Category: Politics

Who’s got gas?

A Senate committee approved a plan Tuesday to increase fuel efficiency standards to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in a move closely watched by automakers and environmental groups.

Senate panel votes to boost fuel economy levels. By Ken Thomas, Associated Press

You know what I thought when I first saw this headline?

It’s about time.

You know what I thought after I read the article?

What a disappointment.

2020 is like what… thirteen years from now? With technological advances in batteries alone, I dare say an increase to an average of 50 miles to the gallon could be within reach. Personally, I’m hoping my NEXT car won’t burn any gas at all (most of the time anyway… I’m intrigued by the plug-in hybrid idea).

If hobbyists in California can make a plug-in Hybrid that essentially gives you an electric car – with the flexibility to run longer with the existing fuel distribution infrastructure (re: gas stations) – imagine what could be achieved with a little leadership from our elected officials.

This is where you’re going to ask me, “and where is all that electricity going to come from John? Don’t electricity plants pollute too?” The short answer is yes, but it’s not that simple (reality rarely is). Have you ever wondered why we have central power plants for our electricity? Hell, we could all run our own generators in our back yards. There are probably lots of reasons why we don’t (fuel distribution, start-up costs, etc), but I think I know one reason: it’s generally more efficient to produce a lot of something than a little. If this is true for “power” in general (not just electricity), then our current model for transportation may be the least efficient model possible. Sure, electric cars require energy… but compared to our current model (the equivalent of everyone running their own power-plant), it may be a quantum leap in efficiency. And you all know what efficiency means? If you answered: “achieving maximum output with minimum waste or expense” you win the prize! (Any guesses as to what emissions from a vehicle are? They’re waste products.)

Yes, I know it was just a few months ago when I wrote about fuel efficiency – and my entry talked about increases in fuel efficiency MUCH more modest than the one proposed in the Senate. In my defense… and I think you may agree if you re-read the entry (I double dog dare you!)… I was referring to the lost opportunity to increase fuel efficiency standards over the last twenty years (as much if not more so than future increases).

This proposal in the Senate is a day late, a whole heapin’ helpin’ of dollars short, and is incredibly short sighted.

It’s amazing to me that conservatives can cede any leadership on the issue of global warming, claiming “technology will save us when – and if – we need it to,” but they can’t put proof to their beliefs when it comes to fuel efficiency standards – which have ALL KINDS of implications beyond global warming (national security and economic considerations, just to name two).

Normally I can write to blow off a little steam… but I’m just getting angrier, so I suppose now is a good time to stop typing.

"You control your gun and I’ll control mine”

The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

NRA: Don’t ban gun sales to terror suspects – U.S. Security – MSNBC.com

This could be my favorite news story of the week. It makes me wonder why the NRA is still so influential. How can a group with this little political savvy continue to wield so much power?

I’m loath to admit it, but their argument does make a bit of logical sense. Suspects are just that: suspects. By definition, they are people who’s guilt is not proven. If you believe the second amendment grants an individual right to bear arms (rather than a group right, related to repelling the tyranny of unjust rule or invasion), then it’s a logical extension to uphold such rights to legal residents whose presumption of innocence remains unchallenged.

Personally, I think this is all the more reason to repeal the second amendment. In my humble opinion, placing an individual right to bear arms in the same league with the freedoms of religion, speech, association, et al – is ludicrous. I’m all for upholding basic rights to individuals SUSPECTED of committing crimes. The irony here is that there are undoubtedly numerous members among the NRA ranks who have no problem with the suspension of other basic legal rights to terror suspects (like habeas corpus) – but taking away their guns… well that’s going too far!

Let us eat lead.

Pot, meet kettle

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later. “This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House.

Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill – Yahoo! News

I suppose it makes for a good sound byte, but it’s positively dripping with irony.

Bush is right that he has every constitutional right to deploy troops, as Commander in Chief. The Democrats are right that they have the constitutional right to cut of funding… and there was little question they would move to do so – when Bush deployed the troops, given the election results from last November.

My question is, if Bush can rail against Democrats for “not supporting our troups in the field with the funding they need,” why can’t Democrats rail against Bush for essentially abanding the additional troops he sent there as part of the surge… knowing full well he wouldn’t be able to pay for them? Remember, the surge strategy was implemented AFTER the elections, and AFTER the Democrats in control started talking about more funding oversight.

The truth of the matter is, if the troops are in danger of inadequate funding… they’re both to blame.

/ 2 Comments

Doesn’t anyone love me?

**Note: although money is discussed in this entry, it’s not primarily about money. There are few things in this world that I need which I don’t already have. By that measure I feel very fortunate.

Chances are you don’t know me, but because of today’s political climate I’ll bet I could tell you one thing about me and you’d instantly think you did.

I work for the government.

Thanks to the modern conservative movement in America, this means you probably think the following:

  1. I couldn’t get a better real job.
  2. I’m not particularly bright.
  3. I’m lazy.
  4. I do just enough to get by.
  5. I have no incentive to do better.
  6. My job could be done just as well, if not better, by a high school dropout at a quarter the cost.

