In Response to Objections on 55mph

while it may not be the answer, it is a 15% increase in fuel efficiency without any major technological breakthroughs. i can see your argument against 55mph as a national law, but i think the press should be selling 55mph as an individual's tool to increase fuel efficiency, decrease expenses, and promote responsible choices for individual efforts on curbing fossil fuel use.

while i can see an argument against a national law, i can't see an argument against my personal choice to go 55mph to save on costs. if you ever drive a prius, watch the fuel consumption rates drop at ~71. anything over 71 mph gets something like 26mpg, and if you cruise at 55, you're probably getting close to 52mpg. it's just too obvious that after a critical speed, fuel efficiency drastically decreases because the coefficient for air friction is a cubed relation to speed.

so, i think we should look to ways for people to benefit from driving slower or to encourage driving slower. simple ways, like possibly mandating an additional gauge on cars for mpg so that you can see how poorly your car performs at high speeds (i believe i have seen these in BMW's to date, and of course the high-tech versions in the on-board computers in any number of cars).

Take this hypothetical example (I find putting dollar $igns generally helps): if you're feeling the pinch of gas costs, and you're driving 300 miles/week (15,600/year - a little on the high side), increasing your fuel efficiency in your car 15% from (take hypotheticals) 20mpg to 23mpg, assuming $4.50/gallon, your annual savings in fuel costs alone (not counting added savings from less wear-and-tear on your car) is $457.83 - a 13% savings in real dollars spent on gasoline.

15,600mi/yr / 20mpg = 780 gallons/year *$4.50 =$3,510/yr
15,600mi/yr / 23mpg = 678.26 gal/yr *$4.50 =$3,052.17/yr

You want a savior from the gas prices? I just gave you a 13% savings in fuel costs overnight. it's also more costly in dollars/mile and in accidents/mile to drive at higher speeds. so there must be a balance sought.

original article: But We Can Drive 55
Letter to Editor: 55mph Limit Isn't the Answer

Barack turns down public financing

i completely agree with you taht he'll decimate mccain in the money race, but that's not why he said he was doing it. he said he was doing it b/c the system is broken. the system wasn't broken, he just decided that he could raise more money in this way than he could taken the public option. the DNC could do just as much as the GOP in fundraising, but it doesn't. i think hillary clinton gets the head of the DNC by the way, and her focus is fundraising. that's a sidebar.

i completely agree that he'll destroy mccain in fundraising, and that will help him win. i just don't think he said that, and i think he should have said that. i'll get over it, b/c i know what he meant, and i can read through the BS, i just want him to come out and say, "hey, people. the system isn't broken, they're gaming it and i'm about to game it even more. suck it long and hard mccain, cause november is gonna be cold." i would be 100% fine with that statement.

i don't think taking the public financing is at all dirty - it comes from tax payer money and has multiple strings attached. i think mccain accepting the money is wise - it fits with his mccain-feingold act, and it agrees to regulation. it also guarantees 84 million, which i also think is smart. obama will be able to raise more than that without using public funding. what is interesting is obama's talk about 527's. he uses 527's as an excuse that the system is broken. move-on is a 527. move-on.org took out quite a number of GOP candidates in 2006, and possibly is the cause for the Democrats' victory of the house and senate in 2006. Swift-Boaters for America (or whatever the name) is a 527. They took down John Kerry in 2004. 527's are issue oriented and are on both side of the political spectrum. is he claiming to be able to control his side's 527's? i don't think that's possible...

in the end, i'm a little frustrated. come on barack. trust us. we're smart enough to use good logic. we are! you're a lawyer, and a damn good one at that. use your ability to reason with logic, and lay your case out for us. i'll listen.



___________________________________________________
I complained about not getting the response I wanted from Barack, and my friend sent me below:
So I just watched Barack personally deliver the message regarding him rejecting public financing and I totally get it. It really has very little to do with his own reasons. He just started some legitimate shit (the only kind of shit...) against McCain and they're running scared like little girls. He's backing McCain into a corner and it's genius. Let's say McCain denies that kind of money as well. There is _no way_ he will raise the kind of money Barack does and will continue to do. People just won't open their pockets for McCain, especially as more of the independents start coming around to Obama. B will dessimate the GOP with most likely double the amount of money they have. If McCain does continue to accept public funding he looks like an evil, money-mongering politician who's taking money anywhere he can get it and Barack will focus on that over and over again. Especially with the economy in the state it's in, it will completely anger the public to think that McCain is hourding potentially dirty money. He's basically telling McCain to bend over and enjoy the ride. And it'll be a long one...