In Japanese, 'Arigato(u)' is actually an apology of sorts. To Americans, it is a corollary to 'thank you' but in Japanese it doubles as 'sorry to have caused you trouble'. As a culture, the Japanese acknowledge the dificulty related to incurring personal debt to someone by giving an unsolicited favor.
It turns out that my idea of favors and the uncomfortable debt they incur is very much like the Japanese.
This Holiday season, I would rather not have people giving me gifts when I am in no position to return the favor, and it's the same reason I demand people not buy me birthday gifts.
At Christmas, since most people I know are cultural Christmas-revelers, I am placed in the unsavory situation of spending money I'd rather not spend on an equally-valued gift, or not returning a gift and sitting there, like a stooge, collecting gifts when I have nothing to give or would rather not participate in the exchange. This is even worse if I have specifically stated that I am not participating in gift-exchange, like I did for 2009 as someone struggling to find work in this bad economy.
However, nobody ever asks others to opt-in or out! There is no list, like a football pool, of who actually wants to participate in this exchange.
People simply include you if they feel like it, and often, you're left surprised and ashamed when some peripheral person you didn't anticipate Ninja-gifts® you with nothing to give in return. Even if people act like they don't care, those who buy gifts generally expect to get them back, right?
People need to realize that not everyone is in good financial standing at this time of year (or any time of year depending on your situation). Insisting on gift-giving puts a burden on others, and people need the option to opt-out of the Christmas or any gift-swapping holiday as needed. Better yet, assume everyone is opting out unless they opt-in.
My philosophy is similar to the philosophy of leaving others alone rather than doing something to them and expecting the same in return; 'Do *not* unto others as you would have them *not* do unto you'. This bit of non-invasive philosophy predates the common Christian 'Golden Rule' which is, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', as it espouses leaving others alone rather than foisting your sensibilites on them. If my neighbors love deep-tissue massage at 5am after a 10 mile run, leave me the Hell out of it! I like to sleep in, and find massage rather annoying (especially if I don't know the person).
Last Christmas, I was faced with a huge property tax bill, slow work, potential employers who don't respond because they're on holiday vacations and the same bills as usual. The last thing I want to do is participate in a farce where essentially, I have to buy stuff for other people but am spending generally equal amounts of money knowing what others insist on spending on me every year. Add to this the fact that most of us don't really know what the other needs. If I need my electric bill paid, I certainly cannot put this on a Christmas list! Instead, I'll be forced to give a list of items I don't really need, when in reality I often need cold, hard cash at the end of the year, especially when I am unemployed.
I would much prefer a situation where people buy *themselves* something with as much or as little value as they choose. Then, everyone can meet up for family-friend time, do a show and tell with the actual item, pictures, video, etc. and have a stress free holiday season. Why on Earth do people partake in the massive lemming-fest that is holiday shopping? Why would people choose, willingly, to do a ton of shopping for people when everyone else is doing the same thing, guaranteeing maximum headaches, crowds, annoyance and stress? It's kind of how people all go to work at the same time, clogging the freeways and spending the maximum time possible in traffic.
If people just bought themselves something of as little or much value as they're comfortable, we'd still get time with family/friends but we'd avoid the uncomfortable shopping, wrapping, gift-exchange, the feigned happiness and stress.
We'd avoid the hassle of shopping or getting the wrong gift, clothing the wrong color, style, size, etc. as well as the ever-uncomfortable store-return situation where a receipt is needed. If people simply bought themselves something, they could order it online or shop at their leisure and simply discuss it over dinner with enthusiasm, or even share it with others if it's something that can be brought to a dinner-gathering. This would also be a time people would know they can buy themselves something nice, and it might be a goal which could help people focus and save money the rest of the year.
The only exception I would make to this rule are for kids. Get the kids something (if you can), since they often have no money of their own. I don't wanna be a Scrooge, but I'd like 'opt-out' as the default for adults at least.
The general idea is, if you're in a particularly bad financial spot, buy very little for yourself and nothing for others apart from your time, company and good-cheer, knowing your electric will be on when you get home. If you're doing great, buy yourself something awesome, or even buy someone else something knowing that nothing is expected in return.
Gift-giving should never be considered mutual and should always be an opt-in. The default should be, opt-out, with the understanding that you should never expect anything, but buy something for someone with the clear idea that you shouldn't expect anything in return.
Isn't that what giving is all about?
I opted out of Christmas for 2009, and yes, some people *still* got me gifts. But, I had put others on notice that I was too cash-poor to participate in this exchange, nor do I want to be obligated in years hence. If I am making boatloads of cash, it might be different. Until the next holiday, I will close with this;
'Arigato'. Sorry to have caused you trouble. ;)
-dB-
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
President Obama Was Raised by an Atheist
Despite the claims that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim, he claims to be a Christian and we should take him at his word, unless Christians around the world want to be called 'radical Muslims' too even if they insist on being Christians. By definition, a Christian merely needs to accept the divinity of Christ to qualify, but we know how difficult it is to get two Christians to agree on anything, right?
The more interesting fact here is that Obama's mother, who chiefly raised him during the absence of his father, is an atheist. According to Obama's book where he speaks about his mother's view on religion, she took an anthropological view...exposing him to many different religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and even the Bhagavad Gita, but remained herself a non-believer. Apparently, his father was a non-practicing Muslim as well and possibly an atheist, but it's clear to see the influence Obama's non-believing mother had on him with regard to his wider view on religion and the makeup of American voters.
Why do I say this? Obama is the first president in my 41-year living memory who actually acknowledges non-believers, and more than once. While I never heard him mention our significant majority in his presidential campaign, he did mention 'non-believers' in his inaugural speech, after he was elected. I can understand why he'd be a bit coy about mentioning his support for us until he had won the election, considering he also wanted to attract moderate-Christian voters and atheists are still a hated/misunderstood minority in America.
I am sure President Obama has to know that while non-believers are the fastest growing group among all the religious people in the U.S. We are a compelling audience which most-likely supports Obama among other socially-progressive candidates, and are not likely to be Bush or McCain/Palin supporters.
Obama recognized non-believers in the recent Ft.Hood, Texas tragedy in a recent weekly radio address, "They are Christians and Muslims, Hews and Hindus and nonbelievers."
Yes, we're here and Obama knows it. At last count, conservative estimates place atheists around 16% of the American population, which includes those who self-identify as non-religious or agnostic according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This sizeable minority outnumbers Catholics, gay, black and Jewish voters. It's a population that a savvy president should not ignore, and it seems Obama is one of the more savvy.
This is a big change from Bush Sr., who had this to say when questioned by atheist radio personality, Rob Sherman;
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
Well actually, Bush is wrong (surprise). This is not one nation under god. That national motto and relgious vandalism on our currency was a recent development, only appearing on paper money in 1957, though it was on coins earlier. Before this divisive religious slogan, our money read, 'E Pluribus Unem' which means, 'From Many, One'. This is a much more inclusive slogan for *all* Americans.
In 2012, I suspect that the atheist population will be even bigger, maybe around 18% of Americans or more, especially since today's youth are leaving religion in droves are aren't sufficiently inculcated in the first-place. When nutters like Sarah Palin try to run in 2012 with their Draconian ideas about birth-control and sex-education and lack of science-understanding (evolution) it's not going to go over well.
By 2012, Obama should be able to more-freely support his atheist constituents as he's starting to do now and you can bet they will be voting for him in droves, assuming things go well.
An atheist alone does not a president make, but it sure helps not to have an anti-science fundagelical Crusader like Bush Jr. in office who thinks he's instrumental in Armaggeddon to attain the end-goal of his spiritual fairytale....something which doesn't bode well for any of us.
Thank you, President Obama, for recognizing the fastest-growing segment of the population...atheists (and for putting a science advisor back in the White House). This atheist just asks that you stay on track. It's a good sign that the new Universal Healthcare bill removed coverage for religions woo-woo like faith-healing or other religious 'treatment', but we need to shut down that Stupak Amendment, allowing abortion services to be covered. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and it's not the business of religion. Until religious people actually prove there actually IS a god, they have nothing to say about the real world, since they can't prove any of their claims. That said, abortion is the choice of the female, and it's between her and her doctor, and nobody else.
Let's hope that Palin runs in 2012...it'll be another sure victory for Obama and maybe we can fix some of the issues related to eight years of Bush.
The more interesting fact here is that Obama's mother, who chiefly raised him during the absence of his father, is an atheist. According to Obama's book where he speaks about his mother's view on religion, she took an anthropological view...exposing him to many different religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and even the Bhagavad Gita, but remained herself a non-believer. Apparently, his father was a non-practicing Muslim as well and possibly an atheist, but it's clear to see the influence Obama's non-believing mother had on him with regard to his wider view on religion and the makeup of American voters.
Why do I say this? Obama is the first president in my 41-year living memory who actually acknowledges non-believers, and more than once. While I never heard him mention our significant majority in his presidential campaign, he did mention 'non-believers' in his inaugural speech, after he was elected. I can understand why he'd be a bit coy about mentioning his support for us until he had won the election, considering he also wanted to attract moderate-Christian voters and atheists are still a hated/misunderstood minority in America.
I am sure President Obama has to know that while non-believers are the fastest growing group among all the religious people in the U.S. We are a compelling audience which most-likely supports Obama among other socially-progressive candidates, and are not likely to be Bush or McCain/Palin supporters.
