Commuter Benefits. Just in case you thought you're being ripped off by not getting a tax credit for your transit costs I'd like to remind you that the federal Government already gives a tax credit for:
* Use of mass transit.
* Paid parking costs.

It's about time they gave something to cyclists. I think I'd be happier if they ditched all of the incentives and invested in building useful bus systems instead. The last thing we need is more subsidized downtown car parking.

It's Worse!

I looked at their findings.

• Liberals score an average of 49%; conservatives score 48%.

Nowhere did the quiz ask me my political views. Yet it somehow categorized me?

• Only 21% know that the phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people” comes from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

That's because it's not important that it comes from here. It's an obvious derision of two hundred years of political theory which some might say culminates in the US Constitution. The important part is that they understand this purpose of Government.

Less than one in five know that the phrase “a wall of separation” between church and state comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Almost half incorrectly believe it can be found in the Constitution.

The important thing is that over half know it's not out of the US Constitution. Where it came from is trivia. This is a good result, a surprisingly good result.


They must accompany this quiz with a questionnaire with their other information elsewhere. Then they roll the results in with everyone's results and come to negative conclusions whenever they possible can. Booooo.

We Don't Know History!

Oh noes! We've forgotten our heritage. Did you know that when asked this question:
33) If taxes equal government spending, then:
A. government debt is zero
B. printing money no longer causes inflation
C. government is not helping anybody
D. tax per person equals government spending per person
E. tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent

Some of us don't know that the answer is D! That could be because the question is worded terribly. I actually answered "A" because with progressive taxes "D" only makes sense in the average and I couldn't find "the budget is balanced."

They also ask these:
7) What was the source of the following phrase: “Government of the people, for the people, by the people”?

15) The phrase that in America there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state appears in:

27) Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government’s centralized planning because:

Which tells me that we have a conservative think tank asking annoyingly tricky questions. I'll be honest: I missed #33 and #7. Fortunately for me, old Abe wasn't wrong when he said that in the Gettysburg address.

Let me show you the first sentence of the US Constitution (highly abridged): "We the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Well, I guess he had one thing wrong. It's Government by the people for the pandas!


The quiz has enough sensible questions to trick you into thinking that its results will be important. In the end though it's a politically charged constitutional history quiz, instead of a civics quiz.

I propose that they add some things which matter to a citizen outside of politics. I'm not sure what they'd be: I tried and I just game up with a different bias then they did ;).

The Media Hates Palin - And Newt Gingrich

It's a load of crap. The media is unbelievably agnostic to Palin. They seem to refuse to criticize her but instead criticize McCain for hiding her.

Let's look at the first four results on news.google.com for 'Palin.'

A less-popular Sarah Palin heads to debate:
The article starts to talk about how Palin initially helped the McCain campaign but then disappeared off the media map (probably has something to do with her refusal to talk to the media -- because they're so mean).

The article then cites a poll which indicates that some folks think Palin isn't ready to be President if McCain dies.

The article then has some quotes from regular people about Palin.

This is totally off limits. They talked about a valid issue (a candidates experience) and then went on to ask voters what they thought of the candidate. The media is being absolutely terrible to this woman! Shame on you Los Angelas Times!.

McCain's 'Stop Sarah Palin' strategy working like a charm, polls show:
This one is even worse. It accuses McCain of keeping Palin out of the lime light. That's terrible! I mean, yes, she's been out of the lime light. And, yes, it's McCain's campaign. And, yes, he does tend to interrupt her questioning in interviews (Curric interview). But there's no reason to point out the obvious!

This article should be talking about how she doesn't sleep around on her husband! How she can camp, hike, and shoot good too! She's a good person, of course she can run the US Senate! (Okay, she has had it out with big oil -- and won: She probably can command the senate).

Political Wisdom: Sarah Palin's Big Moment Arrives:
This one really criticizes her. Apparently she sucked it up pretty bad with Curric (she did) and the pundits are wondering how well she'll do in the debate.

This is actually ridiculous. I really hate it when pundits get too far into the debates before they happen.


