4-29-07 TANSTAAFL - pt3

Now that the story (about the woman in Ellsworth, Maine who accidentally broke a compact fluorescent lightbulb and ended up with a $2000 hazardous waste cleanup bill) has gained momentum in the blogosphere, I'm getting a bit more perspective on these bulbs.

But the cat is now out of the bag. We can easily deduce that if you accidentally break one of these CFL's, the thing that you should NOT do is call up the regional or state run department of environmental protection for an evaluation of the hazard, nor should you engage a hazardous waste removal firm to do the cleanup. Instead, you should get onto the internet and find the recommended disposal instructions and do the cleanup yourself.

We can call this the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on how to dispose of these "environmentally friendly" lightbulbs.

If you accidentally break one, DON'T ASK any official agencies or authorities about how you should dispose of it, and DON'T TELL anybody about it. That's the only way you'll "save" any money.

I just did a rough calculation starting with the 5 milligrams of mercury contained in a typical CFL, and looked at how much this mercury would add up to for a billion bulbs, since this is the goal of the One Billion Bulbs Campaign.

Just in case I've got it wrong, I'll walk through my calculations here. Five milligrams is five thousandths of a gram. That's .005 times one billion, which will come out to five billion thousandths, or five million grams (divide by 1000). Since one gram is equal to .0022 pounds, I then multiply five million times .0022, and get 11,000 pounds. Divide that by 2000 (one ton) and we end up with 55 tons of mercury for one billion bulbs.

Now, I'm no expert on what this means in terms of cost, but 55 tons of mercury is what we're talking about here. It will have to someday be either recycled or disposed of, once all of the one billion bulbs have reached the end of their usable life. No matter how long the bulbs last, they don't last forever. Consequently, the ultimate end product of the One Billion Bulbs Campaign is very definitely going to be this 55 tons of mercury, along with any of the other hazardous wastes that will result (such as the radioactive materials that nobody seems to be willing to mention so far).

Personally, I don't think this a big deal because incandescent lightbulbs certainly aren't biodegrable. They're as much of a disposal problem as just about any other product that uses electricity. So the benefits of the CFL's over incandescents is enough to keep me using them. But the hype about how much you save in cost is a bunch of crap. The simple fact is that I no longer have to keep a pile of lightbulbs on hand, and I no longer have to keep replacing lightbulbs. Maybe they cost less to run, but my electric bill just keeps going up, and it isn't because I'm using more electricity.

There is just basically no such thing as a "cost savings" with these things. What I DO get by using them, however, is less bulb-changing. I really don't care how much they cost because not having to always be changing burnt out lightbulbs is just about the greatest thing since sliced bread, in my eyes. When they burn out, they'll go in the trash, just like any other broken or worn out item that uses electricity.

What's the problem?

Well, I just can't seem to shake the thought of how that 55 tons of mercury will, ultimately (somewhere down the road) be handled. I mean, if one broken bulb costs $2000 to clean up "properly" then that adds up to two trillion dollars in future cleanup costs for a billion bulbs, doesn't it?

The trick here, I guess, is to keep on believing that you only have one life to live, and just not give a damn about future generations, eh?

4-27-07 TANSTAAFL - pt2

Yesterday, I posted about how there's no such thing as a free lunch, when it comes to compact fluorescent lightbulbs... This is a new angle for me regarding things "green" and eco-friendly, since I had no idea that the bulbs contained mercury. Today, I spotted this article describing the plight of a Maine woman who purchased a bunch of CFL's and while attempting to screw one into her daughter's bedroom ceiling fixture, the bulb fell onto the floor and broke.

Now, you really have to understand what has happened to this woman. It will cost her TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS to get the hazardous waste removed from her daughter's room! I mean, this hazard cleanup is for ONE LIGHTBULB that broke on the floor!

Yesterday I speculated that the cost of disposal for CFL's may well equal or surpass whatever money anyone might save by using them. But TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS is a whole heckuva lot more than I could have EVER imagined it would cost to clean up after one had been broken!

This woman in Maine has what I would call a real nightmare. Of course, the story neglected to mention anything about the radioactive isotope (Kr85, a gamma emitter with a half life of 10.7 years) used in some CFL's. This is something I haven't spent any time researching yet, but here is a page describing radioactive substances in lighting products, and this page is concerned with sustainable development of compact fluorescent lamps, neither of which I've read yet because they're both rather long and technical. Nonetheless, the more I look into the materials that go into these "green" and "safe for the environment" and "eco-friendly" products, the more I learn about the true meaning of "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" as it applies to the products we're being sold under the aegis of being "better" for the planet.

