EFFin’ Unsound

– posted by thehim

My drive between home and college was a long one - 9 hours. About half of it was driving across Pennsylvania on the PA Turnpike. In 1995, they finally allowed states to determine their own speed limits again, but Pennsylvania proudly stuck to the 55 mph limit. So proudly, that a sign at the Ohio border reminded motorists how the lower speed limit was keeping us all safe. It then became a tradition for me to roll down my window and extend a one-finger salute every time I drove past it. Eventually, the speed limit on the Turnpike was raised, but not until I graduated and headed west.

But the idea of 55 mph speed limits still won’t die, although at least the people who seem to be supporting it are about to:

One of the brightest proposals to come out of Congress these days is a surprising but appropriate measure to return to the national speed limit for automobiles of 55 miles per hour — a limit that was invoked way back in the days of the energy crisis of the early 1970s.

I don’t think this can be said enough times; there is no one taking on the dangers of Big Government quite like Lou Guzzo.

To be sure, the proposal will have rough sledding, but it has everything going for it in this day of soaring gasoline prices on one hand and rising deaths and serious injuries in traffic across the nation on the other.

Rising deaths and serious injuries? I think Lou may be holding the chart upside down.

Of course, the speedsters will oppose any such measure with all their might, but common sense should prevail.

I think common sense prevails when people recognize that 55 mph in a modern vehicle with advanced safety features on an interstate is S-L-O-W.

It’s surprising that President Bush did not resort to a request for lowering the speed limit in his appeal for action to counter the rising gasoline prices.

It’s surprising that anyone finds that surprising.

One would think such a move would be automatic, regardless of the pressure that might be applied by the gasoline and automobile industries.

I’m not sure how one could be so unclear about the relationship between President Bush and the gasoline industry.

Frankly, I would welcome a return to the 55 mph speed limit on the highways and roadways.

Frankly, I hope you’re not still driving.

Speed belongs on the race track, not the city and rural roads.

It belongs anywhere except my DVD player.

We have become a nation of speedsters, and it’s about time to restore some tranquility and safety to our transportation system.

We should have to walk everywhere from now on while ocean sounds are broadcast from the side of the road.

Lowering the speed limit will automatically forestall the many tragedies that have occurred with the speed limit at 70.

Again, he appears to be holding the chart upside down.

I’ve noticed fearfully the number of speed idiots who don’t stop at 70 but proceed at 75, 80, and even faster for the thrill of it.

Guilty.

They are the demons who create havoc and death for those who try to drive lawfully.

I think by “lawfully”, Lou means driving 45 mph in the passing lane with his blinker on.

In addition to a return to the 55 mph limit on the highways and roadways, there is another measure I would like to see reinstated permanently, a measure that would not only save precious lives and limbs but also relieve our fumbling traffic from getting any worse.

Sound Transit Phase 2?

It is a return to the day no one could obtain a driver’s license until he or she is 18.

That would radically change how teens in this country lose their virginity.

These days, it has become automatic for 16-year-olds to demand a driver’s license.

True story here - about two months before my 16th birthday, I got busted by a teacher for posting odds and taking bets on the NBA playoffs. My dad was pretty pissed. My parents originally threatened to make me wait until the end of the summer to get my license. Not long after that, though, they realized that driving my ass to work all summer was the last thing on Earth they wanted to do and they took me to get my permit on my birthday.

Along with that demand without fail goes the jalopy that goes with it — and thus the entry of still another driver and auto on our highways and roadways, to the consternation of the police and state patrols.

Consternation? Those guys made all kinds of money off of me before I got wise and found a lawyer.

Youngsters below the age of 18 are still going to school, and they should be taking a bus or streetcar to school, just as I did and all my school friends did years ago.

Streetcar? Has Lou been outside in this city since the Eisenhower Administration?

The creation of a whole new body of drivers 16 or 17 years old hit the bus and streetcar systems hard and began this crazy era of traffic jams in every city and town in America.

What? That makes no sense. Even if 16 and 17 years old didn’t have licenses, they’d still be going where they need to go in cars driven by other people.

Yes, increased use of bicycles has helped somewhat, but it has been but a minor help in reducing the heavy traffic and the use of precious gasoline.

Vote ST2!!

