Signs, Signs, Everywhere a Sign

"You people want to live in a world where there's no stop signs or traffic lights!" It's probably the most oft repeated argument I hear from critics of the Libertarian philosophy.

Actually, I don't. I understand the necessity of things like speed limits, and traffic lights to negotiate a safe and even traffic flow. I do realize that sometimes, those speed limits are set ridiculously low. For the twenty years between the Nixon Administration and the 94 Republican takeover of Congress, speed limits nationwide were held down to 55 miles per hour. Energy conservation was the initial excuse for this unnatural pace, but when gas prices were allowed to rise naturally, in the post Carter years, the shortages evaporated. At that point, safety was the selling point of the speed limits. I always speculated that the speed limits were kept low, so that people would naturally exceed them, giving authorities the cause to pull anyone over. The fines assessed on people driving a normal speed would also benefit regional governments.

I've also believed for some time, that when laws become too easy to break, they will be broken lasciviously. If everybody breaks the law, it erodes people's respect for it. Such is the case in the big cities of America, and most third world nations, where the amount of laws make it is almost impossible to abide by all of them; and unnecessary, as long as you can bribe the appropriate official.

An observation of this erosion is the recent lowering of the allowable blood alcohol level to .08% in 2000. There was a time when drunk driving was not taken seriously enough, and there were too many needless accidents, injuries and deaths caused by our apathy. Thanks to stricter enforcement, and an effective public awareness campaign, the amount of alcohol related auto accidents has dropped dramatically over the past couple decades. But .08% is probably too low. Most experienced drinkers can operate a vehicle quite well a that level. You can get a 0.08% blood alcohol level, from a generous shot of NyQuil®.

Hence a lot more people are getting arrested. Being arrested for a DUI was originally a stigma that would force a person into rehab, and make them re-evaluate their habits. Today, so many people are getting arrested for it, that everyone outside of Utah, probably knows a couple people who have received one. Hence, rather than being a life altering event, DUIs are nothing more than really bad traffic tickets. Today, people laugh about them, and at parties you'll often find groups of people comparing what percentage they blew, the night they got theirs.

And it is reflected in the statistics. Since the 08% was initiated, the amount of people who admit to driving when they shouldn't has increased for the first time since the clamp down began. According to the Department of Transportation, in 2003, alcohol related fatalities have increased in 17 states since 1995. A recent study indicates that alcohol related traffic incidents are up almost 50%. Strangely, it would seem that the solution to Drunk Driving is not more restrictions, but less. It would be a really bold legislator that would risk his career on supporting that move. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. suggested this back in 2000. Perhaps the zeitgeist is slowly correcting itself, but I don't expect to see it change in my lifetime.

Back to traffic signs. Conventional wisdom would say, that if you took down stop signs, that people would rush straight through intersections, and there would be a measurable amount of increased accidents. That's the reason why a kid with a stop sign decorating his wall, was always punished more severely than the kid who had one that said: Bong Recreation Area

But there is also the possibility, that if there were no stop signs, people would approach every intersection with caution. Rather than counting on the drivers in opposing traffic to stop at theirs, while you blow through yours, both cars are going to stop. There would be a disincentive to speeding, through several intersections at a time, because you never know if the other guys are going to stop. Self preservation and protection of personal property is more incentive than the risk of a hundred dollar fine.

There is also the factor, that for a certain percentage of humans, if you tell them to do something, they won't. Not only are rules meant to be broken, the very existence of a rule is a challenge. (I think I fall into that category.) It is quite possible that if you don't make it a law that you have to stop at every intersection, more people will.

Up until now, these ideas were nothing more than a very interesting thought experiment. Whenever I sugested it, I was usually made fun of. Today I ran into this item on the Drudge Report from Der Spiegel. It seems that some European towns are experimenting with this idea: "... in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. ...'More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed.'"

While I suggest that perhaps their ventures into these experiments are inspired by limited resources, rather than more loftier goals, like an advancement of Liberty, there is no mistaking the result: "...the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy."

