Once again, George W. Bush has demonstrated, beyond a doubt, that he is incapable of leading the United States of America. The result is a crushing national shame, and a feeling of bewilderment about how the events following Hurricane Katrina could happen here. A real leader would not have remained on vacation as this huge storm approached the Gulf coast. A real leader would not have gone first to California to make a political speech designed to lift his sagging poll numbers. A real leader would have personally made sure that federal emergency services were ready to go, and not have, apparently, relied on a chorus of yes-men. We need a real leader.
George W. Bush, his Vice President, his Cabinet, and his gang of arrogant, self-serving advisors need to pack up and crawl out of Washington D. C. back to whatever rat hole they crawled out of in the first place. Enough is enough!! The awkward, embarrassing early reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 were the first straw. The outright lies that fed the rush to invasion and occupation of Iraq were another straw. The massive give-aways to the power-elite of this country, the abandonment of public education, the environment, health care, and every other social program, were additional straws. But the inexcusable inaction to this major disaster was the last straw - these "folks" have to go!
I implore every citizen of this country to write letters to the editor, write or call your elected representatives, talk to friends and family - George W. Bush and his "compassionate conservative" team have to resign for the good of this country. Period. End of discussion.
Whatever is on my mind: politics, the news, philosophy, poetry and satire. VISIT MY WEBSITE (click on The Some Times button, below) PRIVACY NOTICE/GDPR: SEE JAN. 4, 2019
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
BICYCLING IN PORTLAND OREGON
There have been numerous news articles and opinion letters in the print media lately about bicycling in Portland. Unfortunately, several bicyclists have been killed this year by motor vehicles, and there is a lot of introspection about the reasons. Are bicyclists reckless? Are motorists too aggressive and uncaring in relation to bicyclists? Is the street system too dangerous for bicyclists to share with motor vehicles?
I've been commuting by bicycle for the past three years - almost daily since May of this year. My commute takes me from a SE Portland neighborhood into the downtown area and back. I ride rain or shine, light or dark. I have developed certain opinions about bicycle commuting in Portland, Oregon.
1. The most dangerous element for bicyclists is other bicyclists. I can't count the number of times I've had close calls or potentially dangerous situations because of other cyclists. The most dangerous type are the speed freaks who don't care about other cyclists. These are the guys (and they are mostly guys) on bikes built for speed, wearing all "the gear" who have to be faster than everyone else. Being fast is not what makes them dangerous - it's not letting other cyclists know that they are passing. There is no ring-ring of a little bell, no "on your left" before they pass - they sneak up behind you and whiz past - on the left or the right - without warning. Woe be unto you if you wobble into their way, or decide to slide over because you know there might be others who want to go faster. I've almost collided with these rudeniks, and I would have probably been thrown out into the traffic whizzing along next to the bike lane.
2. Then there is the death-wish crowd. These are young people who think that the rules of the road don't apply to them. I'd like to tell the guy who sped through the stoplight at NW Couch and NW First the other day that the MAX train runs through that intersection while the light is red, even if he chooses to ignore automobiles. A red octagonal sign on a post with the letters S-T-O-P means stop, and yes, that means bicycles, too. (We all tend to cheat on this one by doing a rolling stop while we look both ways - but I'm talking about the folks who speed right through as if the sign weren't there.) And hand signals - there are, in fact, standard hand signals that let other drivers, including cyclists, know what you intend to do. Pointing to the ground next to your bike with your right hand doesn't tell me anything - although, maybe it's better than no signal at all.
3. A subset of the death-wish crowd is the people in black. They are the ones bicycling down Hawthorne Boulevard at night wearing all black clothing with no lights, no reflectors. They typically don't wear a helmet. They sometimes ride against the traffic. Need I say more?
4. Headphones! I was in front of our house one nice summer day when a young woman went riding by on her bike singing along with the music in her headphones. She waved at me and flashed a big smile as she went past. Then she ran the stop sign at the corner and crashed into the side of a car going through the intersection. Luckily she was OK. Her bike was still usable. The door of the car was bashed in, but the driver was so worried about the young woman, she didn't seem to notice the dent in her car. I ran over to see if everyone was OK. Once I was assured that no one was injured, I strernly admonished the young woman for listening to music while riding her bike, and asked why she wasn't wearing a bike helmet. I basically told her - nicely - that she was an idiot, and a very lucky idiot at that!
5. Motorists. I find that the vast majority of motorists are aware of bicyclists, and very careful and courteous. I thank them for that (I am also a motorist on occassion). One major exception is drivers talkng on their cell phone. Hang it up - please! Lately, however, I've had two drivers yell at me. Both times I was on Hawthorne Boulevard heading east where there is no bike lane. One of them yelled at me to get off the road; the other yelled at me to use the bike route. Well, there are signs along middle-Hawthorne telling motorists that the street has narrow lanes that they need to share with bicyclists. I'm sorry that I'm not as fast as they are, but I have just as much right to use the road as they do. I usually prefer the side-streets that are designated bike paths, but sometimes Hawthorne is a better choice. By the way, each of these two motorists was driving a pickup truck - I wonder if that has any significance?
6. City of Portland infrastructure. Portland has done a good job of identifying bike routes, and providing bike lanes in some heavily used areas, such as lower Hawthorne. I have, however, my list of problem spots. These include pot holes, bad intersections, places that need bike crossings, and one-way grids that leave bicyclists out of luck. I'll communicate this list to the City soon. I recently had a digital conversation with Roger, the City Bicycle Coordinator, about a problem spot on my commuting route; which is a problem for other commuters, also. I had talked to the City about this a couple of years ago, and Roger assured me that it is on the list. Unfortunately, the fix will be about $40,000, and there is no money for it. Shortly after this conversation, the City raised the rate and extended the schedule for parkig meters downtown to raise money for more light rail. Great - but what about other alternative methods of transportation, like the lowly bicycle? Why not designate a small percentage of this lucrative fee increase to improving conditions for bicycle commuters?
