The B-52s: They tried to forewarn us

Back in 1989. That was our last chance to try and break free....



"All static all day forever"

Lyrics: http://www.mtv.com/lyrics/b52s/channel_z/1362739/lyrics.jhtml

A music video link: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1x9s2_b52s-channel-z_music





(Follow all links at your own risk.)

Weakening America's security & tunnel vision

The fear-monger-in-chief keeps asking if we're all still scared enough....

Link to today's AP story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_go_ot/us_cheney_4

Quick commentary:

-- Per 9/11/01 itself (and not the subsequent Bush/Cheney misdirected over-reaction), NO rational person underestimates the requirement for continued vigilance re global terrorism. No political party has a monopoly on/about diligence any longer. Homeland security/combating terrorism are not merely partisan issues. Former and current officials should always attempt to work TOGETHER toward the (ongoing) challenges. Former and current leaders trading half- (or unverifiable-) truths and personal opinions in the "media".... WEAKENS America's effort. (Fanning flames: News site-viewer "votes" about who is "right" (about this) are simplistic fun for some. But the vote that counts took place in November, 2008. It wasn't that close.)

-- Bush administration tunnel vision about global terrorist threats (and how to deal them ) badly hurt the United States (and the world) in other essential aspects of governance. E.g., management and oversight of key portions of the U.S. economy, cohesive energy policy, environmental protections, etc. The current president now has much to lead repairs upon as a result; more than most have ever faced in a first year.

-- And from the incredible Mr. Cheney today, re combating global terrorism: "Half measures keep you half exposed." Oh....As in: Only half-protecting U.S. ports? Not initially directing an appropriate share of anti-terrorism funding to vulnerable, large U.S. cities? Unilaterally attacking non-9/11-involved Iraq, leaving a half-staffed/funded effort for Afghanistan/Pakistan (and U.S. homeland security)? Virtually "turning over the keys" to the U.S. economy to Wall Street in the meantime, on your "watch"? A half-assed, non-diversified approach to U.S. energy security? Etc., etc.

From a newly-loquacious "yapper": An amazingly hubristic -- and ironic -- publicly-uttered sentence.

Thank you! Please keep arresting all participants

Link to 5/18/09 Hartford Courant news story: "149 Arrested At Street Races in Hartford"

A moronic "pastime" --especially on public streets -- without virtue or honor.

"Extremely hazardous" as Hartford's police chief says, to participants, "by-standers" and other motorists. Not to mention the (often) late night noise....

Huh? Your Congress (& the NRA) at work...

Are you kidding me? This is the ultimate "gotcha" amendment.

Just what we need: It only takes one armed "whack-job" to ruin your "day at the park". Maybe you'll be the one accidentally blocking some gun-totin' dude's view of the caribou, and....

Allowing loaded semi-automatic assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. in national parks puts everyone, including visitors, rangers, and animals in danger.

Please refer to this previous post, here. Statistically there's a tiny danger from wild animals in national parks. Crime rates there are also LOW. But allow the ones who walk upright to carry concealed, loaded guns...?? Now your talkin' dangerous.

clipped from money.cnn.com By Jennifer Liberto, CNNMoney.com senior writer May 14, 2009: 4:03 PM ET WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- What do guns have to do with credit cards? In a surprising move, the Senate voted 67-29 on Tuesday to attach a measure that would allow guns in national parks to a bill that cracks down on credit card fees. "It's just wacky," said Jon Houston, spokesman for Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the bill's chief House sponsor who has been pushing for a crack down on credit card practices for two years. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., saw an opportunity to grab on to a comparatively fast-moving target, since lawmakers are under the gun to finalize a credit card bill in the next 11 days. Coburn, speaking on the Senate floor, said his move "isn't a 'gotcha' amendment" but a genuine step to protect the Second Amendment. The measure would reverse a federal judge's decision in March block a last-minute rule change by President George W. Bush to allow park visitors to carry concealed weapons.

The Chevy Volt could help ....eventually

A link follows to a recent Washington Post letter to the editor, and a brief response from Dr. Lyle Dennis, a physician who started and maintains the "GM-Volt.com" enthusiast site for the upcoming Chevy Volt electric vehicle. Link: http://gm-volt.com/ (It's considered to be an "extended-range electric vehicle" (E-REV), though weather conditions, driving speed, etc. will affect its range to some degree. The Volt will also contain a small gasoline combustion engine. "...in the Volt, this engine is the smaller one, and has only one task, it produces electricity for the motor when the stored power gets low. The engine is not connected to the wheels, it is only a generator. The brilliance of this feature is that you will have an overall driving range of 400 miles. The efficiency of this engine amounts to about 50 mpg.)