I’m not normally given to self promotion – I think modesty is a virtue. There are, however, a few things I’d like to say about myself which I hope will dispell a few myths. If you know me, you may know that I can sometimes be self-depreciating to a fault. I hope this will lend me a little credibility now…

The University of Florida has the second highest number of National Merit Scholars enrolled – behind only Harvard, is ranked 13th among public university undergraduate programs by U.S. News and World Report (2006), and I graduated from there with honors (my terrible writing notwithstanding).

I think my academic achievements suggest there might be a few things I could do, other than government work – if I chose to do so. Granted, there are reasons I chose to do what I do… knowing full well that pay was not going to be one of them. It has been claimed (although I’m not sure how reliable the source is) that Florida ranks 50th in average pay per state employee – so it goes without saying that I’m not exactly raking in the dough.

But again, I knew that coming in.

What gets to me, every now and again, is how little my efforts are appretiated by my employers – that’s you… the tax payer.

Despite three statewide productivity awards (awarded by an independent organization – Florida TaxWatch), more superior yearly evaluations that I can count on my fingers, and more lesser awards than you’d care to hear about… I’ve received exactly one merit pay raise in twelve years.

How can this be, you may ask? Surely it’s because I’ve overstated my acheivements. No, it’s because you and and the people you elected chose not to. There have been three or four years when merit pay increases were available at all… and then only a handfull were available to go around, statewide… so it’s a wonder I got one at all. I’m clearly an EXTREMELY rare exception in this way. Most of my hard working coworkers haven’t gotten a whiff of a merit raise the entire time they’ve been here (in some cases going on twenty years).

That leaves the pay increases doled out by the legislature, given to all of us. You see, the only way our pay goes up is if it’s approved by the legislature. There’s no such thing as a “cost of living” increase in Florida. Of my twelve years in state employ, I don’t recall an annual pay increase more than 2.5 percent. Often it’s less. One year there was no increase at all, and two years (including this year) there was a one time bonus paid (in lieu of a raise). By the way, there’s no such thing as bonuses in Florida (government that is) either… not in any regular sense. They only come when the legislature is looking to pay us off for not granting an increase. And what’s so nefarious about a bonus? It’s because it looks like more than it is. It’s not permanent. Next year, when we’re not getting a bonus, and our legislature grants us a generous 2 percent raise… that’ll make 2 percent in permanent raises in two years. The reason the legislature gives occasional bonuses instead of raises is because it decreases long term expenditures. If our raises aren’t even keeping pace with the cost of living in the first place, and the legislature is looking to save EVEN MORE money on our salaries… you know it’s not good for us.

So you ask me what incentive I have to do better, and I ask you the same thing. What incentive do I have to do better than just get by… the absolute minimum asked of me by my employer?

Other than a sense of pride or duty to those I serve, the answer is I don’t.

But again, I knew most of this going in. There are those of you who will reply, “alright, if you hate it so much go do something else!” The fact remains that money is not the only consideration. I like what I do. I like the opportunity it affords me; to make a small contribution to the public at large. Department policy forbids me from discussing many of the details of what I do, on a day to day basis, but I can say this: there are days when I can talk to a client and know I’ve made a permanent change in their life… for the better… and it’s hard to describe how gratifying it can be.

No, what troubles me is that you all apparently have so little regard for what we do. You paint us all with a wide brush, wet down with the occasional story of misdeed – sensationalized courtesy of your local “newstainment” investigative reporter.

You hold us in contempt and elect representatives who share your feelings, then profess surprise and outrage when one of us morphs into your self-fulfilling prophecy on the local news.

For all I care you can keep your damn money. A simple thank you would suffice.

Going for an outing

U.S. aid official linked to call-girl ring resigns | Reuters

Everyone loves the story of a political hypocrite being outed. Randal Tobias worked for the Department of State under the Bush administration and was apparently an advocate for abstinence programs abroad. Now there’s news he has resigned, in light of his involvement with an infamous Washington escort service.

Ah… but maybe he’s not a hypocrite. After all, he says he just had the ladies come over for a massage. In fact… what better way is there to prop up his credentials as a card carrying member of the blue-balls club than having the ladies come over every now and again for a “massage.”

Who else can stand before representatives of the world’s poor and advocate abstinence with the authority of a man who oils up with D.C. call girls and doesn’t have sex?

Now THAT’S dedication.

Arguable conclusions about guns

I don’t know why, but one of the more suprising conclusions drawn from the shootings in Virginia (to me) is that there aren’t enough guns. The thought is that if there were just a couple students packing heat in school, they could have fought back. This shouldn’t have been a suprise… it’s a natural extention from the NRA’s widely repeated assertion that if guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns. What REALLY surprised me was a few suggestions by a few right wing-nuts that the Virginia Tech shootings also suggested a failing in our institutions of higher learning. No… not that security wasn’t high enough… or that they don’t allow guns on campus… but that they churn out a bunch of pacifist wimps.

