Motus is a new American motorcycle company that I've been following for the last few years as they publicized their design process and began testing prototypes. They just announced their production design, pricing and availability at Daytona Bike Week. From Asphalt and Rubber:
With the Motus MST priced at $30,975 and the Motus MST-R getting a price tag of $36,975, our earlier reports of a $30,000 price tag appear to be spot on as well. A “comfortable sportbike” as the American company is calling it, the Motus MST will initially be available at seven premium dealerships nationwide, though sadly none of them are west of the Rockies.
First, let's look at the positive aspects of this development.
Motus-powered Dune Buggy
A new American motorcycle company is always welcome. The engine, chassis and bodywork are all designed and built in the US, although some parts (suspension, brakes, exhaust, headlights and luggage, among others) are sourced from high-quality foreign suppliers.
An American motorcycle company that builds something other than Harley-wanabes is even more welcome.
The chassis is designed by Pratt & Miller, who build chassis for the Corvettes that have dominated GT-1 endurance racing for years
The engine is designed and built by Katech, who build engines for those same Corvettes. That bodes well for the engine's durability and reliability. The 1.6L V-4 is basically a shrunken down, Chevy small block cut in half. That means its design should be very familiar to tuners and aftermarket suppliers. Motus actually encourages future owners to tinker with the engine. Katech even offers crate engines for those who want to use them in other applications, like small race cars. Hot Rod Magazine is already on it.
At 1,650cc and 165hp (185hp for the MST-R), the engine is - true to its American muscle car roots - under-stressed compared with other modern motorcycle engines. Again, great news for tuners.
As one would expect from an engine based on a Chevy small block, it sounds divine.
Now the negatives:
Motus MST-R (left) and MST (right)
The price. This is the single greatest negative. Motus is a tiny start-up. They don't have the economies of scale to make a motorcycle that is affordable for the majority of us. Hopefully they will in the coming years. Those who buy these bikes will essentially fund Motus's growth and benefit the rest of us who'd like to buy one eventually, so thanks!
Related to the price, all parts are of high quality, as far as I can see, but the headlights are from KTM and the saddle bags are Givis. Both are great manufacturers, but if I spent $36,000 on a bike I'd want something far more unique. I could buy Givi bags and slap them on any bike.
It's only available at seven dealerships nationwide.
Notice, however, that all the negatives should work themselves out as Motus grows, and the positives should keep getting better. I'm very excited about this company and their bikes.
The Obama Administration announced late Friday that they will go ahead with rules (not legislation, mind you; all that constitutional separation of powers stuff is so old fashioned) that will force all employers and universities that offer insurance to cover contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.
Officials at the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury today took the next step in the Obama administration’s effort to ensure women access to recommended preventive services while respecting religious liberty. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued today outlines draft proposals to implement the policy announced by President Barack Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Feb. 10, 2012. This policy will provide women with access to recommended preventive services including contraceptives without cost sharing, while ensuring that non-profit religious organizations are not forced to pay for, provide, or facilitate the provision of any contraceptive service they object to on religious grounds. ... “The President’s policy respects religious liberty and makes free preventive services available to women,” said Secretary Sebelius. “Today’s announcement is the next step toward fulfilling that commitment.”
As usual with the Obama Administration, that's a lie.
[B]y drawing a distinction between actual churches and church-operated businesses like hospitals and schools, the administration effectively appropriated for itself the power to determine what constitutes ministry.
So these employers will still have to provide the health insurance, and the health insurance must cover the contraception and abortifacients.
The White House apparently wants to pretend that the funds for these outlays will come off of the Unobtanium Tree, where insurers find money to cover mandates. This exposes once again a stunning ignorance of risk pools and how costs are passed along to consumers.
Let’s just take this one step at a time.
Where do insurers get money to pay claims? They collect premiums and co-pays from the insured group or risk pool. No matter what the Obama administration wants to say now, the money that will cover those contraception costs will come from the religious organizations that must now by law buy that insurance and pay those premiums. Their religious doctrines have long-standing prohibitions against participating in contraception and abortion, and nothing in this “accommodation” changes the fact that the government is now forcing them to both fund and facilitate access to products and services that offend their practice of religion.
Basically, the Obama administration told religious organizations to stop complaining and get in line. This “accommodation” only attempts to accommodate Obama’s political standing and nothing more.
But, hey, they can always refuse to provide insurance at all, pay a fine under the Obamacare law and dump their employees onto Federally provided insurance, right?
