1985 Honda CRX HF vs. 2010 Honda Insight - Modern Automotive Technology vs. Past Technology - Automobile Magazine
What does it say that 25 years ago they produced a car that got as good or better mileage than our fancy and pricy new hybrids with all of their computer-techno-wizardry?
Is newer always better?
Is the latest technology always better than the tried and true?
Has over two decades simply given us more complexity and a few inches of legroom?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Definition of Heinous
Republicans for Rape - Blog - The Daily Show gets it
I try to understand. I really do. In fact, I have become a trained moderator and facilitator in community dialogues and deliberations with the express purpose of trying to better understand. That is, understand the thoughts and opinions of others. And particularly on political and social issues. And particularly of those with whom I may differ.
However, in this case, I simply don't understand. I have found no way to justify what is in effect a vote to condone rape: a vote against legislation that would bar the government from contracting with companies that require employees to agree not to sue the company if they are raped by fellow employees on the job. As Jon Stewart says -- be sure to watch the video on the link -- shouldn't this be a "slam-dunk"? A no-brainer?
Apparently not. At least to the 30 Republicans Senators who voted against it.
The only motive that I can see is a desire to protect Halluburton/KBR and other contractors/big campaign contributors.
This is heinous. No, wait: it is the definition of heinous.
When we have leaders of our country who take these sort of actions -- not to mention undertake the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents in wars and consigning tens of thousands more to premature preventable death due to inadequate health care -- I fear for our country. When the interests of the American people are not being well represented, and those of powerful monied interests are served instead, I fear for our country.
Now, if we, the American people, sit back and don't do anything about our democracy being stolen from us, and don't do anything to take it back, then I fear our country is dead.
With that in mind, I encourage people to contact your Senators should you be unfortunate enough to have one of these guys as yours (and I do mean guys...or perhaps I should say old rich white guys):
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
By the way, the website at the link is satirical (in case you wondered).
Nathan Ruggles
I try to understand. I really do. In fact, I have become a trained moderator and facilitator in community dialogues and deliberations with the express purpose of trying to better understand. That is, understand the thoughts and opinions of others. And particularly on political and social issues. And particularly of those with whom I may differ.
However, in this case, I simply don't understand. I have found no way to justify what is in effect a vote to condone rape: a vote against legislation that would bar the government from contracting with companies that require employees to agree not to sue the company if they are raped by fellow employees on the job. As Jon Stewart says -- be sure to watch the video on the link -- shouldn't this be a "slam-dunk"? A no-brainer?
Apparently not. At least to the 30 Republicans Senators who voted against it.
The only motive that I can see is a desire to protect Halluburton/KBR and other contractors/big campaign contributors.
This is heinous. No, wait: it is the definition of heinous.
When we have leaders of our country who take these sort of actions -- not to mention undertake the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents in wars and consigning tens of thousands more to premature preventable death due to inadequate health care -- I fear for our country. When the interests of the American people are not being well represented, and those of powerful monied interests are served instead, I fear for our country.
Now, if we, the American people, sit back and don't do anything about our democracy being stolen from us, and don't do anything to take it back, then I fear our country is dead.
With that in mind, I encourage people to contact your Senators should you be unfortunate enough to have one of these guys as yours (and I do mean guys...or perhaps I should say old rich white guys):
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
By the way, the website at the link is satirical (in case you wondered).
Nathan Ruggles
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama Wins Nobel (?!?)
In Surprise, Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for Diplomacy - NYTimes.com
This. Is. Ridiculous.
An analogy inspired by an old friend:
It's like getting kudos for winning "Biggest Loser." Before actually losing the weight. Based on promises to lose weight. And others hopes that the weight might be lost. But meanwhile, for the most part, the same old fast food is being consumed (if perhaps under different wrappers, and a medium fry instead of a large). And there is no real workout plan in place.
But really. What has he actually DONE? Oh, wait! Forgive me. He has done a couple things: continued to prosecute two unjust wars, causing the deaths and injury of thousands of innocents, and wasting billions that could actually be used for peaceful purposes.
Oh, and then there's Columbia: support for continued militarism. And the U.S. defense budget: INCREASES, and well beyond $600 billion a year (more than the next 16 or so countries, several times more than all of the potential enemies of the U.S. combined).
How about a list of what he hasn't done. Peace in the Middle East? No progress there. Iran? Rising tensions. North Korea? Nothing. Darfur? Still waiting. Nuclear weapons reduction? Only promises. Closing Guantanamo Bay? Broken promises. AIDS and global infection diseases? Hardly a word. World poverty? Silence. Torture and civil rights under the "war on terror"? Harmful and illegal policies continued.
Hope is not substance. This award historically has been for work, not simply words.
For instance, Jimmy Carter received it for negotiating a substantial peace treaty that still holds, and years of post-presidential works supporting democracy and peace. Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the birth of the League of Nations, the first real international organization dedicated to avoided war and promoting peace between countries.
There are also many other deserving nominees this year.
