Aptera

From a Tony Borroz article in Wired

One thing is for sure. Aptera Motors has built a car that screams "this is the future" like nothing else out there, and that's captured the imaginations of more than green car enthusiasts. It's captured the imagination of Madison Avenue.

Can Middle America be far behind?

And I love Aptera's website.

This Aptera ad is complete with goofy optimistic 60's music... I have to say, it looks a little wobbly, doesn't it? It reminds of suburbans fads of the past, like gargantuan brick bar-b-que pits or trampolines that never get used. Having the look of a small aircraft without the wings, one has to wonder how it will do in our mid-west winters. And sorry, but I don't buy the environmentally safe manufacturing methods and components. It's plastic and solar and it takes huge amounts of energy to make and propel, just like every mother mode of motorized transportation. In 30 - 50 years humanity will wonder what the heck we were thinking, the same way we now ponder past excessive coal use or, hey, Al Gore's electric bill.
Still, it is an image of a hopeful future that has been lacking lately.

The Real ID Act

Found a press conference of DHS Secretary Chertoff at Biometric Bits, via the Wiki article on the Real ID Act .

This picture is for chuckles....

From the press conference...

There are really three reasons why secure driver's licenses and security standards for driver's licenses make a lot of sense. First of all, as the 9/11 Commission noted in its final report, secure identification is an essential way of ensuring that people are who they say they are. And therefore this kind of identification gives us a tremendous tool in preventing dangerous people from getting on airplanes or getting into federal buildings.

Second, secure identification happens to be a very good way to prevent illegal immigrants from
pretending to be American citizens so they can work illegally in this country. And make no mistake
about it: identity fraud among illegal immigrants is a serious problem. It harms the legal worker, it deceives the honest employer, and it destroys the privacy and the good credit of innocent Americans every year.
During fiscal year 2007, when we were conducting worksite enforcement operations, enforcing the
immigration laws, our Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents made 863 criminal arrests, and
ended up charging more than 500 individuals with state and federal document fraud crimes, including
identity theft and Social Security fraud.

Third, secure identification protects all of us from the pernicious plague of identity theft. Last year, our Secret Service arrested over 4,300 suspects, including both legal and illegal workers, for identity theft crimes that totaled $690 million in actual fraud loss to individuals and financial institutions. Studies show that roughly 35 percent of these kinds of fraud cases involve the use of fraudulent driver's licenses or phony state ID cards. And in the year 2005, according to the FTC, identity theft cost American households $64 billion, and 28 percent of those incidents likely involved the use of a phony driver's license.

Secretary Chertoff emphasizes over and over that the "secure identification" created by this legislation will only replace driver's licenses, and be used to allow folks to board planes and into federal buildings. From what I've read elsewhere, the legislation does not disallow or prevent anyone (or anything) from demanding its presentation. For ex., if you want to buy a house, there will come a point in the process where your social security number is requested. You can refuse. The mortgage company is not allowed to demand it from you, but they are somehow still allowed to refuse the loan if you don't wish to comply. At least, that has been my experience.
Under this legislation (the new constitution for the european union is an easier read - i'm just repeating what i've read elsewhere here) there are no restrictions for it's use. In other words, there is no language in the bill - at all - that discusses buying or selling in any way. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But mortgage companies are already pretty darned leary about accepting anyone's "word" about their identity. You may rest assured that they WILL know - to the greatest extent that such a thing CAN be known - that the buyer is who s/he says s/he is.

So is this whole issue really a problem, or is the problem that we don't really trust our neighbors anymore? In any case, here we are six years after 9/11, and it's not so easy to fly a 747 into a building anymore.

The Rutherford Institute

It has happened before, that I'll find something on the web to which I respond, and I find myself thinking the response I'm writing would make a decent blog post. I was following links regarding the war protests and counter-demonstrations in DC over the past week. Touching down briefly at anti-war "Micheal Rivero's What Really Happened" and saw a linked excerpt titled "The Late, Great American Nation." I read the tease and clicked on, and was amazed with where I landed. It was the website of The Rutherford Institute, a legal defense foundation devoted mostly to religious freedom constitutional cases. I am familiar with it and its founder, John W. Whitehead, because it was his first book, "The Second American Revolution" that most opened my eyes to the Christian "genesis" of much of the thought that inspired the Constitution. It was such an inspiration to me, and for my Christian walk, and toward our journey through homeschooling. Of particular importance to me was his exposition of the historical perspective in the question of "Rex Lex, or Lex Rex?" (The King is the Law - or - The Law is the King?") While the country is indebted to Mr. Whitehead for his defense of liberty, and while I agree that he cannot allow himself to be viewed as one closely aligned with what's commonly known as "The Christian Right," (whatever that is), what I saw on this website was a complete surprise to me.

