Lifting restrictions on offshore drilling will not provide immediate relief at the pump

President Bush's announcement that he would seek to lift restrictions on offshore oil exploration so that Americans would not face such higher prices for fuel at their gas stations is one of the worst examples of political pandering I've seen from an administration that has made its reputation on political pandering.

The only thing lifting such restrictions would do is endanger the coasts of communities whose economies are based in large part on having clean water and clean coastlines.

It also calls into question why anyone would be stupid enough to think that additional drilling, and not conservation, is the answer. As Senator Harry Reid said yesterday (and I'm paraphrasing here), How can a country that consumes a quarter of the world's oil supplies yet owns a scant 3 percent of its reserves be foolhardy enough to think it can drill its way out of its problems. The Energy Information Administration reports that if offshore restrictions were lifted immediately on both coasts, consumers would not notice any relief at gas station pumps as a direct result of this action until the year 2030 at the earliest.

Here's some more data to file away on this issue. Oil companies already have drilling access to more 90 million acres of federal land offshore and yet they are not even drilling on 68 million acres of it (this according to the House Committee on Natural Resources and supported by studies conducted by the Wilderness Society). My question is: Why don't they drill on these lands instead of asking for the lifting of restrictions on others? And the reason is that this has nothing to do with producing more oil or helping consumers -- it is quite simply a blatant land grab the big oil companies hope to pull off before their buddies, George Bush and Dick Cheney, leave the White House.

UPDATE: It can be successfully argued that Sen. Robert Menendez is not the most objective person on this argument since he sponsored the original legislation that limited offshore drilling. But he sponsored it because his state, New Jersey, has many of those communities (i.e., the entire Jersey Shore) whose economies could be devastated by an oilspill. Nevertheless, his objections to lifting the ban merit examing. Besides, I'm naturally going to admire and promote anyone who re-inforces my arguments.

Will Midwest flooding crest in Dallas?

According to this story in today's New York Times, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was known as the city that would never flood. Today, it is under 12 feet of water and, with more thunderstorms on the way, the worst could still be yet to come.

To give you some idea how secure the city fathers of Cedar Rapids felt about their safety, they constructed the City Hall, the county courthouse and the county jail on an island in the river. News photos reveal how completely inaccessible those buildings are today.

All of which reminds me of the Trinity River Corridor Project and the, to me, foolish plan to construct a tollway inside the levees. From what I understand, this idea still hasn't met with the approval of federal officials and I'm wondering whether the flooding in Cedar Rapids could have some influence on the feds' decision.

Why did the chicken not cross the road? Because it was a suicide bomber.

My favorite line from this story is: "The road was closed while the Hartford Police Department's bomb squad came and blew up the chicken."

You must now write "I will not abduct kids without sufficient evidence" 1,000 times

The Third Court of Appeals has agreed with what the sane world has been maintaining for six weeks now -- that the State of Texas had absolutely no reason to invade a religious compound near San Angelo and separate close to 500 children from their parents.

Here is the nutgraph from the ruling: "The simple fact, conceded by the Department, that not all FLDS families are polygamous or allow their female children to marry as minors demonstrates the danger of removing children from their homes based on the broad-brush ascription of every aspect of a belief system to every person living among followers of the belief system or professing to follow the belief system."

It's about time someone in authority uttered the words a lot of us have been saying for a while now.

So, OK, American is charging for a second checked bag

It is just joining the club. According to this story in the New York Times, Continental, Delta, Northwest, United and US Airlines are already charging for extra checked baggage. Even economy airline AirTran charges $10 for a second checked bag. So what's the big deal?

It probably is a big deal, however, if you're a sales person traveling with an extra sample case or two or someone taking a display to a convention of some sort. I remember when I did a lot of traveling to do training courses and checked in all the AV equipment needed to present the course. So these rules don't affect just these folks.