7. Last, but not least, my tips for good biking summed up in a word: communication. Communicate with the bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians with whom you share the road or bike path. Make eye contact so you know that they know that you are there - don't assume that a driver sees you. Make noise when about to pass someone - a bike bell or a simple "on your left" will do - then thank them as you pass. When a motorist motions you to go through the intersection before them, wave a thank you at them. Use hand signals to let your intentions be known, and learn the standard signals. A little courteous communication goes a long way.
Keep your wheels rolling, and safe biking!
I've been commuting by bicycle for the past three years - almost daily since May of this year. My commute takes me from a SE Portland neighborhood into the downtown area and back. I ride rain or shine, light or dark. I have developed certain opinions about bicycle commuting in Portland, Oregon.
1. The most dangerous element for bicyclists is other bicyclists. I can't count the number of times I've had close calls or potentially dangerous situations because of other cyclists. The most dangerous type are the speed freaks who don't care about other cyclists. These are the guys (and they are mostly guys) on bikes built for speed, wearing all "the gear" who have to be faster than everyone else. Being fast is not what makes them dangerous - it's not letting other cyclists know that they are passing. There is no ring-ring of a little bell, no "on your left" before they pass - they sneak up behind you and whiz past - on the left or the right - without warning. Woe be unto you if you wobble into their way, or decide to slide over because you know there might be others who want to go faster. I've almost collided with these rudeniks, and I would have probably been thrown out into the traffic whizzing along next to the bike lane.
2. Then there is the death-wish crowd. These are young people who think that the rules of the road don't apply to them. I'd like to tell the guy who sped through the stoplight at NW Couch and NW First the other day that the MAX train runs through that intersection while the light is red, even if he chooses to ignore automobiles. A red octagonal sign on a post with the letters S-T-O-P means stop, and yes, that means bicycles, too. (We all tend to cheat on this one by doing a rolling stop while we look both ways - but I'm talking about the folks who speed right through as if the sign weren't there.) And hand signals - there are, in fact, standard hand signals that let other drivers, including cyclists, know what you intend to do. Pointing to the ground next to your bike with your right hand doesn't tell me anything - although, maybe it's better than no signal at all.
3. A subset of the death-wish crowd is the people in black. They are the ones bicycling down Hawthorne Boulevard at night wearing all black clothing with no lights, no reflectors. They typically don't wear a helmet. They sometimes ride against the traffic. Need I say more?
4. Headphones! I was in front of our house one nice summer day when a young woman went riding by on her bike singing along with the music in her headphones. She waved at me and flashed a big smile as she went past. Then she ran the stop sign at the corner and crashed into the side of a car going through the intersection. Luckily she was OK. Her bike was still usable. The door of the car was bashed in, but the driver was so worried about the young woman, she didn't seem to notice the dent in her car. I ran over to see if everyone was OK. Once I was assured that no one was injured, I strernly admonished the young woman for listening to music while riding her bike, and asked why she wasn't wearing a bike helmet. I basically told her - nicely - that she was an idiot, and a very lucky idiot at that!
5. Motorists. I find that the vast majority of motorists are aware of bicyclists, and very careful and courteous. I thank them for that (I am also a motorist on occassion). One major exception is drivers talkng on their cell phone. Hang it up - please! Lately, however, I've had two drivers yell at me. Both times I was on Hawthorne Boulevard heading east where there is no bike lane. One of them yelled at me to get off the road; the other yelled at me to use the bike route. Well, there are signs along middle-Hawthorne telling motorists that the street has narrow lanes that they need to share with bicyclists. I'm sorry that I'm not as fast as they are, but I have just as much right to use the road as they do. I usually prefer the side-streets that are designated bike paths, but sometimes Hawthorne is a better choice. By the way, each of these two motorists was driving a pickup truck - I wonder if that has any significance?
6. City of Portland infrastructure. Portland has done a good job of identifying bike routes, and providing bike lanes in some heavily used areas, such as lower Hawthorne. I have, however, my list of problem spots. These include pot holes, bad intersections, places that need bike crossings, and one-way grids that leave bicyclists out of luck. I'll communicate this list to the City soon. I recently had a digital conversation with Roger, the City Bicycle Coordinator, about a problem spot on my commuting route; which is a problem for other commuters, also. I had talked to the City about this a couple of years ago, and Roger assured me that it is on the list. Unfortunately, the fix will be about $40,000, and there is no money for it. Shortly after this conversation, the City raised the rate and extended the schedule for parkig meters downtown to raise money for more light rail. Great - but what about other alternative methods of transportation, like the lowly bicycle? Why not designate a small percentage of this lucrative fee increase to improving conditions for bicycle commuters?
7. Last, but not least, my tips for good biking summed up in a word: communication. Communicate with the bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians with whom you share the road or bike path. Make eye contact so you know that they know that you are there - don't assume that a driver sees you. Make noise when about to pass someone - a bike bell or a simple "on your left" will do - then thank them as you pass. When a motorist motions you to go through the intersection before them, wave a thank you at them. Use hand signals to let your intentions be known, and learn the standard signals. A little courteous communication goes a long way.
Keep your wheels rolling, and safe biking!
THE PRICEOF GASOLINE: CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT TO ME?
Really, what is the real, logical reason that gasoline prices are so high? The past few days saw terrible destruction by hurricane Katrina, and the media tells me that gasoline prices will skyrocket even higher now because of the loss of oil production facilities in the Gulf. So, in other words, it's supply and demand, right? The supply is less, so the demand is higher, so the price is higher? Sounds simple, but why? Is the gasoline in the pump today a more expensive product than it was last week? If an oil facility is operating today just the same as it was last week, why is it's product more expensive?
