THIS CAFE HAS GOOD EATS

The Senate did a very good thing last week. For the first time in 30 years, they actually passed a bill to significantly increase fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars and trucks. You can read all the details in this New York Times article, but here's the long and short of it:

Environmental groups, though disappointed by the setbacks on renewable fuels, nevertheless hailed the vote on higher mileage requirements as a long-sought victory that could eventually reduce American gasoline consumption by more than 1 million gallons of gasoline a day.

If the Senate bill becomes law, car manufacturers would have to increase the average mileage of new cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, compared with roughly 25 miles per gallon today.

Car companies had lobbied ferociously for a much weaker requirement of 30 miles per gallon for light trucks and sport-utility vehicles. To muster enough votes to prevent a filibuster, about a dozen lawmakers from both parties hammered out a deal that included the higher standard but omitted explicit requirements for further increases in efficiency after 2020.

The automobile companies (of course) fought this thing to the bitter end, and I couldn't have less sympathy for them. I know that I shouldn't be surprised by these things anymore, but I'm quite stunned that they've been able to get away with this for so long. Year after year, the car manufacturers have argued that increasing fuel efficiency standards in their vehicles would be financially devastating and technically implausible. This argument is so tired it makes Rip van Winkle seem energetic. Don't tell me the country that pumps out lightning fast computers and "do everything" iPods like candy can't make a better car within a two decades time frame. As a friend of mine always says of his newly purchased vehicle, "This is the same car I had twenty years ago." And isn't it sad that American cars wouldn't even be allowed in China or Europe because they get such crappy mileage?

To be honest, the thing that baffles me more than anything is why car companies would even want to continue this battle. If you look at the financial outlook for GM, Ford, and Chrysler; they are hemorrhaging money right now. And if you ask anyone the reason, they will all say that the Japanese are killing them with fuel efficient vehicles. I am the CEO of nothing, but even I'm smart enough to notice SUV sales went way down and hybrid sales went way up when gas prices skyrocketed. I suppose I can understand -- but not agree with -- their old reasoning that Americans want fast, powerful cars. But the resistance to aggressively developing fuel efficient cars is HURTING THEIR BOTTOM LINE (even Republicans should worry about that). And I'm clearly not the only one having these thoughts. Here's what a fellow blogger wrote:

They don't know it yet, or maybe they do, but US automakers are a dead men walking. How can we take people with attitudes such as these exhibit seriously? It's almost like they want to fail. Maybe they do, maybe they want to fail so that they can break the last of the unions and their pension funds too.

There are a few organizations like Friends of the Earth that don't think this bill is very good due to the fact that it doesn't have any mandates on the use of renewable energy sources, like solar or wind. My concern is actually that it isn't even aggressive enough for just the CAFE standards alone. Many respectable scientists have stated that we only have about 10 years to significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid a "tipping point" from which we can't recover. So, dates like 2020 just don't cut it in my opinion.

This whole discussion might be a moot point anyway, because the bill still has to go through the House before it becomes law, and who knows how watered down it will be by then. But for now, the average man should savor the victory.

PROUD TO BE A GAUCHO, BUT ...

I want to preface this post by stating that I am a proud alumni of UC Santa Barbara, and I think it's totally awesome that the UCSB Men's Soccer Team won the championship this year. As you may or may not know, UCSB has only had one other NCAA championship in the school's history, so this type of thing is a great accomplishment indeed. I might also add that I played soccer in high school, so that made this victory even more special for me.

Having said that, I have to admit to being a little perturbed when I read this story about all the college champions being recognized by Bush at the White House. I know it's an incredible honor to be invited by the President of the United States for your accomplishments, whatever they may be. But is it really an honor to be recognized by this president?

I've given this a lot of thought over the last few years, and I'm quite confident that I would refuse a call from Bush. It may seem silly to think about such things, but I do (I can't help it). Now, you may say that it would be impossible to actually turn down an invitation from the president and that it would be easier said than done. I would agree with that sentiment, but at the same time, I don't know how I could look myself in the mirror if I walked onto some stage with a fake smile on my face and shook Bush's hand.

I think Bush is single-handedly destroying the world. Or at least, destroying my country. If that's not reason enough to boycott a White House invitation, I don't know what is.

THE AVERAGE MAN IS PG

Looks like I need to use a little more of that Dick Cheney language to make this site less family friendly ...

Mingle² - Free Online Dating

IMMIGRATION TREPIDATION

The Average Man has, until now, mostly shied away from the immigration debate. I've done this not because I don't have feelings about the issue, but rather, because it's so complicated. I am -- as you can probably guess -- for providing some sort of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. However, I am not blind to the cost of health care for these folks and their effect on the job market. Having said that, the discussion surrounding the recently killed Senate bill has fired me up, so I shall remain silent no longer!

I've spent the last few weeks learnin-up on the Senate bill, and I have to say that I find the word "compromise" to be laughable. As with most government bills, there are more details than I care to know. For this post, though, I want to focus on a few of the major things illegal immigrants would have had to do in order to become citizens:

1) Pay a minimum $5,000 fine

2) A "touchback" requirement for immigrants to make pilgrimages to their home countries

3) Stay consistently employed the entire time they are here

It seems ridiculous to even ask this question, but where is an illegal immigrant making $2.00 an hour going to come up with $5,000 dollars? And, regarding the touchback clause, if you left your family and risked your life crossing the border, are you going to go back to Mexico and trust the U.S. to let you back in? This makes no sense to me.

