Gas prices and hybrids

Gas prices. Ew. The latest here in Portland Oregon is that regular unleaded gas costs about 2.40 a gallon. Now that's not very much compared to bottled water, but how much bottled water do you buy a month (those from Cali, don't answer that)? Needless to say that I don't get premium or plus much any more.
I would like to reduce the amount of gas we use as a family, but we as a society have build social patterns, literally into the design of our cities, that require us to drive at least part of the time. Those of you who don't think so obviously don't have kids.
I would like to buy a hybrid car some time. I have heard that they aren't that bad. They drive OK, have generally enough power to do everything you might need in today's urban life. But they don't have everything yet. First of all, they are still new enough that there isn't a really good used car market. They are pretty expensive (for the size) when they are new, and there aren't many available on used lots yet.
The other thing is the lack of companies making them and the lack of styles. It just may be that I'm an American, but I want my next vehicle to be a pickup truck. I'm not talking about getting a truck or SUV as status symbol, I plan on actually using it as a truck. Since we bough a house I have recognized the need for such things. We have six trees around the yard, and they produce a litter of leaves that requires too many yard debris bags to manage. It would be nice if I could just haul it out. It would be nice if I could just haul in materials I need for projects from Home Depot. It would be nice if I could just throw camping equipment or my skis into the bed and drive off instead of the damage that does to the interior of my car.
Would it really hurt the auto companies in the world to make a hybrid truck? The technology has obviously been there for years. I'm not going to be hauling large trailers or anything like that.
Rant over.

Same Sex Marriage Fails

The Oregon Supreme Court rejected the 3000 gay marriages that were registered by Multnomah County last year, saying that counties have no authority to do that kind of thing. Finally a decision that I can agree with. Not because I am for or against gay marriage (although my friends know where I stand), but because neither the courts or the counties had the legal authority to do that sort of thing. By this decision the courts recognized that it is not them, but the legislature that is supposed to take care of this sort of thing.
And with the constitutional amendment passed by voters last year mandating that marriage be considered a union between a man and woman only, the legislature is going to be limited to just creating some sort of civil union.
And once again the debate is going to boil down to how many rights do you give gay couples, in that if you give them ALL the rights of married couples, what's the difference? Why are we fighting this in the first place?

Responsibility

One wonders what people are thinking when they let people get away with things. Think Sandy Berger risking national security and getting away with a slap on the hand. We have this warped sense of wanting to forgive people, but not holding them accountable.
Here's a Northwest version of that.
From RoguePundit, we hear of an indian tribe in the Puget Sound area that was allocated a certain Salmon haul by the state. All salmon fishers are constrained by this rule, as Chinook are an endangered species.

Washington's Makah Tribe [took] about 20,000 chinook from the ocean north of the Olympic Peninsula when their allocation for the winter troll catch was just 1,600.

So what's the punishment?

Yesterday we found out that the Makah's winter troll allocation has been raised considerably for 2006, and to make up for this, the fishing seasons for other fishermen--excluding other tribes--have been restricted.

Nice accountability. Apparently not everyone suffers equally when there is a shortage of certain resources.

UN Scam Arrests!

Two oil executives in Houston were indicted, accused of paying Saddam's government for oil contracts under the table. They face up to 60 years and $1 million in fines.
Here in America we have criminals too. It's just that when we find them, we tend to put them behind bars.

Justice term limits

I have not been very receptive to the idea that Supreme Court Justices should be limited by term limits, as it is a life term in the original Consitution of the USA. I generally think those guys knew what they were doing, and I've been hoping that there was some other solution we could come up with that would solve some of the problems we have been having with the judiciary as of late.
However, this opinion by a couple of law profs at Northwestern gives me pause, and I'm willing to consider that option.

Afghanistan, update

Oxblog's roving Afghan reporter is back. He gives a thorough treatment on the situation there, and has opimism about the future and how it's going.