Obama recognized non-believers in the recent Ft.Hood, Texas tragedy in a recent weekly radio address, "They are Christians and Muslims, Hews and Hindus and nonbelievers."
Yes, we're here and Obama knows it. At last count, conservative estimates place atheists around 16% of the American population, which includes those who self-identify as non-religious or agnostic according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This sizeable minority outnumbers Catholics, gay, black and Jewish voters. It's a population that a savvy president should not ignore, and it seems Obama is one of the more savvy.
This is a big change from Bush Sr., who had this to say when questioned by atheist radio personality, Rob Sherman;
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
Well actually, Bush is wrong (surprise). This is not one nation under god. That national motto and relgious vandalism on our currency was a recent development, only appearing on paper money in 1957, though it was on coins earlier. Before this divisive religious slogan, our money read, 'E Pluribus Unem' which means, 'From Many, One'. This is a much more inclusive slogan for *all* Americans.
In 2012, I suspect that the atheist population will be even bigger, maybe around 18% of Americans or more, especially since today's youth are leaving religion in droves are aren't sufficiently inculcated in the first-place. When nutters like Sarah Palin try to run in 2012 with their Draconian ideas about birth-control and sex-education and lack of science-understanding (evolution) it's not going to go over well.
By 2012, Obama should be able to more-freely support his atheist constituents as he's starting to do now and you can bet they will be voting for him in droves, assuming things go well.
An atheist alone does not a president make, but it sure helps not to have an anti-science fundagelical Crusader like Bush Jr. in office who thinks he's instrumental in Armaggeddon to attain the end-goal of his spiritual fairytale....something which doesn't bode well for any of us.
Thank you, President Obama, for recognizing the fastest-growing segment of the population...atheists (and for putting a science advisor back in the White House). This atheist just asks that you stay on track. It's a good sign that the new Universal Healthcare bill removed coverage for religions woo-woo like faith-healing or other religious 'treatment', but we need to shut down that Stupak Amendment, allowing abortion services to be covered. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and it's not the business of religion. Until religious people actually prove there actually IS a god, they have nothing to say about the real world, since they can't prove any of their claims. That said, abortion is the choice of the female, and it's between her and her doctor, and nobody else.
Let's hope that Palin runs in 2012...it'll be another sure victory for Obama and maybe we can fix some of the issues related to eight years of Bush.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Focused Argumentation: Avoiding Distractions When Making a Point.
Sometimes, when debating someone on a topic you're much better versed-in, there's a sad realization that the person you've just invested quality time into is either intensely stupid or being dishonest, usually as a transparent attempt to preserve his/her ego as they realize they're on the losing side of an argument.
One trend I've noticed among Americans I meet is their unwillingness to admit defeat, but rather, they want to enjoy the annoying 'resolution' of 'agreeing to disagree'. It goes without saying that anyone in the history of time who disagreed had a tacit agreement to disagree, and really the idea that any disagreement needs an agreement is just silly. Someone who is satisfied with 'agreeing to disagree' is just exiting the conversation, and to me that's an admission of defeat, as generally they would rather you never brought the topic up again. I see this as more of a method of controlling the conversation rather than solving anything, as often, those who want to 'agree to disagree' are out of ideas or commentary and simply want to abort the topic.
However, if the person who holds an idea can't defend it with rational argument, why would he/she be so quick to 'agree to disagree'? Could we 'agree to disagree' with slavery, or Hitler? Hell no. I believe in making a strong point which withers the opposition and never let up until the other side concedes, or at least till the bystanders listening in are swayed, pressuring those with silly ideas to abandon them.
For instance, some people take their religion so personally that to 'attack' their religion (as they call it), you're 'attacking' them. But, don't be so quick as a skeptic to agree to those terms or give credence to that emotional ruse. If you do, you've agreed that hurt feelings are off-limits and you've effectively muted yourself. You're not 'attacking' anything, you're 'reviewing' a claim they ostensibly support, and they have no right to make a claim they're not willing to defend (especially if it involves you burning in Hell for eternity).
If one can't defend a claim then the claim is forfeit for that argument (even if that same person debates it elsewhere with a less-skeptical audience). It's important to let the opponent know that you're not attacking him or her (no matter how much they insist on being a martyr), but you're reviewing their *claim*. This lets them save face when and if they decide to reject their claims later on, and adds a more comfortable layer of separation.
Same thing with such Ad-Hominem ruses as, 'Are you saying I'm dumb?' or 'Are you saying I'm evil because you think my religion is evil?'. Nope. It's all about the claim, not your opponent's feeling. If your opponent feels dumb or evil because of what he's defending, then that is his problem, and you can keep it his problem. Some people will dominate the conversation (if you let them) and follow their logical tangents into the cesspool of emotion and hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are just noise when it distracts from the issue at hand, provided you're sticking to the topic and not getting sidetracked into Ad-Hominem personal attack (which should be avoided in any argument).
With religion, theists hold the burden of proof and atheists can safely push that onus on them to prove their claim, otherwise retract the claim and backtrack into agnosticism (and thus atheism). Likewise, it's best not to let theists define what an 'atheist' is unless they nail it....as this sets up a strawman argument and misleads others. Before debating anyone, it's best to agree on the terms you're discussing...if not, that needs to be clarified. Sometimes the argument can never get past terms if they're being dishonest about them as a strawman they can knock down easily.
Example, anti-choicers call themselves 'pro life' and call everyone else murderers or baby killers. Shockingly, many pro-choicers call the anti-choicers 'pro life' as well, accepting the terms coined by the opposition. One can be pro-life and pro-choice. What I do is call the misnamed 'pro-lifers' what they are, 'anti-choice' just as Richard Dawkins has taken to calling those who deny evolution, 'evolution deniers' which conveys more information than 'creationists'.
Those who support women's rights are 'pro-choice'. Re-think the terms your opponents use, as they're often set up to make themselves look good and slander you at ever oppportunity. You don't want bystanders listening in to be mis-educated either, so it's good to get the terms correct before proceeding.
You will often find that theists love to hit and run. They'll make a series of flawed points which take several minutes each to address and then rush off or change the subject so you'll stop talking. I try not to let debate opponents such a theists control the conversation in this way. If you find they're wanting to run just tell them you're gonna make a closing statement, then let them run for the hills after.
Ridicule is a useful tool as well, especially when dealing with someone making dishonest points with some kind of audience (online or in-person). If you constantly catch someone abandoning agreed-upon points of logic (such as, a good god should not murder babies), then call them on it. Even if the theist lies like crazy, the bystanders will notice and the theist might even be a bit self-conscious. Sometimes, when conversing one-on-one with a theist though, you'll get far more crazy responses than if you debate them with onlookers. On some level, those arguing dishonest points know what they're doing and won't be as likely to make silly points when they know they'll be ridiculed for them. The threat of ridicule seems harsh, but it keeps theists and other debate opponents a little more honest but more importantly, points that you win are way more obvious to everyone.
Those with horribly flawed positions have no chance of defending the positions with elegance and logic, so they have to resort to distraction, semantic tricks, selective reasoning, and more distraction which eventually will be interrupted by them trying to end the conversation before you can drive the point home.
Call people on their dishonest or poor argumentation-tactics and you'll have a more focused, more entertaining debate and expose the weakness in their arguments as you go. I also think it's never good to be soft on someone just because they're offended or are holding up their 'feelings' as some brick-wall impediment to solving the issue at hand. Make the point strong and clear, because hurt feelings go away, but there aren't many opportunities to make strong points sometimes. If you agree to be controlled by mere hurt-feelings you'll never make progress with a given point, because almost everyone who's being told they're wrong is at least a little offended (except the rare few who truly prefer facts over ego).
Lastly, if your points are good, they will continue to work on the mind of those you debate, long after you're done talking (even the hopeless cases abandon the worst of their arguments when roundly defeated often enough). It's not easy, it feels repetitive and sometimes even the best arguments are lost on people. Remember, you're not just arguing for the opponent but the audience as well (when there is one). So, even if your opponent is a lost cause you'll often still make your points to those who are listening-in.
-dB-
One trend I've noticed among Americans I meet is their unwillingness to admit defeat, but rather, they want to enjoy the annoying 'resolution' of 'agreeing to disagree'. It goes without saying that anyone in the history of time who disagreed had a tacit agreement to disagree, and really the idea that any disagreement needs an agreement is just silly. Someone who is satisfied with 'agreeing to disagree' is just exiting the conversation, and to me that's an admission of defeat, as generally they would rather you never brought the topic up again. I see this as more of a method of controlling the conversation rather than solving anything, as often, those who want to 'agree to disagree' are out of ideas or commentary and simply want to abort the topic.
However, if the person who holds an idea can't defend it with rational argument, why would he/she be so quick to 'agree to disagree'? Could we 'agree to disagree' with slavery, or Hitler? Hell no. I believe in making a strong point which withers the opposition and never let up until the other side concedes, or at least till the bystanders listening in are swayed, pressuring those with silly ideas to abandon them.
For instance, some people take their religion so personally that to 'attack' their religion (as they call it), you're 'attacking' them. But, don't be so quick as a skeptic to agree to those terms or give credence to that emotional ruse. If you do, you've agreed that hurt feelings are off-limits and you've effectively muted yourself. You're not 'attacking' anything, you're 'reviewing' a claim they ostensibly support, and they have no right to make a claim they're not willing to defend (especially if it involves you burning in Hell for eternity).
