Wednesday, July 29

VIDEO: Cash for Clunkers: How to destroy an engine

This is how the Government decided to kill off cars being turned in for the Cash for Clunkers program:



Personally, I think this is a waste. Many bad cars are going to continue to run the roads, while many still decent cars get the treatment you see above. Me, I still have my 1994 BMW 325i and given that the car does not qualify for the treatment above (not that I would permit such a thing to happen to it) if I decide to replace it, it will most likely be with a newer-used car.

Anyway, why does this program require you to but a new car? Why require the purchase of any car at all? If a person were to turn in their old gas-guzzler and pocket the money instead of buy any car, isn't that even better for the environment? (You can have some requirement that they not purchase any car for a year or forfeit the cash.) Just saying.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Tuesday, July 28

I Was Wondering About the News Ticker in Havana...

It was only last week that I was wondering if Obama and Clinton were going to turn off the news ticker that the US 'Embassy' was operating in Havana, Cuba given how pissed off the Cuban Government was over it and given how our current President is so eager to start all relationships with our adversaries anew.

DrudgeReport this morning has a link to the answer:
HAVANA (Reuters) - The United States has turned off a news ticker at its diplomatic mission in Havana that long had irritated the Cuban government, the U.S. State Department said on Monday, in another sign of efforts to improve relations with Cuba.

The five-foot-high (1.5-meter) news ticker ran across 25 windows on the outside of the fifth floor of the U.S. diplomatic mission's building on Havana's busy seaside Malecon drive. It streamed news, political statements and messages blaming Cuba's problems on the country's communist system and socialist economy.

The ticker infuriated Cuban President Fidel Castro when it was turned on by former U.S. President George W. Bush's administration in 2006. President Raul Castro took over from ailing elder brother Fidel last year. - Reuters
Obama could have changed the type of messages that were displayed as a way of reaching out to the Cuban Government, but no. He had to turn the sign off. The Obama Administration claims that they want to bring back America's respectability in the World. Well this is a funny way to do it given that one reason America was and is so respected is because of the way that it fights for the oppressed around the world. Actions like this only tell those looking to America for help to go look elsewhere.

And not for anything, but perhaps the President should stop for a second and think whether or not we want to get the respect of the likes of Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc..... After all, there is a difference in the type of respect that is related to the good that you do and the respect that they seem to be trying to get by being a 'tool' and useful idiot.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, July 27

Maritime Monday 172 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.


You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 122 here. (Published 4 August 2008).

--------------------


--------------------


Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98


gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110 - 111 - 112 - 113 - 114 - 115 - 116 - 117 - 118 - 119 - 120 - 121 - 122 - 123 - 123a - 124 - 125 - 126 - 127 - 128 - 129 - 130 - 131 - 132 - 133 - 134 - 135 - 136 - 137 - 138 - 139 - 140 - 141 - 142 - 143 - 144 - 145 - 146 - 147 - 148 - 149 - 150 - 151 - 152 - 153 - 154 - 155 - 156 - 157 - 158 - 159 - 160 - 161 - 162 - 163 - 164 - 165 - 166 - 167 - 168 - 169 - 170 - 171 - 172 - 173
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Friday, July 24

US Government Wasted $79 billion On Climate Change Studies!

This was pointed out on DrudgeReport this week:
The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:
Ø The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary. - Link
Notice that the money was not spent trying to directly reduce pollution related to climate change. What a waste. Really, at $5 a bulb, the United States could have given every American 10 energy-saving compact florescent light bulbs for only $15 billion. (Many of these bulbs now cost much less than that.) That is probably enough money to change every incandescent light bulb in American and still would have left $64 billion for other projects.

Hell, given the way that the Government has been trying to bribe people to do stuff, they could have paid people $5 for each bulb they replaced with a (free Government-supplied) CFL and still have close to $50 billion for other carbon-reducing activities.

How big a savings would this mean for the US? Lots:
For two decades, CFLs lacked precisely what we expect from lightbulbs: strong, unwavering light; quiet; not to mention shapes that actually fit in the places we use bulbs. Now every one of those problems has been conquered. The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent; and the old U-shaped tubes--they looked like bulbs from a World War II submarine--have mostly been replaced by the swirl. Since 1985, CFLs have changed as much as cell phones and portable music players.

One thing hasn't changed: the energy savings. Compact fluorescents emit the same light as classic incandescents but use 75% or 80% less electricity.

What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.