The only thing I can think of is that the companies producing the oil have less to sell, so their sales are down, which means their profits are down. Wow, this must be a big hit - just think, the billions of dollars of profit last year will shrink to fewer billions this year. So we need to pay more for the same product in order to keep the producers profits steady.
Greed. I think that's the answer. Please let me know if I'm wrong - I really want to understand this.
The only thing I can think of is that the companies producing the oil have less to sell, so their sales are down, which means their profits are down. Wow, this must be a big hit - just think, the billions of dollars of profit last year will shrink to fewer billions this year. So we need to pay more for the same product in order to keep the producers profits steady.
Greed. I think that's the answer. Please let me know if I'm wrong - I really want to understand this.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
The Cost of Utilities
Some recent news stories and opinion pieces in The Oregonian and Portland Tribune have examined the cost of the City’s Big Pipe project (to intercept combined sewer overflows before they discharge to local rivers), and have alluded to the high cost to consumers for sewage collection and treatment. Being a consumer of utility services in Portland, I decided to look at the comparative costs of the several services we use as homeowners.
I compared the cost per day for utilities based on recent bills representing spring use; obviously, some of these costs are higher or lower depending on time of year. I did not include taxes in these numbers, only the costs for the services or products, and associated service or basic fees. We are a two-person family living in urban SE Portland.
Water, sewer and stormwater are billed together by the City of Portland. Our recent bill included: water at 34¢ per day; sewer at 94¢ per day; stormwater at 44¢ per day; and base charge at 20¢ per day for a total of $1.92 per day. I assume that these utilities are not subsidized by taxes I pay to the City of Portland; however, this may not be a valid assumption, in which case the consumer cost might be higher.
Garbage, recycling and yard debris pickup combined cost 63¢ per day.
Electricity cost includes: basic charge of 33¢ day; energy usage at 95¢ per day; transmission charge of 5¢ per day; and distribution charge of 35¢ per day for a total of $1.68 per day.
Finally, natural gas charges include a service charge of 20¢ per day, and gas usage at $1.15 per day for a total of $1.35 per day.
Our payment to the City of Portland is the largest of our utility bills at $1.92 per day. However, the payment to the City is for three different services, so if we parse those out, the result is: electricity is the highest cost, followed by natural gas, sewer, garbage services, stormwater and water. The cost of handling and treating water after we use it (sewage) is almost three times what the consumer pays for the water, and we have repeatedly been told that the sewage costs will continue to increase dramatically in order to pay for the Big Pipe project. I understand the importance of the Big Pipe project, but I would like to see information that assures me that the City has implemented measures to reduce overall costs of sewage collection and treatment through increased efficiencies and value engineering in order to hold consumer costs down to the extent possible.
As consumers, we all assume that as long as we pay our bills, electricity, gas and water will flow when we turn them on, and that our wastes will be taken care of by someone else when we put out the garbage can or flush the toilet. Most of us probably don’t think too much about what these utilities cost, and we certainly don’t consider the true cost of these services and materials in terms of the ecological and social costs of their production, collection, transmission, use and disposal.
I compared the cost per day for utilities based on recent bills representing spring use; obviously, some of these costs are higher or lower depending on time of year. I did not include taxes in these numbers, only the costs for the services or products, and associated service or basic fees. We are a two-person family living in urban SE Portland.
Water, sewer and stormwater are billed together by the City of Portland. Our recent bill included: water at 34¢ per day; sewer at 94¢ per day; stormwater at 44¢ per day; and base charge at 20¢ per day for a total of $1.92 per day. I assume that these utilities are not subsidized by taxes I pay to the City of Portland; however, this may not be a valid assumption, in which case the consumer cost might be higher.
Garbage, recycling and yard debris pickup combined cost 63¢ per day.
Electricity cost includes: basic charge of 33¢ day; energy usage at 95¢ per day; transmission charge of 5¢ per day; and distribution charge of 35¢ per day for a total of $1.68 per day.
Finally, natural gas charges include a service charge of 20¢ per day, and gas usage at $1.15 per day for a total of $1.35 per day.
Our payment to the City of Portland is the largest of our utility bills at $1.92 per day. However, the payment to the City is for three different services, so if we parse those out, the result is: electricity is the highest cost, followed by natural gas, sewer, garbage services, stormwater and water. The cost of handling and treating water after we use it (sewage) is almost three times what the consumer pays for the water, and we have repeatedly been told that the sewage costs will continue to increase dramatically in order to pay for the Big Pipe project. I understand the importance of the Big Pipe project, but I would like to see information that assures me that the City has implemented measures to reduce overall costs of sewage collection and treatment through increased efficiencies and value engineering in order to hold consumer costs down to the extent possible.
As consumers, we all assume that as long as we pay our bills, electricity, gas and water will flow when we turn them on, and that our wastes will be taken care of by someone else when we put out the garbage can or flush the toilet. Most of us probably don’t think too much about what these utilities cost, and we certainly don’t consider the true cost of these services and materials in terms of the ecological and social costs of their production, collection, transmission, use and disposal.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
NOW IS IT TIME FOR THE REVOLUTION?
Read My Opinion
If ever there was a time for revolution in the United States of America, this is it. Revolution, according to the web definiton, is "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving." Some might say that the Bush ascendency has been a revolution - but I would argue that Bushism is a devolution, a move backwards into authoritarianism and unbridled greed by a privileged few who exert unprecedented control over the political far-right.
The revolution I envision is a great step up - a step towards real freedom and justice, not the cynical "spreading of freedom" promoted by the Bushies like snake oil salesmen at a carnival. Let's face facts - the United States of America is the greatest power on earth, but not for long. Our power at this point in history is based more and more on our military might. We get our way in the world because everyone else knows that we can blow them off the map if they don't act the way we want. Or that we'll sell bigger and better war tools to their neighbors or sworn enemies.
