An interesting link

I encourage you to look at the video linked below.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Bill Moyers interview a successful Cigna executive who realized that “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain a neutrality” (Dante) and quit. (link below) This is an insider’s view into the insurance industry. It explains why our costs are so high. It covers the tactics the insurance industry is and will use to derail reform, and why the blue dog Democrats are obstructing real reform.

As always, regardless of if you agree or disagree with my opinions, support democracy by participating. Contact your Senators, Representatives, and President and let them know your opinions. That is the only way to counter the influence of high dollar lobbyist.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

“The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.”

“(The insurance industry) spend 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit.”

“The satisfaction ratings are higher in our Medicare program, a government-run program, than in private insurance.”

“And that same thing happened, in the Nataline Sarkisyan case. You had a corporate bureaucrat making a decision on coverage. So, they are trying to make you worry. And fear a government bureaucrat being between you and your doctor. What you have now is a corporate bureaucrat between you and your doctor.”

Here are some interesting posts.

The owner of Blackwater may have committed murder.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/5/in_explosive_allegations_ex_employees_link

Germany's experience with cash for clunkers.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,640572,00.html

This one is interesting. Did Obama intentionally upstage Hillary?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,636565,00.html

ACLURLZ

There is no way I could paraphrase an article from the ACLU of Colorado newsletter. For that reason I will quote it word for word. My apologies to this great organization for ripping off their writing.

From the June 2009 issue of All Rights Reserved:
ACLURLZ?

Between fighting to repeal the death penalty, representing the wrongfully arrested and suing on behalf of prisoners subjected to inexcusable abuse, we deal with pretty serious topics. Every once in a while, however, we come across a civil liberties issue that makes us smile.

It all started when a dedicated vegan Kelly Lee-Coffman wanted to express her joy of soy by displaying ILVTOFU on her license plate. Despite her willingness to pay an extra $50, plus an additional annual fee, the Colorado DMV rejected her application. Officials denied the plate on the grounds that some less-than-vegetable-minded observers might read "I LV TO F-U" which would violate the department's propriety standard, which bans anything deemed to be "offensive to good taste and decency."

Upon learning that anonymous DMV censors wielded ultimate power in determining the definition of "good taste," we started to wonder, "What else had they banned?" Our first open records request produced a complete list of rejected plates. Most were obvious variations on George Carlin's seven words you can't say on television, though Colorado DMV censors had expanded that list to at least a couple dozen. Some, like "2MFENAD" were simply inscrutable (if that's naughty, we're not clever enough to if figure out).

The censorship made even less sense once we compared the banned plates to the list of nearly 50,000 approved plates. We may not be the most qualified experts on decency, but we still can't figure out why "GEEK" was censored and "NERD" was allowed. Or why "NOCRAP" was in, but "CRAP" was out. "TOOSEXY" was banned, but "2SEXY" was just fine. "TOPLE55" - out, "TOPLESS" - in.

When word of our interest in vanity plates reached State Senator Greg Brophy, who represents the eastern plains, he did not share our concern over censorship. However, he suggested two plates that we're quite sure the Colorado DMV would not permit: "ACLUSUX" and "FUACLU". Executive Director Cathy Hazouri kindly replied that if Sen. Brophy would like to challenge the censorship of his preferred plates in court, we'd be glad to take his case! We're still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, the exchange has been covered nationwide, including the Rachel Maddow Show and the LA Times.

Beyond the quips and editorials, at issue here is the government's role in subjectively deciding what is and what is not allowed. In addition to the silly and arbitrary, there are some clear examples of political speech being banned, such as "BADUSA". Vanity plates may only have a marginal role in our daily lives, but they are nonetheless a facet of public speech bound by the Constitution.

Find out more about this issue by going to our website and clicking on the license plate. You'll find a list of banned plates, an explanation of the background, and our very own web game which will let you match your censorship skills against the DMV.

Back to me.

The site mentioned is http://www.aclu-co.org/vanityplate/vanityplate.html

In the same newsletter they also wrote about their defense of a student at Dakota Ridge High School who wore a "NObama" t-shirt when Michelle Obama made a campaign stop at the school. When he refused to leave he was handcuffed, issued an order to appear, and held against his will. He was also suspended. After the ACLU discussed the case with the Jefferson County Sheriff's office all charges were dropped, and the school rescinded the suspension.

I support the ACLU because of it's willingness to defend all our rights, and every one's rights. If you limit what organizations you support, as I do, I hope that the ACLU is one that you support. Be it a mass murderer, Dick Cheney, the KKK, or a law abiding citizen caught in a web of circumstances, if the ACLU feels that that person's constitutional rights were denied they will defend them. (Oh, I forgot. Dick Cheney is a mass murderer.)

cash for clunkers

It appears that we will have a "cash for clunkers" law. Though I like incentives to encourage people to drive more efficient cars, I have several issues with the law as it is written. These include doubt as to the effectiveness at reducing green house gasses, the affect on car collectors, and the affect on lower income people.