We live in a fundamentally different country since 9/11. Not only do many Americans view their government with suspicion, but how their government views them has drastically changed.
A perfect example of this took place last fall. Prior to the elections that transformed the makeup of Congress, the Bush Administration pushed for the inclusion of two stealth provisions into a mammoth defense budget bill. The additions made it easier for the government to declare martial law and establish a dictatorship.

Apparently, the "pre-transformation" congress liked th idea of a dictatorship. Attorney Whitehead represents cases to the Supreme Court for pete's sake. He wants us to believe that HE is afraid of a Bush-Cheney dictatorship? Does this constitutional "scholar" not know that martial law is a constitutionally advocated, temporary and responsible step to take in a national emergency? It does not equate with a "dictatorship."

Since the days of our Founding Fathers, when King George III used his armies to terrorize and tyrannize the colonies, the American people have understandably distrusted the use of a national military force to intervene in civilian affairs, except in instances of extreme emergency and limited duration.

Hence, as a sign of the Founders’ concern that the people not be under the power of a military government, control of the military was vested in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 furthered those safeguards against military law, making it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force.

However, with the inclusion of a seemingly insignificant rider into the massive defense bill (the martial law section of the 591-page Defense Appropriations Act takes up just a few paragraphs), the Bush Administration has managed to weaken what the New York Times refers to as “two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty.” One is posse comitatus. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which limits a president’s domestic use of the military to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion where a state is violating federal law or depriving the people of their constitutional rights.

The next two paragraphs comprised the teaser from 'whatreallyhappened.com' that caught my attention initially - does it make you roll your incredulous eyes the way it did me? (EM mine)

Under these new provisions, the president can now use the military as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.” According to the new law, Bush doesn’t even have to notify Congress of his intent to use military force against the American people—he just has to notify them once he has done so. The defense budget provision’s vague language leaves the doors wide open for rampant abuse. As writer Jane Smiley noted, “the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy.”

The main reason we do not want the military patrolling our streets is that under martial law, the Bill of Rights becomes null and void ED: no need for constitutional lawyers?. A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the American people of any vestige of freedom. Thus, if we were subject to martial law, there would be no rules, no protections, no judicial oversight and no elections. And unless these provisions are repealed, the president’s new power will be set in stone for future administrations to use—and abuse.

Uh-huh...Not that our military has anything to fear from its own citizens! Anyone remember Oklahoma City? As one who resolutely believes that the home of fascism in America is within the Democratic Party, I have no glee over these changes in the law. If any current political party uses, as Whitehead says the King of England did, "armies to terrorize and tyrannize the colonies" it will not be the Republicans. Or the Christian Right. (Whoever they are.)
Follow the link above to read how Whitehead becomes even more conspiratorial injecting "Halliburton" and even the dreaded Clinton-era-militia-minded "detention camps" into his paranoid rant - you didn't really think they were for illegal immigrants - did you?
Anyway, my disappointed response...

The question in my mind after Hurricane Katrina was, "Hey Louisiana, what did you expect - that the United States Military would invade Louisiana?" All these months later, with no coherent response from its critics, the president gets the message. "Yes, you were supposed to invade Louisiana to save them from their incompetent and corrupt Democratic leadership." If citizens are going to elect organized crime syndicates to state office, then it will be up to Washington DC to save them from themselves when its discovered that money for civil projects has for years been systematically skimmed. That's why the mentioned language was inserted into the defense bill.

I was a precinct committeeman in Indianapolis in the mid to late-eighties. Had a conversation with a Democrat counterpart that I will never forget. I was trying to warn him that politics is cyclical, and that even though the Democrats had controlled congress and the courts for the best part of fifty years or more (at that time) - the time was surely coming that republicans would become a majority party. My concern for both of us was that all the powers the courts had taken from the states and given to the feds were then going to be in the hands of a Republican majority. His only reponse was "Well, we'll just have to see to it that it never happens."

