The Nanny State: protecting us from ourselves. It's a lovely idea, if you've repeatedly applied a shovel to your parietal lobe.
Tenet one: We must protect our children at all costs. They are our future, and each little snowflake needs to be kept safe from pedophiles.
Tenet two: our children our too fat and must exercise.
The solution? according to the Daily Mail, the Government will limit the school run, so children will have to walk to school.
Yes, walking. Out in the open where the pedophiles live. This is the ultimate nanny state dilemma. (rise in obesity) Nanny State: No child should be driven to school. (one child is kidnapped) Nanny State: All children must be driven to school. (repeat as needed)
At least in America we accept our own failure to adequately provide our children with the tools or motivations to create healthy lifestyles as a fact of life and move on.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
merry presents, y'all
The Christmas Carol 'Joy to the World' has the following line:
"while fields and floods/rocks, hills and plains/repeat the sounding joy..."
I'm sorry God, but that seems a little excessive. Maybe even a little cruel. How long are these inanimate objects proclaiming the birth of a saviour? how do you get them to stop? Especially with the floods. If my house is underwater, having a swollen river tell me to rejoice is just mean. The least that damn thing could do is throw in an apology.
'Rejoice, be glad, sorry I ruined your life and all your earthly possessions'
"while fields and floods/rocks, hills and plains/repeat the sounding joy..."
I'm sorry God, but that seems a little excessive. Maybe even a little cruel. How long are these inanimate objects proclaiming the birth of a saviour? how do you get them to stop? Especially with the floods. If my house is underwater, having a swollen river tell me to rejoice is just mean. The least that damn thing could do is throw in an apology.
'Rejoice, be glad, sorry I ruined your life and all your earthly possessions'
Saturday, September 26, 2009
to the 9s
On 9/9/09, you just know that any guy with a 9 inch member was virtually guaranteed to get laid. Which doesn't make it too different from most days.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Atlanta floods
So Atlanta is rather wet right now. I was told the flooding was so bad that parts of the 6 flags roller coasters were underwater. Am I the only person who thinks that's kind of cool?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
CARS: A Summary
The 'Cash for Clunkers' program was a success. But some trite objections need to be put to bed, so let's do that here.
1. Cash For Clunkers (CFC) put money overseas, when we should be focusing on creating jobs here in America.
The most traded in vehicle was a Ford Explorer, while the most purchased was a Toyota. That alone, in the minds of some conservatives justifies labeling this as a bad program. If we're appealing to the idea that we should keep jobs in America, it would be beneficial to prove that the purchase of a car like a Toyota also means that Americans aren't getting some of the benefits. But wait, many foreign cars are assembled here, which means that Americans ARE getting the benefit.
2. CFC hurts the poor.
We have here, the first time in recorded history that any conservative has given the remotest damn about the poor.[1]
The argument goes something like 'CFC took a lot of cheap cars (that were still perfectly good) off the road.[2] By raising the value of fuel-inefficient cars to 4500 dollars, we've created incentives to take those cars off the road, and out of the market. Now the poor will have to pay comparatively more to get a car.'
Er... Sort of. CFC removed roughly 690,000 cars from the used car pool. Strictly speaking, that's not that many when you consider that there are roughly 260,000,000 cars on the road today.[3] With roughly one quarter of one percent of cars off the road, there are still plenty of good used cars out there. Except now, they're the ones that cost less to fill up at the pump. Wait, that last bit almost sounds good to the poor.
3. CFC was wasteful.
Look at this car! It's beautiful! It's only got some ridiculously low number of miles on it and the big bad government is making me destroy it.
Boo freaking hoo.
Imagine for a second that some rich eccentric billionaire comes in and offers to buy your car. He's paying cash and he's going to destroy the car. Well, that is his right. If the car means that much to you, why don't YOU pay the 4500 and get the car that you so badly think needs to be saved?[4] Well, I like it but not THAT much is not a valid answer. Put up or shut up. That's how the market works.
Waste happens. We rarely use everything to its fullest. Whether we're obligated to give that which we're not using to someone who can use it more is a dilemma that is not easily solved. [5] Though it seems characteristically unconservative to mandate that we should.
4. We'd be so much better off giving the money to companies, so that they can research eco-friendly technology.
Does anyone remember the piss-poor abomination of a hybrid that Chrysler made out of their SUVs? How much do you think that one cost to research, design, retool, etc.[6] CFC worked immediately. It produced guaranteed results, or would you rather the government gambled 3 billion on the off chance that Chrysler or GM would actually build a small car that some sane person would want to buy?
5. CFC only produced insignificant gains for the environment when you factor in (some thing that doesn't necessarily matter).
Here's one of those times when it hurts your argument when the car being scrapped is in good shape. Assume that the car ran fine and had another 60,000 miles of useful life. Average car being turned in was getting about 15 mpg.[7] (4,000 gallons of fuel burned at 19.4 lbs CO2 per gallon) So we have 77,600 lbs CO2 that car would have produced before being scrapped. The average car bought under CFC received about 25mpg. That makes 46,700 lbs co2 over that same 60,000 miles. So we have just over 15 tons CO2 saved, just by trading in one car.[8]
How else could 15.4 tons of CO2 be saved? Let's set the avg. MPG of all cars on the road in the US at 23 mpg.[9] Each car on the road is responsible for .0012 lbs of CO2, which equates to .000006 gallons of fuel as well. For reference, it would take roughly 220 of those to equal a teaspoon. Now, all the cars in the nation combined would each have to use 4.14[10] less gallons of fuel to cover the savings in CO2 done over 60,000 miles by all 690,000 cars crushed by the CFC program.