From the Continent that gave the world Marxism, comes this fresh breeze of Liberty. It looks like I've just been given one more reason to applaud the Netherlands, and perhaps I should readjust my prejudice of Europe.

louder than words

Is the Earth over crowded? One of the most popular Leftist Mantras is that there are too many people on the Planet.

Alongside, " Why do I have to pay my student loan back?", "Too many people on the planet," is one of the top five things you are likely to hear a Leftist say. Even though global obesity rates, and increased life spans seem to contradict that idea of an overcrowded, unlivable planet, the Environmentalists continue to circulate the rumor.

Their evidence of overcrowding, is the rate of species extinction. Every modern extinction is automatically blamed on humans, even if the evidence is faint. Depending on who you believe, the earth is losing somewhere between 12 and 200 species every single day. The reality is much more modest. In truth, there have been roughly two extinctions per year in North America over the past 368 years. Only about a hundred of those were warm blooded animals. Another hundred are plants. The vast majority of those species were things like reptiles, insects, and snails, creatures most people don't like very much.

That's why the World Wildlife Fund uses a cuddly Panda for their mascot. Everybody loves the Panda, and if it were to become extinct, it would be greatly missed. (It would also increase the value of any Panda skin rugs you might have lying around the house.) Would anybody be concerned about extinctions, if the WWF used pictures of something like mud turtles? Outside of a handful of herpetologists I doubt that anybody really cares about mud turtles.

I always will choose people over reptiles, I hope that most people agree with me. What would you rather have: lots of people around the Thanksgiving table, or mud turtles? It is natural for any species to prefer the company of their own, versus some strange species they can't even play cards with. If the same decision were offered to the mud turtles, I guarantee that the choice would not be to save the humans. In fact I think that mud turtles wouldn't mind dining on a big pile of recently extincted humans.

Most radical ecologists believe in this weird form of environmental communism where every species works together in a harmony of sacrifice, like in the Lion King cartoon, where the zebras accepted they were put on the planet only to feed the lions. This is silly Marxist anthropomorphising. No other species has ever endeavored to live in harmony with their ecosystem. No animal, outside of Lemmings, ever said, "Gosh, maybe we're surviving just a little too well, we should stop that." Species are engaged a continual territorial battle with each other: the victors win survival, and the losers go extinct.

Extinction is perfectly natural. From the Dinosaurs to the Woolly Mammoths, the history of the earth has been, repeated species extinction. It's just Darwin, survival of the fittest, which at this point, happens to be us. Don't you think, it's good to be on the winning team? It's not Disney, it's war baby; and when it's over, I want to see the flag of the human genome flying over the earth.

Ecologists believe that the Earth has some preordained destiny that doesn't include very many humans. They feel that human population should be kept in check by disease and wild animals, as it was in primitive times. In fact a couple In radical professors have been suggesting that a massive plague would be beneficial to the Planet, and have been fantasizing about it too much for my comfort.

The problem is, many Environmentalists really don't like other people. Given the choice, they would be content living solitary lives, alone with their cats. Myself, I love people, and am always happier with lots of them around. I get lonely if I'm by myself too long; I think that's part of why I got into comedy, so I could meet with a couple hundred people every night.

While there is nothing that any decent individual can do. to alter the arrival of the billion new people, that are expected on the planet within the next decade and a half; there is an opportunity for every concerned citizen of the earth, to reduce the population by one. I really think that anybody who believes there are too many people on the earth has the duty to leave. That's why I'm considering opening a new environmental business dedicated to easing overpopulation called Louder Than Words.

Louder than Words will be a service that every good liberal of conscious can use, to alleviate the hypocrisy associated with overpopulation concerns. For a reasonable price, we will fly you first class to Amsterdam, for an appointment with a doctor who practices legally assisted suicide. For just a few thousand dollars, you can make a valuable contribution for those of us, who would like to stick around. We will even offer a placement service for all the cats you leave behind.