If one can't defend a claim then the claim is forfeit for that argument (even if that same person debates it elsewhere with a less-skeptical audience). It's important to let the opponent know that you're not attacking him or her (no matter how much they insist on being a martyr), but you're reviewing their *claim*. This lets them save face when and if they decide to reject their claims later on, and adds a more comfortable layer of separation.
Same thing with such Ad-Hominem ruses as, 'Are you saying I'm dumb?' or 'Are you saying I'm evil because you think my religion is evil?'. Nope. It's all about the claim, not your opponent's feeling. If your opponent feels dumb or evil because of what he's defending, then that is his problem, and you can keep it his problem. Some people will dominate the conversation (if you let them) and follow their logical tangents into the cesspool of emotion and hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are just noise when it distracts from the issue at hand, provided you're sticking to the topic and not getting sidetracked into Ad-Hominem personal attack (which should be avoided in any argument).
With religion, theists hold the burden of proof and atheists can safely push that onus on them to prove their claim, otherwise retract the claim and backtrack into agnosticism (and thus atheism). Likewise, it's best not to let theists define what an 'atheist' is unless they nail it....as this sets up a strawman argument and misleads others. Before debating anyone, it's best to agree on the terms you're discussing...if not, that needs to be clarified. Sometimes the argument can never get past terms if they're being dishonest about them as a strawman they can knock down easily.
Example, anti-choicers call themselves 'pro life' and call everyone else murderers or baby killers. Shockingly, many pro-choicers call the anti-choicers 'pro life' as well, accepting the terms coined by the opposition. One can be pro-life and pro-choice. What I do is call the misnamed 'pro-lifers' what they are, 'anti-choice' just as Richard Dawkins has taken to calling those who deny evolution, 'evolution deniers' which conveys more information than 'creationists'.
Those who support women's rights are 'pro-choice'. Re-think the terms your opponents use, as they're often set up to make themselves look good and slander you at ever oppportunity. You don't want bystanders listening in to be mis-educated either, so it's good to get the terms correct before proceeding.
You will often find that theists love to hit and run. They'll make a series of flawed points which take several minutes each to address and then rush off or change the subject so you'll stop talking. I try not to let debate opponents such a theists control the conversation in this way. If you find they're wanting to run just tell them you're gonna make a closing statement, then let them run for the hills after.
Ridicule is a useful tool as well, especially when dealing with someone making dishonest points with some kind of audience (online or in-person). If you constantly catch someone abandoning agreed-upon points of logic (such as, a good god should not murder babies), then call them on it. Even if the theist lies like crazy, the bystanders will notice and the theist might even be a bit self-conscious. Sometimes, when conversing one-on-one with a theist though, you'll get far more crazy responses than if you debate them with onlookers. On some level, those arguing dishonest points know what they're doing and won't be as likely to make silly points when they know they'll be ridiculed for them. The threat of ridicule seems harsh, but it keeps theists and other debate opponents a little more honest but more importantly, points that you win are way more obvious to everyone.
Those with horribly flawed positions have no chance of defending the positions with elegance and logic, so they have to resort to distraction, semantic tricks, selective reasoning, and more distraction which eventually will be interrupted by them trying to end the conversation before you can drive the point home.
Call people on their dishonest or poor argumentation-tactics and you'll have a more focused, more entertaining debate and expose the weakness in their arguments as you go. I also think it's never good to be soft on someone just because they're offended or are holding up their 'feelings' as some brick-wall impediment to solving the issue at hand. Make the point strong and clear, because hurt feelings go away, but there aren't many opportunities to make strong points sometimes. If you agree to be controlled by mere hurt-feelings you'll never make progress with a given point, because almost everyone who's being told they're wrong is at least a little offended (except the rare few who truly prefer facts over ego).
Lastly, if your points are good, they will continue to work on the mind of those you debate, long after you're done talking (even the hopeless cases abandon the worst of their arguments when roundly defeated often enough). It's not easy, it feels repetitive and sometimes even the best arguments are lost on people. Remember, you're not just arguing for the opponent but the audience as well (when there is one). So, even if your opponent is a lost cause you'll often still make your points to those who are listening-in.
-dB-
Sunday, October 11, 2009
America Needs Health Care
Now.
I just finished reading 'The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care' by T.R. Reid.
Phenomenal book.
I know now what I knew before: America needs a proper healthcare plan which is government subsidized through some clever use of existing taxes, or some kind of mandate (like auto-insurance) so everyone can be covered and so nobody is refused due to a pre-existing condition or dropped because they made a claim.
Right now, the healthcare payment system is designed to reduce coverage, to reject treatment and ultimately fail the patient, because it's for profit and run by insurance companies who, like wolves guarding the henhouse, have opposing interests to actually healing the sick. Do you have a pre-existing condition such as cancer? Good luck finding healthcare, and you just may go broke trying to stay alive. Did you make a claim recently? You might just be the victim of healthcare recission as I was, where your company dumps you soon after. Do you need a particular test that a for-profit insurance company deems too expensive? You may just not get it. Is your insurance company owned by idealogues who oppose birth control? Maybe this is why the pill or abortion often isn't covered, yet childbirth (a much more expensive option) is covered.
Many of us get health-insurance through employers, but I find this to be a flawed system. Health insurance should be a valid option for the individual and not related to your source of income. What about those who are unemployed as much of the U.S. finds themselves to be in this economic downturn? Should the unemployed also be out in the cold with regard to health insurance? Talk about a double-whammy. What about those who can't work but would otherwise be willing to?
What America needs is some kind of standardized healthcare for everyone with nobody being rejected for a 'pre-existing' condition or being dumped because they made a claim. If you can't make a claim for insurance, why bother having it at all? We should not be penalizing those who truly need to make a claim.
One shocking fact is this...although America leaves nearly 50-million Americans uninsured, the National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC) reports that America spends 17.6% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare, whereas every other developed nation with Universal Health Care spends less, MUCH less on health care..usually less than half.
The Japanese actually visit the doctor most, according to Reid's book, and their system is still cheaper than ours and one of the most efficient in the world. Japan only spends about 8% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health insurance, while America spends 17.6% of its GDP on healthcare yet leaves nearly 50 million Americans uninsured...this is repeated just to drive home the fact that every other nation with Universal healthcare does it way cheaper than the broken American system.
The Japanese system has very strict limits on what hospitals/doctors can charge. Their doctors make a healthy living, but nothing compared to what U.S. doctors make, who are still often hamstrung in their decision-making by insurance companies such as HMO's who are way-too involved with the bottom-line or private inusrance companies who have to promise a return to investors.
France is rated by the World Health Organization as having the best health care in the world, the world's richest nation (the U.S.) rates 37th! France also spends much less than America on their system (about 10% of its GDP), partially due to the efficiency of their system. For example, they don't have the huge administrative costs we have the U.S. One thing they've done is eliminate paper medical records, filing, storing, etc. They store your entire medical history on a digital card you carry on your person, called the 'Carte Vitale'. Every required detail of your medical history is on the card and can easily be accessed by French doctors. Recently, American HMO, Kaiser Permanente switched to the card system. This is a step in the right direction as our entire healthcare system undergoes reform.
The British system, commonly known as 'National Health Insurance' or 'NHS', was designed and written by William Beveridge. Beveridge was an aristocrat, social-reformer at the turn of the 20th century. This likely-atheist who eschewed the clergy profession is quoted as saying, 'I believe neither in Heaven, which would be insipid, nor in Hell, which would be ridiculous'. During Britain's post-war rebuilding efforts in the 1940's, Beveridge was given an opportunity by Winston Churchhill to lead the way to a new healthcare system, which he pretty-much single-handedly drafted in what was known as 'Social Insurance and Allied Services', and was wildly popular with the British people. His popularization of his plan via numerous speeches spread the idea thoroughly.
This Beveridge plan was later put into law by Welshman Aneurin 'Nye' Bevan who witnessed the death of four of his siblings growing up. With his hardscrabble coal-miner roots and more aggressive personality, he went on to become a Union agitator and politician, elected to the House of Commons as the Labour Party candidate. As a result of the efforts of Beveridge, Bevan and others, the National Health Service opened on July 5th, 1948 for everyone in the U.K.
This Beveridge-Bevan system (NHS) is a no-pay at the point of service healthcare, except for small co-pays for prescriptions which is waived for children, anyone over sixty, pregnant women and the chronically ill. The taxes in Britain are higher, about 15 to 17.5%, but the difference is, you won't go broke from some catastrophic injury or illness if you're caught without insurance, no fighting insurance companies to retain coverage if you're sick, no being dropped for pre-existing conditions and you won't lose your home for lack of medical insurance or worse, your life for fear of medical bills and delayed care. The NHS does use a Gatekeeper system to see a specialist, just like in the U.S., and this helps control costs, the difference is, the NHS covers everyone in the UK.
With all of the spending on healthcare, the U.S. still ranks 37th in the world in healthcare, 22nd when it comes to infant mortality. For the richest nation on Earth, these results are more evidence how much the healthcare system needs to be improved.
People seem to fear 'socialized medicine' as they call it because it would 'limit choice'. Not so. In Germany under the Bismarck model, they have a system similar to what Americans have with employer-based insurance, and can choose between 200 different private insurance companies which they keep their entire lives. They're covered under private insurance longer than Americans! However, those German insurance companies have to offer the basic insurance package guaranteed by the government at fixed rates, and cannot decline people based on pre-existing conditions or dump someone, as long as people pay their premiums. German insurance companies do compete for those government dollars in the form of added-value and quick payments, and some for-profit insurance companies in Germany will offer additional services not covered under the basic plan.
