So, nobody won?

So, nobody won?

I have decided that it din't matter who won the election, I dont think the other side would have done a better job. The effects always filter down the
common folk. For every Dollar givin to one group another Dollar is taken away
from the others.

---

So, nobody won?

Nobody got over 50% of the vote so the top 2 will have a runoff. It's between the Surfer Chick and the Cop. I'm hoping for the cop, but I can't vote since I don't live within the city limits. That sucks because I work in the city!

Too much pork and too little sugar

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
THE NEW YORK TIMES

August 8, 2005

Wow, I am so relieved that Congress has finally agreed on an energy bill. Now that that's out of the way, maybe Congress will focus on solving our energy problem.

Sorry to be so cynical, but an energy bill that doesn't enjoin our auto companies to sharply improve their mileage standards is just not serious. This bill is what the energy expert Gal Luft calls "the sum of all lobbies." While it contains some useful provisions, it also contains massive pork slabs dished out to the vested interests who need them least – like oil companies – and has no overarching strategy to deal with the new world.

And the world has changed in the past few years. First, the global economic playing field is being leveled, and millions of people who were out of the game – from China, India and the former Soviet empire – are now walking onto the field, each dreaming of a house, a car, a toaster and a microwave. As they move from low-energy to high-energy consumers, they are becoming steadily rising competitors with us for oil.

Second, we are in a war. It is a war against open societies mounted by Islamo-fascists, who are nurtured by mosques, charities and madrasas preaching an intolerant brand of Islam and financed by medieval regimes sustained by our oil purchases.

Yes, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: our soldiers and the fascist terrorists. George Bush's failure, on the morning after 9/11, to call on Americans to accept a gasoline tax to curb our oil imports was one of the greatest wasted opportunities in U.S. history. Does the energy bill begin to remedy that? Hardly. It doesn't really touch the auto companies, which have used most of the technological advances of the last two decades to make our cars bigger and faster, rather than more fuel-efficient. Congress even rejected the idea of rating tires for fuel efficiency, which might have encouraged consumers to buy the most fuel-efficient treads. The White House? It blocked an amendment that would have required the president to find ways to cut oil use by 1 million barrels a day by 2015 – on the grounds that it might have required imposing better fuel economy on our carmakers.

We need a strategic approach to energy. We need to redesign work so more people work at home instead of driving in; we need to reconfigure our cars and mass transit; we need a broader definition of what we think of as fuel. And we need a tax policy that both entices, and compels, U.S. firms to be innovative with green energy solutions. This is going to be a huge global industry – as China and India become high-impact consumers – and we should lead it.

Many technologies that could make a difference are already here – from hybrid engines to ethanol. All that is needed is a gasoline tax of $2 a gallon to get consumers and Detroit to change their behavior and adopt them. As Rep. Edward Markey noted, auto fuel economy peaked at 26.5 miles per gallon in 1986, and "we've been going backward every since" – even though we have the technology to change that right now. "This is not rocket science," he rightly noted. "It's auto mechanics." It's also imagination. "During the 1973 Arab oil embargo Brazil was importing almost 80 percent of its fuel supply," notes Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. "Within three decades it cut its dependence by more than half. During that period the Brazilians invested massively in a sugar-based ethanol industry to the degree that about a third of the fuel they use in their vehicles is domestically grown. They also created a fleet that can accommodate this fuel." Half the new cars sold this year in Brazil will run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. "Bringing hydrocarbons and carbohydrates to live happily together in the same fuel tank," he added, "has not only made Brazil close to energy independence, but has also insulated the Brazilian economy from the harming impact of the current spike in oil prices."

The new energy bill includes support for corn-based ethanol, but, bowing to the dictates of the U.S. corn and sugar lobbies (which oppose sugar imports), it ignores Brazilian-style sugar-based ethanol, even though it takes much less energy to make and produces more energy than corn-based ethanol. We are ready to import oil from Saudi Arabia but not sugar from Brazil.

The sum of all lobbies.

It seems as though only a big crisis will force our country to override all the cynical lobbies and change our energy usage. I thought 9/11 was that crisis. It sure was for me, but not, it seems, for this White House, Congress or many Americans. Do we really have to wait for something bigger in order to get smarter?

Just a thought, I wonder how many anti-trolling and anti-flaming replies would be found on a conservative thread, as opposed to a liberal one. Not that I'm stating my political affiliation, just an observation.

---

[font='courier,courier new']Just as many.

But with more nuance.

And at gunpoint.[/font]

---

Message 153163 - Posted 18 Aug 2005 17:41:20 UTC
This post has been filtered (rating: -26) and the user is on your ignore list, press here to view this thread without filtering

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Message 153163 - Posted 18 Aug 2005 17:41:20 UTC
This post has been filtered (rating: -145) and the user is on your ignore list, press here to view this thread without filtering

Claim filed on Cunningham house
U.S. lawsuit seeks forfeiture of property

Randy "Duke" Cunningham's Rancho Santa Fe home was listed for $3.5 million.

rating: -145

[font='courier,courier new']If it weren't for the fact that I have a life outside of cyberspace unlike our exemplary idiot, I'd've enjoyed the entertainment of watching the ratings fall through the floor.[/font]

---

Dept. of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Admin. prove their utter stupidity!
=========================================================================

Tot's name to stay on no-fly list

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Sarah Zapolsky's 1-year-old son had better get used to being looked at as a possible terrorist every time his family gets on a plane.
That's because experts and officials say there's no way the toddler's name will be taken off the federal no-fly list - even after he and another tot made headlines for being stopped as potential terror threats.

"His name is the same or similar to someone on the no-fly list," said Ann Davis, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, explaining that even though a baby is not a threat, someone out there with the same name is, and the name must be kept on the list.

The best Zapolsky and her husband can hope for is a letter that tells airport screeners that the little boy is harmless, and that he's been added to a "cleared" list.

But, it turns out, that, too, will be impossible for the 1-year-old.

Before the federal agency will issue such a letter, the person on the list must fill out and have notarized an application that asks for things like height, weight and three forms of government ID.

"Um, excuse me, but he's growing," said Zapolsky. She also noted her son lacks documents like a military ID, voter's registration or a driver's license.

Davis admitted it will be hard for the boy to get cleared, but said there is still room in the system for common sense if screeners see a passenger is obviously younger than 12. "Ultimately, the air carriers are instructed not to deny boarding to children who are under 12, even if their names are on the no-fly list," she said.

Zapolsky's son has a different - and more common - last name than his mom, which the Daily News is withholding to protect his privacy. The News called dozens of people across the country with the same name and found that of three who flew frequently, all were snagged by the no-fly list.

One federal worker in Nevada said he's on the list even though he's got a federal security clearance. An accountant in Texas said he's encountered an airline that will cancel a flight if he's on it. He gets stopped 90% of the time, even though he's been told his name isn't exactly the same.

"My middle initial is C, and I have a [suffix] of junior and it doesn't even make a difference," the 52-year-old said.

Critics of the system say such a broad name-based net catches too many fish and wastes effort that should be directed at real threats.

"We get at least 50 major inquiries a month, and they are all people on the list for silly reasons," said Tim Sparapani, legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We have a lot of J. Millers that show up, a lot of B. Smiths."

Davis said that a new system under development called Secure Flight would do a better job screening out "false positives" such as Zapolsky's son, making it easier for the family to board planes. But extra personal information will be required before boarding.

"This is guilty until proven innocent," said Zapolsky, who is reluctant to give screeners even more personal information about her son. "If we're not free to travel without giving a blood sample, then we're not free."
===========================================================================

Yeah, look at all the "terrists" they've found. Do you feel safer?

---