It appears the 2-month+ protests by the "Red Shirts" are over, at least for now.
Wednesday and yesterday saw a shocking amount of wanton destruction. Buildings, buses, and other places and things, were set alight by rampaging Red Shirts -- or were they? Some speculations suggest another hand, a dark one, might have been behind at least some of that.
If I understood the TV news announcer correctly last night, the Center One Shopping Center in the Victory Monument area was so heavily damaged by fire that the owners have said it's not worth trying to repair it, even if that's possible, so they'll raze it. That report didn't indicate the plans, if any, beyond that.
Central World, a shopping icon in the heart of the business district -- and adjacent to the main rally Red Shirt site -- was largely gutted by the fire set alight in it Wednesday night. Due to sniper fire and other safety concerns, firemen had to stand off until yesterday morning, by which time much of the damage had been done. (Standing off by the fire department was pretty much the rule, and I don't blame them.)
Both the Skytrain and subway remain closed today, as do some bus routes (that last is -- I think). So do a great many businesses.
That includes some you might not expect. Last night I went about 7:30 P.M. to the 7-Eleven in my sub-soi where I live -- only to find it closed. When I thought about it, given that there was a 9:00 P.M.-5:00 A.M. curfew about to start (as it will tonight and tomorrow night, by the way), I guess it wasn't a surprise, though it did draw me up short, and still does.
Why? Well, my sub-soi is a little crooked, and though that 7-Eleven can be approached from several directions, they all feed into the sub-soi itself, and the store is located in a place it's not easily visible until you're upon it, not even from Sukhumvit Soi 22. Coming from my home, I can't see it until I round the bend just a few meters before the entrance. No one comes into this little private world unless they live or have business here, or happen to wander in by accident, so it remains somewhat . . . what? . . well, let me rephrase it: it gives one reason to pause and reflect to ask just how disjointed matters are.
My soi is also lined with street vendors in the evening. There were some last night, though some regulars weren't around. Those that were open were doing a brisk business, running low on food, and clearly not planning to cook up anything else, not with the start of the curfew not so far off.
We didn't have a curfew even during the 2006 coup that deposed then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, now a fugitive dodging a two-year prison sentence; the last curfew here pre-dates my time in Thailand, a curfew imposed almost exactly 18 years ago in May, 1992, also known as "Black May" owing to the violence and deaths at that time.
The noted Thai-American author and keen observer of the local scene S. P. Somtow has just written about the protests, though his overall focus is on the debate about the reporting by the foreign media throughout this crisis, particularly that by CNN's Dan Rivers. Somtow's piece is one of the best introductions for Westerners seeking to approach and understand Thailand I've ever read, and it's not long -- a blog entry. You can read that essay here:
http://www.somtow.org/2010/05/dont-blame-dan-rivers.html
(Somtow's homepage http://www.somtow.org is well worth bookmarking, by the way.)
Back down to the nitty-gritty.
The troubles haven't been confined to Bangkok. Since Wednesday, at least four provincial halls in the Northeast (Isaan), from where many of the protesters come, were torched. Red Shirt demonstrations have occurred in the North as well, in Chiang Mai, Thailand's "Second City," for instance.
A great many ordinary, everyday folks have had their lives seriously disrupted. I read an article a few days ago in which someone involved in tourism was quoted as saying he knew several people who had been involved in the industry in the form of owning private businesses, such as tourist agencies, who simply didn't have the money to continue so had folded. Closed. Gone belly up. They took a heavy blow in the wake of the invasion of the ASEAN summit and airport occupations last year, and according to this guy, these just-ended protests proved fatal.
Of course, that means their employees are unemployed, too.
I read about a boutique hotel somewhere near the main rally site; the owner said that normally they would have 85-90% occupancy this time of year -- but that at the time of the story, they didn't have even one guest, so he had locked the gate to the grounds and hunkered down for the count.
Tourism arrivals are way down, though by how much is unclear. The most dramatic I've read is that prior to the start of the protests, Suvarnbhumi Airport (Bangkok International) was receiving around 30,000 people daily, but that by then that number had dropped by a shocking 2/3rd's or so, to about 10,000 daily.
Think about that: a drop of 20,000. That number undoubtedly includes people returning home, both Thais and foreigners who have settled here, but it also includes a great many tourists and business people. Visitors. Visitors who spend money, generating employment.
Gone.
Even if every single tourist who canceled a trip here was a backpacker limited -- just to pull a number out of thin air -- to spending US$20 per day, that's not an insignificant sum, especially after about 10 weeks. And you know not every tourist is a backpacker on a shoestring budget.
As for the business folks, well, they're hardly going to be staying in a 400-baht-per-night "love hotel," are they? They're not going to be buying 25-baht servings of friend rice from street vendors, Rolex knock-offs along Sukhumvit Road or in the Patpong Night Bazaar, riding unairconditioned buses, especially long-distance buses, and the like.
Further, some of them may have been coming here to discuss investments. Serious investments. What if they advise their companies to invest elsewhere? And some news reports suggest that this is happening, or that the business people are advising at least holding off investing. And another delay day is another no-payday for locals.
Then there's the personal inconvenience. While I haven't been sitting around home grieving that getting out might not be such a hot idea -- I have been sitting home, for exactly that reason. The only two times I've left my sub-soi in the past week were last Friday, when my glasses broke and I had to get a new pair chop-chop (since I'm practically blind without glasses), then again two days ago when I had to go the the nearby Tesco-Lotus to run a can't-wait errand. I encountered absolutely no problem either time, though in the latter case, a fair bit of luck was involved. That is, I got to the Tesco-Lotus about noon, and spent about 30 minutes there before leaving. I left about 12:30 P.M.
Arsonists struck about 2:00 P.M. I hasten to add that as far as I know, no one was even hurt, let alone killed, but I am plenty happy I wasn't around when whoever started the fire arrived. (By the way, I also don't have any idea if the resulting fire was major, minor, or in-between, though the fact that I don't know gives reason to hope any resulting damage was minor, since had it been major it undoubtedly would be played up in the news.)
So, for me, the inconvenience has been, and continues to be, minor. After all, I don't work, so I don't have to worry about getting to work. And I rarely get off Soi 22 even in perfectly normal times.
But what about the people who do have to get to their jobs? Of course, since some no longer even HAVE a job, that's not a problem now, is it???
Along those lines, of not having a job, that is, what about, to give two examples, employees at TV Channel 3 and the Khong Toey Metropolitan Electric Authority Office? Both those were badly damaged by fire -- the picture I saw of the latter shows it as what seems to me to be gutted. Both undoubtedly will come back into service -- eventually. Will the current employees be paid while the buildings are rebuilt? Will those two operations shift elsewhere so they can get back into business as soon as possible -- and keep their employees working? I don't know.
And that scenario is being played out in many, many places, around Bangkok, and elsewhere.
On the macro level again, Thaksin has denied being a leader of the Red Shirts at all, and people who did lead them on the ground have surrendered (some of them) to the police and admitted, in at least one leader's case, legal responsibility even while denying being able to "assume" any financial responsibility.
The Red Shirt leadership and the movement itself are clearly fractured. The rampage started when some of the leaders took to the stage at Ratchaprasong to call upon their followers to stop the protests and go home.
That clearly displeased fom of their followers, who promptly rioted.
A few days ago, I read an initial estimate that the Kingdom has taken a hit for at least 500 billion baht. Folks, that's a huge amount of money. It's in the range of US$ 1.6 billion -- in just 10 weeks. Well, no -- it was closer to NINE weeks when I read that story. And, to tell the truth, I'm not sure if that figure was for the whole Kingdom -- now that I think about it -- or just for Greater Bangkok.
So -- are the problems over?
I doubt it. As the Bangkok Post says in an editorial, it may take years, or even a generation, to heal the wounds that have been opened. Reuters has a opinion, according to a story at TAN (the Thai-ASEAN News Network).
Some of my Thai acquaintances have commented, though none have talked about these past several weeks in a political context. They've been irked, even angered, by the inconvenience, first, and to a much greater degree, secondly, by the violence, but even in criticizing the violence, they remained silent on their opinion about who was right, who was wrong, etc. They just wanted everything to stop.
It's going to be awhile before we're back to business-as-usual. It will take time to repair or replace damaged and destroyed facilities, for one thing. It also will take time for those thrown out of work to find new employment, and for the government to help them survive in the meanwhile. The security forces need some time to make as sure as they can that troublemakers are at least staying low, if not necessarily cowed over the longer term.
On the practical level, it appears we're not going to face shortages of food, fuel, etc., as the various groups involved in those areas are reportedly moving swiftly to make sure there are enough supplies on hand and that the supply chain isn't interrupted. (Maybe I can get a loaf of bread today at the 7-Eleven, if it's open!!!)
