Read At Your Own Risk

So new evidence has been un-covered revealing the true nature of “Honest” Abraham Lincoln. Does anyone still believe the lies about “The Great-Emancipator”? You know the ones about how he started the Civil War to free the slaves and such. For that matter does anyone still believe that Thomas Jefferson was all anti-slave too?



Lincoln-

While the debate rages at whether Lincoln was pro-slavery or not, I think it’s important to note that he believed what ever got him the highest approval ratings (a popular trend for re-election hopes). The Civil War, or rather the south’s secession was based on tariffs that the south was paying to the north (i.e. U.S. Government). Lincoln was super pro-tariff, which at the time of his election in 1861, was raking in 87% of Federal Tariff Revenue (1). Upon his election (which by the way was only 39.7% for this republican (really democrat) and 61% split amongst three democratic (really republican) candidates) (2) The southern colonies seceded cause they wanted to keep their money that they had been paying over to the government in previous years. Without said tariffs, the south could easily become economically sustainable, which it hadn’t been. Lincoln, up to this point wishy-washy (or to use current terms, flip-flopped) over slavery, decided to free the slaves of the seceded south (as if he had any power to do so at that point) in order to under-cut southern economic growth, and bring them back into the american fold. The north was pretty prejudiced at this time which can be seen throughout most of the historic literature (they still had indentured slavery and often roped freed slaves into similar roles that they served in the south, cept the plantation cause the north is agriculturally barren umkay). See “Incident’s in the Life of a Slave Girl”, ”How We Elected Lincoln” etc… Keep in mind that Lincoln’s decree only applied to slaves in seceded states!



While Lincoln is generally known as pro-black (apart of the group that was touted as the Black Republicans), he really never thought that Blacks could become a part of America, and wished them to be resettled back home in Africa. In his legal career as a lawyer, he was found to represent slave holders. Not to mention Mary-Todd’s (Lincoln’s wifey) family where one of Kentucky’s most prominent slave-owners. He persuaded his political party in 1848 (he was a Whig then) to support the election of pro-slavery Zachary Taylor, not to mention he fought against miscegenation (a fancy word for blacks marrying whites) (3). In a speech given in Peoria, Illinois on October 16, 1854, he declares his sentiments towards blacks, concluding that “We can not, then, make them equals.”



Regardless of his real feelings, which seem to be equally supported by both sides of the debate, what we do know for sure is this: Lincoln changed his mind frequently depending on who he was talking to regarding his feelings on blacks and slavery. No big surprise, what president hasn’t (see Bush vs. Bush)? It’s also easy to understand why your teachers have told you lies about america’s past regarding slavery, and well everything else: Who really wants to support the fact that our country was founded by racist/misogynist/assholes?



Before I change gears I think it’s quite funny to look at the reasons Lincoln started the war in comparison to what he said was the reason for starting the war (which was unity not slavery). Now look at the past wars in american history and their political reasons. Remind you of anything recently or in fact ever. The only way our presidents have been able to convince us that war is just, was to lie through their white-washed teeth!



1. http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/taq.html

2. http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=9699

3. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html



Onto one of my favorite misunderstood fore-fathers: Thomas Jefferson



This guy really takes the cake in my book. Jefferson home, the famous Monticello, you know on the back of the old nickels, was on a 5,000 acre plantation that was initially home to roughly 80 slaves (which he inherited at the age of 14). The guy is famous for being one of the most influential minds of early america, being sited as the founder of many steadfast organizations and of course the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. He promoted separation of church and state (not so skillfully established…. ever), as well as fought against the ever popular practice of primogeniture (the passing of inheritance through the first-born sons of a family). Not two of his most successful campaigns. Oddly enough he got his wealth, and subsequently could afford his in-depth schooling due to primogeniture, rock on! He was the original “boys-club” president. Wealthy, white and lovin’ it (even though he died in extreme debt). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not tryin’ to bash old Tom, but bring to light something about his life that many don’t know; mainly because he did so many positive things no one need mention his skeletons, right?



In 1774 he owned roughly 200 slaves that he affectionately referred to as his “outside family”. One in particular must have caught his eye, Mary Hemings. Only ten years his junior, by the standards of the times, she was much too old for him. Besides his questionable behavior with old Mary, he was a decent slave-owner (kinda like that Schindler dude), often only buying humans to keep family, his outside family, together. Not bad huh? He even encouraged marriage within his “family”, okay gross. When it came to Mary, that’s where I get a little woozy.