Okay, that criticism is valid. But let's be honest here: As far as government is concerned, spending 3 billion to get almost meaningless gains is cheap!
-------------------------------------------------
1. To be fair, market conditions have done tremendous work to help the poor. As costs for basic products fall, the poor are able to get more bang for their buck. But Conservatives can't really claim 'the inevitable decrease in prices as manufacturing techniques improve' as something they were singlehandedly behind. Keep in mind that these conditions happened despite government interaction in the free market.
2. Claim #3 (these cars are so nice) indicates that these cars were worth a lot closer to the 4500 threshold. If you can afford a 4500 car, you may be poor, but not necessarily that poor. Which set of 'the poor' do you think we need to focus on more?
3. And there is a reason that I use all the zeroes
4. The fact that the government is the billionaire in this example is moot. $3 billion dollars (3,000,000,000) over three hundred million Americans (300,000,000) means that on average, you're paying a measly 10 bucks for the privilege of having the government do this. Trust me, every other billionaire has taken more than $10 from you this year, in some form or another.
5. The answer is generally 'its nice if we do, but we are not morally obligated'.
6. Given the overall shoddiness of the idea, it only LOOKS like it cost them about 5 bucks to come up with that one.
7. I select these numbers for convenience. Avg trade in mpg was 15.4, but the real estimate that matters s in the amount of CO2 the car would have produced)
8. But what of the environmental cost of dismantling the car? What of it indeed. This model only looks at what happened because of CFC. Without CFC, the old car would have been driven 60,000 miles then scrapped. Either way, the car is scrapped, so that harm happens no matter what. And the harm caused by running the engine to destruction is negligible over those 60,000 miles.
9. rationale: during the 90s, CAFE standards were 27.5 mpg for cars, and 20.7 for trucks (minivans and SUVs included) The car-truck ratio in the country was about 50-50 when you realize that minivans and SUVs count as light trucks. I set it lower, to make this calculation more unfair to CFC.
10. of course, discussion of significant digits has gone right out the window at this point.
1. Cash For Clunkers (CFC) put money overseas, when we should be focusing on creating jobs here in America.
The most traded in vehicle was a Ford Explorer, while the most purchased was a Toyota. That alone, in the minds of some conservatives justifies labeling this as a bad program. If we're appealing to the idea that we should keep jobs in America, it would be beneficial to prove that the purchase of a car like a Toyota also means that Americans aren't getting some of the benefits. But wait, many foreign cars are assembled here, which means that Americans ARE getting the benefit.
2. CFC hurts the poor.
We have here, the first time in recorded history that any conservative has given the remotest damn about the poor.[1]
The argument goes something like 'CFC took a lot of cheap cars (that were still perfectly good) off the road.[2] By raising the value of fuel-inefficient cars to 4500 dollars, we've created incentives to take those cars off the road, and out of the market. Now the poor will have to pay comparatively more to get a car.'
Er... Sort of. CFC removed roughly 690,000 cars from the used car pool. Strictly speaking, that's not that many when you consider that there are roughly 260,000,000 cars on the road today.[3] With roughly one quarter of one percent of cars off the road, there are still plenty of good used cars out there. Except now, they're the ones that cost less to fill up at the pump. Wait, that last bit almost sounds good to the poor.
3. CFC was wasteful.
Look at this car! It's beautiful! It's only got some ridiculously low number of miles on it and the big bad government is making me destroy it.
Boo freaking hoo.
Imagine for a second that some rich eccentric billionaire comes in and offers to buy your car. He's paying cash and he's going to destroy the car. Well, that is his right. If the car means that much to you, why don't YOU pay the 4500 and get the car that you so badly think needs to be saved?[4] Well, I like it but not THAT much is not a valid answer. Put up or shut up. That's how the market works.
Waste happens. We rarely use everything to its fullest. Whether we're obligated to give that which we're not using to someone who can use it more is a dilemma that is not easily solved. [5] Though it seems characteristically unconservative to mandate that we should.
4. We'd be so much better off giving the money to companies, so that they can research eco-friendly technology.
Does anyone remember the piss-poor abomination of a hybrid that Chrysler made out of their SUVs? How much do you think that one cost to research, design, retool, etc.[6] CFC worked immediately. It produced guaranteed results, or would you rather the government gambled 3 billion on the off chance that Chrysler or GM would actually build a small car that some sane person would want to buy?
5. CFC only produced insignificant gains for the environment when you factor in (some thing that doesn't necessarily matter).