But ruling by military might is, if history teaches us anything, a short-lived dominance. The United States of America is a post-developed nation - we're on the downhill side of the top, and the future looks brighter for China and India.
The Bushies have squandered the things that make America great: the creativity of our people; the general affluency and compassion of our citizenry that can translate into good will around the world; our messy brand of democracy that allows for free speech, dissent, and the demanding of basic human rights. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, America and Americans were in a position to lead the world towards a new enlightenment. We had unprecedented support around the world, and an unprecented opportunity to show true global leadership.
The Bush administration didn't respond to this opportunity, it reacted in the most cynical way possible, and this once in a lifetime opportunity was lost. Now, almost four years later, the United States of America is a dirty word around the world, a symbol of oppression and repression, both abroad and at home. Bush Fascism has gained a stranglehold on U.S. citizens and the world, and this once great country has sunk into a pool of darkness from which I fear it may never escape.
So - the time for revolution is here. Now is the time to turn moral outrage into action. In the 1960's and 1970's hundreds of thousands of people in this country took to the streets to express their displeasure over civil rights abuses, and an increasingly unpopular and damaging war. The administrations of those times had no choice but to listen and act, and the directions of history were changed. What's different now? Have we become too complacent? Too fearful? Too bought-off by unprecedented luxuries that we don't want to lose? I fear for a citizenry that allows itself to be ruled by the likes of G. W. Bush and the cronies who surround him.
Finally, we need a leader for this revolution. We need someone who, unlike Al Gore and John Kerry, stands up and speaks the truth without first looking at how his or her words will do in the polls. We need a leader who has a world view and a vision for the future that sees the United States as a truly great world power based on our opportunity to nudge the world towards greatness, not rule it with an iron fist.
I'm more than ready for the revolution; are you?
If ever there was a time for revolution in the United States of America, this is it. Revolution, according to the web definiton, is "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving." Some might say that the Bush ascendency has been a revolution - but I would argue that Bushism is a devolution, a move backwards into authoritarianism and unbridled greed by a privileged few who exert unprecedented control over the political far-right.
The revolution I envision is a great step up - a step towards real freedom and justice, not the cynical "spreading of freedom" promoted by the Bushies like snake oil salesmen at a carnival. Let's face facts - the United States of America is the greatest power on earth, but not for long. Our power at this point in history is based more and more on our military might. We get our way in the world because everyone else knows that we can blow them off the map if they don't act the way we want. Or that we'll sell bigger and better war tools to their neighbors or sworn enemies.
But ruling by military might is, if history teaches us anything, a short-lived dominance. The United States of America is a post-developed nation - we're on the downhill side of the top, and the future looks brighter for China and India.
The Bushies have squandered the things that make America great: the creativity of our people; the general affluency and compassion of our citizenry that can translate into good will around the world; our messy brand of democracy that allows for free speech, dissent, and the demanding of basic human rights. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, America and Americans were in a position to lead the world towards a new enlightenment. We had unprecedented support around the world, and an unprecented opportunity to show true global leadership.
The Bush administration didn't respond to this opportunity, it reacted in the most cynical way possible, and this once in a lifetime opportunity was lost. Now, almost four years later, the United States of America is a dirty word around the world, a symbol of oppression and repression, both abroad and at home. Bush Fascism has gained a stranglehold on U.S. citizens and the world, and this once great country has sunk into a pool of darkness from which I fear it may never escape.
So - the time for revolution is here. Now is the time to turn moral outrage into action. In the 1960's and 1970's hundreds of thousands of people in this country took to the streets to express their displeasure over civil rights abuses, and an increasingly unpopular and damaging war. The administrations of those times had no choice but to listen and act, and the directions of history were changed. What's different now? Have we become too complacent? Too fearful? Too bought-off by unprecedented luxuries that we don't want to lose? I fear for a citizenry that allows itself to be ruled by the likes of G. W. Bush and the cronies who surround him.
Finally, we need a leader for this revolution. We need someone who, unlike Al Gore and John Kerry, stands up and speaks the truth without first looking at how his or her words will do in the polls. We need a leader who has a world view and a vision for the future that sees the United States as a truly great world power based on our opportunity to nudge the world towards greatness, not rule it with an iron fist.
I'm more than ready for the revolution; are you?
Friday, June 03, 2005
BLOGGERS BLOCK?
Read My Opinion
It's hard to believe that I haven't written here since late January. It's even harder to believe that it's early June, and the year is half over. As a not-so-dedicated blogger, I think about writting here every day, but the demands of life keep me away.
Most of my few posts to date have been about politics - that's because everything is political, and it's difficult to escape these realities. An occasional vacation, to a different country, takes us away from the daily news, and this is a burden lifted. Why am I so focused on the news, the politics, the path of the world? Maybe I should just chuck it all and live life for the pleasures it offers...but that's not me.
And so, here I am, at the keyboard, posting to the blog site again. Every conversation I have with family or friends drifts to the same theme - the problems of the world. As a progresive, I rail against the politics of the day, and what I consider to be tremendous damage done to the image and status of the United States by the Bushies and their ilk. But as a pragmatist, and one who tries to understand history, I know that this is a blip in time that will soon be a section in the history books. I do think that the United States is on the downhill side of empire, with China and India climbing the ascending face. Our national response to this decline is to rattle more and larger swords in the faces of the world, and try to maintain our position with sheer force. But history tells us that every great empire declines, that military might can be sustained for only so long before the ignored needs of society cause the whole deck of cards to tumble. We're number one for now - but not for long.
And so, dear readers (of whom I suspect there are none but myself) I'll continue to write, if for no other reason than to keep a journal open to the world.
My best to you....Paul
It's hard to believe that I haven't written here since late January. It's even harder to believe that it's early June, and the year is half over. As a not-so-dedicated blogger, I think about writting here every day, but the demands of life keep me away.
