Can Stupidity Suddenly Accelerate As Well?

So, as we all know, Toyota cars are death traps. Yes, these seemingly normal cars can suddenly accelerate -- without warning! -- to frightening speeds, even while the drivers try to stop. Something. Must. Be. Done. Or so our fearless lawmakers tell us.

Okay, but, umm, what causes the cars to accelerate? As Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of the car info website Edmunds.com, wrote in the Washington Post today, no one has yet shown a mechanical flaw despite vigorous testing:

We tried to re-create the circumstances surrounding some recent incidents. We took the highest-horsepower Toyota Camry to the test track to see whether the brakes could stop a runaway vehicle -- which they can. Next we looked at the Toyota Prius. We found that when the vehicle is accelerating, a simple tap of the transmission shifter into neutral disengages the throttle, and the vehicle coasts to a halt -- even if the brakes are not applied.

What does all this mean? As our testing confirms and government regulators and Toyota have said recently, it is extremely difficult to re-create the out-of-control incidents being reported.

Over at National Review Online, Walter Olson, who runs the outstanding Overlawyered.com website, argues that the reason may not be technical. It may be because the knuckleheads who are the victims of these "sudden acceleration incidents" causing them by stepping on the gas instead of the brake:

You know those unseen and undetectable gremlins that hide in Toyota’s electronic throttle controls? Turns out they have it in for elderly drivers. The Los Angeles Times has compiled a list of 56 fatal incidents over 19 years purportedly involving unintended Toyota acceleration, and according to my Overlawyered co-blogger Ted Frank — in a Thursday analysis refined and extended the next day by Megan McArdle of The Atlantic — the age of the driver can be publicly ascertained in a little more than half the instances. That median age turns out to be 60 — that is to say, half the drivers were that old or older. By contrast, only 16 percent of general auto fatalities in 2008 occurred with a driver 60 or older behind the wheel. Whatever is causing Avalons, Highlanders, and Tundras to misbehave is largely bypassing drivers in their twenties and thirties and instead homing in on drivers old enough to remember the Eisenhower era. (emphasis added)

As Reason's Ron Bailey notes there is a precedent for this kind of consumer scare. It hit the makers of the Audi 5000 in the late 1980s. And it turned out to be completely bogus:

Twenty-five years ago, sudden acceleration fears focused on the Audi 5000. At the time, most experts concluded that the drivers were mistakenly pushing the accelerator when they thought they were applying the brakes. Not surprisingly, pushing an accelerator accelerates a car. But in November 1986, the CBS television program 60 Minutes featured a mom who had run over her kid in her Audi. To illustrate the Audi menace, the CBS program also showed an Audi—rigged with a hidden canister of compressed air—lurching out of control.

By 1989, Audi was a plaintiff in 120 sudden acceleration lawsuits claiming damages amounting to $5 billion. Finally, in 1989, the Canadian government issued a report blaming the sudden acceleration on “driver error.” Two months later, a NHTSA report found the cause to be “pedal misapplication,” a euphemism for driver error.

The Belly Button Lint I Picked Out Last Night Saved Or Created 1,325 Jobs

But, not to be out done be my belly button lint the Obama Administration claims that the "Rape and Pillaging Act of '09" saved or created 650,000 jobs. In Maryland our cut of those 650,000 jobs works out to 4,460 jobs. 3,425 jobs were also saved or created on the moon, 4,745 somewhere around the core of the earth, and another 8,200 were saved or created in some distant land called "Wisconsin".

Jane Hamsher Will Not - Repeat, Not - Be A Veal Cutlet For Obama

The buzz in Washington today was all about the, ahem, parting of ways between the Obama administration and Van Jones, it's green jobs "czar". It happen primarily because Jones had signed a petition by the crackpot conspiracy group 9/11 Truth Movement. Jones defended himself by saying, yeah, I signed it, but I didn't read what I was signing. Which may actually be worse come to think of it.

David Corn does a pretty good job here of explaining why - even if you are the kind of person who absolutely hates George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - the supposed conspiracy doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Rightwingers predictably gloated over getting a scalp. It was especially sweet for talk show host Glenn Beck who had been targeted by Jones's allies and helped to publicize that Jones had signed the petition.

Mickey Kaus meanwhile was in awe that the New York Times was once again behind the curve on this one. And remained there.

