Americans and their powerful cars

Do you wonder why, given 25 years advancement in technology, the average mileage of automobiles in America has remained essentially the same?

The average vehicle, which 25 years ago accelerated to 60 miles an hour in 14.4 seconds, now does it in 9.9 seconds, a pace once typical only of sporty or luxury cars like Camaros and Jaguars. And vehicle weight now averages about 4,100 pounds, up from about 3,200 in the early 1980's, as many buyers switched to larger, roomier cars or to sport utility vehicles and minivans

[...]

If 2005 model vehicles, with their better technology, had the performance and size of those in 1987, they would use only 80 percent of the gasoline they do today, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That alone would get the country nearly halfway to the goal President Bush set in his State of the Union address: to cut American oil consumption enough to nearly eliminate the need to import from the Middle East.

But because Americans have not insisted on better fuel economy, "we can take the technology in the cars and turn the knob toward performance," said Karl H. Hellman, an automotive development expert who retired from the E.P.A. two years ago.

Improving mileage now would be easy if drivers sacrificed some zip in new cars, he said, "but in this country, we don't sacrifice for anything." (NY Times)

Oh, but we do sacrifice. It's just a matter of where. Do you want more terrorism, more funding of Islamist schools, more entanglements in Middle East politics, more animosity abroad? Keep using and demanding all the oil you can! You won't sacrifice how quickly you can get your enormous automobile off the line, but you'll sacrifice blood, money and safety.

The 2005 Toyota Camry, one of the most popular sedans, accelerates more quickly than some 1975 Pontiac Firebirds. The Chevrolet TrailBlazer, an S.U.V., can reach 60 miles an hour in 8.2 seconds -- about half the time of its 1985 ancestor. The 2006 Cadillac STS-V, which can reach 60 m.p.h. in less than five seconds, is one of many cars that now have more than enough horsepower to pull an 18-wheeler.

An image of oldsters in their Cadillacs compensating for some other perceived deficiency comes to mind. Would it be too much to ask that, while they're zooming around in their state-of-the-art hot rods, they give half a thought to the young people abroad giving up their lives trying to keep the Middle East (and oil prices) stable?

Would Jesus torture?

According to a Pew poll, Americans favor torturing detainees. Sad. The worst part of it?

[If] you are an American Christian, you are more likely to support torture than if you are an atheist or agnostic. Christians for torture: it's a new constituency. (Andrew Sullivan)

Yikes. Guess it's time to start dusting off those What Would Jesus Do bracelets, you think?

Your tax return for sale

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns. If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers, for the first time, will be able to sell information from individual returns -- or even entire returns -- to marketers and data brokers.

The possible change is raising alarm among consumer and privacy-rights advocates. It was included in a set of proposed rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them "not a significant regulatory action." (Seattle Times)

The kicker? The press release announcing the above change was titled "IRS Issues Proposed Regulations to Safeguard Taxpayer Information."

Pro-family party?

Read about how the Republican party undermines families by siding with business when push comes to shove. (Latest example: the recent legislation making it harder for families to declare bankruptcy yet doing nothing to curb banks' predatory practices.)

Did you know the Democrats were the original "pro-family" party?

SOME HISTORY may help here. The modern "family issues" are actually about a century old. The first openly "pro-family" president was a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. Between 1900 and about 1912, he wrote and spoke often, and eloquently, about the dangers of a rising divorce rate and a falling birth rate. He celebrated motherhood and fatherhood as the most important human tasks, and described the true marriage as "a partnership of the soul, the spirit and the mind, no less than of the body." He blasted as "foes of our household" the birth control movement, equity feminism, eugenics, and liberal Christianity.

However, the Rough Rider was the only prominent Republican of his time to think and talk this way. The dominant wing of the GOP tilted in favor of the banks, the great industries, and -- perhaps more surprisingly -- the feminist movement. Indeed, as early as 1904, the National Association of Manufacturers had formed an alliance with the feminists, for they shared an interest in moving women out of their homes and into the paid labor market. When the feminists reorganized as the National Woman's party in 1917, the manufacturers' association apparently provided secret financial support. More openly, Republican leaders embraced the feminists' proposed Equal Rights Amendment, first advanced in Congress in 1923. The GOP was also the first major party to endorse the ERA in its platform.

Meanwhile, the Democrats consolidated their 19th-century legacy of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion": that is, as the party favoring beer halls, the new immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, southern agrarians, northern Catholics, small property, the trade unions, and -- importantly -- the "family wage" for male workers. This cultural and legal device sought to deliver a single wage to fathers sufficient to support a wife and children at home. The Democrats also welcomed the "Maternalists" into their ranks, female activists who -- while believing strongly in equal legal and political rights for women -- also emphasized the natural differences between the sexes when it came to childbirth and child care. They favored federal programs for the training of girls in home economics and for "baby saving," meaning efforts to reduce infant and maternal mortality. They fiercely opposed working mothers and day care. Under this Maternalist influence, every New Deal domestic program openly assumed or quietly reinforced the goal of a "family wage" and the model American family of a breadwinning father, a homemaking mother, and an average of three or four children.