Great. So then, people who are religiously opposed to contraception and abortion still have to pay for both with their taxes. See how that works?
No matter how you slice it, Pres Obama's rules violate religious people's right of conscience. But this isn't just about religious liberty, and we religious people shouldn't only argue on religious grounds.
This is about liberty in general. The government has no right to force anyone, religious or not, to offer any coverage at all.
If employers think they need to offer certain coverage to their employees to attract the best workers, they have the right to do so. If employees prefer to choose certain employers because of the coverage they offer, they have the right to do so. But government has no right to interfere in those transactions.
Christians; if you don't yet understand why we should all oppose bloated, morbidly obese government, I don't know what it'll take.
The Marine Corps and Army have tapped Ceradyne Inc., to make the first of the new Enhanced Combat Helmets, ending a five-year search for a brain bucket capable of stopping rifle rounds.
The Marines and Army have given the green light to Ceradyne to build 8,600 ECHs, which will be split between the services. Fielding won’t begin until after the services approve the ECH for full-rate production, a decision scheduled for May, according to a recent press release.
SPC Tom Albers survived a rifle round to the helmet with no injuries in Afghanistan.
Our current helmets are already very good. A very short search turned up several stories of US Soldiers and Marines, and a UK Soldier who survived rifle rounds to the helmet; none of which penetrated the shell.
I did find one story of a UK Soldier who survived a rifle round to the helmet even though it penetrated. That being said, British and Australian helmets are different than ours. I don't know which is better.
German sniper team.
Armor - whether on battle ships, tanks or individual Soldiers - is always a compromise between protection and mobility. Given the same technology, more protection = more weight = less mobility. That's why Special Ops servicemen, who generally require more mobility than ordinary Soldiers, often use helmets like the ones to the below. Note the large cutouts over the ears that make the helmets lighter and block less sound, but also provide less protection.
The new helmets the US Army and Marine Corps commissioned supposedly use new technology that provides more protection without adding weight. I think I'd be happy with the same protection our current helmets provide with less weight.
Back in 2008, when Hope'n'Change (TM) was all the rage, then-Senator Obama was a little more honest about his energy policies.
Monterey Park, CA (LA Times)
USA Today reports that gas prices average $3.83/gal for regular gasoline nationwide, but for about 1/3 of Americans, they've already crested $4.00/gal. Fortunately for us, Kansas - a petroleum producing state - has lower gasoline prices than the majority of the country. The last time I bought Diesel it cost us $3.96/gal.
What does Pres Obama say now about how his energy policies affect prices?
Essentially, "It's not my fault. I'm doing everything I can to keep gas prices low for you". Pretty different tune, right?
By the way, Pres Obama's oft-repeated trope that "we only have 2% of the world's proven oil reserves" is a lie. Either that, or he's ignorant of the facts. Take your pick. According to a report published in 2008 by the US Geological Survey, the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana contains "3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil...a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil." The RAND Corporation published another study in 2008 stating that:
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil
resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion
barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale
resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower
bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to
know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our
estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi
Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per
day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels
of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.
So, why is Pres Obama still repeating this lie? Simple. The tiny percentage of our available petroleum and gas reserves to which he allows access only amounts to 2% of the world's known reserves. So, when Pres Obama brags about increasing oil production in the US, keep in mind that he and his fellow Democrats continue to prevent far greater exploration.
What about all the "investments" Pres Obama brags about in his weekly address? Does the word "Solyndra" mean anything to you?
Take, for instance, Beacon Power Corp., the second recipient of an Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009. In March 2010, the Massachusetts energy storage company paid cash bonuses of $259,285 to three executives in part due to progress made on the $43 million energy loan, Securities and Exchange Commission records show. Last October, Beacon Power filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
EnerDel, maker of lithium-ion battery systems, landed a $118.5 million energy grant in August 2009. About one-and-a-half years later, Vice President Joe Biden toured a company plant in Indiana and heralded its taxpayer-supported expansion as one of the "100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America."
Two months after Biden's visit, EnerDel corporate parent Ener1 paid $725,000 in bonuses to three executives -- including $450,000 to then-CEO Charles Gassenheimer, who led Biden on the tour. This January, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
In fact, the Government Accounting Office reported that 85% of the Department of Energy's "investments"granted and committed under their "Loan Guarantee Program — $30 billion in all — shows systemic mismanagement, uncompleted reviews, missing documentation, and a process failure rate of 85% or more".