Meanwhile, the prospect of permanent US bases in the country is greeted with tremendous relief by most Afghans I talk to, whose primary fear at the moment is that America "will abandon us again as they did in the 1990s." And the international military presence throughout the country is becoming ever more international, as US Provincial Reconstruction Teams retire and are replaced by Canadians, Italians, Brits. The securing and rebuilding of Afghanistan is not the simple act of American empire perceived by many critics.

He also talks about the drug economy, which right now is a concern, but not a crisis. And President Karzai is seen as a growing national power, and not just the "Mayor of Kabul."
Read the whole thing.

Red Light Cameras and Web news

Liked this nice note on how cameras installed to catch people running red lights has suffered defeat in Virginia this week. The legislature refused to re-fund the program and it will be discontinued this summer.
New Hampshire and Indiana voted overwhelmingly against similar programs after a Department of Transportation study found that injury accidents actually increased when red light cameras were used.
TheNewspaper.com, which focuses on driving issues, is an interesting web site. It's a small news site totally devoted to this narrow issue. Without the web, this kind of thing wouldn't be possible.

The Importance of Judicial Nominees

The Standard has an article that sums up my opinion over the battle to appoint federal judges to a tee.

The controversy pivots not just on whether abortion should be legal, but on whether judges should be deciding such questions in the first place. Prior to Roe, an organized pro-life movement didn't exist. Post-Roe, it's become one of the most effective lobbying forces in U.S. politics. Thus the chief lesson of Roe: When citizens lose at the ballot box, they feel defeated. When they lose by judicial fiat, they feel cheated.

Currie points to Roe v. Wade as the crux from which all this judicial activism has spread. At this point I'm resisting just copying the whole article, which isn't too long, but won't.

A showdown over the judicial branch was a long time coming. After all, if judges begin wielding de facto legislative powers--a phenomenon that has mushroomed ever since Roe--and Congress blithely acquiesces, then judicial confirmation hearings become almost like Senate campaigns. In such an environment, vetting a nominee's partisan credentials seems only logical.

But each [ideological side] tends to overlook the crux of the problem. The underlying threat to American self-government is not merely "right-wing" or "left-wing" judges--but the imperial judiciary itself. Yes, most judicial activism these days occurs on the social left. Conservatives are wholly justified in their high dudgeon. But when they base their arguments on a narrow critique of "liberal" judges, rather than a critique of usurping judges generally, conservatives unintentionally concede a vital point: namely, that American courts should be reaching a sociopolitical consensus for the American people.

In fact, the Founders intended no such role for the courts. Divining and defining the popular will on, say, abortion, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty is properly the duty of the U.S. Congress and state legislators. But for several decades now, American politicians have shirked that duty. Congress has also ducked its constitutional obligation to lasso a renegade judiciary. The result: an unchecked court system with metastasizing powers and an insatiable appetite for legislating.

No wonder the U.S. bench is littered with so many partisan hacks. And no wonder both parties are willing to go to the mats over Bush's nominees.

Conservatives have crossed this line as well, but do so less often. Just as it's inappropriate to use the judicial system to decide social issues such as abortion, juvinile capital punishment, and environmental issues, it's borderline judicial abuse to work the system the way the conservatives did trying to interfere with Michael Schiavo's right to end his wife's life. I get really nervous when the federal government tries to overrule existing law and precident in the heat of the moment, and based on a single case, in which the right of a spouse to make decisions for his or her other is threatened. No thought get's put into it, and judicial precident is harder to overcome than legislation. Don't get me started.

NY Times' scruples

Powerline has a post on a subject they have been following lately. Namely the anti-Semitism on the Columbia University campus by certain professors, and the school's flat out refusal to do anything about it. In fact the school investigated it and let all the professors off the hook.
But that's not the true jaw dropper in the post. It's this:

A front-page article on Thursday described a report by a committee at Columbia University formed to investigate complaints that pro-Israel Jewish students were harassed by pro-Palestinian professors. The report found "no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic," but it did say that one professor "exceeded commonly accepted bounds" of behavior when he became angry at a student who he believed was defending Israel's conduct toward Palestinians.