Because of the TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR cleanup cost for breaking ONE LIGHTBULB, however, I believe that I'll be looking into this a bit further as the days go by.

4-26-07 TANSTAAFL

In physics, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In a closed system, energy can change form but you don't get something for nothing, or vice-versa. It's a very heady concept for many people, but it can be stated in a much more user-friendly fashion for those who don't swim too deeply in the intellectual seas... "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL).

The only reason I bring this up is because of energy efficient light bulbs in the news.

It seems that these bulbs are great for cutting down on your electric bill, and they last a very long time. I have a bunch of them in my house. A couple of them in the basement (the first ones I ever tried) have been there for several years. I have yet to replace any, but until I read the above-linked article, I had no idea that when it comes to disposal, these little bulbs are actually hazardous waste because they contain mercury.

It took a bit of hunting around on the net, but I did find a good link here regarding this little TANSTAAFL issue with the Energy Star certified compact flourescent lightbulbs. It's such a little issue that nobody seems to be pointing it out, apparently, to the people in Canada and Australia who have worked out legislation to ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 and 2010, respectively.

This brings me to the sad news, ie- TANSTAAGL, "there ain't no such thing as a green lunch." In a fire society, where nearly everything done to produce energy is ultimately coming from burning something, the idea that any alternative energy source is "green" or "eco-friendly" needs to be examined a bit more deeply than the evening news. I mean, we're talking about it, we're being made conscious of it, and we're being given information that's designed to scare us about the consequences of continuing to dump various by-products and waste products into the biosphere, but these initial steps are simply not addressing the basic problem.

The basic problem is that this whole civilization is still a fire society.

The energy saved by using the bulbs is probably about the same amount of energy that will be required to dispose of them, and may even cost more since it's pushed further down the road. The same problem exists with hybrid cars, in that disposal of the batteries probably uses up whatever amount of energy that was saved by their use. The "balance sheet" in physics with our present day technology is pretty much written in stone. The trick is that the Energy Star certified bulbs may use less electricity during their usage, but the bill comes due when they have to be disposed of. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The bill simply gets put off to be paid much later.

Pay now, or pay (probably even more) later.

Meanwhile, there's a campaign to change over a billion incandescent lightbulbs to compact flourescent lightbulbs that, regardless of the future cost of disposing of them, is (in my opinion) a very well-intended short-term measure.

4-25-07 Border Plots

The illegal alien amnesty plot seems to be moving forward, to some extent, in that nothing of any great import is being done by congress to stop it. Consequently, the situation merely goes along unaffected. One would attempt to make sense of this by supposing that there may be some missing information about it. Conspiracy theorists love this sort of situation, and there's plenty of noise to be found and heard of plots, agendas, etc.

But what the long term scenario for America's future solvency involves are some very simple statistics, and acceptable statistical projections. The population has a constantly increasing average age (baby boomers growing older, decreased family sizes, etc). Producing members of the society, essentially, foot the bill for those non-producing members, young and old. As long as the ratio of producing versus non-producing people is well above 4 or 5 to 1, sustained solvency is something that can be expected. Unfortunately, the projections into the next ten years demonstrate that this ratio will drop to 2 to 1. There is only one way to reverse this trend, ie- new blood.

This problem is much more pronounced in Japan, by the way, and it is becoming a problem in other first world countries, as well. There is no conspiracy to flood America with illegal aliens, but there is a draw for aliens to come and work in this country, and that draw is quite simple... we really do need them.

Meanwhile, the fringe and collaborative segment of the country that has a big emotional bond against the "alienization of America" has been talking it up on the air this week, in an event that I posted about just three days ago.

So far, the noise that's been made by FAIR in their annual "Put Their Feet To The Fire" event appears to have been minimal. The only reportage that I can find about it is fringe and collaborative.

Meanwhile, the concurrent trucker's strike that was planned seems to have fizzled completely (I couldn't find any news stories about it at all).

But there is a little activity taking place, over on the left coast, where Teamsters and others are suing the US Department of Transportation to block the implimentation of the Mexican trucking "pilot program". Stories are here and here.

On that issue, I think there really should be some re-examination in the public forum, and by congress, to ensure that our borders are not being opened up and made easier for smugglers. NAFTA is one thing, border security is another.

