Energy Debate Misses the Point in the Senate

An article from the Planet Ark website talks about the Senate putting off a vote on stricter fuel-consumption laws for vehicles sold in the U.S., and rejecting a bill by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to raise the minimum fuel economy of automobiles to 40 miles per gallon and SUVS to 27.5 mpg by 2016.

My question is... why?

Toward the bottom of the article, there's a quote by Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) regarding the reason for voting against Durbin's bill:

Bond said stricter CAFE rules will bring further woes upon hard-pressed US automakers and impose "Soviet-style mandates" for them to build lighter, flimsier models.

Durbin's plan "costs lives, costs jobs and deprives consumers of their basic free will," Bond said.

So many things are going on in just this one quote that I have to address them all. The rest of the article speaks for itself - it's typical Republican fear-mongering about losing jobs and affecting corporations' bottoms lines, etc.

But look at what Bond said here: "stricter CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rules will bring further woes upon hard-pressed US automakers." Look at the language he uses. Woes, hard-pressed, etc. The effort is to make these companies sound like they're downtrodden and fighting for their lives. The reality is that THEY are the ones who have gotten themselves into these jams by not producing vehicles that thought beyond the next five years or so.

The world has known forever that oil is not a renewable resource. At some point, it's going to run out. And despite that, corporations are acting like there's nothing going on at all, as if oil will always be our number one form of energy and we'll be able to go on forever sucking it out of the ground and running our big behemoth cars with it.

Well, that's obviously not the case. Fuel prices in the US have skyrocketed over the past couple years. We're actually approaching European standards for fuel prices, which I personally think is a good thing - it'll force people to seek other forms of transportation and hopefully condense some of the sprawl that we're undergoing in our major cities. And that'll curtail the need to for so many cars - more people will have the opportunity to take public transportation and hopefully massive highways full of cars will become a thing of the past.

But the automakers obviously don't want this. Their existence is the antithesis of what we NEED as manufacturers in this country. They claim it's too expensive to force better fuel consumption standards and will cause cars to become more dangerous. Again, I call foul.

The technology has existed for years to make cars more economical to own and operate. The engineers at the various companies have had such technology for a long time. Example: Hydraulic Launch Assist technology was displayed at the 2002 North American Auto Show in Detroit. Yet it's not being used anywhere yet. It's been displayed in neat little concept cars at other auto shows, but on a production vehicle? NO! And there are other examples of this as well.

The one example of this technology that has made it out of the engineers' booths and into production is hybrid technology - and the cars are so popular that Ford, Toyota, and Honda can't keep them in stock. So why not make MORE of these models? And why aren't companies like GM doing it as well?

The answer you're always going to hear is COST. Well, no innovation ever was ever created for free. You have to put money into technology to get it to market. But at the rate these vehicles are leaving the lots, the potential for profit on these models is certainly there!

To move on with the Bond quotes: the second thing that jumped out at me was his use of the term "Soviet-style mandates." Senator Bond is trying to use old Cold War paranoia to scare everyone away from doing what needs to be done. And this has been a memetic tactic of the conservatives for a couple decades now.

Instead of doing what needs to be done, conservatives claim that they don't want to turn us into a totalitarian state like the old Soviet Union. It's very interesting how that applies when it comes to economic issues, but as soon as the debate turns to social issues, they're more than happy to put us all under the yoke of their "moral" tyranny.

Using fear tactics like this is something the GOP used to great effect in the last election - fear of terrorists and "immoral" policies like those that the Democrats want to put into place (supposedly, anyway) scared many voters into voting for Bush, Delay, and their cronies. The Democrats need to figure out a way to make this look as ridiculous as it really is.

The final sentence in Bond's comments are that "Durbin's plan 'costs lives, costs jobs and deprives consumers of their basic free will,' Bond said."

Again, the fear-mongering is apparent in the first two sound bits - "costs lives, costs jobs." The lives thing is again ridiculous. SUVs and their ilk are much more dangerous than smaller, lighter cars - it's been proven time and time again. Costing jobs is ridiculous as well - the reason American jobs are being lost is that foreign products are becoming BETTER. Again, look at the hybrid car example. American corporations are afraid to change because it looks bad for the short-term bottom line.

