A underground parable

Meet Chris, a recent college graduate. He was a party animal in college, and graduated with both college loans to pay off and maxed-out credit cards. After he graduated, his father had a “talk” with him – and he’s cut up (most of) the cards and is (barely) getting by on his salary from his first job out of college, in Midtown Manhattan. He lives in half a duplex owned by his family in Edison, because it’s paid for. The other half is occupied by relatives who are they’re retired and on a fixed income. Chris is responsible for the utilities and property tax, because he’s got a job and they don’t, though they do pay a small amount of rent. His commute is terrible, because he’s got to take the train from Edison up to Penn Station New York.

Chris’s uncle Samuel has offered to help Chris buy a place in Hoboken. This will be GREAT; in Hoboken, Chris would just have to walk down to the PATH station and catch the train to 33rd Street. It’ll be cheaper, faster, and better for the environment since Chris won’t have to drive to the train station any more (Plus, his car is a rather battered Ford Focus, and has high mileage and a worrisome amount of body rust). Samuel will help him out with a fixed amount of money as down payment (Chris has some money saved, but not 20% for a brownstone in Hoboken!), but it’s up to Chris to negotiate the price of the place, and make the loan payments. Plus, it’s a bit of a fixer-upper, needs a little bit of work before Chris can move in; and the house inspectors can’t agree on how much work (or even how much it will cost). Chris thinks long and hard about the “deal”, and tells his uncle “thanks, but no thanks, how about helping me buy a new car with some of that money?”

His uncle throws a fit, calls Chris ungrateful, and calls for his lawyer to write Chris out of his will. All in all, things could have gone better, Chris thinks; but at least he’s not going to go deeper in dept. He’ll just have to keep waking up at oh-dark-hundred to catch the train so he can make it in on time and keep his job.

Gold bugs me

One thing that bugs me about Libertarians (and many libertarians) is their fetish for gold. Megan McArdle takes a shot at explaining some of the things that bug me (economically) about the gold standard here and here. In particular, the gold standard seems to be a solution for a symptom instead of the underlying disease. That disease, of course, being, an untrustworthy government. As Megan says:

"In short, you don't get anything out of a gold standard that you didn't bring with you. If your government is a credible steward of the money supply, you don't need it; and if it isn't, it won't be able to stay on it long anyway. (See Argentina's dollar peg). Meanwhile, the limitations on the government's ability to respond to fiscal crises, the necessity of defending against speculative attacks in times of crises, and the possibility of independent changes in the relative price of gold, make your economy more unstable."

But I have another problem with the gold standard. How are you going to implement it? First of all, there's no way today that the economy will work on actual coins of intrinsic worth. At what appears to be a value for gold of almost $900/oz troy, a dollar coin would have to be almost all base metal anyway. Figuratively, it would have "the density of gold in seawater". The last few attempts we've had at fiat dollar coins haven't taken off anyway, and at any rate, the amount of "money" in just the US economy is mostly virtual anyway. So we're still looking at an economy where the vast majority of transactions are book-keeping, with a small amount of tokenized money. But the book-keeping and tokenized money must match up to an amount of gold in someone's hands.

Per the US Mint, there is 147.3 million ounces of gold in Fort Knox, at a book value of $42.22 per ounce. So the government says they have (147.3 * 10^6) * $42.22 = $6,219,006,000 - in round numbers $6.2 billion. That's not a lot of money - per Forbes "The Worlds Billionaires" Bill Gates had an estimated net worth of US $40.0 billion (down from US$56 Billion in 2007), over six times this value. Per the CIA World Factbook, the population of the USA is 307,212,123 as of October 2010 - if we divide this out, we get a value of $ 20.25 or so per man, woman, and child in the US, more or less. (the CIA does not specify if this is citizens or inhabitants). Now, that book value is highly misleading, since the spot price for gold is $1,342 per ounce as of this writing. That changes the value to be $197,676,600,000 - $197.6 billion in round numbers. Bill Gates is worth one-third of the US Federal Gold Reserves, and the per capita value is a fraction over $643.45.

