Amendment I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The conventional understanding of this amendment establishes Freedom of Religion, as well as Freedom of Speech, and is said to establish the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. We also have the right to peaceably assemble "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Typically, when we think of petitioning the government, we think of signing our names to a written document espousing particular thoughts or speech, or we think of standing in front of a government office, or on a busy street, holding a sign with words reflective of our thoughts and speech, in the hopes that those in the offices, or the general public driving by, will see our message and agree with it, leading to more pressure on our representatives to effect a legislative change that hopefully solves the particular grievance or problem.
However, it seems there is a third type of speech that some writers are well versed in, particularly fiction writers. This type of speech is known as "showing," and the short educational phrase is, "Show, don't tell." The challenge, for fiction writers particularly, is not only to write using techniques that tells a story as a news reporter might list facts and who said what when, but additionally shows the story in the readers' minds as a series of pictures. Sometimes creative writers speak of using words to "paint a picture." Perhaps the penultimate peak of showing versus telling is television and motion pictures. Most of us have been around long enough to have read that news, movie and television producers have used the First Amendment as legal justification to show us painful or uncomfortable pictures to watch, and to keep available to the public's view material even our own government would prefer that we not see.
Well, great! What does this have to do with the Homeless problem?
Homeless people are forced through a variety of creative survival means to live in ways that most of us are quite uncomfortable thinking about, nevermind seeing. First, they don't have homes (well, duh!), and shelters are often full, so they might live on the streets or in the unimproved canyons near our homes. Homeowners and businesses often object to this, ultimately, either because it lowers property values, or a variety of other well-reasoned objections having to do with fire dangers, sanitation, crime, or simply discouraging customers from entering the proprietor's locale and business. Yes, a homeless person might go through your garbage one day, looking for something to eat, or for something of value they can use. While I've never been homeless, scavenging through trash is an activity that I have participated in in the past, and highly value. You'd be surprised what can be found at times, perfectly good working items that others throw away, as well as discarded food that may not yet be spoiled. But I begin to digress from my point.
Some might prefer to think of this as "reality TV." I propose that homeless folks are essentially petitioning government by showing us, instead of telling us in a formal, written way, what it is like to be an economic outcast, and which constitutes a grievance that other humans can have a place of shelter, rest, and peace; a place to store their belongings, including food; while they do not.
If so, given the persistent and growing numbers of homeless folks, it appears their petitions are not only being ignored, but that in fact any solutions being offered are too little, too late, or are mostly ineffective at solving the apparent underlying problem, economics. I first became aware of the homeless problem in the 80s when they would show up at the park, or the beach, begging the public for a donation. In recent years, I've read that local governments occasionally raid ad hoc encampments located in canyons and brush, generally not visible from the surrounding neighborhoods. The police have not only bulldozed their makeshift quarters, but also thrown away their belongings, an activity that a Federal Court recently ruled was illegal.
Over the years many complaints about homelessness have been made, including the fact that they sometimes congregate in groups to live (think "peaceably assemble") in canyons and public lands, and that when such encampments are discovered, otherwise homeless-friendly cities reportedly send in the police. If they're solitary, it's less likely they'll be discovered or bothered by the authorities. Given our human species' social and co-operative natures, organizing into "communities" would not only be expected, but be quite normal and natural. It appears our government institutions and cultural pressures are attempting to force homeless folks to live solitary lives apart from others like them, while the reality is that they are humans that, every bit as much as the rest of us, most likely need some social contact. Our species evolved and survived the dangers of the jungle and the onslaughts of other predatory animals by grouping together for communal defense and sharing of food and resources. For our distant ancestors, it was a hard life fraught with many dangers, including territorialism with neighboring tribes, but also it's a history of loving and caring for each other in order to survive.
Homelessness is a tough problem for capitalism and property owners to deal with. When local governments are advised of their unwanted presence, the police are often sent out to "deal with the issue" in the way that government seems most comfortable with, by force. Recently there was a news item discussed on DU that had to do with homelessness in the San Diego area, my birth town.
