All Desiree Carpenter wanted was a chance to succeed. As a young woman Ms. Carpenter (not her real name) had been subjected to repeated physical and sexual assaults, losing her eyesight during one attack. Her assailant did hard time, but now he was back on the streets and vowing to track her down.
Her only hope was to flee to another state, assume a new identity, and start over. Washington was the best place to begin anew, since the state had passed tough anti-stalking laws. So she packed her bags and hopped on the train with her two children in tow, bound for Bellingham, a couple hours north of Seattle.
Being blind, she had come into a laptop computer with a screen reader that converts text to the spoken word. That's how Desiree and I exchanged information for this article.
Arriving at the Bellingham train station, she expectantly called the Womencare Shelter, a group that bills itself as a "feminist organization working to end violence against women."
Desiree was told to go to the local MacDonald's to be interviewed by an intake worker. There she was scrutinized to make sure "I was acceptable," as Desiree later recounted. The staffer told Ms. Carpenter to detail her rape experiences while her children sat quietly and listened.
Admitted to the shelter, the staff removed her daughter's electronic homeschooling program, saying African-Americans spend too much time with rap videos. Desiree's television was padlocked and she was informed she could only watch TV on weekends.
Like all residents, Desiree was assigned housekeeping chores. It's not that the tasks were menial, but asking a blind woman to clean toilets and sort broken glass seems a little cold-hearted. When the new resident questioned her duties, the staff urged her to become more "empowered."
The staff forbade the woman from making safety accommodations on the shelter's flat-top stove. So Desiree and her young children ate micro-waved meals and peanut butter sandwiches for the rest of their stay.
When residents wanted to re-enter the facility, they typed in a security code. Desiree asked to have the keypad marked with Braille dots, leading her to be ridiculed as being disruptive and manipulative.
At one point a resident confided to her, "The staff here acts worse than an abuser."
The shelter did help Desiree to secure the all-important name change. Of course that entailed losing all her educational credentials, job references, credit cards, and so forth. That was the sacrifice she knew she would have to make.
Over the next two weeks things went from bad to worse, especially after Ms. Carpenter complained about the videotape that lectured residents why organized religion was "oppressive" to women.
In desperation, Desiree contacted the Bellingham Adult Protective Services, pleading they dispatch a disability aide so she could cook her own meals.
But the Womencare director ordered "Nyet," claiming that would compromise the shelter's secret location. Then the shelter staff began to suspect she was planning to file a complaint with the Washington Human Rights Council - of course that was forbidden by shelter rules.
So that evening the director barged into Desiree's room and issued an ultimatum: "Either you drop your civil rights complaint or you're out of here!"
When Desiree tearfully said she had only requested someone to assist with the necessities of life, the staff interpreted her claim of innocence to be further proof of guilt. That was reason enough to summon the police.
Within minutes a female officer dashed into the shelter, gun drawn, pulled the startled children out of bed, and ordered them out. The officer explained that even though Desiree had not violated any rules, the shelter was "exiting" her because she was unhappy with their services.
Then came the crushing blow - the shelter director blurted out Desiree Carpenter's previous name. The officer hastily entered both names, linked by a single report, into the National Crime Information Center database.
In that moment, all the labors of the past month were undone, all her hopes of a life free of fear were dashed!
The staff then ransacked Desiree's room, stuffing her possessions, food, and legal documents into a black trash bag. Mother, son, and daughter were sent packing into the rainy night.
During her one-month nightmare at Womencare, Ms. Carpenter suffered too many indignities to recount in a single column - more details can be seen here.
In the end, Desiree's daughter said she would rather die than ever again trust an abuse shelter.
16. The police officer came in with her hand on her gun, pulled my kids out of their beds, in the middle of a Washington downpour at 9 PM at night. When I asked for a supervisor she told me to wait out in the rain in the gutter on the side of the street when I pointed out there was no sidewalk. She allowed the shelter workers to keep my insulin, my food, money orders bought to order new birth records with the sealed name and, worst of all, my blind cane.
17. The officer said although I had not violated any shelter rules, had no write ups, posed no danger to myself or other clients, and my children were in bed, the shelter was exiting me because I was "unhappy" with their services and they did not want to be sued!
18. They ransacked my room and put my things into big black trash bags while my kids stood there crying. The shelter workers then said if I continued to ask for a police sergeant they would not even help me with a motel.
19. They knew they are the only shelter in Bellingham city limits and that a few hours in a motel would leave me nowhere to go. They refused to allow me to call the APS case worker so she could come to the motel and help me learn safely how to navigate the property. They were placing me in a motel on a busy highway with no access to safely cross for food and no way to get my daughter to school (remember they forced her into public school and took her homeschool materials to keep us from watching rap videos).
20. After spending several days in the motel with no insulin, no antibiotics for the infection I got in my hand when I cut it while being forced to sort open sharp tin cans and glass for recycling. That was my chore in the shelter and they said refusing it was refusing to empower myself and live on my own! They made me walk to urgent care and pay for the visit and my own medication to treat the cut and infection. I was forced to return to an area where the abuser had found me before and my new and old name would be cross referenced. Although the police apologized, once they entered the new and old names into NCIC to run me for warrants, the names are forever cross referenced, they offered to give me a letter if I wanted to pay for another court hearing and somehow get my kids to understand why their names had to be changed again. My son was two and already having trouble with the change his father is not violent and had consented to the name change to keep his child safe while he was deployed with the military.
#1
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives weve set. Weve got to have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Sounds like the Gestapo. Who's gonna run it, Barry? Farrakhan?
Hitler expanded the SS, originally a small bodyguard, as a counter to the Wehrmacht. It was rewarded for its political reliability with the expansion to many division and priority in equipment.
#7
Possibly modeled after the Citizens Power Councils of Venezuela and Nicaragua, or the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution of Cuba, or maybe even the Committee for Public Safety of the French Revolution.
