RIP John Edward's Political Career

Simple minded people need to get a grip! Now, its unfortunate that John Edward's cheated on his wife... and unfortunate (as most in his position do) that he lied about it, and unfortunate that he's probably still lying about the details of what happened. However, what does this have to do with politics? This is absurdity to the fullest.

Now people who have heard me speak about politics PROBABLY know that John Edwards was my guy. I thought that Hillary Clinton did a better job than Barack Obama of "courting" Edwards' supporters, however, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, John Edwards was the only politician from either political party (sorry, Ralph, you dont count) who repeatedly talked about poverty and the (unspoken) social class warfare going on in America. I wont go into the details, but his platform is what being a democrat use to be about. Its the reason that workers unions support Democrats unconditionally... because they believe that Democrats, more than Republicans will look out for them and their members... regular working class Americans. After he dropped out of the race (partly because people are simple and dont listen to the "message" but instead focused on the popularity of Obama and Clinton) that message about growing socio-economic disparities slowly started to die down.

I thought we learned after Bush. Assuming that George Bush is the perfect husband, who really believes he's been a better president than Bill Clinton. The point? What does his personal life matter. This story, which shouldn't even be a major story (by the so-called "liberal" media), has been perused beyond comprehension. Who cares? Actually... I can answer that... His wife should care. His children should care. His minister should care. His in-laws should care. We should NOT. This wouldn't even be a story in Europe. What does his personal life have to do with how he works?!!!

Gaaaaaaaawd... are you serious? The leap in logic that "good husband equals good president"... as ludicrous as that would be, even in a vacuum... should be even more so after this last guy came in promising to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Every country that Bush visits, there are 1000's of their citizens protesting. Good job with the restoration of honor and integrity, you functioning retard. "You're doing a heck of a job, Bushie." Let me tell you something... if every man who cheated on his wife lost his job... there would be a lot of unemployed Joe's walking the streets of America.

Now, as a BIG John Edwards guy, I was shocked to hear about the affair. But, from our perspective, its just an affair. Thats a home issue. I could see if he were illegally spying on Americans, rolling back US civil liberties, setting up secret prisons and ignoring the Geneva convention. Now, that I care about.. now THAT'S an American public issue. Oh, but thats boring... that isn't "news." Simple-minded people need to get a grip...

Did You Know There Were ELECTRIC Cars?

Did you know there were electric cars? Not hybrids, but purely electric cars. I'm pretty sure I was aware of the theory, but did you know that there were electric cars on the streets of America? Now, I do say "were" because, unfortunately, such is no longer the case. There are a few individuals and small companies who have created their own, however, in terms of major automakers: they no longer exist.

More than a hundred years ago, electric outnumbered the gas cars on the streets. As the 1900's rolled in, automatic starters and cheaper gas prices gave a strong advantage to gasoline-fueled automobiles. But the gas car has come at a price. We now are keenly aware of its negative impacts... that is to say... the pollution of our breathable air quality, and its affect on global warming through the emissions of CO2. Starting perhaps in the 1970's, a few "alternative" energy ideas were kicked around but nothing took hold.

In 1987, GM partook in a contest known as the World Solar Challenge in Australia. They built a car with solar panels on it (similar to the picture below) that ran on an electric battery.

After the success of winning first place, GM inquired of that same engineering team to create another electric car... a practical automobile for Americans. Alan Cocconi, a GM engineer, built the advanced electric engine (100K Watts) in his garage. Its his prototye that was used for GM's electric vehicles.

Helped by news of GM's research and development (R & D) of the electric automobile, California passed the 1990 "Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate." It forced car companies to dedicate a small amount of their production line to electric vehicles that required no gasoline. The plan was, it would increase every several years. So, perhaps 2% in 1994... 5% of production in 1999, 10% in 2003, so on and so forth.

General Motors named their electric vehicle... seen above... the EV-1. (electric vehicle - the first?) Afterwards, other automakers (in California) started to comply. The car, which in practical usage terms, was no different than other automobiles [even in terms of speed], got approximately 60-70miles per charge. The average american is said to drive about 29miles per day. It came with a battery recharger you could keep in your garage that allowed you to recharge it every night. Now, taking a trip out of town... er... that... I dont know.

However, from the very beginning, oil companies fought the making of electric stations and paid for editorials against electric vehicles. They also donated money in the fight against the 1990 California mandate for creating electric cars. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) which pushed for the law, went into negotiations with the American Automakers based on the outside pressure they were recieving. The "mandate" was now based on demand. That is to say, if the automakers didn't make electric cars, there were no repercussions, they just had to show that the demand for electric cars was not there.

