I told you ethanol wasnt the answer

Appetite for destruction – August 21, 2006

The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today’s entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand.

While it’s nice to see GM trying to save the world, they are heading in the WRONG DIRECTION with corn-based ethanol.  It is not sustainable.  It may mean that we’re less dependant on the Middle East, but it means were more dependant on somewhere else.  Not a solution to the problem, just pusing the problem off into the future.

Security? What security?

CNN.com – Boy, 12, evades security clampdown – Aug 16, 2006

LONDON, England — Despite a high level of alert at British airports, a 12-year-old boy managed to board a plane at Gatwick without a passport, ticket or boarding pass.

The important question, though is, “Was he carrying any liquids or an iPod?” Seriously, why do we have security at the airport if it’s not meaningful? Are they really just trying to collect nail clippers and screwdrivers to sell on eBay?

Edit: Again, I say something, and BoingBoing backs it up.  The letter they link to, from a chemisty grad student, is pretty funny.  And makes our security measures look pretty ridiculous.

Not even Republicans are Republican

Michael J. New on Buck Wild: How the Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government on National Review Online

Even worse, many agencies which have received large budgetary increases are not even remotely related to the war on terror.

Because, of course, if you aren’t fighting the war on terror, obviously you don’t need any money.  Education and health care don’t matter if the terrorists hate our way of life so much they want to kill us.

I’ve often wondered about today’s Republicans.  Previously, being Republican meant small central government, lower taxes, let the local governments take care of as much as possible.  I think that, in general, is a good idea.  The government should step into our lives only when necessary, and then it should do it as gently as possible.  The government exists to help the people live their lives, not as an entity for itself.

But no one seems to want small, localized government these days.  And when the National Review starts bashing Republicans for not being very Republican, you know we’re in trouble.

execrable automotive aardvark

The Truth About Cars Chevrolet Uplander This review is funny in part because I’m ashamed of American car companies and their continued quest to not provide anything useful to the world beyond jobs for factory workers, so I like hearing GM-bashing. But it’s also funny for phrases like “execrable automotive aardvark” and “the Uplander’s plastics seem designed by rental car companies for rental car companies; their ability to withstand endless applications of industrial strength ammonia being their only saving grace.”. I think most phrases with the word “execrable” are funny. That’s because it sounds like “excrement”! Or looks like it. Or something. Great. This is the 100th post on Complaint Hub, and I’m making poop jokes.

Terror! Liberty! Freedom! Cookies!

Hezbollah the Loser In Battle, Bush Says

“Forces of terror see the changes that are taking place in their midst. They understand that the advance of liberty, the freedom to worship, the freedom to dissent, and the protection of human rights would be a defeat for their hateful ideology,” Bush said. “But they also know that young democracies are fragile and that this may be their last and best opportunity to stop freedom’s advance and steer newly free nations to the path of radical extremism.”

Every time I hear statements like this from Bush, I hear his imitator on Saturday Night Live talking about “strategery”.  Was that Will Ferrell, or someone else?  I can hear it in my head, but I can’t quite picture him.  Anyway, an equally effective image that this should conjure up is Cookie Monster.  “Terror bad.  Liberty and freedom good!  Me love cookies!”.

I don’t like making fun of the way Bush speaks, as I’ve said before, because I think it tends to be the thing that people notice and latch onto, and then they miss the fact that he’s doing terrible things to the country.  But I just can’t help myself here.  He just enjoys saying “terror” and “hateful” and “freedom” too much.

Oh, well.  What I should be focusing on here is how he has, again, delcared victory in a fight that’s long from over.  He seems to think that he gets to determine when a conflict is over, and who won.  I know that whole “Mission Accomplished” banner wasn’t his fault, but the administration has talked about how we “won” the war in Iraq for years, but last time I checked, people were still dying over there.  That’s not winning in my book.  And neither has Israel won.  There may be a temporary cease-fire, which is good, it will hopefully allow some diplomacy to happen.  But if people start thinking that this is over, they haven’t been paying attention to the entire history of the region.

Ask, and you shall receive

Newsvine – Chertoff: U.S. Should Review Terror Laws – via BoingBoing

“What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information,” [Chertoff] said. “We have to make sure our legal system allows us to do that. It’s not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants.”

And there you go. A wonderful quote from the guy in charge of making us safe. Who do you suppose is going to protect us from Homeland Security?

Stop using terrorism as a political tool

CNN.com – UK lowers threat level to ‘severe’ – Aug 14, 2006

“The threat level is at severe, indicating the high likelihood of an attempted terrorist attack at some stage, and I urge the public to remain vigilant.”

I’m glad that was the British Home Secretary saying that, and not someone from our DHS. It would have been really embarrassing if Chertoff said something that dumb. Now, if I had a devoted readership, it would be mere minutes before someone would dig up an equally stupid quote from Chertoff. But, since my devoted readership is about five people, I’m not sure it’s going to happen.

Anyway, the point of this post is not to attack stupid quotes. I mean, if the British government wants to terrify their citizens over the threat of attempted attacks, that’s fine. It’s idiotic, but it’s fine.

The point of this post is that all of these security measures are ridiculous. You can bring electronics on this flight, but not that flight. You can only bring a clear plastic bag on this flight, but three days later you can bring a regular carry-on. You can bring a computer or a hair dryer, “provided they are visible at security checkpoints”. So, I’m free to put a bomb in my suitcase and use my hair dryer to set it off, but I ABSOLUTELY MUST ensure that the hair dryer is visible to the security folks.

None of this is making us safe.  This is making us afraid, and this is making it a pain in the ass to travel.  But it does nothing for our safety.  It’s so frustrating that I don’t feel as if there’s anything I can do.  I could make a fuss at the airport, but what will that accomplish?  The people there are just following orders from higher up (If anyone makes a “the Nazis were just following orders, too” comment, I’m going to block your IP.  If I can figure out how to do that.), so complaining to them is useless, and likely to only delay me further.

So I bitch about it here, and to anyone else who will listen.  I’ve heard people suggest that many of these terrorists we’ve caught were planted by the government as an excuse to do things in the name of national security.  I don’t think I’ve sunk quite to the level of paranoia it takes to believe that, but the fact that it doesn’t sound all that far-fetched anymore worries me.

Note to any and all government agencies who may be listening in:  I am not a terrorist.  I am not bringing any bombs on any planes, nor have I ever even seen a bomb.  I love my country, for better or for worse, and have no ties to any terrorist organizations.  When I talk about being free to bring a bomb on a plane, I mean that in a purely hypothetical sense.  I would never actually do it.

Oh, the Web 2.0-ness is spectacular!

I posted about HotSoup a while back, and it looks like they’re one step closer to going live.  They’ve got little quotes from some famous people like John McCain and Lance Armstrong.  They’ve got little animated ads for themselves on a splash screen.  Who uses splash screens?  Aside from fifteen-year-old girls and car manufacturers?

I know the site’s not live yet, but when it goes live, they’re going to have to remember that they need some real content behind the pretty pictures and draggable divs.  Hopefully they’re just trying to drum up some interest now, and the real site will be very different.

I’m also curious about their poll.  What, exactly, is the difference between “Government” and “Political leaders”?  If I go to my political leaders, does that mean going straight to the top?  Skipping the low- and mid-levels of government and taking my complaint or concern straight to the big boss?  It seems like an awfully subtle distinction for such a general poll.

But maybe I’m just in a bad mood because it’s Monday.