(Historical notes: In the original version of this post, 3 years ago, Bill Gates had almost 10x the “book value” of Ft Knox, the spot price of gold was $885, Mr. Gates was worth HALF the “market value” of the gold, and the per capita market value was $432.89)

In a gold-backed economy, you can't have more money outstanding than there is gold to redeem it with. Otherwise, how is it a gold-backed economy? But the US money supply is at least $1.99 trillion if you only include the physical currency plus exchangeable reserves (M0). If you measure M2 (essentially all the cash, exchangeable reserves, checking, saving, money market accounts, and CDs less than $100,000) it is about $8.36 trillion. (Source is Wikipedia - see for a somewhat more rigorous definition of M2. If you have better numbers, by all means comment, but Wikipedia's sources are the government). That's anywhere for ten times to forty times the value of the gold in Fort Knox at market rates. To go to a gold-based economy, you have to devalue the entire US money supply by a minimum of a factor of 10. 90% of the value of the money in the economy, gone. And you can't fix this by renominating the money supply - if you declare that the Newdollar is worth 10 old dollars, an ounce of gold is only worth $88.50 in Newdollars.

(Historical notes: 3 years ago, M0 was $1.37 Trillion, M2 $7.02 Trillion, and the max value was 70 times, not 40 times).

Even if you somehow managed to back the money with all the refined and available gold in the world (some 120,000 to 140,000 tonnes per this website, Wikipedia has a slightly higher figure, sourcing the World Gold Council) it would still only be worth around $2.72 trillion (probably a bit more, the number I used for the price of gold is about 30% higher; based on our relative valuing of the Fort Knox gold). And then you would have no gold left over for non-cash uses; essentially, the vast majority of gold would have to be stored in Fort Knox to account for just the amount of US paper money in circulation; with little left over for other countries. It still doesn't cover all the money on deposit in the US banking system, much less the world.

(Historical Notes: the value of gold the US needs to cover our money is larger than in 2007, but because of the increase in the price of gold, less physical gold is needed and less of the value of the gold supply is needed, leaving more gold and value outside of Ft. Knox)

Finally, a question for all of you out there in favor of the Gold Standard. How many of the gold bugs actually believe the government when they say there's 147.3 million ounces of gold in Fort Knox? As I went to research the numbers for this post, I stumbled onto the persistent belief that the US Government has (usually for nefarious reasons) moved all the gold out of Fort Knox and either sold it or used it as collateral for some scheme or other. The very first hit for the search string "how much gold in fort knox" entertains this possibility, as does the Wikipedia entry on United States Bullion Depository. If you believe this tale, how can you trust the government to keep up a gold standard?

Plus, remember why the US rather suddenly needed a gold repository in 1933 - FDR and the US Congress declared private ownership of gold to be illegal. That would be one way for the government to make up the shortfall of gold to run the economy on - to confiscate the gold again. Except, there isn't enough.

In short, we cannot afford a gold standard, it would be too confining of the economy. There is not enough gold in the world to implement a gold standard for the US, much less in the government's reserves. There is no reasonable way in the short term to change this. And if there ever is a way to have to have the gigatonnes of gold minimum that the US would need, it would be worth that much less because of the expansion of the gold supply. Now if someone would only tell Ron Paul this...

(This post is a rerun, though I have updated the numbers. Originally posted January 17, 2008)

Why is history important - And why you should always keep learning about it

It is important to be aware of history, not only in the sense of "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it", but also in the 1984 sense of "Those who control the past control the present". The meaning of the present is shaped by what happened in the past. World War II has a huge effect on the present, and perceptions of the present. People tell us that we should heed the lessons of Munich, 1938 and be wary of negotiating with megalomaniacs. People tell us how the occupations of Germany and Japan contain lessons on how we should handle the occupation of Iraq. We are told that the Ba'athist parties of Syria and Iraq are offshoots of the Nazi party, fascist seeds that fell close to the tree. We are told that the roots of the present conflicts are anchored in the stripping of empires at the end of WWII. We are told all this and more by people who want to influence our thinking today.