In short, from 1912 until 1964, the Democrats were -- on balance -- the pro-family party. The Republicans, on balance, were the party of business interests and the feminists.

All this changed between 1964 and 1980 with the emergence of the "Reagan Democrats."

Abortionists against adoption

Amazon.com last week modified its search engine after an abortion rights organization complained that search results appeared skewed toward anti-abortion books.

Until a few days ago, a search of Amazon's catalog of books using the word "abortion" turned up pages with the question, "Did you mean adoption?" at the top, followed by a list of books related to abortion. (NY Times)

Note to reporter: "adoption" is not the same as "anti-abortion". Or is it?

Amazon removed that question from the search results page after it received a complaint from a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a national organization based in Washington.

"I thought it was offensive," said the Rev. James Lewis, a retired Episcopalian minister in Charleston, W.Va. "It represented an editorial position on their part."

This boggles my mind. After years of hearing abortionists say they are not pro-abortion but are pro-choice, how exactly does adoption pose a threat to them? Or even an "editorial position"? Do they really care if a woman chooses adoption instead of abortion? Do they somehow have a vested interest in women choosing abortion?

[The] Rev. Jeff Briere, a minister with the Unitarian Universalist Church in Chattanooga, Tenn., and a member of the abortion rights coalition, said he was worried about an anti-abortion slant in the books Amazon recommended and in the "pro-life" and "adoption" related topic links.

"The search engine results I am presented with, their suggestions, seem to be pro-life in orientation," Mr. Briere said. He also said he objected to a Yellow Pages advertisement for an anti-abortion organization in his city that appeared next to the search results, apparently linked by his address.

Funny, it wasn't too long ago I read about abortionists trying to claim the title of "pro-life" and label those against, er, "choice" as "pro-abortion". I'm glad we've left that muddle behind.

Against fully-informed choice: check. Hoping women will choose abortion instead of adoption: check. And one more thing Mr. Briere objects to: pro-life advertisements. The nerve of those pro-lifers! Perhaps the abortionists should buy some ads against the search term "adoption" and hope they can win some hearts and minds back to their side.

Bio-oil

Wired News has an article today about converting organic material into a petroleum substitute.

Bio-oil can be made from almost any organic material, including agricultural and forest waste like corn stalks and scraps of bark. Converting the raw biomass into bio-oil yields a product that is easy to transport and can be processed into higher-value fuels and chemicals.

"It is technically feasible to use biomass for the production of all the materials that we currently produce from petroleum," said professor Robert C. Brown, director of the Office of Biorenewables Programs at Iowa State University.

The United States can grow enough fresh biomass -- more than a billion tons each year -- to supplant at least a third of its annual petroleum use, according to an April 2005 study (.pdf) by the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Energy.

Note to average American consumer: that's one third of current use. Even if the fantastic effort was made to fuel our country via biomass, we'd still have to import oil. More has to be done. Like, say, conserve? Unless you like countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to yank our chain?

Credit reporting agencies against protections

Just in case you thought credit reporting agencies were Your Friend:

In a dozen states, legislatures have set up procedures for residents afraid of identity theft to lock and unlock their credit reports.

But credit-reporting agencies are pushing Congress to override the state laws, which could make it harder for Americans to keep their credit information under wraps.

[...]

The agencies [dislike] laws like New Jersey's because they fear that making it too easy to lock a credit report may ruin their business in the way that the Do Not Call list decimated the phone solicitation business. The companies' main business is selling credit information to potential lenders, insurers and even employers. (NY Times)

It seems that you don't own your credit history: the agencies do. And if the agencies' making it available to anyone that requests it allows someone to steal your identity, tough.

SUVs "socially embarrassing"

SUV sales are off. Less than half of luxury SUV owners purchase another one when trading in. Manufacturers have to offer record incentives to get SUVs off the sales lot.

The higher cost of gasoline plays a big role, as it has for the last year of high oil prices. But wealthy buyers, who used to shrug off the expense, are shifting gears, as excessive energy consumption is becoming socially embarrassing. (NY Times)

National Biodiesel Day

Happy National Biodiesel Day!

Cancer-causing sodas

Last month, the FDA quietly revealed that some soft drinks were found to contain the human carcinogen benzene in levels up to 10-20 parts per billion (ppb) -- four times the acceptable limit found in drinking water. Benzene, a chemical linked to leukemia and other forms of cancer, forms in certain beverages under certain conditions, such as exposure to heat and light.

The agency immediately downplayed the risk, saying that such small amounts did not pose a significant danger to health. "Levels like that with benzene, our only concern would be lifetime consumption," says George Pauli, associate director of science and policy in the office of food additive safety. (AlterNet)

Wow, we are fortunate that no one drinks soft drinks their entire lives!