Most of my few posts to date have been about politics - that's because everything is political, and it's difficult to escape these realities. An occasional vacation, to a different country, takes us away from the daily news, and this is a burden lifted. Why am I so focused on the news, the politics, the path of the world? Maybe I should just chuck it all and live life for the pleasures it offers...but that's not me.
And so, here I am, at the keyboard, posting to the blog site again. Every conversation I have with family or friends drifts to the same theme - the problems of the world. As a progresive, I rail against the politics of the day, and what I consider to be tremendous damage done to the image and status of the United States by the Bushies and their ilk. But as a pragmatist, and one who tries to understand history, I know that this is a blip in time that will soon be a section in the history books. I do think that the United States is on the downhill side of empire, with China and India climbing the ascending face. Our national response to this decline is to rattle more and larger swords in the faces of the world, and try to maintain our position with sheer force. But history tells us that every great empire declines, that military might can be sustained for only so long before the ignored needs of society cause the whole deck of cards to tumble. We're number one for now - but not for long.
And so, dear readers (of whom I suspect there are none but myself) I'll continue to write, if for no other reason than to keep a journal open to the world.
My best to you....Paul
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
THE FRANKENSTEIN GAMBIT - BUSH DEFINES NEW IRAQ MISSION
It took only about 2 minutes of watching the presidents news conference today to get me going on a rant. Asked about the new $80 billion request for the war and the troop strength in Iraq, the president said (and this is pretty close to a quote): Our mission in Iraq is to protect the Iraqi people from terrorists.
Say what!!!
I thought our mission in Iraq was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction; or was it to oust Saddam Hussein; or was it to liberate the Iraqi people; or was it to spread freedom in the Middle East and the world. The Iraqi people didn't need protection from terrorists until Bush and Company invaded them and attracted all the terrorists to this new training camp for terrorism.
In the original Frankenstein story, the misguided scientist creates and nurtures a monster. But things go wrong, and the monster turns out to be really bad. So Doc Frankenstein rallies the townspeople to hunt down and kill this terrible monster who is terrifying the region, and in the process, the good people forget that the Doc created the monster in the first place.
Hmmmmm......
It took only about 2 minutes of watching the presidents news conference today to get me going on a rant. Asked about the new $80 billion request for the war and the troop strength in Iraq, the president said (and this is pretty close to a quote): Our mission in Iraq is to protect the Iraqi people from terrorists.
Say what!!!
I thought our mission in Iraq was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction; or was it to oust Saddam Hussein; or was it to liberate the Iraqi people; or was it to spread freedom in the Middle East and the world. The Iraqi people didn't need protection from terrorists until Bush and Company invaded them and attracted all the terrorists to this new training camp for terrorism.
In the original Frankenstein story, the misguided scientist creates and nurtures a monster. But things go wrong, and the monster turns out to be really bad. So Doc Frankenstein rallies the townspeople to hunt down and kill this terrible monster who is terrifying the region, and in the process, the good people forget that the Doc created the monster in the first place.
Hmmmmm......
Friday, December 10, 2004
A Break from Politics
My several posts to date as a blogger have been political rants (or ravings?). But there's more to life than that. Sure, it's not easy to avoid the news, which tends to focus on the bad things in the world, But there are a lot of things to enjoy and savor in life - the love of my life, our grandkids, the smell and feel of a warm and wet "Pineapple Express" weather pattern blowing into Portland, the nice smiles and warm greetings of people I don't know but pass on the boulevard, a new book of poetry, thinking about paddling my kayak on a winter river, the warm cozyness of a quiet evening by the fireplace (gas).
Enjoy life, you only get one trip aroundthe track.
Enjoy life, you only get one trip aroundthe track.
Automobiles, Part 1
I've been thinking a lot about the relationships between automobiles and oil and politics.
Let's start with a fact: we own a 1993 Toyota Camry XLE with a V6 engine. Our fuel economy has been consistent over the years at about 25 - 28 mpg (highway driving at the upper end of that range). We've been thinking about getting a newer car - not that the Camry has problems, but it's the urge for something newer. So we've looked around a bit, and, of course, have considered getting a hybrid.
Our thinking in regards to a hybrid vehicle is political and environmental: let's use as little fuel (i.e. foreign oil), and pollute as little as possible. We can afford to buy gasoline, so that's not really the issue. So, being the kind-of compulsive guy I am, I've been doing some research.
Basically, what I've found is that the fuel economy of automobiles has generally not improved since 1993; in fact, in many cases, it's gotten worse. I know that the American, Japanese, German and other automotive engineers are smart people, and they can certainly design automobiles that use less fuel than the 1957 Chevy I owned when I was younger. So the reason fuel economy hasn't improved much has to be political. (There are probably also limits with internal combution engines based on the science of physics and thermodynamics.)
Let's look at some more facts. I visited a government web site (www.fueleconomy.gov) to look at fuel economy numbers. You should try this yourself, if you really want to be amazed and depressed. (I understand that the listings may not be the same numbers that you or I get from our vehicles, but the relative values are instructive.) The following numbers are for various makes and models (model year indicated), automatic transmission.
Passenger cars (sedans):
Our 1993 Toyota Camry 6 cylinder: 18mpg city/ 24 mpg highway
2004 Toyota Camry 6 cyl.: 21/29
2004 Buick Century 20/30
2004 Cadillac Seville 18/26
2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser 21/26
2004 Ford Taurus 20/27
2004 Chevy Corvette (why not?) 18/25
Trucks and SUVs
2004 Chevy Silverado 2WD 17/20
2004 Suburban 14/18
2004 Hummer H1 16
2004 Hummer H2 9.6
2004 Cadillac Escalade 4WD 13/17
2004 Ford Expidition 14/18
2004 Ford Explorer 15/20
2004 Toyota Tundra 16/19
2004 Toyota Sienna 18/24
2004 Toyota Highlander 21/25
2004 Lexus LX 470 13/17
2004 Land Rover Discovery 12/16
OK, so how about those hybrids?
