Radley Balko | May 20, 2009
• U.S. arms given to friendly forces in Afghanistan ending up in the hands of Taliban.
• Senate Democrats block funds Obama requested to close Gitmo.
• California voters overwhelmingly reject proposals aimed at balancing the state's budget.
• Obama demands new efficiency standards; expected to add $1,300 to the cost of a new automobile.
• One in four Bush administration officials now lobbying or consulting to influence agencies they once worked for or oversaw.
• Report says GPS could black out, cause massive failures next year.
• The future is now: Cyanide-laced computer chips could track, eliminate undesirables!
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|5.20.09 @ 6:58AM|#
Why would the Taliban go to all the trouble of stealing weapons from the Afghan army when all they have to do is go to a gun show in Florida to get all the guns they need?
I would have thought the New York Times, of al places, would know this.
John Tagliaferro|5.20.09 @ 7:29AM|#
Obama demands new efficiency standards; expected to add $1,300 to the cost of a new automobile.
Government efficiency: do less for more money.
|5.20.09 @ 8:25AM|#
Report says GPS could black out, cause massive failures next year.
OMG! Imagine a world where you can't find the nearest gelato place on your iPhone! Devastation! Panic! Learning where shit is in your neighborhood! Gah!
|5.20.09 @ 8:30AM|#
GPS - a comment about the same story in the Guardian explains what is going on with GPS better than I ever could. Read the last sentence first.
@ 3:07pm http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/19/gps-close-to-breakdown
|5.20.09 @ 9:02AM|#
AP
|5.20.09 @ 9:27AM|#
USA Today
the risk that cash-strapped automakers will take the fastest and cheapest route to building more fuel-efficient vehicles: Make them smaller and lighter. How the fuck else do you do it?
|5.20.09 @ 9:34AM|#
One in four Bush administration officials now lobbying or consulting to influence agencies they once worked for or oversaw.
Is there a libertarian line on lobbying? Isn't lobbying just people with special skills/knowledge selling their services?
|5.20.09 @ 9:40AM|#
One in four Clinton administration officials is back at their job in the Obama administration.
|5.20.09 @ 10:04AM|#
Is there a libertarian line on lobbying?
Its free speech. The fundamental problem isn't lobbying, its the gargantuan government that lobbying can influence.
|5.20.09 @ 10:12AM|#
Oh, I can think of a few ways:
1. More turbocharged and supercharged engines with smaller displacement, fewer naturally aspirated engines. Disadvantage: turbo lag, more need for premium fuel, greater expense to build, maintain, repair.
2. More diesel engines. I believe that the EPA formula correctly measures CO2/mi instead of MPG (since diesel fuel has more energy, and hence more CO2, per gallon being more dense), but the diesel engine is inherently more efficient enough to overcome this. The Bush Administration requirements on ultra low sulfur diesel make it possible to do this without screwing over the SOX tailpipe regs.
3. Less horsepower. Engines have become much more efficient in the last 10-15 years; however, those improvements have generally gone towards more horsepower while keeping gas consumption constant. Hence the horsepower wars; hence a 2009 Accord can be much larger and heavier than a 2001 Accord yet get slightly better mileage with much more power. Prepare to see gains in horsepower stop or even reverse.
|5.20.09 @ 10:26AM|#
Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, Mexico.
You are not now nor will you be in the future, smart enough to weigh the purchase price, safety, convenience, comfort and operating costs and decide what type of auto you wish to purchase. The government in itg's infinite wisdom will do it for you. Fortunately Obama knows so much about this stuff that he can confidently predict how much you will save on gasoline with this mandate costs a decade down the road.
Doh! I predict the percentage will increase over the next year.
I wonder if the Air Force and Navy have retained many of the old terrain countour mapping/matching cruise missile guidance packages.
|5.20.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Let's rewrite that California link to more accurately reflect what happened, shall we?
California voters overwhelmingly reject a political shell game that will accomplish nothing but increased taxes and demand an actual solution.
|5.20.09 @ 10:29AM|#
Basic physics: more mass requires more energy to propel it.
Unfortunately, what the idiots at places like the Insurance Institute really want to see is everybody driving a car the size of a Suburban at 45mph.
John Tagliaferro|5.20.09 @ 10:56AM|#
RCD beat me to the same answer:
Its free speech. The fundamental problem isn't lobbying, its the gargantuan government that lobbying can influence.
Ignu|5.20.09 @ 11:17AM|#
"One in four Bush administration officials now lobbying or consulting to influence agencies they once worked for or oversaw."
Don't worry...Obama is in charge now. He'll fix it. He promised he'd crack down on lobbyists and get rid of all the Bush corruption.
hmm|5.20.09 @ 11:20AM|#
• U.S. arms given to friendly forces in Afghanistan ending up in the hands of Taliban.
Didn't we do that one time before?
No Name Guy|5.20.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Those killer cynade laced chips - can't we make those things mandatory for members of Congress and all elected state officials? With the 'kill switch' given to every voter? Please, please, please........