Link to letter to the editor and response: http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/07/gm-voltcom-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-washington-post/

I'm not going to get into whether the first-generation Volt will really have much impact upon reducing U.S. dependence upon foreign oil, etc. It will initially cost too much for many and probably will not help immediately. And we have to worry about how GM's impending bankruptcy/rebirth will affect this project. (Despite strong statements that it will not derail the E-REV.)

However, I think "plug-in" electric vehicles in general, and a mass-produced Volt in particular, will be part of a multi-faceted approach to generally reducing vehicular use of oil, reducing emissions, and even increasing use of renewable fuels (e.g., if E85 (ethanol) can be used in its gasoline engine). Will I attempt to advocate that the Volt is or will be THE answer? No. Other engine technologies, including diesel-powered and natural gas-powered vehicles will be "in the mix" for quite awhile.

I wish to emphasize two points about the Volt, however, made by Dr. Dennis in his response: 1) Though relatively few will/will be able to buy/lease the first-gen. Volt, a well-made, functional Volt that delivers upon its promises (let's hope), will "beget" more Volts.... at lowering prices. Studies show that more than 70% of U.S. drivers travel less than 40 miles per day. A powerful (i.e., instant and even torque), American-manufactured (mostly?), very high "gas" mileage, low emissions vehicle will be useful and desirable for many (U.S.) consumers. (And don't forget: GM and others still plan to make (other) E-REVs in different body styles/configurations.) Production economies of scale may follow, along with further advancements. 2) I read that Volt will facilitate charging at a time of the user's choosing. (Link: Volt charging functionality, Gen-1.) Working with utilities, users should be able to (often) choose an off-peak, lower 'grid' demand/price charging period for their vehicle. (Usually overnight.) Off-peak electricity costs the consumer much less than gasoline. Further, I'm not an engineer or an expert so I won't go into it much, but here's one interesting discussion of the Volt's possible impact upon greenhouse gas emissions. EV's supposedly can convert/use energy more efficiently than gasoline engines. And not all the world's electric power comes from coal. Individuals who feel compelled (for whatever reason) can likely either find or support cleaner sources, as well. (E.g., generating your own solar or wind power, supporting current clean power sources (e.g., "clean energy" utility programs), offsetting your estimated emissions (e.g., carbonfund.org), etc. Some may feel a moral obligation, even if it costs more in the short term.

It won't be profitable for awhile, but I agree with Dr. Dennis and others: I think the Volt could be the best idea and, I hope, eventually the best product that GM has come up with a long time. (Link: http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/17/ceo-promises-gm-has-new-vehicles-that-will-blow-you-away/ )

Enjoy this final link to Dr. Dennis' first ride in a Volt test "mule", from a few weeks ago: http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/28/gm-voltcom-chevy-volt-mule-test-drive-w-video/

Suddenly communicative: As Cheney snarls and howls on...

Ms. Maureen Dowd lands a few: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13dowd.html

Where's that "Cheney Dunk Tank"? http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cheney_dunk_tank_raises_800


Even more appropriate? I'm feelin' "safer" already....



(Images used are in the "public domain".)

Who Covers the Statehouse now?

As touched upon here before, as newspapers, etc. cut back their reporting staffs, who will step up to thoroughly cover state and local politics? Local TV? Don't make Eddie Perez laugh....

An excellent article about this subject has appeared from TIME magazine. Their story also prominently mentions a hard-working Connecticut news site/blog, "The CT News Junkie".

In the state of "Corrupt-icut", this is an especially pertinent question. Not ALL politicians/elected officials are corrupt. But some are....

Link to 5/7/09 TIME magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1896808,00.html

Excerpt:

"Statehouse coverage is the bread and butter of a newspaper: unsexy and repetitive, but one of the foundations of a nutritional news diet. Unlike bread and butter, however, it can be expensive. Reporters have to monitor long, complicated funding debates — about schools and roads and health care — many of which do not result in front-page news. Uncovering corruption, incompetence or waste takes an inordinate amount of time and effort. As newsrooms and newspapers have become smaller, coverage of state politics has been among the first to get cut."

"There will be growth in the spring."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There

NBC TV coverage of Derby poor

In addition to the endless hype and endless onslaught of moronic commercials: NBC still hasn't distinctly pointed out yet (at 6:50pm EDT), that 2009 Kentucky Derby winner 'Mine That Bird' came from dead last, well behind the whole field to win the Derby. That's a huge part of this day's story . This horse appeared to be well behind the other 19 horses even around the 1/2 mile mark. Amazing; yet not really pointed out....They should have shown an isolation shot on the winner from start to finish. (Why not? They probably don't have one.)

What incisive coverage and analysis. Too busy squeezing in more hype... and still more commercials.