Well, it happened, despite his party's arrogance. And now, since from Bangor to San Diego we've been screaming that the U.S. military's response to Katrina was too slow, we'll see how long it takes during the next crisis...

I haven't heard much about the Rutherford Institute since those days either. That's when I got a rather contrarian exposure to the Constitution of The United States from Whitehead's "The Second American Revolution." I was absolutely inspired and moved to take action by it. It's gratifying to see that you are continuing the fight for religious freedom in our courts. Although I can hardly contain my disapproval, not that it will matter to you, that you pretend not to know why the defense budget contains what it does. The funniest thing is, while I can find all manner of print items for sale at The Rutherford Institute's website, I can't find the book that started it all for me.

Secular Islam Summit

The democrats in America don't easily take "no" for an answer. Over the years they have perfected the political tactic sometimes called "the shotgun approach." In this short-term strategy for gaining political strength, a slew of usually contradictory, unrelated and brainless ideas are "shot" full force through a friendly media to gauge reactions from the public. The far left likes all of them so their poll numbers are only mediocre early. But the media blast is repeated with nauseating regularity (think "re-deploy the troops")until a few ideas find homes in the minds of a large enough poll sampling that a mandate can be claimed by the owners of that idea. I could probably be talked into the timetable, but not if the intention of pulling all the troops out. That's simply head in the sand denial.
This is happening now with the Iraq "time line" idea being pushed by house democrats, with Murtha being the mouth. From AP:

WASHINGTON - In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats are advancing legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year. Democratic officials who described the measure said the timetable would be accelerated — to the end of 2007 — if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not meet goals for providing Iraq's security.
The conditions, described as tentative until presented to the Democratic rank and file Thursday, would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even Lady Espresso believes it's time for Iraq to defend Iraq. I believe this pellet of scattershot will strike its target. So, I have an inclination and a couple recommendations. I don't think the Islamists have finished what they started on 9/11, so my initial inclination is to buy weapons and ammo. I've been through this thought process before, though. I'm going to think about it.
My recommendations would be to:a)get as much "punch" out of the Baghdad surge as is possible. People are war weary and want the soldiers home if this is all the progress the military can show. This would be a good time to pull UBL and Mullah Omar out of the Himalaya's butt.
b)instill as much insecurity in muslims about the value of their religion as possible. Personally, I subscribe to the view that "moderate muslim" is an oxymoron. But to encourage the growth of such a religious entity could do to muslims in our century what corruption and political ascendancy did to christians during the Reformation / Enlightenment era. (Come to think of it, there are some neat similarities.) This video came from following links from powerline

This is a movement worth trying to encourage, and I hope the administration can be shown its value!

espresso beans to powerline

Republicans Were Different Then

I was going to call the article, "We Were Different Then." It was going to be my response to this Froma Harrop column. In using "we," I intended to mean the people of the U.S. She chides current Republicans for not being the way President Ford was, (of course Democrats and the press ridiculed Ford as stupid and uncoordinated back then) and targets Newt for being "radical" and a "street fighter" as opposed to the "sensible" Ford...

A street fighter like Gingrich didn't get Ford at all. The man from Grand Rapids, Mich., wasn't plotting for the next election. He wasn't into demonizing Democrats. He was only thinking about what was good for the country. Not running up debt was good for the country.
As Gingrich saw him, Ford was just too middle class. He was not slithering around all day, planning some sneak attack on reputations across the aisle, or peddling the free lunch of tax cuts to be balanced by unspecified spending reductions.
"One of the great weaknesses of the Republican Party is we recruit middle-class people," Gingrich lamented in his speech. "Middle-class people, as a group, are told you should not shout at the table, you should be nice, you should have respect for other people, which usually means giving way to them.