Americans over 65 switch to Medicare, which in fact was invented by a Canadian socialist by the name of Tommy Clement Douglas, who is lauded as a hero in Canada even over the likes of Wayne Gretsky or Alexander Graham Bell. When it comes to veterans, nobody complains about 'socialized' medicine even though it's nearly that. Veterans are covered by the government, and this is the closest system to 'socialized medicine' that America has, but it works.
The ones who are left in the cold are the backbone of America's economy, and that's the working class who often can't afford health insurance or can't get it through their employer, or through discriminatory domestic-partner laws (straight couples under the age of 62 are not eligible).
There is a mandate to have car-insurance. Fail to get it, and the DMV is notified and your registration is suspended. Your privilege to drive is contingent on having auto-insurance (and a valid registration). If you make a claim, you may get dumped by your current company, but *someone* will cover you. Cancer that nobody could have hoped to foresee or cure alone should no more be a case for denial than a not-at-fault car-accident claim should be a reason to deny someone car insurance.
Having a mandate for health-insurance is required simply because if insurance is to cover *everyone*, then *everyone* should be paying into it. This could be done through taxes like the U.K. system or a mandated yearly fee like other systems. Either way, this is pennies compared to trying to pay for a week-long hospital stay out-of-pocket should the need arise or worse, paying out-of-pocket for treatment of a chronic illness like cancer. People often go broke for nothing but the results of unforseen medical expenses, and it's a crying shame. This can't be good for Americans or the economy.
We need a simple, effective, tax-funded healthcare system for everyone, regardless of claims or pre-existing conditions. Whether we use the co-pay system of France (which is refunded) to remind people that healthcare costs money, or a system of private insurance companies who compete for perks but are not 'for profit', something, almost *anything* would be an improvement on being 37th in the world for healthcare when we're the richest nation on Earth.
With nearly 50-million people who aren't insured and successful systems all over the world to learn from, it's high time we did *something* to revolutionize our healthcare and make it available for everyone. Even if it's not you going bankrupt or dying to the current system, the failure of the current system affects us all.
T.R. Reid gives real hope that if America can humble itself and learn from others, we too can enjoy amazingly good healthcare for everyone and for much less than we spend now. As Michael Moore's documentary, 'Sicko' points out, Americans have no issues adopting better technology when we see it....from Japanese cars to Swiss watches...why on Earth aren't we cherry-picking the best Universal Health Care systems from around the world and putting them into practice in America?
And now for the atheist angle...why on Earth is the world's most religious developed nation leaving so many people out in the cold when it comes to health insurance? Those who are so worried about abortion and gay people being allowed to marry should really pay attention to the real travesty...millions of people who die from otherwise treatable diseases. No wonder gay people want to be able to marry...some of them probably just want health insurance. Who can blame them.
We really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain....especially for the nearly 50 million Americans without healthcare.
-dB-
I just finished reading 'The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care' by T.R. Reid.
Phenomenal book.
I know now what I knew before: America needs a proper healthcare plan which is government subsidized through some clever use of existing taxes, or some kind of mandate (like auto-insurance) so everyone can be covered and so nobody is refused due to a pre-existing condition or dropped because they made a claim.
Right now, the healthcare payment system is designed to reduce coverage, to reject treatment and ultimately fail the patient, because it's for profit and run by insurance companies who, like wolves guarding the henhouse, have opposing interests to actually healing the sick. Do you have a pre-existing condition such as cancer? Good luck finding healthcare, and you just may go broke trying to stay alive. Did you make a claim recently? You might just be the victim of healthcare recission as I was, where your company dumps you soon after. Do you need a particular test that a for-profit insurance company deems too expensive? You may just not get it. Is your insurance company owned by idealogues who oppose birth control? Maybe this is why the pill or abortion often isn't covered, yet childbirth (a much more expensive option) is covered.
Many of us get health-insurance through employers, but I find this to be a flawed system. Health insurance should be a valid option for the individual and not related to your source of income. What about those who are unemployed as much of the U.S. finds themselves to be in this economic downturn? Should the unemployed also be out in the cold with regard to health insurance? Talk about a double-whammy. What about those who can't work but would otherwise be willing to?
What America needs is some kind of standardized healthcare for everyone with nobody being rejected for a 'pre-existing' condition or being dumped because they made a claim. If you can't make a claim for insurance, why bother having it at all? We should not be penalizing those who truly need to make a claim.
One shocking fact is this...although America leaves nearly 50-million Americans uninsured, the National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC) reports that America spends 17.6% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare, whereas every other developed nation with Universal Health Care spends less, MUCH less on health care..usually less than half.
The Japanese actually visit the doctor most, according to Reid's book, and their system is still cheaper than ours and one of the most efficient in the world. Japan only spends about 8% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health insurance, while America spends 17.6% of its GDP on healthcare yet leaves nearly 50 million Americans uninsured...this is repeated just to drive home the fact that every other nation with Universal healthcare does it way cheaper than the broken American system.
The Japanese system has very strict limits on what hospitals/doctors can charge. Their doctors make a healthy living, but nothing compared to what U.S. doctors make, who are still often hamstrung in their decision-making by insurance companies such as HMO's who are way-too involved with the bottom-line or private inusrance companies who have to promise a return to investors.
France is rated by the World Health Organization as having the best health care in the world, the world's richest nation (the U.S.) rates 37th! France also spends much less than America on their system (about 10% of its GDP), partially due to the efficiency of their system. For example, they don't have the huge administrative costs we have the U.S. One thing they've done is eliminate paper medical records, filing, storing, etc. They store your entire medical history on a digital card you carry on your person, called the 'Carte Vitale'. Every required detail of your medical history is on the card and can easily be accessed by French doctors. Recently, American HMO, Kaiser Permanente switched to the card system. This is a step in the right direction as our entire healthcare system undergoes reform.
The British system, commonly known as 'National Health Insurance' or 'NHS', was designed and written by William Beveridge. Beveridge was an aristocrat, social-reformer at the turn of the 20th century. This likely-atheist who eschewed the clergy profession is quoted as saying, 'I believe neither in Heaven, which would be insipid, nor in Hell, which would be ridiculous'. During Britain's post-war rebuilding efforts in the 1940's, Beveridge was given an opportunity by Winston Churchhill to lead the way to a new healthcare system, which he pretty-much single-handedly drafted in what was known as 'Social Insurance and Allied Services', and was wildly popular with the British people. His popularization of his plan via numerous speeches spread the idea thoroughly.
This Beveridge plan was later put into law by Welshman Aneurin 'Nye' Bevan who witnessed the death of four of his siblings growing up. With his hardscrabble coal-miner roots and more aggressive personality, he went on to become a Union agitator and politician, elected to the House of Commons as the Labour Party candidate. As a result of the efforts of Beveridge, Bevan and others, the National Health Service opened on July 5th, 1948 for everyone in the U.K.
This Beveridge-Bevan system (NHS) is a no-pay at the point of service healthcare, except for small co-pays for prescriptions which is waived for children, anyone over sixty, pregnant women and the chronically ill. The taxes in Britain are higher, about 15 to 17.5%, but the difference is, you won't go broke from some catastrophic injury or illness if you're caught without insurance, no fighting insurance companies to retain coverage if you're sick, no being dropped for pre-existing conditions and you won't lose your home for lack of medical insurance or worse, your life for fear of medical bills and delayed care. The NHS does use a Gatekeeper system to see a specialist, just like in the U.S., and this helps control costs, the difference is, the NHS covers everyone in the UK.
With all of the spending on healthcare, the U.S. still ranks 37th in the world in healthcare, 22nd when it comes to infant mortality. For the richest nation on Earth, these results are more evidence how much the healthcare system needs to be improved.
People seem to fear 'socialized medicine' as they call it because it would 'limit choice'. Not so. In Germany under the Bismarck model, they have a system similar to what Americans have with employer-based insurance, and can choose between 200 different private insurance companies which they keep their entire lives. They're covered under private insurance longer than Americans! However, those German insurance companies have to offer the basic insurance package guaranteed by the government at fixed rates, and cannot decline people based on pre-existing conditions or dump someone, as long as people pay their premiums. German insurance companies do compete for those government dollars in the form of added-value and quick payments, and some for-profit insurance companies in Germany will offer additional services not covered under the basic plan.
Americans over 65 switch to Medicare, which in fact was invented by a Canadian socialist by the name of Tommy Clement Douglas, who is lauded as a hero in Canada even over the likes of Wayne Gretsky or Alexander Graham Bell. When it comes to veterans, nobody complains about 'socialized' medicine even though it's nearly that. Veterans are covered by the government, and this is the closest system to 'socialized medicine' that America has, but it works.
The ones who are left in the cold are the backbone of America's economy, and that's the working class who often can't afford health insurance or can't get it through their employer, or through discriminatory domestic-partner laws (straight couples under the age of 62 are not eligible).
There is a mandate to have car-insurance. Fail to get it, and the DMV is notified and your registration is suspended. Your privilege to drive is contingent on having auto-insurance (and a valid registration). If you make a claim, you may get dumped by your current company, but *someone* will cover you. Cancer that nobody could have hoped to foresee or cure alone should no more be a case for denial than a not-at-fault car-accident claim should be a reason to deny someone car insurance.