After you pass on to the next world, we will freeze your remains, and fly them to the continent of your choice, where they will be thawed and fed to an endangered species you select; a creature that you think has more right to exist on this planet than yourself

Imagine the joy of an all expenses paid trip to liberal Amsterdam. Settle into the spacious leather seat, and enjoy a complimentary cocktail of your choice, knowing that in just a day or two, you might be pecked by a flock of condors, torn apart by a band of mountain gorillas, or dragged back to the den of a majestic polar bear. You might even make a nice meal for a bale of mud turtles.

In Amsterdam you can spend your final hours under the comforting touch of a fair labor prostitute, or have a couple hits of the bong at one of their world famous coffeehouses, before you sacrifice yourself to the Planet.

So what are you waiting for? Quit your bellyaching, and make a positive motion. It's one small step towards a brighter tomorrow. Actions speak...

Pluto Demoted

Seventy years after the discovery, of what everybody thought was a small planet on the outer edges of our solar system; scientists have decided to demote this thing we call Pluto, from planet, down to dwarf planet.

Just like that. After almost four generations of teaching elementary school students that our solar system has nine planets, teachers will begin teaching children there are only eight. As another comic once said, "You should go back to your grade school teacher, and demand that your test be re-scored, because you might have gotten an A." There isn't even enough time to get textbooks re-printed before the school year starts.

I didn't know that the International Astronomical Union had the authority to do this. I thought the Nine Planet Solar System was a hard rule -- more fact than theory. Nine planets are what I always imagined extra-terrestrial astronomers were observing, from their craggy faraway telescopes. In every science fiction movie I've ever seen, the aliens refer it as "A Nine Planet Solar System, full of creatures you call 'Humans'". Turns out, it was just a simple bureaucratic convention, subject to change without notice.

Astrologers are highly dismayed, since Pluto plays a very important part in Astrological charts for the Scorpios. Astrology supposedly dates back to the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia, but the practitioners ascribed great powers to this planet, that wasn't even as old as Laurel and Hardy films. How powerful can it be, when it is invisible to the naked eye? (I imagine the decision to downgrade Pluto would have been different if Astrologers had a seat or two on the IAU board.)

Science is obviously a highly flexible and constantly changing group of theories. Rather than being a hard discipline like Mathematics, it is based on continual questioning, discovery, and revision. In just the past 150 years we've learned that our ancestors were monkeys, there are particles smaller than atoms, and a huge explosion started it all.

Many things that were taught just a few generations ago, are now disputed. When Pluto was discovered in 1930, Geologists still believed that the Continents were fixed and immobile; today we know that they ride around the Earth on tectonic plates. Time was regarded as a constant, until Einstein suggested that it could actually be slowed down, by traveling very fast. (Standing in stark contrast to the adage: "Slow down, you'll live longer.") Dinosaurs, were once thought to be cold-blooded reptiles like Robert Blake, but are now considered the warm-blooded ancestors of birds.

So too, will our perceptions change about Global Warming. The modern theory is that CO2 has been warming up the atmosphere. Perhaps years from now, when the current upward temperature trend reverses, scientists will change their opinions. I suspect such is the motivation to replace the term "Global Warming," with "Climate Change." The Environmentalists are all repositioning themselves, in case they have to make an abrupt U-turn.

Scientific consensus may seem slow, but it reverses quite quickly relative to Government. In 1898, back when time and continents were fixed in an eight planet solar system, Congress came up with a novel idea to fund the Spanish American War. A penny tax, was placed on each American phone call. Since only the rich people had phones back then, it was never supposed to affect the Average American, and passed through Congress, quicker than a diseased hog through a Chicago slaughterhouse.

One hundred years after that Nine Month War was over, in a Nation under Pluto, the tax was still being collected. No longer just a luxury tax, since phone ownership is practically universal, it cost consumers over six billion dollars in 2005. The tax was not rescinded until June of this year, after decades of pressure and lawsuits, from public interest groups and phone companies.

Right now, there are some who claim that scientific consensus has determined that Climate Change is a hard fact, and the government must take immediate measures to avert catastrophe. Since those measures will likely last a Century or more, perhaps, we should exercise patience. There is a very good chance that any legislation passed today, will far outlive any scientific consensus. Hence, caution demands we move at the speed of the Continents.