The last line is the most preposterous of all, however: "deprives consumers of their basic free will." Fear-mongering aside, the notion that American consumers deserve the free will to drive big, gas-guzzling automobiles simply shows how out of touch the conservatives are with the rest of the world. Oil use (around 40% of which comes from the operation of automobiles) needs to go down. I've already addressed that. But how about the free will of the rest of the planet? How about the free will of people in other countries, who are facing the onset of massive global climate change because of the use of petroleum-based energy production? What about their basic free will?

More and more, I want to trumpet the words of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In an essay written in Dec. 2003, he stated that the environmental degradation of the world isn't just an economic or weather issue: it's a civil rights issue. The rich and affluent of the world think they have a basic human right to do whatever they want to the environment, while the poor are the ones who bear the brunt of the effects of it. Read the essay, it goes into detail that I don't have room to here.

Until this country realizes that it has a responsibility to the rest of the world, we're never going to get better. And the insular policies of the conservatives aren't helping. Comments like Bond's only make the point clearer.

Supreme Court Screws Up

The Supreme Court put out a decision today that strikes me as being rife with the possibility for abuse and corruption all over the place. I'd be interested in hearing more about why the liberals were mostly for this and the conservatives were against it. It seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the voting should have been. Here's the text of the article:

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

There is so much wrong with this decision I barely know where to start. First, allowing the creation of tax revenue for a city as "public use" that would justify uprooting people from their homes sets a VERY dangerous precedent. Justice Stevens' assumption that cities will have a careful economic plan borders on lunacy. What if cities grab land like this and give it to corporations based on some handout from the corporation to a public official? That's just inviting more lobbying and corporate/government corruption.

Second, this decision will increase sprawl as businesses push out into the suburbs even more, and displace homeowners to do so. It wasn't bad enough that corporations are able to buy up family farms and build Walgreens and Wal-Marts, now they can do it to family homes, too.

Third, supposing that the land that is being handed out to the corporations is "inner-city" land, and that the residents of homes on that land are compensated: are they going to be compensated enough? If the land is poorly valued in the first place, are the displaced people going to be able to afford to rebuild their lives elsewhere?

Fourth, the destruction of communities is not what this nation needs to be concerning itself in. People grow attached to their neighborhoods and a sense of responsibility to others can only be created over time. Forcibly removing people from their homes not only removes the sense of responsibility but creates more feelings of "watch your own ass" that will make trust in one's neighbors even harder later on.

I'm extraordinarily disappointed that the Supreme Court, particularly liberals like Justices Ginsberg, Souter, and Kennedy, made this decision. It seems like it should have been a no brainer, but apparently it's not.

Father's Day

I celebrated my first Fathers' Day this past weekend, and while it wasn't odd for me or any such thing, the hardest thing for me to get used to was just sitting and thinking "Fathers' Day.... wait, that's me now!"

Duncan has just become such a wonderful part of my life that I can't imagine being without him. My morning ritual is generally wake up, work out, take the dog for a walk (his name is Guinness), and then come home to help Jenn get Duncan ready for the day, whether he is headed to day care or whether he's staying home on her days off.

And I swear, every day I come home from walking Guinness, I hear Duncan babbling at Jenn while he gets dressed and has his diaper changed, and it always brings a smile to my face.

I have a great picture of him that Jenn got done secretly for a Father's Day gift - just a picture of him sitting and waving at the camera with a big smile on his face, but I think it may be one of the greatest gifts I've ever gotten. Because now, when I'm sitting in the office and the office life is getting to me too much, I can just take a look at my little guy and it all makes sense again.

And today, when I was dropping him off at his day care center (the Wee Care Children's Center in Columbus - EXCELLENT facility for anyone looking), I waved goodbye to him and he lifted his hand and opened and closed it a couple times, just like we've been doing with him at home. Priceless moment, let me tell you! I can't WAIT to go pick him up today.

So, a belated happy Fathers' Day to everyone and I hope that your experiences are similar to mine.

What's Up There?

I love this picture...

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

The Senate Republicans used underhanded techniques to get the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to corrupt oil and gas interests, by putting the issue into the federal budget. The budget can't be filibustered, apparently, per Senate rules, so after passing the flawed budget the ANWR is apparently open for drilling.