McCain dogged by questions over Palin:
This is about McCain about Palin. Yea, he's defensive. No wonder the media is all over it. He comes off as if he's been cornered. They're pressing it. Way to go McCain: You were a solid candidate before you started spouting crap about Obama's "naivity."

Then you start talking about working with Palin on energy issues. I hope Palin knows something about energy, but I suspect she knows a lot about oil (specifically how to tax oil companies) and not much about other, more realistic, forms of energy.


As I watch this thing unfold I'm seeing McCain calling names, spouting half truths about war funding, blaming the media (like a child), and failing to present rational thought in his first debate. I'm watching Obama talk about the future, talk about his plans, and present important information about why he made controversial votes. Biden and Palin are hardly covered (not a surprise).
I liked McCain. Until I saw his political ads. I liked Obama. I still like Obama.

We've got big problems folks. Demand that the candidates shut up about each other and talk about themselves and their plans on: Energy, economy, and security. Everything else is secondary because those three things could leave us speaking a foreign language if they're not handled well.

Now I'm listening to Newt Gingrich talk about shale oil in the rockies. Although NPR reported that it could be pulled for as little as $33 a barrel, it just hasn't happened. Admittedly that is probably because oil prices were below that until about 6 years ago. All reports I've heard indicate that getting this oil is barely better than 1:1: That's one barrel of oil worth of energy for one barrel of oil worth of product.
Current production is supposedly around 20:1. Production fifty years ago was more like 90:1. Oil is getting harder to get: And it's not surprising. We took the easy stuff first. Duh.

Everyone Should Watch This

Pelosi Speech.

This bailout is messed up. And I'm sad to see a President fail to lead the people but instead be "disappointed."

I don't know if we should do it or not, but I do know it shouldn't be unregulated: That'd be stupid and naive.

Global Warming Petition Project

Shockingly I first heard of this today, in todays editorial section. I thought, "yea, right, I wonder how long it takes to complete the web form."

Well, it's not a web form. Over half of their respondents have been required to mail in their signature (their early signers didn't have to, I presume they could e-mail). 31,000 "scientists" have signed it! 9,000 even have PhD's! Okay, so I'm not obsessed with academic degrees, but if you don't have a PhD then what kind of scientist are you signing this? A student? Well, that's fine. Often students have some great ideas.

Well, really the breakdown looks like most of these folks aren't scientists by any normal definition. They're working folks in industry. They're not signing because of that, but they're not publishing papers either.

Still, 9,000 PhD's is quite a few. Certainly many of them are what you'd call "scientists."

If only they were terribly serious about what they signed. Scientific American, 2006:

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers -- a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

What I find interesting is that they've gotten 7,600 PhD's to sign this in two years? Hmm, I doubt that. If only there were an example of fraud. 2005, Hawaii Reporter:

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.).

Now, if you want to find out how the scientific community feels about global warming then ask its database: Published scholarly works which have been peer reviewed.

Peter Norvig's summary is my favorite due to his writing style. The important part of it is his references to the two scholarly meta studies on the subject. Norvig's is a casual and small sample size replication of theirs. Norvig is no climatoligist, so his study should be taken with a grain of salt. Oreskes and Peiser are the papers to consider.


I've listened to scientists who disagree with global warming, or at least some part of it. Some have some great points (Al Gore blew things out of proportion by showing the projected worst case scenarios). Their disagreement is hardly stunning and usually laced with implicit agreement that we are causing some change. Search you-tube for these. They're interesting.

Global warming isn't religion and it's not a you verse me political issue. It's a problem of debatable scale with debatable methods for battling it, and the debate isn't for you and I: Most of us think we can't fix our computer or car, we're far too inept to discuss something truly complex.

What is for you and me is a debate of what you and I should be doing and shouldn't be doing.

David Feherty: You Rule

The Man Got Hit By a Truck.

And he's livin' on to say awesome stuff like this:

In an 11-day period in June, eight cyclists were struck by Dallas-area motorists. Three of the riders were killed, and one did time in intensive care. The others had “minor injuries” like mine. Ha! Lucky them! Later that month, I witnessed one of Dallas’ finest writing up the cyclist in front of me for going through a three-way stop at a walking pace, an act of gross stupidity by the Police Department that, given the events of earlier that month, further highlighted the astonishingly arrogant and erroneous thinking of city and state officials.

