Forward Biased

Wonders Never Cease...!

I'm actually back...kind of, but back I am.

Firstly I must apologize for my abrupt disappearance—I surely could have, and should have, handled that better, mainly by letting you loyal readers know what was going on.

Suffice it to say that it was a combination of health issues (I don't like to complain about things, so just know that I have some serious health issues that ended up making blogging a bit more than I could handle.  As many bloggers will tell you, it's a full-time job when you consider all the research time that goes into every post, the careful consideration of my opinion so that I don't just blow off at the mouth (well not that much) but at least make an attempt at posting a well-reasoned essay on whatever topic is at hand.

Anyway, first and foremost, two major changes are in store for this blog.

1)  I will not be posting nearly as often as before.

2)  (This one is the biggie)-- The primary focus of this blog will change from current events to technology, primarily electronics, and primarily designs and projects that I am working on.

I realize that this pretty much leaves most of you out in the cold,  which is why I agonized and carefully considered all of the consequences  of this change.   Of course, I'll doubtless make the occasional post about something that's on my mind, etc., and you folks still have the freedom to suggest topics for posting a Forward Biased  viewpoint, but I'll be posting much less often, depending on several factors that affect my ability to post, or sometimes to post with any remote semblance of higher brain functions, reason, not sounding like I've completely lost my mind, that sort of thing.

As soon as I can figure out how to do it, I'm going to divide this blog into two sections, both accessible by the address Forwardbiased.com, because I think that's the perfect name for an electronics blog.

Well, that's all for now.  To all of you, I'm truly grateful for your readership, and I again apologize for just dropping off the face of the earth like I did.

More later.

— Obi-Wan

"Heroism" in America

I read this on Instapundit this morning:

ANA MARIE COX reports from YearlyKos:
I saw Joe Wilson get not one but two standing ovations today; he was also called 'a true American hero.' People waited in line for his autograph.

This is in reference to a political hack whose statements concerning his trip to Niger to ascertain whether or not Saddam Hussein attempted to acquire nuclear materials were debunked by none other than the 9/11 Commission.  Apparently blatant disingenuity and outright lying are what passes for "heroism" to a very large number of Americans today. 

Those responsible for the illegal willful leaking and publishing of very highly classified intelligence programs, programs that have very likely resulted in the saving of thousands of lives but have now been irreparably damaged, are also lauded for the courage and heroism of their riskless, felonious actions.

There was a time in America when these people would have been considered anything but heroes.  In those days, a hero would be a man like Pat Tillman, who walked away from a lucrative career in the NFL to serve his country in a mission he believed in, and lost his life in a tragic friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan.  Yet this man is referred to as an easily manipulated fool that, for some imcomprehensible reason, believed the lies of his Commander in Chief, lies that led him to his useless and inappropriate sacrifice.

When words like "hero" are diluted by chronic overuse, we no longer have the lexicon needed to recognize true heroes, and distinguish them from those that are merely basking in an ephemeral limelight.  This bodes ill for our society.

Democrats continue to drag us down

I have nothing against Democrats in general.  What concerns me is the manner in which their party leaders continue to embrace the more radical side of their base, and the damage that is doing to the country.  How's that, you say?  They're in the minority, so what could they possibly be doing to damage the country?

Well, the problem here is they have gone so far down the path of strident obstructionism and Neo-Socialist ideas that they are no longer a viable minority party.  They have utterly failed in their responsibility to provide realistic opposition to the majority party in order to keep them honest.  For example, I want nothing more than to vote against the weaselly Sen. Mike DeW(h)ine (RINO - OH) in the 2006 elections, but the opposition party has gone so far down the path of irrelevance that even with my nose plugged I can't in clear conscience vote for DeWine's Democratic opponent, knowing full well that if elected, job #1 would be to raise my taxes, and job #2 would be to piss away vast amounts of time and money on a George W. Bush Witch Hunt. 

In other words, while the members that sit in the House and Senate Majority Leader seats would change if the Dems win big in 2006, the fiddles would still be playing as Rome burns.

Dear Bedwetters -

I don't want to hear your hysterical rantings about the invasion of your privacy by the NSA program that analyzes de-identified call history unless:

- you not only shred your monthly phone bill before you throw it away, but burn the remnants (in an environmentally friendly way, to be sure) after shredding
- you do not file income information with any governmental tax agency (granted, this will be many of you)
- you do not have a single credit card or debit card
- you do not have a grocery store loyalty card
- you do not fly on airlines
- you do not have or use a cellular phone
- you do not send or receive email

The list goes on. My point, in case the sledgehammer approach didn't work, is that this infinitessimally small scratch on your supposed privacy pales in comparison to information you give away willingly every single day simple by being a functioning member of our society, and offers orders of magnitude better return for the perceived cost. Put another way, you willingly hemmorage personal data every day for very little gain, but you're unwilling to give away very little personal data for potentially (and I recognize how small that potential is to any given individual, but humor me) great gain.

Just sayin'

I'm a bit prickly...

Has this happened to anyone else?  I find that in this day and age of ubiquitously accessible, never-ending political porn brought about by broadband internet and 24 hour cable TV, I've become hyper-sensitive to subliminal political messages embedded in everything.  For example, my first thought when I heard about the Geena Davis Commander-in-Chief show was that it was a naked attempt to sell the country on the idea of a female president.  That one's pretty obvious, but it has gotten worse.  This morning, I was driven to writing an angry letter to the Columbus Dispatch in response to a single sentence in a front page puff piece.

The article in question concerned the BMV's censor board for personalized vanity plates and gave amusing examples of those deemed unacceptable, and some apparently borderline examples that were approved. It was this sentence that set me off:

"The panel occasionally fields a request for a political plate, such as BUSHLIEZ, which was allowed because it's unlikely to incite violence."

I sent the following letter in response:

In reference to James Nash's or Lisa Perry's statement that a personal license plate using the phrase BUSHLIEZ was passed by the BMV censor board because it "[was] unlikely to incite violence," I question whether that is the appropriate standard for approval of this license plate.

 

Among the other plates shown as examples of unacceptable tags, I did not see any that were nearly as devisive or insensitive as the BUSHLIEZ plate.  2,859,764 Ohioans voted for President Bush in a highly emotional election in 2004, and the tacit blessing of a state bureau of such a negative political statement is a direct affront to them.  I find it far more offensive than H8BLU, for example.

 

One should also consider the feelings of the many Ohioans that have family members fighting in the war.  The ridiculous assertion that 16 words from a State of the Union speech, whether you judge them to be lies or not, were the sole cause of this war belittles the sacrifices being made by those that volunteer to defend our country.  The question of whether the military action in Iraq was the basis of lies and deception on the part of the President or was an appropriate measure of self defence is difficult one, far too diffcult to be distilled down to two highly charged words on a license plate.

Things I ponder while driving to work

I'm an unwilling consumer of NPR news while driving to work, and a few things I hear raise a few ponderables:

Trent Lott wants to put a $750,000,000 earmark in an emergency spending bill, a bill ostensibly in support of Iraq and Katrina rebuilding expenditures, to destroy a recently rebuilt (at a cost of $250,000,000) railroad and replace it with a highway. This highway has apparently been a dream of his for quite awhile. My question is why something like this wouldn’t be included in a more appropriate bill, say something like the equally bloated highway bill? Could it be that Federal spending on this highway can’t be justified and the only way to get it is by hiding it in a “veto-proof” spending bill? Is this kind of self-serving abuse of trust what we mean by leadership?

I’m hearing a lot of griping about gas prices. How much did a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk cost in 1972? How about 1996? Why aren’t we hearing about price-gouging from dairy farmers? And this proposed $100 tax refund to taxpayers – is the definition of taxpayer “someone that actually pays income tax?” If so, expect to hear about “another tax cut for the rich” from 50% of the country. If not, here’s yet another back door welfare program. I’ve also heard that Congress passed a law mandating increased usage of grain-based ethanol in gasoline, which obviously benefits the farming industry. Does this mean we can get rid of the expensive farm subsidies now?

I’m curious about these Mexican Reconquistas and their claims that they own parts of the Southwest United States and will be taking those areas back. Back where? Are they talking about annexing those lands to Mexico? That wouldn’t make much sense – it’s not like Mexico is land-poor, so their economic problems must be arising from other factors. How long would it take for the newly annexed areas to be just as blighted as the rest of Mexico, and the Reconquistas are pouring out of California (or whatever they re-name it to) and striving to take back North Dakota? Or do they think that can "conquer" those areas but still retain the benefits of an American economy? I can’t see that happening since the “conquered” people would simply move out, leaving the newly reclaimed lands to be managed by lettuce pickers and landscapers.

Again, these are just random point and apropos of nothing in particular.  Might be fun to discuss, though.

Where to turn?

I've come to the conclusion that our Government is innately corrupt.  I am not referring to the Democrats labeling of the GOP "Culture of Corruption" when I say this - it is patently obvious that it is the entire body politic that is corrupt, and the decay goes far deeper than political affiliation. 

Our Nation was founded on strong principles, based on a detailed Constitution, and balanced with a triumvirate of co-equal branches.  The risks inherent in a pure Democracy were foreseen, and addressed via the implementation of a government comprised of civilian representatives.  Law was intended to be supreme, being blind to social standing and enforced equally across the populace.

Over the years, there has been a constant erosion of these principles, and we are now to the point where our current government is nearly indistinguishable from that which we freed ourselves 200+ years ago.

Obviously, the notion that law would be applied equally to all is facile.  While many, many examples are available, there are two that are in the news these days.  First, I've already commented on the dangers of government not only turning a blind eye on its responsibility of enforcing immigration policy, but actually proposing to reward those that chose to enter this country illegally.  I will now be watching very closely to see if any prosecution is brought to bear on the dishonorable Mary McCarthy, the recently discovered "leaker" of vital national secrets.  Personally, based on the minuscule slap on the wrist received by the equally reprehensible Sandy Berger, I'm not optimistic.  In fact, I fearlessly predict that she will reap millions of dollars making the rounds of the talk shows and from the ubiquitous book deal.

We are quickly devolving from a nation that respects the law, acts accordingly, and punishes those that don't into an anarchy in which laws are selectively applied, or in some cases, not enforced at all.  Unelected government employees, in concert with a left-leaning and ratings-hungry press, are attempting to subvert the policies of our elected officials, and they're getting away with it.  Bitter retired generals are calling for the termination of the Secretary of Defense, foregoing centuries of Constitutional tradition that ensure civilian leadership of the military, in favor of cynically promoting their lucrative book deals.  These same government employees outed an intelligence gathering program that could mean the difference between life and death for thousands of people, and the press teamed with the minority party to applaud their "bravery." 

That latter example is a two-fer.  Not only does it demonstrate the lengths to which self-interested, cowardly career bureaucrats are willing to go to discredit an administration they don't like, it also shows how far we've gone down the path of destroying the balance of the three branches of government.  It is not at all uncommon to hear people going on and on about the illegality of the NSA intelligence gathering operation, apparently speaking from a position of near total ignorance.  Or, maybe I'm wrong.  Either way, I was taught that the Executive Branch was co-equal with the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch.  As such, the Executive Branch is imbued with its own rights and responsibilities by the Constitution, and these rights cannot be abrogated by either the Legislative or Judicial branch.  The responsibility for the defense of our country is placed with the Executive Branch, and part of that responsibility by necessity includes the right to gather intelligence on our enemies.  Hyperactive bed-wetters may scream about the erosion of Civil Liberties, but I have yet to hear any proof whatsoever that this program was used for anything but to ensure the security of our populace.

So, where does this leave us?  Well, we have another election this year.  This is our opportunity to vote for the folks we want to represent our interests in Washington.  Or is it?  Do we really have a say anymore?  I contend that we do not.  Forgetting for a moment that the typical candidates from the two major parties can only be defined as "awful" and "more awful," gerrymandering and pandering have brought us to the point where incumbents basically tell us who we can vote for, and not surprisingly, it is nearly always a choice between the incumbent and a candidate that hasn't a chance in hell of winning. 

Our government extorts confiscatory taxes from the minority of the electorate and uses the funds to buy votes from the majority of the electorate. Our Government, which was supposed to provide only for the general welfare and defense of our nation, has now grown into a insatiable leviathan that exists solely to support its own growth.  And the half of the country that directly profits from this inappropriate largesse is just fine with that, and hey, why wouldn't they be?

Well, I feel better having gotten some of the pent-up vitriol out of my system.  Can you tell it's tax season?

Immigration, Amnesty, and a lawful society

I'm sure we've all seen the disgusting demonstrations put on by adolescents in the southwestern regions of our country.  I'm currently vacationing in Las Vegas, so I'm possibly a little close to the "action," and I'm certainly in an area that has a higher population of immigrants than I'm used to at home.

Why do I call the demonstrations "disgusting?"  I hope it isn't because of any latent racism.  In fact, I usually enjoy talking to and working with immigrants, particularly of the Mexican variety, although I've also had some very interesting conversations with the Somalians that we see at home.  The Mexicans that I have exposure to are typically friendly, industrious, and hard-working.  I hope that doesn't come off as a "some of my best friends are Mexicans" arrogance - I truly have a tremendous amount of respect for them.  That said, I cannot support the rewarding of any kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants.  I would, however, support a more streamlined immigration process to enable those that choose to pursue their fortunes in our country to do so without enduring a ludicrous amount of governmental red tape.

I call the demonstrations disgusting because they go beyond that.  The demonstrations I have seen are not about immigration; rather they are focussed on the idea of Mexican ownership of this country, and they are blatantly anti-American.  It confuses me, frankly, to see such an anti-American sentiment from those that desire to strongly to be here.  My gut reaction is the opposite of one which would allow me to support their cause.  When I see American flags flown in a subservient position to the Mexican flag by these demonstrators, my first thought is "if you don't like it, swim you ass back across the river."  Surely that is not the way to advance their cause with the typical American.

My problem with an amnesty program, no matter what semantic lipstick the gov't tries to dress that hog with, is that it makes a mockery of our laws, just as the pardoning of those that fled to Canada to avoid the draft in the 60's and early 70's did.

If illegal immigrants can openly break the law and be rewarded for it with an amnesty program, I'm left wondering what kind of sucker could ever give a damn about the law.  Why, for example, should I pay the exhorbitant taxes I do?  Why should I ever bother to even glance at a speed limit sign?  Why shouldn't I have a still in my back yard?  Why in the world would I worry about breakinig the law by growing pot in my basement?  Where do you draw the line?

A society based on equal enforcement of the law for all cannot survive when it becomes apparent that the law only applies to those that choose to follow it.  Nor can it survive when the laws are only selectively applied.  While I can welcome immigrants and support an easier way for them to legally enter the country, I cannot get behind rewarding illegal immigration with a free pass.  Such a policy would be a brick in the road to anarchy.

Monday open post

Comments and trackbacks on any topic are welcome.

Imagine Kitty Magazine linked with Shameless self promotion, ahoy!
The Conservative Cat linked with Sharon Stone suffers psychotic episode in newspaper interview
The Steel Deal linked with Questions
7 Deadly Sins linked with Anger: Dittos
The Peace Moonbeam Chronicles linked with Viva la Protest!

Biomass might be practical, after all...

...especially as a way to produce large quantities of cheap hydrogen.  This would make me quite happy indeed.

Imstead of trying to burn the biomass substances directly, they can be first converted to bio-oil (via GeekPress).

The biomass is converted into bio-oil through a process called pyrolysis, in which the organic scrap materials are finely ground and heated at 400 to 500 degrees Celsius, without oxygen. In just two seconds, about 70 percent of the material vaporizes and is condensed into bio-oil -- a dark liquid resembling espresso that contains more than a hundred organic compounds.

Now, you could just use this stuff in place of petroleum...

But bio-oil can be converted into a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen known as "syngas." And syngas can, in turn, be processed into a high-grade hydrocarbon fuel, such as automotive diesel.

Alternatively, the syngas can be combined with steam to produce pure hydrogen. In fact, Iowa State's Brown believes that bio-oil gasification may be the most efficient means of producing large quantities of hydrogen, should the element ever catch on as a major energy source.

DynaMotive is bullish on the syngas route because the technology and infrastructure are well-established. Germany used gasification to convert coal into synthetic diesel fuel during World War II. And South Africa used synthetic fuels as a substitute for petroleum imports during Apartheid-era economic sanctions. Today, gasification is seen as a way to reduce pollution from coal, because the process removes much of the carbon dioxide and other pollutants, such as sulfur.

Last September, DynaMotive announced that researchers in Germany had succeeded in converting its bio-oil into syngas using existing gasification facilities.

The main objections I read against the idea of building cars that run on hydrogen (H) is the difficulty and expense of producing and distributing large quantities of the stuff, which, ironically, is by far the most plentiful substance in the universe.

And there's no downside to burning H.  The only by-products are heat and water, and we're not about to "destroy the planet" by littering it with insidious water deposits.  In fact, there may be a way to use the water in the H engine's cooling system.

Unless the conspiracy theorists (who say that Big Oiiiiiillll™ would never allow such a thing to come to pass) are correct, and I don't see how they could be, this development could be the beginning of the end of our dependence on Middle-Eastern petroleum.  Petroleum from any source, in fact.

Oh, sure, there'll always be a need for some petroleum, because its uses are legion (making plastics, lubricants, flying model airplanes, etc.), but our days of relying upon it to fuel our economy just might be numbered.

Maybe.

I'll tell you this:  when Ford or Toyota or whoever rolls out its first production vehicle designed to run on hydrogen, I'll be strongly motivated to buy one just on the principle of encouraging the widespread use and distribution of the substance.  And, unlike the current generation of hybrid vehicles (which cost more to operate and produce additional toxic waste products in the massive batteries that must be replaced every few years), it will be one so-called "green" initiative that will actually deserve widespread support.

UPDATE:  Via Instapundit, it's begun in Japan.  Mazda has delivered the first street-legal hydrogen/gasoline hybrid.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  My congressman, Rep. Bob Inglis, wants the federal government to award an "H Prize" to the person who invents breakthrough hydrogen-automotive technology.