The Evil Widescreen

The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

California used to have a reputation for truly progressive policies. Policies that cast off the old way of East Coast thinking, and allowed the state to prosper for generations, serving as a magnet for migrants from every corner of the nation.
Sadly, it hasn't been that way for over a generation.

Now, what passes for 'new' thinking is just the same old nannyism, chasing dubious ideals with policies that have always failed in the past.

This latest in just another chapter in the screwing of California citizens, dressed in the same old lies:

"We would not propose TV efficiency standards if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy," said Commissioner Julia Levin, who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure. "This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs."

(Exactly how banning certain televisions will increase jobs in California has not been explained, and needn't be, for the result will be the same, and the Starbucks/Wholefoods crowd just eats up mindless rhetoric like this.)

The claim is that we will be saving $30 per year in electricity savings for every television set. More bullshit. California already has the highest cost in the nation for consumer electricity rates. The state refuses to allow any more electricity generating plants to be built (it's been at least 30yrs since a new plant has come on-line), and keeps punishing the folks for using more electricity.

They look at past usage; before there were computers, Hi-Fi stereo, microwave ovens, and nice color televisions in every home, or in more than one room, and declare that we are wasteful and need reining in. Instead of allowing us to have the higher standard of living modern technology delivers, we lectured about not being 'green enough', while they raise the cost of electricity, and willfully contribute to it's scarcity.

And in the next breath claim to be on a mission to increase California living standards. The big surprise is that they haven't manage to drive us into Second World living conditions already, though they are working on it.

Oh, and that $30 we are supposed to be saving? It will likely just get taxed away through even higher costs per kilowatt, which never seems to stop increasing because... the more you cut back, the more they need to raise the rates to recoup
the profit they lost, or else we'll face blackouts when they shut down the power plants that can't make money.

It's the same thing with the water utility. When we have a drought, rates rise to spur conservation. When the drought eases, water rates rise again to build more increased reservoir capacity to hold all the extra water. It never ends...

Look at your own electric bill. Are you paying up to 30 cents per kWh? We are.

I get this feeling that Balloon Boy's fifteen minutes won't be over any time soon.

Nope.

I'm not buying it.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I remember back in the early 90's when President Clinton attempted to lift the ban on gays serving in the military, and the howls of protest, not to mention the snickering, that emanated from the public at large as well as from within the ranks of the armed forces.

By position then was, and still is, that such decisions would be better left to the military to decide.
I also thought it was pretty ridiculous for Clinton to carry the rainbow banner so early in his administration. Just plain silly stupid on his part. He paid at the polls for that one.

I've heard all the arguments of how homosexuality doesn't fit well with the military lifestyle and then all the other tangents that to me really weren't legitimate issues at all. I've never served in the military, but most-to-many of my friends had served in some capacity or another. They basically all said the same thing: it just wouldn't work. (Although they didn't seem to think it would be as strong of an issue for lesbians.)

Now, President Obama is getting the pressure to lift the ban that President Clinton didn't.

The early 90's were a long time ago. Things have changed. Social attitudes have become more accepting of homosexuality, and living conditions among military personnel are not the same as they were back in the early 80's. I'm assuming they have also become less communal since the early 90's as well.

But human sexuality and the military's need for behavioral discipline have not changed. And likely never will.

And once again, I think this issue is best left for the military to decide, maybe on a gender by gender, service by service basis. Whatever they decide, I think it's a fool's game for civilians to attempt to force the issue in one direction or the other.

Fits And Starts

For the past several weeks I've had shit running through my head, things I've wanted to say, and some things I still do want to say, but the fingers won't co-operate with the thought process.

I really envy some of you who can poke out a thought with hardly any thought to it at all.

See ya tomorrow. I think I'll have something for ya by then.
Thanks for checking in, anyway.

Maybe it's time we started to officially view the health care industry as a public utility, since we seem to act that way already?

OK.
Debate over on that.
Now what?

The Ugly American

So you've all heard about President Obama traveling to Denmark to lobby the International Olympic Committee on behalf of the totally awesome city of Chicago's bid to host the games in... what? 2016 or something like that?

The usual partisans are doing what partisans usually do. The haters of Obama are acting like a bunch of ragging bitches, and the disciples of Obama can't cut the palm branches fast enough.

Personally, the more time he spends in Denmark is less time he spends interrupting scheduled programming with platitudinous speeches, so maybe it's all good in the short term. But I would like to add: chilling with the IOC guys isn't exactly presidential level type stuff. He'd be better off, POTUS-wise, giving another speech to kids, hugging a disaster victim, or throwing out a first pitch.

What is missing from the cacophony is this thought that nobody seems to be thinking:
With the United States already dominant in Olympic Sports, and just plain dominating across the board worldwide, in damn near every category of human and national achievement, do we really need to be challenging an emerging nation (in this case,Brasil) for an even greater share of the three week spotlight?
Isn't collecting the most bling enough for us?

Growing up, my Dad use to tell me that in Italy the saying was that Americans are like manure: everywhere.
He explained it: "Outside, itsa good to have around. Ina house, it stinks."

Typical of southern Italians, our family was decidedly pro-American, and enjoyed the fruits of strong ties to family members who were Americans.
This was not an insult, but a statement of observation.

An observation so simple that Amercans can't seem to grasp it, though we should try.

Understandably, the world is tired of having the US up in their grill all the time. It's not just the militaristic Neocon Bush stuff. It's everything. It's economics. It's pop culture. It's technology. It's science and discovery. It's politics.
It's the standard American swagger that never ends, mostly because, like manure, we are good to have around.
And like manure, too much intimacy breeds contempt.

It's a point worth considering for this administration that promised a less aggressive stance on the world stage.