beheadings on a religious principle, which includes rape in the 'approved' list.

So, why were these rapists given jail sentences and not beheaded? Isn't this a direct violation of the Quran, by their interpretation? Wouldn't this be an affront to their god, Allah? And if they are willing to break their religious code for this situation, doesn't this indicate they are willing to break it elsewhere, making them untrustworthy?

And why was this woman's sentence increased from 90 lashes to 200 lashes? Because she made her plight public?

Personally, I'm glad she did. This allows the world to really understand the injustices that occur in these Islamic countries. I can only offer sympathy and outrage at the punishment placed on her by the Saudi "legal" system. They screwed up, and they're embarrassed. They should be!

Sources:
BBC
Daily Mail
CBS News

The cartoon comes from an Abbas newspaper, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the largest Palestinian Authority (PA) daily newspaper controlled by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

In the background is the silhouette of a U.S. B-2 bomber. The Muslim's prayer is written on each missile (translated in the lower left corner).

This comes from the same folks that the U.S. is trying to help. This cartoon is only one example of the hatred towards the U.S. from a group we are trying to help. This hatred extends even into their schoolbooks.....

So why the hyphenated American?

So, I've always wondered..."Why do people hyphenate their ethnicity?" I know that many folks hyphenate their last names, which is fine, except that it just makes their last names longer. I suppose one day centuries from now, the hyphen will get dropped, and their last names will become one word. But that's a topic for another time.

I'm thinking about ethnicity this time around. Now, I don't believe in this whole "race" thing, I believe that there is only one race, the human race, and that we are all a part of it. Within the human race, their are different ethnicities, which most people simplify by skin color. But it's not that simple. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines Ethnicity as "ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association", which is supported by the anthropological definition "Ethnicity is thus a concept describing a particular way of drawing boundaries between groups ", so the amount of melanin in your skin is not the only factor you can use.

It has been shown by Genetic Anthropology that the human race came from one woman, Mitochondrial Eve. As a result, it can be expected that M. Eve carried the genetic diversity of melanin seen today. Because people migrated in groups where they had similar physical features, or ethnicity, to other parts of the African, Asian, and European continents, the separation of cultures resulted.

Why is it so important for people to identify themselves by a dual, or hyphenated, ethnicity? Do they feel they must provide an explanation to others, or is it something that comes from pride? There's not one thing wrong with being proud of you heritage, I just wonder about the reasoning for it.

I can't say that I see any advantage by going around claiming I'm a Belgian-Swedish-American, when I'm simply an American. For me, that's enough. But maybe for others, it's not.

At any rate, I've compiled a list of hyphenated ethnicities for the most prominent citizens of this country, the Presidents.

	Name	Term	Ethnicity
1	George Washington	1789 - 1797	British
2	John Adams	1797 - 1801	British
3	Thomas Jefferson	1801 - 1809	British
4	James Madison	1809 - 1817	Scottish
5	James Monroe	1817 - 1825	Scottish
6	John Quincy Adams	1825 - 1829	British
7	Andrew Jackson	1829 - 1837	Irish
8	Martin Van Buren	1837 - 1841	Dutch
9	William Henry Harrison	1841	Belgian
10	John Tyler	1841 - 1845	British
11	James Polk	1845 - 1849	Scottish
12	Zachary Taylor	1849 - 1850	British
13	Millard Fillmore	1850 - 1853	British
14	Franklin Pierce	1853 - 1857	Welsh
15	James Buchanan	1857 - 1861	Scottish
16	Abraham Lincoln	1861 - 1865	British
17	Andrew Johnson	1865 - 1869	British
18	Ulysses S. Grant	1869 - 1877	Scottish
19	Rutherford B. Hayes	1877 - 1881	Scottish
20	James Garfield	1881	British
21	Chester Arthur	1881 - 1885	Welsh
22	Grover Cleveland	1885 - 1889	British
23	Benjamin Harrison	1889 - 1893	British
24	Grover Cleveland	1893 - 1897	British
25	William McKinley	1897 - 1901	Scottish
26	Theodore Roosevelt	1901 - 1909	Dutch
27	William H. Taft	1909 - 1913	British
28	Woodrow Wilson	1913 - 1921	Scottish
29	Warren Harding	1921 - 1923	British
30	Calvin Coolidge	1923 - 1929	British
31	Herbert Hoover	1929 - 1933	British
32	Franklin D. Roosevelt	1933 - 1945	Dutch
33	Harry Truman	1945 - 1953	British
34	Dwight Eisenhower	1953 - 1961	German
35	John F. Kennedy	1961 - 1963	Irish
36	Lyndon Johnson	1963 - 1969	British
37	Richard M. Nixon	1969 - 1974	British
38	Gerald Ford	1974 - 1977	British
39	Jimmy Carter	1977 - 1981	British
40	Ronald Reagan	1981 - 1989	Irish
41	George H. W. Bush	1989 - 1993	British
42	William J. Clinton	1993 - 2001	British
43	George W. Bush	2001 - 2008	British

