The story of the electric car is a long and tortured one, which I won't go into here, but it's worth learning about. Here's a teaser from the link above: "most popular roadworthy battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have been withdrawn from the market and have been destroyed by their manufacturers. The major US automobile manufacturers have been accused of deliberately sabotaging their electric vehicle production efforts. Oil companies have used patent protection to keep modern battery technology from use in BEVs."

If that doesn't pique your interest, nothing will. (And it would surprise me, as most of the people who I know have read this blog are the type to be concerned about such things.)

Anyway, it occurred to me in simplest terms today why we positively, urgently need to have electric cars available to us right now: because it would give us true energy independence.

Now, wait a minute, you might say. Electric cars still require lots of energy. We still have to generate all that electricity, and most of our supply comes from environmentally nasty things like coal, which is devastating to mine and poisonous to burn. That's true, and an ugly choice to have to initially make.

But what sets electricity apart from gasoline is that there are lots of ways to get it. If we keep driving gas-powered cars, even gas hybrids, we're still dependent on one unique fuel. We're still handcuffed to petroleum. It's the bottleneck on so many of our cultural advances. It ties us down economically, and it also keeps us tied uncomfortably close to Middle East politics and power struggles. Without our current great dependence on oil, we'd have had so much less contact with and involvement in the Arab world, and it's not a stretch to say that things like 9/11/01 could have been prevented, and certainly our current war too. Most likely, the Middle East would also be happier for our reduced meddling.

With electricity, we would control how it's produced. Coal would generate most of it at first, but all manner of alternative energies will grow and take on more of the load. Wind, water, solar--all of these things have been proven to be sufficient to keep electric cars charged. The result, whether with dirty coal or clean fuels, would be that our country would be independent in the area of our single biggest energy consumption. We'd be able to manufacture both our own cars and our own power. Oil consumption would drop steeply, and we'd be much less beholden to Saudi Arabia and OPEC. The powers in our own government with destructive ties to Big Oil--like the Bush family--would have less influence and less ability to get us into conflicts like our current quagmire.

Don't be fooled by counter-arguments--whatever limitations these cars might have, the opportunities they'd create for us would be immensely greater. The technology is out there right now, and has been for years. Toyota's electric RAV4 dates back to 1997 and the cost to run it was equivalent to getting mileage of 165 miles per gallon.

At the end of the day, we should have the choice. Behind-the-scenes forces in the oil and auto industries have made the choice for us, withholding this technology artificially and against the demand in the free market. Our current type of consumption is getting us into danger, involving us in wars, eating away at our paychecks, and leaving us beholden to foreign interests. In one easy fell swoop, we could turn the tables.

If you agree and want to share that opinion with the auto companies, here are direct links to contact information for some big ones:

Ford
Toyota
GM
Honda
Subaru

Labels: Culture, Environment

I haven't written as much about football this year as before, and that's partially because I've watched a lot less of it this season, due to being distracted by other things. I regret that to an extent, but have tuned back in in time to catch the last part of the season and playoffs. And while not on par with the classic seasons of the previous couple years, it's been interesting.

This week, the division playoffs set the stage for next week's "final four", which should be a doozy of a weekend. In the NFC, the expected contenders came out on top, while in the AFC, the expected changing of the guard was put down in dramatic fashion.

Indianapolis 15, Baltimore 6
I hadn't seen much of the Ravens this year, but had heard all the hype. While it's hard to argue with the number-one defense in the league, I had a feeling this game would go this way. I felt that the Colts simply have too much exceptional capability, and that it would find a way to overcome the opposition. I was really impressed with the Colts' defense last week against the hapless Chiefs. They weren't so much pushing Kansas City around as they were outsmarting them, playing in just the right way. And that seems to be what this team has changed into this year. Their stats are down, they're scoring much less, Payton Manning's had a mundane year, but they're finding a way--they're doing whatever it takes to win. This game is a great example--Manning had no touchdowns and 2 interceptions, yet they win. On both sides of the ball, they've become more resourceful and more responsive to adversity. So despite stumbling late in the season, they're suddenly looking very hard to beat.