That's the law of large numbers--a small action, multiplied by 110 million.

The single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is power plants--half our electricity comes from coal plants. One bulb swapped out: enough electricity saved to turn off two entire power plants--or skip building the next two.

Just one swirl per home. The typical U.S. house has between 50 and 100 "sockets" (astonish yourself: Go count the bulbs in your house). So what if we all bought and installed two ice-cream-cone bulbs? Five? Fifteen? - Fast Company
Instead, we got nothing. This is what the Government has done for 'Climate change'. Imagine what they will do with health care.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Thursday, July 23

Obama's Health Care Tax on the Young

The President was on the TV last night in his latest attempt to make health care for most of us worse than we already have it. One suggestion for doing this involves taxing the country's richest income earners to pay for how much the plan is going to cost.

What has not been discussed is how the President and Democrats in Congress are going to also tax the young in order to give cheap health care to others. Here is how they are going to do it.

For starters, they are going to make having health insurance mandatory. For the Democrat's plan to work, they need to keep those who need health insurance the least to participate in the plan as they are also those who make the fewest claims against their insurance. That means that their insurance premium payments get used for paying for treatments for others. If they all decided not to get insurance because the cost of being insured was too high, then the insurance program would be full of participants that cost more than they pay, requiring the Government to foot the difference (Or deny care).

A quick search of the internet found a couple health insurance plans from around $70 to $100 a month. A company that offers insurance, but deducts the monthly premium from their pay, some young people will opt out and take the risk that any medical problems they have, will cost them less than the $1,200 their company would take out of their paycheck for yearly coverage. But if the Democrat's get their way, they are going to get that money anyway by fining people if they opt out of having health insurance. That part of our salary is no longer your income, it becomes a health care tax, because the Government is requiring you to use it a certain way.

It gets worse, because if these young people are married, they will also need to get health insurance for their spouse as well. That makes it a bit more expensive since young couples are more likely to have a baby and submit substantial claims in the process. And since the rates are not adjusted for a couple's desire to have a baby, those who do not want to start a family might be very temped to opt out as a way of saving money. This will no longer be an option under the Democrat's Health Insurance plan.

Update: 24 July 09
It is nice to see the Wall Street journal confirm my opinion above:
Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) says the pressure not to run ads has been “intense, bordering on extortion.” “Groups were told if they did they’d give up their seat at the table,” says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “What they weren’t told is that they’d be at the table as lunch.”

Here are some of the groups on the menu if anything like the existing Senate or House health plans become law:

• Young people. If the government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. “They’ll have sticker shock,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. - WSJ
Everyone cannot pay less. Some people have to pay more. Clearly, the Democrats are pointing the finger at the rich. They are also pointing the finger at the young, only they are doing it when nobody is looking.


A couple other comments Concerning ObamaCare:
If this change to the nation's health care system is so great, then delaying the bill should give time for the population to become better familiar with the plan and increase demand for it's passage. Of course it is not good for most of us, resulting in the rush for passage prior to all the facts getting out to the public.

The Democrats claim that their plan will not cover illegal aliens, but the simple fact is, illegal aliens are already covered for certain items such as child birth as well as child doctor's visits up to a certain age. Not only that, but anyone including illegal aliens can show up at a non-profit hospital and receive care free of charge.

Also concerning illegal aliens, since they are not going to be covered under this plan, I guess employers will not have to offer them health insurance. I also guess that illegal aliens will not be forced to pay for health insurance either or pay a fine for not having it. This will only make employing illegal aliens that much more attractive as the wage differential between legal and illegal employees will be that much greater.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, July 20

Maritime Monday 171 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.


You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 121 here. (Published 28 July 2008).

--------------------


--------------------


Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98


gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110 - 111 - 112 - 113 - 114 - 115 - 116 - 117 - 118 - 119 - 120 - 121 - 122 - 123 - 123a - 124 - 125 - 126 - 127 - 128 - 129 - 130 - 131 - 132 - 133 - 134 - 135 - 136 - 137 - 138 - 139 - 140 - 141 - 142 - 143 - 144 - 145 - 146 - 147 - 148 - 149 - 150 - 151 - 152 - 153 - 154 - 155 - 156 - 157 - 158 - 159 - 160 - 161 - 162 - 163 - 164 - 165 - 166 - 167 - 168 - 169 - 170
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Friday, July 17

Armed Ship Crews Will Not Escalate The Pirate Problem

News not too long ago of a merchant sailor found shot dead on a ship released by Somali pirates is just one more example of how dangerous modern-day pirates are:
Somali pirates have released a Dutch ship they had hijacked last month in the Gulf of Aden and one crew member was found dead aboard the boat, the Dutch defence ministry told AFP.