The article did not disclose The Times's source for the document, but Columbia officials have since confirmed publicly that they provided it, a day before its formal release, on the condition that the writer not seek reaction from other interested parties.

Under The Times's policy on unidentified sources, writers are not permitted to forgo follow-up reporting in exchange for information. In this case, editors and the writer did not recall the policy and agreed to delay additional reporting until the document had become public. The Times insisted, however, on getting a response from the professor accused of unacceptable behavior, and Columbia agreed.

So hear that? Contrary to any journalistic ethics and the Times' own policy, the New York Times decided to be a patsy for a school that is trying to protect an anti-semitic teaching staff.

The Real UN Mandate

Mary Madigan is guest blogging for Michael Totten while he is in Lebanon (blogging on Spirit of America).
While talking about the UN she makes this interesting evaluation of the world body.

The question is, what are the core priorities of the UN? Cain believes that saving lives and preventing genocides are core priorities, but if that were true, Annan would have been fired a long time ago. In fact, preserving peace and stability is the UN’s goal. The tolerance of genocidal regimes and the massive casualties that result is in line with that goal. If ensuring worldwide stability and preventing or avoiding involvement in any military action against a sovereign nation requires a passive capitulation to evil, Kofi Annan is more than willing to passively capitulate. He’s doing the job he’s being paid to do - as will the person who replaces him.

If that's true then I am fully, 100%, on board to oppose US involvement in that body until such time as it reforms itself. Severely reforms itself.
Kofi made a speech this week vocalizing his intent to reform the Human Rights Commission, which is great. He actually said that there should be standards when determining who could be on the commission, which has been the main problem with it all along. I'll believe it when I see it, though. It's not just the Human Rights Commission anyway.

Scandal Update, Eh

Instapundit notes that the judge overseeing the sponsorship scandal in Canada has lifted the media ban on the testimony during the trial.
Credit blogger Ed Morrissey for showing the Canadians what they are lacking up there in the way of rights of the press.

Willamette Week

Hat tip to Rogue Pundit.
The Willamette Week is a news and entertainment info magazine that has been around for 30 years. It has gripping and very long investigative articles, music and band listings, and best of all it's free. All it's income comes from advertisers, and it's distribution method is simple: it is only available on the street or at selected businesses around town. No home delivery.
More-so than the Oregonian (and most other big-money news organizations) the paper encourages hard investigative journalism. Some people shy away from it because of it's big city/small paper liberalism. Not surprising here in Portland. However I have come to appreciate it for articles that are not just sound bites, but try to get every angle on it.
That philosophy sometimes pays off, and this time it has big time.
Journalist Nigel Jaquiss wrote an article on former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt's elicit relationship with a 14 year old in the 70s. This week he was awarded journalism's highest honor: a Pulitzer Prize.
Only five Pulitzers (at three papers) have ever been given to a journalist at an alternative newspaper.

Squeeze every last drop.

There is another bill in Salem, OR trying to change the way voters approve of tax increases. What it would do is end the double majority requirement for approving a property tax increase. So right now at least 50% of registered voters must turn out and 50% of them must vote yes on the ballot.
The Oregonian complains that this means that couch potatoes and disinterested people have more power than people who actually get out and vote.
Rogue Pundit has a few things to say about that.

As I've noted many times, most Oregonians are not anti-tax, but anti-tax increase. There's a huge difference...that too many tax advocates are unwilling to admit or unable to perceive. Voters remain sick of the dishonest pretense that voting against a tax increase results in a tax cut, and are tired of being called stupid and/or uncaring when they vote against such increases. And, they've learned to expect the state's larger newspapers to advocate for tax increases.

I agree, as I'm not anti-tax, but would like to see the government improve the way it spends before I OK any more increases.