4-25-07 Cheney Impeachment

Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. The transcript of his introduction of this measure in the House of Representatives was published in the Washington Post yesterday.

4-22-07 Opening Up The Mexican Border

Beginning today, there is a four day radio event in Washington DC called "Put Their Feet to the Fire" focusing on the issue of immigration amnesty. A full description of this event can be found here on the FAIR website.

This is apparently an annual event, and if you've never heard of it then join the club... I've never heard of it either. What makes this year's event different, however, is the fact that truckers have been gearing up to have an event that coincides with the FAIR event this year. I first posted about this a couple of weeks ago.

The connection is easily deduced if you picture the number of truck drivers who, while spending so much time on the road, would listen to talk radio and be very attuned to the fact that this is an annual event. It would also make some sense that truckers would be organizing their own event because one aspect of this whole immigration issue that affects them isn't being talked about very much at all. In fact, it isn't exactly an immigration issue at all, it's a NAFTA issue.

The eTrucker News website has an article about that issue and the event here.

It's clear that the NAFTA issue, and the fact that Bush is in any way interested in opening up the border to Mexico in such a manner is very big, very important news in my eyes. The fact that this is completely under the mainstream media radar makes it even more noteworthy. It says to me that the fourth estate is currently subordinated to the role of state propaganda, rather than informing the public what their elected government officials are actually doing.

The prospect of opening up the Mexican border to thousands of foreign based trucks that would be operating on American roads without having to comply with the same security checks and safety checks as American based trucks is just plain outrageous. It's all the more outrageous that George W. Bush is all for it.

Interestingly enough, the FAIR event is apparently nervous about being connected with the Truck Out protest event. They've got a disclaimer about it on their website.

It's easy enough to understand why, though. After all, they're in a difficult spot with the prospect of supporting what could be disruptive activity. The FCC can pull a broadcaster's license for inciting the public to commit acts that, ultimately, result in violence. And the prospect of truckers across the nation going on a protest strike and disrupting traffic can easily be seen as disruptive enough to flare up into violence somewhere. So, they have to cover their asses.

But I'll bet that if anything does get ugly, those guys on the air will be happy enough to report it with great zeal.

Meanwhile, heads up, America! The truckers haven't gotten pissed enough to organize themselves into a nationwide strike of any note for a few decades, but this issue may have pushed enough of them to the point of, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" I certainly hope so, for their sakes, and for the sake of keeping foreign trucks off our roads.

I mean, just think about this for a moment... Opening up the Mexican border to thousands of foreign based trucks has got to be just about the most idiotic move I can imagine. This country is supposed to be in the middle of a so-called "War On Terror" that's been going on for the past six years. Now Bush wants to make it EASIER for terrorists to cross the Mexcan border? Not only easier, but with TRUCKS, fer chrissakes! Think about how much you can put into one of those tractor-trailer boxes... They could be filled with explosives, dirty bombs, drugs, arms, and even more illegal aliens.

I mean, REALLY!

What our borders and ports need is MORE security, not less!

4-21-07 Virginia Tech

There's an idea floating around that something has to be changed in order to prevent such a thing as the Virginia Tech massacre from ever happening again.

We could pass new laws, but the fact is that the perpetrator broke existing laws. What he did is already against the law. It's against the law to murder people, it's against the law to have weapons on campus, it's even against the law to merely use threatening language against people. The list of laws broken by a psychotic student that day is very long. It's even against the law to commit suicide. It's clear that passing new laws to prevent people from breaking existing laws is a bit pointless.

We could make guns more difficult to obtain, but statistics demonstrate that where guns are more difficult to obtain, gun related crime rises. The incidence of gun related crime has risen sharply in Britain, since the passage of laws making guns illegal. In Washington, DC, where guns are illegal, crime has also risen sharply. Meanwhile, in "Gun Town, USA" where a law was passed in 1982 requiring all residents to own a gun, the incidence of gun related crime has dropped dramatically... for a quarter of a century, now.

We could institute more screening to attempt to isolate and handle potential psychotics who would be capable of performing such insane acts against others, but it's apparent that such a thing is actually not within any scientific discipline's ability to predict. This article describes what we would be up against in such attempts. And this article describes ten years of research into how to specifically profile school shooters that, essentially, has come up with many more questions to be addressed than resolved.

We could theorize that the VT shootings were symptomatic of something wrong somewhere, that something is really out of whack, and this needs to be fixed.