Or maybe somebody's just typing this stuff up and he has no clue what he's reading.
#9
One good thing is that he can't appoint "officers" to lead his army without congressional approval. Commissions are issued by Congress, not the President. He can try, but I don't think any budget would be forthcoming.
#10
'Brown Shirts' were originally the Sturm Abteilung (SA - which by 1934 had grown to 4,500,000 men) led by the socialist Ernst Roehm. Interesting how some ideas never change and the possible analogy here.
The Schutzstaffel (SS) were a smaller group originally, but much nastier. They purged the SA leadership on July 13, 1934 (Night of the Long Knives) and became Hitler's instrument of internal control.
I don't think that BO is thinking an 'AmeriCorps' for this, although that's how it will be presented.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
07/17/2008 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Pineapple face in Panama had a similar organization....as does Mugabe with his "veterans"...
#13
Obama is for gun control. No one should own guns.
Unless you are a member of the Obama "Civilian Army". We have a military. We have police, we have Sherrifs departments, now what is this "Citizen Army" supposed to do again?
Posted by: From Dallas ||
07/17/2008 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#14
How about deploying said "army" to secure the damned borders?
#15
I didn't see any of this on the cover of the New Yorker. It must be some VRWC smear. You sure you can't photoshop the movement of lips and have different words come out?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/17/2008 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Mullah Richard: Actually, the SS were two very different organizations.
The average education in the Waffen (or combat) SS was a Master's degree, and in the early part of their existence, they were intended to be a military elite not under General Staff command, but fighting alongside the Wehrmacht. In combat, they wore the distinctive "asphalt soldier" uniform.
The other SS, responsible for the vast majority of crimes, was the General SS, many of whom were uneducated, low order street thugs like the SA. While also run by the Finance Ministry, they were who managed and guarded concentration camps, organized into second echelon 'einsatz gruppen', who would slaughter civilians after an aread had been captured, and other such offenses.
The Waffen SS fought the Soviet Army with absolutely no quarter, in one case, an SS anti-tank company held off two Russian mechanized armies for two weeks. If captured, Waffen SS routinely had shell casings pounded into their kneecaps before being killed.
At the end of the war, the US made no distinction between Waffen and General SS, and would hang either if caught, on the nearest light pole.
However, entire battalions evaded through US lines to get to French controlled Germany, where they were re-uniformed as Foreign Legion and sent to Indochina to fight the communists, often under their same officers.
The minute I saw this article, I immediately thought about the SA. Same 'concept', relatively the same purpose, with the same "uneducated, low order street thugs". (Ima thinking that BO would welcome this opportunity for his Chicago (and other inner-city) 'reformed' street-gang constituents as a way to keep them 'occupied'.)
Kind of like the CCC for bad guys.
The educated and purpose-driven would still enter the regular armed forces as they wouldn't want to be caught anywhere the likes of the folks this group would be composed of.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
07/17/2008 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Whattaya' bet that within months, if not weeks, of its inception this "Citizen's Army" will possess nothing but loyal Democrats and will institute a sort of "political reliability" test for entrants?
Yeah, it's a political commissariat in the making.
If this joker actually gets in and starts this bullshit it will be the first step towards a new civil war in this country. Loyal Americans of both parties and all stripes will band together in our own militias to put a stop to the destruction of our country.
#23
Having some experience as a mess officer, I am concerned about the sustainment and FEEDING of such an army. Oh, that's right Obama EBT Cards. Er, oh, I got it.
#24
As a reminder, ALL of the most oppressive totalitarian regimes were leftist, socialist.
Hitler and the National Socialist Party
Stalin and the Commmunist Party
to name a few.
To me this conjures up a number of names:
OVRA
NKVD
KGB
Gestapo
Stasi
ISI
The further left someone goes the less tolerant of opposing ideas and more dictatorial they become. This generation of Dems..Pelosi, Reid, et.al., are the most dangerous group of politicians we have had since the "Know Nothing" party.
The final and most troubling to me personally tidbit of this little outburst from Obama is that the text of his speech on his website was Redacted to eliminate the reference to the civilian army. Talk about obscuring facts...this beats ANYTHING I ever saw out of slick Willie.
Gentlemen, this guy scares the living crap out of me, it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, it has everything to do with the ideas that keep coming out of his mouth.
Posted by: James Carville ||
07/17/2008 21:39 Comments ||
Top||
#25
an SS anti-tank company held off two Russian mechanized armies for two weeks
Two mechanized Soviet armies with a combined armor strength of 600 tanks, plus something on the order of 5,000 rifleman ( not to mention dozens of tubes of field artillery and rocket launchers, mortars, etc ), against 4 AT guns?
I won't ask for a link to describe such a fantastic feat of arms, but I will suggest that perhaps the size of opposing forces are in error?
The SS from an operational and strategic level were the best soldiers ever fielded in WWII, but they also accounted for the highest casualties because of the lack of trained and experienced NCOs. IOWs they were a disaster tactically.
Their officers were often old Imperial army officers who knew a thing or two about combat, but the SS took the highest casualties in the early going because of the lack of trained NCOs, which you can account to poor small unit tactics.
Once they got past that little "sarge sez we shouldn't be doing this" refrain, the SS were awesome combatants
There is a movement afoot, Bower confided. It hasnt hit the ground yet, but we want to target down-ticket Democrats who have been complicit in the DNCs dealings these past few months. Youll probably be hearing more about that soon. Some of Obamas original supporters are leaving him. Eight super-delegates left Obama this week. People are realizing Obama will be a dead weight to them and thats why these eight delegates have switched back over to Hillarys column. And Im expecting therell be more to follow.
Note this is all unconfirmed. But I have been a believer - ever since HRC was running second in the primaries - that she will either stage a comeback at Convention time, or work under cover to help defeat His Messiahship so she can take a run at the Oval Office in 2012.