As Teddy Roosevelt used to say, "Remember the Maine."

Send in the Hurricanes

Hurricane season? What Hurricane season? As we approach the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, something very interesting is missing from the Headlines: Hurricanes. So far this season (which is now almost two months old) there has not been a single hurricane in the Atlantic Basin. in fact, there have only been three tropical storms -- well below average.
Most disappointed by the lack of News is Presidential candidate Al Gore, who had spent a good portion of the Spring positioning himself as an expert on Global Warming and Hurricanes. The relatively thick former Vice President, who has been spending his days out of office trying to make everyone forget that he was part of the only modern administration to be impeached, has been jetting around the planet, telling everybody else that they're destroying it.
I imagine that his press agent, thought she would have phones ringing off the hook with interview requests by now. Most probably, she has become quite adept at sinking the paper wad into the wastebasket from across the room. As lonely, as generator salesmen on the morning of January 1, 2000. she is probably busy, drafting a plan B.
This season highlights a major flaw with media: A crisis always makes news, but the lack of crises, never gets mentioned. For instance gas prices have dropped close to thirty cents in the past week or so, but unless you pay cash for gas, you probably didn't even notice. There were no news reports on generous oil companies lowering their prices. A crime interrupted by a handgun owner rarely makes the news, but a handgun accident always will. It doesn't mean that gas prices only rise, and handguns only hurt people, but if you don't read between the lines, that's certainly what you would believe. Since good news, is not news, people who pay attention to it, get a very pessimistic bias.
If you remember from last year, the Left told us, Katrina was undeniable proof that Global Warming is a reality. If that was true, then what are we to make of this year's unremarkable season? Is it evidence that Global Warming is over?
It might be. According to WeatherStreet.com: "In a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years."
Kind of takes the wind out of the mills, of those who claim that the damage has already been done, and is irreversible. Turns out, the Environmental Prophets of Doom were just guessing, and for a couple years, they guessed right.
It's nice to know that the Democrats are very unreliable prophets. We can all take a sigh of relief knowing that their predictions of re-taking the House and Senate this Fall are probably just as specious.

More Equal Than Others

While I don't pretend that the Democrats have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it certainly seems that the Left has a more difficult time avoiding it. Some of the most vivid images of the former Soviet Union was Party leaders dining on fine caviar, while workers in the Ukraine were allowed to starve to death. Premiers toasting with fine wine, while citizens were being admitted to hospitals for drinking brake fluid. These pictures of Communism captured the unachievable nature of a classless society.

By their marriage to the ideal of a egalitarian Nation, " the Left is forced into the same corner. Especially now, that the environment is becoming the major issue for the Democrat Party. It seems that Global Warming is an issue that the Democrats think they can win on, and they have been pushing it pretty hard.

Unfortunately, their solution to Global Warming is conservation, and conservation requires sacrifice. Real environmental sacrifices are completely foreign to a group of politicians who have become accustomed to riding around in limousines and private jets. It's easy enough to wag their fingers at the soccer moms and NASCAR dads, who prefer larger vehicles to haul the kids and dry wall, but when it comes to getting themselves to a speaking engagement, they like the limo warmed up, and the A/C on high. In recent posts, I've illustrated this behavior coming from unlikely Movie Star, Al Gore, to the Quivering Heroin Addict, Robert Kennedy Junior. New to the lineup of environmental hypocrites is none other than the Halle Berry of the Senate, likely Presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

According to Matt Drudge, Barack appeared at a Town Hall meeting, where he stressed the importance of driving smaller cars. After applause and handshakes, he was escorted out to an idling GMC Envoy. Made aware of the apparent contradiction by local TV News, Obama's campaign advisor said that it was an E-85 Envoy that burned mostly Ethanol. Which sounds pretty good. Except, GMC doesn't make an E-85 Envoy.

Like George Orwell stated so brilliantly in Animal Farm: "Some .. are more equal than others."