Most of our tax advocates think that Oregon's resistance to tax increases is a marketing, not a product issue. This proposal is a bit different...it would lower the bar regarding how many people the advocates have to sell to gain a tax increase. We "deserve" the chance to relax the requirements--to make their job easier to increase our taxes.

What we deserve is honest, efficient government that we can trust to spend our money wisely. Why are we discussing double majorities when we still don't have, for instance, a rainy day fund? You can't market your way out of that one.

Scandal: Canadian style.

Joe Katzman over at Winds of Change has a great entry on what's going on up in the great white north. It seems that Paul Martin is playing a very dangerous game, hoping to root out all his enemies within the Liberal party, while staying in power himself.
Martin has called for an investigation in something called the Sponsorship Scandal, costing the government $100 million dollars. If it were the US it would be something like $1 Billion, considering the differences in the relative economies.

Back to Martin, who now had the job he had always wanted. He also had a LOT of enemies within his own party, however... and an ace card, of sorts. You see, most of his high profile party enemies and flacks were very close to PM Chretien. Which meant they were eyes-deep in the $100+ million Sponsorship Scandal.

What's interesting is all the possible things that can happen, including a "Snap Election" where the government can call an election to re-elect legislators any time they want. It's kind of a chaotic mess sometimes.
The other issue is the media ban on certain information.

So far, the publication ban has muted coverage of the scandal, and given the Liberal Party of Canada the ability to "create their own trial scene". They even had the power to call a snap election before any reports could be released with the juicy details - something they recently threatened to do over the gay marriage issue.

Now, all that is changing. Enter the blogosphere.

Enter Captain's Quarters, a Minnestoa-based blog with a friend in the right place. The Captain has just published the gist of a key witness' testimony re: the Liberal Party of Canada's massive political corruption operation, payoffs, rumoured Mob ties, and all. Captain's Quarters is under no obligation to respect a Canadian legal ruling about Brault's testimony, and once it's out, anyone can link to it.

I've heard that one Canadian blog is being sued. But really, does the government really think it can keep this under wraps?

China in the Middle East

Dan Blumenthal has an essay about what China is doing in the Middle East, and how that relates the United States and the UN.

The Chinese government's Middle East policy is a winning gambit for Beijing. China can not only quench its thirst for oil but, at least in the short-term, also undercut external Islamist incitement aimed at its own Muslim population. By cultivating ties with Middle Eastern countries that have antagonistic relations with Washington, Beijing can undermine U.S. policy in the region. The more countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria have ballistic missile capability and weapons of mass destruction, the more difficult it becomes for Washington to intervene in the Middle East in support of U.S. goals or in defense of its allies.

It is, he points out, that while the US looks to the Middle east for reform as a means of fighting terror, China looks to our invasive behavior into the region as a means of encircling China and moving NATO further east. In other words, our actions are interpreted as a challenge as China's only serious threat in the world, and our democratizing behavior is a threat to their one party system.
Think about it. What's the most crucial piece in why the UN has not been able to get involved with the Iranian Nuclear issue and the genocide in Darfur? China's veto on the Security Council.
Hat tip: Winds of Change.

50 years of protection.

This is a press release regarding the timber industry and state officials in Washington. I'll let it speak for itself.

Federal and Wash. state officials are considering a plan called the Forests and Fish plan that calls for setting aside 5% of the state's forestland from logging in exchange for protecting the timber industry for 50 years against Endangered Species Act prosecutions for killing or harming endangered salmon.

The plan covers more than 9 million acres, about one-fifth of the state. It would be the largest such deal in the West, reports the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Hailed by the timber industry, government officials, and some tribes, the plan was criticized by independent scientists, environmentalists and other tribes when it was unveiled five years ago.

In the months ahead, federal officials will decide how to transform it into a "habitat conservation" plan, a way to legally allow industries to kill and harm protected animals in exchange for taking specified steps to help the species in other ways.

Those steps include major increases in the size of streamside tree buffers that shade and cool waterways, fixing some logging roads that bleed stream-smothering silt, and more-careful reviews when loggers turn their attention to landslide-prone mountainsides.