Here's one of those times when it hurts your argument when the car being scrapped is in good shape. Assume that the car ran fine and had another 60,000 miles of useful life. Average car being turned in was getting about 15 mpg.[7] (4,000 gallons of fuel burned at 19.4 lbs CO2 per gallon) So we have 77,600 lbs CO2 that car would have produced before being scrapped. The average car bought under CFC received about 25mpg. That makes 46,700 lbs co2 over that same 60,000 miles. So we have just over 15 tons CO2 saved, just by trading in one car.[8]
How else could 15.4 tons of CO2 be saved? Let's set the avg. MPG of all cars on the road in the US at 23 mpg.[9] Each car on the road is responsible for .0012 lbs of CO2, which equates to .000006 gallons of fuel as well. For reference, it would take roughly 220 of those to equal a teaspoon. Now, all the cars in the nation combined would each have to use 4.14[10] less gallons of fuel to cover the savings in CO2 done over 60,000 miles by all 690,000 cars crushed by the CFC program.
Okay, that criticism is valid. But let's be honest here: As far as government is concerned, spending 3 billion to get almost meaningless gains is cheap!
-------------------------------------------------
1. To be fair, market conditions have done tremendous work to help the poor. As costs for basic products fall, the poor are able to get more bang for their buck. But Conservatives can't really claim 'the inevitable decrease in prices as manufacturing techniques improve' as something they were singlehandedly behind. Keep in mind that these conditions happened despite government interaction in the free market.
2. Claim #3 (these cars are so nice) indicates that these cars were worth a lot closer to the 4500 threshold. If you can afford a 4500 car, you may be poor, but not necessarily that poor. Which set of 'the poor' do you think we need to focus on more?
3. And there is a reason that I use all the zeroes
4. The fact that the government is the billionaire in this example is moot. $3 billion dollars (3,000,000,000) over three hundred million Americans (300,000,000) means that on average, you're paying a measly 10 bucks for the privilege of having the government do this. Trust me, every other billionaire has taken more than $10 from you this year, in some form or another.
5. The answer is generally 'its nice if we do, but we are not morally obligated'.
6. Given the overall shoddiness of the idea, it only LOOKS like it cost them about 5 bucks to come up with that one.
7. I select these numbers for convenience. Avg trade in mpg was 15.4, but the real estimate that matters s in the amount of CO2 the car would have produced)
8. But what of the environmental cost of dismantling the car? What of it indeed. This model only looks at what happened because of CFC. Without CFC, the old car would have been driven 60,000 miles then scrapped. Either way, the car is scrapped, so that harm happens no matter what. And the harm caused by running the engine to destruction is negligible over those 60,000 miles.
9. rationale: during the 90s, CAFE standards were 27.5 mpg for cars, and 20.7 for trucks (minivans and SUVs included) The car-truck ratio in the country was about 50-50 when you realize that minivans and SUVs count as light trucks. I set it lower, to make this calculation more unfair to CFC.
10. of course, discussion of significant digits has gone right out the window at this point.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
the philosophy of the hamburger
Three questions which come up regarding the burger.
1. what makes a hamburger a hamburger? The hamburger, or the bun? (or some combination thereof)
2. does the addition of condiments make a hamburger better?
3. does the consumption of a better burger make one a better person?
To the first, the answer is clearly the meat. The bun itself does not matter. It can be of weck, of whole wheat, even of wonderbreadesque consistency, where it feels as though one is biting into the foam used in upholstery. Even two slices of bread, if one is desperate and/or holding to a tradition can a bun make.
It is the meat, for the meat is called hamburger. The buns within which the meat is contained are called hamburger buns: buns for hamburger. The shape and rough geometry of the meat is a patty[1], which when made of hamburger becomes a hamburger patty: a patty-shape constructed of hamburger.
The bun (or acceptable bun substitute, as noted above) and the shape of the patty are necessary identifying features of the hamburger, but the meat is what truly defines it. The patty of ground ribeye steak is a steakburger, the patty of turkey is a turkey burger, and the patty of ground vegetables, beans and soy held together by processes unknown is an abomination.
The ground beef is hamburger, and the assembly of that hamburger between the bun, with or without condiments is a hamburger.[2] A, as in one of many, as in that which points to the general idea of a hamburger.
So too, must we realize that the meat will make or break the hamburger. A good burger is at least 15% fat pre-cooking. To say otherwise is gustatory heresy of the most unforgivable nature. The rendered fat from a good burger will make even the most dry and cardboardlike buns into something acceptable. One can not say the reverse is true. A perfect bun cannot overcome a dry, flavorless patty.[3]
This assumes that a hamburger patty and bun does a hamburger make. Though this fulfills the basic requirements of being a hamburger, one is remiss in their duty if they do not consider adding condiments to said burger. Condiments can make a decent burger better by adding texture, substance, flavor, contrast in flavor and/or moisture. We would say that these help the burger achieve a certain arete, but that arete can be separated. A hamburger may be comparable to a cheeseburger, but the cheeseburgers are best compared amongst themselves.[4] A condiment may make a burger better, but it also slightly shifts the criteria on which its excellence is judged.
It should be mentioned that certain condiments may be added to a burger, and will necessarily make it worse. Any dijon mustard[5], any cheese which may properly be summed up as 'fancy-schmancy', any Kobe beef, any inferior quality tomato, lettuce or onion will all make a worse burger. Some of this is by lowering the overall quality of the meal, some by bastardizing and hybridizing what is at heart a simple food meant to be enjoyed by all. Similarly, there are certain properties which make a burger better, such as if one orders that burger at In-n-Out where all food is served with a side of angelic choir.