One has to remember it is Obama who has annointed himself as the nominee. He does not have enough pledged delegates to win, and must depend upon the Supers to put him over the top. Yet the Supers do not vote until Convention time, and may change their mind at any point between now and then.
As I said rumors abound in the blogosphere of delegates and the tests of their loyalty to BHO. I suspect, as many FAers here like to say, that the popcorn poppers or microwave bags will be in abundance at the end of August. And the fat lady? Shes still traversing the streets of Denver, and hasnt even started a warbling warm up on the process for the official DNC nominee.
Its been pretty quiet on the HRC front since her careful suspension. But the pot is simmering now, and its not impossible for an October surprise to end up an August surprise for the Jr. Senator from IL.
#1
all conjecture but it all sounds plausible Mooses but so does just about everything political.
more conjecture
Another slant is that all along McCain's election staff hasn't feared Obama because they know the majority of Americans have figured it out, that Obama is nothing but an angry empty suit.
Because McCain believes he can whip Obama easily in the General his StraTeeGery now is to keep major tabs on Hitlery.
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
07/17/2008 6:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Difficult to predict. I laughed at Slick and said he'd never be elected. I was wrong not once, but TWICE!
#4
If Hillary makes a serious grab at the convention, Redford may be right. This could be the end of the Democratic party as we know it. The Whigs could not resolve their north-south divison and split never to regroup. Out of the ashes came the Republican party. We got damn lucky with that mess. Lincoln's name would never have made it out of Illionis without a political crises of huge proportions. BO is from Illionis but he aint no Lincoln.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/17/2008 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
work under cover to help defeat His Messiahship so she can take a run at the Oval Office in 2012
This is her best course to the whitehouse.
Running as the "victim" of Obama, and against a much older McCain, she will be a lot more effective than after a floor fight this year.
Think of the hard decisions and hard work McCain faces in the next 4 years - he is going to have to make some unpopular decisions. And the economy is likely going to bump along and get at least one solid recession under the watch of whomever is in office. And with McCain's temper he will probably piss off the DC press worse than anyone since Nixon. THen throw 4 years of stress on him and his age of 77-78 becomes a serious issue.
And on top of that conservatives will not be as driven to work for his reelection after he does the right thing in replacing stevens and Ginsburg with young originalist justices, cementing the court for the next 10-15 years. Much of the GOP will oppose him if he caves in on amnesty for illegals, like it appears he will, and follows through with his idiotic "global warming" regulatory policies.
Another major issue goes away that woudl hurt hillary as well - the terror war will be sinding down, Iraq will be stable and most US troops will be home from there, and Afghanistan should be "becoming stable". And whatever crisis we have with Iran will have already happened.
So 2012, after a McCain presidency, the GOP is weaker, and Hillary holds all the cards.
If she is smart, she will continue to smile while she lets her operatives put the shiv in Obama's back, reveal secrets, and sabotage his campaign, while boosting McCain's (tacitly).
Maybe. But maybe a less harsh Mellow; a mellow Orange would be that McC picks a GOOD VP and then say in March of 2012 announces that he's retiring in favor of said GOOD VP.
Don't ask me who this VP is, maybe Romney but someone good.
(Romney ain't my first choice but I don't see anyone else even close)
#10
There has been a lot of speculation that McCain will only serve one term. With that in mind, try this for a counter-scenario:
McCain-Palin '08
Palin-Jindal '12
Posted by: Mike ||
07/17/2008 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Mike,
From what I've heard of Palin & Jindal they sound quite good but I don't know enough about either and I'm a little concerned about the lack of experience.
Of course compared to the Obamanation my Dog has more executive experience.
Big difference between Clinton in 92 and 96 - (shhhh) he was white. This is the 800 pound Gorilla in the voting booth. Note how well Obama did in caucuses where you had to raise your hand in public versus ballot voting compared to pre-vote and exit polls. The Bradley effect is more applicable to Obama, of course, than Clinton. His star will be brightest when he goes to Europe but by November I believe he is very wrinkled, tattered empty suit.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/17/2008 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
BH6, we Army and Marines did get even with the Airforce, long time ago, at Goodfellow AFB. The night before Armed Forces Day.
There is only one jet aircraft on that training base, and its a fighter (full sized) on a huge concrete pintle out in front of the NCO club as I recall. There's also a water tower.
Some soldiers and marines got together and got some gray panels with the letters Y F and A. And a couple of banners. And some liquid adhesive. And a bike chain and some padlock. And a rapelling rope. And money to some privates to keep calling for pizza and chinese food delivery so the SPs at the gate would have something to do.
Some unknown enlisted people (who might have been included army SF and a Recon Marine due to the rope work and climbing expertise) got up on the water tower and hung 2 green banners, "USMC - Semper Fi" and "US ARMY - Be All You Can Be" over the words "AIR FORCE", then pulled the access ladder up, padlocked it, and rappeled off, pulling the rappel rope behind them when done.
Some other unknown people (cough cough) used those aforementioned grey panels, which were color matched to the aircraft, and lettering that was color and size matched, as well as a pile of liquid adhesive, to transform the Aircraft from US AIR FORCE to US FAIRY FARCE.
PT formation (facing said water tower) and our formation run by the NCO club the next morning was, umm, entertaining. Especially since all those exempted from morning PT happened to make formation for the run, those prior service folks.
The AF Colonel went apeshit, but nobody in the Marine and Army quarters seemed to quite know who did that, and nor how they evaded the ever watchful USAF SP's. The Marine's Gunny and Army 1SG were sure none of their troops would EVER do anything like that. Certainly not the prior service guys (mostly NCOs) who were retraining into SIGINT. Especially not them.
I went back there to visit a couple years later and that was still being told - although the deeds had somehow gotten larger and more elaborate with time.
