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.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The real ACORN story
I normally do not watch MSNBC, but a friend shared this.
Finally, someone in the mainstream media telling the bigger story on the supposed ACORN scandal. For instance, it more often than not goes unmentioned that ACORN self-reported voter registration problems in the first place. It usually goes unreported that one of the offices these "journalists" visited called the police, and that the videos were heavily edited.
Thousands are dying and going bankrupt without good health care, and thousands more innocents are dying in Afghanistan, and we are actually concerning ourselves with this non-story of ACORN?!?!
******
The media fails ACORN Sept. 24: Rachel Maddow is joined by Occidental College politics professor Peter Dreier, who authored a study on how myths about ACORN were manufactured and how easily the mainstream media - not just the right wing media - was led into reporting falsehoods. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33013202#33013202
Finally, someone in the mainstream media telling the bigger story on the supposed ACORN scandal. For instance, it more often than not goes unmentioned that ACORN self-reported voter registration problems in the first place. It usually goes unreported that one of the offices these "journalists" visited called the police, and that the videos were heavily edited.
Thousands are dying and going bankrupt without good health care, and thousands more innocents are dying in Afghanistan, and we are actually concerning ourselves with this non-story of ACORN?!?!
******
The media fails ACORN Sept. 24: Rachel Maddow is joined by Occidental College politics professor Peter Dreier, who authored a study on how myths about ACORN were manufactured and how easily the mainstream media - not just the right wing media - was led into reporting falsehoods. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Ignorance & Misinformation Among Anti-Obama Activists
Some excellent footage from the recent demostration in DC.
I have honestly tried really hard to understand these people. I do understand some of their legitimate concerns about taxes, the bailout, government spending, fears of losing (good) health care if there were changes, and general concerns over the effectiveness of proposed health care reform. However, this represents a small minority. And even then, that fact remains that:
a) spending and bailouts started under Bush, and this crowd largely supports him (making them hypocritical), and
b) their health care reform concern are not based on real facts (e.g. Obama is not proposing a government takeover of health care.)
After listening carefully and looking at the signs I saw, here is a list of other concerns these people have:
Obama is like Hitler
Obama is a good speaker (like Hitler)
Obama is a Muslim
Obama "already destroyed most of the country"
Obama is going to arm volunteers with weapons
Barack Obama = the Antichrist (according to the Bible)
"Obamacare"
"we didn't vote for this health care plan"
commies
socialists
fascists
"shame on the press"
abortion
lies
people on welfare
czars
And here are some things they want:
God
a Christian in the White House
ruled by God
freedom
change in government
"take our country back"
abolish Medicare
Glenn Beck
My response to these is that while some of these may be legitimate things to be concerned about generally (i.e. fascism) or to support generally (i.e. freedom), the specific connections to Obama and current actual or proposed policies are either mistaken or nonexistant. As for the rest, many of these are just plain ignorant and offensive on the face of it. My overwhelming sense is that what they have to say is largely based in ignorance and misinformation.
One may ask how this is possible in the "information age." But with so many sources of information, you may easily find some (or one) source of (mis)information that suits your preconceived notions and/or perceived values. These people have apparently done so.
I have been worried about this country's future for awhile now, about the possibility of making the American Dream a reality. Sadly, this makes me scared even more.
But at the same time, I must have hope...and continue to work for progress, peace, and justice.
I have honestly tried really hard to understand these people. I do understand some of their legitimate concerns about taxes, the bailout, government spending, fears of losing (good) health care if there were changes, and general concerns over the effectiveness of proposed health care reform. However, this represents a small minority. And even then, that fact remains that:
a) spending and bailouts started under Bush, and this crowd largely supports him (making them hypocritical), and
b) their health care reform concern are not based on real facts (e.g. Obama is not proposing a government takeover of health care.)
After listening carefully and looking at the signs I saw, here is a list of other concerns these people have:
Obama is like Hitler
Obama is a good speaker (like Hitler)
Obama is a Muslim
Obama "already destroyed most of the country"
Obama is going to arm volunteers with weapons
Barack Obama = the Antichrist (according to the Bible)
"Obamacare"
"we didn't vote for this health care plan"
commies
socialists
fascists
"shame on the press"
abortion
lies
people on welfare
czars
And here are some things they want:
God
a Christian in the White House
ruled by God
freedom
change in government
"take our country back"
abolish Medicare
Glenn Beck
My response to these is that while some of these may be legitimate things to be concerned about generally (i.e. fascism) or to support generally (i.e. freedom), the specific connections to Obama and current actual or proposed policies are either mistaken or nonexistant. As for the rest, many of these are just plain ignorant and offensive on the face of it. My overwhelming sense is that what they have to say is largely based in ignorance and misinformation.
One may ask how this is possible in the "information age." But with so many sources of information, you may easily find some (or one) source of (mis)information that suits your preconceived notions and/or perceived values. These people have apparently done so.
I have been worried about this country's future for awhile now, about the possibility of making the American Dream a reality. Sadly, this makes me scared even more.
But at the same time, I must have hope...and continue to work for progress, peace, and justice.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Edwardses: Complicated?
My comment on the following Op-Ed:
New York Times
A Complicated Question
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/opinion/06dowd.htmlNew York Times
A Complicated Question
We are asked here to consider Elizabeth Edwards' motives; the piece calls them into question. It is difficult to judge her motives without reading the book, the Time article, and seeing her Oprah appearance. My instinct says to avoid being judgmental considering what she's been through; to do so risks seeming to minimize her pain and condone his behavior. Frankly, any public embarrassment he suffers as a result is deserved; he best grin and bear it. His self-destruction and public excoriation should serve as a warning and deterrent to men (politicians) who would contemplate similar behavior.
In the end, Dowd did seem a bit hard on her; I'm not sure why.
One statement that confused me: the criticism that "She may be smart, but she doesn’t seem to know much about men." It seems to imply that she doesn't understand that men are going to be unfaithful given the opportunity. If that is a correct interpretation, I resent such generalizations about us "men." Not all of us are like Mr. Edwards in this way.
Finally, in addition to the suffering of Elizabeth and her family, and the ending of an at least somewhat laudible political career, perhaps the biggest loss in my mind is that of a champion of the poor. There aren't many, sadly. Low income Americans need more allies in places of power...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)