All in all, I can see the common sense in a brand new transportation policy for America —- one that reduces the use and importance of cars on the roadways and brings a new development in the use of buses and streetcars.

Was Lou in favor of the S.L.U.T.?

If we don’t take action to cut the mania for speed on our roadways, we will see the day when America becomes one huge parking lot — and no one can succeed in getting from here to there.

Wow, let’s recap the logic that got us to this conclusion:

1. We need to lower the speed limit to keep ourselves safe and save gasoline
2. We should raise the minimum driving age to prevent traffic jams
Therefore…
3. If we don’t lower the speed limit, traffic jams will get far worse

I really hope he’s not driving any more.

Goddamn! Sharkansky can’t figure out why the Obama website pointing to the upcoming rally in Germany might be written in German. I just can’t figure out why that would be. It’s such a mystery. Why would they promote a rally in Germany in a language that isn’t American? I guess some things are too tough to even guess at.

Patrick Ruffini posted this image of a German language poster for 0bama’s upcoming speech in Berlin, prompting Glenn Reynolds to quip “He’s running for President of Earth“

Remember: it was your candidate who said that Obama needed to travel more. Apparently just to the places that speak English. Also, is 0bama (with a zero, in case you can’t tell) funny? I’m leaning toward no, but maybe if I ran a humor site of some kind, I would understand that clever Internet jokin’. Anyway, carry on Ass Face.

Don’t laugh. Be sure to read the current New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza about 0bama’s rise through Chicago politics (I mentioned it earlier, here). It’s also worth listening to Terry Gross’ recent interview of Lizza about the article.

Well, thehim handled the earlier post.

Lizza paints a clear picture of 0bama as a serial rung-climber, almost exclusively focused on running for the next higher office, never staying in any office long enough to actually accomplish much or to see through anything that he starts. If he were to become President of the United States, surely his ambitions would be fixed on something even greater.

Nothing in that paragraph means that we shouldn’t vote for him, incidentally. And so far you could say the same about a certain gubernatorial candidate who Sharkansky has a woody for, but what do you suppose the odds are we’ll hear about how Dino Rossi is a serial rung-climber? I mean other than the fact that the people rejected Rossi while have been overwhelmingly supportive of Obama?

Bruce Chapman would like to let you know that Hollywood hates America.

Hollywood Doesn’t Necessarily Want Money-Making Movies

Batman was totally an effort to turn us into Islamofascists.

Michael Medved, now a Discovery senior fellow, has noted often that outsiders imagine that Hollywood’s god is money; but it’s not, it’s the approval of one’s peers.

A fine piece by pajamas media shows how this is playing out now.

Note that Expelled did uncommonly well for a political documentary, but not only was it not reviewed much when it came out, but even its financial records are ignored now.

Because yeah, with that sort of rad going for it, I can’t imagine that more fake science movies aren’t in production right now.

– posted by thehim

I have a feeling this post might get me in a bit of trouble. As an atheist, I often don’t have a good read on what others find sacred in this world and am often shocked when encountering deeply held, but completely illogical, beliefs. But this post from legendary local loony Frosty Hardison isn’t just about religion. It’s about politics too. And frankly it scares the shit out of me:

I share with you a secret.

Oooh, exciting!

A secret so profound many will not hear or understand its message.

I’ve got my thinking cap on, go!

History has a way of repeating itself.

That’s true. So what’s the secret?

Heard it before have you?

Wait a second, that was the secret?

This truth happens on a small scale and on a grand scale all the time.

And we’re gonna need the grandest of scales to be able to weigh the pile of bullshit that Frosty is about to unload.

Read the rest of this entry »

– posted by thehim

For whatever reason, this Lou Guzzo post made me think of that ‘male enhancement’ commercial where the chick assures everyone watching Comedy Central at 1am that their product works because it’s “real science.” A lot of people want to have science on their side in a debate, but few people know how to do it correctly and convincingly. With the added bonus of possibly getting SeattleJew to defend Guzzo on this one, I present to you his latest masterpiece:

Scientific research should put an end to marijuana use

You may think you know where this post is going, but let me disabuse you of that notion. You can’t possibly comprehend where this post is going. I’ve now read it 4 times and I still don’t know.

Why have we permitted the aggravating continuation of the national dispute over marijuana and refused to resolve it in an orderly, scientific manner?