A burger is meant to be enjoyed by all, but individual tastes make discussion of a 'better burger' difficult. All things being equal, we can say the following: if you can recognize a difference between burgers, and prefer one to another, choose the burger you prefer more.[6] The better person is one who does not do the bare minimum. If you can do more, do it. If you can eat food which gives you more pleasure to eat it, eat it. Especially if it's at In-N-Out
---------------------
1. The existence of the White Castle slider shape (which is square rather than mostly circular) is not a weakness of this theory: we differentiate between the slider and the hamburger just as we differentiate between the candy bar and the 'fun size' candy bar. One is not to be mistaken for the other, though identical in content.
2. though for burgers of true greatness, 'the hamburger' may be the appropriate nomenclature.
3. This is related to the origin of the bun and all sandwiches in general. The bread was meant to transfer the sandwich contents to the mouth, while ensuring that the hands remained clean enough to continue playing cards. Though necessary, the bun is merely a vessel for the contents of the sandwich.
4. Adding further subcategories for things such as 'cheeseburgers with lettuce and tomato' increases the accuracy of the comparison but decreases the usefulness of the comparison. We must generalize to a certain degree, for the category of 'burgers with romaine lettuce, vidalia onions and grass-fed beef made on a certain grill by a certain chef on days in which he was in a good mood' is not useful to many people.
5. the President's favorite! Spicy brown mustard might have been acceptable, but who are we to judge?
6. If the 'better burger' costs significantly more, and you are not willing to pay that amount for superior quality because its 'not worth it', that's an acceptable reason.
1. what makes a hamburger a hamburger? The hamburger, or the bun? (or some combination thereof)
2. does the addition of condiments make a hamburger better?
3. does the consumption of a better burger make one a better person?
To the first, the answer is clearly the meat. The bun itself does not matter. It can be of weck, of whole wheat, even of wonderbreadesque consistency, where it feels as though one is biting into the foam used in upholstery. Even two slices of bread, if one is desperate and/or holding to a tradition can a bun make.
It is the meat, for the meat is called hamburger. The buns within which the meat is contained are called hamburger buns: buns for hamburger. The shape and rough geometry of the meat is a patty[1], which when made of hamburger becomes a hamburger patty: a patty-shape constructed of hamburger.
The bun (or acceptable bun substitute, as noted above) and the shape of the patty are necessary identifying features of the hamburger, but the meat is what truly defines it. The patty of ground ribeye steak is a steakburger, the patty of turkey is a turkey burger, and the patty of ground vegetables, beans and soy held together by processes unknown is an abomination.
The ground beef is hamburger, and the assembly of that hamburger between the bun, with or without condiments is a hamburger.[2] A, as in one of many, as in that which points to the general idea of a hamburger.
So too, must we realize that the meat will make or break the hamburger. A good burger is at least 15% fat pre-cooking. To say otherwise is gustatory heresy of the most unforgivable nature. The rendered fat from a good burger will make even the most dry and cardboardlike buns into something acceptable. One can not say the reverse is true. A perfect bun cannot overcome a dry, flavorless patty.[3]
This assumes that a hamburger patty and bun does a hamburger make. Though this fulfills the basic requirements of being a hamburger, one is remiss in their duty if they do not consider adding condiments to said burger. Condiments can make a decent burger better by adding texture, substance, flavor, contrast in flavor and/or moisture. We would say that these help the burger achieve a certain arete, but that arete can be separated. A hamburger may be comparable to a cheeseburger, but the cheeseburgers are best compared amongst themselves.[4] A condiment may make a burger better, but it also slightly shifts the criteria on which its excellence is judged.
It should be mentioned that certain condiments may be added to a burger, and will necessarily make it worse. Any dijon mustard[5], any cheese which may properly be summed up as 'fancy-schmancy', any Kobe beef, any inferior quality tomato, lettuce or onion will all make a worse burger. Some of this is by lowering the overall quality of the meal, some by bastardizing and hybridizing what is at heart a simple food meant to be enjoyed by all. Similarly, there are certain properties which make a burger better, such as if one orders that burger at In-n-Out where all food is served with a side of angelic choir.
A burger is meant to be enjoyed by all, but individual tastes make discussion of a 'better burger' difficult. All things being equal, we can say the following: if you can recognize a difference between burgers, and prefer one to another, choose the burger you prefer more.[6] The better person is one who does not do the bare minimum. If you can do more, do it. If you can eat food which gives you more pleasure to eat it, eat it. Especially if it's at In-N-Out
---------------------
1. The existence of the White Castle slider shape (which is square rather than mostly circular) is not a weakness of this theory: we differentiate between the slider and the hamburger just as we differentiate between the candy bar and the 'fun size' candy bar. One is not to be mistaken for the other, though identical in content.
2. though for burgers of true greatness, 'the hamburger' may be the appropriate nomenclature.
3. This is related to the origin of the bun and all sandwiches in general. The bread was meant to transfer the sandwich contents to the mouth, while ensuring that the hands remained clean enough to continue playing cards. Though necessary, the bun is merely a vessel for the contents of the sandwich.
4. Adding further subcategories for things such as 'cheeseburgers with lettuce and tomato' increases the accuracy of the comparison but decreases the usefulness of the comparison. We must generalize to a certain degree, for the category of 'burgers with romaine lettuce, vidalia onions and grass-fed beef made on a certain grill by a certain chef on days in which he was in a good mood' is not useful to many people.