But I say that this incident is symptomatic of nothing. Out of 300 million people, one kid went completely insane. This isn't a symptom of anything. It isn't even a statistical anomaly.

Mass murderers commit insane acts on a par with the VT shooting nearly every week in Iraq, however. Looking for reasons why that's happening could bear more scrutiny.

4-21-07 Limbo

With the magical stroke of a pen, the Catholic Church has erased Limbo.

What about purgatory? I mean, if eliminating the waiting room for heaven is so easy, why not be consistent and get rid of the waiting room for hell, too?

4-18-07 Side Effects

You know those ads on TV for prescription drugs that spend most of the ad time spieling off all the possible side effects... it's almost as if the funny ads for non-existent humorously-named products on Saturday Night Live has become a way of life, in real life! How about a drug that's supposed to handle stomach upsets with a side effect like nausea? Or a cholesterol-lowering medication that may cause heart attack? Or an anti-depressant that may cause suicidal thoughts?

Yep. The side effects aren't the effects that the drug is intended to produce in people, but some small percentage may get these side effects. That's a SMALL percentage.

Okay, so let's take a look at this small percentage. One person who, apparently, was taking anti-depressants has demonstrated the worst possible suicidal tendencies that can be imagined. Before succeeding in actually committing suicide, however, he took over thirty people with him into the great beyond, along with several others who he injured. That's a side effect for extreme suicidal tendencies in only ONE person out of however many millions are taking whatever brand of anti-depressant he was taking. This is about the smallest percentage you can get without it being zero.

Yet, the fallout from this is a national tragedy.

But we all agree that this extremely low percentage of people who may experience a side effect is an acceptable risk. It's actually in the news today, two days after the horrific shooting spree in Virginia. The New York Times published an article about a new study that found this side effect of anti-depressants in children, the suicidal side effect we're talking about here, is actually lower than they thought. This article describes their new findings. Where the FDA found that two in 100 experienced increased thoughts of suicide, the new study found only one in 100 had this side effect. It's a great piece of news, isn't it? The new study shows that we don't have to worry about having this side effect because it occurs only HALF as often as they previously thought! So, for every million that takes anti-depressants, only TEN THOUSAND people are at risk of experiencing this suicidal side effect instead of TWENTY THOUSAND...

Gee... I feel safer already.

4-13-07 The Power Of Denial

Aside from Don Imus being fired for high ridiculosity, and the fact that Alberto Gonzalez is still the Liar General, there really are other things going on in the world. One of them is "the Surge".

Since I posted about this on the 21st of January, I'll just reiterate simply that there is no actual increase in the numbers of soldiers being sent with this "Surge". Rather, some soldiers will remain longer, while some deploy earlier. It adds up to more feet on the ground, thus the choice of that word, "surge". Kinda like calling a traffic jam a "surge".

So, on the one hand we have the Orwellian language of this, but on the other hand we have the immediate response to this "surge" taking place just a short while ago. As commented upon by John Robb today in his blog, Global Guerillas, the destruction of a bridge and the parliament building in Baghdad is a "negative proof" of how well this surge might be working. Since all of this is merely hot air and PR over on this side of the world, this info-war and propaganda cause/effect storm is pretty much the main game here.

Here's the way it works. Dubya huffs and puffs, makes statements that should scare the bejesus out of the enemy "over there". The response is to demonstrate that even the most highly secure location, defended by the United States Military apparatus inside the Green Zone in Baghdad, where John McCain insists that life is safe and secure... is, in a word, not.

This is the problem I have with this administration, all this hot air, and then "negative proof" being demonstrated time and time again. It's almost as if we have George Costanza for a President. The comedians have never had such an abundance of material!

How can George W. Bush even PRETEND to be doing ANYTHING that could be considered even REMOTELY effective in the resolving of issues that he speaks about in public??? The cognitive dissonance in that man's head must be so incredibly overwhelming by this point in time that I don't understand how he can be in the same room with himself!

But, as the character Ricky Fitts said in the movie, American Beauty, "Never underestimate the power of denial." It has been demonstrated by Dubya over and over again. And, just to wrap up where I started, it applies equally to Don Imus and Alberto Gonzalez.

4-8-07 Easter Morning Breakfast

As I sit here at my computer, I can plan ahead for my next meal. Since I got up so early this morning, that next meal will be breakfast. My wife and I talked last night about going out for breakfast this morning. I suppose we'll go out to Bickford's, since they have such nice large booths, and the service is quite good.