New Orleans 27, Philadelphia 24
For all the talk of the miraculous Saints, I found myself rooting for Philadelphia in this game. Unlike division-mates such as the pathetic Cowboys and self-destructive Giants, the Eagles have been playing the kind of football you can get behind: tough, disciplined, scrappy, and clever. Oft-maligned backup quarterback Jeff Garcia saved the season for the team and came close to winning here, but the Saints just slipped out of reach. These two teams are probably the only ones left in the NFC who really deserve to be here--on merit alone, this should have been the conference championship game. The Saints worked hard and got some lucky breaks, and are playing a dynamic, fun style of football that should send them into the Super Bowl.

Chicago 27, Seattle 24
Chicago played a pretty good game, but I still think they're much worse than their record and their playoff position. All they really had to do to get home-field advantage in the troubled NFC was win the weakest division in the NFL. They've been spotty on offense, they backed into the playoffs with some embarrassing late-season games, and their only obstacle to the conference championship game was the injury-riddled Seahawks. I've had low expectations for Seattle, but have been impressed with how they've stepped up in the playoffs.

They made me groan, however, with what looked to me like a series of bad play calls late in the game that, in my opinion, handed the game to Chicago. Late in regulation, they were moving the ball and threatening to get into field-goal range for what would likely be a game-winning kick. Then, in one series of downs, it all fell apart. First, after a great first down, they let time roll off the clock and instead of calling a time out, when they had some to spare, they spike the ball and lose a down. Needing less than 10 yards to get into field-goal range, they take a long pass downfield on the next play, which fell incomplete. Why they did this baffles me--time's running out, all they need is a field goal, and they're needlessly shooting for the end zone. That leaves them with 3rd and 10, out of field goal range. Next, a bobbled snap by quarterback Matt Hasselbeck results in a loss of yardage, leaving them with 4th and 19, on which they fail to convert. To me this sequence sabotaged the game for them. They were playing like a team that needed to get into the end zone, when all they needed to do was pick up 10 yards. They could have run and thrown a couple short passes, but instead they squandered a down with a spike, overreached by going long downfield, and then muffed a couple plays. All I could think was, "those damned Bears get lucky again", and they did.

New England 24, San Diego 21
If any game was supposed to represent a changing of the guard, this was it. The multi-Super Bowl champion Patriots, aging and depleted in key positions, were set to hand the mantle over to the surging Chargers--winners of 10 games in a row, best record in the NFL, playing at home, with record-breaking MVP running back LaDainian Tomlinson. One of the brilliant things about the Patriots has always been how well they're able to figure out the other team, and then take them apart. I knew they'd be able to figure out San Diego, but wasn't sure if they still had the talent in key positions to pull it off. That's been their challenge this season. And for a lot of the game, it looked like they were a step behind the Chargers. But somehow, they managed to hang close, and the Chargers never really took off. This was a game the Chargers needed to not be close, because to leave the door open for the Patriots is disastrous. San Diego now has 8 months to ponder that lesson.

Predictions for next week:

New Orleans at Chicago
This should be quite a game. If Chicago's inconsistent QB Rex Grossman doesn't play well, this will be over quickly--the Bears' defense will not win this alone. If he does play well, it could be interesting. The Saints have some great offensive weapons, but this weekend the Eagles exposed some weaknesses that the Bears will try to exploit (look for how many times the Saints' new star Reggie Bush is taken down in the backfield, before he can break out, as a measure of their success). Overall I see this one going a similar way to the Colts-Ravens matchup (albeit with more scoring)--in the end, the Saints will have too many weapons for the Bears defense to handle, and their capability to create big plays will be the difference. The Bears are a good team, but not a great one, and their luck runs out here.

