Chevrolet has recently introduced a "NEW" concept car, the Volt. It is an electric car that the ad states will go 40 miles, or less, on a single charge. The ad can been seen at, http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/?seo=goo_electric_car. I place the word NEW in quotes because this is not a new thing. Great idea, but not new. There have been electric cars before, and not all that long ago. GM had an electric car named the EV1. It was actually on the roads and the people who were lucky enough to lease them (there was no option to buy them), loved them. There are numorous web sites discussing and cussing the cars, which were out from 1998 - 2003. The range on the EV1 was between 60 - 80 in its original release and supposedly up to 120 with an upgrade in battery technology. Also as the batteries improved, the next release was supposed to get more than 200 miles on a single charge. The new generation of batteries never made it to the cars. GM purchased the patent for the battery design from the creator and later sold it to Chevron. I just can't imagine why Chevon would not want an advanced battery design out on the market, hmm.
So instead of stepping forward with something that was already in place several years ago, let's take several steps backward, wrap it up in a fancy body and call it innovative and new. Come on Chevrolet, let's not reinvent the wheel. Viable technology already existed for electric cars. We have made huge technological jumps in the past few years. You're telling me that you can only get 40 miles or less on current battery technology?
Information about the EV1 can be found at the following sites, among others.
http://www.ev1.org/
www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/ev1_criticism.php
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061502052_pf.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/11/eveningnews/main543605.shtml
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Iraq Insurgents Attack U.S. Headquarters
BASSEM MROUE September 11, 2007 05:40 PM EST
BAGHDAD — Insurgents fired rockets or mortars Tuesday at the sprawling garrison that houses the headquarters of American forces in Iraq, killing one person and wounding 11 coalition soldiers, the U.S. command said.
The command said the person killed was a "third country national," meaning someone who is not an American or Iraqi. Most troops stationed at Camp Victory are American but other coalition soldiers are based at the complex near Baghdad International Airport. No further details on the attack were immediately released.
The attack occurred as U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and the top commander Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress for a second day on the situation in Iraq since President Bush's decision to send 30,000 reinforcements to stem sectarian violence.
This story is reported by The Huffington Post and can be seen in full at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070911/iraq/
I find the last sentence of the second paragraph rather interesting, "No further details on the attack were immediately released." Actually I haven't heard anything about this on the mainstream news networks. Why hasn't this been reported and covered more thoroughly? Could it possibly be because things are not as good as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would have us believe?
General, you're in Washington DC telling us the surge is working while your headquarters is being attacked. If insurgents can get close enough to attack your headquarters, I would have to say that security can't be that good for the rest of the city, let alone the country. How can you then say that the surge is working?
A General was duped into duping us into this war in the first place. Now we have another General trying to dupe us into staying in Iraq longer. Please don't give us the, 'stay the course' party line. Use your own common sense. You can see what is really happening. We need to give Iraq back to the Iraqis.
BAGHDAD — Insurgents fired rockets or mortars Tuesday at the sprawling garrison that houses the headquarters of American forces in Iraq, killing one person and wounding 11 coalition soldiers, the U.S. command said.
The command said the person killed was a "third country national," meaning someone who is not an American or Iraqi. Most troops stationed at Camp Victory are American but other coalition soldiers are based at the complex near Baghdad International Airport. No further details on the attack were immediately released.
The attack occurred as U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and the top commander Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress for a second day on the situation in Iraq since President Bush's decision to send 30,000 reinforcements to stem sectarian violence.
This story is reported by The Huffington Post and can be seen in full at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070911/iraq/
I find the last sentence of the second paragraph rather interesting, "No further details on the attack were immediately released." Actually I haven't heard anything about this on the mainstream news networks. Why hasn't this been reported and covered more thoroughly? Could it possibly be because things are not as good as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would have us believe?
General, you're in Washington DC telling us the surge is working while your headquarters is being attacked. If insurgents can get close enough to attack your headquarters, I would have to say that security can't be that good for the rest of the city, let alone the country. How can you then say that the surge is working?
A General was duped into duping us into this war in the first place. Now we have another General trying to dupe us into staying in Iraq longer. Please don't give us the, 'stay the course' party line. Use your own common sense. You can see what is really happening. We need to give Iraq back to the Iraqis.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Southwest Airlines Is The Newest Fashion Critic
After 9-11, airport security increased tremendously, and rightfully so, but now it seems the airlines, at least Southwest, sees themselves as having the power to dictate how you should dress.
As report by 'The San Diego Union-Tribune' on September 5, 2007, a Mesa College student and Hooters waitress, Kyla Ebbert, was asked to step off the plane by a customer service supervisor, identified by the airline only as “Keith.” Keith told Ebbert her clothing was inappropriate and asked her to change. She explained she was flying to Tucson for only a few hours and had brought no luggage.