Holy Windmills

You shouldn't drive an SUV. It would be better if you took a train. A Bicycle would be even better. Of course, not everyone can ride a Bicycle to work, Some people need private jets. That's because, they are more important than you.
Whereas you should feel guilty for driving a safe comfortable SUV, Barbra Streisand is going to maneuver an entire regiment of planes trucks and busses around the country for her recently announced national tour. It should be called her "Irony" tour, since one purpose of the show, will be contributing to the dialog on Global Warming:
Ms. Streisand notes, “The increasingly urgent need for private citizen support to combat dangerous climate change, along with education and health issues was the prime reason I decided to tour again. This will allow me to direct funds and awareness to causes that I care deeply about.”
There is much pressure on environmental celebrities like Barbra to explain their lavish use of private jets. But she is not alone. As I noted in my previous post, Laurie David, Robert Kennedy Junior, and Arianna Huffington, all use their private jets, to help them tell the common people, how we burn too much petroleum. Recently, suspected presidential candidate, Al Gore flew all the way to France, to promote his new movie, about the earth being destroyed, by people traveling so much.
Someone should tell Al that he doesn't need to fly around the world anymore. We have this great invention, called the Internet. (I wonder if he's heard about it?) For about fifty bucks, you can buy a camera, that you just plug in, and then make virtual appearances anywhere, using only a fraction of the energy it takes to warm up a jet.
And I don't know how his trips are considered promotional. So far the film has only grossed around six and a half million dollars. A friend in the private jet industry, tells me that a trip to France costs around $150,000. Just a dozen "promotional" flights would eat up more than 25% of the gross. It should be obvious that Gore is actually campaigning, and has found a way to do it, far away from FEC oversight.
Even though he seems to be ignoring the criticism, recent developments would indicate that the message is coming through loud and clear. According to Variety, Paramount Classics, distributor of his film "An Inconvenient Truth," recently announced that Al only flies commercial on all promotional trips. (I doubt this is true; will any traveler out there who actually sees Al get on their plane drop me an eMail?) Furthermore, Gore is getting an estimate on the film's carbon footprint, so he can offset the energy he's been squandering, and can claim his "promotional" tours are Carbon-Neutral.
He plans to buy the energy offsets from Native Energy. This is an organization of Amercan Indians that plans to build renewable energy facilities someday. They have estimated the cost of those projects, and the amount of energy the projects should produce, and they are pre-selling that energy. Since the renewable energy, could offset future need for carbon dependent energy, Native Energy claims that any money sent to them, is keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. If you pre-purchase as much energy as you are using, you too can claim to be Carbon Neutral, despite the fact that you are belching tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on your way to France.
What exactly is Native energy selling? They've only put up two small windmills so far, so they're not really providing much carbon substitution. Essentially, they are selling forgiveness for using energy. Environmentalists believe that Indians are closer to the earth, so in a way, Al Gore is asking a shaman to talk to the Great Spirit, find out how much he has damaged the Earth, and invoice him.
The Catholics have a word for this, it's called a "Plenary Indulgence." Back in the Middle Ages, there was great concern about the sins being committed by the Crusaders, trying to win back the Holy Land for Christendom. People questioned whether the Crusaders could still get into Heaven, despite the very un-Christian activities required for such a war. In 1099, Pope Urban II came up with a neat idea, the Plenary Indulgence.
The Plenary Indulgence was essentially a "Get-Out-of-Hell-Free Card. An eternal Pardon. No matter what an evil person you were here on earth, the Pope was able to put in a good word for you with Saint Peter. After the noble crusader met his demise, the velvet rope would be pulled back, and he would walk straight through the gates.
Sinners everywhere became interested in getting into Heaven from the back door. Not only was the Indulgence great for soldiers sinning on the battlefield, it was also used as a recruiting tool. Much like the college tuition benefits enjoyed by military personnel today, are enticement to enlist; evil people could get their slates wiped clean, by doing a tour in the Middle East. Eventually the popularity of Indulgences far outstripped the Pope's ability to grant them, so laws of supply and demand came into effect. Indulgences were later only granted to those who contributed to the church. The word, Charlatan, originally referred to a vendor of Indulgences.
By the time of the Protestant Reformation, the selling of Indulgences had become common, and was seen by some of the Reformers as one of the worst abuses of Catholicism. The practice was suspended, but not before the Church was able to amass great fortunes from the faithful.
As more and more "important" people Like Barbra Streisand crusade against Global Warming, the demand for Carbon-Neutralization Indulgences should take off like a well fueled Gulfstream jet. If the gilded palaces of the Vatican are any indication, the selling of indulgences by Native Energy should be quite a lucrative business.