I noticed the new's items listing of specific areas where homeless folks gathered in our county, one seemed out of patterned place with the others listed: the "Pala area". I started thinking about Pala, and how the town itself is on an Indian reservation, with a fancy new casino and hotel, built in the last several years, and if memory serves, is associated with at least one of the large, corporate hotel chains. The Indians who live in Pala are sovereign. For miles on either side of Pala, there isn't much, and beyond that to the east and west along Route 76 are mostly citrus farms. A photo of Pala (on their front page).
This dissonant pattern got me to thinking about how some of the hard-core homeless, who aren't particularly amenable to social services and other forms of establishment help, are much like hunter-gatherers and at least somewhat like the Indian predecessors that the U.S. Government entered into treaty with some century and a half or so ago and began the granting of particular lands and limited sovereign status. The Indian reservations, as imperfect and flawed and manipulative a solution as they were, much to small to support their past survival practices and culture, nevertheless seemed to create a certain legal precedent for dealing with hunter-gatherers who liked their form of life: give them some land and some sovereignty.
It would be wonderful to have a 100% full employment economy, with no employee making less than a living wage, with zero price inflation over very long time periods, but when has even one of those items occurred, nevermind all three simultaneously? Instead, we seem to have an economy that keeps some of us at the 'hunter gatherer' stage as a matter of perpetual reality, then calls those folks all sorts of demeaning names such as drug users, convicted, sex offenders, "Get a job, loser", bum, etc. Most of the rest of us, fearing these labels and the social stigma thus created, work harder and longer hours to get increasingly less with each passing year.
The economy of our modern civilization seems to cater to the Top 400 families who reportedly have average yearly incomes exceeding $170,000,000 per year (in 2001), and who, by all indications, are continuing to be well served by U.S. Law and the growing sovereignty of some of the corporations they own. In spite of politicians proclamations to the contrary, and coupled with the duplicitous games that have been played with the consumer price index (CPI) used for cost of living measurements and wage adjustments (COLA) for the past thirty years, the economy for most of the rest of us is quite poor and getting worse each day, year, and decade. While Congress debates granting private telecom corporations immunity from lawsuits for warrant-less wiretapping, ostensibly because the financial liability of those lawsuits could cripple them, most of the rest of us are but one paycheck away from homelessness.
When the wealthy elite's "investment corporations" such as Bear Stearns fail, our government "prints some money" by taking a loan from a consortium of private bankers known as the Federal Reserve to bail them out, and in return guarantees that taxpayers will pay back the loans, then gives the purchase to another private corporation, effectively privatizing any possible future profits paid for with taxpayer dollars! This is egregious, in-your-face corporate welfare! Yet, for 25 years the government's response to homelessness (PDF) has been a failure. Isn't this the opposite way a government supposedly of, by, and for The People should work? Are the only people that matter to our leaders now known by their corporate logo and their shareholders' wealth?
If homeless citizens are encamped on public land, then why are they being threatened with arrest and hassled by the police, given the First Amendment clause, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in their particularly realistic "showing" form of "petition"?
Maybe it would be healthier and happier for everyone, particularly the chronic homeless, if government would conceive of another tried path toward sovereignty that some humans could follow if they so choose, as opposed to the strategy of forced assimilation into an artificial "civilization" of a few wealthy predators and the rest of us as the predators' economic prey.
Posted by Trillo in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Nov 30th 2006, 06:12 AM
Sorry about length, I've found that brevity tends to breed ambiguity.
Thank you for clarifying that you did mean humans.
Greed has been taken to such an extreme in our current times that it appears it's undermined both our democracy and our republic (i.e., election fraud machines and the best government 'money' can buy). Perhaps you do not consider that a serious matter, but I do -- it means that violence will break out at some point in the future. Oh, wait, violence has broken out. We're at war, without a declaration of war. It can get worse, but I hope that it can be stopped before it does.