Having a mandate for health-insurance is required simply because if insurance is to cover *everyone*, then *everyone* should be paying into it. This could be done through taxes like the U.K. system or a mandated yearly fee like other systems. Either way, this is pennies compared to trying to pay for a week-long hospital stay out-of-pocket should the need arise or worse, paying out-of-pocket for treatment of a chronic illness like cancer. People often go broke for nothing but the results of unforseen medical expenses, and it's a crying shame. This can't be good for Americans or the economy.
We need a simple, effective, tax-funded healthcare system for everyone, regardless of claims or pre-existing conditions. Whether we use the co-pay system of France (which is refunded) to remind people that healthcare costs money, or a system of private insurance companies who compete for perks but are not 'for profit', something, almost *anything* would be an improvement on being 37th in the world for healthcare when we're the richest nation on Earth.
With nearly 50-million people who aren't insured and successful systems all over the world to learn from, it's high time we did *something* to revolutionize our healthcare and make it available for everyone. Even if it's not you going bankrupt or dying to the current system, the failure of the current system affects us all.
T.R. Reid gives real hope that if America can humble itself and learn from others, we too can enjoy amazingly good healthcare for everyone and for much less than we spend now. As Michael Moore's documentary, 'Sicko' points out, Americans have no issues adopting better technology when we see it....from Japanese cars to Swiss watches...why on Earth aren't we cherry-picking the best Universal Health Care systems from around the world and putting them into practice in America?
And now for the atheist angle...why on Earth is the world's most religious developed nation leaving so many people out in the cold when it comes to health insurance? Those who are so worried about abortion and gay people being allowed to marry should really pay attention to the real travesty...millions of people who die from otherwise treatable diseases. No wonder gay people want to be able to marry...some of them probably just want health insurance. Who can blame them.
We really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain....especially for the nearly 50 million Americans without healthcare.
-dB-
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Smart Cars: A New Forum
I've started a new smart-car forum at http://www.smartforums.info/, and I encourage everyone who's interested in these little cars to come join us.
After I was banned from a larger smart-forum (and I use the term smart specifically about the cars here), I decided to strike out on my own. Forums are like mini-governments...sometimes you run into a hapless dictator with no sense of reason or fairness, or those who let their underlings (moderators) stomp on everyone else with their personal biases.
While I have my biases and strong opinions as evidenced from my blog-history, free-speech and free-inquiry are vitally important to me both as an American and an atheist. I may disagree with some people and their posts, lifestyles, etc., but I recognize that everyone is different and that merely censoring certain 'controversial' issues does nothing to change that fact.
As one of my ancestors, Patrick Henry, once said: 'Give me liberty or give me death'. While I don't want to invite death, I can't abide anyone messing with my liberty, yes, even some silly moderator on a smart-car forum.
I would rather have a site with 10 people than be on a large-site plagued with Lockerators™ who lock any thread which tweaks their personal biases. As an atheist moderator on a motorcycle site, I've had long debates with Creationists in the off-topic section, and I never had to lock or delete threads or censor their posts.
Censorship in most cases is just not necessary and eventually, everyone who wanted to say something said it. People come and go and they move on. Real life is the same way. If your friends can't bear your opinions then they're not really your friends. If someone's opinion can't be swayed by solid argumentation, then that person is unreasonable. Bottom line is, if you've got an opinion that's worth anything, it will stand to scrutiny. But as forums go, people are free to ignore conversations they don't enjoy just as they might in real-life.
As long as the discourse is civil and reasonable, I prefer to let people 'talk it out' and thus, my new site was inevitable in-light of the heavy-handed thread-locking and outright censorship which existed on the forum I was booted from. It's no wonder one of their moderators stepped down, and I can't say I blame him.
My new site is smartforums.info and although it's under construction (adding content and adjusting graphics), it's very much open for business and there's no charge or fee for vendors who want to advertise smart-related products and services.
On a lighter note, I'm selling smart-car decals through a great local aftermarket company called Smart Madness here in sunny SoCal. The decals are printed by a wide-format Roland printer with Max-brand eco-solvent inks. All decals have an over-laminate for maximum outdoor life, which is about 3-5 years.
This decal was inspired by wow, but was all hand-drawn by yours-truly. It's a funny acknowledgement of the tiny-size of the smart with a nod to Gnomish Engineering. World-of-Warcraft (wow) fans will be quite familiar with the concept, and the rest will still understand it too. 'The Power of Small' is something I've heard to describe the gnomes in wow and I've always loved this phrase. It's funny on many different levels, but it acknowledges what many non-smart drivers think we don't know, 'OMG THAT CAR IS SO TEENY!'. ;)
The decal below is a pumpkinized smart-car, part of a new set of decals I've made called Punkinheads™. The Punkinheads™ are a Mix-and-Match family (like the stick-figure familes you've seen on car windows) that are intended for cars but can stick almost anywhere.
After I was banned from a larger smart-forum (and I use the term smart specifically about the cars here), I decided to strike out on my own. Forums are like mini-governments...sometimes you run into a hapless dictator with no sense of reason or fairness, or those who let their underlings (moderators) stomp on everyone else with their personal biases.
While I have my biases and strong opinions as evidenced from my blog-history, free-speech and free-inquiry are vitally important to me both as an American and an atheist. I may disagree with some people and their posts, lifestyles, etc., but I recognize that everyone is different and that merely censoring certain 'controversial' issues does nothing to change that fact.
As one of my ancestors, Patrick Henry, once said: 'Give me liberty or give me death'. While I don't want to invite death, I can't abide anyone messing with my liberty, yes, even some silly moderator on a smart-car forum.
I would rather have a site with 10 people than be on a large-site plagued with Lockerators™ who lock any thread which tweaks their personal biases. As an atheist moderator on a motorcycle site, I've had long debates with Creationists in the off-topic section, and I never had to lock or delete threads or censor their posts.
Censorship in most cases is just not necessary and eventually, everyone who wanted to say something said it. People come and go and they move on. Real life is the same way. If your friends can't bear your opinions then they're not really your friends. If someone's opinion can't be swayed by solid argumentation, then that person is unreasonable. Bottom line is, if you've got an opinion that's worth anything, it will stand to scrutiny. But as forums go, people are free to ignore conversations they don't enjoy just as they might in real-life.
As long as the discourse is civil and reasonable, I prefer to let people 'talk it out' and thus, my new site was inevitable in-light of the heavy-handed thread-locking and outright censorship which existed on the forum I was booted from. It's no wonder one of their moderators stepped down, and I can't say I blame him.
My new site is smartforums.info and although it's under construction (adding content and adjusting graphics), it's very much open for business and there's no charge or fee for vendors who want to advertise smart-related products and services.
On a lighter note, I'm selling smart-car decals through a great local aftermarket company called Smart Madness here in sunny SoCal. The decals are printed by a wide-format Roland printer with Max-brand eco-solvent inks. All decals have an over-laminate for maximum outdoor life, which is about 3-5 years.
This decal was inspired by wow, but was all hand-drawn by yours-truly. It's a funny acknowledgement of the tiny-size of the smart with a nod to Gnomish Engineering. World-of-Warcraft (wow) fans will be quite familiar with the concept, and the rest will still understand it too. 'The Power of Small' is something I've heard to describe the gnomes in wow and I've always loved this phrase. It's funny on many different levels, but it acknowledges what many non-smart drivers think we don't know, 'OMG THAT CAR IS SO TEENY!'. ;)
The decal below is a pumpkinized smart-car, part of a new set of decals I've made called Punkinheads™. The Punkinheads™ are a Mix-and-Match family (like the stick-figure familes you've seen on car windows) that are intended for cars but can stick almost anywhere.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Not-So-Smart Discrimination
I am a smart-car owner. The smart brand is referred to as 'smart', lowercase by design, one-word, as you might say 'Honda' or 'Mini'. This is a great little car, and the only micro-sub compact sold on American shores. It's a one-liter, 70 horsepower, mid-engine car which is easy to park and gets 41 mph highway...that's the best MPG of any gas-using car in America, right behind the hybrids but at about 10K less to buy. Available in the U.S. since early 2008, the smart has been making inroads through Roger Penske's smart dealers into the American consciousness.
As a member of the Smart Car of America Forums (SCOA), I participate with other enthusiastic owners about all things smart.....the questions we're asked, aftermarket accessories, everything regarding dealers, maintenance, perks and quirks with the car, etc.
Who buys smarts? My answer to this question might have be: 'progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers with a penchant for embracing new ideas, with a tendency toward size-economy and the green movement'. It ain't necessarily so.
Sadly, this blog is about discrimination, which is something atheists face every day. See if you agree.
On the SCOA forum, I happened to be browsing the off-topic threads and saw that some smart-owners had started threads about who among them might be gay, with another thread asking who their fellow vegetarians/vegans were. Reading the threads myself, it seemed people were playing nicely and simply voicing another common interest among a receptive, progressive audience of other forum members clearly open to new ideas.
That was, until I started the 'Who here is an atheist smart-owner' thread. Here's what I wrote:
'Ok, I've seen the separate Gay and Vegan smart-owner threads, very interesting!
Here's my question: How many atheists drive smarts?
Is there any correlation between our maverick embrace of a new automotive paradigm and those who self-describe as atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious or non-believers of some sort?
The car itself represents a lot in my opinion: a willingness to be different, a witting/unwitting embrace of the green-movement and less oil-dependence, some-degree of environmental conscience, a willingness to favor economy of size over the 'bigger is better' mentality (even with threat of derision), and a more liberal/progressive political population (I realize there will be exceptions).
