• No, this isn’t the Holiday Inn

    Earlier this evening I was sitting in a room on a psychiatric ward during visiting hours, when a few other visitors arrived (to see another patient, assigned to the other bed in the room). A middle aged man looked into the room from the doorway, and at the person I was visiting. He said to his companion, “oh look, the wacko is in here.” His companion gave him a shush and shoved him out the door.

    We decided to take our conversation elsewhere. As we were leaving the room (with the person we came to visit in tow), we passed the commenter. I looked at him and I was suddenly determined not to be the one who felt awkward. I looked him unwaveringly in the eye, like I was playing some kind of immaterial game of chicken. He said something to be friendly (“hey there,” or something like it), but I didn’t say anything back. When it became clear that I was not the awkward party in this brief encounter, it took some of my remaining reserve (from my otherwise shy, but weary soul) to keep from stopping, leaning in, and whispering, “oh look, the biggest fucking ignorant jackass I’ve seen all day is still here.”

    I’ll have you know those were the exact words on the tip of my tongue. They are not particularly inspired words, but they fit my emotional state.

    Dude, just where the hell did you think you were? Instead of banning cell phones on psych floors (regarding visitors and what they bring in on their visits), they ought to ban immaturity.

    I don’t expect a whole lot of compassion from society at large when it comes to mental illness; but I’d expect a little more from a guy who obviously has some connection to it… why else would he be a fellow visitor on a psychiatric floor? Maybe I’m being a little too harsh. Maybe he’s a newbie. Maybe this was just his reaction to a horrible environment – a little defense mechanism in action.

    Regardless, it was about as angry as I’ve been this month. I’m not sure wether my lack of response was a sign of maturity or fatigue.

  • A DST lemming no longer

    We here at the Kauffman Household (v. 2.2.2) dislike the Spring Forward phenomenon, more popularly referred to as “Daylight Savings Time.” Accordingly, we’ve decided to pull an Arizona and opt-out. That’s right friends, the Kauffman Household will be on standard time year round!

    There are a few kinks I’ve yet to work out (soliciting special considerations from my boss, the school system, etc), but I’ll let you know if we make any progress.

    A heart felt shout-out goes to the 109th Congress, who made DST in March possible.

  • Everyone loves gas

    When folks in government talk about our reliance on oil, why does it seem like there’s constant chatter about fuel cells? Why are we waiting on hydrogen fuel cells when we can do something now? Here’s the cynic/realist perspective (you get to choose which one): fuel cells are twenty years from production/wide spread use, and that’s a lot of time to put off tough economic decisions (like investment in infrastructure, etc). By saying we favor investing in fuel cell research, we’re putting off the really big decisions ad infintum.

    43 is in south america to talk up Brazil and ethanol this week. Ethanol is promising as an alternative to oill. It’s too bad we don’t have the growing capacity to grow even a sizable fraction of the corn we’d need.

    Hybrid engines improve fuel efficiency, but the cars are expensive due to the cost of the batteries.

    What I want to know is: why we aren’t pushing – really pushing – a combination of the two? With meager tax incentives (not the expiring, woefully short lived tax credit) for hybrid vehicles, auto fuel economy could go through the roof – and we could do that now.

    We could also pass regulation to force increases in fuel economy (of non-hybrid engines). We can do this now.

    Car makers (and some Republicans) will tell you this will result in slower or more expensive cars. I say horse pucky.

    Consider that the average horsepower of automobiles sold in the U.S. increased 65 percent from 1980 – 2000. Lest you think that just means cars got bigger and faster – well, you’d be right. But also consider that the average horsepower to weight ratio went up 51 percent over same time period; AND, average fuel economy for vehicles sold in the U.S. stayed virtually the same. (In 1982 the average fuel economy of a car sold in the U.S. was 21.1 MPG. In 2006 it was 21 MPG.)

    What does this mean? Auto makers made engines that were a lot more efficient in turning gasoline into power, but used all of those increases in efficiency to make more power. Why is it unreasonable to insist that some of this increased efficiency (which will presumably continue over time) goes towards lower fuel consumption?

    Rather than making a car that’s 30 percent more powerfull in ten years… why not a car that’s 15 percent more fuel efficient (and only 15 percent more powerfull)? If you phase in the increases in fuel efficiency, I submit that cars don’t have to be ANY more expensive, or ANY less powerfull (just a little less powerfull than they could have been – which may still be more powerfull than today). Granted, I’m no engineer – so it probably doesn’t work exactly like that… but I’ll bet I’m not too far off.

    Combine all of these approaches: investment in domestic ethanol production, (more) tax incentives for hybrid vehicles, and increases in fuel economy standards… before you know it, you’ll have reduced our reliance on foreign oil by sizable amounts.

    By the time those fuel cells are ready for production, we may not need foreign oil anymore anyway. (Yeah… only if the political climate does a 180.)