Keith asked her to go home, change and take a later flight. She refused, citing her appointment that afternoon with a doctor in Tucson. The plane was ready to leave, so Keith relented. He had her pull up her tank top a bit, pull down her skirt a bit, and return to her seat.
Southwest explained its treatment of Ebbert in a letter to her mother, saying it could remove any passenger “whose clothing is lewd, obscene or patently offensive” to ensure the comfort of children and “adults with heightened sensitivities.”
This is the outfit she was wearing.
A Supreme Court justice famously could not define “obscene,” and declaring a thing “lewd” imputes motive. I don't think Kyla Ebbert intended to excite sexual desire on that flight to Tucson .
Come on people! Common sense! What will be next? Maybe it will be someone who is not particularly physically attractive and will be deemed as "patently offensive". How would this scenario be different than Kyla's?
I hope this is not where our great country is headed.
The full story can be seen at http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070905/news_1m5braun.html
As report by 'The San Diego Union-Tribune' on September 5, 2007, a Mesa College student and Hooters waitress, Kyla Ebbert, was asked to step off the plane by a customer service supervisor, identified by the airline only as “Keith.” Keith told Ebbert her clothing was inappropriate and asked her to change. She explained she was flying to Tucson for only a few hours and had brought no luggage.
Keith asked her to go home, change and take a later flight. She refused, citing her appointment that afternoon with a doctor in Tucson. The plane was ready to leave, so Keith relented. He had her pull up her tank top a bit, pull down her skirt a bit, and return to her seat.
Southwest explained its treatment of Ebbert in a letter to her mother, saying it could remove any passenger “whose clothing is lewd, obscene or patently offensive” to ensure the comfort of children and “adults with heightened sensitivities.”
This is the outfit she was wearing.
A Supreme Court justice famously could not define “obscene,” and declaring a thing “lewd” imputes motive. I don't think Kyla Ebbert intended to excite sexual desire on that flight to Tucson .
Come on people! Common sense! What will be next? Maybe it will be someone who is not particularly physically attractive and will be deemed as "patently offensive". How would this scenario be different than Kyla's?
I hope this is not where our great country is headed.
The full story can be seen at http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070905/news_1m5braun.html
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Spokane, WA Police Lack of Common Sense
Spokane, WA - Aug 25-07 -- A Spokane bride spent her wedding night in jail after police arrested her for shoving her mother.
Police say Brandy Morgan-Gambill and her husband were kicked out of their suite at the Spokane Club for being too loud Saturday night. The hotel called police to escort them out of the building, but when the wedding party got outside, Brandy’s mother stepped on her dress; Brandy pushed her off.
Brandy’s mother says that’s not what happened and she felt no crime was committed. She said she had no intention of pressing any charges, and officers should not have arrested her daughter.
Police say that’s assault, and when it comes to domestic violence, law officers have zero leeway if they see an assault. They are required by law to make an arrest.
Brandy Morgan-Gambill's mother contacted their lawyer. The lawyer spoke to a judge who ordered Gambill be released from jail. She originally would have had to spend another night in jail because inmates normally aren't released Sundays. Brandy and her husband will leave for their honeymoon Monday morning as planned, and her lawyer is expected to make the court appearance in her place.
According to the Police description of 'assault', a husband or wife could be arrested for domestic violence if they were out walking down the street enjoying a beautiful day, joking with each other and if one nudges the other, that would be assault.
So remember, if you're ever in Spokane, WA, don't touch anyone or you may be arrested for assault. It would seem the police in Spokane can't use common sense, according to them, they have "zero leeway". I think it is more like "zero common sense".
Police say Brandy Morgan-Gambill and her husband were kicked out of their suite at the Spokane Club for being too loud Saturday night. The hotel called police to escort them out of the building, but when the wedding party got outside, Brandy’s mother stepped on her dress; Brandy pushed her off.
Brandy’s mother says that’s not what happened and she felt no crime was committed. She said she had no intention of pressing any charges, and officers should not have arrested her daughter.
Police say that’s assault, and when it comes to domestic violence, law officers have zero leeway if they see an assault. They are required by law to make an arrest.
Brandy Morgan-Gambill's mother contacted their lawyer. The lawyer spoke to a judge who ordered Gambill be released from jail. She originally would have had to spend another night in jail because inmates normally aren't released Sundays. Brandy and her husband will leave for their honeymoon Monday morning as planned, and her lawyer is expected to make the court appearance in her place.
According to the Police description of 'assault', a husband or wife could be arrested for domestic violence if they were out walking down the street enjoying a beautiful day, joking with each other and if one nudges the other, that would be assault.
So remember, if you're ever in Spokane, WA, don't touch anyone or you may be arrested for assault. It would seem the police in Spokane can't use common sense, according to them, they have "zero leeway". I think it is more like "zero common sense".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