#11
Yeah, yeah, OS: Of course, its not a "fairy force" when you grunts are pinned down and you need a little precise JDAM or 500 pounder to cool down the fire pit. You may want to tell this story to the latest Silver Star holder - Captain Greg Ambrosia - and ask if he would be receiving his star on this side of the grass if Air Power hadn't delivered.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/17/2008 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Jack, back the truck up. In the end we all know its same team - that was just a bit of showing off on an AF base to get back at the barcalounger AF types that ragged on us for formation runs, and drill.
And I agree, Zooms are great when you don't have arty or helos on call, and after all, you guys need someone to take and hold the ground you put your bases on.
In all seriousness, I probably owe my life to an A-10 pilot from way back when. And some of the bravest I've ever met in when I was at MacDill were AF PJs and the guys out at Hurlburt.
#13
Jack is Back!
Yes that's logical and very true Jack... but these AF Video Fly Boys are just begging for some Harsh but Good Natured badgering.
OldSpook #9,
The Marine's Gunny and Army 1SG were sure none of their troops would EVER do anything like that. Certainly not the prior service guys (mostly NCOs) who were retraining into SIGINT. Especially not them.
LOL! sure OS..sure LOL..
Damn that sounds almost as complicated as the Son Tay Raid OS!
Heh..Great result though... I would sure hate to be caught by AF-SP' wienies who have no love for both the Special Forces Army and all Marines and have absolutely no sense of humor.
yikes!
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
07/17/2008 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#14
heh heh OS you beat me to it! LOL!
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
07/17/2008 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#15
And aside from that, Jack, we are jealous that you guys do have the best looking women, and more of them around, than you find in a typical Marine Infantry company or an Army Cavalry Troop.
And as a Marine buddy once told me, you can tell the AF is smarter then we are - they keep the enlisted in the rear with the gear and send the officers out to get shot at.
Here's an old one:
"Secure the building."
The Marines will kill everybody inside and make it a command post
The Army will put fence and barbed wire around it, build observation towers and place a PFC with an empty rifle to it.
The Navy will turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The Air Force will take out a 5-year lease with an option to buy.
#16
There's just something about keeping your head down in a hole and then hearing a couple of F-4's go screeming overhead at weed-top hight that makes one feel good inside.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/17/2008 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Deac, try A-10's raking a dug in defensive line of T-72s, when our helicopters couldn't get there due to the shmal and our arty was mobile with us.
I'll tell ya this, its a lot easier to assault thru T-72's that have been "swiss chessed" (and their infantry support fragged) than it is to fight the damned things, even when you can get 1st shot kills at over 1Km thru a sand berm.
#19
at ease everyone...I like the chair force, best chow, most chicks and pilots that can rap..what's not to like? Plus they got the A-10 which we jarheads definitely need to commandeer. I also love Bufs, Spectres & B-1b's - coolest looking bird on the face of the planet.
I will never forget a hot day in sep 05 in Camp TQ and going to a USAF tent where they had the a.c. so cold the zoomies were making snowmen and having a snowball fight when I entered.
#20
Common joke last year btwn Army personnel facing theater extensions to 15 months was.... " hey Jim, how many 4 month USAF deployments have you had to the ITO, this is my fifth?.
What is small enough to be hauled on a truck, has the power to provide electricity to 45,000 homes, can help the U.S. cut its dependence on foreign oil and has no emissions? Hint: The Sierra Club won't like it.
Next week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will rule on an application from NuScale Power, an Oregon-based startup that is seeking federal clearance to move ahead with its project to build mini or portable nuclear reactors. Popular Mechanics quotes NuScale as saying that if its design is approved, it will begin tests with the hope of getting final approval a few years from now. Should the process go smoothly, the mini reactors could go online by 2015.
Mini nuclear power plants, from end to end, would be no more than 65 feet long and have no visible cooling towers to ruin anyone's "viewshed." A conventional nuclear plant can eat up thousands of acres and cannot "disappear" into a populated area.
Because of their size, the mini plants can be built at a central factory and shipped via rail or large truck anywhere in the country, keeping construction costs down.
An Energy Department official told New Scientist magazine four years ago that such reactors wouldn't require maintenance or need to be refueled. After their useful life of about 30 years they could be returned to the factory.
And oh yes: They're virtually terrorist-proof.
While neighborhood-friendly mini nuclear plants could displace a large number of traditional coal- and gas-fired power plants, they would be especially useful in remote areas where fossil fuels are used to run generators. They also would make it unnecessary to burn large amounts of gasoline and diesel to transport other fossil fuels to these isolated outposts.
The U.S. has not seen a nuclear plant of any size come online since the Watts Bar facility in Tennessee went into production in 1996. While France gets more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, the U.S. has been stuck at the 20% level for years. But the high price of crude seems to have refocused minds. NRC documents show the commission already this year has received 13 applications to build 19 nuclear power units.
It would be helpful if many of those who are now thinking differently are part of the NRC license-approval bureaucracy.
#3
Sweet! Next stop: TokaMate - your personal thermofusion reactor.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
07/17/2008 8:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The key is the passive fail-safes that are designed into the unit (that is, if nothing is done the unit will simply slowly shut down), as compared to the active ones (i.e. someone has to do something to prevent a runaway, and generally they need electricity to do it) in older designs.
#5
It's all well and good but transmission issues will still abound. It's kind of like the folks (including some of our brilliant legislaters) who think that wind turbines store the energy they produce for when the winds not blowing.
Although given the current political wind here in Kansas on coal fired power, this might have some credibility. Although we are still talking nuclear and that has it's own ramifications, we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out in the MSM..............
#8
The greenies will have many opportunities to obstruct.
If every NuScale miniplant will have to file a transportation plan and every transportation plan will have to be approved by every jurisdiction the miniplant moves through, it will just about kill this whole idea.