Mixed Messages

Is environmentalism a fad? If recent sales reports from Ford Motor Company are any indication, the answer is resoundingly affirmative.
I've long suspected that most environmentalists are just in it for the fashion. Advocates like Al Gore and Arianna Huffington talk about the need for Americans to stop burning petroleum, but personally prefer to travel in limousines and private jets. Although they claim to support renewable energy, residents of Martha's Vineyard (including environmentalists Walter Cronkite and Robert Kennedy Junior) are currently fighting a proposal to put a windmill farm smack dab in the middle of their unobstructed ocean view.
The latest fad to captivate the rich and hypocritical is the hybrid car. Environmentalist Larry David, actually made his Hybrid Toyota Prius famous by featuring it as a reoccurring character in the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Leftists treat these cars as if they ran on water, and weren't manufactured by huge multinational corporations. They repeat the unsubstantiated claim that hybrids get seventy miles per gallon. They talk about the glorious utopian future, when everybody drives one, and the planet starts cooling off. This despite the fact, that few even understand the technology involved.
What makes the hybrid unique, is two different engines under the hood: one electric, the other gasoline. By recycling the energy, normally burned off at the brakes, back into a battery; and using the electricity stored there to accelerate; the hybrid cars get a little better mileage than their all-gasoline counterparts (about 25% or 8 MPG).
But is the zeal for these vehicles fueled by a sincere concern for the planet? The Prius has been adopted by the left as the "it" car; as much a political statement as transportation. Nothing says, "I Vote Democrat!" more than having a Prius parked in your driveway. I think that Toyota could have sold their 2004 Prius with the Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker permanently affixed under the lacquer, and nobody would have noticed.
Perhaps, people drive hybrids not for their nominal efficiency but for the image. Cars, are traditionally status symbols, and the Prius might be no different. Especially since the car is highly popular in Los Angeles where the vehicle you drive often says more about you, than your resume and headshot.
Evidence of the Prius as a status car, is a recent report that Ford Dealers are overstocked with hybrid vehicles. Ford, which makes a Hybrid version of their popular Escape SUV, has only sold half of it's total manufacturing capacity. Ten percent of all the hybrid SUV vehicles built by Ford, are still sitting on the lots, and some of them have been there for over a year. These sales figures are absolutely lethargic compared to the Prius, which has an average turnaround of nine days (some dealers even have month long waiting lists). Strange that Ford cannot sell Escapes, but Toyota cannot keep Priuses in stock. (Stranger still, that environmentalists would prefer a car built by people who still eat whale-meat, rather than by people who love apple pie.)
I suspect the problem Ford is facing, is that the Hybrid Escape looks exactly like the regular gas guzzling Escape. Conversely the Toyota Prius, looks like nothing else on the road. When you drive a Prius, everybody knows you are driving a hybrid. In a Prius, you look like a caring, compassionate, intelligent, and concerned, citizen of the Earth. When you drive a Hybrid Escape, you still look just like every other red state, gun toting, knuckle dragging, flat earth, ditto-head, SUV driver. This is further evidenced by sluggish sales of Toyota's Hybrid Highlander SUVs, which look exactly like the standard Highlander SUVs.
You wouldn't think that Democrats would fall prey to the sin of vanity. Normally people on the left side of the aisle claim to be above materialist desires, and ascribe that activity to the Republicans. They often make jokes about how Republicans need cars that compensate for some Freudian inadequacy. Perhaps the hybrid is also a compensation for a deficiency, but a deficiency of conscience.
The popularity of the Prius obviously has more to do with keeping up appearances, than saving the environment. What better vehicle is there for Larry David to drive Laurie to the airport, while the private jet is getting fueled up for the trip to Martha's Vineyard?
Truthfully, it's impossible to live a modern lifestyle without impacting the environment. You can't have cars, computers, and air conditioned vegetarian restaurants, without putting CO2 into the atmosphere. I believe that every environmentalist, outside of Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski, has some element of hypocrite in their blood.
Being a good Capitalist American, I do not care that environmentalists have found a car they really like. I do not begrudge anyone their right to a Prius any more than I would object to a middle aged man buying a red two-seat convertible. These are the kinds of choices that make America a great place to live. But I refuse to take any environmentalist seriously, who claims that their choice of vehicle puts them on the moral high ground.

