Speed vs. Sanity:

For decades we've known that shipping goods around a country the size of the U. S. by tractor trailer is one of the most inefficient practices ever conceived. Yet we still do it—more than ever. Some 70 percent of everything that's shipped travels by truck. Now the price of diesel is starting to make some people, at least the trucking industry itself, rethink the situation.

Salon.com posted a story with some revealing statistics worth paying close attention to. With diesel fuel at more than $4 per gallon, one large company in Michigan has adjusted its trucks top speed downward from 65 mph to 62 mph. The company runs over 8,000 trucks, and the resulting savings in fuel should be in the neighborhood of 3.2 million gallons per year, just by dropping that top speed three miles per hour. It will also mean a reduction in global warming carbon emissions of 72 million pounds, the equivalent of removing 7,300 automobiles from the nation's highways.

For decades we've known that this country needs a national energy policy. The only one it seems we've ever had is to ignore the reality of the situation and consume as much as possible—Bush's ignore whatever is going on and shop till you drop.

Culling the Herd in Yellowstone:

One of the great environmental stories is the successful replenishment of the Bison herd in Yellowstone National Park. However, from some people's standpoint, it has been too successful. Thousands of animals are now part of the herd and they don't seem to be able to read. In fact they tend to wander off the reservation and onto cattle rancher's property where they tend to spread brucellosis, which causes them little harm, but can be deadly to cattle. Brucellosis is also most likely spread by elk.

As a result, the government is allowing the herd to be culled. According to The New York Times, "A record number … 1,195 or about a quarter of the park's population … have been killed by hunters or rounded up and sent to slaughterhouses by park employees."

So here's what you need to think about: Bison are far more efficient at creating meat protein out of veritable protein than cattle are. They make more of it for less, in other words. They are far less susceptible to diseases and parasites than cattle, requiring less medical care and needing less nutritional supplements. And they do far less harm to the environment than cattle do.

Therefore, why isn't the cattle industry shifting to bison? The rational for killing off the massive herds of bison (buffalo in common jargon) was not because people didn't like the meat. On the contrary, bison was considered a delicacy. They were killed off in order to make the fastest buck possible in the shortest amount of time. And they were killed off as part of white America's genocidal policies against Native Americans.

We know better now. It's time to start managing the herd in a fashion that promotes better health for us and for our environment.

The New Economy:

… Is the old economy, at least it's starting to look that way, as The New York Times reports on how shoppers are beginning to relearn the fine art of bargaining. Until c. 1850 when big department stores introduced fixed pricing and a sales force without the authority to bargain with customers, haggling over price was a way of life. It was about this time when a new middle-class was burgeoning in American society as well, and haggling just seemed too unseemly. Wealthy and successful Americans just weren't supposed to be concerned about the cost of things.

In Denial:

Dan Schnur, who was John McCain's communications director in 2000, blogs on The New York Times' site about Sen. Obama's recent "race" speech. Schnur applauds Obama's stance and rhetoric, but he argues that Sen. Clinton makes a better candidate to face McCain in the fall. Obama, Schnur seems to think, is long on star quality and short on substance. It's interesting that Republicans had no trouble with this assessment when Reagan ran in 1980 and 1984, but when the Democrats have a candidate that can be described in this fashion, they crawl away from their business of destroying the economy and the environment to complain about a candidate whom, presumably, would give their own candidate a better shot at the Oval Office. Are they convinced that McCain can't win anyway so it's better to have a more Republican-like president? Or Are they just afraid of Obama?

The Cost of War:

The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof points out the following: "We’ve cut our casualty rates to the unacceptable levels that plagued us back in 2005, and we still don’t have any exit plan for years to come — all for a bill that is accumulating at the rate of almost $5,000 every second!"

Social Engineering by Gov't Mandate:

In Norway, The New York Times reports, a new law has been passed, "requiring companies to fill 40 percent of corporate board seats with women." In the U. S. such a law would be viewed with greater anathema than a governor hiring a prostitute and having her flown across state lines. In America, it's, grudgingly, acceptable to require companies who receive federal tax funds to hire low level employees from minority groups or females, but no one would dream of requiring boards of major companies to comply with such a law. Holy Smolikins! We can't even convince Hollywood to employ a representative number of women movie directors. And you all know what a hotbed of ultra left wing fanatics reside there.

Obama v. Clinton:

Lots of Clinton followers want Obama to take a back seat to their Hillary, preferably by running as her VP candidate. Hey, they say, women took a step back leading up to and during the Civil War, setting the woman's movement back by half a century or more. They shifted their gears to focus on abolition and later full citizenship rights, including the right to vote, for black Americans. It's only fair that black America let women move a step forward by granting Hillary the shot at the Oval Office.

Such a tactic would in all probability lead to a landslide victory in the fall. But it's also not likely to happen as Maureen Dowd explains in today's New York Times. The race, with Obama holding a slight lead, is likely to be decided by the super delegates, lead by Jimmie Carter, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosie. (Bill Richardson and Ted Kennedy have already joined the Obama camp.) None of those three have any reason to love Hillary.

By the way, Sen. Clinton voted to give Bush war rights because she wanted to appear tough enough to do that when she became president. There was no misunderstanding. You'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise.

Bush's aphrodisiac: "If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate." — George W. Bush, Washington, D. C., March 21, 2006.