Protecting us against second-hand voices

Right now, cell phone use is not allowed while an airplane is in flight. Something about it screwing up navigational tools or somesuch. I don't know exactly, but it's supposed to be a safety hazard to use them in flight, much like using them in school zones or on North Central Expressway. But the airlines are working on a scheme to make cell phone use possible in flight and, of course, make the airlines a little extra dough on the side. Somehow they would use broadband networks that would funnel voice and text messages through an airplane's receiver which would relay it to a satellite and then on to the intended recipient. The airlines would charge a fee to use the receiver while making sure it didn't interfere with any other electronic systems aboard the aircraft. But, before you can even say "Sorry, honey, the plane's being diverted to San Antonio," Oregon U.S. Representative Peter DaFazio, a senior member of the House Transportation Committee, has introduced something he calls "The Hang Up Act of 2008" which would prohibit the use of voice communications onboard an aircraft during flight.

"I think many Americans understand the potential for problems on aircraft if 100 or more people start talking on cell phones," DeFazio said at a news conference to announce the bill. "People are in very, very close quarters and this is a circumstance where you would have a cacophony of people on cell phones that would amount to a great potential for trouble."

His bill would permit text messaging and the use of those oh-so-popular phones many planes place on the backs of seats.

DeFazio, by the way, is the congressman who led the fight to ban smoking on aircraft.

Random thoughts on a Friday morning

Read where 81 percent of the respondents to a New York Times/CBS News poll think the country is headed in the wrong direction, the highest number in the history of the poll. Right on the heels of that report came a bulletin that said America had lost 80,000 jobs in the last couple of months. Wonder what the percentage would be if that poll was taken now.

More bad news for Hillary. According to the Los Angeles Times her lead in superdelegates -- the folks she needs for support in order to secure the Democratic presidential nomination -- is dwindling. In December she had 106 more superdelegates supporting her than were supporting Obama. In February that number was down to 87 and, as of yesterday, it had been slashed to 30.

The autopsy report on Rufus Shaw, which found that he had no visible signs of cancer, raises more questions than it answers.

I was stunned to see that the price of gas at my neighborhood station had gone up another five cents since yesterday. I was also surprised to read where Apple Inc. has replaced Wal-Mart as America's No. 1 music store. By the same token, I was amazed to read in a story about wine that one out of every five glasses of wine drunk in America is a Gallo wine.

Today's nominee for the Darwin award is the jerk in Arlington who was critically injured when he tried to "roof surf" on his car as it was traveling down the highway.

Stories that make me weep include the one from Baytown, southeast of Houston, where a 14-year-old girl gave birth to a boy in the restroom of her middle school and then killed it by trying to flush it down the toilet. An autopsy revealed the baby was full-term, alive and probably cried once before the mother tried to flush it.

Stories that make me cringe include the one announcing that the New Kids on the Block has reunited, and plans a new album and tour. I guess I can always comfort myself with the knowledge that this guy is not only still around but will be coming to town for a concert a week from Sunday.

Is the Justice Department Sirius about this monopoly business

Just when you thought the Justice Department couldn't sink any lower, the folks charged with, among other things, protecting common folks like you and men from the predators that come with monopolies, put their stamp of approval on the merger of Sirius and XM satellite radio, giving them permission to form ... er, ah ... a monopoly.

The reasoning behind this decision is that common folks like you and me still have access to iPods and Internet radio, so this merger isn't really a monopoly. This makes as much sense as saying all auto manufacturers can merge into one company because there will still be bus, rail and airlines to provide alternatives to consumers.

The problem with monopolies goes beyond the obvious ones of denying consumers choices and allowing providers of these services to slowly jack up prices. I imagine there is some technique available for me to download Bob Dylan's satellite radio program to my iPod, but something in the back of my head still makes me feel the source for this download will be satellite radio.