We are all painfully aware of words being politicized. "Middle class" meant something entirely different back then, from what it means today. In '74, it was possible to call a war a "police action." You could even declare "war" on poverty or drugs, and the middle class thought that meant that politicians actually would fight those real concerns with sincerity. All these "wars" ever "won" was a bitterly divided class structure, a country of "two Americas," as John Edwards would call it. Heck, you could promise a "Middle Class Tax Cut Plan" and lie your way to the White House with no reason to believe that the Middle Class might actually EXPECT the tax cut - right up to 1992!!!
But it (my first choice title)just isn't true. The "we" is not right. Republicans were different, Democrats and academia and the Big Journalism (BJ)Industry haven't changed a bit.
During Mr Ford's presidency, republicans were supposed to be 80%'ers. They wanted everything the Democrats wanted, from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society" - they just didn't want to spend so much money getting there. (yup - republicans ARE the party of fiscal responsibility...wait till the democrats get their hands on our tax receipts!) They never expected to win either house of congress, and had no defining agenda for a majority if they ever won it. Newt of course, was different. Ms Harrop doesn't even start with Reagan, another "good" Republican, now deceased - coincidence?
Big Journalism still refuses to get Republicans, and doesn't even want to know who they are. Just read the first line from this AP story from the WISH-TV website.

WASHINGTON - The nation honored Gerald R. Ford on Tuesday in a high-powered fanfare for the common man who was summoned to the presidency in the Watergate crisis. He was remembered for what he didn't have - pretensions, a scheming agenda,a great golf game - as much as for the small-town authenticity he brought to high office.

Maybe AP was thinking of Chevy Chase.
I liked President Ford. Everybody knew his "WIN" campaign was an admission that nobody knew what to do about inflation. I can argue either way on the pardon of Nixon, but am certain he thought it right, with or without extra political pressures. I can't remember who I voted for in '76, but it was the Carter administration that convinced me that no matter how "sensible" the democrat candidate seems during the campaign, the other democrats in their administrations will still be socialists.
And that's why I vote republican.

Ingrid Mattson: President of the Islamic Society of North America

I'll use this SFGate article to introduce us to Ingrid Mattson...WOMAN LEADS A WAVE OF CHANGE FOR U.S. MUSLIMS written by Matthai Chakko Kuruvila, Chronicle Religion Writer
Some quotes from the article, that I think pass on the gist (all emphasis mine)---

A former Catholic, Canadian-born woman who is a widely respected scholar is arguably the most influential Muslim in America.
...
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/news/july_2006_update_11.htmIngrid Mattson, the recently elected president of the 43-year-old Islamic Society of North America, is the first convert, first non-immigrant and first woman to lead the largest Muslim umbrella organization on the continent. Her rise to prominence comes as more women and native-born Muslims are defining the faith, making Islam more of an American religion.
...
The soft-spoken Mattson is not afraid to challenge long-held assumptions among believers. She wears a head scarf and loose clothes, and she is a forceful advocate for women's rights.
...
Mattson had never heard of a Muslim before going to Paris. But within a year, she became one. She believes her Christian upbringing -- and a sister who converted to Judaism -- frees her from inter-religious barriers others might have. She thinks her perspective will allow her to better mediate between a minority faith and Christianity in the United States.
...
After college, in 1987, Mattson volunteered in a refugee camp in Pakistan. There, she met and married her husband, Aamer Atek, an Egyptian engineer and fellow volunteer.

And then this kicker...

"If God had told anyone to bow to anyone but him, then he would tell women to bow to their husbands," Muhammad reportedly said, according to one hadith, a religiously sanctioned compilation of the sayings and deeds of Islam's revered prophet.

Several students disagreed with Mattson's questioning of the verse. They said she was introducing subjectivity into centuries of tradition that had validated the quote.

But Mattson calmly gave them criteria to weigh a hadith's authenticity -- whether it is congruent with the Quran, congruent with Muhammad's other sayings and logically a part of Islamic teaching.

Mattson said the quote didn't pass muster with the Quran's call for gender equality, or Muhammad's body of teachings. Questioning had nothing to do with subjectivity, she said. In fact, Islamic tradition required it.

Another article by the same reporter, same paper -- on a (then)upcoming conference on Bhuddist/Muslim relations featuring the Dalai Lama. This journalist's other writings for the religion page are generally not too awful -- considering the press' need for controversy and the atmosphere of liberal questioning of anything associated with the west...it's hard to imagine this topic being seriously dealt with today. Plenty of fluff.