Earthrace Boat, image from BoatDesign.net

Earthrace was an engineering feat.  The 78ft boat, which displaced 13 tons, set the world record for circumnavigating the globe in a powered vessel.  The boat did the trip in 60 days, 23 hours, and 49 minutes, beating the previous record by over 13 days.  The vessel had a 3,000 nautical mile range, and traveled at speeds up to 45kts.  Amazingly, it accomplished this running completely on an animal fat and vegetable oil bio-diesel fuel.  The key to the boat’s speed was its design.  The trimaran hull reduced drag and allows for faster speeds, while the three hulls themselves were designed to slice through waves rather than roll over them, greatly increasing efficiency.

In June 2009, it was announced that Earthrace would join the Sea Shepherds fleet.  The Sea Shepherds are a group of radical conservationists dedicated to interrupting the legal hunting of whales by Japanese research organizations.  They are (inappropriately, in my opinion) featured in the Animal Planet show ‘Whale Wars’.  In the past, the Sea Shepherds have attempted to interrupt the historic Canadian seal hunt, but were arrested and had their vessel seized after ramming a Canadian Coast Guard ship.  The Sea Shepherds, founded by a man who was kicked out of Greenpeace for being too radical, have always sought crew members based on their radical beliefs and zealous support of Sea Shepherds ideals over their actual nautical skills.

Despite the initial statement that Earthrace would be used in a passive role, on January 6th, 2010 Earthrace, re-named Ady Gil sank from a collision with the 172-ft Japanese research vessel Shonan Maru 2.  At the time, the Shonan Maru 2 was providing security to the Japanese whaling fleet.  Ady Gil had been attacking it and other whaling vessels using a projectile launcher, high-powered handheld lasers intended to blind watch-standers and equipment,  and by towing a line and crossing the whaling vessels’ bows at close range in an attempt to entangle their propellers or and rudders.

Vessel Ady Gil Attacks Japanese Whaling Ships with (from left to right) A Projectile Launcher, A Laser, and an Entangling Line; photos from icrwhale.org

The below video shows the collision between Ady Gil and Shonan Maru 2, as witnessed from the deck of Shonan Maru 2.  When watching the video, pay close attention to the stern of Ady Gil.  Initially it appears that the vessels will pass close aboard, but will not collide.  However, at the last minute, Ady Gil accelerates in front of the whaler, where it is hit.  The acceleration is evident in the building wake behind Ady Gil as it draws nearer to Shonan Maru 2, and the acceleration does not stop until AFTER the collision.   This video is evidence refuting the Sea Shepherds’ claim that Shonan Maru 2 rammed Ady Gil.  Interestingly, this video has not been shown by any of the main media outlets.  Instead, they have repeatedly aired video taken from another Sea Shepherds vessel, whose perspective makes the fault much more ambiguous in the collision.

For more images and videos of Sea Shepherds’ reckless activities from the perspective of the victims, go here: http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea.htm

Editorial Cartoon by Ramirez

The recent string of summer town hall meetings held by the President and members of Congress have brought out a wave of protests against the proposed health care program.  This should not be a surprise.  Americans have been exercising their First Amendment rights in the form of protests since the bill of rights became part of the Constitution.  Before that, there were still protests, like the one depicted above.  The protests occurring all around the country today, however, are a different type of protest than we’re used to.

First, the protesters appear different.  They are older. These are not college students or young people, they’re people who are over the hill and beyond.  The average health care protester is probably old enough to be the grandparent of the environmental and anti-war protestors we’re used to seeing in the news.  Second, many of them are conservative.   Traditional protesting (like that which is going on at these town hall meetings) is a tool that was traditionally used to advance the liberal agenda, while the health care protests are dedicated to stopping it.  Finally, this is the first time that one of Barack Obama’s plans has met widespread protest.  Controversial actions such as the $700+ billion TARP bailout, billions worth of appropriations and spending bills, and the cap and trade program were passed with little public outcry.  Now, on the issue of health care reform, the people are, for the first time, coming out in great numbers to speak out against the pet project of the Democrat poster boy of the century.

These departures from our common conception of protests have sent liberal politicians reeling; trying to decide how to react.  For once they are on the receiving end of protests, something that many of the Democrat politicians in office today have never experienced on such a scale.  The result has been a myriad of reactions, none of which are appropriate.