But here's my real issue with the Justice Department's reasoning. I lived in London for a year when every British citizen was at the mercy of the BBC. There was one television station in all of England -- the BBC -- and two radio stations, BBC 1 and BBC 2. The programming on them was awful. BBC-TV gave us, for the most part, droll newscasts, financial reports and documentaries that made fifth grade health education films look like "C.S.I." There were probably three quality hours of TV per week, "Dangerman," an American import that wasn't good enough to get airtime on American television and the equivalent of Masterpiece Theater. As for BBC radio, well, let me put it this way: As someone Bruce Springsteen characterized as "a prisoner of rock and roll," BBC radio was a complete wasteland. If it wasn't for the thriving club scene the world may have never heard of the Beatles, the Stones, Cream, John Mayall, the Yardbirds et al. You never heard them on legitimate British radio.

But, you see, the BBC didn't have to cater to popular tastes because there were no real alternatives. OK, according to the Justice Department reasoning, there was London's great theater, the cinema and the clubs; but when you're driving from London to Birmingham or Manchester for a football game, you can't turn on the theater, the cinema or the clubs in your car.

That's the danger behind the XM and the Sirius merger. Each one of them offers distinct programming. According to my son, who is a student of the offerings of each, if you're a baseball fan, XM would be your choice because it carries broadcasts of every single game played every single day. However, if you're more of a fan of the NBA, like he is, Sirius is the only alternative. So, if we now have one station known as Xirius, you might get both major league baseball and the NBA, but at the expense of some fringe offerings that appeal only to weirdoes like me. (I never been able to find one Dallas radio station that I can listen to for more than 20 minutes at one sitting without it driving me absolutely bonkers. I've always dreamed of starting my own satellite radio station that played "my music." It would also broadcast all Dallas City Council agenda meetings, briefing sessions and committee meetings, as well as all Dallas Mavericks basketball games and University of Texas football games. Admittedly, it might not have much of a listenership, but it's satellite radio so it doesn't matter. But a merger of the two providers, by definition, cuts the total amount of offerings in half and guess which half my station will fall into.)

Earlier I said this merger makes as much sense as a merger of all the automakers. Think, for a moment, what such a merger might mean, especially if they all merged under the Chevrolet brand. A lot of those little niceties we find in our automobiles today would disappear. The company wouldn't have to provide them. You take what the manufacturer offers you, or you go by bus, train or plane. All the innovations we've seen in the automobile industry -- from safety features, to fuel efficiencies, to improved repair records, such as they are -- have come about because of competition. They certainly didn't come from the kindness of the automakers' hearts.

I guess I can always hold out hope that the F.C.C. will not allow the merger to go through. The good news is that when the commission granted the two satellite licenses, it actually issued an edict that would seem to prohibit them from merging. The bad news is that the same type of political hacks President Bush has named to the Justice Department also now populate the F.C.C. because of his appointments. So while I can hold out hope, I'm certainly not holding my breath.

Don't drink or call while driving

Starting July 1, all drivers in California will be required to use a hands-free device when talking on a cellphone. Five other states -- Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Washington -- plus the District of Columbia already have such laws. The question remains, however, what's the point?

"There's a common misperception that hands-free phones are safer when the research clearly suggests that they are both equally risky," Arthur Goodwin, a researcher at the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, told the Los Angeles Times.

Forcing drivers to use hands-free devices is a political maneuver, not one designed to increase safety, according to most researchers. It's simply an action taken to make people feel safer. Statistics indicate, however, it will not reduce accidents or highway fatalities. In fact, Goodwin believes hands-free devices may make things worse by encouraging drivers to make more and longer calls while driving.

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta had drafted a letter in 2003 that was supposed to be sent to governors urging them not to endorse hands-free only calling. He wrote in the letter "overwhelmingly, research indicates that both hand-held and hands-free phones increase the risk of a crash." For some reason never adequately explained, the letter was never sent.

The letter was drafted because a 2003 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a division of the Transportation Department, found that 955 deaths in 2002 could be directly attributed to persons using cellphones while driving.

Other studies are even more startling. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in 2003 estimated there are 2,600 deaths and 12,000 serious injuries a year caused by drivers using cellphones. A 2006 study by the University of Utah revealed drivers using cellphones were four times more likely to get into an accident than those not using them and there was no difference between those using hands-free devices and those not using them. The issue, they said, is not whether a driver has both hands on the wheels, but whether the driver is concentrating on a telephone conversation instead of driving. The same study showed that the rate of accidents caused by those using cellphones was the same as for those who were legally drunk although those that were drunk did a better job of braking and avoiding rear-end collisions than those talking on cellphones.