Meanwhile, this story in the NY Times describes how people in Zambia are planning their meals. It also describes how those meals get to Zambia. It's an interesting article. It's the kind of article that, I suppose, many Americans will have read while eating breakfast yesterday. Just one of many articles, and probably read with some interest, here and there.

I didn't find that article by reading the NY Times, however. I found it as a link within a commentary in a blog that I read. Tom Barnett is a blogger that I read nearly every day, basically for his insights into what's going on in the world. He's a person whose activities place him in a unique position to be able to point things out to the rest of us who aren't in such a unique position. He's also a very optimistic person, in my opinion, because his two books have been an inspiration for some of the most realistic solutions and proposals for our future that I've ever come across. He's a bit miffed about that article, however, and in an atypically ranting style has provided the story behind the story in the Times.

His objections, however, do miss one aspect of the Bush push for quicker disposition of foodstocks in Zambia. The only reason I can possibly imagine as to why Bush would be in favor of investing American tax dollars into a cash flow outside our borders instead of inside would be that it would make it SO much easier for some ripe bundles of that cash to magically disappear into badly accounted pockets. That sort of thing has been quite a lucrative windfall for Bush cronies, buddies and pals over the past six years. Push the cash into programs that can later be cited for "bad accounting", apologize that it was an admittedly poor level of accountability, but then point out that "we really only wanted to expedite things, get these people helped more quickly..." and so forth. It's an old story with this administration.

Essentially, whether the system of American-only apparatus being given the funds, or the cash for foreign crops system gets used, the people in Zambia who could be fed (but won't be fed in time to prevent their deaths) will simply continue in its status quo. No change in the method equals up to 50k dying. Changing it will blow the cash into Bush crony's pockets, however... otherwise the Bush administration wouldn't be in favor of the change.

In about an hour, my wife and I will calmly make our way over to Bickford's and choose a booth by a window. We'll be served coffee, and we'll sip our coffee while we deliberate over the menu selections, and at some point the waitress will take our order. Then, after a few idyllic minutes of chit-chat and gazing out the window, we'll be served our individual breakfasts and we'll savor every bite. When we've eaten all we can manage to eat, and when we're both fully sated, I'll ask for the check, and calculate a 20% tip for the waitress, put the money on the table and we'll then we'll go back home.

And during the period of time between when I began writing this and when my wife and I will drive back home from breakfast, I can be certain that some insanely large number of human beings in Zambia will have died from starvation. They will have died, but could have been saved, for one reason and one reason only... greed in Washington, DC.

4-7-07 Pursuit of Happiness

In the 1967 court case of Loving vs Virginia, a comment was made upon "the pursuit of happiness" by Chief Justice Earl Warren. This case overturned a lower court's ruling on the illegality of a mixed race marriage. Warren's comment was, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Thus, we find that the most noteworthy mention, possibly the only mention of the pursuit of happiness in a Supreme Court ruling, has appended to it the word "orderly."

An "orderly" pursuit of happiness, apparently, is how the judicial system would view such activity in terms of whether it's a basic right or not. In addition, it's the "pursuit" of happiness, not happiness itself, which is considered a basic right. In other words, your "rights" aren't being violated if someone makes you UNhappy...

Right around the same point in time as the above mentioned court case, Bob Dylan was booed by many in his audience for playing his music with electric instruments for the first time. Afterwards, a reporter asked him, "Are you happy with your performance?"

"Happy?" he replied. "Anybody can be happy..."

Indeed, anyone can be happy. It's the pursuit of happiness that may be difficult. This simple phrase has an implicit assumption that happiness is something that must be attained, that one does not (at the moment) actually have. I don't subscribe to that viewpoint, however. I'm with Bob on this. You're either happy or you're not. It's been said that a far eastern holy man could be perfectly happy while living in abject poverty, spending most of his waking hours sitting in a pig sty.

Happiness is a state of mind. One either musters up that (or any other) state of mind at will, or ends up believing that something else outside of them is what causes the way they feel at any given moment.

Consequently, I think that the signers of the Declaration of Independance made a poor choice when they okay'd this wording, and the inclusion of the pursuit of happiness in the opening text. Originally, the three unalienable rights that were going to be mentioned in the Declaration of Independance were life, liberty, and property. But they thought better of that, and it was changed. But it should have been changed to something a bit less ephemeral, I think.