But sound bites are not history. History is immensely complicated. I am reading Robert K Massey's Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the coming of the Great War. The book explores why the Great War (known as World War I generally) started. The preface opens with the Battle of Trafalgar. This battle took place in 1805, more than a century before the Great War, between two powers that were allied in the later conflict. But Trafalgar sits under the surface of the rest of the book, which is a detailed treatment of the major prime driver of the Great War. The "World History" view of WWI is of a war started because a Serbian anarchist/patriot shot the heir to the throne of Austria. But without knowing the past half-century (at least) history of interaction between Germany, Austria, France, England and Russia, you don't know how an assassination in Serbia that was a major diplomatic incident between Austria and Serbia in June leads to the declarations of war in August between Germany and England. And without knowing the importance of Trafalgar, you can't understand why the very existence of the Kaiserliche Marine leads England to an alliance with France, her historic enemy. Nor why that alliance leads England into a land war on the Continent against a country whose leader is the cousin of the King of England.

Terry Pratchett typically opens his Discworld books with a warning to the effect that "we can't say where the story begins", and then proceeds to begin the story. But he often points out that it could easily have started at a different place, depending on your point of view. Terry Pratchett has the luxury of working in fiction, however. So he really can determine where the best place to start is. History is a lot more complicated; large events rarely happen for a single reason. If you want to understand current events, you have to understand what has gone before.

The "World History" of World War II is that it happened because Germany wanted revenge for World War I. This is closer to the truth than the "World History" view of WWI, to be sure. But it has difficulty explaining why Italy (a member of the victorious Alliance in WWI) fought on the side of the Axis in WWII. It holds no explanation for the Japanese membership in the Axis, or even the pacific war in general. It can't explain why an attack on the US Navy's primary fleet base in the pacific in December 1941 leads the US Army Air Force to bomb Germany in 1942.

I'm pulling examples from World War I and World War II because those are the periods I am most familiar with right now - but the same kind of history lessons need to be applied to the current mess in the Middle East.If you don't know the background of events, the events themselves can be spun to mean whatever the spinner wants.

It all boils down to being able to think for yourself. Without knowing the history behind an event, and preferably knowing the history of that history, you can't understand the current event. The why matters, and the why causes the what. And history should be more than the study of the what, it should be the study of the why. Otherwise, we have always been at war with Eurasia...

(originally posted December 7, 2006)

How wrong I was

So, I’m re-reading some of my old posts looking for material to bring over here, and I found this post where I expressed my desire for Senator Obama to win the nomination. I got what I asked for there, good and hard.

Reposts

I used to blog at http://ianargent.joeuser.com. There’s some interesting stuff in the archives there, some of which is not particularly tied to a specific time or place.

In the next few days, I’m going to report some of that here, and y’all can tell me if I’m right about that…

Mental Health Break – Scott Pilgrim vs. the Matrix

An unfortunate incident

Back in June, in the town of Bridgewater, NJ, an elderly woman fired what her lawyer described as a “warning shot” at a neighbor near her driveway operating a front-load loader. She faced charges of possession  of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, unlawful possession of a firearm, and aggravated assault, to which she recently pled “not guilty”. There appears to have been some history between the two neighbors. This article has a little more on the incident, and ends with Valachovic’s claiming that she shot at the tires of the front-end loader

I wish I had more information, but the account as reported by the investigator (first article) suggest poor judgment on Ms Valachovic’s part, starting with leaving the house with a gun, without calling the police first. Without having been there, I can’t say how appropriate it was to leave the house at all; but it’s usually not a wise idea either.

The warning shot was likely a mistake (and admitting to it certainly was – her lawyer is an idiot for doing so), but again, I wasn’t there. Legally, of course, discharge of the firearm, no matter the direction, is use of deadly force, and needs to be justified as such. If it wasn’t a warning shot, but rather an attempt to disable the front-end loader, that puts a slightly different light on things, but makes her lawyer even more of an idiot for claiming it was a warning shot.

Also, NJ distinguishes between unlawful possession and possession for an unlawful purpose? That’s a pretty fine distinction. The unlawful possession happened if she stepped off her property (there’s only a half-dozen or so ways to legally possess a handgun in NJ), and the possession for an unlawful purpose would likely be due to the assault charge. It appears that the unlawful possession charge was dropped, though; probably since they couldn’t determine that she left her property.

Messy case all around. One other thing I’ll be interested to see is if she ends up convicted, and what the sentence will be. Also, note that the possession charge is much more serious (second-degree crime) than the assault charge (fourth degree); and can be punished much more harshly (5-10 years vs. 18 months).