I wish there were something I could do to help, but given the raw emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if any offer I might make might meet with a snarl at perceived foreign interference. That wouldn't anger me or hurt my feelings -- peoples' emotions are understandably very, very raw. A couple of days ago I was chatting on the phone with a Thai friend and mentioned my cable TV was out, and she snapped at me, accusing me of worrying about small stuff. Then she immediately apologized before I could even react and explained that she was watching the TV news while we were chatting and there was a story about trouble in the provincial capital near which her family lives, and she was concerned about them, especially since she had been unable to get through on the phone.
I hope the bitterness begins to go away. . . .
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Days of Rage: The Health Care Debate. (0135, Wednesday, March 31, 2010, Bangkok time and date)
If the debate over what has been billed as "health care reform" before the House vote Sunday, March 21 was often bitter and divisive, it has, if anything, become worse in the days since.
Some of the worst excesses can be condemned and dismissed quickly. A member of Congress was sit on and called a "nigger," another was called a faggot, yet others received threatening phone calls and faxes, one Representative's address was posted on the Internet along with a message for those objecting to the legislation to drop by and "thank" him -- except the address belonged to his *brother,* whose gas line to his outdoor grill was cut, and bricks were hurled through windows. Among the worst of the worst was a threat posted on YouTube by a guy, now under arrest, threatening Republican House Minority Whip Cantor and his family with harm or death.
All of this is despicable. Reprehensible. Hateful. In many of the cases, laws were clearly violated -- reasonable laws to most of us. And we need to utterly reject such actions, from every quarter and from whichever side of The Great Divide they come. I assume you noticed that the actions above involved targets in both parties.
Now what? Well, though the House and Senate have both signed off on the legislation and the President has done likewise, the fight really has just begun. To wit: there are two lawsuits challenging it, suits filed by various state attorneys general.
Constitutionality is an issue in these suits.
One argues that the law violates the commerce clause, which enables Congress to regulate commerce between and among states, though (according to this argument) not within a single state; medical insurance is not sold across state lines. That seems straightforward on the face of it, appearing to trump -- and invalidate -- the legislation.
However, there's apparently nothing preventing a single company setting up headquarters in, say, Chicago, then establishing branches or subsidiaries not only in Illinois (in the case of Chicago), but in any other state(s) as well. Does that make that company's business subject to the interstate commerce clause? I don't know, and apparently there is no precise Supreme Court precedent. Proponent argue that it is subject to the commerce clause, pointing out that claims are often paid across state lines.
Another component of this suit is that individuals will be required to buy medical coverage. Opponents argue that it's unconstitutional to require us, by law, to buy a product or service offered by the private sector, and further argue this has never been attempted before.
I gather both suits also argue that the legislation violates the principle of state sovereignty, a controversial issue in just about any state, though more so in some than in others. I should point out that I have to rely on news reports for my information, and I'm not clear that both suits actually involve this principle, though I'm virtually certain that at least one does.
There are some points to keep in mind as we sit here trying to peer into the crystal ball to divine how all this might come out.
First, this legislation isn't about health care reform -- it's about health care insurance reform. One's an apple and the other's an orange, though just as apples and oranges are both fruits, health care reform and health care insurance reform are indeed related, as both center on, well, health care (obviously).
Second is this business about rationing and death panels. These require some detail.
Medical care is already rationed, and long has been.
This is most obvious in times of widespread natural disaster, when there's not enough of anything to go around for all the sick and injured, and doctors (and other medical personnel) have to make triage decisions -- "who needs it the most and the fastest?"
It is also effectively the case within the medical insurance sector; adjusters decide what to pay for and what not to pay for. If an adjuster decides not to pay for something and the insured person can't afford it, then he's out of luck -- not treatment/medine/surgery/etc.
The government panels? They are to try to discover the most efficacious treatment. The law specifically prohibits them from making medical decision, further specifically leaving that up to your doctor. Further, nowhere is there a single syllable empowering a government panel to summon Granny to learn whether she's getting a death sentence.
There was even a case of a protester berating a guy who is apparently -- please note the word "Apparently" (I'll explain in a moment) -- a victim of Parkinson's disease. The protester has since apologized and expressed remorse, to his credit. It's still worth watching the video:
Whatever happened to the "civil" in "civil discourse"?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Reconciliation and the U.S. Congress: A Study in Hypocrisy; and other Joys
Just watched a great video on YouTube about reconciliation, that legislative process through which, in theory, differences in Senate and House legislation are ironed out. While reconciliation was meant to be used only for budgetary matters, it has been used for other things.
Thing is, when the Democrats are IN of power, they *like* reconciliation, which requires just 51 votes in the Senate rather than a super-majority (as it's rather amusingly called) of 60 to ram legislation through. When the Democrats are out of power, they *hate* reconciliation. But don't go congratulating the Republicans; they're indistinguishable from their Democrat buddies when it comes to reconciliation. Just watch the video:
Then there's the matter of health insurance for employees of the federal government. No one will seriously dispute (I hope) that if workers in the private sector deserve I*some* sort of coverage through their work, then so do federal employees. But it sort of depends on what we mean by "*some* sort of coverage," doesn't it?
I mean, did you know that under circumstances the EX-employees of a federal employee can continue being covered. Or, more startlingly, so can -- get this (Dave Berry ought to write about this) -- so can an ex-SPOUSE.
The last time I worked in the U.S. was mid-1990, after which I returned to These Asian Climes. I can just see myself calling up my former employer in Texas and saying, "Hey, the game's changed, and I want medical coverage again from you guys. By the way, remember my wife? I want her on the plan too. What's that? No, we're not; we split in 1994 -- but I KNOW MY RIGHTS and you BETTER cover her!"
It gets better (if you define "better" in a really, really weird way). I ran across the main page for federal employee health insurance. Of course, when you start following the links, things become mind-numbing. But on the main page (URL to follow) you see there are two basic groups, one by geographic region, the other by service (fee-per-service plans), and the employee can choose either approach. Fair enough. The employees are also divided within each of those groups into two sub-groups: postal employees, and non-postal ones.
I pulled up the pages for each under the geographic plans. I scrolled down to the very first listing under Texas, and saw that of a biweekly premium totaling $194.30, the part the employee pays is . . . are you ready for this? . . . $28.17. That's a princely 15%, folks -- actually, a tiny fraction shy of that. "So," you ask, "who pays the rest of the taxes?" Do you pay federal taxes! Go look in the mirror and congratulate yourself for winning the gold in the Premium-Paying event.
Here are the links to the main page, then to the one where I found the above example:
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp (main)
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/postalhmo2010.pdf (postal)
You might also want to look at About.com's page on Congressional benefits. While members of Congress don't get *quite* the perks some think they do; certain ones have an average retirement income from *just there government service ("service," ha-ha) of dollars shy of $61,000. That's right: 61 G-notes, more than a lot of working stiffs make at full-time jobs (if they have one, that is).
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
I read sometime ago that members of Congress can get full medical coverage for -- as I recall -- a puny premium of $503 per year. And if a Representative or Congressman needs to have the finest heart surgeon, so be it. (A few actually refuse this benefit, to their eternal credit, in my opinion.)
A final beef, probably my personal Number 1: amendments to a bill that have ZERO to do with the bill, especially OINK-OINK-bring-home-the-PORK! amendments.I wish the Founding Fathers had written into the Constitution that if an amendment wasn't CLEARLY related to a bill, then nope, it couldn't be stuck on.
Snuffle snuffle oink oink.
Thing is, when the Democrats are IN of power, they *like* reconciliation, which requires just 51 votes in the Senate rather than a super-majority (as it's rather amusingly called) of 60 to ram legislation through. When the Democrats are out of power, they *hate* reconciliation. But don't go congratulating the Republicans; they're indistinguishable from their Democrat buddies when it comes to reconciliation. Just watch the video:
Then there's the matter of health insurance for employees of the federal government. No one will seriously dispute (I hope) that if workers in the private sector deserve I*some* sort of coverage through their work, then so do federal employees. But it sort of depends on what we mean by "*some* sort of coverage," doesn't it?
I mean, did you know that under circumstances the EX-employees of a federal employee can continue being covered. Or, more startlingly, so can -- get this (Dave Berry ought to write about this) -- so can an ex-SPOUSE.
The last time I worked in the U.S. was mid-1990, after which I returned to These Asian Climes. I can just see myself calling up my former employer in Texas and saying, "Hey, the game's changed, and I want medical coverage again from you guys. By the way, remember my wife? I want her on the plan too. What's that? No, we're not; we split in 1994 -- but I KNOW MY RIGHTS and you BETTER cover her!"
It gets better (if you define "better" in a really, really weird way). I ran across the main page for federal employee health insurance. Of course, when you start following the links, things become mind-numbing. But on the main page (URL to follow) you see there are two basic groups, one by geographic region, the other by service (fee-per-service plans), and the employee can choose either approach. Fair enough. The employees are also divided within each of those groups into two sub-groups: postal employees, and non-postal ones.