"The pirates let the ship, in which a crew member was found dead, leave," ministry spokesman Marcel Pullen said. "He was shot dead."

The victim had died the day of the MV Marathon's capture on May 7, he added. - Yahoo News(Found via EagleSpeak)
Merchant ships are being picked on by pirates simply because it is a safe bet that the merchant ships are unarmed and easy targets.

Looking at the threat, the United Nation's International Maritime Organization, in a move certain to protect the safety of pirates only, has decided to flatly reject any suggestion of arming merchant seamen:
The MSC agreed that flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship.

Seafarers, it was agreed, are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great.
Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker.

Carriage of firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods. - IMO guidance statement via EagleSpeak
This 'professional' guidance is a joke.

For starters, pirates are already attacking ships with fully-automatic weapons and RPGs. What is more dangerous, rounds going outbound from a ship or explosive RPG rounds coming inbound.... Crazier is the IMO suggesting that seafarers are not skilled enough to use firearms because their use requires special training. This the same group that has absolutely no hesitation in sticking seafarers in school to drill them on everything right down to how to properly wash your hands as part of 'Personal Safety and Social Responsibility'. To this point nothing has been deemed beyond the training ability of a seafarer, so why now? I can't think of any reason other than a desire to remove guns from the equation. Too bad for the IMO, that they have no control in removing the weapons causing the problems.

Another argument against arming merchant ships is the 'threat of escalation'. The first question concerning that threat is with what are they are going to escalate with?

The most realistic option I can think of is that they just use more boats and RPGs. Attacks with larger numbers of boats being involved has already been seen. I can't think of any more-powerful weapon that they could easily deploy. More advanced weapons are probably much harder to come by, and when available much more expensive, given competing interests. So even if pirates get their hands on something more advanced/powerful, they are probably not going to be so quick to use it, unless they are sure that it will result in a capture. They might as easily destroy the ship in the process. Now, they might be able to arm themselves with a cannon, but they would need a larger/sturdier boat if they wanted to use it. Acquiring a larger vessel might be more of a problem than acquiring more-powerful weapons.

Current attacks have involved small fast boats. Larger craft would probably not be able to go as fast. This will reduce the number of available targets at it becomes easier for faster ships to get away.

A bigger pirate boat, while allowing pirates a more stable platform and give the ability to field more powerful weapons, would also provide defending merchant seamen with bigger targets. Still, pirate boats are less stable platforms to shoot from than merchant ships which are large stable platforms that are not effected to any significant degree except in the harshest weather.

This brings the question, what should merchant mariners be aiming at. There are only two targets, the pirates and the boat that they are riding in. I think that it be best that if any attempt is made to arm merchant ships, then the arming should include the ability to disable pirate boats. If there is to be escalation, then it should be our side that does the escalating.

One weapon that should be considered is a 40mm grenade launcher. Here is one option:

The MGL (Multiple Grenade Launcher) is a lightweight 40 mm semi-automatic, 6-shot grenade launcher developed and manufactured in South Africa by the Milkor company (renamed Rippel Effect in 2007). The MGL was demonstrated as a concept to the South African Defence Force in 1981. The operating principle was immediately accepted and subjected to a stringent qualification program. The MGL was then officially accepted into service with the SADF as the Y2. After its introduction in 1983, the MGL was gradually adopted by the armed forces and law enforcement organizations of over 30 countries; it has since proven its effectiveness in harsh environments ranging from rain forests to deserts. Total production since 1983 has been more than 18,000 units.

The MGL is multiple-shot weapon, intended to significantly increase a small squad's firepower when compared to traditional single-shot grenade launchers like the M203. The MGL is designed to be simple, rugged and reliable. It uses the well-proven revolver principle to achieve a high rate of accurate fire which can be rapidly brought to bear on a target. A variety of rounds such as HE, HEAT, anti-riot baton, irritant or pyrotechnic can be loaded and fired at a rate of one per second; the cylinder can be loaded or unloaded rapidly to maintain a high rate of fire. Although intended primarily for offensive/defensive use with high-explosive rounds, with appropriate ammunition the launcher is suitable for anti-riot and other security operations. - Wikipedia
Even a 'miss' will still have pirates thinking twice about continuing an attack against an armed vessel, probably thinking it better to search for an easier target, especially if their vessel is put at risk. And it need not be the merchant sailors that operate these weapons, but armed military teams embarked on the ships that are targeted by pirates.