Insatiable greed seems one root cause that explains why war keeps happening.
Our government seems to think that watching its own citizens under a surveillance microscope is necessary, in spite of an apparent prohibition against such unreasonable activities in the U.S. Constitution. If we are to believe AG Gonzales, our government has been doing this since the beginning of the technology that allowed it. The Pentagon is spying upon peaceful war veterans because 'they want peace', and is putting them on watch lists where violent outcome is reportedly the predicted written creation.
The two ideas, surveillance and future insurrection, are inextricably intertwined. Similarly, Greed and Fear are inextricably related, like two two peas in a pod. When one grows larger, the other also tends to grow. It appears there is also a relationship between the two pairs (think about it, should be obvious).
Our Declaration of Independence is clear that we, citizens, humans, The People, have among other inalienable rights, the right to pursue happiness.
Fear has very little to do with happiness. They may not be precise opposites, but close to it. Greed, if sated, may be closer to happiness, but it's not happiness itself, and whether it can ever be sated is in some question. Conversely, the lack of money for so many versus the extreme excesses of a very few in a country that has raised MONEY to God like status ("In God we Trust", on our currency) states quite clearly that greed as an outlet of happiness for the many is in fact preempted by the few. This seems to be one lesson of the free market.
The corporation and free market enthusiast claims to love competition and the economic system that fosters it, but it appears the corporatist does everything it can possibly do to preempt competition in practice.
I'm ambivalent regarding Bill Gates. Whatever benefits his personal computer software revolution brought, the downsides of excess appear to either outweigh (for the masses) or at least to balance.
I also believe that had he not been the personality at the top of the computer greed pile, it would have been another such as the Macintosh founder or some UNIX devotees, or perhaps Linus (except for the fact he repudiated the 'greed as good' strategy and thereby found a great number of similarly-minded enthusiasts), but the point is that we likely would have had a very similar machine revolution regardless of Bill Gates. His competitors were there in the shadows all along, and those who worked at Microsoft contributed a great deal.
Somehow it seems wrong that he achieved so much more than they did, for they would have taken over had he failed in his 'greed is good' strategy. Did he preempt their success?
Our computers have been openly admitted as spying devices, but Bill Gates certainly can live the "American Dream" reserved for so few. Whatever other benefits have accrued as a result of the PC revolution would seem subservient to those two realities. This means that, to some degree, B Gates' greed satisfaction has transformed 'pursuit of happiness' into the 'pursuit of fear' for the masses.
That's quite a magic trick that only seems to occur for those at the top.
It's also a possibility that Bill Gates would have done the same thing had there been less of a greed motivator. It's possible the value of greed has been overstated for him personally, it's possible he would have created precisely the same thing as a less well paid executive instead of a success formed solely from 'self-interest'. It's possible that since greed as top motivator is such a common rationale in our economic system, it is assumed to be true without actual proof.
I stand by my belief that greed is on balance one of humans' lower motivators, and that as a society, going down the fear greed path leads to the Tower of Destruction. Another way must be found, and loosening the controls on The Corporatist (which includes the government, that's why it's singular, it includes many privatized elements, this latter appears one part of the subversion of our government) has shown itself to be a great big mistake for the masses.
The founding documents of the U.S. intended to create a public government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They DID NOT intend to create such powerful 'personhoods' as privatized corporations that could also act as, or subvert, government.
The SC supreme court decision granting personhood to corporations has been determined by some authors as a court clerk's so-called mistake. Ain't greed wonderful?
>Trying to tax the corporation makes it unnecessarily complicated. Do you
>realize how many corporate accountants are there trying to fudge the taxes?
>How many at the IRS spend millions of man hours every year trying to
>decipher the tax returns of General Electric & GM & Exxon? ...
> All that will be discouraged, if there is no tax to begin with.
>And all this money from lack of corporate tax has to go somewhere. It will
>either go to pay more to employees or buy more equipment.