What about all those wonderful electric cars Pres Obama touts constantly?
Fisker Automotive, the electric car company that received $528 million in Energy Department loan guarantees, announced layoffs at its Delaware production facility on Monday.
... "We have temporarily delayed work at the plant based on ongoing discussions with the DOE regarding funding for the Project Nina program. As a result, we have laid off 26 people," the company said in a statement Monday.
I love Fisker's quote in the video. "We're not in the business of failing, we're in the business of winning, that's why we make the right choices for the company, that's why we went to Finland." That's great, Mr Fisker. I fully support you doing what makes your company most profitable... with your own damn money!
And note how EnerDel and the Fisker plant in the US went to Delaware - VP Biden's home state. It's almost as though all this "investing in green technology" is nothing more than crony capitalism. Say it ain't so, Joe!
Check out what happened when Consumer Reports bought a Fisker Karma to test.
The credit’s enhanced value would bring the purchase price of alternative-energy vehicles more in line with conventional models, supporters say. Partly because of the vehicles’ costs, sales have been a problem. General Motors announced last week that it was suspending production for five weeks of the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid that Mr. Obama has promoted in the past.
So, supporters admit that, right now, the benefits of alternative-energy vehicles don’t yet outweigh the costs to consumers. To the producers of such vehicles, I say: Tough luck. The onus is on them to produce a product that consumers actually want to purchase at a price they can afford. Tax credits might give consumers more reason to purchase the vehicles, but it won’t give the producer any incentive to look for cheaper ways to manufacture them. The president’s tax credit ensures that taxpayers will continue to pay an arbitrarily high price for the vehicles long after the market would have brought costs down.
That's the story with all of Pres Obama's "green tech investments"; risking your money and mine on long shot gambles. Did you authorize those gambles? I didn't.
Worst of all, these "investments" amount to subsidizing the wealthy. The Fisker Karma and Tesla Roadster both cost over $100,000. Can you afford a $100,000 car? I can't. The average Chevy Volt owner's income is $170,000. Do you make $170,000/year? I don't. Yet you and I are paying $10,000/car so that someone who makes $170,000/year will buy one.
Does that make sense to you?
I oppose all subsidies for private industry. Private companies should stand on their own profitability or not at all. That includes energy companies. We need energy to do absolutely everything we do in our economy - buy, sell, ship, store and/or provide goods and services. So if our energy sources are not economically viable, our entire economy can't be economically viable. Ed Morrissey Puts it well:
I like Ace’s approach to technological development:
I prefer the “Old” approach to emerging technology: We adopt new technology when it is better and cheaper than the old technology, not when it is worse and more expensive, forced to convert over by a government demanding we pay more for less. So we can reap all these speculative benefits in a hypothetical future.
You know what I liked best about the old approach, other than the fact that it worked; It didn’t require government to place bad bets on companies like Solyndra that wouldn’t have survived otherwise to ruin more capital and resources.
Think about that for a moment: these government interventions cost us money whether we get more energy efficient or not. And what has it produced? Nothing of consequence, and nothing that would last once the subsidies that make them artificially competitive now (to the extent they’ve even achieved that status) once the subsidies end.
The old method of allowing capital to produce innovation and consumers to choose winners brought us prosperity and technological advancement. Obama’s has brought us bankruptcies, soaring debt, and no progress at all. That’s change, all right.
October Baby tells the story of a young college student, Hannah (Rachel Hendrix), who has had numerous health issues in childhood but emerged as a generally healthy young adult when supported with proper medical care — at least until she collapses during a school play. The subsequent medical tests, and the reading of her private journal by her parents, lead to a clash in which she discovers for the first time that she was adopted, and that she survived an abortion at 24 weeks. Shocked, angry, and lost, Hannah joins her childhood confidante Jason (Jason Burkey) on a quest to find her true identity and some real meaning to her life.
Read the whole review at the link above.
I don't normally go for dramas, but considering that this movie deals with two subjects very close to Aimee and my hearts - adoption and everyone's right to live - I look forward to watching this one.
Looks like a presidential ad, doesn't it? Too bad he's not running for president, or even vice. He's right. The refusal of politicians to do anything about the looming Federal debt crisis - caused mostly by "entitlement spending" - is immoral. Hell, they can't even pass a budget. I understand Democrats' refusal to face reality. The welfare state is their life's blood. Republicans' cowardice, in that sense, seems even worse.