Since appearing to be an environmentalist is more important than being one, I suggest a couple of inventions that are certain to be big money makers:

-A service that delivers a bin of clean recyclable bottles to your driveway every trash day. For just a couple bucks a month, you will get to throw all your recyclables into the trash, without having to endure the sorting or the shame. These recyclables will have all the labels removed and the bottles steam cleaned in an industrial facility. You will have cleanest recyclable bin on the block! Make your neighbors green with envy, by looking greener. Let them all think that you care about the earth more than they do!

-Shingles that look just like solar panels. These shingles look totally off-the-grid, and only cost a fraction of the price. Whereas a real solar roof can cost $50,000 or more, imitation solar shingles would sell for just a fraction more then their asphalt counterparts. An added benefit is that the imitation shingles would be made of organic materials, rather than toxic chemicals like arsenic and silicon that are required for real solar shingles, This will save you from the high toxic waste disposal fees required for real solar cells. So when the fad inevitably dies off, you can just toss them away.

Meet George Jetson

I haven't yet posted a thing this year, and I really wanted my first post of 2006 to be spectacular. But as the weeks slipped by, brilliant thoughts eluded me like trick or treaters past the Neverland ranch. This morning I realized that March starts tomorrow, and perhaps I should post something less than monumental just to get the ball rolling again.
I ran across something that made me think back to my childhood. Growing up, I loved the Jetsons more than the Flintstones, because it was optimistic. Rather than living in a well appointed cave, the Jetsons lived in a marvelous glass saucer high in the sky, that resembled the space needle from the 1963 Worlds Fair in Seattle. They had a flying car, a robotic maid, and a dog that talked just like Scooby Doo.
Whereas the Flintstones needed to have stinky animals around the house to take care of things like can opening and vacuuming, the Jetsons accomplished everything with the push of a button. As a child, I would wonder how many of these marvelous inventions I would see in my lifetime.
Now it is 2006. In the perspective of time, we are as far from the Jetsons, as the Jetsons were from the end of World War I. There are no flying cars, no talking dogs, and only one glass saucer house out in California that has been used more as a movie set than a domicile (and was actually built BEFORE the Jetsons aired). The closest you can get to a robot maid is the Roomba®, a battery operated sweeper that crawls across your living room like a turtle.
But there is one other thing that we do have: Treadmills. The last scene of the Jetsons was George Jetson walking Astro on a treadmill outside of the house. I believe it was meant as irony; that walking the dog, a simple task most people find pleasant, would be done on an expensive, monotonous. stationary rubber belt.
I remember thinking of this, several years back, while I was walking by a fitness club on a lovely spring Day in Chicago, seeing a dozen people walking on treadmills, and a dozen more waiting for them to finish so they could take their turn. I wondered what was so attractive about walking in place inside of a sweaty building, on a day when sunshine and fresh air was plentiful. At least half the joy of walking is being outside, and seeing the scenery slowly pass.
The last straw was this article today in Reuters. Apparently the Jetsons prediction has finally come true:
For those who do not remember the cartoon, the belt malfunctions when Astro starts chasing a cat, and George gets trapped, begging for his wife Jane to "Stop this Crazy thing!" I couldn't agree more.