The White House chose denial, calling the protests ‘manufactured’.  While some of the protests may, in fact, have been influenced by conservative interest groups, the widespread scale and nature of the protests and protesters is evidence that they are not manufactured.  The simple fact is that the GOP is too fractured at this point to organize any kind of protest, let alone one on the scale that we’re seeing.  The claim of manufactured protests is, howver, congruent with the White House’s inability to accept that the people could disagree with it’s policies.

Congressional leaders, however, went even further.  Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D, Nev.) chose to use the phrase ‘evil mongers’ to refer to the protesters.  It is a phrase he proudly repeated several times for journalists.  Evil is a strong word, used to refer to morally objectionable people and actions.  Is it really appropriate for American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to express their discontent with a governmental movement?  No, it isn’t.  Not at all.

That leaves Nancy Pelosi (D, Cal.), the Speaker of the House, who showed just how out of touch she is with the country, it’s people, and the Constitution she swore to support and defend, by calling the protesters ‘un-American’ .  She really did.  These are ordinary American Citizens, exercising their rights, as delineated in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.  They are Americans, exercising the rights granted to them as Americans.  Maybe they’re more American than you, Ms. Pelosi.

The most interesting part of these reactions and the similar reactions of other Democrat politicians is the one reaction that is being avoided like the plague: understanding; empathy.  Executive and Congressional Democrats are so stubbornly behind this very liberal concept that they are unwilling to accept the fact that the American people may not want this proposed health care plan.  Let’s hope they learn before a destructive bill is passed.  If not, they’ll surely learn in the next election.

Editorial cartoon from www.mediabistro.com

Considering the current political scene, I find myself often thinking about taxes, taxation, and the economy.  The way I see it, there are two fundamental conditions under which people allow themselves to be taxed: that they have representation on the body that taxes them, and that they in some way benefit from the government’s use of their money.

The first condition had Americans quite literally up in arms 230 years ago, when patriots took arms against the British throne.  As the history books tell us, the British Parliament imposed taxes on the colonies, despite the fact that the colonies had no representation in Parliament.  This sentiment and the subsequent conflict gave birth to our nation and shaped its early development.  For a nation built on ‘No Taxation Without Representation’; a nation conceived in fear of an over-powerful central power and designed to prevent one, a lot has changed since the Revolution.

Today we are embroiled in another debate, one centered over the second condition of taxation: that tax-ees in some way benefit from the government’s use of their money.  This is not one that will be fought with muskets.  It may not even be fought at all.

Traditionally, when more privileged persons give a portion of their income, wealth, or possessions to help the less fortunate, it is called charity.  Charity stems from human compassion, and occurs when one realizes that they are comfortable enough to share what they have, so that others may be slightly more comfortable. The key to charity is that it is voluntary.

Recent trends in the federal government appear to be attempts to redefine charity.  The latest proposals for funding Barak Obama’s health care program involve adding a further tax on those making $350,000 or $1,000,000 or more.  This money would fund the federal health care program designed for those who do not have any or adequate health care.   The implications of adding a federal option to compete with commercial health insurance programs are a topic for another post.  In any case, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that someone making $1,000,000 or more doesn’t need health insurance from the federal government.  The bottom line here is that Barak Obama is asking (making) the more affluent members of society give “a little bit more” in order to fund a program that they will not benefit from.  In turn, this added burden could lead to a reduction in traditional charity, and even in the risky entrepreneurial investment that contributed to the power of the US economy.

Such sentiment constitutes a redefinition of charity, where the ‘compassion’ and ‘voluntary’ elements go away, and the government steps in and forces the giving.  At the same time, it constitutes a violation of the conditions in which citizens allow themselves to be taxed.  Votes alone cannot reverse this triend, as the portion of society being wronged is a very small fraction of the whole.  On the other hand, the influence and power held by that small fraction is immense.  Society must hope that these citizens take up the fight in the ways they know best in order to reverse this wrong before it becomes insurmountable.

One final thought: true charity is the product of a healthy economy; government-forced charity is a barrier to it.

Associated Press File Photo by Robert F. Bukaty

I hear that the new administration of the EPA has pushed through a judgement that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.  While an analysis of CO2 as a pollutant had been forced by a suit against the EPA, the Bush Administration worked to slow the process as much as possible to prevent the potentially dangerous impact of such a judgement on the economy.  It seems that the Obama Administration intends to force the country into its environmental policy through a lesser-of-two-evils battle between EPA regulation and the notorious cap-and-trade legislation that the liberals are trying to push through.

Let’s first take a step back and look at carbon dioxide as a gas.  It is a linear molecule with two double-bonds, in the form (O=C=O).  It is heavier than air, and at normal atmospheric pressure, changes phase directly from a gas to a solid when cooled.   It is a common byproduct of the neutralization of carbon-containing acids and is, itself mildly reactive.  Carbon dioxide in water will produce a very weak carbonic acid, but the gas is not considered a source of acid rain.

Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in the atmosphere and comes from a number of sources.  As previously mentioned, it is a result of neutralization of carbon-containing acids.  It is also a byproduct of the combustion of carbon-containing fuels as well as the fermenting process.  Much more commonly, it is the product of respiration.  It is what humans, animals, fungi, plants, and all other oxygen-breathing cells exhale in the normal course of living.

Carbon dioxide is used in numerous ways.  It provides the carbonation in sodas and other ‘fizzy’ beverages.  It is also a gas commonly used in pneumatics and portable fire extinguishers.  In its solid form, dry ice, carbon dioxide is used to keep items cold for shipment and over long periods of time.

Carbon dioxide is also classified as a greenhouse gas.  Sunlight, comprised of the visible spectra and infrared and ultraviolet light on either side of that spectrum, shines on the earth.  When the sun shines on the earth, various layers of the atmosphere deflect or reflect some amounts of its emission spectrum.  What is not otherwise obstructed by the atmosphere reaches the surface of the earth.  That energy is converted into heat, a process which sends thermal infrared waves back up from the earth’s surface. Greenhouse gasses capture these waves and reflect them back to earth instead of allowing them to pass harmlessly into space.  The re-impacts of the thermal infrared waves effectively increases the warming effect of each initial piece of sunlight.

Obsessive coverage in the media and by environmental groups has led to the incorrect belief that the greenhouse effect and global warming are directly resultant from carbon dioxide.  This is actually not true.  Carbon dioxide is the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, representing less than 1/3 to less than 1/5 of the impact of the top contributor.  That lead contributor just so happens to be water vapor which, including its form as clouds, accounts for as much as 2/3 to 4/5 of the greenhouse effect.  Should it too be considered a pollutant?

The EPA’s classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant allows for regulation under the Clean Air Act. The clean air act was originally passed in 1955 and has been amended numerous times since.  The most recent amendment came in 1990 when provisions were added for controlling acid rain and ozone depletion.  The legislation provides a basis for regulation of emissions of certain gasses in order to prevent additional harm to the environment.

What this, in turn, could do is force the issue on the President’s proposed cap-and-trade program.  It does this by removing the ‘no’ option, in that if cap-and-trade were to not make it through Congress, EPA regulations on carbon dioxide emissions would go into effect.  If cap-and-trade were to pass, maybe the EPA would back off on its own regulations.

On the other hand, the EPA is claiming that the new ruling would apply only to automobile emissions.  This means a further tightening of standards on car companies.  The irony here is that the government is at the same time propping GM and Chrysler up in order to keep them in business, and a major reason that they are doing so poorly is because they are forced (by emissions and fuel economy standards) to build lots of low-profit (or no-profit)  small cars that nobody seems to want to buy.  Essentially this move by the EPA will force the government to need to pump more and more money into these auto companies to keep them alive.

This goes to the bigger issue of trying to manage an economic crisis while furthering a liberal agenda.  The two don’t appear to go hand-in-hand.  The goal is to stimulate companies to be more successful, yet the government is squashing them under new regulations, further cutting into their profitability.  In my opinion, deregulation is the way to help stimulate the economy.  Let the free market dictate who makes what and how much people pay for it.  Speaking of the free market, I hope the government is planning a bailout program for the health/drug sector after this new ‘national healthcare’ program kicks in… but that is another topic for another day.