I think that when you get hit by a truck you instantly become right about a lot of things people would have previously ignored. Especially about things which concern traffic safety.

It could just be me, but I doubt it.

Voting Present

Obama's "Present" Voting Record.

Interesting article. The main takeaway is this: Obama voted "present" 130 times over 8 years within the Illinois legislature. He voted about 4,000 times in that office.

So, the "present" votes issue is not an issue. It's spin.

Russ Feingold

Wikipedia Article.

Why didn't this guy run for president? He's clearly the best choice for president from the democratic party.
1. He voted against Iraq. He called it right, from the beginning.
2. He voted against the Patriot Act. He didn't sacrifice his ideals to avoid being labelled anti-american. He voted the way every US Congressmen should have voted.
3. He's frugal with government money. Can you say more conservative than the typical republican candidate (for president)?
4. He's truly anti-lobbying. Well, that's just a good thing.
5. He gives back his pay increases, literally gives them back to the US treasury. Keeping campaign promises even when it costs him personally. Wow. I'm sure he has plenty of money though.
6. He's for universal health care. I don't think you could be a democratic candidate and not hold this position today.

Before the nominations were over I liked both candidates (Obama and McCain). Now that they're finished Obama is for drilling and McCain is an idiot. It can only get worse before November. Maybe we're supposed to ignore everything they say between the nomination and the election and vote based on what they said before that?

Holding Marketing to a Higher Standard

As I watched this morning, on the "news," about former. Sen. Edwards extra marital affair I had a thought: When our politicians cheat and lie we get really upset with them. Even if it's only in their personal lives. They're not taking money behind our backs and legislating our money away from us. They're not telling us their bill does one thing when it's actually the first step toward fascism. They're cheating on their wives. They're lying about their life experience.

But, when a company lies to us we go unphased. We actually let their excuses go to work in our minds.

Remember the lead paint thing? It hasn't been very long. Fisher Price, Mattel, etc. Do you still buy toys from these companies? If you collectively said no then I know you're lying. They're still selling lots of new toys on the promise that they've stopped. And I'm sure they have.

So, of course, your children are safe. Lead paint is the only hidden danger a toy can have. In case you don't click links: That was sarcasm.

I'm going to make a very strong statement: The companies which recalled, voluntarily or not, toys with lead paint: Those companies should go out of business. This should happen because we consumers should act in our best interest to punish these companies and put fear in the rest of producers. Fear of deceiving a powerful consumer base.

We won't though. And because we won't:
* Our products are made in other countries. Do you care about American labor? Don't buy things from other countries. It has an effect.
* Sometimes using what is essentially slave labor.
* Our products are often made cheaply, with safety as a secondary concern where it's not legislated.
* We need lemon laws. Since we won't act to protect ourselves from complex products which are unapparently junk the Government has to give us laws letting us sue when we've been had.
* We need anti trust laws. Want to know the efficient way to kill a monopoly? Stop buying their products. Most of these monopolies make new products or unnecessary products.
* Our producers lie to us readily on national television. When they're caught lying they apologize quietly on the news. I see no Mattel ads apologizing for lead paint.


The free market and capitalism has been entrusted to us to watch over and we've sold it to marketing departments. Many with much more psychological knowledge than myself will tell us we can't help it. Frankly, I don't care if we can help it. It's still our fault. We're still paying for it.

Tom Casady Rocks

I enjoyed his recent post on cycling.

This is why Lincoln, NE is a great town :).

Fighting Dress

I read a letter to the editor today about how young men aren't dressing properly. Since I can't find the letter in the newspaper's online version I'll just have to attempt to recreate his essay:

[paraphrased]
I wear a suit everywhere. Anytime I go out. Other men don't. They wear muscle shirts. I think they look silly, they compliment my suit but I doubt they understand it. Everyone should wear a suit. All sensible men listen: Wear a suit.
[/paraphrased]

I've been a long standing proponent of abolishing the ridiculous garb we know as the suit. It's fine for those special occasions: Weddings, funerals, your execution. For anything else it's an attack on your fellow man.