No, others have responded your last point. Your conclusion here is not born out by the evidence of past performance. It will predominately go to excessive executive pay (which would be taxed at an individual level, if all executive pay, compensation, and benefits were taxable, which I understand they aren't, and which the NST fails to address either), and to other corporations that are shareholders.
> The additional
>pay will be taxed at personal tax rates and the money spent on equipment
>always spurs more business activity and more jobs.
This doesn't capture all the corporations' profit, such as one shareholder corporation profiting as a result of their investment portfolio in another company, so you are calling for taxation of only a small portion of profit, that which is paid back as expense to employees, and which according to the ultra-basic type of accounting I'm slightly familiar with, cash accounting, is already tax deductible.
I do not know GAAT, nor accrual accounting, so I do not wish to pretend that I do. But my short glances at it suggest it is the basic root of the accounting deceptions foisted upon citizens who in their own lives are predominately familiar with cash accounting such as balancing a checkbook: getting paid by their employer, and paying their bills.
Corporations should probably be required to use cash accounting, that system is much simpler, but it has the tendency to reflect reality instead of exaggerated expectations, so it doesn't cater to the greed impulse as strongly, and is therefore unlikely to be considered by the greed-as-good proponents such as yourself because it doesn't have equivalent "wow" factor in press releases that bump up stock sales.
Liars seem to be running nearly everything. Yet we teach our children in school to be honest. How does that prepare them to survive in a world of predators that considers lying inconsequential?
For example, the authoritarian police who seem to routinely lie when their ass is on the line because they either killed some innocent, or nearly did so as they planted a weapon or some drugs, or cleverly created a fiction on the paper record, that persists as deception against the civilian. Many of us have experienced similar situations and the police's lying personally, and most of us have read of those experiences if we are lucky enough for that experience to have passed us by.
Good luck getting an attorney to sue them when it happens, that "civil" protection is typically reserved for the few wealthy elites and the tip of the iceberg that hits the corporate news media because it is exceedingly outrageous. Most of us just try to get on with our lives, whatever is left of them. And trust me, for many of us, there is little happiness left.
Going back to the idea of pursuit of happiness, life, liberty, etc. means as a society that further empowering the top liars with 'greed as good' is precisely the wrong approach, and what your 'greed as good' motivator has brought to the preponderance of us as one people is 'pursuit of fear'. Both fear and greed create the incentive or provide the motive to lie, and the greater the fear or greed gets, the stronger that deceptive motive becomes.
Some of the top private corporations have already reportedly received 'rebates' or 'negative income taxes' in some years. That means there's a de facto tax-free status already created for some corporate 'personhoods', and this has reportedly been in existence for some period of time.
Therefore, the accounting deceptions that you write of can be fixed over the longer term by regulating corporations much more closely, yanking their "corporate personhood", limiting their charters, and requiring them to pay taxes on the benefits they have extracted from the labor of many humans. That may only be a beginning of what is needed.
Yet, you call for tax-free status transcription into official legal code for them as a means of perpetuity. I claim that the tyranny we, the mass of citizens, have now with corporate will not, indeed cannot persist indefinitely.
This is near the end of my debate with you. It's been fun, but our two respective POVs are mutually exclusive. Your side has been winning for quite a long period of time. It is time for a change.
If a major course correction is not implemented, then it is my prediction that most all, if not all of our lives (on a global scale), are soon to be extinguished forever. For clarity, this is not my fear, it is the historical record of our 6K-15K year long experiment with civilization and our human tendency toward warfare, the new twist is that mass murder can now be accomplished on a globally grand scale by nations, and quite quickly if need be. The technological writing is on the wall, so to say.
The writing is also on the wall regarding the inability of our planet to support as many humans as we have now. It is a short period of time that we have left before nature herself decides in Darwinian fashion that the human experiment was a great big mistake by creating an increasingly hostile biosphere, with less food, water, and other natural resources. Humanity has been cannibalistic in the past.