There are valid reasons not to arm merchant ships against pirates, but the threat of escalation and a claimed lack of training on behalf of the crew are not. (And anyway, just where are the pirates getting their firearms training?)

So what am I missing? It seems that the threat of escalation is one that should be most risked by the pirates, not the sailors they threaten.

Previous:
On Defending Unarmed Merchant Ships Against Pirates

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Tuesday, July 14

Democrats Changing Laws to Accommodate Government Incompetence (and Illegal Aliens)

As we all know, it is illegal to hire a person to work in the United States unless they are eligible to work here. Employment is limited to Americans Citizens and foreign nationals that either have Green Cards or a visa that includes the right to work.

There are a number of problems with keeping illegal aliens out of the US job pool. First, many are able to find work that is 'under the table' where they work for cash and tips with no reporting to the Government. Others, seek out work where they are required to document that they have the right to work in the US, and they use fake or stolen documents when applying for these jobs.

E-Verify is a US Government program set up to prevent those using fraudulent information and documents from gaining employment in the US.
E-Verify is an Internet based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA) that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.

E-Verify is free and voluntary and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security Numbers. - USCIS
This has been a very effective program. However it has been seen by some as being too effective, since this system targets illegal aliens making it harder for them to find work.

Democrats, eager to win votes from immigrant communities, are trying to weaken this system, with the idea that illegal Aliens will vote for them when/if they manage to eventually become citizens. Take this recent Wall Street Journal article:
The no-match program is intended to make it harder for illegal immigrants to hold jobs gained by using fake Social Security numbers. Critics have said it could also unfairly target U.S. citizens who were the victims of bureaucratic bungling by the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security DHS. - WSJ
The 'no-match program' basically checks employee information against official records and goes back to the employer when the information appears wrong. For example, when a Social Security Number does not match the name of the person using it or is not a valid number. This gives the employer and employee a chance to fix it, if it is an honest mistake, or advises the employer that he may have hired a person who has provided fraudulent information. To be sure, the employer needs to clarify the issue with the employee. This system would also benefit Americans in that it would catch errors in their information early on, given them a chance to correct it, avoiding problems at tax time.

The game that the Democrats are playing here is to claim that Americans are suffering from this rule forcing investigation of possibly fraudulent data. They claim that some Americans risk losing their jobs because their information used by e-Verify is somehow screwed-up and that the Social Security Administration is too much of a mess to fix these problems. And as a result, we need to scrap a good enforcement procedure. (Note: The Social Security Administration is truly messed up, but not in this area. I think it is the worst branch of the Government, where a good ten percent of the employees should be fired as a first step in fixing the Organization.)

But I wonder. Why the hell has the President and Congress not jumped on the head of the Social Security Administration concerning this 'bureaucratic bungling'? Congress has no problem calling before them the heads of the major oil companies, banks, and automobile manufacturers and tries to push through all sorts of new legislation to force these industries to change. And yet, the head of the Social Security Administration, Michael astrue, a Government Employee, is not even quizzed about his Department's alleged bungling let alone grilled about it. You would think that they would be fighting over the chance to question him, especially given that he was appointed by Bush. But no, instead the Democrats in Control of Congress, along with President Obama, are trying to change the law to accommodate this alleged bungling. And you can bet that this 'fix' will benefit many more illegal aliens than Americans, if it benefits any Americans at all.

Instead, how about Congress finding out what is wrong at the Social Security Administration and fixing that instead. It is sure to fix many other problems as well. That would be the right thing. Unfortunately, that does not fit with the Democrat's agenda, so instead Americans will suffer so that illegal aliens can benefit. (See 'Senator Kennedy to illegals: "You are the Future of America"' for a good example of Democrats pandering to an interest group that is in the country illegally.)

P.S.
If Congress ever gets the guts to interrogate the head of the Social Security Administration, perhaps they can ask about this as well:
Last week the Social Security Administration flew approximately 700 of its managers from across the U.S. and Guam to Phoenix, Arizona’s posh Arizona Biltmore Hotel and Resort, for “organizational training.” The event, which included musical entertainment and dancing, skits, catered food, cocktails, and a “casino night” featuring “door prizes,” cost us lowly taxpayers approximately $750,000. - Townhall (Found via National Review's The Corner)
P.P.S
Once whatever kinks in E-Verify are worked out, how about using the E-Verify database as the country's voter database as well.