Tea Party Karma

Jonathan Hait on “What the Tea Partiers really want” in the Wall Street Journal brings us an interesting hypothesis – that the divide in politics today is over whether the government should interfere in the workings of Karma. He claims that the desire to see karma catch up to the deserving is a conservative view more than a libertarian view and that this may end up tearing apart the Tea Party, and illustrates with what amounts to online polling.

He concludes with something I will agree with:

The rank-and-file tea partiers think that liberals turned America upside down in the 1960s and 1970s, and they want to reverse many of those changes. They are patriotic and religious, and they want to see those values woven into their children's education. Above all, they want to live in a country in which hard work and personal responsibility pay off and laziness, cheating and irresponsibility bring people to ruin. Give them liberty, sure, but more than that: Give them karma.

Which is all very well and good, but the devil is in the details – what is irresponsibility? And whose religious values are being woven into which child’s educations?

Penalties for dropping Absentee Ballots

Glenn Reynolds notes that both New York and Illinois may miss deadlines for sending out absentee ballots to military voters in time for them to be counted in the upcoming election, and suggests that

The great way to address this would be to dock states a percentage of their total federal funding to match the percentage of military ballots that are not counted.

However, there’s already a mechanism in place to punish the states for not upholding their obligations: Amendment XIV, Clause 2. With 2010 being a redistricting year, that could mean one more congressional seat that IL and NY will be losing…

The Death Penalty Heresy

I’m against allowing the government to execute any person judicially (short form: I’m against the death penalty). (Quick note on shorthand – I’m going to use the term Killer here; but don’t take that to mean that I mean only those persons who can/have killed, or even that this term includes those who can/have killed. I mean it in the sense of someone who is both a (potential) killer and uses that capacity against the ends of society. If it makes it easier, replace Killer below with violently sociopathic individual, mutant, goblin, or whatever. A solider may be a killer, but he’s channeled his capability into a socially useful form, the deaths he causes are not crimes. Alternately, a kidnapper for ransom or a rapist or a child molester may never kill, but inasmuch as they have taken freedom or other intangibles from their victims they commit as heinous a crime as anyone who kills unjustifiably, and thus he is a Killer.)

I believe that there are people out there who deserve to die. Killers may be rare, but they are out there. If a Killer can’t channel his or her aggressive nature into a socially-useful form, he or she should be weeded out when discovered. Unfortunately, there’s only one time and place where the Killer’s intentions can be known – at the moment and vicinity of his crime. After that, “proof” lies in memory, Memorex, forensic science, and a plausible story. Juries deal in “reasonable doubt” because jurors are human, witnesses are human, scientists are human, lawyers are human, &c. Even cameras and other recording devices can lie by omission, and scientific “fact” be overturned with later knowledge. To be human is to be fallible. But death is irreversible. Commit an act justifying use of deadly force while someone is watching over a gunsight, and the person with the gun is entirely justified in pulling the trigger. But there’s a difference between seeing someone shot dead in front of you and hearing a gunshot and coming around the corner to see a man standing over a dead body with a smoking gun in his hand. In one case, you may know the guy with the gun to be a Killer (though depending on when you came in, you may still be wrong). In the second, you cannot know, because you didn’t see the act.

No-one in the courtroom is seeing the criminal act – at best they’re watching a replay or listening to a memory, and trying to sort the truth from two competing fictions being guided by the plaintiff’s lawyer and the defense lawyer. The plaintiff in a criminal case is the government, standing in the place of society. In the US, the government is my agent, standing in my place, working for me to protect me from a Killer. In a sense, the lethal injection (or whatever form of execution) after a guilty verdict and exhaustion of appeal is a really complicated way of allowing me to shoot the man with the gun dead after I rounded the corner. And I’m not OK with that. Death is an absolute. In the heat of events, it may appear to be necessary to kill someone, based on limited information, in defense of my life or liberty – truly exigent circumstances may demand excessive measures, and being human means being wrong*. Afterwards, “reasonable doubt” means “not absolute”. I’m OK with sending someone to prison based on “reasonable doubt”; it’s not perfectly reversible to release a wrongly imprisoned person, but it’s the best we can do. We can’t revive the dead, though. Executing someone after a trial means thinking long and hard about killing someone, and then doing so based on the best guess; gambling that “reasonable doubt” equals “absolute proof”, and gambling that the government had no axe to grind, no dirty tricks because the prosecution “knew” the defendant was guilty, etc. It might be a long-odds gamble, but it’s still a gamble, and one where I cannot know the odds. I won’t gamble with a life if I don’t have to.