Reason's Jacob Sullum and Matt Welch weighed in that the real problem with Jones was that he was selling snake oil by claiming that green jobs can ever come close to replacing the amount of jobs that will be lost by getting rid of carbon-based fuels. Welch was particularly incisive in noting how expertly Jones managed to shake down various public and private groups with this hustle.

And of course, there was the predictable anguish and anger from the Left over this. It was interesting to note also the number of lefties who kinda, sorta said that while they didn't necessarily endorse the 9/11 Truthers, they, you know, understood. Lefties like the Nation's John Nichols:

While some who circulated that petition may have believed the worst about members of the former administration, Jones clearly and unequivocally stated the more extreme position "certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

Jones wanted a more serious inquiry, as did many mainstream Democrats and Republicans who worried about the constrained and ineffectual approach of the 9/11 Commission and a Bush-friendly Congress. As the NAACP's Jealous says, "I have known Van Jones for more than 15 years. In that time he, as is characteristic of great public servants, has continuously grown and increased his capacity for improving the condition of humanity. Throughout, he has been guided by a powerful sense of patriotism and love for all."

Jones' Republican critics knew this.(Emphasis added.)

As National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru notes:"There's a lot of crazy in John Nichols's piece."

Even wackier, though, was the reaction of Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com, who turned the loss of Jones into an extended metaphor about how the Democrats are treating their liberal allies like veal. I shit you not.

Hey, Obama Said It, Not Me ...

After beating up President Obama for bullshitting about his healthcare plan, I should give him props for being honest in some comments he made Monday:

Would health care reform bring "greater inefficiencies" to the country's health care system?

That's exactly what Obama said Monday when he spoke about health care reform at the Childrens National Medical Center in Washington.

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system," Obama said in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers. "And greater stability and security to America's families and businesses."(emphasis added)

How refreshing.

Wait, I've just been handed an update by TtP's crack reporting staff. He's backing away from the comment:

The White House quickly recognized the mistake and inserted a "sic" in the remarks sent to reporters on Monday afternoon.

Josh Earnest, a White House deputy press secretary, said Obama "misspoke" in his remarks.

Ah, well. It was nice while it lasted.

Taibbi Calls "1) Bullshit; 2) bullshit; 3) bullshit, plus of course; 4) bullshit" And "5) Boo-Fucking-Hoo"

Matt Taibbi posts a thorough and highly entertaining flogging of former AIG exec Jake DeSantis and his resignation letter -slash- NY Times op-ed.

The whole thing is well worth reading, but these paragraphs are my favorites: responses to DeSantis's claim that he "was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G."

Are we supposed to believe that Jake DeSantis knew nothing about Joe Cassano's CDS deals? If your boss and the top guys in your firm were all making a killing selling anything at all -- whether it was rubber kayaks, generic Levitra or credit default swaps -- you really wouldn't bother to find out what that thing they were selling was? You'd really just mind your own business, sit at your cubicle and put your faith in the guys up top to fill you in if there was something you needed to know?

and

[...] Let's just say, Jake, that you're telling the truth, that you don't know anything about this toxic portfolio. If that's the case, then why the fuck does anyone need to retain you at an exorbitant salary to help unwind that very portfolio? If these transactions aren't and never were your expertise, then where the hell is your value here?

After reading the publicity stunt of a resignation letter, I never felt bad for DeSantis. But I also did not even realize that AIG-FP had only 377 employees.

I work for a large corporation, and I understand that such corporations have different branches that can operate like separate companies under the same name. It's hard to believe, however, that an executive VP of a 377-head branch "never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money."

I am glad to see that, for whatever reason DeSantis is really returning his bonus, he is giving it directly to charity. At least the money will likely make it to some of those who actually need it. If he gave it back to the government, well, nobody really knows where the fuck the money would end up.

Fact-Checking The Chosen One

Here's a handy rundown of things that Obama said during a his press conference that are either bullshit or so twist the truth that it is tantamount to the same:

* 1 in 50 kids are homeless in America? Mickey Kaus calls bullshit on that.

* Reagan would have supported Obama's charitable deductions rollback, which won't affect at all what people give to charities? Reason writers Matt Welch and Jacob Sullum are on the case.

* Obama's cutting the budget deficit in half claim? Lots of people are calling him on that one.

* We cannot grow the economy without his budget's massive new spending? The Cato Institute's Chris Edwards is on that one.

* Obama's response on when he learned about the AIG bonuses and why he didn't talk about them earlier? Dissembling, at best.

