You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Politics' category.
The media only talks about Poop and Crap. You know that there is Cake and Ice Cream out there, but the media never talks about those, just the Poop and the Crap. Election day comes up. All four candidates are running, Poop, Crap, Cake, and Ice Cream. The media says that Poop is in the lead, with Crap in a close second! You really don’t like Crap, but you hate Poop even more. You would really like to vote for Cake, but everyone tells you the Cake is a lie. So you vote for Crap, because you really don’t want to see Poop win. Poop wins. All of your friends voted for Crap too, even though they really wanted Cake. The country goes down the toilet. The next election rolls around. Since Poop and Crap did so well in the election last time, that is all the media talks about, Poop and Crap. You know that there is Cake and Ice Cream out there, but the media never talks about them, because nobody voted for them last time…
Ok, this post is going to have two parts:
1. Why I am glad that gas prices are going up
2. What I am doing to still keep my gas costs down, despite the rising prices
Why I am glad that gas prices are going up
I believe that we are way too dependent on foreign oil. That is (I believe, and there is evidence to back this up) the main reason why we are in this war with Iraq, and about to be in a war with Iran. We need oil. With oil prices going up, Americans are going to have to change. Immediately, I think that we have to change how we drive, which I am going to talk about in the second part. Eventually, we are going to have to find other sources of energy. Now, I know people have been screaming for new sources of energy for years now. Up until now, the reason for this has been global warming. But global warming seems like such a far away concept. I personally don’t really believe the theories. There hasn’t been enough motivation for an overwhelming majority of people to really push for better energy sources because the majority of people have not been directly affected by this shortcoming. But now it is affecting the overwhelming majority, actually, the overwhelming majority’s wallet. If you think about it, there have been no major breakthroughs in automobile technology in DECADES. You would think that with all of the technology we have, that we should be getting at least 100mpg. But no. We are still manufacturing cars that only get 10mpg! All because we have had such low oil prices. Many countries in Europe have had $6 gas (or more) for years now. How is it that they can cope with this, but Americans, the richest people in the world, are crying their eyes out? Europeans have cars with better gas mileage, and their towns are usually built so that driving is not a constant necessity. In a majority of towns and cities in Europe, everything you need is only a couple minutes walk or bike ride away. In America, hour-long commutes to work are typical. The American way of life has evolved with the mindset that we would always have cheap gas. Now America is going to have to wake up, and I think that is a good thing. I think there will be more competition to make cars with better gas mileage, which I think they should have been doing years ago.
2. What I am doing to still keep my gas costs down, despite the rising prices
I am changing how I drive. I am trying to drive less. I am also increasing the MPG that my car gets. How am I doing this? It is called hypermiling. I have gone from 25mpg (which I thought was pretty good for a 17 year old car!), to over 30mpg (which is still only half of what the typical European car gets). Here is what I have been doing to achieve this:
- Accelerate more slowly from a stop*
- Go into neutral (I do this when I am coming to a stop light or getting off the interstate)
- Drive 65mph on the interstate*
- I don’t always drive below the speed limit. If the limit is 45, then I will go 50. I do this because my car (an automatic) doesn’t shift into the last gear until about 48mph, and since you get better gas mileage in the higher gears, I go 50 to kick it into that higher gear. This might be different in your car. They say that you get the best gas mileage between 55 and 60 mph (source)
- Place a lot of space between yourself and the car in front of you, so that you don’t have to slam your breaks when they hit theirs.
*Fair warning, if you do this, you are likely to tick some people off.
By slowing down more (for the most part), I find that I do not get as stressed when driving. Before, driving at least 75 down the interstate, I would get mad a people not even doing the speed limit. Now, I am the one not even going the speed limit. So not only am I saving money by increasing my gas mileage, but I am also healthier, because I do not get as stressed.
At the risk of sounding racist, I am going to make this post.
I do not understand Black Pride.
For that matter, I also don’t understand American Pride (at least not some of it). And here is why.
Did you choose to be black?
I can understand being proud of a math paper you wrote and got an award for. I can understand pride at getting a higher position in your job. Those are all things that people can work towards, and then feel some sense of accomplishment at what they have done. But you can not choose what color your skin is. Or where you are born. To say that you are proud to be black or proud to be born in America just doesn’t make any sense to me, because you had no choice in the matter. Along the same lines, I don’t understand racism, which is why I am not scared of putting this up. How can somebody hate someone else who has a different skin color or is born somewhere else, when they had absolutely no say in the matter? It is like saying you hate the grass because it is green. Like you or the grass can do anything about it.
Just my thoughts on the matter. I happen to be born a white female, so interpret this how you will. All of my friends who just happen to be born black know that I am not racist.
By the way, a white person cannot say that they are proud to be white for fear of being called a white supremest. Just something else to chew on. Oh, and don’t even think about being a guy and saying that either.
I just got off the phone with the Publisher and Editor of The Huntsville Times, Bob Ludwig. Why was I calling him, you ask? Well, on the front page of the Sunday Huntsville Times (Jan. 27, 2008), the main article is about Huntsville’s space program and what each of the candidates have to say about space research and exploration. It has a picture of all of the candidates in space suits in this order from left to right: John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (the Democrats), Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee (the Republicans). In case you haven’t noticed, they left out Ron Paul. I told the editor that my concern was that all of the main stream news media is basically ingnoring Ron Paul. Even though Ron Paul has beaten Giuliani in almost all, if not all of the primaries and caucuses, they put in Giuliani. Why? Because he is still polling higher than Ron Paul in the National Polls. That is the answer the Editor gave me. Because he was not polling high enough, and they didn’t have enough room to place a third party candidate. Wait. What?? Yes, he said that Ron Paul was a third party candidate. When I informed him that Ron Paul was not a third party candidate, that Ron Paul was running as a Republican, he said that he knows about Ron Paul, that he has written/was an editor for a libertarian newsletter. So he knows all about Ron Paul. He then thanked me for contacting him with my concerns, and that was the end of the conversation.
Don’t you think that since the caucuses and primaries are now running, and seeing as how it is these primaries and caucuses that determine who the nominations are going to be (not national polls), that the news media sources should be using the results from these primaries, not the national polls, to determine on who they report? Obviously the national polls have it wrong if Paul is beating Giuliani in the primaries but the polls say that Paul has less than 10% support.
I believe that if the founding fathers had had a bit more farsight, they would have made an amendment to the constitution stating that the spouse of a former president cannot run for presidency. Now, let me back up just a bit and say this: I do not like Hilary, however, I am not saying this because I do not like her. I don’t believe that the men who wrote the constitution ever once thought that a woman might be president. That was just the mindset. Think how long it took for women to be able to vote.
When you look for a potential lifelong partner, you are normally attracted to someone who is a lot like you, has a lot of the same interests, etc. It just seems to me that if a man or woman is president, their spouse should not be able to run. It would be like the same person was running for another term. If Bill had not been president, I would not be as opposed to Hilary running (I still don’t think I would like her either way). But since he has already been in office for his full 2 terms, I do not think that his spouse should be able to run.
I saw the above quote as a bumper sticker on the back of a car earlier today. The statement is not accurate, aside from the bad english. Most pro-life people will see that bumper sticker, and think: right on, take that all you pro-choice people, your mother was pro-life because she didn’t kill you!. But pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Just because someone is pro-choice doesn’t mean that that person never wants to have kids, and if they ever get pregnant, then they are going to have an abortion. Most pro-choice women have kids. Most pro-choice women have never had an abortion, and never will. Now, I am definitely pro-life. But I am so sick and tired of other pro-life people thinking that pro-choice means pro-abortion. It is almost like they think that pro-choice women try to get pregnant, just so that they can have an abortion. I seriously think that some ultra-conservative pro-life people think that. Just my rant for today.
So, I just finished reading this article about a male birth control pill. From the article, most men were open to the idea, but were, of course, concerned about possible health problems. So far, the worst side effect seems to be a little weight gain. When told of all of the side effects for women on birth control, most men were shocked that women go through all of this stuff. The article also goes into why a male birth control pill has not come out sooner (lack of funding, lack of interest). The mindset is: if there is already a pill that works for women, why have one for men? They have the gall to ask this as the number of cases of breast cancer among women rises exponentially. Also the FDA is concerned with the amount of time that it takes for men to become fertile again after going off the pill. The max time is three months. That is the minimum time for women who go off the pill, but they have no problem issuing that out.
Another article I read this morning having to do with a woman’s period, discusses a new birth control pill whose marketing strategy is that you (a woman) never have to have a period again, or at least as long as you are on this pill. You don’t even have the withdrawal bleeding that you have with other birth control pills. While not as interesting as the above article, it is still an informative and interesting read.
And last, but not least is an article on abortion. Short summary: it bashes people who want to make abortions illegal, but who will not condone the use of contraceptives. Long summary: Pro-life groups want to lessen the number of abortions in this country. So do the pro-choice groups. Both groups have been doing this by encouraging women to complete their pregnancies and to then give up the child for adoption. The pro-life group, however, say that encouraging the use of contraceptives will only increase the amount of extra-marital sex that people are having. While, yes, that may be true, it will also greatly decrease the amount of unwanted pregnancies, and thus the amount of abortions. Even though the encouragement to complete the pregnancy is helping to reduce the number of abortions, by condemning contraceptives, women are still having unwanted pregnancies, thus women are still having abortions. It seems to me that if we have to choose between killing more babies or having more extra-marital sex, then I say bring on the sex! (in no way am I approving of extra-marital sex, but in choosing the lesser of two evils, I will choose the side of life.)
