Category: Politics

Scooters on AmericaBlog…

Chris on AmericaBlog writes:
Scooter-mania hits the US

With the high cost of gas (though don’t worry, it just dropped under $73 today!) Americans are turning more and more to scooters. Over here in Europe, they’re everywhere and while I’ve always liked the look of a Vespa, there’s a price to pay for them. They always remind me of Rome, watching Quadrophenia or wading through piles of scooters in Saigon. The lawnmower whine is the most awful noise pollution that sort of blends in well enough in cities but in smaller towns is downright annoying as hell. I’ve always been told that scooters have limited emissions regulations which means they churn out plenty of traditional pollution as well. Besides that, what really scares me about them is the ugly accidents that I see all too often in Paris and let’s just say scooters and their drivers don’t hold up very well in those battles against cars and trucks.

The most striking thing from the AP article (linked inline above) to me are the sales figures:

A scooter boom has been under way over the last few years as the vehicles came back into fashion. Retail sales in the U.S. have shot up from 12,000 scooters in 1997 to 113,000 in 2005, according to the Motorcycle Industry Council, a promotional trade organization. But this spring, the boom has turned into a bonanza, with more and more people realizing that scooters can get up to 100 miles per gallon and can weave around traffic jams.

Chris’s points about safety inspired me to write the following as a comment, though:

I have a ~8 mile round trip to work. I scooter most days when the weather is good. Thanks to easier parking at the work end, and lane sharing (legal in California, possibly not elsewhere) if traffic is heavy, I get there in closer to 10 minutes than the 15 that it takes in my car.

My Honda Aero 50, 'Bob the Angry Lawnmower'Scooters aren’t so bad; first, the noise level and emmisions problems are limited to the cheapest, 50cc 2-stroke varieties. OK, both of the scooters I’ve owned (since 2001) have been 50cc two-strokes, but I’m cheap; the first was an actual Honda (1987 Aero 50) and relatively emmisions-clean, which I can’t say about the rather smokey MZI own now. Newer Honda 50cc ones are 4-stroke, and cleaner, and I imagine that Yamaha may well be going in that direction… and pretty much everything bigger than 50cc is 4-stroke these days.

My MZ Moskito Classico, 'Scooty-puff Jr.' 50cc 4-stroke, sadly, is too weak for even much city traffic here in the states (even the 2-strokes, which are more powerful, are pretty much red lined at ~35-40mph with this 235lb guy on ’em), but there are some great 125cc or similar 4-stroke ones which can keep up with pretty much any non-freeway traffic.

Yes, safety is a concern, but the easiest way here in California to get a motorcycle license (necessary to ride a scooter, at least here) is to take a Motorcycle Safety Foundation course. With decent safety gear, and good driving on scooterists’ part, the only really dangerous variable is car and truck drivers – and there, more scooters and more visibility will help (as would adequate enforcemnt on drivers who DO carelessly put us in danger.)

The biggest downside to scooters, really, is the perception that they’re easier to ride than a motorcycle (they’re harder) or safer or to be taken less seriously.

But very generally, anything that gets more people into light, fuel-efficient two wheelers, and out of vehicles larger than they need (in many cases, that’s ANY car) is a good thing.

More human cost of Wilson’s folly…

The Montana Sedition Project

Imagine going down to your local brewpub or coffee shop. You meet some friends. The talk turns to the war. You criticize the President and his wealthy supporters. Next thing you know, a couple of husky fellows at the next table grab you, hustle you out the door and down to the local police station. You are arrested on a charge of sedition. Within months you are indicted, tried and convicted. The judge sentences you to 5-10 years in prison — and off you go! Think this could never happen? Well, it happened not that long ago — during World War I — to scores of ordinary people in Montana. They discovered very painfully that their free speech rights had been stripped away by the state legislature.

via BoingBoing.

“Why he didn’t propose the banning of giant mutant spiders…”

Kos on the SOTU address:

Bush had two BIG initiatives yesterday, it seems — a blue ribbon presidential commission everyone will ignore to produce a report no one will read, and, more dramatically, the banning of that scourge of Western civilization — the human/animal hybrid.

Why he didn’t propose the banning of giant mutant spiders and killer self-aware robots is beyond me. Those are scary fictional crises as well!

(emphasis mine, purely because I love the line.)

Clearly Bush needs to meet Mearls.

“Addicted to oil:” a HUGE credibility gap.

Bush says U.S. addicted to oil

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Bush will say “America is addicted to oil” and must develop technologies to address soaring gasoline prices in a State of the Union speech on Tuesday night that argues against a U.S. retreat from Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Why should we believe that someone an administration which came out of the petroleum/energy industry can or will actually do a damn thing about this supposed addiction? (Especially when it has remained in bed with them through every public bit of “energy policy” since it came to power. And by “administration,” that just doesn’t just mean failed-oilman Bush; remember what Cheney’s background is as well.)

This is by far the funniest thing I’ve seen in the lead-up to SOTU. It’s rather like the head of Phillip Morris saying that the country has a lung-cancer problem.