Surely it notes citizenship and surely, it will prevent people from being registered in multiple states. It will also put an end to the flood of fraudulent voter registrations that precede each election drowning election staff with a mountain of wasteful paperwork.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Sunday, July 12

Obama's Science Czar John Holdren, Wrong Now and in 1977

News seems to be going around the last couple of days about Obama's Science Czar John Holdren's 1977 book that documents his really radical approaches to population control, including forced abortions and forced sterilization including mass sterilization of the population through drugging the water supply. (Click the book image to get to ZombieTime's post on his work)

The book was written in 1977 and the book's prediction of population chaos by the year 2000 was clearly off by a mile. And of course he and his defenders will point out that his population control view has changed since then. But what about his view of the population in general?

He and his co-authors looked at controlling not just the population but controlling the population through birth control of undesirable classes of the population. What is his view on class these days? Who are the undesirable classes of today's population? Does it still include single mothers? What about:
  • Gay parents?
  • Blacks?
  • Hispanics?
  • Whites?
  • Those without a high school education?
  • The unemployed?
  • Illegal aliens?
  • Foreigners in general?
  • Those on public assistance?
This guy had a view of the US Population that is unacceptable today. Not only that, but these views on forced population control and on a class society were also unacceptable in 1977. And all this from a guy who is now the President's go-to guy for all science issues.

The 'people' wanted change, Obama is surely giving it to us all, one kook at a time. I am not sure what is next for Mr. Holdren, but I think he not only needs to explain his population control theory, better than he already has, but also explain his view on society and class because this guy is judging people. We all do it, but this guy has also advocated denying part of the population basic rights based on their level of education and lifestyle. I think that part of his past needs to be probed just as much as the suggestions he has made in the past. Because his current views are relevant especially considering how unacceptable his past views are. No matter, the President should be looking for a replacement, lest he be associated with his science ccar's past.

I wonder, did Mr. Holdren include his book and past views in his Obama Administration 63-part employment questionnaire?
The questionnaire leaves no stone unturned in its 63-part effort to excavate any personal or professional transgressions in a candidate's past. Sample indiscretions run the gamut from criminal convictions and tax fraud to text messages or personal diary entries that could be a "possible source of embarrassment" to the President-elect if made public. - Time
Note: I found this story through Ace of Spaces here.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Back From Vacation

Hello all,

I am back from vacation. As the lack of recent posting is evidence, it was a vacation not only from work but also from blogging. As it turns out, it was also a vacation from TV and a part vacation from the Internet as well.

We are trying to get back into a routine and figure out what we have missed here in Virginia for the last week and a half.

Vacation was great. It was a little different in that we did not go to Finland as we normally do for vacation. We went to Long Island, New Bedford, Massachusetts, Rockland, Maine, Port Clyde, Maine, Boothbay, Maine and Mystic, Connecticut. It was a road trip of about 1,600 miles.

More posting to follow shortly including a summary of the vacation trip.

Monday and work calls...
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, July 6

Maritime Monday 169 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.


You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 119 here. (Published 14 July 2008).

--------------------


Sheerleg GPS Atlas photographed installing the deckhouse onto the brand new cutter dredger TSHD ABUL at the Yard of IHC Sliedrecht. Photo’s © 2007: Hans de Jong Maritime Pictures

--------------------


Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98


gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110 - 111 - 112 - 113 - 114 - 115 - 116 - 117 - 118 - 119 - 120 - 121 - 122 - 123 - 123a - 124 - 125 - 126 - 127 - 128 - 129 - 130 - 131 - 132 - 133 - 134 - 135 - 136 - 137 - 138 - 139 - 140 - 141 - 142 - 143 - 144 - 145 - 146 - 147 - 148 - 149 - 150 - 151 - 152 - 153 - 154 - 155 - 156 - 157 - 158 - 159 - 160 - 161 - 162 - 163 - 164 - 165 - 166 - 167 - 168 - 169 - 170
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Saturday, July 4

Happy Independence Day!

Hello from vacation!

We are off in Bayville, NY to celebrate Independence Day. This is a place where the whole village comes out to celebrate. It has always been a little crazy here, but that is partly why it is so much fun.

On Monday we head north to Maine. So blogging will continue to be light.

Enjoy the summer!
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------