Two girls in Salt Lake City are protesting rising gas prices after their mom was forced to cut cable TV from the family’s budget because they could no longer afford it. The girls are upset because they can’t watch their favorite cartoons.

This is the way things work in America these days. Despite the world seemingly beginning to fall apart at the seams, there is little real uproar here in the US.

It’s because we’re all at home watching TV. Sometimes it takes something like cartoon deprivation to get us to take a stand.

Once we have to forego more of our guilty pleasures and distractions, we will all be on the streets protesting, despite the fact that it likely won’t force the price of gas any lower. Never mind the real issues; just don’t take away our Comedy Central.

I can see the signs that would be carried by the picketers:

“Beer should be an everyday thing, but gas prices have eaten away at my beer money! Stop the madness!”

“My Explorer runs on oil but my big-screen HD TV doesn’t! I can’t afford either!”

“My children deserve a future filled with electronic gadgets and video games! How can we leave them that legacy?”

We have become disconnected because we are so contentedly preoccupied. We find it easy to ignore what’s going on as long as we have something to distract ourselves with. It will be interesting to see the reaction once gas prices double again and we are forced to choose between paying for what we need and what we just really want.

Barack Obama announced he will not use public financing of the presidential campaign in this year’s general election. In a questionnaire last year, Obama said he would pursue public financing for the general election, which would cap spending for both candidates at $85 million.

From the New York Times in Feb. 2008:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — The staff of the Federal Election Commission has drafted an opinion that would allow the two major parties’ presidential nominees to adopt what amounts to a fund-raising truce.

The draft opinion would allow the nominees, if both agreed, to return contributions they had solicited for the general election campaign and limit themselves to public financing for it instead.

The opinion is a response to an inquiry by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination. It is an indication of how the commission, which released the document Thursday, is likely to rule on the idea. The commissioners are expected to issue their decision after a meeting next Thursday.

Candidates say the amount of public financing — it would be about $85 million per nominee next year — has failed to keep pace not only with campaign costs but also with the potential for private contributions, meaning a candidate who does not seek donations early on risks falling far behind.

But Mr. Obama, campaigning on pledges to clean up politics, argued in his filing with the commission that the public financing system had insulated candidates from a corrupting dependence on big donors. He asserted that the system could be preserved for the general election through bipartisan agreement if party nominees returned early contributions.

The plausibility of such an agreement is not clear. One nominee is likely to have a financial edge on the other at the outset of the campaign, and accepting public financing would mean relinquishing that edge.

Obama’s goal was apparently to keep the election honest by keeping out money from special interest groups.

Strategically, eschewing public money and the restrictions placed on it is a good call for the Obama campaign. Obama is a fund-raising powerhouse. If he agrees to the public money and the $85 million cap that would restricted him to, his campaign would be vulnerable to the big campaign money of Republican-friendly 527 groups as well as the huge funds the Republican National Party could use to campaign against him.

The Democratic National Party has a smaller bank roll to defend against this inevitable onslaught. Obama obviously feels his campaign would be better off using the money he could raise versus the limited public money.

It is understandable Obama would flip-flop on this issue, considering he does want to win in November and all. It is disappointing, however, that he is now going back against his previous decision. He should have considered this possibility earlier so he didn’t have to change go back on his word.

But would it? Will this strategy really work to end the $4 a gallon (and rising) prices? The evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

There are an estimated 15 billions barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Energy Information Agency, in 2007 Americans consumed 20.7 million barrels of oil per day (this number includes all oil-based products, including production of plastics and the like). To give you an idea of how long the Gulf reserves would last, at that rate of consumption, if we sucked out all the estimated 15 billion barrels of oil from the Gulf and eschewed all foreign oil, we could be completely energy independent for around 724 days. Less than two years.

Now, the Gulf reserves are not the only ones McCain is talking about opening up, so it is possible we could be energy-independent for more than two years. But still, can we make huge advances in alternative energy sources and implement them in anything under five years, or even 10 years? Unlikely. And since billions of dollars would need to be invested in order to get to all the oil in the Gulf, a process that could take a decade, lower gas prices in the near future as a result of the McCain plan are just as unlikely.