It’s not a matter of whether you win or lose…

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it’s not whether you win or lose – it’s how drunk you get.
– Homer Simpson

I’ve been approaching today’s state-of-the-union address with some mixture of apprehension and interest; at lunch today, I realized (talking to Marie; it may have been her idea) that the Preznit’s speeches are RIPE for a drinking game, and that there probably already was one. Well, sure enough, I get back to my desk and hit Google and there there are quite a number of “Bush’s speeches” drinking games, as well as a number of State-of-the-Union ones.

Two stood out:
* First, there is a serious attempt at a college-style drinking game*†
* Second, purely satirical version by Will Durst, which he has done for at least some past years.

† the same guy did ones for 2002-2004; the 2005 version was at the current URL had to be dug up on the Wayback Machine

I may print and try the first one tonight. We’ll see, and if I do, we’ll see how drunk I get.

Also worth noting
Arianna Huffington: State of the Union 2006: Make Your Party Plans Now
archibaldtuttle on Daily Kos diaries: The State of the Union Drinking Game Party!
And the intriguing but more general HuffPost Presidential Speech Drinking Game!

“P.S. I am not a dictator!”

From today’s Presidential Press Conference:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we’re going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of “unchecked power.”

Q Well —

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We’re talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there’s unchecked power is not listening to what I’m telling you. I’m telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.

This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we’ll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we’re protecting the civil liberties of the United States. To say “unchecked power” basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.

Q What limits do you —

THE PRESIDENT: I just described limits on this particular program, Peter. And that’s what’s important for the American people to understand. I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.

(resisting the urge to correct “The President” to “El Shrubbito”)

John on AMERICAblog summarizes it nicely:

Q: Are there any limits on the power of a president during war time. And if the war on terror will last for decades does that mean we’re going to see a permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive during wartime.

A: I disagree with the phrase unchecked power. blah blah blah. I am not a dictator. [paraphrase]

[THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES JUST HAD TO DENY BEING A DICTATOR]

This reminds me of what my college buddy Mearls used to say “PS I am not a crackpot!”

What goes around comes around…

…and I don’t mean karma.

I was reminded of a wonderful coinage I was witness to on RASFF:

“The Napoleon-Clarke Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”

Trying to find the exact phrasing, discovered it cited on someone’s blog.

This in turn led me to another USENET post, one I missed, pointing out that the original phrase was older.

The point of this? Not much, other than being continually reminded of it by the Bush administration… which clearly manages a sufficiently advanced level of incompetence.

Hey, a minor victory for the good guys…

From: Walgreen’s puts 4 Illinois pharmacists on leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception at AmericaBLOG

I go to the pharmacy for medicine, not spiritual advice. If you’re opposed to the death penalty, don’t apply for a job as an excecutioner. If you’re allergic to animals, don’t become a vet.

Refers back to this boston.com article if you prefer to look directly.

What’s the Average Age Of US Soldiers Who Died In Iraq?

What’s the Average Age Of The 2000+ US Soldiers Who Died In Iraq? 30.

The average age of the soldiers who died in Vietnam was 19. It’s a sobering statistic — you can’t help but think about all those young lives cut short.

Thanks to the end of the draft, the story is quite different — but just as sad — in Iraq. After 2000 deaths (and 15,000 wounded), I added up all their individual ages to find out what the average was. It’s 30.

The whole Iraq war situation is depressing and a national disgrace, but this figure was particularly unwelcome on the week before my 30th birthday. I hope el Shubbito is excoriated in the judgement of history.

The sad thing is, despite the popularity of suggesting total withdrawal, I tend to agree with Kerry’s assessment/malapropism during the 2004 campaign — “you break it, you fix it” — we have to take responsibility for a mess of our own making there, and as such… we are probably (as Bernard predicted on RASSF) going to have to be entangled there for a long time to come. I hope those who support partial withdrawal are right.

And as long as we are there, where are all the people who supported the unelected President when he went to war? They should be signing up. And for those too old to serve, where are the war bond drives, so they can bear the cost in dollars? Chickenhawks, the lot of them.

Deism, and the “Christian Nation Myth”

The Christian Nation Myth

by Farrell Till
Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that in any way restricts the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government, a flood of editorials, articles, and letters protesting the ruling is sure to appear in the newspapers. Many protesters decry these decisions on the grounds that they conflict with the wishes and intents of the “founding fathers.”

Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution.

via Squirrel on DBA. Long, but worth reading. A good response to such nutters as Peroutka’s “Constitution Party,” if nothing else.

“The Republicans’ gift to America”

On AMERICAblog: The Normalization of Treason, the Republicans’ gift to America

If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he’d have been shot.

We’re at war, George Bush keeps reminding us. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason.

Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war? That’s exactly what they’re doing.

Go read the rest, now. How can anyone, even of right-wing values, continue to defend this administration? It will go down those of Nixon and Buchanan as among the worst ever.

(Updated tonight for crap html.)