PLEASE click the link above to sign a petition to keep this pristine piece of America's natural heritage free of the pollution of the corrupt oil industry. You can also view a webcam set up by Drexel University that highlights the natural beauty and amazing wildlife that this refuge protects.

There is so little of our natural world that is protected from the stomping of unsustainable energy practices, so please - draw the line in the sand (or snow, in this case) to stop the oil, mining, and timber interests from raping our land more than they already do.

"Are You Scottish?"

Got to thinking more about the people who ask me if I'm Scottish or if I play the bagpipes when I'm wearing my kilt. Why is it that they ask that?

Here are some possibilities I've come up with:

• They want to show off how savvy they are about kilt-wearing.


• They're trying to make sense of why I'd wear it, other than it's just a comfortable item of clothing. Since it doesn't fit into their bifurcated male world view, they have to categorize me.


• Related to the above - they assume that I wouldn't be wearing it IF I wasn't Scottish or didn't play the bagpipes.

I'm sure I'll come up with more.

Also funny to me is how just because I'm wearing a kilt, that these folks think I'm interested in their friend who was in a pipe band, or went to Scotland, or what have you. Folks, it's just another item of clothing. It doesn't have to mean anything other than that. I may not fit into your category of clothing options, but why do you have to categorize at all?

Kilted Reactions

Since donning the kilt for the first time, I've gotten a lot of varied reactions to it. I've never gotten a negative one - it seems that, at least in Columbus, people who don't approve just keep their mouths shut. At least for the most part. I've had one friend who gave me a hard time and then said "Now go home, and put on some pants."

Primarily, the comments I get are either "Are you Scottish?" or "Do you play the bagpipes?" It seems to me that people think I need a reason for wearing the kilt other than "it's just comfortable." Now, granted, I do have some Scots blood in me, but for the most part it's just the most comfortable garment I own.

Another reaction has, strangely, been from people who try to reassure me that it's okay to wear it. Um... I'm the one wearing it pretty much everywhere... I think I'm okay with it. One lady actually went out of her way to tell me it looked nice, and VERY MASCULINE. Okay... um, thanks? I guess?

In a weird couple of days, I had two Columbus Police Officers ask me about it. I think the tryouts for the Police/Fire Pipe Band were going on or something, that's what I picked up from one of them. But suffice to say, being stopped by the cops to have them get a Utilikilts card from you was weird.

When Duncan was born, the pediatrician on staff asked me if it was a Game Day thing - I suppose in reference to college football (it was Nov. 6, a Saturday, when I wore it to the hospital, and he was born at Ohio State University Medical Center).

Some folks have simply just asked me if it is a kilt. That's fair... I have no problem with that one.

I had one lady nearly hitting on me when I wore it to a barbecue place in Worthington. The looks I got there (think blue-collar conservative types as patrons) were priceless, and then having this waitress telling me that the real men all wear kilts was absolutely great. My dad and brother were with me and I think they didn't know what to make of it.

At my sister's wedding, the first time I've gone out kilted but not regimental (as required by my sister, apparently) I actually got it lifted, so naturally I was disappointed that I was wearing underwear as I didn't like being revealed as a poseur. :)

Most of my relatives don't know what to make of it at all. My one cousin just shrieked "Oh my god, he's wearing a skirt" and "Why are you wearing that?" when she first saw it.

I'm looking forward to more fun reactions as I go on about my business as a kilted man.

Virtual March On Washington!

Please join the Virtual March on Washington to stop Global Warming. Click on the link above to join in!

Meetings and Aftermaths

I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you don't have anything to talk about, or if it's not going to be useful, you don't have a meeting - even if it's scheduled.

Yesterday, we had our semi-monthly database meeting. And usually at this meeting we get a lot done because I try to keep things moving. I displayed some changes to a screen to which they'd requested updates, and it was decided that all was well and we'd put that screen into production.

So today, I put the screen into production, and my user comes back to me and asks where these other fields (that they REQUESTED I remove) are. I told her that no one asked for them at the meeting and she came up with a response designed to make me look stupid - typical "how do I do my job without them?"

