Honestly, I could come up with long diatribes on each of these, but I will try to keep it brief. Just by way of information, I have been out of the loop for a while - busyness at the end of the school year coupled with numerous issues with COMCAST (they had to send out 6 different people before they figured out what the hell was wrong - a bad splitter ant the point where cable entered the house - it allowed signal in for the TV, but the bidirectional signal for internet and on demand movies was sporadic at best, so our phone lines and internet kept cutting out). Anyway, I have had a lot of ideas kicking around for the last month or so, and haven't written about any of them, so much of my thought process in the next several posts will probably be dated - but I think that the observations I will be making are both cogent and relevant, so continue, gentle reader, if you dare.
The CAFE standard proposal is just a couple of days old, and I have heard some comments by Carol Browner that confirm for me the level of commitment to ideology and idiocy in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is going to be a hallmark of this administration, just as much (if not moreso) as it was for the last administration. In fact, based on the first hundred days, Bush Jr. looks positively like a contortionist by comparison to this rigidly inflexible and ideologically driven administration. More on this at another time (especially about Carol Browner and John Holdren - two extremists if I have ever seen them, and the level of Machievelian governance we will see in the next four years may make will make the "Bush Regime" seem like rank amatuers in terms of manipulations. If you think I am exaggerating, think of the moderate Obama campaigning vs the current governance and you can see what I am talking about. Some may have voted for him because they thought he would take these extreme steps, but most thought that he was a moderate for change. Wow, that was a long parentetical, wasn't it).
Interestingly, the CAFE standards are shifting to 30 and 39 mpg by 2016 (initial phase-in as soon as 2012, I believe, but I am not certain) - 30 for light trucks, 39 for other vehicles. What could possibly be wrong with this, you might ask. Use less gas, make cars and trucks more efficient, save the environment by lowered emissions, and besides, people want more efficient vehicles.
First - there is no global conspiracy to keep us dependant on "gas guzzling" cars. Industry is making more efficient vehicles because of consumer demand and marketing issues, not because the government imposes some ficticious standard. When the government does impose CAFE standards with arbitrary dates, companies are forced to employ tricks to get around the standards if the science is not there to meet the standards. For example, if the government in 1992 had said that this was a huge issue, and we must have the fuel standards at 39 mpg by 1996 to reduce emissions, we would not have been able to do it. Despite best intentions by the government, the technology wasn't there yet, and no amount of government standards could push the technology faster than it was developing. It took a long time to develop hybrids and market them to consumers because of the deficiencies of those vehicles, not because Americans do not care about the environment or because the evil oil companies were conspiring against the consumer and the Earth (capitalized for facetious reasons). It is actually arguable that current hybrids, while they save gas, cost a lot more in manufacturing and mining resources than conventional engines, plus the fact that the batteries that they use will have to go somewhere - battery recyling technology is not that good right now.
Another downside of the CAFE standards is that the principle way to meet them is by reducing mass of the vehicle and compromising passenger safety. While designs are getting better and better with light vehicles (crumple zones and such), mass is still an important concern with safety for a vehicle. If we really want to meet these standards, why don't we just make everyone drive glorified motorcycles - non-enclosed light vehicles with two to four wheels and light, efficient engines. We could meet and exceed these standards in a heartbeat, but, of course, safety would be drastically compromised.
This is really a political attempt to manipulate the market. Most companies will not be able to make SUVs or light trucks that meet these standards, and as a result consumers will have less choice. While some people do not think that this is a problem, I tend to worry any time the government makes a move to take away any freedom that is not exceedingly well justified. Since the science behind anthropogenic warming is sketchy at best, and the environment in America is cleaner than it has been in over a hundred years (and possibly longer) the justifications for theis power grab are weak at best. It is a base attempt to manipulate the market and force the American public to do something that it doesn't want to do, that the elite class of the Democrats have decided is good for us. If you think differently, look at the history of statements by Browner and Holdren (Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change and Science Advisor, respectively); both have long histories of statements and opinions requiring "de-development" of America and other first world nations - this is not some "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theory on my part, I eschew that crap with passion. Both of these advisors are profoundly anti-development and actually feel that the developed nations must shrink their economies (Browner was listed as one of the leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change - she was subsequently removed from that list by January 2009. Holdren has made numerous incorrect statements over the past 40 years with lunatic Paul Ehrlich about resource scarcity, population control, etc, including the fact that 280 million people in the US by 2040 would be far too many and be disastrous (I've paraphrased these, of course) - we are currently doing just fine with close to 310 million people here).
Well, I didn't get to discuss the GM bankruptcy, and I will in a forthcoming blog. Look for upcoming topics like the Obama Health Care plan, John Holdren, Carol Browner, proposal for injured veterans to use private health care to cover their expenses (yep -Obama wants everyone to have national health care except soldiers), and torture. And, yes, I realize that there is faulty parallelism in the previous sentence, and I know I shouldn't have started this sentence with "and".
I'll be back soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your point is well taken. Anytime you talk about cars, I'm all ears. Regarding CAFE standards, I have a hard time believing that the industry can meet this target by 2016. I suppose I'd have to look at what they mean by "Average", as in the average MPG of all GM product lines? or the average MPG per car sold?
My point is Why Stop at 36 MPG? Why not go for 300 MPG? The answer is simple: Technology. Some Congressional subcommittee decided that 36 was a reasonable target, but please define "reasonable"? Will it be at the expense of our safety? Probably. Will it impact the price-tag? Most definitely. Will the less economically advantaged have access? Sorry, you're too damn poor...keep your old smog spewing jallopy.