There are those who will argue that there are more accidents involving drivers without hands-free devices than those with them, but that's a faulty argument because fewer drivers use hands-free devices. The risk of an accident is identical.

It's interesting to note that DuPont, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell prohibit employees from using cellphones while driving, even hands-free cellphones.

Of course, no lawmaker desiring re-election is ever going to introduce legislation banning cellphone use while driving a motor vehicle. But don't go thinking that hands-free accessories are a safety device. They are simply devices.

The wild, the innocent, the Brisbane shuffle

This comes pretty close to justifiable homicide.

We got trouble, right here in River City

Today's New York Times takes the time to Ponder the Fate of places like Venus and Lavon, what the newspaper calls the bedroom communities of the bedroom communities that surround Dallas. And the news is not good.

But I need that double shot mocha latte grande light and I need it right now!!!

Don't take this to the bank just yet but I have heard that Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz has grown more than just a little unhappy about the product coming out of his stores. For example, milk is supposed to be steamed for each individual drink, yet Schultz has claimed to have seen Starbucks employees steam a small pitcher and then pour the ingredients into several drinks. Only 30 seconds, from what I have been told, is supposed to lapse between the time espresso is brewed until it goes into a specific dream yet Schultz has allegedly witnessed baristas brewing espresso and setting it aside to use when needed.

Finally, according to a source I have inside Starsbucks, Schultz decided he couldn't stand it anymore. To fix these problems, he has ordered a system-wide shutdown of all Starbucks stores for the purpose of re-training employees.

From what I have heard, all stores will close for at least two hours at 5 p.m. (local times) on a Friday afternoon either later this month or next month during which time all the stores' employees, regardless of what shift they work, will undergo a mandatory training program. During this time, each store has been told to place urns filled with gratis coffee along with coffee condiments outside to help those addicts like moi who just have to have a shot of something.

Truth in packaging: All this information is unconfirmed and comes from a single source inside the Starbucks corporation.

Ever heard the term "dependency ratio"? It's important

The New York Times has a fascinating story today about population forecasts that predicts by the year 2050, 72 percent of the American population will either be above the age of 64 or younger than 18. This percentage is apparently called the "dependency ratio." That ratio today is higher than I thought it might be--around 60 percent.

Much of government spending--whether it's in the form of retirement benefits, health care or schooling--is devoted to programs for this group. What will the political composition of the country that will drive policies look like? The article says that by 2050, 23 percent of the workforce (those outside the dependency ratio) will be foreign born and many of them will be ineligible to vote.

At the risk of drastically alarming the folks in Farmers Branch, it is estimated that 19 percent of all Americans will be foreign born by 2050 (interestingly enough, that's the percentage of foreign-born residents living in Canada and Australia today) and the share of Hispanic residents will more than double to almost 29 percent. (Births will account for a large share of the Hispanic as well as the Asian population growth which is why the Hispanic population percentage is significantly higher than the foreign-born percentage.)

What all this boils down to is this: By the year 2050, those over 64 (a population that will include my son) will have the most powerful political voice in the country.

In a somewhat related story, the Times also reports that the economy of Arizona is weakening while the number of illegal immigrants seems to be dropping. No one is sure whether the illegal immigrants are leaving the state because of the economic downtown or whether the economic downturn is being caused by illegals leaving Arizona, which recently passed some of the toughest immigration laws in the country.

California sorta copies our tollway debate (followup)

From today's Los Angeles Times:

"The California Coastal Commission handed environmentalists a major victory and rejected the pleas of motorists Wednesday, voting down plans to build a six-lane toll road through San Onofre State Beach, a popular preserve in north San Diego County known for its scenery and famous surf spots.

Before a boisterous crowd of more than 3,500 people, commissioners decided 8 to 2 that the proposed Foothill South project violates the California Coastal Act, which is designed to regulate development along the state's 1,100-mile shoreline. They reached the conclusion following hours of sometimes heated public testimony that pitted protecting the environment against the need to relieve traffic congestion in south Orange County.

The decision was a major setback for the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which has spent years and tens of millions of dollars preparing to construct the 16-mile tollway as an alternative to Interstate 5."

At least the Californians knew the value of keeping that tollroad out of their park.

California sorta copies our Tollroad vs. Park debate

Sound familiar? Citizens are up in arms over a proposal to construct a tollroad through a park. Although this time it's not through the center of Dallas, but through a beach in California and the decision probably won't come from a local referendum, but via a political body known as the California Coastal Commission.

According to this story in the Los Angeles Times, the 12-person Commission will decide tomorrow whether to approve the construction of the Foothill South Tollway through San Onofre Beach, a popular park filled, according to the Times, with endangered species, old Indian sites and popular places to surf.

Supporters of the tollroad say it is needed to relieve congestion on Interstate 5, much the same way proponents of the Trinity River Tollway said it was needed to relieve congestion on Interstate 35E. And, sounding even more like the local argument, the California transportation folks are saying the route through Onofre Beach is the preferred alignment. Without it, they say, I5 would have to be widened, resulting in the removal of thousands of businesses along the route. (And I'm thinking: "Where have I heard that before?")

The Commission must decide if the road complies with something called the California Coastal Act. If the Commission says it doesn't, then the builders cannot apply for the state or federal permits needed for construction.

In perhaps one of the least sensitive statements to be uttered in this debate, the Time quoted Transportation Corridor Agency (the outfit that recommended the tollway) Chairman Lance MacLean as saying: "We are not trying to put down a state park, but this is not Yosemite."

Wanna bet?

Sez here that NASA will celebrate today's 40th anniversary of the Beatles recording "Across the Universe" at its Abbey Road Studios by blasting the song into space in the direction of the North Star. (This is also timed to coincide with the 45th anniversary of NASA's Deep Space Network which has a habit of pulling crazy stunts like this.) I'm wondering if someone suggested they might also propel Julie Taymor's movie of the same name up there but were afraid it might be intercepted by critical arts types leading to a full fledged inter-galactic war. According to the pen-protector set, the song should read Polaris in 431 years. I've got $5 that says it won't make it in under 435. Any takers?

You call this a budget?

The above picture, I'm guessing, is supposed to depict President Bush holding a copy of the budget he is sending to Congress--a $3 trillion budget. It looks kinda puny to me. If anyone has ever seen a copy of the City of Dallas' annual budget, and I have seen my share, it looks like a pair of Manhattan telephone directories and is nowhere near $3 trillion, at least not yet. C'mon, for $3 trillion, I want to see something far more substantial than what is pictured here.

Update: I'm going to cut the Prez a whole lotta slack here because I have subsequently learned that what he is holding is not the budget, per se, but a laptop containing the budget. Neat, eh?

How that elephant got into my pajamas I'll never know

What I want to know is what was that Plano bank doing wearing women's clothes. Pictures please.

From grid iron to iron bars

Of the thousands of NCAA athletes, at least two of them will turn pro in something other than sports.

Fly me to the moon (later)

This bit of news somehow escaped me when it was announced Wednesday but it's still worth mentioning now. Richard Branson, arguably the world's best known virgin, is announcing the commercialization of space flights. And at the bargain price of $200,000 a ticket, right around what I hear you'll pay for season tickets at the new Cowboys Stadium.

What's even more amazing is that, according to this story, 200 intrepid souls have already made reservations to come fly with Branson on this six-passenger (not including two crew members) spaceship.

Besides the fact that I have far more important things I would do with $200,000 at my immediate disposal, the spaceship's designer, one Burt Rutan, did not fill me with a lot of confidence when he said that, despite the craft's problems (a recent explosion on the ground killed three persons), once the ship starts flying it should be just as safe as any commercial airliner from the 1920s.

Sure. Fine. Whatever.