Mainly because ever since the AMA testified in opposition to banning marijuana in the first place, the government has recognized that science is not on their side on this one.

At present, the dispute remains in every region of the U.S., thanks to the relatively few numbers of constant users.

Only about 15 million in the United States. Hardly any.

In some regions, marijuana is permitted because it is reputed to be a medical relief for persons with certain health problems, while in others it is considered criminal to grow, use, or utilize it for medical relief.

And here in Washington, we manage to have both conditions in the same state. Thanks spineless Legislature!

It’s about time honest science meets the issue head-on and provides a permanent solution to the pesky issue.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s have scientists figure out why so many millions of Americans use this drug with no disruption to their life, so many others use it medicinally for a variety of ailments, and yet it has never killed a single person.

Overlooked for a variety of reasons these days is the work of a group of scientists that came up with the notion that there exists certain medications that are superior to marijuana in giving relief to those persons with certain ailments.

They came up with a “notion?” Now THAT’S real science.

But their research has been ignored for reasons that are obscure.

The leading explanation is that it doesn’t exist.

Science owes it to the American public to come up with a permanent solution to this dilemma.

No, politicians do.

The misuse of marijuana is a serious national problem.

That’s true. The misuse of it as a political football IS a serious national problem.

It leads users to other, more serious drugs that ruin their lives.

Like video games and chocolate chip cookies.

Young, misguided persons are specially in danger as they experiment with what is called pot.

Lou isn’t sure how they make pot from marijuana, but he’s got his research staff looking into it.

The American Medical Association should lead the way in calling for an all-out research program to settle the issue once and for all.

Um, they have.

It should request Congress to provide the funds and the research materials for a thorough plan of action that will utilize the best scientific brains in industry, the professions, and academia.

The professions? What is that?

In the meantime, Congress should declare a moratorium on the use of marijuana everywhere in the nation — a moratorium that would last until the national research is completed and a final decision on the use of marijuana is available.

Ummmmm……..they…already…have.

Such a program is needed for other reasons.

Keep fighting Big Government, Lou!

Courts, lawmaking bodies, and police are at odds over what action to take in the meantime.

Courts want enough people arrested to justify their workload. Lawmaking bodies want enough people arrested to make them look sufficiently “tough on crime” to get re-elected. And the police want to arrest as many people as possible in the easiest way possible. Wait a second, how are they at odds again?

In some areas, police are conducting raids on properties used to grow marijuana that is designed to be used for medical purposes.

And tearing out walls in Seattle offices trying to find growing areas that don’t exist.

In some of those cases, the home-grown patches are supported by the law.

Washington should soon be one of those cases.

While the research program is going on, a ban on the use of marijuana should be imposed in every city and state in the union.

I can’t believe the Federal Government hasn’t thought of doing that already.

Of course, such a ban would touch off a national howl by the pot users, whether they use the stuff for so-called medical purposes or just for tying on a “high one.”

Tying on a “high one?” Man, that expression just doesn’t work for pot.

They would say such a ban has never been tried before, but they would be wrong.

Indeed.

Way back in the last century, we saw a ban on alcohol sales and use in what was known as the Prohibition Era.

No shit. How’d that turn out?

While it lasted, police raided homes and distilleries that were producing and selling illegal liquor.

That must have fixed that problem right up, right?

The Prohibition Era also produced a murderous crop of racketeers and gangland slayings, and we certainly don’t want a repeat of that foul history.

That would be tragic.

But a marijuana ban imposed by a group of honest, dedicated scientists would certainly not bring about an era like the Prohibition days.

It’s real science, yo.

So, um, John McCain has declared his own mission accomplished. But FWCon is still impressed.

“They were wrong then, and they are wrong now!”

They were wrong when they said the war would last more than 6 months. They were wrong when they said it might bump gas prices up. They were wrong when they said it would distract us from Afghanistan. They were wrong when they said there were no ties between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda. They were wrong when they said there were more than just a few dead enders. They were wrong when they said “Mission Accomplished” was the height of hubris. They were wrong when they said that something is going to happen in the next 6 months for a couple years. They were wrong when they said, “Bring ‘em on? Are you retarded? Seriously, what the fuck?” They were wrong when they said that the surge wouldn’t solve the political problems in the region. Basically, liberals were always wrong.

Senator McCain not only declared that we have succeeded in Iraq, but those who are detractors from our efforts to win were wrong then and they are wrong now. (link)

Well if he’s said that, I guess nobody is dying any more. I guess it isn’t costing us anything any more. I guess we can start bringing the troops home. Excelsior.

It’s amazing how liberals can be so wrong on so many issues for so long, and yet wake up in the morning and not question their fundamental beliefs that have led them to be so wrong.

If FW Con realized half the blood on his ideology’s hands I doubt he would wake up, because how could he possibly sleep at night?

That’s why Senator Obama, running as the most liberal senator in the senate, is going to lose. I don’t think he’s ever been right about anything, unless he had to contradict himself multiple times to get there. And the positions he stands for that he hasn’t waffled on yet are those same positions that have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future, positions like protectionism, socialism, mistrust in our military, etc…

I think by more fair standards, he’s about the middle of the Democratic pack in the Senate. He’s obviously neither a socialist or a protectionist, and he respects our military enough not to send them so far away from their families and their normal lives for no damn reason. Also, even the head of Iraq’s puppet government thinks Obama’s plan is better than McSame’s.

– posted by thehim

Bjorn Lomborg is one of those figures who make it extremely hard for global warming deniers to keep maintaining that global warming isn’t happening. Lomborg has dedicated his career to being a skeptic of the global warming phenomenon, but even he now concedes that it’s happening (although he continues to maintain that the threat is greatly exaggerated). How does Jim Miller deal with this inconvenient truth?

Lomborg is not a global warming “denier”, or even a skeptic, though he is often accused of both.

Not a skeptic, huh? I guess that’s why he wrote a book called “The Skeptical Environmentalist“. Why, oh why, would Lomborg falsely accuse himself of being a skeptic?!?

– posted by thehim

Jim Miller appears to have forgotten that his house is made of glass:

Today, on KUOW’s Gang of Four show, Eli Sanders (subbing for Knute Berger) was complaining that Republicans had mocked Al Gore and John Kerry, and are now — horror of horrors — beginning to mock Barack Arugula Obama.

Eli, there’s a simple solution for your problem: If Democrats do not want Republicans to laugh at Democratic candidates, then Democrats should nominate serious candidates. Democrats should not nominate a snobbish, gaffe-prone, junior senator, with no significant accomplishments, but an enormous regard for himself. There are serious people in the Democratic party, though fewer than there once were. Choose one of them, instead of Obama.

I left the following comment:

Jim, what can the Democrats do to nominate people as serious as George W. Bush?

– posted by thehim

The mentally challenged HorsesAss commenter known simply as Troll has given us an ultimatum:

I’m going to give this blog one month to step-up it’s game. If I am not suitably impressed with what I see, I will no longer read or comment on this blog.

You have until August 18th to earn my respect.

We’ll get right on that, jackass.

Channeling JFK Is No Guarantee of Victory 

Posted by: Michael Medved at 1:28 AM

Late night, I suppose.

Senator Barack Obama is making a point of invoking the memory of John Kennedy in his campaign. Like JFK, he’s breaking precedent by making his acceptance speech at a big sports stadium, not at the convention hall.

He’s also planning a dramatic speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin – site of one of Kennedy’s greatest oratorical triumphs.

Obama could shatter barriers as the first African-American president—just as Kennedy broke tradition as the first Catholic president.

Both men also wrote acclaimed bestsellers, and won admiration for their cool elegance and their fashionable wives.

Obama’s handlers want the public to believe that with his Kennedyesque charisma, he’ll win in a landslide—but they should reconsider history.

For all his gifts as a candidate, Jack Kennedy barely squeaked through to victory in 1960 against the charismatically challenged Richard Nixon: his 49.7% to 49.5% popular vote margin made the election one of the closest in history.

If Nixon hadn’t suffered a knee injury requiring hospital treatment, and lost ten crucial days of campaigning in September, he might easily have won.

For Barack Obama and his supporters, the lesson of 1960 ought to be clear: no matter how effectively the candidate channels JFK, that’s no assurance of victory – especially against an opponent vastly more appealing than the dour Dick Nixon.

Yes, the kind of candidate who needs Joe Lieberman to correct him on the areas of his expertise. That’s what I think of when I think of appealing.