New England at Indianapolis
Who'd have thought that with the super-defensive Ravens and super-offensive Chargers standing in the way, we'd see this classic matchup again. But somehow this just feels like the right two teams to be left playing. This one is really hard for me to call. I still feel like the Colts have figured something out that gives them the edge on any given day, but Payton Manning cannot make the kinds of errors he's been making the last few weeks. The one advantage of his mundane play is how the rest of his team has stepped up to fill in the gap--that will be required here, too.

Since they did exactly what they needed to to ground the Chargers, it's also hard to pick against the Patriots--the Colts haven't been paying as well as the Chargers, and the Pats will have some great momentum and can-do belief coming in here. Home field favors the Colts, but it won't suffice in this game. If Manning has a good day and doesn't turn the ball over, the Colts will win--it'll be just a little too much for the Pats to handle. If he struggles, the Pats will ultimately have the edge by being able to keep it close and win on strategy. One interesting wrinkle this time around is kicker Adam Vinatieri, who won many close games for the Patriots but who's now with the Colts. Something tells me this will be a close one that may come down to his foot again.

My brain says the Patriots will win, but my heart is saying the Colts have what it takes this time.

Labels: Sport

In another chapter in our deepening, chaotic mess of a campaign in Iraq, we hurriedly pushed the execution of former dictator Saddam Hussein. What the hurry was, I'm still not sure, but it certainly managed to get the job done before Democrats took over control of Congress.

I'm sure there was much celebrating among those formerly oppressed by the man, as well as those neoconservative elements in our country who have long seen him as an obstacle to their idealized plans for the Middle East (all of which involve someone else's children fighting and dying).

But, no matter how many horrible things he's done or ordered others to do, when I saw him weep at the verdict of death in court, when I saw a photo of the execution scene itself--with him being roughly handled by masked thugs, taunted, and hanged in a dingy, dark room--I felt sick.

And I felt sadness for the suffering of this man--no matter how much of it he's caused, is it not the causing of suffering which is his crime, and yet we're doing it in turn to punish him? His crimes include killing thousands of innocent citizens, imprisoning opponents without just cause or trials, and torturing his enemies. Our country has done all of those things, on a grand scale, in the holy quest to unseat him. We've killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq during these almost four years of war. We've imprisoned thousands of men without any proof of cause, without any trials or due process. We've tortured many of these same men, for information or just for fun, humiliating them, defiling their religion, threatening or even harming their loved ones, sometimes in front of them.

In short, in an attempt to show the world how bad this man and his reign have been, we've done all the same things that made him a criminal in the first place.

But, unlike him, we're not forced to take any responsibility for it.

And let's not forget an equally important factor: that we created Saddam Hussein. I've detailed the sordid history already, but in a nutshell, we pulled Saddam out of relative obscurity as a young man, supported his ambitions to achieve our own ends, and then kept doing so all the way up to his fateful invasion of Kuwait. And that includes his infamous use of poison gas--we funded him and provided him with military intelligence, knowing full well that he would use the illegal chemical weapons against our enemies at the time, the Iranians. It's all true.

(And, in another nice touch, the Shiites we were so worried about back in the Iran-Iraq war days are in charge not only in Iran, but now also in Iraq, where they were elected democratically--replacing a secular dictator with a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.)

So, in the end, the execution of Hussein is little more than a mafia hit--a boss taking out a loyal lackey who was getting out of hand, getting too violent. We pulled his strings right from the start, we helped build him up and shielded him from accountability. That infamous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? It's from one of two diplomatic visits in late 1983/early 1984, and the second one came after Saddam used his poison gas. That's right, after he committed that heinous crime, we declared the way open for diplomatic ties with Iraq.

It was his reward for doing our dirty work. And now, after his usefulness is ended, he's being cast off, as so many others were during his reign.

He's another casualty, like all our dead soldiers, like all the many times more dead civilians, in a game of power controlled by rich white men in expensive suits who never have to take responsibility, who never have to get their hands dirty, who never have to care.

So that's why, when I saw the pathetic figure of Saddam just before death, I cared.

Labels: Culture, Politics