Thursday, December 20, 2007

This is your brain on drugs

Or, rather, the brains of our state legislature in St. Paul. Apparently not satisfied with two different groups of civil engineers investigating the collapse of the I-35 bridge across the Mississippi, our legis-critters have appointed a law firm to (in part) "examine a $2 million state contract with an engineering firm to assist the NTSB as it pores over sections of the bridge in its search for a cause".

In other words, they're going to "assist" the investigation by micromanaging it, despite having little expertise in the subject at hand. I'm guessing that their next step is going to be to hire a prominent civil engineering firm to evaluate how well the state is disciplining lawyers.

Also your brain on drugs; Congress passes, and the President signs, a bill that mandates the massive expansion of corn ethanol, mandates that billions of gallons per year of ethanol must be produced from other sources that are not currently feasible, bans incandescent light bulbs, and requires passenger cars to meet 35mpg by 2020.

Once again, Congress clearly demonstrates its contempt for that little concept called "reality" and more or less declares war on all those who like to "eat" and "get somewhere with your stuff." Remember this next November, and vote accordingly.

Sorry, Congress, but it's not acceptable that the entire corn crop be used to produce Snuffy Smith's corn licker, and neither is it acceptable for you to demand I put my family in a Civic.

Oh, and here's your car of the future. 57mpg (51mpg with new rules) two-seater, 58 hp with 0-60 in a mere 12 seconds, and a one star safety rating. Congressmen get theirs first, I hope.

7 comments:

Marklark said...

Where does it say that the CRX HF had a one-star rating? It may very well, but I wasn't able to parse it out of the article...

Marklark said...

Oh, and I do detest the lameness of our ducky President trying to make nice with the watermelons in Congress just to make his legacy more green...

Is he trying to be more fruity than RINOy? :^)

Bike Bubba said...

It doesn't say specifically, but if it got more than two, I'd be very surprised. F=ma.

pentamom said...

BAN incandescent light bulbs?

You gotta be kidding me.

Okay, when are they going to send me my check to pay for the cost of disposing those highly toxic CFLs?

Or should we just go back to the environmentally friendly practice of WHALING to light our homes?

I'm being snarky here, not paranoid, but the next logical step is the one-child family -- how else are you going to transport a family in a 35 mpg vehicle?

It never ceases to amaze me (though it really should) how these people think that the laws of physics are subject to government regulation.

Bike Bubba said...

Not only are CF bulbs hard to dispose of safely, they don't work at all below about 20 below. That's an issue where I live for sure.

But don't worry; white light LED bulbs can get you the same light as a fifty cent incandescent for only $250. No, I am not making this up.

Marklark said...

I'm thinking that someone out there saw the LED lights coming and wanted to dump the CFLs in order to recoup their investments.

I really don't think that Wal-Mart started pushing the CFLs out of the kindness of their hearts or environmental concerns. If you do, please talk to someone who loves you before buying bridges or land in Florida... ;^)

I could be wrong...

Bike Bubba said...

I've heard that allegation, but LED lights are nowhere near; getting 1100 lumens (60 watt equivalent) costs something like $200, while doing so with CFs is about $5 or less. Which do you choose?