5. the President's favorite! Spicy brown mustard might have been acceptable, but who are we to judge?
6. If the 'better burger' costs significantly more, and you are not willing to pay that amount for superior quality because its 'not worth it', that's an acceptable reason.
Monday, August 3, 2009
rebuttal: or who is wrong today?
Here's the full text from a July 31st letter to the editor in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. (AKA, the one with the more conservative readers)
"Again, with dismay, I read about another government program designed to waste more of the taxpayers' money ("Pols give 'clunker' new meaning," July 21).
This program is called the Car Allowance Rebate System. CARS will pay individuals from $3,000 to $5,000 to turn in their old gas-guzzling, air-polluting junkers that are at least 8 years old and get less than 18 mpg.
With the money, the person must purchase a new car that gets at least 24 mpg. Cost of the program is a mere $4 billion to $6 billion.
However, it hasn't been figured out where the money will come from. I think most of us could get that answer in one guess.
The premise of the program is bad enough. But the real kicker is that I'm seeing ads for this program sponsored by none other than dealers for Nissan, Toyota and other imports.
Did not our leaders just spend billions upon billions to bail out U.S. carmakers? I would think that the writers of this bill would have been smart enough to give our country a little leg up and only offer the program on American-made autos.
Bruce H. Bentson, Inver Grove Heights"
The premise is twofold: stimulate consumers to buy new cars, and attempt to reduce dependence for oil. Indelicate? Sure. recycling used cars that are perfectly good is wasteful, but better that congress made it an option to trade in certain cars and had some waste, instead of mandating that having those cars would be illegal.
But lets face some facts: The truly fuel inefficient 1970s cars are a teensy portion of all cars out there. taking the cars that are both more prevalent AND not very fuel efficient gets more cars off the road, and does a greater job of reducing the total amount of fuel needed.
Fuel is one of those things with inelastic demand. so if demand goes down, you're not going to see the wild price inflations that you saw in summer of 2008. So it costs $6 billion dollars to the US taxpayers. that's $20 per person. I think that the gas savings alone would account for that.
Issue two is the "fact" that foreign automakers have been taking advantage of this.
Well, the carmakers who have had the better small cars have tended to be foreign-owned. That's not really their fault for doing their job well.
But let's look at where the most purchased cars under the CARS system are made. For the record, this is taken from Jalopnik.
1. Ford Focus (ooh. that's gotta hurt when the #1 purchased car is American. Sorry Bruce. Anyways, its made in Wayne, Michigan.)
2. Honda Civic (built in Ohio and Indiana)
3. Toyota Corolla (many built in Ontario, but there is a plant in California)
4. Toyota Prius (made in Japan)
5. Ford Escape (made in Missouri)
6. Toyota camry (made in Kentucky)
7. Dodge Caliber (made in Illinois)
8. Hyundai Elantra (made in Korea)
9. Honda Fit (made in Japan)
10. Chevy Cobalt (made in Ohio)
So 4 out of 10 are made abroad. Okay, technically three are, because there IS a corolla plant in the US. More importantly, 6 of the top 7 are made here in the US.
As they say, PWND.
"Again, with dismay, I read about another government program designed to waste more of the taxpayers' money ("Pols give 'clunker' new meaning," July 21).
This program is called the Car Allowance Rebate System. CARS will pay individuals from $3,000 to $5,000 to turn in their old gas-guzzling, air-polluting junkers that are at least 8 years old and get less than 18 mpg.
With the money, the person must purchase a new car that gets at least 24 mpg. Cost of the program is a mere $4 billion to $6 billion.
However, it hasn't been figured out where the money will come from. I think most of us could get that answer in one guess.
The premise of the program is bad enough. But the real kicker is that I'm seeing ads for this program sponsored by none other than dealers for Nissan, Toyota and other imports.
Did not our leaders just spend billions upon billions to bail out U.S. carmakers? I would think that the writers of this bill would have been smart enough to give our country a little leg up and only offer the program on American-made autos.
Bruce H. Bentson, Inver Grove Heights"
The premise is twofold: stimulate consumers to buy new cars, and attempt to reduce dependence for oil. Indelicate? Sure. recycling used cars that are perfectly good is wasteful, but better that congress made it an option to trade in certain cars and had some waste, instead of mandating that having those cars would be illegal.
But lets face some facts: The truly fuel inefficient 1970s cars are a teensy portion of all cars out there. taking the cars that are both more prevalent AND not very fuel efficient gets more cars off the road, and does a greater job of reducing the total amount of fuel needed.
Fuel is one of those things with inelastic demand. so if demand goes down, you're not going to see the wild price inflations that you saw in summer of 2008. So it costs $6 billion dollars to the US taxpayers. that's $20 per person. I think that the gas savings alone would account for that.
Issue two is the "fact" that foreign automakers have been taking advantage of this.
Well, the carmakers who have had the better small cars have tended to be foreign-owned. That's not really their fault for doing their job well.
But let's look at where the most purchased cars under the CARS system are made. For the record, this is taken from Jalopnik.
1. Ford Focus (ooh. that's gotta hurt when the #1 purchased car is American. Sorry Bruce. Anyways, its made in Wayne, Michigan.)