You see good old Tom had this notion that by breeding white stock into his slaves, he could increase their worth, at least to him. That’s cause Tommy figured that a little white blood could only help out the poor negroes. Wait what? Okay, so it’s no surprise that while he respected these human-beings, he still thought of them as chattel (useful animals). I mean come on, everyone else was doing it! Here’s a nice quote: "I consider the labor of a breeding woman as no object, and that a child raised every 2 years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man. In this, as in all other cases, providence has made our interest and our duties coincide perfectly." (1)



I don’t think that anyone knows, or could find out if he raped Mary or not. In terms of the era, she was not technically a human so it would be closer to bestiality. Regardless he saw the act of sleeping with his slaves as a way to better his private stock. That didn’t stop Mary from trying to get away when she was traded off to a friend: Thomas Bell, who fathered a couple more of Mary’s offspring. Did I mention that all of Tommy Jefferson and Mary Hemings kids got plush house-slave positions, fitting of their fine breeding? How do you think that made the other members of the “outside family” feel? Tommy later resumed relations with on of Mary’s children: Sally Hemings, much closer to an appropriate age group. You may have heard of her. She is the popular partner of Tom, maybe because their kids where defined as white (only 1/8th black, Mary was half black, the times defined mulatto as quarter black). Of course this is before the one-drop rule that wouldn’t come for another 150 years (hypodecent). So Tom, being the straight arrow he was, released Sally’s kids cause he couldn’t technically own them, being human and all. Did I mention he was a lawyer too, so of course he understood the letters of the law, especially since he wrote many of them?



1. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/slaves/stanton.html



Okay I know that blog seems muddled, hard to back up, and often contrary to popular belief. I can’t guarantee its all true, cause lets face it, the people writing the history of this time where super biased. And So am I. I value every life form equally, not just the human kind. For me it’s hard to see a man like Thomas Jefferson, who in appearances respected his slaves, while never forgetting that they were lesser then the mighty white man, and hold him in high esteem. I’m not saying that his contribution to america should be negated either. Stuff like freedom of religion, the democratic-republican party, Louisiana purchase, Lewis and Clark expedition, classic liberalism, the University of Virginia, the Declaration of Independence, the Flat Hat Club, and of course elitism are all useful to somebody, and I don’t want to take that away from them…. But really, lets recognize these dudes for what they really where, what they really did and the principals that they championed.



Heroes are for fiction. When we Harold these dudes for the lies they sputtered it really makes us look bad as a people.





PS. Does anyone else remember the events of April 12, 2003, when US Forces burned down Baghdad’s National and Islamic Libraries, which housed some of the oldest remaining literature of the middle-east? I will never forget that america is a book burning, anti-intellectual nation. I doubt the world will anytime soon. How about we start a new trend that can shape a new american mind-set?

Nebraska v. $124,700

This is probably the funniest court case I’ve ever read, while quite disturbing/tragic at the same time. I don’t know if the guy was ultimately guilty of driving while brown, or if the real offense is carrying too much currency. But let it be known, while the law is such that the state has to prove with a preponderance of evidence that any “excessive” amount of currency is related to drugs, or drug trafficking, if your story ain’t straight, that counts as evidence against you…. Wait a minute, sounds fishy to me, and hopefully to you too. The defendant (and not the money but the guy that they took it away from) is not responsible to demonstrate evidence that the money is not related to drugs. Therefore, regardless of lies, miscommunication or previous offenses, it is not his responsibility to prove his innocence. Granted, his actions can be used as evidence against him, but in this case, the court didn’t prove with a “preponderance of evidence” that his said, shady, actions were evidence of guilt. Even the dissenting opinion claims that the testimony of the defendant clearly describes a situation whereby the reality of the situation could have gone either way. I’m not trying to promote, can’t speak English = Innocence (…innocent until proven guilty maybe?…) but I am trying to argue against, can’t speak English = Guilty.

The real tragedy here is the victims of snail paced legal proceedings. Three people, living legally in the USA, grouped their money together to start a business: the american dream. And due to the laws of this country, and one dog’s testimony, their lifesavings went to uncle sam. Even if they had their money returned to them, it would have been three years after they initially raised it. I ask you this: Could you give your lifesavings up for three years? With no investment yield or any hope of gain. Within that amount of time, while the government might be giving you back the exact monetary value they took, you would actually be receiving less due to the sharp decline in the value of the dollar (based on gold as a standard, the american dollar is half as valuable as it was in 2003, in other words: an ounce of gold that went for $350, is going for $650 now). Okay now we’re getting into tricky territory I know. Regardless of how much less the dollar is worth now then in the past, and I guarantee it is worth less now then in the recent past, they still had to live without any of that money for three years. For a person, or persons, trying to start a business, let alone raise a family, having zero capital puts you at a disadvantage to say the least.

