I LOVE NY ... AND CALIFORNIA

The Average Man shouldn't like Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's arrogant, he can be kind of a doofus (see the movie Pumping Iron), and he pimped for Bush at the Republican National Convention (calling Democrats girly-men). More than that, however, I was angry -- and still am -- at the whole recall election fiasco. To me, it was just another example of conservatives gaining power by cheating the system (e.g. Texas gerrymandering). Does anyone really think Mr. Schwarzenegger would have won so easily had he been forced to run an actual campaign for more than a couple of months? The only consolation I received was that Darrell Issa lost after funding the thing.

Anyway, despite my strong feelings in this matter, I must give credit where credit is due. Aanold may not be perfect, but he's certainly done more for the environment and the global warming cause than any politician I can think of ... save Al Gore. I was inspired to write about this after reading a New York Times Editorial on Saturday that faults the federal government for moving too slowly on this important issue. In the article, it is stated that "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has warned that he will sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it gives him the power to regulate automobile emissions." Certainly no girly-man behavior in that.

This then got me thinking about Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. If you haven't heard, he just put forth a bold new plan to make NYC the greenest big U.S. city by reducing the city's global warming emissions 30 percent by 2030. As stated in the commentary, he plans to do this by implementing these items ...

All of New York's power plants and all the city's contaminated brownfields would be cleaned up, helping create vast new areas for an added 250,000 housing units. To put recreation space within reach of all New Yorkers, the city will open 290 schoolyards as public playgrounds and create public plazas in every community.

Roadways would be landscaped and 1 million trees planted. "Green" building standards would be required for all new structures and an array of financial incentives would be created to spark broad-scale energy rehabbing of buildings.

... Bloomberg's first (and toughest) sell may be congestion pricing for Manhattan, which he reluctantly embraced out of fear the economy of the city could be paralyzed by a projected 20 percent increase, by 2030, of traffic on the already clogged island ... The $8-a-day fee for cars and $21 for trucks ... would pay for vast subway improvements and expansion, plus increased commuter connections into the city.

So, there you go: two of the most (arguably) influential politicians on global warming are making things happen, and they are both ... oy ... Republicans. In a rare case for me, I was opposed to both of them, and I'm glad I lost.

Bringing it a little closer to home, I was saddened to read in the Los Angeles Times this weekend that the MTA is thinking about raising bus fairs to $2 from $1.25. As Queen Whackamole has suggested, a great way to reduce greenhouse gasses would be to make public transportation free. I agree, and L.A. certainly has some stinkin' thinkin' here. It is suggested that every 10% rise in fares drops ridership by 3%. And that is why San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has ordered a study of eliminating bus and streetcar fares all together. Santa Barbara should do the same.

I'm in line with Bill Maher's assessment that some problems only government can fix, and global warming is one of them. That thought depressed me considering Bush's denial of science and Congress's "glacial" pace. But the recent actions of California and New York give me hope.

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER

The Average Man is no fan of the NRA. I try not to think about them too much, because it just makes me so angry. But that horrible Virginia Tech shooting last week has reignited the debate, and I can't help but jump into the middle of it. I will do so by pondering the question many are asking recently: is the NRA responsible for the deaths of those students? Let's come back to that.

I have to be honest and say that I am very much puzzled as to how the NRA became so powerful. How did this extreme fringe organization gain so much clout that politicians -- who have no particular interest in guns -- have to run around in Elmer Fudd costumes and shoot little woodland creatures to get elected (Mitt Romney and John Kerry come to mind)? The NRA, in fact, wields so much power that they've managed to pretty much shut down the whole gun debate all together. I love how Washington has no problem aggressively attacking movies, television, music, and video games; but god forbid they talk about guns. On a related note, I think I saw every Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean Claude Van Damme, and Steven Segal movie when I was a kid; none of them made me want to pickup bad acting skills and go break somebody's face.

As tends to be the case with me, I think I have a different angle than most on many political issues, and the NRA is no exception. In my opinion, it's a mistake to argue with them on a case-by-case basis (like the Virgina Tech incident for example). This is pointless as they are just too good at stifling any criticism. I mean, didn't Bush even say something to the effect of he felt bad about the shootings but that the Second Amendment was still important or some such nonsense? We just won't get anywhere with this approach. Instead, we should change the debate and ask a different question ... Why are guns a value to us as a nation? No matter how you feel about abortion or the environment, for example, I think we can agree that they are "value" arguments. We have strong feelings about these things because they deal with the well being of people and the planet. So, I guess I'm wondering why guns need protection like a person or a polar bear might.

If you are a sane, responsible person, and you want a gun; fine, I have no problem with that. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that very few people have a problem with that. So, isn't that good enough? You want a gun, you can have one ... period .. end of story ... happy now? But no, that is never enough for the NRA. They have stop EVERYTHING that even hints at anti-gun.

If you are a pro-gun advocate who wants to hunt or protect your family or whatever ...

why do you care that you can't have a semi-automatic weapon?

why do you care that you have to wait 3 days to get a gun?

why do you care that they have to run a background check on you?

why do you care if the bullets can be traced back to the gun owner?

why do you care if they won't give a gun to felons or the mentally ill?

These are all things meant to make you and me safer. For god's sake, what is wrong with that!? Why is it of value to you to fight this every ... single ... time?!

Okay, back to Virginia Tech. Do I think the NRA is responsible? Damn right I do. "But he got the gun legally," you might say. Yes, he legally obtained a semi-automatic weapon with a lame instant background check, because the NRA has made it virtually impossible to prevent bad people from legally getting guns (oh, and he bought the clips on eBay). The NRA is responsible for the culture that you, me, and Cho Seung-Hui live in.

I'm a member of Stop The NRA. Maybe you should be, too.

NOTHING PATRIOTIC ABOUT IT

As the banner above boldly states, The Average Man fights for truth and justice. So, I hope you'll forgive me when I make this embarrassing confession: I was originally for the Patriot Act. Yes, it's true, I admit it. As strong as I try to be when it comes to sticking up for what's right in all circumstances, 9/11 freaked me out to the point where I let my guard down. And for the briefest of moments, I went against my better judgement and felt we had to give the government more flexibility in catching terrorists. It was so bad that I even had arguments with my conservative friends (yes, I have a couple) where they took the other side.

Why was I wrong? You might think the answer to that question has to do with the wire tapping event or the government collection of phone records. No, those are just symptoms. I was wrong because it's always wrong to give up freedom and civil liberties for safety. As Ben Franklin famously said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." How true.

I was also wrong because I forgot that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... which leads me to Alberto Gonzales. Much has been written about the firing of those eight U.S. Attorneys, so I won't rehash the entire sordid affair. However, I would like to talk about something that has been grossly underreported, and that's the fact that those attorneys were sacked because of a provision in the Patriot Act. Wikipidia does a good job of outlining the situation ...

A key issue in the controversy is the political nature of any Senate-confirmed appointment to office, and the 2006 revision of the USA PATRIOT Act, amending the United States Code to permit the term of an interim U.S. Attorney to last until a presidentially nominated replacement is approved by the Senate. The amendment gives the United States Attorney General (the Presidential Cabinet officer authorized to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys) the power to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval.

For me, this is the story. Unlike the wire tapping and phone records incidents, there is no guise of safety here. You can argue until your blue in the face about the legitimacy of the firings, but you can't argue that the Patriot Act wasn't abused for something other than its original intention. If you don't believe me, then I ask you to think of Mr. Gonzales's aid, Kyle Sampson, who stated about the provision, "if we don't ever exercise it, then what's the point of having it?" And if that still doesn't convince you, consider that -- after the controversy erupted -- the Senate voted to overturn this provision by a vote of 94-2, and the House of Representatives overturned it as well, by a vote of 329-78. Seems a little panicky to me.

Average-Man is not perfect, but he learns from his mistakes. It's kind of scary how quickly we were willing to hand over everything that makes us great for a little feeling of comfort and security. Alberto Gonzales has vividly shown us what happens when we do that. Instead of listening to my inner demons on 9/11, I should have remembered the words of wisdom stated so eloquently by one of our greatest philosophers ...

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY

It won't happen again.

WHAT THE HECK IS A MEME?

I was challenged to fillout the questionnaire below, so after Googling the definition of MEME, I gave it a go ...

FOODOLOGY
Q. What is your salad dressing of choice?
A. Ranch.

Q. What is your favorite fast food restaurant?
A. Nothing beats a good old fashioned Royal with Cheese and Fries.

Q. What is your favorite sit-down restaurant?
A. Woody's in Goleta.

Q. On average, what size tip do you leave at a restaurant?
A. 20%

Q. What food could you eat every day for two weeks and not get sick off of?
A. Freebirds burritos in Isla Vista

Q. What is your favorite type of gum?
A. I stopped chewing gum after having braces for most of my childhood.

TECHNOLOGY
Q. What is your wallpaper on your computer?
A. Some mountain that came with the computer.

Q. How many televisions are in your house?
A. Three (playing art all day long).

BIOLOGY
Q. What’s your best feature?
A. My hair.

Q. Have you ever had anything removed from your body?
A. Bad skin things (wear sunscreen children).

Q. Which of your five senses do you think is keenest?
A. Sight.

Q. When was the last time you had a cavity?
A. Maybe 10 years ago.

Q. What is the heaviest item you lifted last?
A. I have to refill the bottled water thing.

Q. Have you ever been knocked unconscious?
A. No.

BULLSHITOLOGY
Q. If it were possible, would you want to know the day you were going to die?
A. Ewww, no.

Q. Is love for real?
A. Absolutely.

Q. If you could change your first name, what would you change it to?
A. Tiberius.

Q. What color do you think looks best on you?
A. Blue.

Q. Have you ever swallowed a non-food item by mistake?
A. Who hasn't eaten part of a wrapper by accident?

Q. Have you ever saved someone’s life?
A. Not in a super hero kind of way, no.

Q. Has someone ever saved yours?
A. Not literally, no.

DAREOLOGY
Q. Would you walk naked for a half mile down a public street for $100,000?
A. Okay.

Q. Would you kiss a member of the same sex for $100?
A. Bring it.

Q. Would you allow one of your little fingers to be cut off for $200,000?
A. Ewww, no.

Q. Would you never blog again for $50,000?
A. Yes. I'm sure others would prefer I didn't anyway.

Q. Would you pose nude in a magazine for $250,000?
A. Okay.

Q. Would you drink an entire bottle of hot sauce for $1,000?
A. No.

Q. Would you, without fear of punishment, take a human life for $1,000,000?
A. Average-Man saves lives!

Q. Would you give up watching television for a year for $25,000?
A. No way! Those who answered yes to this question, I think you're lying :)

Q. Give up MySpace forever for $30,000?
A. Easily. MySpace sucks.

DUMBOLOGY
Q: What is in your left pocket?
A. Keys.

Q: Is Napoleon Dynamite actually a good movie?
A. Yes, but not as good as the hype.

Q: Do you have hardwood or carpet in your house?
A. Carpet.

Q: Do you sit or stand in the shower?
A. Um, stand.

Q: Could you live with roommates?
A. I don't think so.

Q: How many pairs of flip-flops do you own?
A. One.

Q: Last time you had a run-in with the cops?
A. About a year ago, someone side-swiped me on the freeway.

Q: What do you want to be when you grow up?
A. Kevin Smith.

LASTOLOGY
Q: Friend you talked to?
A. Co-worker friend, just now.

Q: Last person you called?
A. Pizza Mizza

RANDOMOLOGY
Q: First place you went this morning?
A. Starbucks.

Q: What can you not wait to do?
A. Happy Hour!

Q: What’s the last movie you saw?
A. Rocky Balboa. Shut up!

Q: Are you a friendly person?
A. I try.

AVERAGE MAN LOVES LOIS CAPPS

The Average Man is very concerned about global warming (as is anyone who believes in science), and the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change didn't help alleviate my concerns when they warned that ...

failure to contain these emissions will have disastrous environmental effects, especially in poorer countries, which are least able to defend themselves and their people against the consequences of climate change.

And what was the Bush administration's response to this report? Was it, "Oh my god, we need to do something about this and right away!" No, it was something more like, "We need to boost the economy of those countries so that they can better prepare themselves." Typical.

Anyway, I have more opinions on this issue than the average man should, but for this post, I would like to focus on vehicles. As the Daily Sound and those rockin new people at the Santa Barbara Newsroom recently reported, Santa Barbara has added a fleet of hybrid-electric buses that will "improve fuel economy by up to 60 percent." I think this is awesome, because it is my personal view that the the key to solving the global warming crisis starts and ends with vehicles ... and hybrids are the "slam dunk" solution. If you don't agree, the following are a few of my thoughts on the competing technologies:

1) Hydrogen - This is a good idea in concept, but it is a loser in reality. Besides the fact that the technology is too far away, no solution is viable in which you have to change the cars AND the infrastructure that supports the fuel.

2) Biodiesel - It definitely has its place, but my informed friends are slowly changing my mind on this one. First, there is a risk that corn prices will skyrocket, causing side effects like food shortages. Second, there was a recent New York Times editorial that argued an increase in biodiesel production will cause government protected land to be opened up to farming. And finally, the corn lobby will prevent better alternatives like switch grass and sugar beets from being used.

3) Electric Cars - I strongly urge you to watch the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? to see why this will never work.

That leaves hybrids. They really are the perfect solution ... They can make a huge positive impact on global warming (in a short period of time), they do not require any change in infrastructure, oil companies can still produce their smelly gasoline, car companies are losing money on gas guzzling SUV's anyway, China & India will follow our lead, and hybrids already have a foothold. And if that's not enough, plug-in hybrids are just around the corner. Even better!

So, back to Santa Barbara. The buses are a great first step, but I would encourage Lois Capps and the SB government to keep moving forward. I was listening to a guy named Edwin Black talk about his book Internal Combustion on C-SPAN a few months back. In his speech, he argued that the key to acceptance is not personal vehicles. Rather, it's the fleets. So, imagine if every government vehicle in SB had to be a hybrid? Or every government vehicle in California?

I could never be elected president, because I would require that all cars be hybrids by 20-right-away. Since no politician could ever sell that idea, the next best thing is for it to happen organically. I'm proud that Santa Barbara is doing its part, but we have to go bigger and faster. Average-Man can't save the world by himself!

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?

The Average Man's goal is to protect the innocent whenever possible, so it is with a sad heart that he must admit a failure to prevent a recent horrible tragedy ... I was flipping through Tuesday's addition of The Daily Sound and fell upon the story titled Old City Hall marker chopped about the cutting down of two palm trees in De la Guerra Plaza. The Average Man considers all tree life to be equal, but these weren't just any palm trees. According to the article, one of them "might have been one of a couple of trees planted in 1910 to represent the original location of City Hall..."

As an avid follower of the tree controversy surrounding the downtown renovation project, I was very excited to read The Santa Barbara News-Press take on this awful situation. So, imagine my surprise when I went to their site and couldn't find one Travis Armstrong editorial blasting Marty Bum for allowing this nightmare. We all know Wendy McCaw doesn't care too much for human beings, but how could she let those poor trees be thrown aside without so much as a simple "To Our Readers" letter describing her rage at this nightmare. Does she have that much disdain for anything that happens in De la Guerra Plaza that she wouldn't take a stand on this important issue? Where's the Free Willy style love?

And don't think Chris Meagher and the liberal media get off scot-free here. The article claims that the trees were dead, but I suspect the pro-growthanistas are preparing the land for some other nefarious use. Did Mr. Meagher investigate this at all, or did he simply take the word of some government official? Did he even consult one arborist? Shoddy reporting if you ask me.

Wait a minute, wait a minute -- I just figured it out -- Wendy is deliberately making the News-Press so bad that no one will want it anymore. That in turn, will reduce the number of trees needed for printing. Why focus on two measly palms when saving the Earth is at stake. Brilliant!

Well, Average-Man is off to fight injustice elsewhere. Oh, tree in De la Guerra Plaza that might have been one of a couple of trees planted in 1910 to represent the original location of City Hall, we hardly knew ye!

SUPREME COURT WATCH

The Average Man is very concerned about The Supreme Court, and heaven help us if Dubya is allowed to appoint one more justice. As is the case with everything about this horrible administration, I have had to watch my childhood belief in yet another government institution be chipped away like a Rodin statue. I don't know about you, but I used to have a vision of The Supreme Court as this collection of the smartest people in the country debating the issues of our time in an attempt to promote the greater good. And there was some sort of comfort in the thought that no matter how bad things got, The Supreme Court would be there to make things right. Well, you can certainly forget about that in today's world ...

This morning I was scanning MSN and came across an article titled Top court rebukes administration on warming. I'll let you read it yourself for the specifics, but the following quote will give you the gist:

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Now, the average man is worried about global warming, so this is good news indeed. However, the thing that upset me about it is exactly what I knew would be the case before I even read past the first sentence. If you want to know where I'm going with this, see if you can guess who the "4" are in this 5-4 decision. If you can't figure it out, here's another quote from the article:

The court’s four conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented.

Okay, let me just say for the record that I think these four guys are really bad news. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to go back a look at the voting record of these men on any case that has a Left vs. Right feel to it. You will see that they are ALWAYS the dissenters in cases like the one above. My favorite example is the case where The Supreme Court voted 5-3 that Bush's military tribunals violate both military law and the Geneva Conventions. Here's a great quote from an article in the The New York Times about it:

Justice Thomas took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in his 15 years on the court. He said that the ruling would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."

Does this sound like someone who should be interpreting the law to you? Oh, and by the way, before you think one of these four had a sudden change of conservative heart, the article also notes that ...

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not take part in the case, since he had ruled in favor of the government as an appeals court justice last year.

That's right, he "ruled in favor of the government" already. No need to repeat himself I guess. Trust me, this is really scary stuff. I just don't know how you can look at this and say with a straight face that these four guys make decisions based on anything but politics and conservative values. And it's especially frightening considering that only one other judge has to side with them in order for their misplaced views to become the law of the land.

And another thing: I really get a laugh when conservatives complain about "activist judges." This is probably a topic for another post, but there was a great Editorial in The New York Times a while back titled Activism Is in the Eye of the Ideologist that pointed out the following:

By the third measure, overturning the court’s own precedents (for which data were available only up to 2000), the conservatives were far more activist. Justice Thomas voted to overturn precedent 23 times and Justice Scalia 19 times, while the court’s four liberals did so in 10 cases or fewer.

So, here's the thing ... Don't get excited when you here that The Supreme Court made a decision you think is solid. If it's an issue that those who Trek Left care about, then you know 5 smart justices had a thoughtful discussion about the issue based on precedent and law ... and the other 4 dissented.