My hypothesis is that atheists would be over-represented by smart-car owners (per-capita).
This is by no means a scientific poll, but I am curious to see the responses.
Thanks in advance'.
Reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? Just like the gay and vegan threads, it's natural to ask who among other out-of-the-box thinkers might have left traditional ideas like religion, right?
Wrong. The thread was immediately closed by an admin with this comment.
'Forget it.“The following topics and links are prohibited on Smart Car of America Forums: Religion, Death Penalty, and Politics”
Ok, since when does identifying as an atheist necessarily constitute a religious argument or even religion? Atheism by definition is the *rejection* of religion as it literally means 'without theism' from the Greek form, 'theos'. A-theos is literally 'without god or belief in god'.
Ostensibly, the forum admins are trying to avoid controversy which might lead to pages of in-fighting (which people can choose to ignore), but what good is a forum moderator if they can't even be bothered to moderate potentially volatile threads? Again, this was in the 'off-topic' section which should mean smart-owners are free to discuss issues, as long as it doesn't devolve into pure name-calling and threats, and these threads can be moderated.
Instead, the powers-that-be at SCOA seem to feel more comfortable with outright censorship based on the 'rules', but I would think censorship is far more volatile than moderating a 'potentially' controversial thread. Those who find these threads offensive always have the choice of ignoring them.
My post was merely an informal poll, like the vegan and gay threads, and was specifically posed to see who among my fellow-smart drivers shared my lack of belief in god(s). This rule, as applied, would necessarily mean that nobody could ever identify as any religion on the forum, ever.
Look what another admin said when I complained about censorship. Quoted in relevant part:
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
Ok, so the identifying as an atheist clearly doesn't fall into these categories, yet the thread about which smart-owners might be gay certainly *does*. Talk about selective application of rules. The reader will note that she had nothing to say in her defense after she was called out on this. Of course not. There is a clear double-standard at work.
My friends, this is a clear case of censorship, even if it's in the 'rules'. Sometimes, rules are wrong or too-broadly applied. After all, there used to be little rules about minorities being segregated from the majority, or women not being allowed to vote.
In this day and age, it's shocking that this still happens, but sadly not surprising. What's even more distressing is the lack of visible protests from other members who might be atheists or know agnostics, or understand the injustice that's happening. There were a few on that forum in support, but mostly....silence and thus, a form of complicity.
Here's what the smug admin had to say when I complained about the thread closure in a private message:
Whatever flood of protests you are hoping for is going the other way (by PM) – it has been positive for the action taken. You are, so far, alone in this.If you are in need of the support of atheists owning smarts, you are free to participate in atheist sites elsewhere, and ask the same question. As a start you might try something at groups.yahoo or groups.google*
* Full URL omitted to avoid linking.
I see. So it's ok for a smart-owner to ask, in an off-topic section, about who in the forum might be gay or vegan (controversial for many), even though talking about 'sexually-oriented' content is in clear violation of the forum rules. Why is it not permissible to ask who might be atheist even though by itself it's not a religious argument? Add to that the smug way in which the admin tries to convince me I am 'alone in this' which is probably why he thought he could get away with such a thing. You see, fellow non-believers...this is exactly why some theists feel they can abuse non-believers.. We seek fair treatment, but we still get abuse and discrimination because some feel that we're such an insignificant or silent minority that we just don't matter. This is exactly why we need to be out of that 'other closet' en-masse as we've seen with the success of the gay-movement.
Tell someone they can't talk about being 'African' or 'Italian' and there would be hell to pay. Tell someone they can't mention that they are a Christian or Jew and you'd see a backlash. Why is the mere mention of identification with 'atheism' seen as a 'religious' statement? By this logic, mentioning that you're abstinent would be sexual harassment?
This may all seem trivial, but it's still discrimination, and it's a reflection of the 'majority rules' scenario which has historically trampled on the rights of the minority, simply because it was smugly thought that the majority could get away with it. As long as people are cowed into silence, we will never have a collective voice, and this is why it's so important for minorities, especially the most-hated minority (atheists) all over the world to speak out, be heard, be seen.
When people realize how populous this abused minority is, they might think twice about being so cavalier with discrimination, even in the small, annoying ways which happen every day.
Sure, most of us on the SCOA drive 'smart' cars, but by no means should anyone assume that all of us are logical, forward-thinking, progressive or even smart. It makes me very glad I didn't 'become a member' and give them my hard-earned money....but apparently they think atheists are such a tiny, insignificant minority that our opinions and support just don't matter. ...even in such a tiny-sub group known as 'Smart-Car Owners of America'.
This is more than just discrimination on an obscure forum. It's a reflection of the world we all still live in, and a small core-sample of daily abuses.
I recommend that all of you who identify with labels such as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, etc. make yourselves known. The sooner people realize that they can't get away with blatant discrimination and abuse, the sooner we'll get the fair-treatment we're asking for.
-dB-
As a member of the Smart Car of America Forums (SCOA), I participate with other enthusiastic owners about all things smart.....the questions we're asked, aftermarket accessories, everything regarding dealers, maintenance, perks and quirks with the car, etc.
Who buys smarts? My answer to this question might have be: 'progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers with a penchant for embracing new ideas, with a tendency toward size-economy and the green movement'. It ain't necessarily so.
Sadly, this blog is about discrimination, which is something atheists face every day. See if you agree.
On the SCOA forum, I happened to be browsing the off-topic threads and saw that some smart-owners had started threads about who among them might be gay, with another thread asking who their fellow vegetarians/vegans were. Reading the threads myself, it seemed people were playing nicely and simply voicing another common interest among a receptive, progressive audience of other forum members clearly open to new ideas.
That was, until I started the 'Who here is an atheist smart-owner' thread. Here's what I wrote:
'Ok, I've seen the separate Gay and Vegan smart-owner threads, very interesting!
Here's my question: How many atheists drive smarts?
Is there any correlation between our maverick embrace of a new automotive paradigm and those who self-describe as atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious or non-believers of some sort?
The car itself represents a lot in my opinion: a willingness to be different, a witting/unwitting embrace of the green-movement and less oil-dependence, some-degree of environmental conscience, a willingness to favor economy of size over the 'bigger is better' mentality (even with threat of derision), and a more liberal/progressive political population (I realize there will be exceptions).
My hypothesis is that atheists would be over-represented by smart-car owners (per-capita).
This is by no means a scientific poll, but I am curious to see the responses.
Thanks in advance'.
Reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? Just like the gay and vegan threads, it's natural to ask who among other out-of-the-box thinkers might have left traditional ideas like religion, right?
Wrong. The thread was immediately closed by an admin with this comment.
'Forget it.“The following topics and links are prohibited on Smart Car of America Forums: Religion, Death Penalty, and Politics”
Ok, since when does identifying as an atheist necessarily constitute a religious argument or even religion? Atheism by definition is the *rejection* of religion as it literally means 'without theism' from the Greek form, 'theos'. A-theos is literally 'without god or belief in god'.
Ostensibly, the forum admins are trying to avoid controversy which might lead to pages of in-fighting (which people can choose to ignore), but what good is a forum moderator if they can't even be bothered to moderate potentially volatile threads? Again, this was in the 'off-topic' section which should mean smart-owners are free to discuss issues, as long as it doesn't devolve into pure name-calling and threats, and these threads can be moderated.
Instead, the powers-that-be at SCOA seem to feel more comfortable with outright censorship based on the 'rules', but I would think censorship is far more volatile than moderating a 'potentially' controversial thread. Those who find these threads offensive always have the choice of ignoring them.
My post was merely an informal poll, like the vegan and gay threads, and was specifically posed to see who among my fellow-smart drivers shared my lack of belief in god(s). This rule, as applied, would necessarily mean that nobody could ever identify as any religion on the forum, ever.
Look what another admin said when I complained about censorship. Quoted in relevant part:
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
Ok, so the identifying as an atheist clearly doesn't fall into these categories, yet the thread about which smart-owners might be gay certainly *does*. Talk about selective application of rules. The reader will note that she had nothing to say in her defense after she was called out on this. Of course not. There is a clear double-standard at work.
My friends, this is a clear case of censorship, even if it's in the 'rules'. Sometimes, rules are wrong or too-broadly applied. After all, there used to be little rules about minorities being segregated from the majority, or women not being allowed to vote.
In this day and age, it's shocking that this still happens, but sadly not surprising. What's even more distressing is the lack of visible protests from other members who might be atheists or know agnostics, or understand the injustice that's happening. There were a few on that forum in support, but mostly....silence and thus, a form of complicity.
Here's what the smug admin had to say when I complained about the thread closure in a private message:
Whatever flood of protests you are hoping for is going the other way (by PM) – it has been positive for the action taken. You are, so far, alone in this.If you are in need of the support of atheists owning smarts, you are free to participate in atheist sites elsewhere, and ask the same question. As a start you might try something at groups.yahoo or groups.google*
* Full URL omitted to avoid linking.
I see. So it's ok for a smart-owner to ask, in an off-topic section, about who in the forum might be gay or vegan (controversial for many), even though talking about 'sexually-oriented' content is in clear violation of the forum rules. Why is it not permissible to ask who might be atheist even though by itself it's not a religious argument? Add to that the smug way in which the admin tries to convince me I am 'alone in this' which is probably why he thought he could get away with such a thing. You see, fellow non-believers...this is exactly why some theists feel they can abuse non-believers.. We seek fair treatment, but we still get abuse and discrimination because some feel that we're such an insignificant or silent minority that we just don't matter. This is exactly why we need to be out of that 'other closet' en-masse as we've seen with the success of the gay-movement.