Interestingly, there are a lot of hybrids coming out in 2005; many of the car companies are introducing these in various product lines.
GM, for example, has some full-size pickup trucks ready for 2005. The Siverado Hybrid is rated at 18mpg city and 20mpg highway. This is interesting, because the non-hybrid for 2004 is listed at 17 and 20. Maybe there is an error?
Ford has a hybrid version of its small SUV, the Escape, on the market for 2005. Let's compare:
2004 Escape 4WD 18/23
2005 Escape Hybrid 4WD 33/29
And then there are the two hybrids that have been on the market for a few years:
2004 Honda Civic hybrid 49/48
2004 Honda Civic (non-hybrid) 29/38
2004 Toyota Prius 60/51
So, what does this all mean? Well, for one, there are some vehicles on the market that get greatly improved fuel economy. But more importantly, I think, fuel economy on regular vehicles has not improved much over the past decade or more. What's more, the larger vehicles, trucks and SUVs, including the "designer" SUVs, get terrible fuel economy.
So, wouldn't you think that as Americans we would tend to buy more vehicles that get better fuel economy? I mean, after all, we don't want to rely on the Arab states, or others, for our oil. We want to protect the environment and the health of our children, right? Well, apparently not.
Just watch television for awhile, and you'll see car and truck and SUV ads that all have the same message - freedom of the road, very fast, high performance machines, machines that can climb mountains, trash deserts and swamps, get all muddy and macho, machines that attract women (or men), maqchines that do spinning ballet in the rain - anything and everything except use less fuel and protect the environment! When was the last time you saw a car or truck ad on TV where the vehicle was in city traffic, the most realistic situation? When was the last time you saw an automobile ad on TV that focused on, or even mentioned, fuel economy and environmental protection? When was the last time you saw an ad on television for a hybrid vehicle? When was the first time? Probaly never.
Where I've seen ads for hybrid cars is in magazines targeting liberal readers: Mother Jones, Atlantic Monthly, etc.
So, take home message: Americans have lots of different cars and trucks and SUVs to choose from, and more every year, but there has been little progress in fuel economy. You can drive a hybrid, if you want to get on a waiting list and pay an inflated price.
How about the politics behind all of this? That will be in a future posting: Automobiles, Part 2.
Let's start with a fact: we own a 1993 Toyota Camry XLE with a V6 engine. Our fuel economy has been consistent over the years at about 25 - 28 mpg (highway driving at the upper end of that range). We've been thinking about getting a newer car - not that the Camry has problems, but it's the urge for something newer. So we've looked around a bit, and, of course, have considered getting a hybrid.
Our thinking in regards to a hybrid vehicle is political and environmental: let's use as little fuel (i.e. foreign oil), and pollute as little as possible. We can afford to buy gasoline, so that's not really the issue. So, being the kind-of compulsive guy I am, I've been doing some research.
Basically, what I've found is that the fuel economy of automobiles has generally not improved since 1993; in fact, in many cases, it's gotten worse. I know that the American, Japanese, German and other automotive engineers are smart people, and they can certainly design automobiles that use less fuel than the 1957 Chevy I owned when I was younger. So the reason fuel economy hasn't improved much has to be political. (There are probably also limits with internal combution engines based on the science of physics and thermodynamics.)
Let's look at some more facts. I visited a government web site (www.fueleconomy.gov) to look at fuel economy numbers. You should try this yourself, if you really want to be amazed and depressed. (I understand that the listings may not be the same numbers that you or I get from our vehicles, but the relative values are instructive.) The following numbers are for various makes and models (model year indicated), automatic transmission.
Passenger cars (sedans):
Our 1993 Toyota Camry 6 cylinder: 18mpg city/ 24 mpg highway
2004 Toyota Camry 6 cyl.: 21/29
2004 Buick Century 20/30
2004 Cadillac Seville 18/26
2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser 21/26
2004 Ford Taurus 20/27
2004 Chevy Corvette (why not?) 18/25
Trucks and SUVs
2004 Chevy Silverado 2WD 17/20
2004 Suburban 14/18
2004 Hummer H1 16
2004 Hummer H2 9.6
2004 Cadillac Escalade 4WD 13/17
2004 Ford Expidition 14/18
2004 Ford Explorer 15/20
2004 Toyota Tundra 16/19
2004 Toyota Sienna 18/24
2004 Toyota Highlander 21/25
2004 Lexus LX 470 13/17
2004 Land Rover Discovery 12/16
OK, so how about those hybrids?
Interestingly, there are a lot of hybrids coming out in 2005; many of the car companies are introducing these in various product lines.
GM, for example, has some full-size pickup trucks ready for 2005. The Siverado Hybrid is rated at 18mpg city and 20mpg highway. This is interesting, because the non-hybrid for 2004 is listed at 17 and 20. Maybe there is an error?
Ford has a hybrid version of its small SUV, the Escape, on the market for 2005. Let's compare:
2004 Escape 4WD 18/23
2005 Escape Hybrid 4WD 33/29
And then there are the two hybrids that have been on the market for a few years:
2004 Honda Civic hybrid 49/48
2004 Honda Civic (non-hybrid) 29/38
2004 Toyota Prius 60/51
So, what does this all mean? Well, for one, there are some vehicles on the market that get greatly improved fuel economy. But more importantly, I think, fuel economy on regular vehicles has not improved much over the past decade or more. What's more, the larger vehicles, trucks and SUVs, including the "designer" SUVs, get terrible fuel economy.
So, wouldn't you think that as Americans we would tend to buy more vehicles that get better fuel economy? I mean, after all, we don't want to rely on the Arab states, or others, for our oil. We want to protect the environment and the health of our children, right? Well, apparently not.