I pulled up the pages for each under the geographic plans. I scrolled down to the very first listing under Texas, and saw that of a biweekly premium totaling $194.30, the part the employee pays is . . . are you ready for this? . . . $28.17. That's a princely 15%, folks -- actually, a tiny fraction shy of that. "So," you ask, "who pays the rest of the taxes?" Do you pay federal taxes! Go look in the mirror and congratulate yourself for winning the gold in the Premium-Paying event.
Here are the links to the main page, then to the one where I found the above example:
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp (main)
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/postalhmo2010.pdf (postal)
You might also want to look at About.com's page on Congressional benefits. While members of Congress don't get *quite* the perks some think they do; certain ones have an average retirement income from *just there government service ("service," ha-ha) of dollars shy of $61,000. That's right: 61 G-notes, more than a lot of working stiffs make at full-time jobs (if they have one, that is).
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
I read sometime ago that members of Congress can get full medical coverage for -- as I recall -- a puny premium of $503 per year. And if a Representative or Congressman needs to have the finest heart surgeon, so be it. (A few actually refuse this benefit, to their eternal credit, in my opinion.)
A final beef, probably my personal Number 1: amendments to a bill that have ZERO to do with the bill, especially OINK-OINK-bring-home-the-PORK! amendments.I wish the Founding Fathers had written into the Constitution that if an amendment wasn't CLEARLY related to a bill, then nope, it couldn't be stuck on.
Snuffle snuffle oink oink.
Monday, March 1, 2010
President Washington and Party Politics
In his farewell speech September 17, 1796, President George Washington spoke some truths about, and to, the then-new country, the United States of America.
In President Washington's mind, as he stressed in his address, he though one factor we had to guard against was sectionalism -- as he couched it, the Atlantic versus the West and the North versus the South.
Of course, anyone with even a vague knowledge of American history knows that a mere 65 years later, the North and South put that to the test.
But what of today, when the divides aren't so much geographical -- though those do exist -- as much as ideological, reflected in the current deadlock between our two main parties.
David Ignatius, Op-Ed columnist for the Washington Post (clickable link), has written a thoughtful column titled "The U.S. is at a crucial point in defining its direction" (clickable link). Below is the reply I posted in the comments.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3/1/2010 2:34:37 AM (time posted at the Washington Post)
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Should YOU get an Hybrid or Extended-Range Electric Car?
Although I'm very much for our weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, if for no other reason than to get us out of the situation of being at the mercy of some not-very-friendly countries -- think Venezuela, for instance -- I realize two important factors when we're talking about our cars: One, fossil fuels are going to be a major, perhaps the major, source of our total energy source for some decades to come; and, two, while technology is advancing by leaps and bounds, a great many people remain skeptical of hybrid and extended-range electric vehicles, and not without reason.
But first, definitions are in order. A hybrid vehicle uses both its electric motor and gasoline engine at the same time -- that is, the gasoline engine is connected to the power train so that it works in tandem with the electric motor. In other words, gasoline is being consumed all the time you're driving, but at reduced rates per mile. On the other hand, an extended-range electric vehicle works differently; the gasoline engine isn't connected to the power train -- its only job is to keep the battery charged.
So, if you drive, say, a Prius, which is a hybrid car,, you are going to be burning gasoline even if you just drive a mile or two. But if you drive a Volt (once they go on the market, that is), for up to the first 40 miles you won't be burning any gasoline at all.
At first glance, anyone who drives, say, an average of 30 miles per day may think, "Heck! All else being equal, I'll go with a Volt!" And indeed, there is something to recommend that: no expense for gasoline, and a boost for clean air.
But no gasoline expense and cleaner air aren't all there is to the story. You have to recharge a Volt -- well, I guess you could let the battery run down and just buy gasoline, since the expected fuel tank, according to the latest I can find from GM, will have a capacity somewhere in the 6-10-gallon range, and even at, say, 25 mpg, that'll get you a ways. In contrast, a Prius drives like a "real" car -- you never have to recharge it, because the gasoline engine is keeping it recharged the whole time while helping with the driving. That's a big plus, and a big reason the Prius is so popular. People do worry about being able to recharge an ER EV (extended-range electric vehicle).
If you're still eager for a Volt on the basis of savings on gasoline expenses, you better hold up and think a moment. Even if your driving habits are such that you indeed never or only very rarely drive more than 30 miles per day, how much are you going to save? If your current car gets 30 mpg, you'll save, at most, 7 gallons per week -- and that's only if you drive that much every single day of the week.
I decided to look at that number, and do some math. I just now checked online, and in the area in Texas from which I come, the median price for gasoline in the last 24 hours is around $2.60. Okay, so in a week I save $18.20, or $946.40 per year. I just checked, and the average American car buyer who buys a new car keeps it three to four years. Let's split the difference at 3.5 years. Okay, 3.5 X 946.40 = $3,312.40 saved. Let's round that down to an even $3,000, just to build in a margin of error.
Right now, there are some nice tax breaks available. If I remember correctly, you can get a $7,500 break from just the federal government alone for either kind of car. (Don't take my word for that if you decide to do some serious shopping -- check it out; a rebate I may remember correctly may have been reduced or even eliminated.) Various states give various breaks as well. But let's say you live in a stingy state that *doesn't* give *any* break.
Okay, that leaves you your $3,000 in fuel savings, in the case of the Volt, plus the $7,500 tax break from the our friends at the IRS. (You know it must since a tax collector into spasms of grief when Congress and the President gives us breaks like these!) That's a cool $10,500, which is (sort of like) extra money in your pocket when you head to the dealership. If you're a person who can reasonably afford no more than a $30,000 car, that's a lot of extra buying power. I'm assuming that a $40,000 car is almost certain to be rather nicer than a $30,000 one. Put another way, you get a $40,000 for 3.5 years instead of that relative clunker you could really afford.
BUT -- the eternal "but" -- what about after the fed break ends? Then you'll have to fork over $36,500 for a $40,000 car. And you'll have to recharge it as long as 3-4 hours -- on a 220-240 volt outlet -- or as long as 6-8 hours on a 110 outlet every time you drive it, depending, of course, on how far you drive it.
That's a pain in the a -- I mean neck. A Prius, on the other hand, is ready to rock-and-roll all the time, every time, unless you were a dodo and ran the tank dry, in which case I have no sympathy anyway, Dunce! ;-) Just hope your battery has enough charge to let you limp to the nearest gas station to gas up. And don't forget next time, okay?
Now, what about a Prius, in terms of fuel capacity and consumption? I think the 2010 model holds just under 12 gallons. Let's just call it 12 gallons. It boasts a range of "more than 600 miles," which isn't very specific, so I'll assume a range of just 600 miles, since manufacturers lie through their teeth all the time. (Ditto GM, no doubt, not just Toyota -- and PLEASE don't bring up Toyota's current recall nightmare; I imagine they'll get that sorted, eventually, and make darned sure they don't get stuck like that again!) That's 50 mpg.
Okay, that means for a 30-mile commute you'll use just 6/10th's of a gallon compared to the 1 gallon you would use in an ordinary car that gets 30 mpg. So, you're saving 4/10th's of a gallon per day, or 146 gallons per year, which I am promptly rounding up to 150 gallons a year. At that same median price of $2.60 per gallon, that means you save $379.60 annually (if you drive every day of the week, every week of the year), which I'm also rounding to $380. Compared to the Volt owner, who saves $946.40-but-I'm-rounding-it-to-$950, You Pay, in a sense, a "convenience fee" of $570 not to have to recharge your car. A little under $1.60 per day.
So, which -- if either -- sort of car should you buy?
Well, that depends. If you're a typical family person in a family in which both the husband and wife work and drive 30 miles daily, including on weekends, but you're home every night and have a garage or carport in which you can recharge your vehicle, you may want to opt for the Volt. Night is when electricity rates are their cheapest, you're not going anywhere anyway, bar an emergency. However, if your driving habits vary, or if your a night worker and have to recharge during peak-rate daytime hours, maybe the Prius is better for you.
What about the potential car buyer who would be perfectly happy with a regular car that costs about the same as either a Volt or a Prius? I guess the next consideration would be how the buyer feels about cleaner air and the like -- and I don't mean climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it. One can wish for cleaner air without believing any of the climate change stuff. If that's important to you (as it certainly is if you are a believer that people are pushing the climate over the edge), then you may want to give these cars some consideration, or cars like them.
What about people with greatly different needs -- like me, were I to move back to Texas (or anywhere in North America, for that matter)? I'm single, and there won't be any babies in this old boy's future. I suppose I might acquire a significant other somewhere along the way, in theory anyway; depends on how stiff I get -- "Do I really need a Sweetie around to go get me a beer?" Crucial considerations like that, you know.
But back to the point.