For the sake of argument, let's say you do manage to pay the fine and make that journey back to your home country. It's not like, congratulations, you are an American! No, you still go to the back of the line and wait as long as 13 years to become a citizen. This leads to #3 above: how many Americans have been consistently employed for 13 years? It's tough enough to do that as a citizen with a good education and whatnot. Imagine if you are an illegal alien doing odd jobs here and there to pay the bills. To call this bill a compromise is liking saying we want to go to Mars in either 1 years or 5 years ... and then compromising on 2.5.

Okay, so the bill failed. I should be happy, right? Well, no, I am not. What scares me about this is the fact that a bill making it nearly impossible to obtain citizenship failed because IT WAS TOO LENIENT! I mean, if this bill can't pass, can any?

The reality is that you can't round up 12 million people and drag them back to Mexico. If you agree with that fact (and most people do), then you have to provide a path to citizenship. Illegal immigrants are here, they are working, and they aren't leaving. If you do nothing, then -- as John McCain recently said -- what you have is "silent amnesty." A recent New York Times Editorial said it best:

The price of this strategy is high — far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids, detentions and deportations; continual ID checks for everyone, citizen or not; immigration police at the federal, state, county and local levels; bureaucrats and snoops keeping an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick. The strain on agriculture and service industries would be devastating. And all the things that everyone agrees are the perversities of the status quo — exploited workers, depressed wages, a huge undocumented population within our borders — would persist for an indefinite period until the last illegal immigrant goes home.

We can debate fines and timelines all day, but I think what gets lost in this discussion is the fact that illegal immigrants are people. They didn't risk their necks coming over here for citizenship. They came here for a better life. The problem with those who cry "amnesty" and would deny them a chance at the American dream obviously cannot put themselves in an immigrant's shoes. I challenge you all to watch the episode of FX's 30 Days where a proud Minuteman lives with a family of illegal immigrants for a month. It may not change your mind, but it will help you understand.

According to a recent article in the Santa Barbara Daily Sound, there are between 25,000 and 75,000 illegal immigrants in Santa Barbara County. With those kinds of numbers, you can be assured that your life is intertwined in some way or another with these people (and probably for the better). Isn't it time we help them get into the system?

As Joe Biden said in the last DemocratIC debates, "Folks, being commander-in-chief requires you to occasionally be practical." How true.

WENDY MCCAW TO THE RESCUE!

In my last post, I was taken to task by people on both sides of the issue for running under the assumption that Dr. Laura's son is guilty (of posting some pretty heinous items on a MySpace page) before all the facts have surfaced. I don't necessarily agree with this assessment, but I will admit to not pulling any punches either. I simply gave the good doctor of physiology the same courtesy she gives to others.

If it wasn't Dr. Laura's son at issue, do you Schlessinger fans out there think she would give this person the benefit of the doubt? The answer, of course, is no ... and I can prove it. As anyone local to the Santa Barbara area knows, the Santa Barbara News-Press recently printed a front page article attempting to link former executive editor Jerry Roberts to child pornography. The article was carefully crafted to make it appear as if they were innocently trying to obtain the hard drive from his computer, but we all know their motives are much more sinister. As Jerry himself recently pointed out in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece:

These articles were all published in the full knowledge that: 1) the hard drive in the computer was bought used by the News-Press; 2) the hard drive had been used by as many as three other editors before it got to me; and 3) an investigation by law enforcement experts could not determine when or by whom the offending images were downloaded.

But none of these facts prevented Wendy McCaw from trying to ruin Mr. Roberts anyway. She not only had the audacity to print this "news story" on the Sunday front page, but consider this:

1) Jerry Robert's name was in the headline of the story.

2) Wendy did not list the names of the other editors who used that machine.

3) I'm not sure any other articles or blogs have pointed out that she also used ROBERTS as the jump line to take you to the rest of the story on another page (if she was not trying to link Mr. Roberts to those images, why not have the jump line read PORN or HARD DRIVE?).

So, did Dr. Laura run to Jerry Robert's defense? Did she get up on her holier-than-thou podium and yell with her big fat microphone, "Hey, you guys, Jerry Roberts is innocent until proven guilty in the good ol' US of A!" No, she instead chose to write a column for the NP defending the newspaper's actions.

But fear not, true believers. For all who want to get to the truth of the MySpace page, you (believe it or not) have an ally in the person of ... Wendy McCaw. As Ms. McCaw stated in her recent letter to the Los Angeles Times regarding journalist Lou Cannon:

The Lou Cannons of this world missed the point in our story that our newsroom computers contained this vile material, and how we at the News-Press are fighting to determine who did it. Now we have a real story: It's a story of just how cavalier many in our country are to the suffering and misery of the children subjected to this depravity. Whoever traffics in it, whoever excuses it, simply aids and abets the victimization of those innocents.

I see. So, you're either for Jerry Roberts or against child pornography. Hmm, well, I don't like child pornography, so ... sorry Jerry, you're out. But if we have to take him down, then we have to take down everyone, right? Ms. McCaw said it herself:

We intend to write more about the scourge of child pornography and we intend to uncover and expose anyone, including any former or current employees of our paper, who traffics and delights in the sexual abuse of children.

The MySpace page in question contained images of "child molestation," so am I right in assuming Ms. McCaw will be aggressively pursuing this case as well? In fact, let's work together on this, Wendy. We'll join forces to fight this evil and call ourselves Team McCaw. Do you want to subpoena the military demanding to see the content of the MySpace page or should I? And of course, we're absolutely not going to take no for an answer. Plus, I'm sure whatever means they use to determine who posted that horrible content can't match up to the CSI equipment in The Average-Man Cave. In fact, with your money, I can finally get those fancy new forensics gadgets I've been pining for. We'll be unstoppable!

I know this will be hard for you to do, Wendy, because Dr. Laura is an employee and a friend. But justice is blind, and we know how concerned you are with being unbiased. It's good we have noble people like you defending our children ... if not our animals.