Just watch television for awhile, and you'll see car and truck and SUV ads that all have the same message - freedom of the road, very fast, high performance machines, machines that can climb mountains, trash deserts and swamps, get all muddy and macho, machines that attract women (or men), maqchines that do spinning ballet in the rain - anything and everything except use less fuel and protect the environment! When was the last time you saw a car or truck ad on TV where the vehicle was in city traffic, the most realistic situation? When was the last time you saw an automobile ad on TV that focused on, or even mentioned, fuel economy and environmental protection? When was the last time you saw an ad on television for a hybrid vehicle? When was the first time? Probaly never.
Where I've seen ads for hybrid cars is in magazines targeting liberal readers: Mother Jones, Atlantic Monthly, etc.
So, take home message: Americans have lots of different cars and trucks and SUVs to choose from, and more every year, but there has been little progress in fuel economy. You can drive a hybrid, if you want to get on a waiting list and pay an inflated price.
How about the politics behind all of this? That will be in a future posting: Automobiles, Part 2.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
This Kerry Voter Won't Get Over It!
As a result of being 60 years old, I've voted in many national elections. There have been times when the candidate of my choice didn't win, and I accepted the result, justifying it by thinking about winning the next time.
But this one is different. I don't think I've ever felt so unaccepting of an election result as I do now, ten days after. "Oh, we need to understand the other side, the Heartland," some say. "We need to appeal to different moral values," "we need to use the same tactics the BushRovians used." Bullshit, says I.
This election is different because there has been a revolution, and the left side of the voting public (anywhere left of moderate right) lost. The extreme, evangelical, neo-facist right has waged and won a political and social revolution in the United States of America. And the rest of us (almost one half - perhaps more) need to fight back.
This will not be business or politics as usual. This evil "group of folks" is going to go all out now to complete their ruination of this country as we've known it, and the real values that make us who we are. They will solidify their power in ways that will be difficult, but not impossible, to overcome.
So, my friends, don't wallow in pity, don't move to New Zealand, and most of all, don't give up. We need to be in their faces at all times, resisting, prodding the elected people on our side to stiffen their backbones and fight back.
And we need to organize. But we need to organize around a different strategy; electing a Democrat isn't the answer anymore. We need a quantitative change of direction in America, based on an examination of who we are and who we want to be in a global sense. We need to re-create a nation of, by and for the people, not one run for the exclusive benefit of multinational corporations and very wealthy individuals (this is a generalization, but you know what I mean).
So don't give up, that's the easy way out. Democracy - real democracy - is something we have to live, work and die for.
(written on November 13, 2004)
But this one is different. I don't think I've ever felt so unaccepting of an election result as I do now, ten days after. "Oh, we need to understand the other side, the Heartland," some say. "We need to appeal to different moral values," "we need to use the same tactics the BushRovians used." Bullshit, says I.
This election is different because there has been a revolution, and the left side of the voting public (anywhere left of moderate right) lost. The extreme, evangelical, neo-facist right has waged and won a political and social revolution in the United States of America. And the rest of us (almost one half - perhaps more) need to fight back.
This will not be business or politics as usual. This evil "group of folks" is going to go all out now to complete their ruination of this country as we've known it, and the real values that make us who we are. They will solidify their power in ways that will be difficult, but not impossible, to overcome.
So, my friends, don't wallow in pity, don't move to New Zealand, and most of all, don't give up. We need to be in their faces at all times, resisting, prodding the elected people on our side to stiffen their backbones and fight back.
And we need to organize. But we need to organize around a different strategy; electing a Democrat isn't the answer anymore. We need a quantitative change of direction in America, based on an examination of who we are and who we want to be in a global sense. We need to re-create a nation of, by and for the people, not one run for the exclusive benefit of multinational corporations and very wealthy individuals (this is a generalization, but you know what I mean).
So don't give up, that's the easy way out. Democracy - real democracy - is something we have to live, work and die for.
(written on November 13, 2004)
Saturday, November 06, 2004
How about some introspection by US?
All of my friends and relatives are tired of me saying this, but I'll say it again anyway, because it's even more important now.
In the weeks after September 11, 2001, I complained to everyone who would listen that we, the people of the US, missed a huge window of opportunity. In addition to responding to the attacks with strength and resolve, we should have started a national dialogue about who we are in the world. What do we do and what is our impact on the world - the good, the bad, and the ugly (thanks Clint). For what reasons are we looked up to? For what reasons are we hated? What affect does our affluence have on other people in the world? What affect does our education and technology have?
A national dialogue such as this needs to to be facilitated by a national leader. Unfortunately, we did not have that kind of leader in 2001, and we won't for the next four years either. So how do we start this dialogue? How do we involve the largest number and cross-section of citizens? Who will facilitate this discussion, and what actions can come out of it?
Great questions. I'll be thinking about how to answer them.
In the months after September 11, 2001 we had unprecedented sympathy and support from people throughout the world, and yet this incredible goodwill was squandered. Now the world will be watching with apprehension as the Bush administration launches its next four years. The half of our citizens who voted for Kerry need to find a voice and let the people of the world know that we, too, will be watching with apprehension - but - we also need to let them know that we will be fighting back in thoughtful and meaningful ways.
So let the talking continue....
In the weeks after September 11, 2001, I complained to everyone who would listen that we, the people of the US, missed a huge window of opportunity. In addition to responding to the attacks with strength and resolve, we should have started a national dialogue about who we are in the world. What do we do and what is our impact on the world - the good, the bad, and the ugly (thanks Clint). For what reasons are we looked up to? For what reasons are we hated? What affect does our affluence have on other people in the world? What affect does our education and technology have?
A national dialogue such as this needs to to be facilitated by a national leader. Unfortunately, we did not have that kind of leader in 2001, and we won't for the next four years either. So how do we start this dialogue? How do we involve the largest number and cross-section of citizens? Who will facilitate this discussion, and what actions can come out of it?