I'd probably take a look at some cars in the SmartForTwo class, not all of which are two-seaters, as it is. I checked a SmartForTwo, and it's near-unbeatable on price: I put together a basic coupe plus a few extras, most importantly an air-conditioner. On the company's website, the price came back as $13,530. There are quite a few choices in this class, though their prices can range above $20,000.
A final note: ER EV's aren't for everyone for everyone. Someone who otherwise is the ideal candidate suddenly remembers, "Hey, I live on the 78th floor of an apartment tower overlooking Central Park West! Where can I plug the damned thing in???" Oops. As the tuna ad says (or used to say in my day, anyway), "Sorry, Charlie." Or Charlotte. Or whatever.
I personally expect we'll see technology catch up sooner than we think, though building up infrastructure is going to take time since there are tens of millions of people across the country who plain don't have ready access to recharge EV's. And not everyone trusts even a Prius, though that's changing in its favor.
And if fuel prices soar again and stay high, unlike when they went to over $4.00 per gallon in 2008 but now are down to well under $3.00 per gallon, anywhere in the country, my bet is that Americans' driving habits really will change, even after the economy recovers and is purring along nicely.
Feel free to leave a comment!
But first, definitions are in order. A hybrid vehicle uses both its electric motor and gasoline engine at the same time -- that is, the gasoline engine is connected to the power train so that it works in tandem with the electric motor. In other words, gasoline is being consumed all the time you're driving, but at reduced rates per mile. On the other hand, an extended-range electric vehicle works differently; the gasoline engine isn't connected to the power train -- its only job is to keep the battery charged.
So, if you drive, say, a Prius, which is a hybrid car,, you are going to be burning gasoline even if you just drive a mile or two. But if you drive a Volt (once they go on the market, that is), for up to the first 40 miles you won't be burning any gasoline at all.
At first glance, anyone who drives, say, an average of 30 miles per day may think, "Heck! All else being equal, I'll go with a Volt!" And indeed, there is something to recommend that: no expense for gasoline, and a boost for clean air.
But no gasoline expense and cleaner air aren't all there is to the story. You have to recharge a Volt -- well, I guess you could let the battery run down and just buy gasoline, since the expected fuel tank, according to the latest I can find from GM, will have a capacity somewhere in the 6-10-gallon range, and even at, say, 25 mpg, that'll get you a ways. In contrast, a Prius drives like a "real" car -- you never have to recharge it, because the gasoline engine is keeping it recharged the whole time while helping with the driving. That's a big plus, and a big reason the Prius is so popular. People do worry about being able to recharge an ER EV (extended-range electric vehicle).
If you're still eager for a Volt on the basis of savings on gasoline expenses, you better hold up and think a moment. Even if your driving habits are such that you indeed never or only very rarely drive more than 30 miles per day, how much are you going to save? If your current car gets 30 mpg, you'll save, at most, 7 gallons per week -- and that's only if you drive that much every single day of the week.
I decided to look at that number, and do some math. I just now checked online, and in the area in Texas from which I come, the median price for gasoline in the last 24 hours is around $2.60. Okay, so in a week I save $18.20, or $946.40 per year. I just checked, and the average American car buyer who buys a new car keeps it three to four years. Let's split the difference at 3.5 years. Okay, 3.5 X 946.40 = $3,312.40 saved. Let's round that down to an even $3,000, just to build in a margin of error.
Right now, there are some nice tax breaks available. If I remember correctly, you can get a $7,500 break from just the federal government alone for either kind of car. (Don't take my word for that if you decide to do some serious shopping -- check it out; a rebate I may remember correctly may have been reduced or even eliminated.) Various states give various breaks as well. But let's say you live in a stingy state that *doesn't* give *any* break.
Okay, that leaves you your $3,000 in fuel savings, in the case of the Volt, plus the $7,500 tax break from the our friends at the IRS. (You know it must since a tax collector into spasms of grief when Congress and the President gives us breaks like these!) That's a cool $10,500, which is (sort of like) extra money in your pocket when you head to the dealership. If you're a person who can reasonably afford no more than a $30,000 car, that's a lot of extra buying power. I'm assuming that a $40,000 car is almost certain to be rather nicer than a $30,000 one. Put another way, you get a $40,000 for 3.5 years instead of that relative clunker you could really afford.
BUT -- the eternal "but" -- what about after the fed break ends? Then you'll have to fork over $36,500 for a $40,000 car. And you'll have to recharge it as long as 3-4 hours -- on a 220-240 volt outlet -- or as long as 6-8 hours on a 110 outlet every time you drive it, depending, of course, on how far you drive it.
That's a pain in the a -- I mean neck. A Prius, on the other hand, is ready to rock-and-roll all the time, every time, unless you were a dodo and ran the tank dry, in which case I have no sympathy anyway, Dunce! ;-) Just hope your battery has enough charge to let you limp to the nearest gas station to gas up. And don't forget next time, okay?
Now, what about a Prius, in terms of fuel capacity and consumption? I think the 2010 model holds just under 12 gallons. Let's just call it 12 gallons. It boasts a range of "more than 600 miles," which isn't very specific, so I'll assume a range of just 600 miles, since manufacturers lie through their teeth all the time. (Ditto GM, no doubt, not just Toyota -- and PLEASE don't bring up Toyota's current recall nightmare; I imagine they'll get that sorted, eventually, and make darned sure they don't get stuck like that again!) That's 50 mpg.
Okay, that means for a 30-mile commute you'll use just 6/10th's of a gallon compared to the 1 gallon you would use in an ordinary car that gets 30 mpg. So, you're saving 4/10th's of a gallon per day, or 146 gallons per year, which I am promptly rounding up to 150 gallons a year. At that same median price of $2.60 per gallon, that means you save $379.60 annually (if you drive every day of the week, every week of the year), which I'm also rounding to $380. Compared to the Volt owner, who saves $946.40-but-I'm-rounding-it-to-$950, You Pay, in a sense, a "convenience fee" of $570 not to have to recharge your car. A little under $1.60 per day.
So, which -- if either -- sort of car should you buy?
Well, that depends. If you're a typical family person in a family in which both the husband and wife work and drive 30 miles daily, including on weekends, but you're home every night and have a garage or carport in which you can recharge your vehicle, you may want to opt for the Volt. Night is when electricity rates are their cheapest, you're not going anywhere anyway, bar an emergency. However, if your driving habits vary, or if your a night worker and have to recharge during peak-rate daytime hours, maybe the Prius is better for you.
What about the potential car buyer who would be perfectly happy with a regular car that costs about the same as either a Volt or a Prius? I guess the next consideration would be how the buyer feels about cleaner air and the like -- and I don't mean climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it. One can wish for cleaner air without believing any of the climate change stuff. If that's important to you (as it certainly is if you are a believer that people are pushing the climate over the edge), then you may want to give these cars some consideration, or cars like them.
What about people with greatly different needs -- like me, were I to move back to Texas (or anywhere in North America, for that matter)? I'm single, and there won't be any babies in this old boy's future. I suppose I might acquire a significant other somewhere along the way, in theory anyway; depends on how stiff I get -- "Do I really need a Sweetie around to go get me a beer?" Crucial considerations like that, you know.
But back to the point.
I'd probably take a look at some cars in the SmartForTwo class, not all of which are two-seaters, as it is. I checked a SmartForTwo, and it's near-unbeatable on price: I put together a basic coupe plus a few extras, most importantly an air-conditioner. On the company's website, the price came back as $13,530. There are quite a few choices in this class, though their prices can range above $20,000.
A final note: ER EV's aren't for everyone for everyone. Someone who otherwise is the ideal candidate suddenly remembers, "Hey, I live on the 78th floor of an apartment tower overlooking Central Park West! Where can I plug the damned thing in???" Oops. As the tuna ad says (or used to say in my day, anyway), "Sorry, Charlie." Or Charlotte. Or whatever.
I personally expect we'll see technology catch up sooner than we think, though building up infrastructure is going to take time since there are tens of millions of people across the country who plain don't have ready access to recharge EV's. And not everyone trusts even a Prius, though that's changing in its favor.
And if fuel prices soar again and stay high, unlike when they went to over $4.00 per gallon in 2008 but now are down to well under $3.00 per gallon, anywhere in the country, my bet is that Americans' driving habits really will change, even after the economy recovers and is purring along nicely.
Feel free to leave a comment!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
U.S. Federal Authorities Give Arrogant Advice AND Try to Redefine an English Word
I've just read an extraordinary article in Newsweek about a federal case over how far the authorities can go in getting a cell phone owner's phone regards -- not eavesdropping, but the data through which they can determine where you were at a given time. The first part of the title above is a reference to prosecutors saying if a cell phone owner doesn't like it, that's easy -- you don't need to carry a cell phone. The second part of the title above refers to an, um, "novel" claim by the authorities of the meaning of the word "solely."