Personally, I feel it should have been changed to the pursuit of comfort. Feeling comfy is, to be honest about it, the real pursuit we're all involved in most of the time. I tend to think of it as the pursuit of "comfy-ness" because this really hits the nail on the head. Happiness is one thing, but comfy-ness is a lot more than just a state of mind.

For instance, take a look at what drives people within political situations. Someone says something, and somebody else is inevitably "uncomfortable" with that. They don't take issue with anything because they're unhappy with it, they take issue because they're not comfortable with it.

When I come home from work, the very first thing I want to do is "get comfy". This means getting out of my work clothes, washing the stain of work off my body, and getting into the clothes that I feel more comfortable in. I pursue this moment daily, and look forward to that moment when I can attain maximum comfy-ness.

Back in the days of my youth, when I was dating and looked forward to those moments when my date was ready, willing, and able, it was the ultimate goal of such dates to have her say the magic words after we had arrived at her place or mine... "You don't mind if I get into something more comfortable, do you?"

When a modest person is asked how they are doing in life, and the implied question is leaning toward how much money they have, the standard response is that they're "comfortable" whether actually rich or poor.

There's a whole science and technology dedicated to providing relief from discomfort. The word "disease" is made up of two parts: "Dis-" a prefix that means "the opposite of", and "ease" meaning (in this sense) a state of normalcy and comfort. When anyone feels pain or discomfort, this technology seeks to give the specific complaint a name. And by giving it a name, the technology is then empowered to produce a specific remedy. This entire enterprise is wholly predicated upon the pursuit of comfy-ness.

Someone once said that we have two options in life. One is suffering and the other is boredom. If this is so, then I choose boredom. But I don't believe that life has to be so mundanely described. Instead I believe that we live our lives doing whatever is necessary to avoid pain and to, instead, feel comfy. We also seek to please ourselves with various apetites and experiences, but in the end the overwhelming majority of our time can be satisfactorily fulfilled by simply being comfy.

All my life I have been engaged in this pursuit of comfy-ness on a daily, and sometimes even an hourly basis. Comfy-ness is an immediately attainable goal. It is not dependant upon money, position, or power to find a position to stand, sit, or lay down in that's comfy. The ability to feel comfortable with people around one is simply a matter of either remaining in their presence or going somewhere else. And the fact is that attaining some level of comfy-ness is usually a prerequisite for the pursuit of just about anything else.

But let's not pretend that happiness needs to be "pursued" anymore. If you're not happy, then at least make it look like you are, so that you don't make everyone around you uncomfortable. Otherwise, you're impeding their pursuit of comfy-ness.

4-6-07 Bill O'Reilly: Conspiracy Theorist

Back when Bill O'Reilly was working for Inside Edition, he did this report...

It's absolutely priceless!

4-6-07 More Costanza Doctrine

Let's see, now. We were attacked by foreign nationals on 9-11, and so our first order of priority in attempting to forestall a repeat of such a thing MIGHT be to make our borders more secure.

Right?

Read this article, and then tell me how Bush and company are doing on that score, will ya? I mean, the very idea of opening our border with Mexico to 100 foreign trucking companies so that their trucks can roll anywhere on our highways without the same security scrutiny that's given to US based companies is something that completely escapes me!

The senate, at least, has one or two people who are willing to take a look at this. But the whole thing is such low level news out there in the mainstream media that ya gotta ask why it hasn't hit the headlines. I mean, what the hell are they thinking???

In the end, it's yet another example of the Costanza Doctrine as the explanation behind this administration's consistent lack of sanity in dealing with issues that affect us all in this country.

At least the truckers in the United States are going to try to do something about this idiocy... take a look at this website.

4-2-07 Carbon Emissions from SCOTUS

Back in June I posted a reference to a court case wherein the state of Massachusetts, et al, was suing the EPA for not doing anything about carbon emissions from automobiles.

The contention was that the Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA actually do something about the carbon dioxide emissions coming from automobiles in this country. The EPA's contention was that carbon dioxide emissions are not covered, specifically, as pollutants and therefore do not come under its regulatory umbrella.

The Supreme Court today ruled against the EPA. Here's one article on the story.

Amongst all the bricks in the wall that the Bush Administration has erected over the past six years between themselves and the will of the people, this one is particularly interesting because it opens the door to the regulation of how much carbon dioxide an automobile can emit. It would then be a relatively small step from automobiles to coal burning electric generating plants, factories, and everything else.