Tell someone they can't talk about being 'African' or 'Italian' and there would be hell to pay. Tell someone they can't mention that they are a Christian or Jew and you'd see a backlash. Why is the mere mention of identification with 'atheism' seen as a 'religious' statement? By this logic, mentioning that you're abstinent would be sexual harassment?
This may all seem trivial, but it's still discrimination, and it's a reflection of the 'majority rules' scenario which has historically trampled on the rights of the minority, simply because it was smugly thought that the majority could get away with it. As long as people are cowed into silence, we will never have a collective voice, and this is why it's so important for minorities, especially the most-hated minority (atheists) all over the world to speak out, be heard, be seen.
When people realize how populous this abused minority is, they might think twice about being so cavalier with discrimination, even in the small, annoying ways which happen every day.
Sure, most of us on the SCOA drive 'smart' cars, but by no means should anyone assume that all of us are logical, forward-thinking, progressive or even smart. It makes me very glad I didn't 'become a member' and give them my hard-earned money....but apparently they think atheists are such a tiny, insignificant minority that our opinions and support just don't matter. ...even in such a tiny-sub group known as 'Smart-Car Owners of America'.
This is more than just discrimination on an obscure forum. It's a reflection of the world we all still live in, and a small core-sample of daily abuses.
I recommend that all of you who identify with labels such as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, etc. make yourselves known. The sooner people realize that they can't get away with blatant discrimination and abuse, the sooner we'll get the fair-treatment we're asking for.
-dB-
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Carpool Lanes and Lane Discipline.
One of the biggest problems plaguing U.S. drivers and traffic-flow lies with inefficient lane-usage due to poor driver-training, self-righteous drivers, too much focus on simple-minded myths such as 'speed kills' and over-enthusiastic enforcement of unrealistic speed laws. Throwing extra lanes or 'carpool' lanes at the problem doesn't noticeably improve traffic efficiency for the majority of drivers.
In Germany, drivers enjoy higher average speeds and fewer accidents per mile. The 'speed-kills' proponents should really consider and research this: they drive *faster* than us on average but have fewer accidents per mile. This is due in large part to better driver training but a social phenomenon which is heavily peer and police enforced, and that is lane discipline.
Lane discipline, simply put, is about being at the right speed for the lane, allowing faster traffic to pass and making effective passes yourself. Slower traffic on the right, passing on the left, no exceptions. This means, if you're not passing, you're not in the left (fast) lane. If you're going the same speed as the guy to your right, you're a rolling roadblock and should not be in that lane to begin with. If a faster car is approaching from behind....you don't become citizen-cop and block him, you move over *before* he gets to you so he can pass without losing momentum.
Sadly, American drivers get the giant fail-horn when it comes to these simple acts of courtesy, and it's no wonder our freeways are a snarled mess of rolling roadblocks with drivers heads firmly planted up their posteriors, self-appointed officer Stouts who think it's their duty to slow-down faster traffic, and slowpokes who think they have a right to any lane they happen to find themselves in.
Of course, we can't totally blame American drivers, because political pressure and police enforcement and has centered so much around myths such as 'speed kills' and the former, '55 saves lives'.
For those who've driven on a California freeway recently in free-flowing conditions, the average speed is around 75-80. Going 65 in the 'fast' lanes would simply slow down the freeway and create a slalom course that faster drivers are forced to navigate. Some of those faster drivers are going to be very pissed off about a rolling roadblock, which results in a faster, potentially-angry driver who is now taking more risks among additional lane-changes. Naturally, this is going to lead to more accidents, and the culprit here is not outright speed as is often-blamed but the lack of lane-discipline resulting in roadrage. If the slowpokes stayed to the right and allowed faster traffic to go through, there would be fewer people forced to break momentum and happier drivers all-around.
Here's a quick quiz for the safetycrats who bleat, 'speed kills':
Which is the correct answer to this DMV permit-test question:
When merging onto a freeway, you should be driving
a. At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic
b. At the legal freeway speed limit
c. Slower than the freeway traffic
The correct answer is a., 'At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic'.
So, if the freeway is going about 75, and the speed limit is 65, there's a mixed message here, especially since most drivers have gotten tickets for 75-80 in their lifetimes. On one hand you have a speed limit with a severe financial penalty for being 'caught' driving with the flow of traffic, but logic indicates that less speed difference or disparity is safer than being much slower or faster than surrounding traffic.
It's also safer for people to make fewer lane-changes, but a lack of lane-discipline forces not only more lane-changes, but potentially-angry lane-changes. Those who are terrorized by 'maniac drivers' all the time are probably making the mistake of driving too slowly for their lane-choice and thus, they tend to be on the receiving end of more than their fair-share of road rage.
Here is how surface-street (non-freeway) speed-limits are established:
A traffic engineer sits out there with an unmarked car and surveys the speed of at least 50 cars on a given stretch of road in free-flowing conditions. The road should not be within 150 feet of a traffic control device such as a stop sign or traffic light, and not on a curve. The engineer measures the 85th percentile speed and this is what the prima-facie limit is based on, barring extenuating conditions. The 85th percentile is considered to be the amount of people who drive at speeds 'safe for conditions' based on the road, traffic, weather, etc.
However, the freeway completely ignores this methodology, and in fact, the freeway limits in CA used to be 55, hence the outdated phrase, '55 saves lives'. The 55 mph limit was prompted by the gas crunch of the 70's, and had little to do with saving any lives. When this low-limit was lifted, accident rates *went down*. The 65 mph limit on CA freeways actually improved things and evened out traffic flow...especially considering the modernization of vehicles over the years which can easily handle the higher-speeds.
The MUTCD is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This is the federal manual which all states must be in majority compliance with regarding speed limits, roadsigns and markings, etc. This manual also warns against speed limits which are artificially low for the same reason....artificially low speed limits may make citizens feel safer and generate lots of revenue for the city, but will invariably result in more accidents.
When drivers take an artificially-low speed limit seriously (prompted by enthusiastic ticket-writing), citizens slow down and the 85th percentile driving at speeds safe for conditions will encounter those slow drivers, resulting in more lane changes and you guessed it, more accidents.
Higher limits tend to 'even' out the traffic flow, as long as the higher limits relate to the 85th percentile of measured drivers, since the slowpokes won't be encouraged to drive even slower, and the faster drivers aren't going to be blocked as much by slowpokes. Overall, it means less speed disparity and thus, fewer accidents.
So if the 85th percentile speed works for surface streets, why isn't this logic applied to freeways? I am sure any measurement in free-flowing conditions would show an 85th percentile of 70+, and the 65 mph limit is encouraging slower traffic to think their slow speed is ok in even the fastest lanes of a freeway going 75-80, though smarter slowpokes will avoid these faster lanes for self-preservation.
The artificially low-speed limit on freeways is tantamount to a speed-trap, as the 65 mph limit in most places ignores the 85th percentile speed. This is a cause of greater speed disparity, increased lane-changes and more accidents than if the speed limits were more realistic and realistically-enforced with more emphasis on lane-discipline.
Carpool lanes are an ineffective band-aid. If drivers practiced effective lane-discipline, there would be far more efficient-use of the lanes...even on a two-lane road. It's almost comical to be on a 5 lane freeway and then sure enough, some arse-tard is in the number 1 (fast) lane, driving the exact same speed as the guy to his right. If the person didn't have his head squarely up his bum he would be in the lane to the right, going the same speed as his road-block buddy but in front or behind him without being the source of road-rage.
In addition, the carpool lane is a farce when drivers can qualify for this lane by carrying a child. Last I checked, children cannot drive, at least not very well. Why on Earth does a soccer mom get to bring her gigantic land-barge into the carpool lane just because 2-year-old Timmy is in the child-carrier? How does this take any driver off the road or benefit anyone? What next, do we start at conception and let the preggers mom go into the carpool lane? After all, she's driving for two, right? It's re-god-damn-diculous. If more than one person qualifies you for the carpool lane, that other driver should be at least 15 with a valid driver's license, otherwise we're not taking any cars off the road, and the carpool lane is tantamount to a breeder-lane. I'd say that's a little-bit retarded.
Motorcycles qualify for the carpool lane, but they take hardly any space, are gas-efficient, take hardly any room for parking and it's good to encourage riders not to drive bigger cages. As a motorcycle-rider myself, I benefit from the carpool lane directly, but I'd be all for removing all carpool lanes. They just don't work for the majority.
Another issue is hybrids. Hybrid-cars in CA are allowed in the carpool lanes with a solo-occupant, but only if they have the special state-issued tags. They've stopped handing out these tags though, probably due to the sheer number of hybrids on the road and the obvious tactic of buying a hybrid simply for use in the carpool lane when commuting.
The search for alternative fuels presses on, and saying 'hybrid' in 5-10 years will be like saying 'vehicle' today. The majority of cars will be some kind of alternative-fuel or electric vehicle and the lower-carbon footprint reward of the carpool-lane will be moot. Of course, my smart (car) doesn't qualify me for the carpool lane even though it's the best MPG gas-powered car in the U.S. right behind the hybrids, takes up way less space to park, doesn't have a bunch of batteries to dispose of later and costs 10k less. ;) There are other gas-powered cars which are very 'green' but are disallowed from the carpool lane with a solo driver. The hybrid-carpool benefit simply won't work in a day and age where every auto-manufacturer is 'going green' and moving into hybrid technology.