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/10/can-the-fbi-secretly-track-your-cell-phone.aspx
While there are times federal agents might need such records -- the example of the agent tracking fugitives is a good example -- even under "2703(d)" orders, the agent or other authority seeking records needs to be required to explain to a judge just exactly what connection the information might have to the suspected crime. "It might be relevant" doesn't cut it, either, though apparently that seems to have become the basic departure point for some, especially since the passage of the Patriot Act.
For the prosecutors to have written "One who does not wish to disclose his movements to the government need not use a cellular telephone" is troubling, as is another assertion they made: "The term 'solely' is not wholly prohibitive, but rather, partially restrictive."
I'll address the "unusual" claim regarding the meaning of the word "solely" first.
Not wishing to rely upon my status as a native speaker of English, nor upon my two degrees in English, nor upon my many years teaching English in universities, mostly in the context of writing to native speakers and as language to non-native speakers, nor upon the fact I'm a writer, I looked it up. My dictionary defines "solely" as "1 only, completely. 2 alone." [Just for the record, my dictionary defines "sole" as meaning "1 one and only. 2 not shared, exclusive."]
Therefore, regarding the claim "the term 'solely' is not wholly prohibitive, but rather, partially restrictive": case dismissed.
Turning to the rather arrogant statement "one who does not wish to disclose his movements to the government need not use a cellular telephone," I have a counter-proposal to those prosecutors: "one who mistakes himself as being above the law should never be a prosecutor, nor even allowed to be." And when a prosecutor arrogantly dismisses citizen concerns regarding their 4th Amendment rights by saying a citizen just shouldn't carry a cellular phone -- and makes that assertion in writing -- he/she has just proven himself/herself, by his/her own words, as unworthy of being in the noble legal profession.
Most of us don't begrudge the authorities doing what is often a difficult and thankless job, and we are supportive and appreciative, even if we're not very good about expressing those sentiments. However, it has to be a two-way street: we don't want a police state.
I'll do my part now: thank you for doing your jobs. Just please give what I've written above some passing reflection.
You can read the article at this URL, and I hope you do so you get the full feel of what it is I reacted to so strongly:
While there are times federal agents might need such records -- the example of the agent tracking fugitives is a good example -- even under "2703(d)" orders, the agent or other authority seeking records needs to be required to explain to a judge just exactly what connection the information might have to the suspected crime. "It might be relevant" doesn't cut it, either, though apparently that seems to have become the basic departure point for some, especially since the passage of the Patriot Act.
For the prosecutors to have written "One who does not wish to disclose his movements to the government need not use a cellular telephone" is troubling, as is another assertion they made: "The term 'solely' is not wholly prohibitive, but rather, partially restrictive."
I'll address the "unusual" claim regarding the meaning of the word "solely" first.
Not wishing to rely upon my status as a native speaker of English, nor upon my two degrees in English, nor upon my many years teaching English in universities, mostly in the context of writing to native speakers and as language to non-native speakers, nor upon the fact I'm a writer, I looked it up. My dictionary defines "solely" as "1 only, completely. 2 alone." [Just for the record, my dictionary defines "sole" as meaning "1 one and only. 2 not shared, exclusive."]
Therefore, regarding the claim "the term 'solely' is not wholly prohibitive, but rather, partially restrictive": case dismissed.
Turning to the rather arrogant statement "one who does not wish to disclose his movements to the government need not use a cellular telephone," I have a counter-proposal to those prosecutors: "one who mistakes himself as being above the law should never be a prosecutor, nor even allowed to be." And when a prosecutor arrogantly dismisses citizen concerns regarding their 4th Amendment rights by saying a citizen just shouldn't carry a cellular phone -- and makes that assertion in writing -- he/she has just proven himself/herself, by his/her own words, as unworthy of being in the noble legal profession.
Most of us don't begrudge the authorities doing what is often a difficult and thankless job, and we are supportive and appreciative, even if we're not very good about expressing those sentiments. However, it has to be a two-way street: we don't want a police state.
I'll do my part now: thank you for doing your jobs. Just please give what I've written above some passing reflection.
Some Oddxs and Ends of News
Just a few bits of news to pass along this time around.
If you're planning on being in Thailand soon, you may be concerned about the sometimes dramatic news reports about plans supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin will hold demonstrations. While the leaders of those supporters are being quiet about where they might arrange rallies, the places I've read and heard speculation about are the places one would expect, such as the Government House and Parliament.
As always, a little common sense will go a long way. The most obvious thing is to avoid going to places where large crowds are milling around. And for heaven's sake, don't take part in any such rally unless you're a Thai national (since that's your right, of course). I personally would not even getting into a conversation; passions are reportedly high in some instances, though I've run into any of that.
There are other steps that are advisable anytime you travel, and anywhere. For instance, it's always good to leave money, credit cards, and other valuables in your hotel, preferably one with a safe in your room. You'll have to have some money, naturally, but leave a chunk in your room, and your air ticket. What you do need to take with you, including a camera, be careful with it. I carry my cash and wallet in my front pants pockets, as it's harder for a pickpocket to fish them out of front pockets instead of back ones. Ladies, if you don't to weak slacks, at least get a bag you can strap around your waist or dangle from your neck inside your blouse or dress. Actually, that's a good idea for men as well.
Try not to walk alone, especially at night. Be wary of strangers -- Thai or foreign who try to start chatting with you for no clear reason. And for sure don't go somewhere with a stranger who approaches you -- well, okay, taxi drivers are generally okay, though do insist on using the meter if there is one.
Almost forgot: before you even leave home, list and photograph everything you'll be taking with you If you take photos with a digital camera, you can e-mail them along with the list to yourself -- that way, if you get something stolen, you'll have those to help the police. And don't forget to photograph and list your credit/debit cards, driver's license(s), etc., too.
Try to have a good idea of what goods and services should cost. I once had a taxi driver ask me for 5,000 baht to take me to Jomtien , which is about 135-140 kilometers away. At the time, the going rate was in the 1,000-1,200-baht range! I just chuckled and declined.
If you happen to be headed to the far north of Thailand, places such as Chiang Mai, Pai, and over by the border with Burma, there was a lot of smoke a few days ago., or so I read in a newspaper and saw on a local TV news report. I haven't been able to find out if it's gone yet, but I would be surprised if it is
Okay. Enough with the cautions.
If you are going to be in Bangkok and are an aficionado of the "Green Demon" buses, you're out of luck. They were finally ordered off the streets effective today; the Bangkok government is phasing in brand-new bright orange buses. Hundreds of them. The green buses were notorious: surly, unsafe drivers, and poorly maintained equipment. The owners kept putting off changing the buses' engines over to NVG, and after several deadlines were extended, whoever in government who makes such decisions decided "no more!" (The new buses do run on NVG.)
I keep hearing that Pattaya and Jomtien are basically empty. One friend went a few days ago with the idea of staying several days, but he took the time to walk all the way from the end of North Pattaya Beach Road to its southern end then on into Walking Street, detouring a block or two up each side soi along the way, and he said many places were literally empty of any customers. So he went right back to the bus station and came back to Bangkok.
There's a new bar in Washington Square called "Easy Bar." It's on the south (back) side to the right of the Hare and Hound if your looking at the Hare and Hound. I think they open at about midday. It's run by several Thai ladies, all well-known on the Square, so they're getting some immediate support.
Happily, I've heard of no deaths, illnesses, or injuries -- I don't count my hip, which I manged to whack pretty good on the mirror of a parked car last night, but it's not bad, if I am a little stiff!
More irritating is I managed to lose my hand phone night-before-last. I made the rounds of my usual haunts yesterday afternoon, but it wasn't to be found. A friend came to visit today and tried to call my number several times, but calls were diverted and a message came on directing callers to use the call-back service. I haven't gone out today, but I guess in a day or two I'll go buy some low-end, cheap phone -- they can be had, new,s for not much over 1,000 baht (about US$30.00). So for now, I'm telephone-less -- my Internet line is working, but my voice one is out. TOT is responsible for the line from the soi to the office of my apartment building, and True is responsible for the line connecting from the wall box beside my desk to the phone and ADSL modem. True sent a repairman out, and he checked True's part here in my living room, then took me to the office, found the incoming TOT line, and hooked up a technician's phone to it and made a call then handed me the phone. a nice lady on the line explained to me that my apartment house is responsible for the line from the office to my desk. However, my particular apartment is owned by a couple, not by the apartment -- so *I'm* responsible. So far, the manager hasn't been able to arrange a private repairman to come replace the stretch of the line. Sigh.
There's really no news about any of the Squaronians to report that I know of. But that's GOOD news in itself!
Finally, it's getting pretty warm; the other day it was 36C/97F, which quite warm enough for me.
If you're planning on being in Thailand soon, you may be concerned about the sometimes dramatic news reports about plans supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin will hold demonstrations. While the leaders of those supporters are being quiet about where they might arrange rallies, the places I've read and heard speculation about are the places one would expect, such as the Government House and Parliament.