Let's look at why.

Dress, like so much of our appearance, is relative. Your clothes look good if their fit is better, their style is newer, and their neatness is more uniform. Notice the use of the comparative. It's very intentional. You don't look good because you're wearing nice clothes, we're all wearing nice clothes: If you don't believe me, take a trip to the third world. You look good because you're wearing nicer clothes, that's why you stick out above the others.

So what happens if everyone wears clothes like yours? Do you still look the same? Certainly! Do you still stick out: No.

The point is, if most of us wear suits then we all have to wear suits. Otherwise you'd look like a slob.


So why don't we want that?

1. You can't do anything in a suit. They're not only restrictive of movement, they also don't remove heat from the body effectively. So, try walking 3 miles on a hot day in your suit. If you survive the heat, come talk to me. (Note: Using a $3,000 suit made of space age wool blends is cheating, but if you'd like to do that I don't mind. It's your money.)

2. You certainly can't bicycle in a suit. Which should matter to us utility riders who think the bicycle is a partial solution to our energy and pollution problems. I guess we just all have to ride the bus in our suits.

3. They're expensive. A comfortable suit costs $500. A comfortable suit in the summer costs a fortune.

4. They're expensive to clean. Anybody know what dry cleaning costs? I do. 6 years ago it cost more than a few dollars to clean a simple white shirt. I'd rather spend my money on something useful, like a weather shell.

So let's not bring the suit back. It's just one more way for the rich to rub poverty in the face of the lower middle class.

Why Congress Is Broken

"19th Century solutions to 20th century problems"

Ladies and gentlemen, I propose to you that this is what's wrong with congress. Now, don't jump the gun, go ahead and listen to what Mr. Patrick McHenry has to say. It's a very interesting point that he makes. Let me paraphrase:

I didn't read the bill, I just glanced at it. But it says something about bikes, and bikes are old technology. I'm pretty sure most Americans think old things don't work anymore, so I'm gonna say that's why bikes can't possibly do anything. You see, only things invented this century work. What? Oh, someone is telling me people still ride bikes. Um, they're retarded, they might as well ride horses.

Did I get that pretty close? Basically he just spits out a bunch of rhetoric intended to bring out your beliefs that bikes are for recreation and make the utilitarian use of them sound ridiculous. It's really very smart: Assuming the folks he's talking too are stupid. Luckily for us, our House knew enough to look at the other 10 things in this bill, and maybe even consider that many folks successfully use the individual transportation device (which we fondly call a bicycle) already.

It's apparently been stalled in the senate. 50-44. I haven't been able to track down the votes, but I'm sure Obama and McCain were absent. Oh well, if they're not lying about their green stances that would only have made it 50-46.

Maybe I missed something when I read this bill. But here's what I got out of it:
* A tax credit for building wind farms.
* An individual income tax credit for solar panels (think, those things people put on their roofs).
* An extension of the tax credit for biodiesel
* $20 a month, given through the employer, for commuting by bike

The tax credit for wind farms and solar panels are probably the big items. Home solar panels are already considered to be cost effective, but the period you must wait is something like 8 years. The tax credit would shorten that period, and make the benefits more immediate. This should make these panels more popular, which would decrease the load on power grids. Here in Lincoln, NE this is no big deal: LES is cheap and supposedly has room to expand. But Californians might think about this differently.

Making room in the power grid is going to become more important as electric chargeable cars come to market in a serious way.

As for wind energy, it seems that many states are doing this anyway. It might just be too little and too late.

And the cycling part is just a minor item. It's not much money. However, this will provide one more immediate incentive for riding to work. It doesn't sound like you have to be a everyday rider, but a most of the time rider: Hopefully, just an every fair-weather day rider is enough.
$240 a year should be obvious to most consumers as enough to pay for their bike over a few years (assuming they don't qualify for many of those months and bought a decent bike).

But this bill must struggle, because there are people who think that rhetoric has something to do with reason. People like Representative Patrick McHenry.