Critics of the plan say the pact has to be made better for fish and wildlife if the timber industry is to get a half-century of legal protection, the newspaper reported. Environmentalists who panned the pact originally now are trying to make its provisions more protective. They and independent scientists have criticized the plan because it relies on an ongoing series of studies to justify its scientific basis.

The industry has indicated it is willing to accept even tighter restrictions if scientists say it is necessary to protect fish.

"Part of the real benefit of this agreement is that there is going to be a serious scientific process that dictates whether changes on the ground are necessary," said Bill Wilkerson, executive director of the Washington Forest Protection Association. "We can live with the fact that that may occur, as long as it's serious science."

Backers of the plan point out that although one of its goals is to protect fish, another is to protect Washington's timber industry.

Wow. That would be a major shift in policy. Actually relying on hard science before implementing restrictions on timber harvesting. I can understand environmentalists getting nervous about a move like this. It severely reduces their influence into the timber harvesting process for the next few decades.
As a member of the timber industry myself I would have to say that this is a welcome development. My only fear is that, like so many other things, this could politically morph into something that's not good for the industry OR the environment. We'll have to wait and see.
Also, I'm wondering who "independent scientists" are? Aren't you?

Terri Schiavo, RIP

Well, it's finally over. The media tsunami that is. As tragic as this all was, I am really ready to not hear about this on the news any more. I have written a few things about this in the past. Most notably I wrote that I was disgusted with her husbands treatment of her, and that I thought that he was just in this for himself.
What I should really be disgusted with is the press and media's inability to tell the story with any accuracy. I'm tired of hype as news. I want facts. Not just some of the facts, but all the facts. Let me make my own decision. The facts shouldn't be hard to come by, nor should they take up so much space that you need to leave some out to make you column fit on the news page.
Frankly, some of the facts I have heard now dispute that Michael Schiavo didn't do anything for her early on, and that at one point several years later, in 1998, he gave up and asked that she be allowed to die by removing the feed tube.
Who are we to say that this really wasn't Terri's wish?
Here is a fantastic, and long, summary and timeline of what has happened, and shows how all the facts have not been presented accurately or even at all.
Facts: Doctors performed tests on her for years, but recorded no higher level function over any of the 15 years she has been in this state. Therefore it's persistent. Patients should show some sign of improvement within weeks or even months, but not years.
The EEG tests, which show electrical activity, have shown NO cerebral cortex activity. Flatline.
More facts: Terri underwent more than three years of rehabilitative therapy after her collapse in 1990, and her husband took her to California late that same year to have an experimental device implanted in her brain in hopes of stimulating activity. He did not do nothing.
Facts: The only "experts" who maintain that she is responsive and not in a vegetative state are doctors speaking for the parents of Terri. Court appointed physicians have not been able to document any consistent responses from Terri that would indicate she is aware of her surroundings.
These facts don't get reported too much, just the politics and the rantings of the parents. I feel for the parents, I really do, but I don't see where they have the high ground here.

For that matter, I am really disassociated with moral conservatives on this issue. I am a conservative myself, but I often wonder at the fights that we pick in life, and whether or not they are worth fighting for. Probably the worst thing that could have happened did. Not Terri dying, it's arguable that happened 15 years ago. I mean moral conservatives went to the federal government and tried to work the system when the did not get the result they wanted after taking Michael Schiavo to court. As much as we think that we have the moral high ground in this argument, Terri's husband has the legal high ground. And after all we are a nation under the rule of law and not of men.
Morality and ethics should be there to guide the law, and perhaps influence it, but not dominate it. The thing that bothered me most about all the legal wrestling over the past few weeks is that congress and Terri's parents were attempting to set some pretty scary precedents in undermining the sanctity of the right of spouses to make critical decisions for each other.
And I would not want me or my wife sanctioned in the same way that Terri's parents were attempting to sanction him.

Help, I'm being oppressed!