As always, a little common sense will go a long way. The most obvious thing is to avoid going to places where large crowds are milling around. And for heaven's sake, don't take part in any such rally unless you're a Thai national (since that's your right, of course). I personally would not even getting into a conversation; passions are reportedly high in some instances, though I've run into any of that.
There are other steps that are advisable anytime you travel, and anywhere. For instance, it's always good to leave money, credit cards, and other valuables in your hotel, preferably one with a safe in your room. You'll have to have some money, naturally, but leave a chunk in your room, and your air ticket. What you do need to take with you, including a camera, be careful with it. I carry my cash and wallet in my front pants pockets, as it's harder for a pickpocket to fish them out of front pockets instead of back ones. Ladies, if you don't to weak slacks, at least get a bag you can strap around your waist or dangle from your neck inside your blouse or dress. Actually, that's a good idea for men as well.
Try not to walk alone, especially at night. Be wary of strangers -- Thai or foreign who try to start chatting with you for no clear reason. And for sure don't go somewhere with a stranger who approaches you -- well, okay, taxi drivers are generally okay, though do insist on using the meter if there is one.
Almost forgot: before you even leave home, list and photograph everything you'll be taking with you If you take photos with a digital camera, you can e-mail them along with the list to yourself -- that way, if you get something stolen, you'll have those to help the police. And don't forget to photograph and list your credit/debit cards, driver's license(s), etc., too.
Try to have a good idea of what goods and services should cost. I once had a taxi driver ask me for 5,000 baht to take me to Jomtien , which is about 135-140 kilometers away. At the time, the going rate was in the 1,000-1,200-baht range! I just chuckled and declined.
If you happen to be headed to the far north of Thailand, places such as Chiang Mai, Pai, and over by the border with Burma, there was a lot of smoke a few days ago., or so I read in a newspaper and saw on a local TV news report. I haven't been able to find out if it's gone yet, but I would be surprised if it is
Okay. Enough with the cautions.
If you are going to be in Bangkok and are an aficionado of the "Green Demon" buses, you're out of luck. They were finally ordered off the streets effective today; the Bangkok government is phasing in brand-new bright orange buses. Hundreds of them. The green buses were notorious: surly, unsafe drivers, and poorly maintained equipment. The owners kept putting off changing the buses' engines over to NVG, and after several deadlines were extended, whoever in government who makes such decisions decided "no more!" (The new buses do run on NVG.)
I keep hearing that Pattaya and Jomtien are basically empty. One friend went a few days ago with the idea of staying several days, but he took the time to walk all the way from the end of North Pattaya Beach Road to its southern end then on into Walking Street, detouring a block or two up each side soi along the way, and he said many places were literally empty of any customers. So he went right back to the bus station and came back to Bangkok.
There's a new bar in Washington Square called "Easy Bar." It's on the south (back) side to the right of the Hare and Hound if your looking at the Hare and Hound. I think they open at about midday. It's run by several Thai ladies, all well-known on the Square, so they're getting some immediate support.
Happily, I've heard of no deaths, illnesses, or injuries -- I don't count my hip, which I manged to whack pretty good on the mirror of a parked car last night, but it's not bad, if I am a little stiff!
More irritating is I managed to lose my hand phone night-before-last. I made the rounds of my usual haunts yesterday afternoon, but it wasn't to be found. A friend came to visit today and tried to call my number several times, but calls were diverted and a message came on directing callers to use the call-back service. I haven't gone out today, but I guess in a day or two I'll go buy some low-end, cheap phone -- they can be had, new,s for not much over 1,000 baht (about US$30.00). So for now, I'm telephone-less -- my Internet line is working, but my voice one is out. TOT is responsible for the line from the soi to the office of my apartment building, and True is responsible for the line connecting from the wall box beside my desk to the phone and ADSL modem. True sent a repairman out, and he checked True's part here in my living room, then took me to the office, found the incoming TOT line, and hooked up a technician's phone to it and made a call then handed me the phone. a nice lady on the line explained to me that my apartment house is responsible for the line from the office to my desk. However, my particular apartment is owned by a couple, not by the apartment -- so *I'm* responsible. So far, the manager hasn't been able to arrange a private repairman to come replace the stretch of the line. Sigh.
There's really no news about any of the Squaronians to report that I know of. But that's GOOD news in itself!
Finally, it's getting pretty warm; the other day it was 36C/97F, which quite warm enough for me.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The two Faces of Janus: The United States of America's CONGRESS
Well, the pukes we call our representatives in the U.S. Congress are up to their lying shenanigans again.
President Obama has proposed a breathtaking $3.83 trillion budget for the 2011 federal fiscal year. Based on a population of 307 million, that works out -- are you ready for this??? -- to a stunning $1,247,557 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
For just a single year.
Not that this kind of spending is anything new. President Bush's final budget came out to some $3.5 trillion dollars -- and that didn't include funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (I'll be coming back to that point shortly.) In fact, President Bush's last budget drove our budget deficit to the highest level, as a percentage of GDP, since 1945 -- when we were polishing off the Second World War. (Bet you didn't know that, did you?) And the Manhatten Project didn't come cheap. For you young'uns, that was the project that developed the atomic bomb, which we promptly dropped on Hiroshima then Nagasaki, bringing an end to the war in the Pacific. (The war in Europe ended three months earlier, in May, 1945.)
Now, it's very much to the point to mention that this is an election year. Every single member of the House of Representatives, except those calling it quits, face re-election campaigns come this autumn, as do one third of our Senators. In these tough economic times, they understandably are screaming bloody murder about the President's proposed budget.
But there are a couple of facts they don't like to mention, especially the Republican candidates. President Bush's final budget didn't include funding for the twin wars we have going on -- but President Obama's DOES include that funding, which is the major reason the budget deficit shot right straight up into the stratosphere; had President Bush's last budget included that funding, his final budget deficit would have been even more than President Obama's.
They hate the phrase, those D.C. oinkers, but that is, indeed, "an inconvenient truth."
Think of it this way: what they're basically saying is "Lookee, lookee! I have $1.000 left in my checking account" -- WITHOUT mentioning the TWO thousand dollars' worth of checks they wrote but "forgot" to write down in their checkbook register.
Two-faced is what they are. ALL of them, including the conservative Democrats fighting for their political lives. They're just like the Roman god Janus.
But it doesn't stop there.
I imagine most of you have heard that the President has cancelled any plans for NASA to return to the Moon, although NASA does get a slight budget increase in his proposed budget.
This has grave implications for the manned space program.
I need to insert a full disclosure: I am a life-long fan of our space program, both our manned and robotic missions. It's impossible for me to be neutral. Just want to be honest about that point. I still remember, with crystal clarity, the night Dad took me out to the back yard and pointed out Sputnik 1 orbiting high above. I already had developed a deep enchantment with the night sky, and that image set that enchantment in stone for me.
I mean -- who doesn't love our twin Mars rovers??? Planned for 90 days -- but six years later they're still trucking! (Well, okay, so one of them is stuck, but it still can serve as a stationary platform -- IF it survives the upcoming northern hemisphere winter, that is. Still, a damned impressive performance.) And who doesn't love the spectacular photos the Hubble Space Telescope keeps on downloading to us -- and do you realize that this coming April 24th will be its 20th anniversary of coasting right along???
And those of you of a certain age or older -- I'm 58, soon 59 -- can remember the glory days of NASA, when President Kennedy challenged us as a nation to get boots on the ground, as in MOON ground, within a decade. And we beat that deadline by a couple of years or so, when Neil Armstrong climbed down the lunar lander ladder, planted his boots in the Moon dust, and spoke those immortal words: "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind."
That was July 20, 1969 -- only eight years, two months, and 15 days after Alan Shepard became the first American in space in a sub-orbital flight on May 5, 1961. A humorous historical footnote about Shepard's flight: launch was repeatedly delayed, the spacecraft finally lifting off several hours later than planned. During that delay, Shepard finally needed to pee-pee -- but of course there wasn't any way for him to do so, suited up in his space suit and strapped down flat on his back inside the tiny Mercury capsule. He bitched about it, demanding to be let out -- he couldn't exit unaided -- but the space suit folks decided to tell him he couldn't come out -- but to go ahead and just whiz away in his space suit, as it wouldn't be damaged! Shepard thus became not only the first American in space, but the only American, to date, to fly floating in his own PEE-PEE!!! :-)
I'll never forget the first Moon landing, either. Talk about electrifying.
ANYway -- back to those turds in Washington. When President Obama gave his speech outlining his budget proposal, within hours, members of the Congressional delegations of Texas, Alabama, and Florida -- home, respectively to the NASA Manned Spaceflight Center (in Houston, Texas), the George C. Marshall Manned Space Flight Center (at the Redstone Arsenal, near Huntsville, Alabama), and Cape Canaveral (on Merritt Island, Florida -- betcha didn't know it's on an island, did you? Huh? Huh??? Didja? DIDJA???) -- were raising holy hell, whining about lost jobs, mostly.