#9
This appears to address one of the issues that I seldom hear much about. There are many advantages to having a distributed power base. Don't need as many big power lines to shift power from a few central locales where it is produced to the many, many places it is needed. A distributed power generation system cuts transmission losses, is more secure against attack or critical component failure. One question does come to mind. What do you do for dynamic load adjustment. Nuclear is great for producing lots of power, but is not good at adjusting on the fly to rapid changes in demand. House-sized batteries or better yet, several million Toyota electric cars hooked to the power grid at night can go a long way toward smoothing things out on the old grid.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/17/2008 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I think this is proven tech. Both the Japanese and the South Africans have had similar units going on 20 years, and have ironed out a lot of bugs.
The idea is to have a very low maintenance system that is just like a big box with a few gauges, an on-off switch, and circuit protected high current plugs. And when its lease runs out, the company picks it up and gives you a new one.
#12
Actually "malibu", transmission issues are exactly what this avoids.
By being small safe and local, its relatively simple to hook to the grid, with no long distance transmission of poeer needed.
That's actually one of the major selling points - put power generation closer to where it is consumed, and replace transmission lines from distant power plants.
And as other have stated, and array of these might be a viable alternative to a medium scale coal or nuke plant for small cities.
#13
Richard - use the extra capacity to create hydrogen. Yes you lose a lot in the conversion but you don't entirely waste the capacity and that hydrogen can be used in fuel cells.
I still can't imagine the greenies letting this get past. For most of the 'green' organizations these days its more about power, and the ability to run people's lives, than the environment.
#15
Don't underestimate the knee-jerk automatic resistence to nuke power. I forwared an article on this approach to my local newspaper yesterday; I expect to have them cancel my subscription by the end of the week.
I do still have some concerns - the usual two and one of them seems to have been addressed; (1)the safety of the system when it's run by local yahoos and (2) what is the ultimate disposal plan for the waste materials
Posted by: Big Unusoth9894 ||
07/17/2008 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I'm sure the controls will include some means to synchronize the volatge phase. Even the local yokels might be able to handle it.....
However, things also depend upon the voltage/amperage coming out of the plant and what you are feeding that power into whether it be a substation or what. Lock in the power out of sync and motors start turning backwards and things go poof!
There are already vast monies spent on the infrastructure including substation, transformers, and lines. Investor owned utilities might jump at the chance to stick the bill to you whereas co-operatives might be able to use them to offset higher costs of coal/natural gas generation.
#17
Richard of Oregon is right. First places to get them would be places off the grid, currently using diesel generators. Then the camel's nose is under the tent.
The Soviets had quite a lot of these, and even with Soviet's safety standards and quality control (lack thereof), I don't recall any problem.
#18
One other thing, for off the grid communities and communities that want to go off the grid, you can and should make electricity unmetered. That would be a powerful incentive in colder places.
My greatest worry on Iran's nuclear threat to civilization isn't the military option. It's trying that option on the cheap.
If there's any way to block Tehran's pursuit of nukes short of warfare, I'm all for it. Maybe yesterday's dispatch of the No. 3 US diplomat to observe the European Union's talks with the mullahs about their nukes will work a miracle (don't hold your breath). Military strikes must be the last resort. Even a successful attack would panic oil markets, interrupt supplies to an unknown degree and make enemies of the Iranian people for another generation.
But the fanatics in Tehran may leave us no peaceful alternative. In that case, the most disastrous thing we could do would be to launch an economy-model attack. If forced to strike, we have to do it right. When safe-at-home ideologues bluster, "Just bomb 'em," they haven't a clue how complex this problem is.
Nor is there any chance that the Israelis could handle Iran on their own (their recent air-force exercise was psychological warfare). As skilled as their pilots and planners may be, the Israelis lack the capacity to sustain a strategic offensive against Iran - or to deal with the inevitable mess they'd leave behind in the Persian Gulf. Israel's aircraft could do serious damage to Iran's nuke program, but the US military would face the potentially catastrophic aftermath.
Without compromising any secrets - the Iranians already know what we'd need to do - here are the basic requirements for smacking down Iran's nuke program:
* Take out Iran's air-defense and intelligence network to protect our attacking aircraft.
* Take down its national communications network to degrade its military reaction.
* Strike dozens of dispersed nuclear-related targets - some of them in hardened underground facilities, with others purposely placed in populated areas.
* Hit every anti-ship-missile installation along Iran's Persian Gulf coast and the Straits of Hormuz. The reflexive Iranian response to an attack would be to launch sea-skimmer missiles against oil tankers and Western warships. The Iranians know that oil's now the world's Achilles heel.
* Destroy Iran's naval capacity, including small craft, in the first 24 hours to prevent attacks on shipping (expect suicide attacks, too).
* Immediately take out all of Iran's long-range and intermediate-range missiles - not just those that could strike Israel, but those that could hit Saudi, gulf-state or Iraqi oil refineries, pipelines, port facilities and oil fields . . . or our installations in the region.
* Hit the military's key command centers in Tehran, as well as regional headquarters, with special attention to the Revolutionary Guards' infrastructure.
* Expect three to six weeks of intense air and naval fighting, followed by months of skirmishing and asymmetrical warfare. And Iraq will heat back up, too.
Screw up the effort, and today's oil prices will double or triple, with severe downstream shortages showing up in a matter of weeks - every oil tanker's insurance will be canceled immediately, even if the Straits of Hormuz remain open (unlikely). And we'll be in the global doghouse.
Gimme-my-war chumps of the sort who believed "dissident" Ahmed Chalabi on Iraq insist that, if we weaken the Tehran regime by attacking, the Iranian people will overthrow it. Utterly wrong.
Yes, many Iranians detest their killer-bumpkin president. But plenty of Americans despise our president - yet, if our homeland were attacked tomorrow, most would rally behind him. And we'd fight back. The Iranians would respond the same way. If a war did spark regime change, the new government might well be even harder-line. Nobody likes to be bombed - and serious attacks on Iran's nuclear program would kill a lot of Iranians.