And LARGE demand there was not. Critics say GM didn't aggressively market the car to the American people. GM counters by saying that it did spend money on advertisements, but the response was very small. GM would eventually close its EV-1 division in 2001.

Automakers would later sue the California Air Resources Board with the support of the curent Bush Administration. Bush would also offer the automotive industry $1.2BILLION for R&D for hydrogen cell development. With talks about the "potential" of the hydrogen fuel cells now in the forefront, the CARB had to vote on the future of the electric cars. The mandate, as a whole, was killed in 2003. Consequently, all of the electric cars that were on the streets in the hands of regular consumers were leased, not owned. There was no option to buy. Slowly, ALL of the EV-1's were being seized by GM. The other automakers would do the same. There was a mass recall of every single electrical car. Not one was spared. Once the lease was up, the car company was reclaiming the car, with threat of being charged with felony theft if not allowed to repossess their vehicles. In June 2004, the very last electric car was taken off the streets. In February 2005, GM had only 78 EV-1's locked in storage in Burbank, California. Environmental activists raised 1.9 million dollars to buy the remaining cars, but GM didn't respond. However, the electric cars would not end up on that lot. They would later find a new home.

It is true that, even though you could fully recharge the battery EVERY DAY, some consumers had concern about the mileage (60-80miles per recharge) of the cars, though... unless taken a road trip, it wouldn't be an issue for most drivers. Iris and Stanford Ovshinsky, inventors in Michigan, created a new superior type of technology for batteries. The first EV1 used standard lead acid batteries. GM, consequently, would buy majority share of Ovshinsky's company. After the purchase, Ovshinsky began to feel that GM wasn't eager to actually use his battery. GM would even censure Ovshinsky for publicizing his battery without GM's permission and was told not to run advertisements in national publications. Stanford's battery would not actually be used in the EV-1 for more than two years after its creation. What would the perception have been if the electric car was initially marketed with much higher mileage potential? Who knows. It is interesting to note that GM would later sell control of Ovshinsky's battery company to the clear competitor of electric cars: Chevron.

There was a 1995 memo from the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association that shows they sought to hire a public relations firm to manage what they considered a "grassroots and education campaign" to create a climate to repeal the 1990 mandate. The memo explicitly states their challenge was greater consumer acceptance of electric vehicles. This is the auto industry, not the oil industry. Why would automakers fight electric cars? Was it just because they didn't like being told what to do? Was it a fear of just losing profits on cars sitting in the showroom? The way that American automotive companies thought that smaller hybrid/fuel-efficient cars weren't profitable in the late 90's? The EV-1 doesn't require a combustible engine either. The replacement and maintenance of combustible engine parts (and labor) makes up a large share of a car companies annual revenue. The electric cars require no oil... no oil filters... no alternators, etc, etc. The question should be asked, would it be in the best interest of the automakers to make electric cars? We know they CAN make it... do they want to? Creating a clean car also subliminally sends a message about all the other vehicles they create. Simultaneously, GM began to promote the Hummer brand. In 2002, there was a economic stimulus package that featured a $6,000 tax break for small business owners to buy Hummers. GM took ownership of Hummer from AM General in December 1999 and (coincidentally) shut down its plant-line for the EV-1 a month later.

What about the current administration? We all know Bush is an oil man. Dick Cheney is a former CEO of Halliburton. Condoleeza Rice is a former member of the Board of Directors of Chevron. Andy Card is a former VP for General Motors. He was also President and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association at the time they campaigned to kill the 1990 California Mandate. So, we know where this current crew's loyalty lays. Where have previous administrations been on this issue?

In October 1973, OPEC placed an embargo on the United States and Western Europe, refusing to transport oil as punishment for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The price of a barrel of oil subsequently went from $3/per barrel (wow!!!) to $15/per barrel in 1979. In June of 1979 it jumped again to $20/barrel.