To be fair -- they're right. Cancelling the return-to-the-Moon program announced by President Bush in 2004 will cost jobs. And I, for one, am deeply distressed at the thought of cancelling those plans, and the thought of those lost jobs. Those folks are my fellow Americans.
However -- those b*st*rds pissing and moaning now don't like to mention that just as was the case with funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, President Bush announced the plan for returning to the Moon-- but never requested a single dime to pay for it.
Nor do they like to mention they never saw a piece of pork -- if it was in their home district, in the case of Representatives or in their state, in the case of Senators, they didn't like. Both my Senators (for example) were right on board the band wagon that shoved 12 extra F-22 fighters down the Pentagon's throat, even though the Air Force Chief of Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and President Obama didn't want them -- 12 aircraft costing a cool $350 million -- each -- for a grand total of $4.2 billion. I don't know about you, but to me that's a fair chunk of change. Compare that to about $50 million per copy for the next-generation fighter slated to go into service, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It'll be assembled in Texas, as is the F-22 -- but $50 million per copy is a lot less PORK than the $350 million per shot for the F-22. Oink-oink-oink! Squealing in pain, those miserable oinkers. Even the more expensive STOL [short take-off and landing] and carrier-based versions planned for the Marine Corps and Navy, at about $60 million each, don't cut it, not in Oink-oink-oinkity-friggin'-OINK terms.
There's a single word that summarizes all this, a word from Greek that you know -- betcha didn't know you know some Greek, did you??? That word is "hypocrisy." (It stems from the Greek word "hypokrisis," which means "acting on the stage, pretense.")
Yeah. "REDUCE THE BUDGET!!!" they scream. "But not from MY budget, by god!!! -- Cut it from THAT guy's!!!"
Excuse me while I go puke now. . . .
By the way, feel free to post a comment by clicking on the link just below this post.
President Obama has proposed a breathtaking $3.83 trillion budget for the 2011 federal fiscal year. Based on a population of 307 million, that works out -- are you ready for this??? -- to a stunning $1,247,557 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
For just a single year.
Not that this kind of spending is anything new. President Bush's final budget came out to some $3.5 trillion dollars -- and that didn't include funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (I'll be coming back to that point shortly.) In fact, President Bush's last budget drove our budget deficit to the highest level, as a percentage of GDP, since 1945 -- when we were polishing off the Second World War. (Bet you didn't know that, did you?) And the Manhatten Project didn't come cheap. For you young'uns, that was the project that developed the atomic bomb, which we promptly dropped on Hiroshima then Nagasaki, bringing an end to the war in the Pacific. (The war in Europe ended three months earlier, in May, 1945.)
Now, it's very much to the point to mention that this is an election year. Every single member of the House of Representatives, except those calling it quits, face re-election campaigns come this autumn, as do one third of our Senators. In these tough economic times, they understandably are screaming bloody murder about the President's proposed budget.
But there are a couple of facts they don't like to mention, especially the Republican candidates. President Bush's final budget didn't include funding for the twin wars we have going on -- but President Obama's DOES include that funding, which is the major reason the budget deficit shot right straight up into the stratosphere; had President Bush's last budget included that funding, his final budget deficit would have been even more than President Obama's.
They hate the phrase, those D.C. oinkers, but that is, indeed, "an inconvenient truth."
Think of it this way: what they're basically saying is "Lookee, lookee! I have $1.000 left in my checking account" -- WITHOUT mentioning the TWO thousand dollars' worth of checks they wrote but "forgot" to write down in their checkbook register.
Two-faced is what they are. ALL of them, including the conservative Democrats fighting for their political lives. They're just like the Roman god Janus.
But it doesn't stop there.
I imagine most of you have heard that the President has cancelled any plans for NASA to return to the Moon, although NASA does get a slight budget increase in his proposed budget.
This has grave implications for the manned space program.
I need to insert a full disclosure: I am a life-long fan of our space program, both our manned and robotic missions. It's impossible for me to be neutral. Just want to be honest about that point. I still remember, with crystal clarity, the night Dad took me out to the back yard and pointed out Sputnik 1 orbiting high above. I already had developed a deep enchantment with the night sky, and that image set that enchantment in stone for me.
I mean -- who doesn't love our twin Mars rovers??? Planned for 90 days -- but six years later they're still trucking! (Well, okay, so one of them is stuck, but it still can serve as a stationary platform -- IF it survives the upcoming northern hemisphere winter, that is. Still, a damned impressive performance.) And who doesn't love the spectacular photos the Hubble Space Telescope keeps on downloading to us -- and do you realize that this coming April 24th will be its 20th anniversary of coasting right along???
And those of you of a certain age or older -- I'm 58, soon 59 -- can remember the glory days of NASA, when President Kennedy challenged us as a nation to get boots on the ground, as in MOON ground, within a decade. And we beat that deadline by a couple of years or so, when Neil Armstrong climbed down the lunar lander ladder, planted his boots in the Moon dust, and spoke those immortal words: "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind."
That was July 20, 1969 -- only eight years, two months, and 15 days after Alan Shepard became the first American in space in a sub-orbital flight on May 5, 1961. A humorous historical footnote about Shepard's flight: launch was repeatedly delayed, the spacecraft finally lifting off several hours later than planned. During that delay, Shepard finally needed to pee-pee -- but of course there wasn't any way for him to do so, suited up in his space suit and strapped down flat on his back inside the tiny Mercury capsule. He bitched about it, demanding to be let out -- he couldn't exit unaided -- but the space suit folks decided to tell him he couldn't come out -- but to go ahead and just whiz away in his space suit, as it wouldn't be damaged! Shepard thus became not only the first American in space, but the only American, to date, to fly floating in his own PEE-PEE!!! :-)
I'll never forget the first Moon landing, either. Talk about electrifying.
ANYway -- back to those turds in Washington. When President Obama gave his speech outlining his budget proposal, within hours, members of the Congressional delegations of Texas, Alabama, and Florida -- home, respectively to the NASA Manned Spaceflight Center (in Houston, Texas), the George C. Marshall Manned Space Flight Center (at the Redstone Arsenal, near Huntsville, Alabama), and Cape Canaveral (on Merritt Island, Florida -- betcha didn't know it's on an island, did you? Huh? Huh??? Didja? DIDJA???) -- were raising holy hell, whining about lost jobs, mostly.
To be fair -- they're right. Cancelling the return-to-the-Moon program announced by President Bush in 2004 will cost jobs. And I, for one, am deeply distressed at the thought of cancelling those plans, and the thought of those lost jobs. Those folks are my fellow Americans.
However -- those b*st*rds pissing and moaning now don't like to mention that just as was the case with funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, President Bush announced the plan for returning to the Moon-- but never requested a single dime to pay for it.
Nor do they like to mention they never saw a piece of pork -- if it was in their home district, in the case of Representatives or in their state, in the case of Senators, they didn't like. Both my Senators (for example) were right on board the band wagon that shoved 12 extra F-22 fighters down the Pentagon's throat, even though the Air Force Chief of Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and President Obama didn't want them -- 12 aircraft costing a cool $350 million -- each -- for a grand total of $4.2 billion. I don't know about you, but to me that's a fair chunk of change. Compare that to about $50 million per copy for the next-generation fighter slated to go into service, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It'll be assembled in Texas, as is the F-22 -- but $50 million per copy is a lot less PORK than the $350 million per shot for the F-22. Oink-oink-oink! Squealing in pain, those miserable oinkers. Even the more expensive STOL [short take-off and landing] and carrier-based versions planned for the Marine Corps and Navy, at about $60 million each, don't cut it, not in Oink-oink-oinkity-friggin'-OINK terms.
There's a single word that summarizes all this, a word from Greek that you know -- betcha didn't know you know some Greek, did you??? That word is "hypocrisy." (It stems from the Greek word "hypokrisis," which means "acting on the stage, pretense.")
Yeah. "REDUCE THE BUDGET!!!" they scream. "But not from MY budget, by god!!! -- Cut it from THAT guy's!!!"
Excuse me while I go puke now. . . .
By the way, feel free to post a comment by clicking on the link just below this post.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Google, Baidu, and Censorship in China
Just read a really good article about the role Google plays in China in a story from AP headlined "Even a censored Internet has opened up a world for Chinese users." It uses the example of doing a search for the word "Dharamsala,"which is the name of the town in India where the Dalai Lama has his headquarters, and China the Dalai Lama, of course. AP ran the word through both Google's China search engine at www.google.cn and the most popular search engine in the country, Baidu, a domestic search engine, at www.baidu.cn. AP found that Google returned 9.48 million results, while Baidu returned some 119,000 -- a relatively paltry amount compared to Google's. Put another way, for every 1 result from Baidu, there were over 7,966 from Google.
