I am not an environmentalist. Sure, I recycle, but that's only because the garbage bin isn't big enough for all my trash. It's not that I hate the environment, on the contrary, I do what makes sense and isn't overly inconvenient. In general, if I don't have to go out of my way, I recycle. I tell others (particularly the environmental wackos) that I want to chop down all the trees and pave the earth for the reaction I get when they go postal and scream at the top of their lungs about how I'm a horrible person. It's childish and immature, but if you know me, that's par for the course.
I say this because it's important to understand that despite it, I would love to own an electric car. Think about it. Come home, car is on empty, plug it in and miraculously the next day, it's full! On the direct side of it, a savings of five to ten minutes a couple of times a week. This is also not to mention the loss of the oil company's whim at how much it wants to charge on any given day for gas.
What a great idea! So, I look into it a little and find an article entitled, "6 Electric Cars You Can Buy Right Now." How exciting! Six I can buy RIGHT NOW! and this is from 2 years ago, who knows what else it out there. So I read the article...
WTF?
First of all, I'm not a vegan or homosexual, but driving around in one of these things will change that instantly. Second, the furthest I can go on one charge of the best of these six options is 55 miles ... which will get me to work but not home. Third, any crash sustained will instantly render the user as dead. These things make the Smart Car look like a tank.
Hopefully, electric car technology has changed a lot in the last two years, because unless I want to look like a homosexual vegan who lives at work and is one fender bender away from death, I'm not buying any of these.
No luck. The two biggest options apparently, are the Chevy Volt, which looks a bit better but still only goes 40 miles using pure electricity, and the Nissan option, which is called the "Leaf." Why not "Rose Petal," or "Daisy?" or "Queen?"
And let's be honest ... are these really zero (or thereabouts) emissions vehicles? Where does the electricity they use come from? Most likely a nuclear or coal plant. Perhaps a more fitting name for this would be the Nissan Black Lung or how about the Chevy Mutation? and on another note, what happens to the batteries of these cars when they won't hold a charge anymore? Do they magically evaporate? Perhaps they go to the same magical place where the power is supposedly generated.
I understand the arguments that there isn't money in building these sorts of vehicles because big oil is keeping them on the backburner, but has it been considered that maybe we're just not technologically advanced enough yet to bring this technology to practical use? Electric vehicles will have their time, and if I'm still alive and it's a viable option, I'll buy one. But until then, buying an electric car is going way too far out of the way (gender mis-identity, unsafe, expensive, and impractical for normal use) for a product that is sub-standard based on the industry norm. Make it a bit more convenient and then maybe it becomes a viable option.
The Supreme Court recently ruled on whether or not schools can strip search teenagers (in this case, a middle school student). I can't say I disagree with them in this particular ruling, because according to the article the only source of information school officials had was the word of another student.
I'd like to know what else the school officials knew about the girl (was she generally suspected of selling prescription drugs, for example). The article doesn't talk about any past history with this student, which is huge. It also doesn't say anything about whether or not the prescription was hers, which is another huge consideration. Schools are different than everywhere else because students are REQUIRED to be there. As a result, rights get defined differently (whether you agree with that or not can be debated later).
The part about this article that rubs me the wrong way is the following statement,
Justices Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens would have allowed the claims against individual school officials to go forward. “This is, in essence, a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct,” Justice Stevens wrote.
School officials are given a charge to ensure the safety of ALL students, quite frequently that means protecting them from their peers, many of which know exactly what the law is and what school officials can do. Did the assistant principal in this case overreact? Yes, but not so much that they should become personally liable. If a school official had to worry about violating rights and having such a violation cost them their job, I guarantee they wouldn't be very effective administrators. This would lead to more lax rules, and effectively those that know how to skirt them would get around them, and it would affect the entire climate. Private vs. Public education starts to come to mind.
Bottom line is exactly what should have happened is what happened. Kudos to the court for making the right call, but a big middle finger to Ginsburg and Stevens for thinking this was such a gross violation of rights that someone should be personally liable.
Apparently, everyone is claiming victory. The city of San Francisco, the Chinese, and the protesters, well, they're not really happy, but I'd say they probably won. I'm not sure how hiding the torch so no one except the randomly lucky can see it is a victory for San Francisco or China, but I get confused easily.
The protesters were upset they didn't get to do their chanting or cause a ruckus...gee, now there's a surprise. They got the entire city of San Francisco to act like a giant coward and they're not happy?
Sounds like they got exactly what they wanted. Quit protesting for the sake of protesting. You got your message across now shut up and go home.
I'm watching coverage of the Olympic Torch "run" through the streets of San Francisco. For anyone who doesn't know anything about what's going on, there have been protests around the world (wherever the torch is) about China's treatment of Tibet.
Ok, I get it. China's treatment of Tibet=bad. I don't support the Chinese government but I fail to see how this is in any way productive.
Which one of the torch bearers is actually oppressing anyone?
It's a protest. Have your protest, but don't actually stop the event. The Olympics are NOT about you. There was a group of Buddhists who apparently walked across the Golden Gate Bridge in protest this morning. They didn't stop anything but they were noticed. That's what a protest is supposed to be.
That being said, the Olympics are supposed to be non-political. Granted, one can make many references to them being a political event: Jesse Owens (can't have a Black man showing up the Aryan race and Hitler in front of Germans)/Berlin, Israel/Munich, US (protesting USSR's invasion of Afghanistan)/Moscow, USSR (retaliation for US not going to Moscow)/Los Angeles...but the fact is it's supposed to be about the athletes. These people that have spent their lives (albeit short at this point, most are in their 20s) trying to get here.
Yes, the run is symbolic, but I don't see how anyone is learning anything new about Tibet based on stopping a torch run through a city. I understand protests and getting one's point across, but to me this is just stupid.
It's that time again. We're in the primary season. Doug posted his comments on the whole process here, and I have to agree with him, but like it or not, it's the process we have so one may as well either pay attention or not care (either is understandable).
Understanding the primaries is tricky, but CNN has a scorecard for the primary race. It's pretty simple, hit the magic number and you're in. I think perhaps the poor showing by Hillary in Iowa was a godsend for her, because it's very likely that triggered Hillary supporters to flock to the polls in New Hampshire. Granted, neither state has huge numbers ... but the American public is fickle. They like frontrunners and don't pay attention to the details. Look at the CNN site. From a locked in delegate standpoint, Hillary is kicking ass right now (183 to 78 at the time of this post ... 2025 required. On the Republican side, Romney is winning 30 to Huckabee's 21, 1191 required). It's still early, but we love to bandwagon in the United States. I'll be surprised if Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee.
As for president...that depends on who the Republicans decide to throw up (yes, pun intended) against her.
Democratic standings.
Republican standings.
From what I see of the choices, regardless of the winner, may God help us all.
What is American Culture?
Three today. In an effort to post daily (or more frequently), I'm going to start asking something every day...or such is the thought. Today, since it's my first installment, I'm going with three.
1. In a country of 300 million people, how come we can never find anyone who can lead?I'm overthinking these days, not pissing off.2. Why is the United States unilaterally blamed for the problems in the Middle East?
3. Why is Islam consistently referred to as a "religion of peace," and why don't the Buddhists ever claim that title?
At least not yet.