In response to the OPEC embargo, the United States government created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. From 1975 to 1985, the fuel standards of vehicles nearly doubled from about 15mpg to about 27-28mpg. It hasn't changed in the last Twenty years! As the US suffered in the late 70's from the OPEC issue, gas prices rose, inflation swelled and the American people grew angry. Jimmy Carter's approval rating dropped to 25%, lower than Nixon during Watergate! He gave what has now been coined his "malaise" speech in July of 1979 (shortly after oil jumped another $5 to 20/barrel). The speech was about energy, but as well, the current status of the country and American confidence. It was the Carter administration that pushed to get the higher fuel standards. In this speech, he talked not only of what we could do as individual Americans (more public transportation, less driving, watching our thermostats) but also of our view of the country. How we could cheer ourselves up. How to raise our confidence of the country. It came across with a dreary tone. It helped lose him the election of 1980. Reagan had a different view. There was nothing wrong with America... just something wrong with the former leader. He coined his now famous "Its Morning in America" as an optimistic view of the status of the nation. And to some degree, it definately changed the perception of a lot of people, but substantively, it meant we weren't going to take any aggressive action to wean ourselves off foreign oil. Carter said we wouldn't import more oil than we were at that particular time in the 70's. Reagan had no such ambition. He would even go so far as to remove the solar panels that Jimmy Carter put up as a symbol of aggressive energy reform.

There was going to be deregulation. Reagan didn't believe in telling corporations what to do. Also, the mid 1980's saw the OPEC nations agree to lower the price of oil which made energy reform even less enticing. Its hard to get off heroine when your drug dealer keeps lowering your price.

The Clinton administration essentially cut a deal with the automakers. Reagan (being a Republican) flatly ignored raising fuel standards on car companies, the Clinton administration compromised. The auto industry would spend "some" time looking at hybrid (gas/electric) cars and the Administration would not push to increase fuel standards. The government poured in money but the US automakers didn't put any hybrids on the road in the 90's. And when the younger Bush took the White House in 2001, they totally walked away from R&D of hybrids. Ironically, the Japanese saw the money the former Clinton administration put into hybrids and (worried about being behind the curve), it was the Japanese car makers who were the first to create hybrids. This isn't the topic at hand, but when I talk to people about US automakers laying off thousands of workers, shutting down entire plants and scrapping/restructuring retirement packages... and they want to complain about competing with countries with lower waged workers and no health benefits to pay out (while both true), they can not avoid the blatant incompetence on their part that has cost their companies BILLIONS of dollars. Thats not done by regular workers, its done by EXTREMELY OVERPAID corporate heads who take none of the blame.

When will we FINALLY see a hydrogen car on the streets? WE'RE STILL WAITING!!! That was part of the "reasoning" for killing the electric cars. Fuel cells aren't more efficient. Estimates say they would take 3 to 4 times the energy of the electric battery, but fundamentally, there were 5 major problems with hydrogen cars:

1) the current cost for the hydrogen fuel cell is near a million dollars

2) a regular sized car doesn't have enough room to store the fuel required for practical driving

3) hydrogen fuel costs 2 to 3 times as much as gasoline

4) we'd have to create a new infrastructure across the nation of "hydrogen" stations

5) competing technologies will still remain more practical

The automotive industry doesn't want change. This is one reason why de-regulation doesn't work. I wont turn this into an anti-Republican blog, there will be time for that MANY a time in the future... but companies aren't going to do whats in our best interest... only their own. Remember...

seat belts ----------------- > had to become law FIRST

higher standards --------- > had to become law FIRST

air bags ------------------- > had to become law FIRST

Christian Aristocracy?

"they tell me the preacher's there for me
he's a crook, with a book
that muthafucka never cared for me
he's only here to be sure
I dont drop a dime to God
'bout the crimes he's committing on the poor." (2pac)

A far departure from the vow of poverty that has been a historical part of Catholic monastical living... in the 20th century, a new American "theology" emerged... surrounding a new perception of the way God wants you to live your life. No longer are people giving up their worldly possessions like the monks and nuns, people are being taught to seek them. And if you do not have them, it is because you do not have the strength of faith like others who truly believe on God and are thus rewarded for their trust in Him.

The above quote is merely an example of the growing perception of the church, based on this new focus on material wealth. Its not to say that foresaking all worldly material is a practical way for most people to live... I certainly dont believe so, however, this is merely to poing out a strong shift from those who didn't want to be distracted by material, and those who now focus their teachings on obtaining it. Some who teach these things cling to the branch that "money is just part of it" as if to say... they teach about the power of faith in many things, and financial/material blessing is one small part of it. I, personally, find this to be dishonest, disengenous and self-serving. "Oh, okay... apparently, you only talk about money when I HAPPEN to catch you speaking." No matter how often its taught (more than they let on) should it be taught at all? Is it biblical? Is it even moral?