O.K., now I’m just offended… and not just because I’m one of those pacifist wimps. This is classic blaming the victim, and it’s the most predictable weapon in the conservative arsenal. How is this any different from blaming a rape victim for their own assault because they were showing too much skin? Oh it’s different all right… the shooting victims are LESS to blame than the rape victim (just to be clear, I feel the rape victim has VERY, VERY, VERY little culpability – if any at all).

Based on the circumstances of the shooting, asking the students to rush the shooter wasn’t just asking them not to be a wimp… it’s tantamount to asking them to commit suicide. This article sums it up perfectly…

Family Security Matters: Why didn’t someone stop Cho – by W. Thomas Smith Jr

I may be ready to concede one point: if one of the students had a gun the shooter could have been stopped. There’s a BIG BUT in there somewhere. First, it ignores the possibility for much more gun violence with more guns floating around. I’ve always felt that guns do, in effect, kill people. It’s been my strong feeling that guns, in some circumstances, create a homicide where there wouldn’t have otherwise been one. A gun makes it extraordinarily easy to kill someone. Almost no effort is required. All it takes is aim and a twitch of a finger. But don’t just take my word for it, consider some research done by Harvard and the University of Chicago. It suggests that approximately 1 in 10 american men may display occasional outbursts of uncontrolled rage (three such outbursts per year and up). Imagine the guy at little league, foaming the mouth yelling at an umpire, with a concealed carry permit. Imagine the guy popping his top at a perceived slight in traffic, with Smith and Wesson riding shotgun.

There’s a site I stumbled across while I was researching this entry which keeps track of instances of gun voilence in America.

Gun Guys:

Most firearms aren’t purchased for the purpose of murdering a close friend or family member. It’s only in these times (short periods of time, according to the research), when extreme stress hits, that someone with access to a gun moves to use it.

Finally, you have the argument that Virginia Tech already had a strict gun control policy – which was ineffective – other than to keep students from bringing in their guns for protection. This argument falls short in that local gun restrictions are obviously futile. If all you need to do to get a gun is drive a couple miles – or order it from ebay, gun restrictions won’t work. This is an argument for broader, more sweeping restrictions – not fewer. Guns need to be harder to get everywhere, not just in a few towns or college campuses. Countries that have broader, universal restrictions on guns have less gun violence – period.

Personally, I feel handguns have one purpose: killing people. Their range and accuracy (relative to rifles) make them lousy for hunting in the woods. Their concealability and usefulness in tight quarters make them suitable for hunting one thing: people. Even if you buy one for self defense – and you’re properly trained to use it, you know that if you do use it, the objective can’t be to injure, maim or deter – but to kill.

Call me a pacifist wimp; I think they all handguns should be banned. I also believe the constitution makes this an unrealistic goal. That’s why I think the second amendment should be repealed. In modern times the second amendment has as much to do with liberty as the Civil War had to do with “states’ rights.” These days I don’t think we need guns to be free. If Vatican City organized a military and invaded the U.S., our gun toting citizenry would probabably be up to the task of defending life, liberty and the American way. To think a handgun would protect you from any other organized military (including our own) is ludicrous. In that case, we don’t need the right to keep and bear arms – we need body armor, tanks, artillary, jets, laser guided bombs, and a warship (for good measure). I’m also going to need a substantial raise, because I can barely afford a handgun.

Our constitution was not written to be perfect, or as a final draft. There were other screw ups and they were fixed. The original didn’t see African Americans as whole people, but we eventually got that right with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

Today we’re enslaved by our fear. We lock our doors against the gun toting horde waiting to walk in and gun us down. It’s a fear we can dismiss with bold action.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Broder: the supreme arbiter of Washington Politics

This week my stroll through the conservative blogosphere has brought me to several criticisms of Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader (and a Democrat from Nevada). If you’ve been paying attention, the big hub-bub this week has been Reid’s statement that the war in Iraq “is lost.”

David Broder has been held up as an unimpeachable voice of respect in Washington, and his suggestion that Reid should resign (in response to Reid’s comments) has been eaten up by conservatives across the land.

I thought this column by Media Matters contributor Jamison Foser was an interesting rebuttal…

Media Matters – “Media Matters”; by Jamison Foser

/ 1 Comment

Politics and scandal

As I’ve said before, I spent the formative years of my political leanings in a hot-bed of liberalism; a university campus. As a junior, I went to my first campaign rally – for Clinton/Gore in the fall of ’92. My first presidential election as an “adult” was that ’92 election. I watched the man I voted for become embroiled in a couple political scandals, most notably the Jones/Tripp/Lewinski flap.

Now I get to see what it’s like from the other side of the political spectrum… and the cup runeth over.

The scandal du jour… today I read that my least favorite Florida politician, Tom Feeney, has been tied to the infamous Jack Abramoff. You remember Tom Feeney… he was the guy that created a new seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in his own back yard (while he was the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives) – effectively giving himself a promotion.

It seems that Mr Feeney underestimated the value of a trip he took, and denies he knew Abramoff paid for it. It turns out he was only off by about three or four hundred percent on the value of the trip – but hey, what’s fifteen grand between friends?

Oh, that’s right… he doesn’t know Jack.

All of this could be perfectly innocent. Hell, people are trying to give me twenty grand with no strings attached all the time.