CO2 emissions savings:

Assuming that driving habits do not change, this program will probably reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the future, but will raise the emissions in the short term. Building new cars take energy. Seikei University estimated that 12 percent of the CO2 use during the life of a car was pre-purchase. Toyota found that this can be as high as 28 percent. Volvo will be building the first carbon dioxide free manufacturing plant for their trucks, but even then, the trunks need to be moved to their point of sale.

All these studies have a problem. They are measuring the presale CO2 use as a percent of vehicle’s total life use. A better measure is tons of carbon dioxide per vehicle. A rough estimate of the pounds of CO2 used in manufacturing is 2.5 times the weight of the vehicle. So, a Prius weighing 2,890 pounds would use 7,200 pounds, and a Durango weighing 6,600 pounds would use 17,000 pounds. Another figure I have read is 14,000 pounds average.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/co2.shtml calculates 20 pounds of CO2 are released from burning a gallon of gas. For simplicity I will use EPA fuel ratings for cars.

Let G = gallons, M = miles, and lbs = pounds,
G/M * lbs/M = lbs/M
To simplify this, to get the CO2 in lbs release per mile, divide 20 by the MPG.

EPA rates the most efficient 1999 Dodge Durango at 13 MPG combined. This gives us 20/13 lbs carbon dioxide per mile. (About 1.538 lbs/mile)

EPA rates the 2009 Toyota Prius at 46 MPG combined. That gives us 20/46 lbs/mile (about 0.434 lbs/mile).

Trading in a 1999 Durango for a 2009 Prius save 1.104 lbs/mile of carbon dioxide. With a presale CO2 emission of 7,200 lbs, every mile after 6,522 miles saves CO2 emissions. If this was close to what we could expect from this program I would support it without issue.

The new regulations require an SUV to get at least two MPG better, and the old one must get less than 15 MPG. So, what happens if the 1999 Durango is traded in on a 2009 Durango. The 2009 Durango has an EPA rating of 16 MPG combined, or 1.25 lbs/mile. Now the savings are 0.288 lbs/mile. With a presale emission of 17,000 lbs it will take 59,028 miles to break even on CO2 emissions.

Assuming 15,000 miles per year average driving, we are trading increased CO2 emissions today for saving 4 years from now. But, the trade-in car most have been used for only one year, and the car must be crushed or shredded. A one year old car, a barely used car that emitted 17,000 pounds of CO2 presale is being crushed and another 17,000 pounds of CO2 are being emitted. Rounding 59,028 to 60,000, and allowing for the 15,000 miles on the trade-in, it will take 105,000 miles before there is any CO2 savings.

So, who will take advantage of this law? I claim that the majority of people will be those with late model cars and trucks that can afford, even in a recession to purchase a new vehicle. Thus the predominance of trade-ins will be those that minimize the CO2 emissions savings.

This is not a "green" law, it is another auto industry bailout law.

Car Collectors:

The cash for clunkers law requires that the trade-in be crushed or shredded. In this case the one year old Dodge is not my concern, but rather the cars from the 1980's and earlier. By definition these are vintage cars, and in practice people are buying them and using them as vintage cars.

If these cars are in good running and good body condition, a collector would probably want it. Unfortunately if traded in they will be destroyed. Suppose the car is in poor running and body condition. It is a parts car. And that is the problem. Vintage auto owners need parts to maintain their cars.

Impact on lower income people:

First, lower income car owners use wrecking yards or parts cars to maintain their vehicles. Crushing trade-ins reduces the supply of used parts. This will raise the price of used parts, or in some cases make used parts completely unavailable.

This program requires the person taking advantage of it to have the income to purchase a new car. Normally each new car purchased adds a used car to the market. Thus the more new cars sold the greater the supply of used cars, and the lower the prices. But, this program insures that the used cars are crushed, maximizing the price of used cars.

Summary:

The cash for clunkers is in fact cash for late model used cars. The beneficiaries are the auto industry and those that can afford a new car without this program. It is being paid for by tax payer, and especially by car collectors and lower income car owners.

Extremism and Suffering Children

I am impressed with one of William John Cox's post on www.democrats.com. I encourage you to read it.

extremism-and-suffering-children

Rather than post my father's obituary, here is the link to it.
http://phyllisophy.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-things-to-worry-about.html

He was a loving man who will be missed by family, friends, and people who knew of him.