There's more I'm sure, but I've gotta get to work.

No Shit

So maybe Obama's budget assumptions of future economic growth are wildly optimistic and most likely unreachable. Color me shocked.

Washington » The White House's top budget official declared on Sunday that "fundamentally, the economy is weak" while saying the administration's own financial predictions could need a revision by midyear.[...]

Orszag said. "Let's see what happens, let it work. We'll have a mid-session review later in the year. We'll have an opportunity to revise the assumptions at that point."

That revision, though, seemed unavoidable.

Obama's budget assumes the economy will grow at about 3.2 percent. Given climbing unemployment, shrinking credit and a general frustration over a crumbling economy, that now seems unrealistic.

Full story here.

Kickbacks For Cash Flow

Sure, the Japanese prime minister could easily afford his own iPod, but this just seems tacky:

Rock star Bono bowed deeply and gave Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda an iPod at the start of a meeting Saturday to try to get more Japanese support for the fight against poverty in Africa.

The gift broke the ice as Fukuda sat down with Bono, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other major supporters of more aid for Africa.

Again, it's a pretty trivial gift. But still, Jesus Christ, try to follow the rationale here... The gift is to get the Japanese PM to pledge more "Japanese support." That makes it sound like Fukuda-san would just whip out his wallet and hand the poor people of Africa $1000-Yen per person.

But Bono's not interested in Fukuda's money. He's interested in the Japanese taxpayers' money. To make it sound like anything else is underhanded bullshit. Although I don't believe it's a Japanese taxpayer's moral responsibility to give money to the poor in Africa, that's not the point. If any citizen of Japan wishes to send money to Africa via any medium available, he or she is free to do so.

What is disgraceful here is that Bono has the balls to hand the prime minister of Japan anything; be it an iPod, a Pepsi from the vending machine, or a slap on the ass; and expect the prime minister to be more likely to pledge the hard-earned yen of his taxpayers towards Bono's pet cause.

Bono, seriously... I don't want the people of Africa to be poor any more than you do. But can you at least be straightforward about what you're proposing? I'd have so much more respect for you if you'd just say, "I think every person in the world should be forced by his or her government to give $100 per year to the poor people of Africa" than this lobbying of government officials to get them to spend taxpayer money per your demands.

I'm Going To Name My Bong "Mohammed"

Sudan has arrested a British teacher for insulting faith and religion, the British Foreign Office said Monday.

[...]

Numerous media reports say Gibbons was arrested after allowing her class of 7-year-olds to name a teddy bear "Mohammed."

That could be seen as an insult to the Prophet Mohammed, the reports said.

Blasphemy is punishable with 40 lashes under Islamic Sharia law, Britain's Press Association news agency reported.

Just as depressing, both articles I read about this (CNN and The Times of London) quote the high school's director as referring to Gibbons' actions as an "innocent mistake." And the TV coverage on CNN concentrated more on whether or not Gibbons intended to insult Islam rather than whether or not jailing and lashing someone for insulting a religion is a blatent abuse of human rights.

I hope the human rights organizations of the world jump all over this shit. And I hope Ms. Gibbons is freed promptly and safely. Fuck you, government of Sudan.

Barry* Bonds* Indicted

I wish this shit would just go away.

I think Barry is a whiny prick, so I don't really feel any sympathy for him in general. But his reputation is already ruined. His name will be attached to the steroid controversy for at least 100 years. There has been much debate about whether or not to include an asterisk next to Bonds's name in the record books, but in reality the asterisk has already been affixed to his reputation.

But it looks like the government wants the last word.

And in a strictly by-the-book kind of way, the charges are appropriate. Bonds may very well have lied to the feds during an investigation, which is indeed grounds for "obstruction of justice" charges.

However, the original investigation four years ago was bullshit to begin with. If the MLB finds steroids a big enough problem, they are free to require testing (pending a battle with the players' union, of course). But except for the completely unreasonable and unconstitutional Drug War, there is no justification for the feds to be involved.

Whether the actual charges are valid or not, the feds are beating a dead horse here.

Then again, when Congress and its subcommittees operate under the rules quoted in this letter [pdf] from Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), I shouldn't be surprised.

And They Also Found A Line of Coke on Karen Tandy's* Desk

The government of Myanmar is claiming that some of the Buddhist monks from the protests were armed.