Great questions. I'll be thinking about how to answer them.
In the months after September 11, 2001 we had unprecedented sympathy and support from people throughout the world, and yet this incredible goodwill was squandered. Now the world will be watching with apprehension as the Bush administration launches its next four years. The half of our citizens who voted for Kerry need to find a voice and let the people of the world know that we, too, will be watching with apprehension - but - we also need to let them know that we will be fighting back in thoughtful and meaningful ways.
So let the talking continue....
Friday, November 05, 2004
THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA IN WHICH I GREW UP
(Note: This was written on September 29, 2004)
I am writing this essay based on an overwhelming sense of frustration and helplessness concerning the direction my country has taken in the past four years under the direction of the administration of President George W. Bush, and the seeming lack of understanding by a large number of my fellow citizens of the dangerous changes brought about by this President.
I am writing this essay based on an overwhelming sense of frustration and helplessness concerning the direction my country has taken in the past four years under the direction of the administration of President George W. Bush, and the seeming lack of understanding by a large number of my fellow citizens of the dangerous changes brought about by this President.
I am an avid reader/listener/watcher of the printed, radio and television news. What I perceive to be the reality of the world today is not the same reality presented daily by the Bush administration. The Bush spin on reality is amazing in its total opposition to the reality presented by the news media (of all sides). One example is the day I bought a newspaper in the Rome, Italy airport on the front page of which every headline and article was about terrorist and genocidal acts: in Israel, Iraq, Sudan, Europe and elsewhere. And yet, when I listened to a summary of the Republican national convention the next day, I learned that we now live in a safer world than before the Bush administration came to power. Do the American people understand the difference between reality and “spin?”
Are we better off today than we were four years ago, in terms of domestic issues? The Bush folks tell us that we are, and yet I see a very different reality. I see an economy that is faltering; jobs, especially good, well-paying ones, disappearing faster than ice cream and cake at a kids birthday party; health care and medicines becoming more expensive and out of reach for more people (while the drug and insurance companies make out like bandits); public education falling apart because of falling levels of funding; and crime on the rise. Life for all but the wealthiest Americans has become more difficult and worrisome no matter what domestic indicator is used.
Are we safer today that we were four years ago? On the international front, terrorism is stronger than ever, even according to the State Department. The Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq has created a magnet for terrorists, and a fertile training ground for killing and terrorizing Americans and those who dare collaborate with them. Bush has changed Iraq into a country where terrorism (non-governmental) has changed from a minor occurrence, at best, into a major industry with far-reaching implications world-wide. North Korea and Iran have accelerated their development of nuclear weapons during the past four years, with some tough talk but nothing more from the Bush administration. And Bush has turned unequaled sympathy and support for the United States by people all over the world into fear and loathing in the three years since September 11, 2001. We are increasingly alone in the world, with only our historically unprecedented military might to comfort us. I don’t consider this a safer condition than before.
On the domestic front, we are certainly more aware of the threat of terrorism, and faced more and more with inspections, screenings, body and property searches and other intrusions into our normal routines. Bush Cabinet members tell us that we are “traitors” or supporters of terrorism if we don’t agree with the administration about invading Iraq, and the over-zealous, far-right John Ashcroft and others of his ilk have eroded many of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. Are we safer today? In Portland, Oregon, the police don’t bother arresting known criminals (drug dealers, burglars, etc.) because they know that these “perps” will be out on the streets again within hours as a result of no jail space. We have a brand new jail facility in Portland that sits empty because the County has no money to run it.
“A safer world; a more hopeful America” was the theme of the Republican convention in New York City. The Bush team has made the world a lot less safe, and I don’t know any Americans who feel more hopeful about the future. If we strip away the spin, what’s left is “a more dangerous world, a shakier future for America.” Bush has instituted some very far-reaching foreign and domestic policies that do not bode well for the future of the world. His doctrine of pre-emptive attack is an arrogant and dangerous turn towards global instability. Imagine, if you can, what our reaction would be if China declared the unilateral right to attack any country it considered to be a threat, including the USA. Bush has pushed for development and testing of a new breed of nuclear weapons; never mind that the nations of the world have been moving steadily towards nuclear dis-armament. Bush’s actions prohibiting support for birth control in other countries, and his meager spending of the promised funding for AIDs relief have doomed millions of people in the world to continued poverty and disease. Bush’s record on the environment has set America’s progress on this front back decades, with magnified reverberations world-wide. And Bush’s touted War on Terror is, in his own mangled words, a successful catastrophe.
The United States of America under George W. Bush is rapidly becoming a fascist country. This sounds extreme, but the signs are all there: ultra-nationalism, increasing reliance on military and security forces to control the citizenry, state-supported consolidation of wealth in the pockets of a small percentage of the population, military aggression against other countries, labeling liberals and progressives as “traitors,” and scapegoating of minorities (gays and lesbians). Fascist Amerika will certainly not be a safer and more hopeful America!
Why do so many of my fellow citizens support George W. Bush and his arrogant group? In my lifetime there have always been differences between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, haves and have-nots. But this time is different. The gap between us is a growing chasm that soon will have no possible bridge. We seem to be in a growing cultural civil war that may not have a pleasant reconciliation.
The bottom line is: this is not the America in which I grew up; these are not the values that I so strongly support as American values; the strengths and goodness that are America are being squandered by a group of selfish, radical and arrogant people, with disastrous impacts on the future. I can only hope that the people of America understand what is happening, and vote the fascists out of office before it’s too late.A New Old Blogster
Welcome to my blog! I've been composing editorial in my head for quite some time - perhaps since the Bush, Jr. team took office - and wished that I could publish all of these things that cllutter my brain. Well, thanks to blogger, I now have my very own blog site. I hope to write often, and maybe, if anyone actually visits, have some conversations.
so let the blogging begin...
best.....BFish
so let the blogging begin...
best.....BFish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)