Yet it'd be even worse if we tried to hit Iran on the cheap, in some think-tank-concocted Shock and Awe Part II. "Precision" attacks - limited to air-defense sites and nuclear facilities - would draw a swift and painful Iranian response against the Gulf's oil exports.
And one last worry: If we decide we have no choice but to attack, we're so casualty-averse that our civilian leadership is apt to put critical targets off-limits to spare Iranian lives. We still want to win wars without hurting anybody, by just breaking the other guy's toys. And that's never going to happen.
If we have to fight, we have to fight to win. Take down Iran's nuke program? I'm damned certain of one thing: If we start this one, we'd better get it right from the first shot.
#1
I agree with Peters in most respects: If we hit them at all, we have to hit very hard indeed. I think he overstates the challenge in one respect though:
* Strike dozens of dispersed nuclear-related targets - some of them in hardened underground facilities, with others purposely placed in populated areas.
This is true of "nuclear targets" in general but the really critical ones, the uranium enrichment centrifuges, can't really be dispersed to any practical degree. You have to have a lot of them close together to complete the process. You can't put one in every other garage or mosque, then go shuttling partially enriched uranium hexafluoride gas all over the countryside like so many bolts of cloth. The stuff is almighty dangerous and corrosive. To transport it, you would have to condense it back to a solid each time it was removed from a dispersed centrifuge unit, then vaporize it again before it is fed into the next one. This would reduce progress to a snail's pace even without the obvious hazards of constantly trundling batches of corrosive and radioactive poison around a backward country.
The Iranians will have hardened the centrifuge facilities as well as they and their European contractors know how, but I really don't think that will be good enough.
Beyond that, however, this is every bit as difficult as Peters says. The campaign against Iranian maritime facilities must be as thorough and as ruthless as any since the Second World War. Every missile site, ship, boat and coastal RG hovel must be blasted off the face of the Earth in as little time as possible if we are to have any hope of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. Every Iranian warship at sea, especially submarines, should have an SSN assigned as far in advance as possible, with orders to trail it and be prepared to sink it literally at a moment's notice.
#2
We still want to win wars without hurting anybody, by just breaking the other guy's toys. And that's never going to happen.
Hear, hear!
The best way to deal with Iran, or any other ROP country, is to take out their entire infrastructure. Reduce them to indigenous tech, so to speak.
But in this instance he is spot on. The military command control and intelligence systems and leadership targets and their infrastructure, inclduing power water telecom and broadcast facilities, must be eliminated.
#5
So, Supreme Commander Obama is going to do all this next year? Impossible. Voters need to know what the real stakes are if we elect BO. Bush doesn't have time to finish the job, so the next guy has to take it on. I have confidence that McCain can do a good job, but do I trust the voters to make a sane choice? Some days I do, some days not.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/17/2008 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If Obama wins, look for Israel to force out hand and Bush will be the one ordering in ths strikes in late November.
#7
"The blow must be a shattering one."
I agree with this and not with Peters on this one. A conventional strike modology is what we can't afford. We need to hit them with mass nuclear strikes so large as to totally paralyze what remains of its citizenry. This needs to be discussed and OK'd by Congress. Let the Mullahs know that we have warned them and that utter destruction is their only other alternative. The attack should be by nuclear missiles only, no troops. Death from the sky. Over with in 30 minutes.
#8
Strike dozens of dispersed nuclear-related targets - some of them in hardened underground facilities
You don't really need to destroy the deep facility, just screw up all entrances/exits and they're out of the picture. In a bad way.
Besides, I hear W ordered the development of a nuclear bunker buster. More than sufficient for anything they could put out there I would think.
And don't we have some pretty cool unmanned undersea vehicles that probe for mines and submarines and report back to base? That ought to help a lot with their subs, especially if they use active sonar.
And I would think that a few water-filled old tankers with several phalanx systems on them and piloted up and down the straits to flush out the guys with missiles hiding in the weeds ought to help a lot, too. Heck, put an anti-missile system on every tanker running up and down the straits with a few marines to guarantee that the systems don't fall into the wrong hands.
As for "intense air fighting", perhaps some loitering bombers would be all that would be necessary. Be ready to drop bombs at all the vulnerable points along the straits as soon as any missile activity is detected. It's probably resource intensive, but cheaper than the alternative. Heck, sell opt-in "protection packages" for $1M each. Whiners need not participate! :-) This one will be tough because sleeper cells could wait for years before they decide to go wreak havoc.
#9
I don't know, I should think that if we picked one or two nuke sites that they must have to make nukes and then hit them in one all night raid using our stealth bombers to blast the crap out of them and then denied everything the next day.... Instead report a series of explosions at such and such site, Iranian dissident's are suspected.
#11
Nuking Iran, as deliciously ironic as it sounds (oh you want nuclear weapons? Here ya go!), would really be uncalled for. I think that Peters is pretty much right. Massive percision strikes that will remove Iran's nuclear refinment capability and their capability to make war at the same time are what is called for.
The only problem with that is how many insurgents they will pump into Iraq. If we are going to do this, we need to have a full commpliment of troops ready to invade.
We break Iran's face, they give us a bloody nose and we finish wiping them off the map, then rebuild them as we did Iraq.
Or we could do it right the first time. Mass the troops for an invasion, tell Iran to kill the nuke program now. If they don't we do the air strikes outlined above and send the troops in in overwhelming force to clean and disinfect that toilet at the same time. We have the lessons we learned in Iraq, we should be out in two years if we use what we learned. Maybe less since there won't be some jerk sending hostile insurgents across the border and financing civil war.
#13
There is no such thing as the Iranian people, as there was no such thing as the Yugoslav people. A strike agaisnt Tehran would likely trigger a bloodbath against ethnic Persians. And I doubt we would stand aside and let the government slaughter civilians to reassert control, like Saddam was allowed to do after Gulf War 1.
