Not That I’m Surprised, But It’s STILL Funny

I wouldn’t have expected anything else, but it’s still high-larious when the McCain camp and their shills at the WSJ make a big boo boo. From Bloomberg this morning:

McCain kept everyone hanging on whether he’d participate in the first presidential debate. There was no doubt among his advertising staff. In fact, several hours before the candidate announced he would debate, they declared he’d won.

One ad mistakenly went up on the Wall Street Journal’s Web site, quoting the Arizona senator’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, as saying, “McCain won the debate - hands down.” Another showed McCain’s smiling face with the message, “McCain Wins the Debate!”

The ads were pulled about 35 minutes after they first appeared.

Read the full story here.

“Lead Foot” B.S.

Let me first state I think Phil Luciano is a great columnist, and I am always entertained by his writing style, and “get it” when it comes to Phil’s sense of humor. He’s damn good at what he does in the paper.  But I take, shall we say, significant umbrage at yesterday’s baloney-filled column about speeding v. fuel economy.

Phil bought too far into the claims of his unnamed veteran cop “source” for this story.

This officer claims he’s surprised…I’m sorry, he said “flabbergasted”…that people are “still driving like maniacs” with fuel nearing $4.00 per gallon.

Excuse me, buddy, but I do NOT “drive like a maniac”, and just because one speeds he/she is not a “maniac”. So let’s cut the hyperbole here. To me, the “maniacs” are the a-holes who run stop signs, don’t use signals, change lanes without warning, accelerate through left-turn lane yellow- and red-lights, and follow other cars too damn close. THOSE are the “maniacs”, and those people don’t have to “speed” to be an idiot.

Beyond that, though, let’s examine the claims in the story and the math around them:

According to AAA Motor Club, Phil says, decreasing speed from 75 to 65 MPH increases fuel economy by 10%, and decreasing speed from 70 to 55 MPH increases fuel economy by 17%. First, simple math tells us that even if these claims are true (they’re not), they don’t make a lot of sense. A decrease from 75 to 65 MPH is a decrease of 14% (and an increase in time needed to arrive at the destination by that same 14%). Ever heard the phrase “time is money”? Well, in sales, it’s true. So to effectively increase my mileage by 10%, I’ve got to slow down 14% and waste more time driving. Not a good deal.

And the other example given is just as bad…to get a 17% claimed (again, not true) increase in mileage, I’ve got to slow down by 22%! In other words, my 100-minute drives back and forth to Canton everyday become 122 minutes, and I spend another one hour and forty minutes in just one week (that’s a LOT of time I could be working at my desk or making sales calls) driving my car back and forth, only to see my mileage (supposedly) increase.

But alas, it doesn’t work that way in all vehicles. Hell, it doesn’t work that way in any vehicles that I know of. Cars, like golf clubs, baseball bats, and numerous other man-made items, have a “sweet spot”. Each one is different. Some vehicles (mine, for instance) achieve peak gas mileage at higher speeds, because of the gearing and how it matches to the “sweet spot” for engine RPM.

After reading it yesterday, I did a little test this morning. I topped off my tank and headed up to I-80, where I zeroed out my trip computer and set the cruise at 70. My drive from Annawan to Ottawa netted 24.8 MPG according to GM’s uncannily accurate dashboard trip-computer that I’m happy my Grand Prix came with. On the way back, I topped off, zeroed out the CPU and set the cruise at 55. Yes, on I-80. No rush to get back. Same trip, same miles. According to Phil and the AAA Motor Club, I should have seen my mileage increase to 27.3 MPG. Um, no. Try 24.2 MPG. Yep, my car gets worse mileage at 55 than it does at 70 in the same conditions. (Okay, it was four degrees warmer, for you engineer types).

(more…)

Now, Which Way Does the PJS Lean?

It’s always laughable to read letters to the PJS editor complaining about their “liberal” attitudes and their left-leaning ways. The PJS is far from a left wing paper. Far.

Take, for instance, today. On A1, above the fold, in bold headline, we find that the Death Tolls Are Down In Iraq. The story is a good one for the Bush Administration, overall. Actually, it’s a good one for many Americans and deserves to be front page news. But that’s not the problem. The problem today is what is NOT on the front page, above the fold. The problem is the story on page A6, the last page of the first section.

The story that says: “Report: Blackwater Is Out of Control”. Of course, this story isn’t front page at pjstar.com, either. What does the story say? The story says  that a “critical report” released by a “key congressional committee” says Blackwater mercenaries…oops, sorry, that’s “contractors”…are, among other things, covering up shootings of innocent civilians, has “had to fire dozens of guards over the past three years for problems ranging from misuse of weapons, alcohol and drug violations, inappropriate conduct and violent behavior”, and “In more than 80 percent of the incidents, called ‘escalation of force,’ Blackwater’s guards fired the first shots even though the company’s contract with the State Department calls for it to use defensive force only, it said.”

See the problem here? It’s quite obvious. The story that’s critical of the war is on the back page, the “feel-better” story is on the front. Instead of an important, disgusting report about the actions of a small group of war-hungry mercenaries operating under American colors, we get an oversized picture of pumpkins on the front page.  I’ve got a big problem with that. I wonder how many people who browsed the print edition and skimmed the online edition even saw this story today. Come to think of it, the PJS is not the only so-called liberal outfit to ignore this story. In fact, here is the current headline above the story at CNN.com: Blackwater boss defends contractors’ ‘honorable’ work.

Cal Thomas Nails It. And I Don’t Say That Often.

Here is my response to this column by Cal Thomas at pjstar.com today.: 

What a very fine, heartfelt column from Mr. Thomas, and his fourth and fifth paragraphs say it all. As a Democrat, I myself have felt the wrath of those who call me “anti-American” and a “hater of America”. Quite the contrary. I am one of those who often (regularly) disagrees with Cal Thomas. Not on this day. Happy 4th to everyone, even those who divide us.

Here are the paragraphs I referenced:

Last week, U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said that religion is not the exclusive property of conservative Christians. He is right. Neither is patriotism a trademark of the Republican Party.

As with religion, some people on the right have used patriotism, which should be a unifying theme, to divide Americans. My liberal friends love America as much as I do. They might disagree on some, or all, of my political and religious beliefs, but that does not make them less in love with America, much less un-American.

Well said, Mr. Thomas, well said. Some of the folks right here in Central Illinois (I won’t name names, let’s just say that it rhymes with “monster”) could learn quite a bit from Mr. Thomas’ words today.

PJS Writes A Poor Headline After A Poor Report From Police

My first reaction to the story about the 25-year old who died on his motorcycle the other night is the sadness I feel for the family who lost a loved one way too young. My second reaction is, upon reading that he was not wearing a helmet, frustration that people can’t get it right, both bikers AND lawmakers.

My third, and probably my strongest, reaction is a bit of anger at the police AND the Journal Star for the misleading and incorrect headline to the story:

“Excessive Speed MAY Have Caused Crash”

Um, yeah, maybe so. But I could just as easily add the words “or may not” right after “may” in that headline and it would say THE SAME THING.

It’s a generic headline with no real evidence or making no accusation against “excessive speed”, but it is a headline that immediately skews the readers’ opinion as to what might have happened.

And I blame the police for making the statement. When it doubt, blame it on speed, right? In reality, it may have been a malfunctioning suspension on the bike, or a blown tire, or a slick spot on the road, or a small animal darted in front of him, or he struck a large enough stone on the roadway to disrupt the bike…all of these things, and just like excessive speed, MAY be true. But they only say that “speed MAY be to blame”.  To which I say…or it MAY not.

I’m not condoning “excessive speed” while helmetless on a motorcycle. Nowhere in my post do I do that. (That was for Mouse, to preempt any comment in that vein). But what I’m condemning is the poor choice of words used by both the agency that reported the accident to the media, and the media outlet that chose the headline. 

(more…)