The mascot of the Fighting Illini (University of Illinois) is a student dressed up in native American Chieftain's garb, with a big feather headdress. He won't be attending (in costume, anyway) the NCAA final four, where Illinois face Louisville on Saturday. The reason for this?

In January, the NCAA minority issues committee asked schools that use the American Indian as a nickname to conduct a six-month self-evaluation of their relationship with the American Indian. They are due May 1.

GROOOAAAAN. Do native Americans really care about this? Does having a student dress up like one for sporting events demean people of that noble blood? There have been surveys done by Sports Illustrated and other agencies (can't link to SI from the 2002 issue, but there's a reference to it here) indicating that while Native American activists oppose the monikers of sports teams, the vast majority of Native Americans do not. But that doesn't seem to matter, as our intelectual superiors know better.

"There are an infinite number of choices for the sports culture, but the Native Americans only have one culture," Illinois professor Carol Spindel, author of the book Dancing at Halftime: Sports and the Controversy over American Indian Mascots, said Wednesday.

What?!? If I were a native American, I would be patently offended by the statement that all the different native societies that existed (and still do exist) on the continent are really only "one culture."
This is another example of "perceived" offense by certain liberal groups claiming to represent a larger body of people that they, ironically, may not really represent.

Mayor Micro Managing

Here in the rainy city, the city council is considering whether to back out of the federal Join Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), which provides money to local police to fight terrorism and provides information and support to local police.
How it works is that there are usually a small number of selected, and trained, officers who communicate with the FBI and are privy to top secret information that could help in leading to arrests.
Other people in the system, such as the mayor and the chief of police get some information, but are only cleared for what's called "Secret" information, not "Top Secret" information.
This seems to disappoint our new mayor.

There are major, if seemingly subtle, differences between secret and top-secret clearance. People with secret clearance know who is being investigated, with some broad information about what that prompted the inquiry -- they may be told, for example, that a tip came from a confidential source in the Middle East. People with top-secret clearance know who is being investigated and receive specific details about the initial source -- they would know, say, the original tipster's name, location and job.

(Portland Mayor Tom) Potter says that without the same level of access to information as his officers, he can't ensure that the Portland Police are following Oregon law. State statutes bar police from investigating people because of their political or religious beliefs.

OK, now, really, this is a horribly great example of micro-managing. Does the Mayor really need to know this stuff? Is he really the one responsible for ensuring that the police are following Oregon Law? Aren't they supposed to do that?

But (Police Chief) Foxworth says secret clearance for the police chief and the mayor is enough.

"We sit down with those officers on a regular basis and go over each and every case," he said. "They are well-trained, and they are well aware of the law and the limitations. It has occurred where the officers have said, 'We can't be involved in this.' . . . The officers themselves did that, not their sergeant or lieutenant."

The FBI representative in Portland has said that he has offered to grant top secret clearance to Foxworth, but not to the mayor.
What surprises me here is that Commissioner Randy Leonard is the author of the resolution that will sever Portland's relationship with the JTTF. Up until this point I have had several reasons to like Leonard and the things he has done, but I don't understand the thinking here.

End of the Funk

Perhaps. At the very least I'll still be less frequent.
But what better way to come out of a funk than with some comedy.

Every time you make a credit card purchase, they're supposed to match your signature against the one on the back of your card. Nobody seems to check anymore, so I tried to see how far I could push it with wacky signatures like "Mariah Carey" and "Zeus," which you can read in the original Credit Card Prank.

"The Credit Card Prank" took on a life of its own, vaulting ZUG into the national consciousness. Since then, some thirty million people have read that article -- some of them, it turns out, from the credit card companies themselves. Surely, then, they must have learned their lesson. Right?

Actually, this guy is totally serious, and did some fun journalism. I don't know why anyone should have to sign their name any more. That seems just as dangerous as anything else, having your signature out there for someone to forge.
There are so many places out there now that don't require signatures, like gas stations and internet sales, and people don't check the signatures it seems like a waste of time.