Anyway I like reading these court cases because I believe that the courts are the only institution currently in place that have room to change our system. Its too bad that they aren’t an instrument of change, but rather a tool for the retention of dominance.

Regardless, don’t carry too much money around or it could be arrested for being in one place at one time. You could be construed as a drug dealer as well.

!!Legal language might be your best chance at survival in this day and age, and its quite different from English. I suggest everyone learn how to read it!!

Check out the case for yourself: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/moneyseize.pdf

Peak Oil and the Modern Road

Hello again! One of my common comments regarding peak-oil is about some of the under-dog (if you will) concerns that seem not be of concern to anyone. One specifically is road production. I don’t know if anyone is thinking about this, but it is left out of most peak-oil debate/discussions.

Asphalt is a byproduct of crude oil refining. It is the heavy leftover garbage that we want out of our gasoline and useful oils. Basically oil refining takes crude oil, the thick black stuff Uncle Jed found in the Beverly Hillbillies, and essentially boils out the good stuff. Stuff like gasoline and other useful oils that are less dense then the original crude (oils that go towards lubes, plastics, etc…). The major after-product is this thick, heavy crap that someone somewhere figured would make an excellent means of transportation. So they started using this rather useless material to cover the earth with, replacing old stone/cement materials that had been used for roads the previous 60 centuries. In some respects it is quite useful. One major necessity in road materials is malleability. The surface of the Earth is in constant motion, and roads need to be flexible in order to reduce the need for constant upkeep.

Think about cracks in cement roads. How often do you see someone replacing or fixing these? What about cracks in asphalt? While it may seem that asphalt is in disrepair far more often then cement (especially in Colorado, am I right?), through close comparison, cement roads crack far sooner then asphalt when adjusted for the proportional use of each road. In other words, cement roads tend to get less traffic then asphalt (due to state economic interests: cement=cheap, asphalt=expensive), while asphalt is a more dependable road surface.

Anyway on to the point… Regardless of whether or not we can make a car that doesn’t run off crude oil, we aren’t currently spending large quantities of money to find a different medium for said cars to run on top of. The main point I’m trying to express is this: After peak-oil, we won’t be able to keep our roadways in useable status as long as we are dependant on asphalt. A new material needs to be developed (hopefully not by private companies) that will fit the requirements for our civilizations’ travel needs. Strength and flexibility are the current and immediate needs, but this opportunity gives us a chance to innovate one of the most important inventions of civil humankind.

How often do you notice the heat reflecting off asphalt? While we all know that black absorbs, asphalt also radiates that absorbed heat. For our purposes it would be better to refer to this as energy, because heat is energy. Current asphalt based roadways waste an incredible amount of radiant energy, and actually hurt us by radiating said energy all over the place for our bodies/cars/environment to soak up. The new street material should utilize its “place in the sun” to benefit humankind, rather then hinder it. A new material could easily incorporate a way to harness the energy currently being lost. Current energy conversion is on average around 20%, whether it be photovoltaic or combustion based (even our own hearts are only about 25% efficient…thankfully the meat bagged around the heart tends to absorb the lost energy…sorta).

So even if we only got 10% efficiency on the new material, vastly less then most energy to power conversions, we could generate 100 watts per square meter of road (based on the average equatorial solar radiant energy of 1000 Watts per square meter). That means a two lane road, estimated at 30 feet wide, could produce upwards of 1,609 Kilowatts of power per mile per hour. Based on these rough estimates, in one hour a one mile chunk of a two-lane highway could generate enough energy to power an average Boulder household for three months. Let me put that in a different number that doesn’t make it sound so cool, because that last statement is slightly misleading: Based on the Municipality of Boulder-Colorado’s 1999 annual energy usage, we would need roughly 1.2 Millions miles of said two-lane road surface, running at 10% efficiency, to solely power the City of Boulder.

At this point, 10% efficiency is actually a better number when we factor in nighttime or overcast conditions that would reduce the amount of solar radiation being absorbed by the new medium. Also, this is not a solution that would replace all of our current non-oil based energy production, but I chose to visualize it as such to get a better picture of how useful roads can be, if we take the time to seriously innovate their design and impact of humankind. Regardless, my main point here is to get people thinking about this issue, cause I keep hearing debates that are completely ignoring one of the major inventions of humankind (and oldest at around 6000+ years), an invention whose fate is currently tied to crude oil and is quite possibly our greatest connection to each one another: the road.

As always read for yourself, and think about the world you live in. I would like to thank wikipedia.org for providing me with some of my significant figures, the City of Boulder and of course: the letter Z.