2. Honda Civic (built in Ohio and Indiana)
3. Toyota Corolla (many built in Ontario, but there is a plant in California)
4. Toyota Prius (made in Japan)
5. Ford Escape (made in Missouri)
6. Toyota camry (made in Kentucky)
7. Dodge Caliber (made in Illinois)
8. Hyundai Elantra (made in Korea)
9. Honda Fit (made in Japan)
10. Chevy Cobalt (made in Ohio)
So 4 out of 10 are made abroad. Okay, technically three are, because there IS a corolla plant in the US. More importantly, 6 of the top 7 are made here in the US.
As they say, PWND.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
random thought of the week
'storage' is a concept that doesn't really work well in nature. If I have too many books, I can save space and store them on a bookshelf. if there are too many rabbits, nature can save space by putting them in a wolf. But trust me, you are not getting those rabbits back. That is one way storage.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Palin in Comparison
Two Governors, both alike in letter 'P'. Pawlenty and Palin. Both contenders for the Presidency. But one of them is making moves that will likely cost them supporters. And its not the one you think. Governor Palin's stepping down from office could not have come at a better time for her presidential aspirations for three reasons.
First, she needed to step down from the spotlight. She's like a media vampire: the spotlight does not do good things to her. Her die-hard supporters will continue to ignore her loose grasp of metaphors, but the moderates won't. If she keeps her speaking to paid gigs at conservative conventions, she'll bolster her skills as an orator, which was one of her weaknesses in the last election. Once she becomes more comfortable with being in public speaking situations, she'll come across better.
Second, she needs more time to get her family life under control. Not much will stop her family's struggles from becoming gossip fodder, but by stepping down from office, she'll have the ability to devote her full attention to the family, which hopefully will minimize opportunities for there to be gossip in the first place. If she can keep the voters convinced that there won't be any surprises in her personal life, she'll be better off.
Lastly, let's look at her supporters. Even though Bristol Palin's pregnancy should have been a sticking point for values voters, it didn't have too great an effect. Liberals called it hypocrisy, conservatives denounced the attacks on her family, and the wheels of democracy kept on spinning.
What Palin has to do is use the years running up to the election to convince moderates that she's up to the task. Considering that they still voted her as VP (and put her one heartbeat away from the presidency), it's not going to be too hard of a sell. Give Obama's economic plans a few years, see if inflation runs its course, and she could gain enough support from fiscal conservatives to win the election.
So what's wrong with Pawlenty? Why isn't he in a great position? He doesn't have as good name recognition outside the midwest, and he's got a harder task ahead of him: earning the respect of the hardline conservatives. To them, the willingness to sign Franken into the Senate seat so readily shows weakness. Sitting on the decision for a small but reasonable amount of time would have earned their respect, while alienating only a few moderates. The payoff would have been big.
Palin and Pawlenty are on opposite sides of the good for the self- good for others. Pawlenty may have hurt his future chances, but did it for the good of the state. Palin's approval ratings were down even among conservatives, but she bettered her chances for the Presidency. This does not mean she'll do a better job than Pawlenty (believe me, the opposite is true), she's just better suited to get there.
First, she needed to step down from the spotlight. She's like a media vampire: the spotlight does not do good things to her. Her die-hard supporters will continue to ignore her loose grasp of metaphors, but the moderates won't. If she keeps her speaking to paid gigs at conservative conventions, she'll bolster her skills as an orator, which was one of her weaknesses in the last election. Once she becomes more comfortable with being in public speaking situations, she'll come across better.
Second, she needs more time to get her family life under control. Not much will stop her family's struggles from becoming gossip fodder, but by stepping down from office, she'll have the ability to devote her full attention to the family, which hopefully will minimize opportunities for there to be gossip in the first place. If she can keep the voters convinced that there won't be any surprises in her personal life, she'll be better off.
Lastly, let's look at her supporters. Even though Bristol Palin's pregnancy should have been a sticking point for values voters, it didn't have too great an effect. Liberals called it hypocrisy, conservatives denounced the attacks on her family, and the wheels of democracy kept on spinning.
What Palin has to do is use the years running up to the election to convince moderates that she's up to the task. Considering that they still voted her as VP (and put her one heartbeat away from the presidency), it's not going to be too hard of a sell. Give Obama's economic plans a few years, see if inflation runs its course, and she could gain enough support from fiscal conservatives to win the election.
So what's wrong with Pawlenty? Why isn't he in a great position? He doesn't have as good name recognition outside the midwest, and he's got a harder task ahead of him: earning the respect of the hardline conservatives. To them, the willingness to sign Franken into the Senate seat so readily shows weakness. Sitting on the decision for a small but reasonable amount of time would have earned their respect, while alienating only a few moderates. The payoff would have been big.
Palin and Pawlenty are on opposite sides of the good for the self- good for others. Pawlenty may have hurt his future chances, but did it for the good of the state. Palin's approval ratings were down even among conservatives, but she bettered her chances for the Presidency. This does not mean she'll do a better job than Pawlenty (believe me, the opposite is true), she's just better suited to get there.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Al-Qaeda rap
An article from CNN explains that al-shabaab, a Somali-based wing of Al Qaeda is using slick production values and rap to entice members to join.