The strangest part of this thinking... it completely (probably blatantly) overlooks the socio-economic situation of the writers of the bible. The New Testament Jews were not a free people. They were under the occupation of the Roman empire. Part of the way the Romans expanded and financed their empire was by heavily taxing those who became apart of it. The reason the Publicans were hated, they were Jews working with the Roman's taxing their people. Public tax... publican... get it? I've heard no biblical scholar, or anthropologist or historian who has claimed that the first century Jews were in the middle of some economic "golden" age. People need to stop trying to make verses say what they want them to say, but take them... now this will be a strange concept to many... IN THE CONTEXT of which they were originally written. No biblical scholar takes a preacher serious who says: the New Testament writers who mentioned "blessings" to his first century audience attended them to believe that great financial gain would overtake them if they would have more faith, or that ANY group of first century readers misinterpreted it as such. Now, undoubtedly, there is always some bozo who will mention King Solomon and his wealth. Let me knock this out really quick... HE WAS KING, MORON.

Now, compare Americans (of all social classes) to most of the world's population of today. Another example of Americans who buy into this garbage not taking our "me, me, me" goggles off. Even lower class Americans' average yearly income is greater than 2/3's of the world's population. And God is telling us we need to have more? Wealth is based on inequality: you have so much because others have so little, and its God telling you to go get more? The saddest irony is that the people who are being fed this theology are ALREADY so blessed, compared to people in first century Jerusalem and people in 21st centuary... well, 21st century darn near everywhere! Too many Americans... who watch celebrities and other aristocrats, covet other people's wealth and consider themselves to be have-nots, when... from a global perspective, they have so much already. People die from starvation everyday in 3rd world countries... and you're praying to God that you can replace your Camry with a BMW?

And what of the preacher as one who can tell me how to gain wealth? This is humorous at best, since the preacher operates OUTSIDE the normal job sector of his parishoners. Preaching isn't a job, its a service. There are many preachers in small churches who still work regular jobs (because they have to), but many preachers today are supported by a salary (and blessings) from the church. People are going to men and women, who have never been rich outside the realm of church... giving the preacher more money... thus making them richer... because they believe these shmos will tell them how they too can be blessed. You see the lack of logic here? He gets money only because you give it to him. But, you have a salaried job, your income doesn't operate like that. The preacher's "job" if you want to call it that, gives him opportunities to get money based on promises. The real world doesn't operate like that. He's selling a dream, so you buy in (literally!) and you percieve him to be blessed. But you, who operate in the real world, dont have the ability to faith your salary to double. So you keep believing and giving. And the preacher gets fatter and fatter in wealth. Now, if there is any change in that church, the only change will be, poorer people leave the church in disgust of their inability to gain wealth, and those with money, decide to go to the church, because they like what they're hearing. That will give the "PERCEPTION" that the church is now blessed, when the demographics change.

Finally, and perhaps the SCARIEST question: how can the "man of God" sleep so well in his big mansion while people are homeless? How can you be the servant of God in your big warm compound, while people are on streets? And he or she's teaching people of morale fortitude? Preaching isn't a job. He didn't earn that money. A minister means one who serves. He serves the people. This concept of "full-time" upper class ministers is foreign to the bible. People in the bible had regular jobs. Jesus was a carpenter, and even when he went into ministy, he had the ability to feed thousands of people with a few fish and a few loaves of broad! Nowadays the preacher sits back and lets people feed him. Paul was a tent-maker. He asked for donations (for his minitry, not wealth building) but he also made tents that he actively sold in certain places he ministered. The apostles were fishermen. I suppose you could "try" and mention the old testament priests, but there are no more sacrifices being done. No specific ceremonies that need to be done to a tee, lest you die while trying to enter the most "holy of holies." What does the preacher do all day? Pray? Even when the Thessalonians took that very same mindset... when they stopped working because they thought the end of the world was coming and Jesus soon returning... Paul wrote to them in Thessalonians: if anyone doesn't work... let him not eat.

"What have you been doing all day, minister?"
"I've been praying..."
"All day...?"
"Um... well... yeah..."
"You dont think you should work?"
"I couldn't... too... too busy... er... um... praying..."
"About what...?"
"Um... about stuff...."
"I could, kinda buy that, if you had to go on behalf of God in the temple, like Aaron... but each man has his own relationship... he goes before God on his own. You dont even have to worry about setting up any sacrifice ceremonies. You pray more than those who had to prepare themselves to go directly into the presense of God. You can pray... and do other things... like work."
"Hmmm... i'll pray on that."
"Grrr..."

This is not an indictment on money. Joseph of Arimethea, who clothed the crucified Jesus was mentioned as a wealthy man. I'm not someone who says that money (in and of itself) is the root of all evil. That would be the other extreme belief, those who have inherent disdain of money, because they PURPOSELY misquote the verse that says THE LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil. But this is exactly that. A theology that focuses on heavenly blessings from God being realized in the form of material gain can be called nothing short of evil.