So ... Begin to think of the greater good. That is the only strategy whereby survival might be allowed by our communally lower, instinctive, and animalistic drives and impulses on such an overpopulated planet. Begin to think of creating happiness for the many.
Your 'greed as good' strategy merely creates 'the pursuit of fear' for the masses. Therefore, the greater good IS NOT achieved by the 'greed is good' strategy, and it has made a mockery of our founding documents.
I bid you farewell.
One parting thought. I have never in my personal life objected to paying my taxes owed, however in my debate with you I have used the anti-tax view for humans as a rhetorical construct to illustrate the discrepancy in your views. I just want any readers who may happen across this posting to be made explicitly aware of that in the event it wasn't obvious.
This is in a thread titled "The Argument Against Circumcision"
About the procedure:
... First the child, after 9 months in the fetal position, is tied down spreadeagled and straight-backed in a circumstraint, a plastic board molded to the outline of an infant's body, which is equipped with velcro straps. Next he is covered with a sheet which has a hole through which his penis is threaded. Then his penis is thoroughly swabbed with sterilizing solution. Naturally, this frequently provokes an erection. Some physicians deliberately provoke erections in order to judge the "cutoff line" and to aid in the surgery itself. In any case, in the infant's brand new, wide-open, pre-verbal consciousness, this is his first sexual experience: a torturous nightmare. <65, 66, 67, 68, 69>
People on DU in other threads over the years have asked questions at times about where the seeming connection to sex and violence comes from. Female rape, for instance, where a male forces themselves on an unwilling female as an act of control and dominance, among other things, seems to be reflected in the doctor's circumcision of the male infant.
There you have it, the first instance of the connection between sex and violence, it begins in the first hours and days of life for many males.
Continuing from the same site, emphasis added:
...Because the foreskin of an infant is attached to the head of the penis by the same tissue that bonds a fingernail to a finger, it must be skinned away before it can be cut off. So the doctor forces a metal probe between the foreskin and the head and tears apart this flesh (called synechia) which bonds them together. Next, the doctor has several options for the actual amputation. One commonly used device for this step is called a gomco clamp. This essentially functions as a thumbscrew for the foreskin. I am not making this up. Surgical scissors are used to cut a slit along the length of the foreskin in order to insert the metal "bell" which serves as one jaw of the clamp. The foreskin is pulled over the bell and the other jaw of the clamp is attached. Then, by tightening a screw, the foreskin, one of the most densely innervated tissues of the body, is audibly crushed along two lines (inner and outer foreskin) around its circumference. (Since all the nerves of the foreskin pass through this crush line, the pain perception may be similar to that of putting virtually the entire erogenous surface of the penis in a vise.) The clamp is left on for a few minutes to promote blood clotting, then the foreskin is cut off at the crush line. <70, 71, 72> Afterwards, the raw, bleeding, formerly internal organ is wrapped in bandages and a diaper, and then repeatedly burned with urine and its breakdown product, ammonia, and exposed to infectious fecal matter while healing.
In latter part of the procedure there appears to be a source of pain described which likely lasts for days, however long healing takes; pain that lasts long after any anesthesia that may have been used for the procedure wears off, and lets remember, that for millennia, anesthesia was not used, it appears there was no movement towards anesthesia until 1978 or thereabouts. So what kind of social results might this have?
MGM = male genital mutilation
...The long term psychological impact of birth-related trauma is also relevant to the issue of MGM. Recent studies have found striking connections between birth trauma and adult post traumatic stress and suicide, <93, 94, 95, 96, 75, 67, 78, 97> and adult victims of infant MGM often exhibit a spectrum of symptoms including:
* a sense of personal powerlessness
* lack of trust in others and life
* a sense of vulnerability to violent attack by others
* irrational rage reactions
* addictions and dependencies
* difficulties in establishing intimate relationships
* decreased ability to communicate
* emotional numbing
* reluctance to be in relationships with women
* anger and violence toward women <98>
How many times have you heard jokes told by women about men who don't want to communicate? Who are called "Joe six-pack"?