And that left McCain’s plan open to partisan attack today.

John McCain is “selling a quick fix that doesn’t work,” North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley said during a telephone conference call arranged this afternoon by the Barack Obama campaign. Easley said this is another example of McCain caving in to Bush’s policies, as well as a scheme to benefit big oil by allowing them access to the Gulf’s oil fields.

Former Florida Gov. Bob Graham, also on the conference call agreed. We should be focused on developing alternative energy sources and conservation of existing fuel reserves, Graham said. The U.S. should not “drain America first” just to be dependent on foreign oil once the domestic oil is gone, Graham said.

Opening up coastal areas to drilling likely won’t affect fuel prices, critics say. It could take years before the Gulf’s oil reserves are able to be drained. The technology needed isn’t yet available to reach some of the oil deposits that have been found.

The main focus should be on developing alternative sources and weeding ourselves off of oil, particularly increasingly costly foreign oil.

“If McCain wants to flip-flop … he’s free to do so. But he needs to be honest and tell the people this will not help (with gas prices),” Easley said.

And what about the environmental dangers of drilling closer to the coast?

William E. Hawkins, a professor of environmental science at the University of Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Lab, said initially the biggest issue would be one of aesthetics.

“People don’t want to see oil rigs from beachfronts,” Hawkins said.

He said that while coastal drilling technology makes drilling cleaner than it once was, there could be environmental consequences in the event of a natural disaster such as a hurricane.

Also imagine the impact visible oil drilling platforms could have on the ever-important tourism industry in Florida. Our pristine beaches would be forever ruined.

“Our coastlines should be protected,”Graham said.

(photo by VictoryNH Protect Our Primary)

I can’t wait.

Hell yeah, $300 to help get me out of the hole that is swallowing me due to crazy gas prices and slowly rising beer prices and rising prices for groceries and every other cost than seems to be a perpetual drain on my income.

And now, since we have received word that our economy is now flying high like a jumbo jet, I no longer feel pressured to spend my check on something that I don’t need in order to keep America (and all the third-world countries that produce the products we enjoy) going strong. Yes, apparently our economy is doing great, growing at a steady pace, chugging right along. Better now than it has been for a long time, etc. It is no longer necessary for me to bounce my stimulus check back into the whirlwind of progress that is the economy.

But the strength of the economy must be felt more at the corporate level and by the upper income folks than by the common-folk at the bottom of the economic food chain because I don’t feel a thing. Not anything good, at least.

Regardless, I no longer feel compelled to add to the riches of a small division of a retail mega-conglomerate. My check is going straight into by bank account.

I call this speculative economics: If I spend my stimulus check at a store, it helps keep that company going strong so that it can afford to continue employing its workers who, in theory, will spend their money somewhere and keep the pool of cash swirling around and around and keep us all afloat. I speculate, however, that these workers will choose to save as much of their paychecks as possible, as well as their economic stimulus checks, due to the higher cost of living. The higher costs we are all feeling are eating into our disposable income and it isn’t going to get any better.

This is also what I call my every-man-woman-and-child-for-themselves economic policy. I’m holding onto as much of my money as possible to avoid being screwed in the future if gas prices hit $10 a gallon. When it comes to my money, it’s all about me; there is no let’s-do-what’s-best-for-the-country-by-spending-money-I-don’t-have-on-things-I-don’t-need.

Back in the day when I would get a mini-windfall, such as my tax refund check, for example, I would spend it on stuff I wanted, like a stereo for my car or a pair of shades. I was a true patriot. I could afford to be.

If I would have received my check earlier, before the economy was doing so great, I would have felt all fuzzy inside handing it over to a corporation in exchange for something that I don’t need, so that it can afford to pay its workers their pittance without having to lower CEO pay or raise prices.

Sorry, but I’m keeping as much of my money as I can. It’s simple economics. Actually, it’s the simplest of simple economics.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans have displayed their southern pride, or maybe demonstrated their racist ignorance (depending on whom you ask), by flying a massive Confederate flag near the I-75 and I-4 intersection.

God bless America. These rednecks have the right to fly their flag, at least temporarily.

While I totally disagree with their ideology and am suspicious of their motives, unpopular ideas should not be censored. The flag merely represents their ideas and is akin to a demonstration, which is constitutionally protected. To prohibit this group from flying the flag because of what it stands for would amount to a content-based restriction of free speech, which is a road we do not want to start down.

In addition, there doesn’t seem to be anything, at least so far, that the county commission can legally do to get the flag taken down.

And they should, because leaving the flag up permanently would be an eyesore and wouldn’t be beneficial to the overall community any more than any other hideous eyesore would be. In the same way that we wouldn’t let any other group assemble permanently in a public place, we shouldn’t let this abominable symbol be on permanent public display. It needs to come down eventually.

In the meantime, however, it should be treated as a free speech or a right to assemble issue.

(photo credit: juxtapose^esopatxuj via flickr)

Joan Kennedy Biddle sued in March for repayment of a promissory note given by Tampa to Biddle’s great-grandfather for military supplies needed to defend against Union troops in 1861. The original note, now a family heirloom, was for $299.58. Biddle just wanted what was fair: the amount of the original debt plus 8 percent. Compounded annually. For a total of $22.7 million.

I mean come on, her family had been carrying that debt for a long time. Fair’s fair, right?

After the suit was announced, the city quickly poked big holes in her case, including citing the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against repaying debts incurred while in rebellion against the United States (see Section 4). Tampa’s chief assistant city attorney Jerry Gewirtz delivered hundreds of documents to Biddle’s attorney Jim Purdy, who quickly called uncle.

Even though she dropped her suit, however, she is surely still seeing dollar signs dancing in her head, although not exactly like she had envisioned when she (or a really bad influence) came up with this scheme. Not only is she not going to be rich like Rick James, but she has reportedly agreed to pay the city $4,000 in legal fees, and she’s surrendering the original promissory note to the city.

Talk about an about-face! Even though Biddle’s case was shaky from the start, they must have some good lawyers over in city hall. Makes you wonder what else was in those documents.

Biddle should consider herself lucky. The feds could have gotten in on this and pulled some serious Patriot-Act-aiding-and-abetting-the-enemy stuff. She could have ended up at Gitmo.

Four thousand dollars and a family heirloom seems like a small price to pay for freedom. Then again, couldn’t the city at least have offered to give her family back the $300 it borrowed those many years ago, even if it couldn’t afford the interest?

(Oh, in another victory for the Confederacy, the self-proclaimed world’s largest Confederate flag is headed to Hillsborough County! More to come on that, we’re sure.)

photo credit: Mike Murrow

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book reportedly makes the unbelievable claim that the Bush White House relied on lies and propaganda to sell the war in Iraq.

No way.

More specifically, no way McClellan is making this claim almost five years after it became common knowledge. Thank God he told us; now it’s official. (Although not according to the White House and Karl Rove, who are both denying the accusations in the McClellan book.)

Apparently, Bush lied about a lot of things — like golf. (Then again, what golfer hasn’t lied about his game?)

However, we found out about these lies a little late, I guess. It’s too bad we didn’t have this information in 2004. Maybe we could have avoided four more Bush years.

The sad thing is that the Bush administration making things up to justify an unnecessary war is old news. We know and we have all moved on. It has lost its immediacy and we seem to have lost our outrage.

It’s too bad GW didn’t lie about getting a blow job. Maybe then we would have had a chance of getting rid of him.

At this point, I just can’t wait until January 20th, 2009.

Apparently teacher Stephen Berry was messing around (and by that I do not mean like a predateacher) with a 14-year old student when things went a little too far and the student wouldn’t calm down. So Berry did what any kickin’-ass-and-takin’-names teacher would do: He body slammed the punk.

Word. I’ll bet the kid learned his lesson that day.

The whole thing was recorded by a someone with a cell phone.

While it is unknown what exactly brought this incident on, the kid must have deserved it because the parents (at least so far) have decided not to press charges. That’s right, they have decided (at least so far) not to press charges.

There must be more to this story than has come out yet. A teacher freakin’ body slams a student and the parents decide it’s no big deal?

Maybe they are waiting to speak to a lawyer so they can sue. There’s more long-term justice in a large cash settlement than a criminal prosecution, after all.

Berry has resigned and the Lake County Sheriff’s office is reportedly investigating the incident. Lawyers everywhere are salivating at the possibilities.

Stay tuned.

Our buildings pretty much suck. Too many of them are monuments of energy inefficiency. They suck too much electricity off the power grid and water out of the ground. Construction materials often travel far to the work site, sucking fuel out of the tanks of big rigs. Many were built using harmful chemicals, which sucks.

The Pasco County school system has joined the small but growing ranks of those trying to do something about it.

Gulf Trace Elementary in Holiday became the first K-12 public school in Florida to be certified as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver by the U.S. Green Building Council.

“We were requested (by Pasco County schools) to build green,” said Joshua Bomstein, vice president of business development for Creative Contractors, Inc., who built the school.

Creative Contractors made some minor changes to the original design to make the school greener. The overall cost of the school was only one percent higher than the budget for the original design.

“We delivered a school that was far greener than if we didn’t make those changes,” said Bomstein.

During construction, about 80 percent of the site’s construction waste was recycled and around one-quarter of the school was made from recycled materials. Workers used different bins to collect waste materials, like concrete, scrap metal and drywall, Bomstein said. The drywall was finely ground and mixed into the soil after testing revealed it was environmentally safe.

For long-term benefits, the school uses 40 percent less water than an average building by using dual flush toilets, low-flow sinks and showers, and landscaping with water-wise plants, Bomstein said. Even the school’s carpeting is (environmentally) green: it was made from recycled windshields.

“To build the first K-12 school in the state to reach LEEDs silver really means something,” Bomstein said.

Gulf Trace is one more building in Tampa Bay that is sucking up less. Now on to the rest of them.

My small Civic is no longer as economical as it was just a few years ago. It still seems hard to imagine a car that gets around 30 miles per gallon (highway) could ever be considered a gas guzzler. However, with the price of gasoline rising rapidly, every time I look at my gas gauge my bank account dies a little more inside. Thirty miles per gallon (highway) just isn’t cutting it like it used to.

But could there be a better way? It seems there is an alternative.

Today is National Bike to Work Day. It’s too late for me to take advantage of this now, as I already (foolishly) drove into the office, but this could be a perfect solution to the rising price of the dino-juice.

If I would have known about this earlier, I could have saddled up the old Schwinn, put my coffee cup in the cup holder (note to self: get a cup holder for the Schwinn), thrown my backpack into the basket (note to self: saddle bags are way cooler), and lead by example.

I would be laughing at my one-day usurpation of big oil as I pedaled along the side of I-275 North on my 25-mile commute from St. Petersburg to Tampa. Of course I would be tempting death as I dodged the foolish, petroleum-dependent commuters flying by just inches away at 80 miles per hour. Biking 25 miles along a busy interstate could be, well, scary, since the Tampa Bay area is not always the most bike-friendly place.

Of course, once at the office I would need to take a shower and change clothes so as not to offend the staff. It is basically summer out there, after all, and the sweltering heat could certainly overpower Right Guard Sport gel. Since there is no shower here, I would have to settle for a bird-bath in the bathroom sink. Also, I would have to leave a little earlier to arrive on time. Like maybe two hours earlier to account for short breaks along the way. This means going to bed, and getting up, earlier. That’s not cool. . .

And the bike has no stereo or lumbar seating.

Actually, this biking-to-work idea may not be as practical for me as I wish it were. With some time to seriously consider it, a $3 to $4 commute (albeit both ways) in the car seems like maybe a better idea for now.

Of course, if gas prices rise to $10 per gallon, I’ll have to seriously reconsider it. Maybe I will. Next year.