Well, I'm sorry, but if you don't bring it up at the meeting where we all sat for an hour and went over the changes that were made, how the hell am I supposed to know that there's an issue? Don't treat me like I'm an idiot because YOU don't know what you want on a screen.

You know, I think this is the first time I've bitched about work on here. Hmm.

Pet Peeves

Here's a list of my pet peeves. The definition I'm using, for the purposes of this list, is: An unimportant thing that nevertheless pisses me off.

1. Websites that resize your browser window, so that you have to resize it back to the original size yourself the next time you open the browser.

Daddy Ups and Downs

Our little boy Duncan hit his 7th month yesterday. It's amazing to think that a year and a half ago, he wasn't even considered, and now I wouldn't change a thing about having a child. I love that little guy so much and would do absolutely anything for him.

It was amazing watching him on the floor yesterday. He's mastered rolling over from front to back, and though he's still working on crawling I think he'll get there soon. Jenn had put a little musical toy just out of his reach, and he was rolling on his back and front trying to reach it. He eventually did it, too. It's great to see the determination on his face as he pushed and pushed to get to it.

He's also starting to be able to sit up by himself. I had him sitting on my lap, facing me last night. He would sit up, then fall forward on his face, and then pick himself back up and sit upright again. He's getting the control he needs to keep sitting up, and that's very exciting (as he's too big for his baby carrier but too uncoordinated to sit in a high chair at a restaurant, at least the chairs most places have).

Which brings me (in a roundabout way) to my thoughts for the day. I've increasingly come to the conclusion that I do not like the computer business in general. And I'd like to find something else to do for a living. The problem is the same problem that millions of Americans feel - the fear of leaving a steady job for one that's less steady. Normally that wouldn't be a problem for me. But now, with a family to support, I'm VERY nervous about trying something new - particularly because I don't want to lose my great benefits here at OSU. Not to mention I've been in this business for over ten years now, and make a comfortable (if not opulent) salary.

So, if anyone reads this blog, I'd love to know how folks went about making changes in their lives without having to lose out on great benefits.

Sign of the Apocalypse

Why, oh WHY did we need to have a movie version of the Dukes of Hazzard made? This show was bad when it was on the air, I don't think we need a big screen version. And we particularly don't need all the merchandise tie-ins. Although... I can see Hardee's owning the fast food rights to this soon-to-be ticket-burner.

One note on this movie that makes perfect sense: Johnny Knoxville of Jackass fame is one of the Duke boys... so at least we know their demographic.

Three Cheers for Mark Felt

By now, everyone has heard about the revelation that former FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt was the informant for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their investigation of the Watergate break-in, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The debate has begun on whether he was a hero or a snake.

Interestingly (and not at all surprisingly), the people who are most convinced he was a snake are folks like G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Colson, and Pat Buchanan. Interestingly, Liddy and Colson actually went to jail for their role in the Watergate scandal, so it's no wonder that they're upset. And Pat Buchanan was a Nixon staffer himself, so it's hardly surprising that he's upset.

My view? Give the man a medal. Not only will this reward someone who did the right thing in revealing government at its worst, but it might even convince some of those folks who are stuck in the government now to do the same. And never has the governmente been more in need of whistleblowers.

With the media being owned by huge corporate interests, we aren't hearing about the scandals that the Bush Administration are perpetuating. And for anyone who thinks I'm a conspiracy theorist, I would CERTAINLY call the entire Iraq War a scandal. Lying to the world to get our troops into a war against a nation that did nothing to us? One of the greatest scandals. Then look at the amount of money that goes into the coffers of the Bush Campaign and where it came from, and notice the sorts of anti-environmental and anti-freedom laws that our Theocrat-in-chief is pushing. It doesn't take Fox Mulder to see these issues.

Today, potential whistleblowers are kept in fear of losing their jobs and blacklisted. We need to reward people who try to keep order and honesty in our government. And since the media won't report on it, we need whistleblowers to stand up and tell us what's going on inside the oil-slicked curtain of the Bush Administration.

So three cheers for Mark Felt. And to all those employees who are too frightened by the threat of big government's claw, stand up and get noticed publicly. You'll do us all a great service.