But then again, I do have alot of problems with American cars in general. Namely, most of them SUCK. But Prof., you've bought into the notion that Bigger is Better, with regard to safety. It becomes an Arms Race where the safest car becomes the heaviest and biggest car which would of course require the heaviest and biggest motor. I don't buy it, and the mortality statistics based on car size doesn't support this theory. But damn, you gotta give the American Auto Industry credit for convincing Americans that Big equals Safe! In any case, Americans need big cars; we're big-ass people. Did you know the Recaro Race seats in my car are larger than the Recaro Race seats in Europe and Asia?
But here is my take on how the Left-Wing view human psychology, American Culture, and American Industry. It starts with two premises:
#1. Most Americans (excepting East Coast University educated folk) are Stupid and are terrible at making good decisions about nearly anything: children, education, whether or not to hit that crack-pipe, the environment, etc.
#2. American Industry is concerned about only ONE THING: PROFIT. Everything else serves only to manipulate people to believe that they actually give a shit about people. Ex., Chevron's insanely hilarious radio Ad's.
BTW, these are just my observations, but I'll admit to thinking these thoughts now and again, just as I will admit to agreeing with Michael Savage now and again.
To continue: Based on the above premises, Democrats will author and promote legislation that in effect lessens the damage stupid Americans can make on themselves, each-other, and the environment by limiting options and/or making decisions for you because you're just too damn stupid.
Now here is my take on the Right-Wing's view of human psychology, American Culture, and the American economy.
It has three instead of two premises:
#1. Americans should be free to make their own decisions, even stupid ones.
#2. American Industry and the free-market is what makes this Country great. Our destinies are inextricably connected to each-other. How healthy they are reflects on how healthy we are as a nation.
#3. The stupid decision makers will simply have to live with the consequences of their stupid decisions. Look to God and you'll be okay. "You reap what you sow", "Life isn't fair", "Suck it up pansy", "Pull yourselves up by your boot-straps".
They will insist that the Government should do the opposite by way of legislation, relative to the Dems. Allow people to make decisions for themselves. Freedom is the key.
But here is the kicker: both sides have a point, in my opinion. I don't think I should be free to buy and use heroin, or buy lead based paint to paint a school because it's cheaper, or purchase a Howitzer for home-defense, or sell products with massive amounts of carcinogens because they have better shelf life, or spill Catacarb and other chemicals into our streams because it's cheaper to do it that way and because they haven't proved without a shadow of a doubt that all those birth defects are due to these chemicals.
And I want to be free to buy (and even pay more) for a hot-rod that gets only 10 mpg, or pay less to buy non-organic produce, and I shouldn't have to pay for some idiot's life mistakes because...oops, gone over the limit in HTML characters!!
I tried three times to respond, Professor, and I'm just not up to it tonight. Part of it is all the ad-hominem attacks on members of the Obama administration (by the way, Darth Cheney is an ugly ass). Part of it is that you've presented a lot of new information and I'm not going to do the research tonight.
But I'm sure you're wrong, because I'm always sure you're wrong.
Good to see you back. We've missed you. Or at least I have. Seriously.
BTW, Supergoober: You should be free to buy heroin. It worked for Portugal, and they didn't even experience a blip in addicts after decriminalization. In fact, they have some of the lowest incidence of drug use in the EU.
And you should be free to buy a gas guzzler. I just don't think that it's either GM's or Chevron's place to insist that you do. (See that, Professor? I got my Big Oil/ Auto Manufacturer collusion tinfoil hat on good and tight!)
See you guys soon.
Sorry if you thought that they were ad hominem attacks on the Obama appointees, but I was just pointing out my opinions of them based on there stated positions. I find that they are extremists (but I do not in the slightest deny that I have radically different views than they do, so of course I find that there views are extreme). I do not agree that American consumers should be able to make whatever stupid choice that they would like, as supergoober said, because that is an absurd excessively libertarian view that leads (ultimately) to balkanization and societal breakdown (in my opinion), but I would just like cooler heads to prevail in the issue of legislation.
In short, I would like for our representatives to actually represent us - that is do research and understand issues rather than vote exactly the way that their constituencies think - their job is to be better informed than us, and, sadly, I do not believe that they are - they are more concerned about reelection (and I am not just talking about Dems here, but Repubs as well - most of them do not do there jobs as representatives). One of the most disastrous historical blunders that we have had was the move to direct elections of the senators - a move directly in violation to the spirit of the constitution, but it was ammended appropriately so its totally legal, but also totally stupid.
By making senators directly elected, we made them focus more on reelection than on actually representing their states. Obviously this is a much longer topic, but long story short - the attacks were not ad hominem, they were an attempt to point out (in brief) the mindset of Holdren and Browner. They have both, on many occasions, spoken about the merits of "de-development". This smacks of utopian idealism coupled with the elitist totalitarian mindset that is the hallmark of the secular liberal (note that the key word is secular not liberal - similar mistakes are made by secular conservatives in the opposite direction). An ad hominem attack would be to say that the policies that they espouse bear a remarkable similarity to Pol Pot (which is true, but I do not think that they want to establish death camps - which is why that is a completely ludicrous statement).
In short, I do not like either of the two, have known of them for a long time (Browner from the Clinton admin, Holdren from the early eighties - he and Ehrlich gave me nightmares as a young man until I saw that theur predictions were completely fabricated by living throught the times they forecast - in many ways they pushed me as far right as I am on the environmental issues by overselling their argument).
Anyway, long story short, thanks for the welcome back, and I look forward to a bit of gaming at the con this weekend. See y'all reel soon ;)
Post a Comment