(* – Boy howdy does that creep me out, incidentally. No matter how I parsed the thought, it ended up as a justification for the ends justifying the means. It’s still true, exigent circumstances may demand measures that turn out to be excessive. In the heat of the moment, there may not be a choice, or they may not allow for proper reflection.)

States taking back the power

In my 17th Amendment Heresy post, Elmo Iscariot says:

Any solution involving states' rights also has to assume that the states will be _willing_ to stand up to the feds once they're able to. At the moment, that doesn't seem like a given

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. The states are making small, but important, moves to challenge federal supremacy in different areas. The various Firearms Freedom acts, while ultimately futile in the short term, are one warning message to the Feds, as are the Arizona anti-illegal-immigrants laws and the various state challenges to the Health Care Reform bill.

One of the most interesting, though, is the California ballot initiative to legalize marijuana. Despite a loss at the Supreme Court over the ability to decriminalize medical marijuana, the citizens of California have decided to continue on their course with Proposition 19. Eric Holder (appointed by President Obama, who, I seem to recall, campaigned on rolling back the War on (some) Drugs) threatens to continue to prosecute federal drug laws.

One state, even one as large and populous as California, can’t challenge the federal government. But California is not the only state liberalizing their marijuana laws. 20-odd years ago, Florida was seen as “just one state” in liberalizing their carry laws.

Rollback of federal supremacy won’t happen because the state governments want it; there’s too much federal money backing the states these days. It has to happen because the state voters want it; and are willing to vote for it. (Though Governor Christie’s rejection of the new rail tunnel despite federal funding shows promise as well – I have a post brewing on that topic).

Time keeps on slipping...

Today's QOTD comes from mrmandias, a commenter at Megan McArdle's: "30 years ago was 1980, not the dark ages."
Discuss

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.2

Equality to starve

Confederate Yankee takes down an “attack” on Rush Limbaugh.

Disclosure time – I haven’t listened to Rush in at least 20 years. Don’t plan to start up any time soon. But if you assume that a statement such as the one Rush makes is “racist”, well, that says a lot about your own attitudes. In particular, to assume that statement is racist is to assume that the individual is in all ways a representative of his “race” (an artificial construct).

I suppose that “industriousness” can be a cultural trait, in that the surrounding culture will reward or punish perceived industriousness; but to conflate “culture” and “race” is itself racism – an assumption that outward looks correlate with inward culture.

The most a government should do is set the ground rules – equality of opportunity. Otherwise, you’re headed for the Office of the Handicapper-General.

The 17th amendment heresy

A sure way to get all the wookie-suiters to shake their heads, bowcasters, and Gasden Flags in solemn agreement is to suggest the repeal of the 17th amendment, and returning the appointment of Senators to the state legislatures. After all, direct election short-circuits the intent of the Founders to make Senators advocates of their states, and insulate them from the whim of the Mob and the pressures of campaigning. If we return to the days of legislative appointment, the states will reclaim the powers they have allowed the Federal government to usurp, the states will find allies in the Senate in stopping further encroachment, &c.

Sounds like a plan, right – return the Senate to a more deliberative body, insulated from the Mob, and able to concentrate on the mechanics of governance; with the best interests of their States in the foreground, lest they be turfed out by their own legislature. As Zell Miller put it before retiring, “ But can you imagine those dreadful unfunded mandates being put on the States or a homeland security bill being torpedoed by the unions if Senators were still chosen by and responsible to the State legislatures?”

For the sake of argument, I’m going to ignore the difficulty of passing an amendment. It’s at least theoretically possible for such an amendment to be a extra-partisan issue, I suppose, and garner the necessary national support. It won’t matter in the end. Repealing the 17th amendment will not stop direct elections of senators, and it won’t help the problem of senators being beholden to special interests.

Here’s the two dirty little secrets of the 17th Amendment. First secret: the first Senator chosen by popular vote was elected in 1906, 7 years before the ratification of the 17th amendment and 5 years before the submission of the amendment to the states for ratification. Oregon pioneered the method (essentially a referendum binding on the legislature), but other states followed. This method could be used again if the 17th amendment was repealed, leaving the states to continue directly electing senators if they so choose. And you couldn’t stop it without an unacceptable level of meddling in state sovereignty.

Second dirty little secret: the 17th amendment was, at least in part, a reaction to the corruption and scandals of the time; not to mention inaction on the part of legislatures that were still appointing senators without consultation. Surprisingly enough, state legislatures are just another special interest, and it’s cheaper to bribe a legislature than an electorate…

Repeal of the 17th amendment is no panacea. It took most of a century of slow Progressing to get here, it’ll take time to get back. It’s going to be hard and dirty work, full of compromise, half-measures, and politicians. Put together enough half-measures, though, and you can go places…

Mountain Dew Throwback

Didn't care for it. Tasted noticeably different and left a funny aftertaste.


I recall liking the Kosher for Passover Coke & Pepsi, though - so if I run across some Pepsi throwback I'll try it.

Phonebook vs Internet

Dork Tower asks the question

Belated Into

In case you missed her debut post, my wife will be blogging here as Allura.

The Question

Writers block. Well, not really, but I don’t seem to be able to do short, and everything long I want to do it jammed up in one messy pile.

So – the question is: Ronin or Heat? Answer in comments

Action Needed on CCW in NJ

Oh, yeah, also, hi, I'm Allura, Ian Argent's wife. We share a lot of interests, but I'm more of a moderate libertarian while he's more of a conservative. I'll get a proper intro in at some point, but Ian asked me to post this. I'm usually on Asemblyman Carroll's mailing list, too, so I'm not sure why I haven't gotten this yet myself. Anyway, from Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, regarding his proposed Concealed Carry bill, A-1384:


Recently, I sent the following letter to the Chairman of the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee:

Hon. Gordon Johnson
545 Cedar Lane
Teaneck, New Jersey
07666

Re: A-1384

Dear Chairman Johnson:

Shortly after my election to the Legislature in 1995, I introduced the predecessor of the above-cited Bill. Same was referred to this Committee, as has been every subsequent incarnation thereof, where it languished.

In light of the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in McDonald, there exists essentially no doubt that many of New Jersey’s draconian restrictions on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms will not survive a legal challenge. As a result, New Jersey has essentially two choices: legislatively respect the constitutional rights of its citizens, or face the inevitability of being compelled to do so by the judiciary.

The consequences of legislative inaction – leaving aside the denial of fundamental constitutional rights – could be hugely expensive for the taxpayers. Litigation is, as you know, very costly and, since the plaintiffs are almost certain to prevail in a challenge, they would likely be entitled to an award of counsel fees in addition to invalidating NJ’s unconstitutional laws.

I respectfully request, then, that the Chairman schedule the above proposal for Committee consideration with all deliberate speed.

Respectfully,
Michael Patrick Carroll

...let me ask you a simple favor:

Write to the committee chairman, as well as each member of the Committee, respectfully requesting that this measure be posted. In order to maximize the impact, I ask you to do it via snail mail (we old folks tend to respect paper more than electrons). Use your own language so that it cannot be dismissed as a form letter. Ask each of them to respond to you, in writing, respecting their position.

Already, some Members of the Majority see the handwriting on the wall. Senator Van Drew recently introduced a concealed carry law. Although it needs work – the fees are unconscionably high and the training requirements disconcertingly vague – it represents a welcome step in the right direction. Now is the time to press for true reform.

The addresses of the other committee members are here:

Assemblyman Nelson T. Albano
21 North Main St.
Cape May Court House, NJ 08210

Assemblyman Jon M. Bramnick
251 North Ave. West 2nd Floor
Westfield, NJ 07090

Assemblywoman Elease Evans
100 Hamilton Plaza Suite 1400
Paterson, NJ 07505

Assemblywoman Amy H. Handlin
890 Main St.
Belford, NJ 07718

Assemblyman Paul D. Moriarty
129 Johnson Road Suite 1
Turnersville, NJ 08012

Assemblyman David P. Rible
1955 Highway 34 Bldg. 2A
Wall Township, NJ 07719

Assemblywoman L. Grace Spencer
223 Hawthorne Ave.
Newark, NJ 07112

Assemblyman Gilbert L. "Whip" Wilson
Audubon Commons Shopping Center
130 Blackhorse Pike 1st Floor Suite D-3
Audubon, NJ 08106