All it takes is one slow-ass vehicle to clog the carpool lane and the lane becomes much less effective, and this goes for giant buses too. Ok sure, they are definitely carpooling, but isn't a bus too big for a carpool lane? Why are we encouraging a giant-arse bus to go ALLLLLLL the way across all the lanes to the carpool lane, and then go alllll the way back to exit the freeway? That's completely stupid. Buses and other multi-axle vehicles should not be allowed in the carpool lane and should stay to the right where they belong with the trucks and other slow, multi-axle traffic. After all, we don't see tractor-trailers in the carpool lane just because there's a toddler in the front-cab, do we?
So yeah, carpool lanes aren't fixing anything, but are a boon to a slim minority with specially-tagged hybrids, those who ride motorcycles and people carrying other adults or non-driving kids.
If we simply emphasize lane-discipline over speed-myths, remove carpool lanes and improve driver-training (including proper cell-phone use and no god-damn texting while-driving), I think we'd be better off.
-dB-
In Germany, drivers enjoy higher average speeds and fewer accidents per mile. The 'speed-kills' proponents should really consider and research this: they drive *faster* than us on average but have fewer accidents per mile. This is due in large part to better driver training but a social phenomenon which is heavily peer and police enforced, and that is lane discipline.
Lane discipline, simply put, is about being at the right speed for the lane, allowing faster traffic to pass and making effective passes yourself. Slower traffic on the right, passing on the left, no exceptions. This means, if you're not passing, you're not in the left (fast) lane. If you're going the same speed as the guy to your right, you're a rolling roadblock and should not be in that lane to begin with. If a faster car is approaching from behind....you don't become citizen-cop and block him, you move over *before* he gets to you so he can pass without losing momentum.
Sadly, American drivers get the giant fail-horn when it comes to these simple acts of courtesy, and it's no wonder our freeways are a snarled mess of rolling roadblocks with drivers heads firmly planted up their posteriors, self-appointed officer Stouts who think it's their duty to slow-down faster traffic, and slowpokes who think they have a right to any lane they happen to find themselves in.
Of course, we can't totally blame American drivers, because political pressure and police enforcement and has centered so much around myths such as 'speed kills' and the former, '55 saves lives'.
For those who've driven on a California freeway recently in free-flowing conditions, the average speed is around 75-80. Going 65 in the 'fast' lanes would simply slow down the freeway and create a slalom course that faster drivers are forced to navigate. Some of those faster drivers are going to be very pissed off about a rolling roadblock, which results in a faster, potentially-angry driver who is now taking more risks among additional lane-changes. Naturally, this is going to lead to more accidents, and the culprit here is not outright speed as is often-blamed but the lack of lane-discipline resulting in roadrage. If the slowpokes stayed to the right and allowed faster traffic to go through, there would be fewer people forced to break momentum and happier drivers all-around.
Here's a quick quiz for the safetycrats who bleat, 'speed kills':
Which is the correct answer to this DMV permit-test question:
When merging onto a freeway, you should be driving
a. At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic
b. At the legal freeway speed limit
c. Slower than the freeway traffic
The correct answer is a., 'At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic'.
So, if the freeway is going about 75, and the speed limit is 65, there's a mixed message here, especially since most drivers have gotten tickets for 75-80 in their lifetimes. On one hand you have a speed limit with a severe financial penalty for being 'caught' driving with the flow of traffic, but logic indicates that less speed difference or disparity is safer than being much slower or faster than surrounding traffic.
It's also safer for people to make fewer lane-changes, but a lack of lane-discipline forces not only more lane-changes, but potentially-angry lane-changes. Those who are terrorized by 'maniac drivers' all the time are probably making the mistake of driving too slowly for their lane-choice and thus, they tend to be on the receiving end of more than their fair-share of road rage.
Here is how surface-street (non-freeway) speed-limits are established:
A traffic engineer sits out there with an unmarked car and surveys the speed of at least 50 cars on a given stretch of road in free-flowing conditions. The road should not be within 150 feet of a traffic control device such as a stop sign or traffic light, and not on a curve. The engineer measures the 85th percentile speed and this is what the prima-facie limit is based on, barring extenuating conditions. The 85th percentile is considered to be the amount of people who drive at speeds 'safe for conditions' based on the road, traffic, weather, etc.
However, the freeway completely ignores this methodology, and in fact, the freeway limits in CA used to be 55, hence the outdated phrase, '55 saves lives'. The 55 mph limit was prompted by the gas crunch of the 70's, and had little to do with saving any lives. When this low-limit was lifted, accident rates *went down*. The 65 mph limit on CA freeways actually improved things and evened out traffic flow...especially considering the modernization of vehicles over the years which can easily handle the higher-speeds.
The MUTCD is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This is the federal manual which all states must be in majority compliance with regarding speed limits, roadsigns and markings, etc. This manual also warns against speed limits which are artificially low for the same reason....artificially low speed limits may make citizens feel safer and generate lots of revenue for the city, but will invariably result in more accidents.
When drivers take an artificially-low speed limit seriously (prompted by enthusiastic ticket-writing), citizens slow down and the 85th percentile driving at speeds safe for conditions will encounter those slow drivers, resulting in more lane changes and you guessed it, more accidents.
Higher limits tend to 'even' out the traffic flow, as long as the higher limits relate to the 85th percentile of measured drivers, since the slowpokes won't be encouraged to drive even slower, and the faster drivers aren't going to be blocked as much by slowpokes. Overall, it means less speed disparity and thus, fewer accidents.
So if the 85th percentile speed works for surface streets, why isn't this logic applied to freeways? I am sure any measurement in free-flowing conditions would show an 85th percentile of 70+, and the 65 mph limit is encouraging slower traffic to think their slow speed is ok in even the fastest lanes of a freeway going 75-80, though smarter slowpokes will avoid these faster lanes for self-preservation.
The artificially low-speed limit on freeways is tantamount to a speed-trap, as the 65 mph limit in most places ignores the 85th percentile speed. This is a cause of greater speed disparity, increased lane-changes and more accidents than if the speed limits were more realistic and realistically-enforced with more emphasis on lane-discipline.
Carpool lanes are an ineffective band-aid. If drivers practiced effective lane-discipline, there would be far more efficient-use of the lanes...even on a two-lane road. It's almost comical to be on a 5 lane freeway and then sure enough, some arse-tard is in the number 1 (fast) lane, driving the exact same speed as the guy to his right. If the person didn't have his head squarely up his bum he would be in the lane to the right, going the same speed as his road-block buddy but in front or behind him without being the source of road-rage.
In addition, the carpool lane is a farce when drivers can qualify for this lane by carrying a child. Last I checked, children cannot drive, at least not very well. Why on Earth does a soccer mom get to bring her gigantic land-barge into the carpool lane just because 2-year-old Timmy is in the child-carrier? How does this take any driver off the road or benefit anyone? What next, do we start at conception and let the preggers mom go into the carpool lane? After all, she's driving for two, right? It's re-god-damn-diculous. If more than one person qualifies you for the carpool lane, that other driver should be at least 15 with a valid driver's license, otherwise we're not taking any cars off the road, and the carpool lane is tantamount to a breeder-lane. I'd say that's a little-bit retarded.
Motorcycles qualify for the carpool lane, but they take hardly any space, are gas-efficient, take hardly any room for parking and it's good to encourage riders not to drive bigger cages. As a motorcycle-rider myself, I benefit from the carpool lane directly, but I'd be all for removing all carpool lanes. They just don't work for the majority.
Another issue is hybrids. Hybrid-cars in CA are allowed in the carpool lanes with a solo-occupant, but only if they have the special state-issued tags. They've stopped handing out these tags though, probably due to the sheer number of hybrids on the road and the obvious tactic of buying a hybrid simply for use in the carpool lane when commuting.
The search for alternative fuels presses on, and saying 'hybrid' in 5-10 years will be like saying 'vehicle' today. The majority of cars will be some kind of alternative-fuel or electric vehicle and the lower-carbon footprint reward of the carpool-lane will be moot. Of course, my smart (car) doesn't qualify me for the carpool lane even though it's the best MPG gas-powered car in the U.S. right behind the hybrids, takes up way less space to park, doesn't have a bunch of batteries to dispose of later and costs 10k less. ;) There are other gas-powered cars which are very 'green' but are disallowed from the carpool lane with a solo driver. The hybrid-carpool benefit simply won't work in a day and age where every auto-manufacturer is 'going green' and moving into hybrid technology.
All it takes is one slow-ass vehicle to clog the carpool lane and the lane becomes much less effective, and this goes for giant buses too. Ok sure, they are definitely carpooling, but isn't a bus too big for a carpool lane? Why are we encouraging a giant-arse bus to go ALLLLLLL the way across all the lanes to the carpool lane, and then go alllll the way back to exit the freeway? That's completely stupid. Buses and other multi-axle vehicles should not be allowed in the carpool lane and should stay to the right where they belong with the trucks and other slow, multi-axle traffic. After all, we don't see tractor-trailers in the carpool lane just because there's a toddler in the front-cab, do we?
So yeah, carpool lanes aren't fixing anything, but are a boon to a slim minority with specially-tagged hybrids, those who ride motorcycles and people carrying other adults or non-driving kids.
If we simply emphasize lane-discipline over speed-myths, remove carpool lanes and improve driver-training (including proper cell-phone use and no god-damn texting while-driving), I think we'd be better off.
-dB-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed