It is MY right to decide whether to burn more gas by traveling at 75 instead of 55!

I wrote back in August about my quandary of whether to "bey the speed limit, or just go with the flow?" I want to tackle another aspect of that question, because of rumors that the federal government wants to re-establish the nation 55 mile per hour limit. The reasons I have heard are: 1) cars run more efficiently at 55 than at 75, 2) driving slower will reduce global warming, and 3) driver slower reduces the number of accidents and fatalities. There are others, I am sure, but I am only going to deal with these three issues in this post.

I think that the issue of fuel consumption is somewhat bogus for at least two reasons. First of all, when the national speed limit was set to 55 miles per hour in the 70's, the cars were not as efficient, nor were they as "clean" as the cars of today. The increase in efficiency means that I am not consuming as much gas per mile driven, nor am I polluting the air as much as 35 years ago. Therefore, I can go about my regular schedule without having to feel guilty about it.

Secondly, if I am keeping my tires inflated and the car tuned and maintained on a regular basis, driving in an economically responsible way (no racing starts after a red light, not racing full throttle up to a red light and then slamming on my brakes at the last minute, for example), along with being smarter about planning my trips around town for maximum fuel economy, then why should I feel guilty about driving? My mini-van and economy car get much better mileage than the monster trucks and SUVs that have one person riding in them.

Thirdly, if I am conserving fuel and driving responsibly, then what impact does my driving at a speed higher than 55 really have? I am still having to travel with all those monster trucks and SUVs who often want to push me off the road, because they want to go faster than me and the law. If my car burns more gas on the trip to my parents (about 7+ hours) because I am doing 75, then the extra money comes out of my pocket. That should be a decision I make, not the government. If the speed limit is set lower by the state, then my time would be impacted, but I would still have to obey the law.

It should be my decision about whether to burn more gas on trip, not a group of people at the federal level who live in the eastern portion of the country. They think nothing of driving to and back from other states for a day trip, while it takes 5-6 hours just to reach the border of the nearest state from Phoenix. However, the city of Phoenix metropolitan area comprises an area of about 50 miles East to West and 35 miles North to South, which is about the size of the entire state of Rhode Island and half the size of the entire state of Connecticut which is only 85 by 65! "Big" cities like New York (about 14 by 17), Washington D.C. (about 15 by 15), and Philadelphia (about 16 by 12) don't even reach half the size of Phoenix, and even Chicago is at least 5 miles smaller on each side. Massachusetts is either 50 or 90 miles north to south depending on where you measure, and about 180 miles across from East to West. The 180 mile distance is how far it is from Phoenix to Flagstaff in Arizona, and it is about another 150 miles to the border of the state from Flagstaff! That trip to Flagstaff is really exciting since it is almost entirely desert. Why should I have to travel 55 mph through a desert?

Fourth, I do not see the connection between the constitutional mandate for the government "to protect and defend the country", to where they are trying again to limit my speed of travel. That should be up to each state. If the easterners want to poke along at 55 mph, then have fun at that speed. Please do not tell me I should have to cross the desert at that speed!

It is MY right to decide whether to burn more gas by traveling at 75 instead of 55 (assuming, of course, that the speed limit is 75)! The right to set the speed limit in a state should be confined to the state. I think this right should even apply to any "Interstate" or Federal roads that happen to pass through the state. It is state land, and the federal government should have no say in setting the limit. All right, I am going to come right out and say it. The U.S. Department of Transportation should be limited to regulating interstate commerce (not speeds on "Interstate" highways) and national safety standards. The people in the free market should be the ones that regulate fuel economy through their decisions to buy economical cars or not. If enough people refuse to buy the gas hogs now being produced, then the car makers will be forced to produce only economical and green cars.

I would appreciate any well thought out responses, both pro and con, on this issue. No, "Your an idiot" and "Get a life" are not consider to be productive and well thought out responses. If I am wrong, then tell me where I have made an error.

Science and Religion - Is there really a confict?

I just finished watching the movie "Angels & Demons" based on Dan Brown's book. I have not read the book yet, so I cannot comment on whether the movie is faithful to the book, but the movie was a good mystery. No matter where you stand on the science versus religion issue, "Angels & Demons" takes known facts and locations and wraps them together into a fascinating pseudo-historical work of fiction. I found it compelling enough to watch a History Channel presentation on the book and the movie.

The 90 minute History Channel presentation entitled "Angels & Demons: Decoded" looks at the book, the movie, the history in the book, the conspiracy theories contained in both the book and the movie, and the science behind the "bomb". I found it to be, if you will pardon the pun, very "illuminating". For myself, as an engineer and long-time Star Trek fan, the explanation of what anti-matter really is, how it is generated, and why billions of dollars and euros are being spent to create it, the History Channel has done a wonderful job of explaining those things.

The history behind the actions taken by Galileo, Bernini, and others, along with possible explanations of the machinations of secret groups within and without the church were discussed. If you are not a fan of history, a conspiracy theorist, or a scientist, then some of the explanations may seem a bit long-winded. However, I found it a jumping off point which led me to a wikipedia article on the inquisition. From there, I was led to the transcripts of the "trial" of Joan D'Arc. The history of those times is one that has been either trivialized (watered down) or just plain ignored by much of what passes for history text books in our schools.

All-in-all, I found watching the movie and the History Channel presentation to be an exciting romp through Rome, history, and science. The 3 hours spent watching them and other time looking more into history by way of the internet was, in my opinion, time well spent. Definitely a much wiser choice than watching more re-runs of NCIS, Bones, or Dirty Jobs.

Should the teacher be expected to grade every piece of homework?

I saw this letter to the editor and just could not let it slide.

The web page is: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/09/08/20090908tuelets088.html#comments

I just watched Denise Donovan on TV discussing mandatory homework for our schoolchildren. I couldn't disagree more.

She mentioned that, beginning with kindergarten, students should have about 10 to 15 minutes of homework a night and that by the time they reach sixth grade, about an hour a night. This is not an extension of school - it's an overburden on the students as well as the family.

The children spend approximately six hours in school every weekday. That's enough. Give them after-school time to enjoy sports or time with their families. This would lessen the tension in every home and have the children return to school the next day refreshed and ready to learn.

Stop mandatory homework!
- Diana Blazek, Surprise, AZ


While reading the comments of other readers, I ran across this question from bigkoaz:

A question for the people commenting on this article, should the teacher be expected to grade every piece of homework? I know my opinion but want to know yours. Also, are you a teacher?

My answer was this:

My thinking is that homework should be mandated by every teacher, except maybe PE teachers. There are very few people (they call them "savants") who can see or do something one time and remember or be able to do it perfectly. If your child is a verified savant, then maybe homework is not necessary. For the rest of us (probably 99.99% or higher), homework is a necessity, because it is a chance to practice the material again and solidify the learning.

How many concert pianists do you know of that did not have to practice at least a few hours each day? Why should you think learning is any different?

Having said that, let me state that I am AGAINST giving students credit for "doing" homework. My policy would be that there would be no credit, and I would not collect it! However, if your child does not do well on a quiz or a test, cannot prove that they have done the assigned homework, has not taken notes, and has not participated in class discussions, then whose fault is it for the poor performance?

Most teachers I know work much harder than their students to produce quality lessons. If the students do not practice their reading, writing, spelling, foreign language vocabulary, math, music, or science, then how can they be expected to be able to do it well and maybe do it for a living?

Oh, wait, there are options for them. They could grow up to be a stupid politician or a drug dealer, or a con artist, or they could just live at home with their parents who thought that homework was unnecessary.

If you agree that homework is needed, then maybe you could talk this up and get involved in a good, grass-roots, conspiracy to create an educated populace.

Obey the speed limit, or just go with the flow?

I am a staunch supporter of obeying the law. If you are willing to break a little law like the speed limit, then what other laws are you willing to break? Over the years it has become more and more scary to obey the speed limit. Cars pull up behind me and tailgate me for miles, endangering my life as well as theirs; even though there may be a totally empty lane on either side of me! I fear that one day I will stop for some reason and the tailgater will inevitably hit me.

For those of you who do not, or wish not to remember, the minimum safe traveling distance is either one car length for every 10 miles per hour of speed (6.5 car lengths at 65mph) or 2 seconds behind the car you are following. No amount of wishing otherwise, can change these basic rules of the road. Not even you absolutely perfect specimens of humanity, who are so much better and quicker than the rest of us, can avoid hitting the car in front of you if you are travelling too close!

Travelling at the speed limit is a wonderful idea until you become the exception to the rule and cars are having to change lanes in order to go faster than you. As much as I would like to continue obeying the speed limit law, I believe that the time has come to literally “just go with the flow”. I have been pushed to this conclusion due to several factors. However, this change in travel speed only applies to driving on the freeway! I find no compelling reason for speeding on city streets. The number one reason for not obeying the literal “speed limit” (which means the MAXIMUM speed allowed in this area), is the fear of being killed by another motorist who either hits me from behind (been there before when I was rear-ended by a drunk on the freeway at 60 mph) or shoots me because I had the bad luck of being in front of them when they wanted to break the law. Several police officers and highway patrolmen I have talked to about this issue cringe when they hear that I am obeying the law. They say that there are too many people out there who will shoot you for just being in their way. Especially here in Arizona where any adult is permitted to strap on a gun and go nearly anywhere without needing a permit.

The second reason is that in the enlightened state I live in, it is possible for me to be given a ticket for “impeding the flow of traffic” which causes others to have to go around me. This even applies if I am obeying the speed limit, and the other drivers are speeding and not obeying the limit!

I mentioned earlier that over the years it has become more and more scary to obey the speed limit, because of the speeders and tailgaters. This is the third factor in my decision. The added awareness needed to ensure that some driver is not parked on my back bumper is draining and stressful. Especially when even the drivers of those 18 wheeled behemoths do not seem to understand that their vehicle cannot stop as quickly as my car. I am pretty sure that when all I can see in my rear view mirror is the grill from your truck (big or small), then you are probably too close!

A fourth reason is that my enlightened state legislature has now raised the trigger point on speed enforcement cameras to 11 mph over the speed limit. They are in-effect saying: “go ahead and do 65 in a 55 zone, but do not do 66, because you might get a ticket! People who break the law are not know for their brialliance, but even the dummies know how to add 10 mph to the speed limit.

So, I am now forced to choose between obeying the speed limit on the freeway, or risking a ticket, or maybe being killed by some idiot speeder and/or tailgater, or being shot by a driver that feels inconvenienced by my obeying the law. I now set my cruise control at the speed limit and judge how fast the cars are flying by me. I bump up the speed by a few miles per hour until I am pretty much equal to the average speed. I am, of course, careful to not reach that magic 11 mph trigger point, because I am smarter than those speed cameras, by golly. I must admit that the ride home is a lot less stressful, but the extra 2-5 minutes I saved on the trip time has not resulted in enough time to solve world hunger.

What a shame that other drivers have now forced me to break the law to save my own life. It is also a shame that society in general has sunk to the point where obedient citizens must fear for their lives. My final question to you is the following: “are you one of those who have sunk to the point of moral decay where obeying the law has become too inconvenient for you?” I hope not, but from where I sit driving in my car, it appears that yes, most of the other drivers have indeed sunk into a low pit of moral standing. This country has such great promise, if we will only obey the laws upon which it was founded.

I am back!

I have spent the last few months replacing the roof on my house. Such a fun job in Phoenix. I did manage to get most of it done before it got to 105, but I did have a problem with a freak rain storm. It is pretty much done now, so I now have some time and energy to devote to this blog.

Today, I am going to answer a "survey" (request for moola) sent to me by the Republican National Committee entitled "2009 Obama Agenda Survey". These are not complete answers, but it is enough to get the conversation going.

1. Do you agree with Barack Obama's budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion deficit over the next ten years?
Not a chance! Just like Czar Bush, Comrade Obama does not care what the citizens want. He is only concerned with filling the pockets of his cronies, and pushing this country toward a socialistic one world government bereft of any personal freedoms.

2. Do you believe the federal government has gone too far in bailing out failing banks, insurance companies and the auto industry?
YES! What have I personally gained from these bailouts?

3. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?
If they have no criminal record, paid taxes during the time they have been here, and their children (if applicable) have good grades in school, then absolutely. Fast track them and their children. If they have a criminal record, they can show they have straightened themselves up, and their children (if applicable) have good grades in school, then probably. For children who have good grades (A or B) in school (K-12 and college) for more than 4 years, then immediately fast track them with citizenship. This would be an on-going requirement in order to catch those who are currently here, but do not have 5 years in school. However, there should be a sunset clause that would cause this program to be terminated in 5 years, with a new vote by the public required to re-instate it.

4. Should English be the official language of the United States?
Well, Duh! Talk about a question with only one possible reason to be on a survey; create language-based (ethnic) warfare!

5. Are you in favor of granting retroactive Social Security eligibility to illegal immigrants who gain U.S. Citizenship through an amnesty program?
See answer on on amnesty for requirements, but there are more questions to be answered before getting Social Security eligibility: How can you give them retroactive eligibility if they did not have a SS#? Did they have a federal ID number and pay taxes while illegal? If so, then sure, but not if they paid no taxes during the time they have been here.

6.Are you in favor of the expanded welfare benefits and unlimited eligibility (no time, education or work requirements) that Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass?
Of course not! Welfare should be a stop gap measure while getting back on your feet, not a lifestyle! However, stupid rules like not being able to save money should be eliminated, and recipients should be made to sign a contract saying that they will get into and successfully complete a program for obtaining gainful employment. Maybe it should be suggested that they join the military in exchange for this training, just like is done for nuclear navy jobs?

7. Do you believe that Barack Obama's nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate?
Oh sure, I trust all politicians, don't you?

8. Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the U.S. is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability?
What is really needed is getting rid of the "help John feel good about himself baloney", and make John really be accountable for his own failure to do the required work. If the student does not study and do the homework assigned as practice, then how can they expect to learn the material? If the student does not put in the effort to learn, then "making teachers accountable" is destined to fail! There should be an immediate requirement that homework (at-home practice) is required of all classes.

9. Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?
Absolutely, they have done such a bang up job following the money of the bailouts, why not give them some more money to lose.

10. Do you believe that the quality and availability of health care will increase if the federal government dictates pricing to doctors and hospitals?
So what happened to "Free Market" economics? Most of the cost of health care is due to inept government "oversight".

11. Are you confident that new medicines and medical treatments will continue to be developed if the federal government controls prescription drug prices and sets profit margins for research and pharmaceutical companies?
Not a chance!

12. Are you in favor of creating a government-funded “Citizen Volunteer Corps” that would pay young people to do work now done by churches and charities earning Corps Members the same pay and benefits given to military veterans?
How can you even think that ditch digging and food bank work should even be considered as equivalent to what our military people do? If someone wants those kinds of benefits and pay, then join the military and earn them! WPA anyone? Expand welfare pool anyone? How can it be a “Volunteer Corps” if they are getting pay and benefits just like any other job?

13. Are you in favor of re-instituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed?
Maybe.

14. Do you believe that the federal government should allow the unionization of Department of Homeland Security employees who serve in positions critical to the safety and security of our nation?
Isn't that what air traffic controllers did? Look how successful that was when a president decided to fire them all. Yeah, I would feel much safer knowing that the person at the security checkpoint just reached their magic service point that says they cannot be fired for laziness or incompetence!

15. Do you support Democrats' drive to eliminate workers' right to a private ballot when considering unionization of their place of employment?
Not a chance! That could only lead to 3rd world government style politics where intimidation is the main factor instead of whether it is a good thing or not.

I was pleasantly surprised to read an article (Arizona Republic Mar 10, 2009 pg. B1 "Buddy could you help state save $3 billion?") by E. J. Montini this morning that suggested the same idea of putting the budgets on the web for citizen comment.

Here are more details of how I thought this process would work:

1. The budget or stimulus or whatever (aka "package") would be put on the web as a read only spreadsheet; probably in MS Office format.

2. Every person could download a copy to study at home.

3. Every line of the spreadsheet would be numbered (the default) so that citizens could refer to specific lines when voting and/or making comments.

4. To really get a feel for how the public feels, there could a page on the site controlled by the agency that produced the package. Each documented person could log in to that page using their Social Security number or their federal tax id number. They could then type in the line number(s) they are referring to and then select one of three options: 1) veto/delete, 2) keep as is, 3) keep with modifications.

The first two selections would be stored as a "vote" and would be keyed to the id number used to log in. If more than one vote is received for a particular line, then the assumption would be that someone was trying to "stuff the ballot box". This would lead to the "vote" being negated and an email being sent to the owner of the id number, so they could again cast their ballot on that line. An option button for putting in a comment should also be on the "vote" page.

The third option of "keep with modifications" would register a vote and then pop up a comment screen.

All comments for a particular line would then be compiled into a report that could be reviewed on line by the agency that produced the spreadsheet.

5. The net results of all the votes as well as any comments should be made available on the web during the voting process. It should be updated at least daily, and I assume it could even be done in nearly real time.

Tell me what you think.

"Today is the first day of the rest of your life."

How many times have we heard that and just dismissed it without actually understanding what is really being said? This blog is my attempt to reshape the rest of my life by asking questions about what is happening around us. I hope that my questions and the responses will help us all to more clearly see where we are now, and whether we are going in the right direction.

My first comment will be what I see as a common sense way to have "transparency" in government. The states and the federal government are both in a financial mess. The president ran on a platform of "transparency", but has now signed away billions of my/our dollars in packages that no one has fully read nor understood.

To correct that problem I am suggesting that government at all levels implement the following idea: put all packages (whether 'stimulus' or budget) on the web in a spreadsheet that has each item clearly listed on lines with numbers. Let each person read and then submit their ideas for things that should be "vetoed" on a line by line basis. Count all the times each line is vetoed, and see whether it should be removed from the package. This voting could even be on-going so that all of us will have time to study and comment on these packages. If an item vetoed by a majority of responders, then it should be referred to a non-partisan panel to determine if it should be deleted.