If the above hypotheses are accurate and scientifically truthful, it makes sense that religions that practiced circumcision for any historically perceived effect would also discover a need to indoctrinate its members against some of the above, especially the last two effects, for human breeding to continue in the mass way that emperors and rulers desired.
It would seem that the psychological and social effects of circumcisions on a mass of infants is indeed profound, though I would certainly expect there to be individual variations. Presumably, this effect would be different from the effect upon an adult having the procedure done of his own free will, where it isn't the 'first sexual experience' with another human wielding a knife and/or clamp.
It's no wonder that humans aren't like their more peace loving cousins, the Bonobos, who apparently use sex to calm each other and preempt interdispute.
Anger, emotional numbing, violence, these are precisely the qualities one would wish in a soldier whose purpose is defined by orders to kill the enemy.
I've read that the IRS has said that people who barter are liable for the market value of their trades from a tax liability standpoint.
In this type of case, labor (cooking, cleaning; or ranch and farming) is traded for a tangible good (food, room and board), yet, the person receiving the tangible goods receives no money, so does the IRS think that the boarder or person supplying the labor owes something in excess of their 'cash in' (assuming they have no other income source)?
I'm also curious about the analogy to corporate mechanisms that may offer similar types of benefits for 'subsidiaries' that utilize 'expertise' but shovel the tax liability up to the top 'owner' where averaging occurs across all subsidiaries, some of which lose money, and some which do not.
Is that what the IRS's position will be on this type of arrangement? That the boarder is not tax liable, but the tangible good provider will be? Is the provider then responsible for saying the value of the room and board is X amount, and the cooking and cleaning provided is X amount in the opposite direction (debit and credit), and the two average out to zero?
needs to have 'an enemy'. From what I've been able to tell from reading a little history, civilizations have always practiced "inward peace and outward violence," to use Durants' words to the best of my recollection.
With the police state mentality where citizens are the enemy that's been in effect since I've been alive, the police who seem to routinely mistreat a large number of citizens with physical violence including murder with apparent impunity at times and investigative rituals to pretend they were justified, the anesthetic-free circumcision of males when born, the authoritarianism in schools where the children are the enemy to be manipulated and cast away if a single manipulation fails, the excessive anger and physical violence that parents in today's society use when raising their own children, and the parasitic economic system where certain favored professionals who received the approval of the manipulators prey off everyone else for an entire lifetime; generally, fostering a society of zero-tolerance for any imperfection under threat of punishment: the question I have about our country is if we're practicing such inward violence toward either most or many citizens, both literal and metaphorical, then isn't that enough to satisfy the human beasts' historically-proven desire for violence?
Why do we also need to practice outward violence when so much is now and has been occurring inwardly? Isn't the inward enemy enough to satisfy?
From Op's excerpt: "why should’t we shoot them dead if found to be illegally staying in this country to avoid the cost of litigation since as violators of our immigration laws they do not deserve a day in Court"
How about because you shouldn't kill people if you don't want to be killed yourself? Or how about because murder is against the law?
We have a huge problem with the Chief Unitary Executive in the country not only feeling like he's above the law, but also, actually flouting the laws with apparent impunity and daring Congress or anyone else to stop him. This is now the example that some others, perhaps the unschooled and vulgar, will follow. In some ways it is like a snowball rolling down the hill, getting larger and moving faster. We are witnessing the breakdown of law and order, and where this will lead other than collapse of civilization, when so many other issues pointing in the same breakdown direction are converging in our immediate timeline, is hard to imagine.
If so, then please post said text.
From the OP's excerpt (emphasis mine):
• Poll workers were instructed by the election administrator to cast fraudulent ballots if the applications and voting booth activations did not match,
Someone needs to go to jail over this, if true.
not getting Social Security done.
Well, perhaps he's taking us all for idiots. The new Medicare program may well take care of reducing the total numbers of those retired on Social Security.
From OPs article, emphasis mine:
"It was easier to worry about hanging chads," said Daniel Fore, an election judge in Oak Park.
Cook County Clerk David Orr said remote transmission of results had failed in "dozens" of polling places, slowing results.
"Is it a concern that it's transmitting twice?" Republican judge Lionel Lusardi said into a cell phone. "No," the response came back, since the transmitter crashed the second time.
"It's a landslide," joked Republican election judge David Masak. "As of right now, I can tell you we are officially the only precinct in Chicago that is going 100 percent Republican."
Why did transmission fail?
IMO, it's likely best to require 100% paper-ballot auditing of all electronic results. How else will the truth ever be known?
As a mobile society, we need to promote highly efficient transportation.
pneumatic bumpers. I'd venture to say there are going to be other bureaucratic hurdles the vehicle will need from the law to ever be approved.
Overall, great news! I
It seems that the parent companies and subsidiaries want to be considered one company for some purposes but many companies for other purposes.
This is like a human deducting the stockmarket losses of another person he claims to own. Reminiscent of slavery, but practiced with money. Another analogy might be the great grandparents being the only tax filer, and his family, and their family, etc., down the line, all pooling their income and taxes into one return. Hey, why not expand it to the neighbors, as well?
One way to make sure customers do not pay for taxes that governments never receive would be to require each utility to file its own tax return. That way, taxes would be paid to the government, not to a parent company.
Did I just read that right? Each company doesn't file a return, only the parent company does?
Corporations sure have raised themselves well above anything allowed to a common
How about this as a response. All citizens should declare themselves members of the same "human family", that ALL OUR EXPENSES are deductible, and we could then all file just one tax return, averaging all losses and gains among us. After all, we're all related, just OneBigHappyHumanFamily. <--- some sarcasm. Think legislators will approve?
Posted by Trillo in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Mar 14th 2006, 11:37 PM
the mergers seem designed to consolidate market power. There was a bunch of them in the Robber Baron era, if what I've read was truthful and accurate.
About Hydrogen used as vehicle fuel
It's bulletproof when new.
Here's an old article about the hydrogen powered Focus:
Here's something I wrote long ago (may be outdated) I found in a document of mine:
Here's another old document of mine:
So there are advocates and lobbyists with an axe to grind.
Just food for thought, hope it helps.
Hydrogen as a vehicle fuel
instead of a liquid. Some vehicles have been converted to natural gas, this started long ago, and there are some stations already selling natural gas at the pump. Natural gas is much preferred to propane because of its superior octane rating. Hydrogen has an impressive octane rating, I believe more impressive than natural gas. IIRC, it's about 140.
Small economy vehicles with small engines are already in production, it seems it would be less expensive for a manufacturer to modify the fuel delivery system than to design a completely new technology.
Ford had a Focus converted to hydrogen.
As I understand the fuel, because two hydrogen atoms meet one oxygen atom, the largest problem is the amount of hydrogen that must be carried on board. By way of comparison, gasoline mixes with oxygen in a ratio of about 12 (oxygen) to 1 (gasoline). Hydrogen is 1 (oxygen) to 2 (hydrogen): H2O. To traverse any distance, a lot of hydrogen has to be carried in tanks when compared to gasoline, so the efficiency of the engine is critical.
The only reason I've been able to concieve that we don't already have hydrogen powered cars is lack of hydrogen at stations and generalized foot dragging by industry to use what they already sell us. It's probably cheapest to drill for crude oil.
My main point is that it should be cheaper for industry to convert existing engines to hydrogen, than to devise an entirely new technology. Once filling infrastructure is in place, there's nothing to stop a more 'efficient' automotive technology from evolving from it, such as fuel cells, hybrids, or something else.
Important DU posts
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders battle over meaning of progressive
By Divine Discontent
The X-Files Reopens
By Divine Discontent
DU 2 Still Exists
Hillary Clinton's Glass-Steagall
Who should Sanders choose for VP?
By No Elephants
Donated to Sanders
President Bernie Fucking Sanders, Baby!!!
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums