So, I haven't written anything in a long time. And this is why:

Tonight, I skipped the last half of an overly theoretical design class to watch a screening of the vice presidential debate dog and pony show.

Why did I bother?

After the first question of the debate, the moderator said something to the affect of:
"Thank you, Senator Biden, Governor Palin, but neither of you actually talked about what you would do as Vice President."


And they all fell down.

The Hand That Feeds

There has been a lot of talk recently about punishing Florida and Michigan for primary-election-time-placement and a lot of people are getting up in arms, claiming that it's a violation of our constitutional right to vote. As a Florida resident, I'm a bit peeved at the situation, but the wrong case is being made. It isn't a violation of our rights for any party to not count Primary votes. Political parties are independent organizations; the constitution did not call for Parties and we shouldn't pretend that it does.
Here are a few interesting (and some not so interesting) takes on Florida/Michigan and the Primary Votes:
#1
He sounds vaguely Cro-Magnon. Notice the excessive exclamation points (Why is he screaming? Or is that grunting....)
#2
This is a CNN article that is interesting because it talks about some logistics.
#3
This is a group that is pushing a petition that, they hope, will bring their strife to the attention of the Democratic Party.

The bottom line is that it could be in the best interest of any party to count all the votes cast during primary elections, but we're positioning it wrong. One of the most powerful things you have as a citizen in the US is your right to vote, but you also have the right not to vote. Not counting these votes isn't wrong because of the Constitution, or because of the feelings of anybody; it's wrong because the Parties are biting the hand that feeds them. How do you show that? You don't whine, because they don't care about your whining. You refuse to vote in November. Show some weight! Refuse to vote and they'll count the votes you already cast.

Sticking a Foot in Your Mouth

"'My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it,' she said, dismissing calls to drop out." (via NYPost, complete article here).

Are we grasping for straws, or what? Creepy? A bit. Scary? Maybe.

Bob Chapman?

While scrolling through my Google-Reader today, I came across this little nugget of a headline:
"THE NEARLY UNFATHOMABLE DEPTHS OF PENTAGON CORRUPTION" by Bob Chapman
I laughed out loud. Bob, have you been living under a rock?

Reducing Foreign Oil Dependence

From Cleantechnica on Obama's Plan to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence:

"Doubling fuel economy standards within the next 18 years is a priority to Obama. Research in engines and advanced lightweight materials will help meet this goal. He also wants to assist auto makers in increasing fuel economy standards through loan guarantees and tax credits for domestic auto manufacturers."

That's cool. But my father and I drive a Volkswagen. What is this? The Soviet Union? Cutting out foreign car manufacturers isn't the answer. Making American Car companies into monopolies isn't the answer. There is a reason that I don't drive an American car: our Volkswagen is much nicer and much more dependable than my mother's Jeep.

This isn't about decreasing foreign dependence. Obama's plan is a plan for foreign alienation. There's a difference.

"Obama’s goal is to have two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol in use by 2013. He plans to use tax incentives, government contracts and cash prizes to help this industry mature and specifically wants to encourage farmer-owned refineries. He would like renewable fuel standards to increase, such that 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels are in the fuel supply by 2030."

If only ethanol worked. Ethanol does burn cleaner, but it also holds less chemical energy for the same volume. Ethanol also burns faster and costs more. My local gas stations are selling 10% ethanol blends at higher prices. Since the ethanol supply is subsidized, that means more frequent and profitable repeat business for energy suppliers and corn growing-conglomerates like ADM.
Faster burning, more expensive fuel means more frequent trips to the gas station which in turn means increased emissions, which adds to the problem that Ethanol was meant to solve. Ethanol corrosion of engine parts also means more dollars spent on parts replacement, new cars and labor in the automobile industries, which also has negative impact on the environment (more stuff put into landfills at a faster rate and more carbon emitted making new cars and parts). So is ethanol about the environment or is this about profit for energy, agribusiness and automobile corporations? Who are the biggest donors to Obama's campaign?

"By 2025, Obama would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it. Investment in a national digital electric grid would allow greater amounts of renewable energy to be utilized and make plug-in hybrids more environmentally sound.

“For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time,” said Obama."

Where is that $150 billion going to come from? Has he forgotten that we're in debt to our eyeballs? Roll out the taxes. Who are you? Prince John? I'll be your Robin Hood.

But more importantly, for the sake of our security we need to make peace with people by making agreements not pushing them out of the sandbox. For our economy we do need to lower prices but we need to do that by opening up trade, not shutting it off. For our jobs we need to push education. For our planet we need to reduce the number of SUVs on the road, we need to cut down our Eliot-Spitzer-style consumption and be more weary of greenwashed politicians and products.

Disappointment

The Libertarian Party held their convention over this Memorial Day weekend. After six rounds of voting they nominated a candidate for President. It's too bad they didn't nominate a Libertarian.

Bob Barr: A Life Of Accomplishments
1. While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.This task force was established in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs."
2. Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, he successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 -- the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" -- which would have legalized medical marijuana in the District of Columbia.
3. He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
4. In Congress, he controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military.
5. In 2002 he voted for the Iraq War Resolution.
6. He voted for the Patriot Act.

To his credit:
Since he left Congress in 2003 he's spoken against the Bush administration, and has stated that he regrets voting for the Patriot Act. He's spoken in favor of removing troops from Iraq. He is a supporter of the Fair Tax and repealing the 16th Amendment which gives the U.S. Congress the power to levy an income tax without apportionment. And he joined the Libertarian Party in 2006.

But does that make him a Libertarian? No. It makes him a disillusioned Republican, angered by the way the federal government ballooned under the Bush Administration. Disillusioned Republicans and Libertarians are like apples and oranges. A few years of speaking out against all his previous positions does not absolve him of all his political "sins," nor does it make him a Libertarian.

His criticism of Bush earned Barr labels such as maverick, Jekyll-and-Hyde and libertarian. I've got a label for you: BS.

Go Home, Bob Barr.

Mrs. Sue OPEC

If you did a Google search for "sue OPEC" right this moment, you would get countless matches concerning the NOPEC bill that was recently passed in the House (Is Sue a female suicide bomber? credit for that joke goes to Joe Calhoun). The bill changes the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to allow for Congress to sue OPEC. If you read the bill, you realize that Congress would be suing OPEC for things that Congress does itself. In short, this is pretty arrogant, moderately hypocritical, and mostly stupid. In his blog, my father (click the above "Joe Calhoun" link) suggested some appropriate rewriting of the bill. He is far nicer than I am, and I offer this piece of editing:

"`(a) In General- It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, whether by cartel or any other association or form of cooperation or joint action--

`(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product;

`(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product; or

`(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;

when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum product in the United States.

`(b) Sovereign Immunity- A foreign state engaged in conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States in any action brought to enforce this section.

`(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine- No court of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under this section.

`(d) Enforcement- The Attorney General of the United States may bring an action to enforce this section in any district court of the United States as provided under the antitrust laws.' We of Congress would like to take this moment to confirm to the people that we govern that we are in fact arrogant, corrupt, useless morons. Thank you, come again."