Otherwise, Iran is unusual in that has a small number of communication chokepoints due to its topography. Knock down a couple of dozen major bridges and you will stop the government (quickly) redeploying its forces to counter trouble hotspots. I'd isolate Tehran from the rest of the country.
#14
What Im thinking, other than HE on the main targets (nuke facilities and targets that need a hard kill, like leadership and radars), the most effective initial weapon would be aluminzed mylar.
Take out the entire power grid. No power to pump water or sewage, nor to pump gasoline either.
There go all the cities. Food distribution, medical care, all the modern things, gone. Cholera rampant within weeks. Starvation within months.
Keep hitting hard targets with HE and the power grid with non-permanent damage.
They will surrender, or die in large numbers, eventually. Which one happens is up to them.
#15
Seems like most of the items on the list are doable. I don't know whether you can accomplish all this without causing the price of oil to go up. As we have seen, the price of oil is volatile and often the price is based on psychology as much as anything. Bush lifted the ban on drilling and the price of oil went down immediately. The item on the list that is problematic is the last one: Expect three to six weeks of intense air and naval fighting, followed by months of skirmishing and asymmetrical warfare. And Iraq will heat back up, too. Don't look for Obama to do what Peters outlines. Best to elect McCain at this time.
#16
Oh and that also takes out broadcast and telecom as hard targets if needs be. If the Mullahs cannot reach the masses, they cannot rally the masses.
#2
It tells looooots about the Palestians that this guy is a hero between them. It also tels looooooots about the "friends of the Palestina cause" a la Rachel Corrie that between all the causes in the world to support, eg the Blacks (Niggers in their internal language) of Sudan, they have picked the one of those who have such heroes, have tried to bomb maternities, put bombs on retarded boys and raise thir children in a genocidical hate. It really, realy tells lots.
Another day in the Land of Inversion, where the obvious is not an option. I heard more interviews with learned politicians informing me that drilling for oil will not affect anything, least of all the quantity of oil. We must apparently wait until 2015, when a magic engine that runs on unicorn flatulence is invented. I have to ask: why is anyone investing in unicorn flatulence today, when it wont make any difference for several years? The answers simple: the engine will Appear at the chosen moment, borne from the clouds by starlings, but only if we have repented of our foul ways, and the last of the sinners has left the cul-de-sac to reside in a home located a sustainable distance from his or her place of employment. When the last suburban outlying development is empty, when the homes of whose size we disapprove has been abandoned, when the last citizen has been gathered unto the bosom of the urban center, where his profligate ways are sneered upon and the measure of his yard shall be no greater than the standard lot size decreed in 1902, then shall the magic engine appear. Until then, the wind and the sun will bear us onward.
Honestly, its like FDR coming into power promising bold, persistent experimentation except for any sort of government involvement in the economy. Thats off the table.
No, in the Land of Inversion, weve decided to do things that run completely counter to human nature at least to the nature we perceive in our domestic opponents. Dont give an inch to your domestic foes; theyll read it as weakness! To everyone else, though, its olive branches strewn like ticker-tape at an astronaut parade. In Israel, for example, this horrible prisoner swap - child-killer exchanged for murdered soldiers. The fellow is welcomed home as a hero by Hezbollah and Lebanons Prime Minister and President, because in the Land of Inversion, heads of state clear their calendar when child-killers breathe the sweet air of freedom again. Its all relative, really. One mans child-killer is another mans freedom fighter, and if you point out that the another man is a Jew-hating idiot fanatic whod be proud to blow up the Holocaust Museum in DC and take out a busload of Iowa tourists, youre ignoring the significant impact this exchange had on the Climate of Trust that will lead to peace. I mean, its not like the entire cabinet turned out to meet the guy. In the delicate calculations of the region, that counts for something.
Meanwhile, in Germany, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said he was encouraged by the prisoner swap and hoped that it was the first of many more.
Oh, it will be. If Eichmann was still around there would be people lobbying for his release. Hadnt he suffered enough? Whats gained by keeping him in jail, after all? This is the peculiar logic of the Land of Inversion: theres a certain moral legitimacy that falls lightly on someones shoulders if hes in jail. The crime is soon forgotten, and were left with the sad sight of someone languishing theyre always languishing in a grim prison. If the reporter who interviews them finds the have a ready smile or a quick wit or notes that the prisoner discusses his case with flashes of anger, well, were intrigued: what sort of modern Valjean has society stuck in the Bastille this time?
I didnt celebrate Bastille Day this year used to go down to the New French Bar and have bread and garlicky mayo and enjoy the day, but I dont have the same sort of romantic view of the French Revolution anymore. Nice work deposing the King, guys, but no thanks for the first totalitarian state devoted to remaking society from the ground up. Good morning, citizens. Today we will discuss guillotine production, and choose the new names for the months of the year. Howd that turn out? Empire, then restoration, you say?
Drat the luck.
Meanwhile, over in Blighty: every day brings another story that suggests they could power the lights on the Strand by harnessing the RPMs of Churchills corpse. Some I believe; some are almost heartening, such as this story a fellow got in trouble for taking pictures of his own kids in a park, but the police declined to run him in for violating the Male And Therefore A Likely Perv Act. (Cant find link, sorry.) Every other day has a story of a man who fights off intruders in his house, and is charged with Making a Fist Instead of Forming a Fetal Ball and Waiting for the Bobbies to Come Round and Pretend To Take Down a Description of the Attackers. I know Im seeing this all from a distance, filtered through the media, but it ties into my own subjective suspicions, which are based in emotion and therefore unassailable: are you saying my feelings arent VALID?