Curious, I repeated the AP experiment. I guess the troops manning the Great Firewall of China read the AP article I'm talking about here. Google China returned only 780,000 results -- way below 10% of what the AP got. And on Baidu, I got only about 13,200, or 11.1% of what AP got. I should point out I ran my search from Thailand. I assume -- but don't know -- AP ran its from the U.S. I also don't know if that makes any difference.
The article is well worth reading -- and I'm about to have my piece here translated into simplified Chinese (the type used in mainland China proper, but not Macau or Hong Kong) so it's more accessible to Chinese in China than would be the case were I to post this in English only.
Fun, fun, fun!!!
只要读一本有关谷歌在中国的角色扮演来自美联社的故事很好的标题：“即使审查的互联网上开辟了中国用户的世界。”它使用了这样一个词“达兰萨拉，”这是在印度城市的名称，达赖喇嘛的总部就设搜索的例子，中国达赖喇嘛，当然。美联社都贯穿着谷歌的中国搜索引擎在www.google.cn字和在该国，百度，国内搜索引擎，最流行的搜索引擎在www.baidu.cn。美联社认为，谷歌返回9480000的结果，而百度产生一些119,000 - 相对微不足道的数额相比，谷歌的。换句话说，从百度的每1个结果，共有超过7966来自谷歌。
出于好奇，我重复美联社实验。我想，部队驻守的中国长城防火墙阅读美联社的这篇文章，我这里所说。谷歌中国只有780000返回结果 - 低于10的AP什么方式得到％。和百度，我只得约13,200名，或11.1％得到什么美联社。我要指出，我跑到我从泰国的搜索。我相信 - 但我不知道 - 美联社从美国跑的，我也不知道是否有什么差别。
这篇文章值得一读 - 我要在这里有我的一块成简体中文（中国大陆的正确，但不是澳门或香港使用的类型转换），因此它更容易在中国中比在本案中我后只在英文本。
有趣，有趣，有趣!!!
Curious, I repeated the AP experiment. I guess the troops manning the Great Firewall of China read the AP article I'm talking about here. Google China returned only 780,000 results -- way below 10% of what the AP got. And on Baidu, I got only about 13,200, or 11.1% of what AP got. I should point out I ran my search from Thailand. I assume -- but don't know -- AP ran its from the U.S. I also don't know if that makes any difference.
The article is well worth reading -- and I'm about to have my piece here translated into simplified Chinese (the type used in mainland China proper, but not Macau or Hong Kong) so it's more accessible to Chinese in China than would be the case were I to post this in English only.
Fun, fun, fun!!!
只要读一本有关谷歌在中国的角色扮演来自美联社的故事很好的标题：“即使审查的互联网上开辟了中国用户的世界。”它使用了这样一个词“达兰萨拉，”这是在印度城市的名称，达赖喇嘛的总部就设搜索的例子，中国达赖喇嘛，当然。美联社都贯穿着谷歌的中国搜索引擎在www.google.cn字和在该国，百度，国内搜索引擎，最流行的搜索引擎在www.baidu.cn。美联社认为，谷歌返回9480000的结果，而百度产生一些119,000 - 相对微不足道的数额相比，谷歌的。换句话说，从百度的每1个结果，共有超过7966来自谷歌。
出于好奇，我重复美联社实验。我想，部队驻守的中国长城防火墙阅读美联社的这篇文章，我这里所说。谷歌中国只有780000返回结果 - 低于10的AP什么方式得到％。和百度，我只得约13,200名，或11.1％得到什么美联社。我要指出，我跑到我从泰国的搜索。我相信 - 但我不知道 - 美联社从美国跑的，我也不知道是否有什么差别。
这篇文章值得一读 - 我要在这里有我的一块成简体中文（中国大陆的正确，但不是澳门或香港使用的类型转换），因此它更容易在中国中比在本案中我后只在英文本。
有趣，有趣，有趣!!!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Will President Obama Announce We Have Contact -- and Have Had -- for Years? Some Say "YES!"
Okay, I guess I should start by stating my own position. I believe,
Interesting question, huh?
(1.) There is likely intelligent life somewhere in the universe besides Earth.
(2.) The most likely level of intelligence is low; the next is intelligent, somewhere on a human scale; and the least likely is intelligent beings advanced well beyond us.
(3.) It's conceivable Earth has been visited at least once or twice.
In other words, if you accept my starting point (1.), then I suppose you'll agree my view is fairly conservative, scientifically speaking. However, even that starting point is strongly challenged by some people of strong religious faith, such as members of the three Abrahamic religions, i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, to name just three, though that starting point is also beyond the pale for other major and minor religions, too. I can't debate faith, so won't.
Over the past couple of days, quite by coincidence I have run across a rash of stories on the Internet speculating that President Obama might announce sometime this year we have had decades-long contact with intelligent extraterrestrials, direct, face-to-face contact. Other stories claim we, the U.S., have bases and personnel on Mars. Still others claim inhabitants of a planet in the binary star system Zeti Reticuli have visited Earth -- and that humans have visited there. (Zeti Reticuli is in the Southern Hemisphere skies, and is part of a minor constellation, Zeta Reticulum. Zeti Reticuli's two stars are similar to the Sun, and lie "only" about 39 light years away -- practically our backyard, in galactic terms.)
Obviously, these are sweeping claims indeed.
And there are other stories. For instance, there's one story that then-President Reagan secretly visited a base to see an extraterrestrial's body, perhaps from Roswell, New Mexico, when an alien disk had allegedly crashed near the town, complete with alien corpses, in mid-1947. In fact, soon after the Army Air Corps in Roswell announced exactly that -- only to have that report rebutted by the Commanding General of the Eight Air Force, who said the recovered debris came from an experimental, classified weather balloon experimental program.
The "Roswell Incident" remains one of the most controversial in UFO lore. For instance, no less a personage than NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut and 6th man to walk on the Moon, believes an alien craft was involved. Yet Mitchell himself has been controversial since his Apollo 14 mission, after which his life changed drastically and he moved into areas of research best described as "unconventional."
The Air Force and the larger government response has been badly mishandled, at best, in a number of incidents. For instance, Project Blue Book was a formal investigation into the Air Force commissioned in the 1950-60's to investigate the UFO phenomenon, as public interest was very high at the time and the public was demanding explanations. The Air Force collected some 12,600 reports, and said most of them were, basically, cases of simple incorrect identification or outright hoaxes. However, about 700 could not be explained. The Air Force's response? It shut down the program and trying just to move on.
One point needs to be made: there are countless instances of people seeing UFO's -- unidentified flying objects -- every day, all over the world. But it is a mighty leap from saying "I saw a UFO" to saying "I saw a spacecraft from another world." Even experienced pilots can incorrectly identify something in the sky. But that doesn't automatically mean they saw a spacecraft from another world.
So, where does that leave President Obama (and any other leader)?
Let's leave aside the obvious cases of mistaken identity and hoaxes a moment.
Imagine this scenario: the President calls a press conference and announces we do indeed have contact with, say, Mars -- and introduces the Martian emissary.
Now -- it's not a big step to global panic, is it? If the U.S. can't protect its own skies, who on Earth can?
It gets worse if he says we're in contact, face to face, with representatives from Zeti Reticuli.
And both cases get much, much worse if humans are there -- courtesy of the advanced aliens.
Think about the impact on religion, too. I can't think of a single one that wouldn't be greatly affected by such a revelation.
Would would I do were I President? Well, unless I could definitively say the aliens represented absolutely no danger to us and that our military could handle them, this is what I would do: lie, loud and every time.
If President Obama is in possession of such information, I have no idea what he may decide to do, or not do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
It would be quite salubrious for our body politic, in the form of a joint session of Congress with the President and Vice-president in attendance, along with all Supreme Court Justices, in the audience -- not on the podium, but in the audience -- to have that farewell speech read out to them. Read out as a reminder of what, supposedly, we're about. If President Washington got it wrong, well, then, there's little hope for anyone else, over 200 years after he spoke so sagely, perhaps most directly to us in this paragraph:
""""The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Well, today's parties certainly are "sharpened by the spirit of revenge," and need knocked back, slapped down, into their respective places -- i.e., necessary parts of a whole to provide a whole government for America.
They've both lost sight of that; hence, the Tea Party et al.
Who to deliver such an address? I would propose to invite Mr. Vaclav Havel, former Czech dissident then President, after his country's Velvet Revolution, for a "Havel Redux," a reprise of his brilliant speech to a joint session of Congress some 20 years ago, but reading Washington's speech. The entire speech.
After 9/11, we got some sense of ourselves through no small measure of the the words in "What Is an American?" that wonderfully sympathetic late 18th-century essay by a Frenchman-turned American, Hector St. Jean de Crevecoeur.
Sometimes an outsider can see us better than we can see ourselves.
I wonder if Mr. Havel would have the stomach for it, though. . . .