Gandhi never received one; one could be considered posthumously.
And Peace Prizes have not been awarded in some years for the lack of worthy candidates; better that than this.
This is all not to say that Obama can't reverse course, and actually perform accomplishments that are truly worthy of an honor for doing "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". However, the prestige and significance of the Noble Prize for Peace will be forever diminished by this undeserved, misplaced (and only potentially premature) award to Barack Obama.
This. Is. Ridiculous.
An analogy inspired by an old friend:
It's like getting kudos for winning "Biggest Loser." Before actually losing the weight. Based on promises to lose weight. And others hopes that the weight might be lost. But meanwhile, for the most part, the same old fast food is being consumed (if perhaps under different wrappers, and a medium fry instead of a large). And there is no real workout plan in place.
But really. What has he actually DONE? Oh, wait! Forgive me. He has done a couple things: continued to prosecute two unjust wars, causing the deaths and injury of thousands of innocents, and wasting billions that could actually be used for peaceful purposes.
Oh, and then there's Columbia: support for continued militarism. And the U.S. defense budget: INCREASES, and well beyond $600 billion a year (more than the next 16 or so countries, several times more than all of the potential enemies of the U.S. combined).
How about a list of what he hasn't done. Peace in the Middle East? No progress there. Iran? Rising tensions. North Korea? Nothing. Darfur? Still waiting. Nuclear weapons reduction? Only promises. Closing Guantanamo Bay? Broken promises. AIDS and global infection diseases? Hardly a word. World poverty? Silence. Torture and civil rights under the "war on terror"? Harmful and illegal policies continued.
Hope is not substance. This award historically has been for work, not simply words.
For instance, Jimmy Carter received it for negotiating a substantial peace treaty that still holds, and years of post-presidential works supporting democracy and peace. Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the birth of the League of Nations, the first real international organization dedicated to avoided war and promoting peace between countries.
There are also many other deserving nominees this year.
Gandhi never received one; one could be considered posthumously.
And Peace Prizes have not been awarded in some years for the lack of worthy candidates; better that than this.
This is all not to say that Obama can't reverse course, and actually perform accomplishments that are truly worthy of an honor for doing "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". However, the prestige and significance of the Noble Prize for Peace will be forever diminished by this undeserved, misplaced (and only potentially premature) award to Barack Obama.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Liberals Aren’t Un-American. Conservatives Aren’t Ignorant.
Liberals Aren’t Un-American. Conservatives Aren’t Ignorant.
I strongly believe in the need for better dialogue in our social and political world, especially in this country. I strongly believe there needs to be less extremism and more understanding. So therefore, I looked with interest to this article. Unfortunately, I almost didn't continue reading the article after Haidt disdain for the bumper stickers in the beginning of the article.
Speaking for myself, as well as many people I have known in the peace movement opposing the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that they strongly believe in the messages of “Support our troops—bring them home” and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” If you believe that troops should only be sent into war under certain circumstances, in which the nation is threatened, then to support troops sent into an unjust war would be supporting them. If you believe that dissent is not only allowed but encouraged by democratic form of government -- historically and by principle -- then to express it using your First Amendment rights is indeed patriotic.
Haidt's apparent disbelief that these messages could be genuine -- when they indeed can -- points to a lack of understanding of the political view of people. This puts his entire enterprise into question.
Also, to divide people's beliefs up into such distinct and opposing groups, and maintaining generalist and stereotypical view towards all "liberals" and "conservatives" -- terms which do not adequately describe the diversity and complexity of political-ethical view in this country, a fact acknowledged by a good political scientist now for some years -- also calls into question that he has an adequate understanding of his subject.
Yet, I will nevertheless check out the websites mentioned. Though I will be considering them with a big grain of salt.
I strongly believe in the need for better dialogue in our social and political world, especially in this country. I strongly believe there needs to be less extremism and more understanding. So therefore, I looked with interest to this article. Unfortunately, I almost didn't continue reading the article after Haidt disdain for the bumper stickers in the beginning of the article.
Speaking for myself, as well as many people I have known in the peace movement opposing the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that they strongly believe in the messages of “Support our troops—bring them home” and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” If you believe that troops should only be sent into war under certain circumstances, in which the nation is threatened, then to support troops sent into an unjust war would be supporting them. If you believe that dissent is not only allowed but encouraged by democratic form of government -- historically and by principle -- then to express it using your First Amendment rights is indeed patriotic.
Haidt's apparent disbelief that these messages could be genuine -- when they indeed can -- points to a lack of understanding of the political view of people. This puts his entire enterprise into question.
Also, to divide people's beliefs up into such distinct and opposing groups, and maintaining generalist and stereotypical view towards all "liberals" and "conservatives" -- terms which do not adequately describe the diversity and complexity of political-ethical view in this country, a fact acknowledged by a good political scientist now for some years -- also calls into question that he has an adequate understanding of his subject.
Yet, I will nevertheless check out the websites mentioned. Though I will be considering them with a big grain of salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)