Back up a bit. I think these stories are pinging my brainpan because I've watched too much Torchwood, that generally disappointing BBC series Ive been watching out of interest and creepy fascination. Not with the show itself, but with the culture it seems to suggest. If you havent seen it, well, its a group of X-Files-style paranormal investigators dealing with the rift-raff, the creatures who come to London through a rip in space. It connects with Dr. Who somehow. The team is balanced for gender and sexual preference, and is notable most for their utter ineptitude. Picture Mulder and Scully with flashlights and no guns, a tendancy to show up late for everything and stand around looking grief-stricken while something bad happens. Then they go back to their batcave and have pizza.
The women, of course, are Strong and Smart and Purposeful; the men are either weak and nerdy, or bitter, undernourished and nerdy, or a cheerfully pansexual immortal American who comes from the future. I suppose its good that the American is the strongest and most Yankee-can-do sort of character on the show, but he doesnt do anything, either. Anyway: in the last episode I saw, they encountered three people whod come to the future from 1952. one of them was depressed about landing in 2007, what with his son in a loony bin with Alzheimers and all, so he tried to off himself in a car by running the car in the garage. Our Yank hero interrupted him but he heard the fellow out, saw his point, and sat with him in the car until the fumes killed him.
Theres something a bit off when the hero performs a compassionate act of assisted suicide because someone cant adjust to the 21st century after a week. I dont know how quite to explain it, but its like a show from a culture with nothing underneath it anymore.
I know its simplistic to expect a character to say chin up, old sport! Thats the ticket! Well muddle through, I say, and bully for tomorrow, what? But there was just something telling about watching this Briton from 52 kill himself because the modern world had nothing to offer him. The show didnt seem to even realize what the character might have found lacking in the England of 2007.
Before he died, the Yank gave him a lecture about the afterlife: there isnt one. You dont see your loved ones. Its just black. Cheers, mate.
He would probably be seconded on that point by this fellow, who I expect will name an atheist as his successor, as part of an outreach program to attract people uncomfortable with the whole God part of religion. There really isnt any reason to set the bar that high, you know. In his latest missive, he has acknowledged that parts of Christianity may offend Muslims, which is a fascinating choice of words. It puts doctrinal differences into the realm of emotional reaction, and as we all know offence must be followed with apologies and seminars and outreach and an hour of steady banging of the head on the hard marble floor. No one has the right to give offense, but everyone has the right indeed, the obligation to be offended by something.
Given the Islamic belief that Christ did not die on the cross, its only a matter of time before the Church of England mandates small step-ladders beneath every crucifix. You can believe he got down and walked away, if you like. Were not saying he did, but we wouldnt want to offend anyone who insisted he did. <
After that, they will call in acoustical engineers to retrofit the churches, because theres just a terrible echo when the padre speaks.
I love this part:
Dr Williams added: 'It is all the more important for the sake of open and careful dialogue that we try to clarify what we do and do not mean by it, and so I trust that what follows will be read in this spirit.
What we do and do not mean by it. Meaning, We believe that you believe we are wrong, and we believe that our being wrong offends you.
Its the natural end result of elevating tolerance above all else: eventually you are intolerant of the things in which you once believed, because they are theoretically offensive to those who have no interest in the maintenance of your traditions. In the end, traditions are just social constructs used to impose social order; best if we do away with them anyway. Something better always fills a void, right?
The article is just rife with delicious nuggets:
Religious identity has often been confused with cultural or national integrity, with structures of social control, with class and regional identities, with empire: and it has been imposed in the interest of all these and other forms of power,' he said.
History is a sin for which we must constantly beg absolution. Well go first in the merry abasement race; you guys follow.
Guys? Cmon, guys?<
Imagine that, though: religious identity has often been confused with cultural integrity. Those strange, disparate elements have managed to intertwine for some peculiar reason. How does that happen? Well, people tend to identify with their own culture, for the most part unless theyre American post-war kids brought up in the hell of Levittown and youd think this would be a natural fact embraced by the precepts of multiculturalism. If a people wish to include religious concepts in their cultural self-definition, isnt this their right? Are we suggesting now that that the two should be separated, lest one lend unearned authority to the other? You could see this is a criticism of some elements of the immigrant community, after all, and that's not up for discussion: cultural chauvinism of the worst sort. You could argue that irreligiousness, the current state of Europe, is a part of their modern cultural integrity; that is a form of religious identit, in a way. But saying we have managed to cut the cord, and so should you will not impress people who have neither the intention nor the ideological means to separate one from the other. It just looks irresolute and smells sick and gives the impression of an old beast, with a limp.
It wouldnt sound odd coming from a Marxist critic of religion, but it does sound peculiar coming from the head of a church. As for the imposition of religious identity to serve the interest of empire, at least we know now why India turned into a totally Christian nation in the 19th century. That one has bothered me for a long time.
It gets better, and the honored gentleman gives away the game here:
The Archbishop said that faiths which reject the use of violence should learn to defend each other in their mutual interest.
'If we are in the habit of defending each other, we ought to be able to learn to defend other groups and communities as well,' he said.
'We can together speak for those who have no voice or leverage in society - for the poorest, the most despised, the least powerful, for women and children, for migrants and minorities; and even to speak together for the great encompassing reality that has no voice of its own, our injured and abused material environment.
There you have it. Humans are just supporting characters in an argument that ends with a plea for the health of our Common Rock. To sum it all up: sorry about that whole Christ-died-for-your-sins thing; well try to keep it down. Can you join us to work for a ban on plastic grocery store bags?
This works with reasonable people, for only for so long. The reasonable people on both sides end up in the tumbrel. Not the first wave, or the second, but they get around to them eventually. The Land of Inversion has its own definition of reasonable. It's full of people who regard your denunciation of your history and culture and tradition and beliefs with amusement, and say: that's a good start.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/17/2008 06:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
James, if you think its inverted now wait until we put old Winston and Reagan on warp speed and elect Obama as the most powerful person in the world. And he is a deity that you won't need a step ladder for under his cross.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
07/17/2008 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