*Ethnicity determined by genealogy information or surname root.

25 British-American Presidents
8 Scottish-American Presidents
3 Dutch-American Presidents
1 Belgian-American President
1 German-American President
3 Irish-American Presidents
2 Welsh-American Presidents

Slow news day?

The front page of the July 16th Oregonian carried the line "Soldiers still go over the hill even in an all-volunteer Army."

My immediate response was, "Must be a slow news day for this left of left newspaper....." I mean really, is this a surprise to anybody? Of course there's going to be deserters in an all volunteer military. Just like there's going to be folks who start a job one day with high hopes, and find out it's not what they envisioned, so they don't go back. Military life is not easy. The demands are great, and the rewards are almost non-existent.

In my last year at Camp Pendleton, 1979, I had attained the rank of Sergeant. As such, one of my duties was to stand watch at Battalion Headquarters. I didn't wander around with a rifle - I didn't have any weapons. I sat at a desk in the building. I had a log book, which I dutifully wrote in each hour, indicating all was quiet. The intent was to have a single point of contact during off-hours in case of emergency. I was.....the night watchman. In a combat situation, this would be a more serious position to be in, but we weren't at war.

Due to the extreme boredom of the post, aside from the occasional visit by the Officer-of-the-watch, I started taking a 13" black & white TV with me. Well, this had the effect that a porch light does to bugs, and soon I had a few extra people around me. Turns out, these extras were living upstairs in the building, even though this was an office. They were awaiting their paperwork for dishonorable discharges for desertion.

One guy didn't seem to think it was any big deal, he was just looking forward to getting on with his career outside. He decided to share his reason for deserting with me, and got very animated about telling me, too.

"Sergeant, let me tell you how it was. You know how little we earn, and I'm just a Private. But one night I was out at a bar, and this guy sits down next to me. We start talking, and I find out he drives a truck - a semi! He told me how much he made driving that truck. It was a fortune, at least $30,000 a year! He said he could hook me up, I could ride with him, learn to drive, get my license, and his company just might hire me!"

I said, "Yeah, too bad you broke your contract with the Marine Corps."

He didn't miss a beat, "This guy said we'd be on the road all the time, so they'd never miss me. I'd be better off anyway, with more money. So I met him a few days later, and off we went. I worked with him for six months, and made a butt-load of cash."

"So, how did you end up back here?" I asked. "Well," he said, "I got too confident, and the FBI was waiting for me at a truck stop. But it's no biggie, 'cause once I'm outta here, I'll be back on the road in my truck. I'm going to buy my own truck, that's where the money's at, running your own rig."

So, here's one guy out of several in the room, watching my little TV. The fact that he broke a contract, is getting a dishonorable discharge - and who knows what else, but is happy about his decision to run during peacetime tells me that he's not alone. He didn't leave because he'd had a bad experience in war, he left because he wanted more money. It was all about him. And I'm glad he left, because I wouldn't have wanted to be stuck with him in a foxhole.

He would have only been thinking of himself.

So where's the story in the Oregonian's front page headline? It had to be a slow news day for them. Or, they're just trying to keep their usual liberal non-stories in readers faces, like the mother who keeps putting the rice cereal to her baby's mouth. Only the mother knows what she's doing, the baby just accepts - until one day it grows wise.

Memorial Day 2007

So I get this wonderful, feel good video about supporting the military, and at the end, it says "Each and every Soldier needs our support..."

Why did she limit this to those in the Army? Why do people insist on grouping every military person under the name "Soldier?"

Why?

So I'll go over it again:
Soldiers are personnel in the ARMY
Sailors are personnel in the NAVY
Airmen are personnel in the AIR FORCE
Marines are personnel in the MARINE CORPS

Miltary, Military personnel, Troops...these are acceptible terms for grouping all our Military personnel into one easily handled word. NOT "Soldiers," unless of course, you are referring to someone in the ARMY!

Thank you. my rant is done for the day.

Remember Me

Semper Fi

Military Wives Song

Traffic Safety and individuality

So driving to work one day a mini-truck with a shell pulled out in front of us - safely, and headed off in the same direction as we were going. It took a few minutes for me to realize that the lights on the back of the truck had been modified. Each brake light had been replaced by a single row of red LED's, and relocated low on the back of the truck.

I figured I'd check this out, and see if this guy was pushing the limits of the law, not to mention traffic safety.

The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 816.100 (5)) indicate that the lights must be "plainly visible and capable of being seen and distinguished from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of the vehicle in normal daylight." I doubt that these meet this statute.

I noticed that the owner was also using his brake modified brake lights as the turn signal. Okay, I'm old enough to remember when there were cars on the road that were made this way. But this truck is not anywhere near the age where it would have rolled off the factory floor like this.

The ORS (816.100) indicates that the turn signal should be a separate indicator from the brake light, and should be yellow or amber. It doesn't come right out and say that the brake light and turn signal can't be a combined unit, but it does discuss these indicators separately.

Why is this bouncing around in my head? Because it appears to me that this is a safety factor, and being that, it affects you, me, and the driver of the truck. If we don't see his brake lights or turn signal well enough, then we can't make the traffic decisions that we need to make to drive safely.

But hey, you decide.......

National Geographic Magazine

In the February 2007 Edition of National Geographic Magazine, there's an article about the amazing sea worms around Hawaii - "Hawaii's Unearthly Worms."


The pictures, taken by Darlene A. Murawski, are stunning. The variety of shapes and colors that these marine worms come in keep you turning each page to see the next one. These aren't your typical backyard earthworms. It's an excellent photo essay on this type of sea life.

So, it's with disappointment when several pictures in, one comes to the picture of a Ptychodera flava, or Acorn Worm. The journalist, Jennifer S. Holland, points out that this worm has "gill slits like those of sharks" but then she feels compelled to end this statement with "—and embryonic humans."

Do embryonic humans have gill slits? Is this a remnant of evolution?

National Geographic has never shied away from any opportunity to support the theory of evolution, and only quietly retracted it's "facts" when proven wrong. So, once again they have attempted to claim evolutionary proof in this subtle picture caption, which I'm sure many folks would nod their head in agreement over, because after all, this is "National Geographic," and isn't this what we've been told throughout our years of biology in public school?

But is it true? DO embryonic humans have gill slits?

The answer, of course, is NO! Are there skin folds on the embryo that resembles gills one might see on non-human embryos? Yes. But they are not gills, future gills, or even remnants from some evolutionary past. They are merely the result of cartilage forming under the skin, which will become unique structures in the neck, such as the voice box.

The idea that human embryo's have gill slits was perpetrated in 1866 by Dr. Ernst Haeckel, an early convert to Darwinism. See Biogenetic Law. Haeckel not only falsified his illustrations of the human embryo to fit his claims, he also fabricated a life form which he called the Moneron, going so far as to give a scientific name, Protomyxa aurantiaca. Of this life form, he claims "The Protomyxa aurantiaca is distinguished from the other Monera by the beautiful and bright orange-red colour of its perfectly simple body, which consists merely of primæval slime, or protoplasm."

His falsification of evidence was eventually proven in 1874 by Wilhelm His, Sr, a famous comparative embryologist of the day and professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig. On Janurary 9, 1909, Dr. Haeckel admitted his fraud in a letter to a scientific journal.

In today's world, any serious Embryologist would deny that human embryos have, or have ever had, gill slits. This is a lie perpetuated by folklore, and bad comments in widely respected publications like National Geographic.

Protomyxa aurantiaca: Ref. 5, Vol.2, p. 380, Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation

And the Oscar goes to..........

On February 25th, 2007, a grand awards ceremony took place, with much fanfare and hoopla, televised to homes across the globe.

Why were these people being rewarded? Because they made movies, which did nothing to improve life on earth, advance medical technology, or feed the hungry. They did not increase your paycheck, pay off your debts, heal your body, or put out a fire.

In other words, it was a ceremony to honor people that did nothing for anyone else. In contrast, two local policemen, who put their lives on the line every day for public safety, will receive awards from their department. There will be no television cameras, no fanfare, no designer clothes, and no fancy dinners afterwards. They will not be household names, and they will not be driven about in a limousine.

So, in my opinion, the Oscar belongs to..........Our Firemen, Policemen, and Military. When I go to sleep at night, I don't feel safe because Alan Arkin, or any of the other "winners" made a movie. I feel safe because there are real people out there, like Officers Meza and Wilson.

Burial of Christ and His family?

There's plenty of good blogs about why James Cameron latest "documentary" is wrong. So I'll list some after a brief comment, and leave it at that.

In past blogs, I've talked about how people, or sheeple, are being led by the media. They have no personal filter to control the information that's being presented to them, especially by the media, and trust of the media is near total.

Jim Davila's Blog (Professor of Early Jewish Studies, St Mary's College)
Chris Heard's Blog (Associate Professor of Religion, at Pepperdine)
Todd Bolen's Blog (Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, in Israel)

Past blogs about media educating the masses:
Idiocracy - Not just a movie
History by television - The dumbing of America
An inconvenient truth...or theory?

Idiocracy - not just a movie....

When I initially made the impulse grab which added "Idiocracy" to the handful of movies I was bringing home, I thought it was another silly, yet entertaining movie along the lines of "Mom and Dad Save the World."

I was right, and wrong. There seemed to be a lot of truth to this movie. The future society in this movie had become, well, ignoramuses. Everything they did was based on some form of self gratification - watching TV, monster truck competitions, and sex. The populous had forgotten how to care for themselves, the government was barely functioning, and what was left of industry existed by convincing people, through advertising, that their product was the best for them. and the population believed it.

One glowing example of this was for a sport drink, that claimed to be better than water, and even had "electrolytes." When Luke Wilson, the main character who has awoke in this future after several hundred years in a suspended sleep, asks one person what electrolytes are, the response is a statement taken from the company's commercial. Nobody knows what electrolytes are, but they've been told they're good, so they accept it.

The acceptance of the goodness of this sport drink is so widespread, that farms are failing because water has been replaced by it. "It has electrolytes!" In fact, water is ONLY used to flush the toilet.

A few blogs back, I talked about a conversation I overheard in a supermarket, where a young man was expounding on the history of banana importation into the United States, based solely on his revelation while watching a Three Stooges movie. I was reminded of the conversation while watching Idiocracy. It was then that I realized how much truth this movie really contained. I realized that Idiocracy was already creeping into our society, and had been for some time.

You see this in politics, and it's pundits. Who needs facts, if the statement being made will incite people to rally behind your cause? Take, for instance, an event around the Grand Canyon. Jeff Ruch, executive director of a group called PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) has decided to make an issue over a book that is sold in the National Park Services bookstores, which is contrary to his beliefs. Many followed his crusade, including the publisher of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer.

Mr. Shermer dutifully picked up on Mr. Ruch's rant, and made a show of support on his website, making a point of Mr. Ruch's claim that the NPS was being gagged by the Bush government. Reaching even further, Garry Trudeau, the Doonesbury cartoonist, seize's this opportunity, and includes this information in his Jan. 13th cartoon strip.

The problem here is Mr. Ruch's is wrong. Once Michael Shermer started looking into PEER's claims in their original press release, he found that Mr. Ruch's had fabricated a few things. On Jan 17th, Mr. Shermer published an update to his Jan. 10th article. In "Fact Checking 101," he goes through the allegations made by PEER, and what he found the the truth to really be. He admits that he was fooled, and credits his followers for alerting him to the truth.

Gene Weingarten, in his Oct. 22nd, 2006 Washington Post Magazine story about Garry Trudeau, makes the observation "When he (Trudeau) reads a book, he edits in the margins, correcting errors of grammar, syntax or cloudy thinking." Will Mr. Trudeau follow in Mr. Shermer's footsteps, and make a correction for the "cloudy thinking" that he was fooled into following, and subsequently passed on to his readers? A quick internet search shows many have been deceived by PEER's allegations, but few have actually tried to find the truth.

Idiocracy. It's here, and it's real.