Myanmar's military leaders stepped up pressure on monks who spearheaded pro-democracy rallies, saying Sunday that weapons had been seized from Buddhist monasteries and threatening to punish all violators of the law.

* Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration

Hell, This Has To Be One Of The Worst Op-Eds Ever Written

This one by Colonel David Hunt, via FoxNews.com, I mean... In case you plan on reading the entire article, take an aspirin and a few quick shots of whiskey first.

For the sake of discussion, I'll breeze quickly past the poor writing style - such as calling President Karzai a "cute little guy who wears a cape and a hat" and starting 10% of his sentences with "Hell,..."

The first three paragraphs are reasonably accurate, minus the oddly placed immigration reference at the end (and maybe the claim that the US has "owned Afghanistan for five years"). In fact, the article starts much like most pro-drug war articles start: with facts that support ending the drug war.

And then, the paragraph:

The United States of America is sadly the largest user of raw opium — you may
know it as heroin. My friends, you cannot make this up … you see, truth is stranger and always more shocking than fiction. What else is stranger than fiction is how easy it would be to destroy the stuff. These fields are miles and miles long and wide. We should bomb them, blow them up, set up an artillery and motor training range and blow the opium off the planet. It is true that it’s the only product Afghanistan farmers export. Between us and Europe, we surely can come up with another product that this poor country can export. We can also pay them for their opium that we will destroy for a few years, and, of course, while we are getting them to use another product that does not kill people. [How about marijuana, then??]

All emphasis and bracketed comments mine.

Wow... WOW... In this one paragraph, Hunt advocates not only spraying but bombing opium fields. He claims that the US and Europe should be able to dictate what crops poor Afghan farmers can grow. And finally, he advocates extending the oh-so-successful "pay to not produce shit" farm subsidies to a foreign country.

I could quote some more from the final paragraphs of the article, but there's really no need. It doesn't make any fucking sense. To summarize, Hunt goes on to scold you for not caring enough about bin Laden's most recent video and then the grand finale (ok, I just have to give in and quote one more time):

...with the sheer amount of opium present, the massive size of the problem will get your attention and maybe, just maybe, you might put down the beer, or even better, take the half full one and throw it at the TV and then write your congressman, senator or even the president and say, “Enough is enough, this is the greatest damn country in the world, how about we act like it?

My head hurts.

Video Games Make You Neglect Your Kids

This was at least suggested by this AP article. Have a taste:

RENO, Nev. — A couple authorities say were so obsessed with the
Internet and video games that they left their babies starving and suffering
other health problems have pleaded guilty to child neglect.

[...]

"They had food; they just chose not to give it to their kids because they
were too busy playing video games," Viloria told the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Police said hospital staff had to shave the head of the girl because
her hair was matted with cat urine. The 10-pound girl also had a mouth
infection, dry skin and severe dehydration.

Yeah, pretty gross... There's no question these "parents" deserve to be locked up. And if there was a hell they'd have a cut-in-line ticket.

But can something this terrible really be blamed on video games. Is it not right to blame - I don't know - the piece of shit parents? The implied chain of causation here seems really ass-backwards. Could it be that rather than video games causing child neglect, this couple played video games all day because they were too fucking useless and careless to address their real responsibilities in life?

Suppose video games didn't exist for the sake of discussion. Is there any question that people like this would have found some other unproductive activity to use in order to escape their parental and other responsibilities? There is no question in my mind. It seems like blaming video games (or even implying that video games were the cause) will serve no purpose except to let this couple off easy from the punishment and/or help that they deserve. Not to mention it will help high-minded nannies further prod the government to shift blame for people's lack of personal responsibility to video games, drugs, etc. once again (You listening Hillary??).

For the most part, video games (and most drugs for that matter) provide mostly responsible people to pass some free time in a way they enjoy and get their minds away from work and other daily stress. But, yes, this also means that a minority will use them to avoid the basic responsibilities necessary to maintain their lives and, in this case, their children's lives.

To conclude this post with the conclusion of the article:

Patrick Killen, spokesman for Nevada Child Abuse Prevention, said video
game addiction's correlation to child abuse is "a new spin on an old
problem."

"As we become more technologically advanced, there's more
distractions," Killen said. "It's easy for someone to get addicted to something
and neglect their children. Whether it's video games or meth, it's a serious
issue, and (we) need to become more aware of it."

Ah yes, the call for awareness: step 1 in the process towards nannyism.