This is a good thing. This is a very good thing. This means the standard message delivery systems aren't working; that people aren't buying into the messages as they were. Once you're forced to resort to this strategy, you know that the product or idea doesn't 'sell itself', but rather needs big budget things to convince people. That's a good sign of an ideological shift.
Plus, look at the medium. Rap as a media force is a byproduct of the decadent west. On one hand, Al Qaeda is using the narrative strategies of the west with the intent of attacking it. In using the narrative strategies of the west, they undermine the efficacy of their message (that we must attack the west).
I'm not worried by this turn of events. The more Jihad becomes a hard sell, the better we do.
This is a good thing. This is a very good thing. This means the standard message delivery systems aren't working; that people aren't buying into the messages as they were. Once you're forced to resort to this strategy, you know that the product or idea doesn't 'sell itself', but rather needs big budget things to convince people. That's a good sign of an ideological shift.
Plus, look at the medium. Rap as a media force is a byproduct of the decadent west. On one hand, Al Qaeda is using the narrative strategies of the west with the intent of attacking it. In using the narrative strategies of the west, they undermine the efficacy of their message (that we must attack the west).
I'm not worried by this turn of events. The more Jihad becomes a hard sell, the better we do.
Monday, April 20, 2009
What does Miss California have to say?
Perez Hilton is up in arms about Miss California's comments regarding the same-sex marriage debate. What did she say that was so offensive? let's look at the quote.
"Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."
Might I point out this gem
"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage."
Opposite marriage? Is this like opposite day? or is it more like divorce?
'Honey, I love you.... NOT!'
Who cares what Miss California thinks? I don't fret over decisions of public policy wondering what Miss California's opinion on the matter is. Generally, saying that a position is endorsed by a beauty contest competitor is a way of making the opinion seem weaker, rather than stronger.
"Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."
Might I point out this gem
"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage."
Opposite marriage? Is this like opposite day? or is it more like divorce?
'Honey, I love you.... NOT!'
Who cares what Miss California thinks? I don't fret over decisions of public policy wondering what Miss California's opinion on the matter is. Generally, saying that a position is endorsed by a beauty contest competitor is a way of making the opinion seem weaker, rather than stronger.
All signs point to bad idea
There is a series of races called the 24 hours of lemons. The idea is simple: you have 500 dollars to go buy a car, make it raceworthy and see how many laps you can accrue over the weekend. They give bonus points for attempting to race a car so wretched that no sane person ever would.
That said, I've found a 200 dollar yugo. I know I'm not going to race it, but the mental gymnastics of figuring out how I would go about making said car raceworthy are a lot more fun.
That said, I've found a 200 dollar yugo. I know I'm not going to race it, but the mental gymnastics of figuring out how I would go about making said car raceworthy are a lot more fun.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Oh the news
I find it interesting that one of the most recent challenges Obama has had to deal with is piracy. Not even the internet kind, I'm talking men with guns and boats. I suppose that's something else he has in common with the founding fathers.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Carpocalypse now
What to do about the American auto industry?
Of the Big Three, Ford's doing the best. And when that's the case, you know something's gone wrong. Of the remaining two, Obama pressured General Motors CEO Wagoner to step down. I will applaud him for having the guts to try to run a country and a car company at the same time. Chrysler is considering a merger with Fiat. The downside is that the company will be run by the Italians (and this is considered an improvement!) but the upside is that they might bring a car called the Panda to the US.
Of the Big Three, Ford's doing the best. And when that's the case, you know something's gone wrong. Of the remaining two, Obama pressured General Motors CEO Wagoner to step down. I will applaud him for having the guts to try to run a country and a car company at the same time. Chrysler is considering a merger with Fiat. The downside is that the company will be run by the Italians (and this is considered an improvement!) but the upside is that they might bring a car called the Panda to the US.
Friday, March 27, 2009
in which I predict an event.
I have a habit of embellishing certain stories. I'm sort of a believer in the saying that a lie can be not only more interesting than the truth, but also more true.
So around Thanksgiving, I took an event that happened to me and embellished it slightly. The true version of things was that a girl I knew thought she as pregnant, and thus couldn't come visit me. As it turned out, she wasn't actually pregnant. So what do I do? I modify things slightly, in terms of making it a better story. friend becomes an ex girlfriend, I'm not the father, but I'm expected to take care of her and the child. Not true, but it makes a good story.
Months pass, I stop telling the story, and life goes on. Yes, I feel guilty about lying, but its a low-grade sin. Then this week I get a frantic message from my current girlfriend. the news? She's pregnant. As in the story, I'm not the father. As in the story, the real father won't have anything to do with the child. Life can be weird like that. So, two days later, I hear the all-important news that she is in fact, not pregnant: the pregnancy test was a false positive.
So, I ask you: How the hell did I know this was going to happen?
So around Thanksgiving, I took an event that happened to me and embellished it slightly. The true version of things was that a girl I knew thought she as pregnant, and thus couldn't come visit me. As it turned out, she wasn't actually pregnant. So what do I do? I modify things slightly, in terms of making it a better story. friend becomes an ex girlfriend, I'm not the father, but I'm expected to take care of her and the child. Not true, but it makes a good story.
Months pass, I stop telling the story, and life goes on. Yes, I feel guilty about lying, but its a low-grade sin. Then this week I get a frantic message from my current girlfriend. the news? She's pregnant. As in the story, I'm not the father. As in the story, the real father won't have anything to do with the child. Life can be weird like that. So, two days later, I hear the all-important news that she is in fact, not pregnant: the pregnancy test was a false positive.
So, I ask you: How the hell did I know this was going to happen?
Friday, February 27, 2009
The last great invention of modern times
this transforms anything into pure, unadulterated awesome.
http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/
http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Breaking news update!
The Vatican has announced that Darwin's theory of Evolution is not, repeat NOT in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic church. This decision comes only about 80 years after the Scopes trial, which for the Church is amazingly fast. It took 400 years to accept that Galileo was right about the Earth orbiting the sun and that he ought be pardoned.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
On getting kicked out of a party
When being told to "get a room", its important for the host of the party to specify that they'd prefer that it was not a room in that house.
Also, a hallway is not a room.
Also, a hallway is not a room.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Car Ownership
Yay! I got a car!
Let's take a tally of my day
Getting out there with minimal fuss: Klaus 1, Universe 0
Getting the car with minimal fuss (and at a good price, too) Klaus 30, Universe 0
Getting back on my own with no trouble: Klaus 32, Universe 0
The discovery that a crucial piece of my car isn't working: Klaus 32, Universe 50
The discovery that they'll fix it for free: Klaus 42, Universe 50
Having the pay-for-parking machine make a fool out of me not once, not twice, but 3 times: Klaus 42, Universe 56
Alfa Romeo point (Hey, an Alfa Romeo!): Klaus 43, Universe 56
Minor fuss but I might pick up the parking pass tonight.
Otherwise, drive out to the garage where my car will be fixed tomorrow, and life is good-ish. Universe, I shall strike again soon.
Let's take a tally of my day
Getting out there with minimal fuss: Klaus 1, Universe 0
Getting the car with minimal fuss (and at a good price, too) Klaus 30, Universe 0
Getting back on my own with no trouble: Klaus 32, Universe 0
The discovery that a crucial piece of my car isn't working: Klaus 32, Universe 50
The discovery that they'll fix it for free: Klaus 42, Universe 50
Having the pay-for-parking machine make a fool out of me not once, not twice, but 3 times: Klaus 42, Universe 56
Alfa Romeo point (Hey, an Alfa Romeo!): Klaus 43, Universe 56
Minor fuss but I might pick up the parking pass tonight.
Otherwise, drive out to the garage where my car will be fixed tomorrow, and life is good-ish. Universe, I shall strike again soon.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Oh yes, the inauguration was the 20th
As soon as the polls closed, and it became apparent that Obama would become this nations 44th President, all talk of President Bush ceased. Any pressing topic was followed by the words "how will President-elect Obama handle this?". Good question, but isn't there somebody in the office right now? Average height, grey hair, speaks with a bit of a drawl? Goes by the name Bush?
As soon as the Nation knew who his successor would be, President Bush could have placed a dozen monkeys in the Oval Office and nobody would have noticed until it was time for him to move out.
And I know he had enough clout to get some things done, because he was able to get the Marianas Trench as part of an environmentally protected zone after the election. Couldn't he at least throw in a few questionable presidential pardons on the way out?
Without a doubt, as far as we were concerned, the inauguration was in Early November. This was just move-in day.
As soon as the Nation knew who his successor would be, President Bush could have placed a dozen monkeys in the Oval Office and nobody would have noticed until it was time for him to move out.
And I know he had enough clout to get some things done, because he was able to get the Marianas Trench as part of an environmentally protected zone after the election. Couldn't he at least throw in a few questionable presidential pardons on the way out?
Without a doubt, as far as we were concerned, the inauguration was in Early November. This was just move-in day.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
If I hear or see the "word" gobama I will scream
Dear diary,
Yesterday, we got a new president. I joked on his election that when I woke up, everything was the same as the day before. Today everything was different. there were clouds in the sky and the air outside my dorm smelled like dead fish. this is one thing I don't like about the new administration.
Also, yesterday I saw a guy with a 'Viva Bush' t-shirt. I mean, if you're going to support a president, I'm okay with that. but there's not really a lot you can do at this point, as a Bush supporter. Well, aside from secede.
Yesterday, we got a new president. I joked on his election that when I woke up, everything was the same as the day before. Today everything was different. there were clouds in the sky and the air outside my dorm smelled like dead fish. this is one thing I don't like about the new administration.
Also, yesterday I saw a guy with a 'Viva Bush' t-shirt. I mean, if you're going to support a president, I'm okay with that. but there's not really a lot you can do at this point, as a Bush supporter. Well, aside from secede.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
I'm not going to make another airplane joke
Based on the astounding successful water landing, Flight 1549 will forever go down in history (pun intended) as the only flight where nobody ignored the flight attendants' instructions. The odds of this happening are slightly less than the odds of being struck by lightning as you win the lottery.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Dear Diary
Dear Diary
Today, I saw a man wearing only a vest and shorts. I wanted to take his picture and tell him that it was for yousirlookridiculous.org
it's a .org, so it's not like I'm making money off it.
Today, I saw a man wearing only a vest and shorts. I wanted to take his picture and tell him that it was for yousirlookridiculous.org
it's a .org, so it's not like I'm making money off it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
