A political journey by Sacrebleu

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

Up until the age of 21 I was convinced that republicans woke up in the morning figuring out new ways to polute the environment, kill blacks, and steal the old lady in the shoe's pension. I was young, and as Churchill says I had the heart of youth. My parents are mega liberals, and I went to art school with reinforcements of my beleifs all around me.

 

As I grew older, I realized that most republicans actually just had a different philosophy than I did (to this day the only great thing Bush has done IMO is to talk, albeit briefly, about the difference in philosophy between the two camps). I started listening to right wing radio to see what the other side had to say. Unfortunately, they have all of the thought processes I had in my youth, just on the other side. In all seriousness, thehuddle has given me a better picture of the other side, and one that is often argued quite convincingly. Some of my views have definitely, with age, gone towards the center.

 

It had been a long time since I thought the right was out to steal the olf folks' pension....

 

But I'll be damed if everyday the Bush admi tries to convince me that the thoughts I had as a teenager were right...

 

So I'm reading this article in the NYTimes last week

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed the first major overhaul in 20 years in the way it calculates fuel economy ratings for cars and trucks, a shift the agency said would reduce mileage estimates by 5 to 30 percent, depending on the type of driving and kind of vehicle.

The new testing method, according to Stephen L. Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, would come much closer to bridging ''the gap between what the window sticker says and what consumers can expect in their fuel economy.''

 

 

The agency expects to introduce the changes starting with 2008 models, which will go on sale as early as a year from now.

 

Consumer groups have long complained that the E.P.A.'s ratings are far too optimistic, compared with fuel economy that drivers achieve under real-world conditions. Recent tests by Consumer Reports magazine, for example, found that E.P.A. window stickers could be off by up to 50 percent.

 

The new calculations will have the greatest impact on hybrid-electric vehicles, the agency said, cutting estimated fuel economy sharply on some of the industry's most sought-after models now that gasoline prices have soared.

 

For all vehicles, the agency said its new testing methods would result in a 10 to 20 percent drop in fuel-economy estimates in city driving, and a 5 to 15 percent decline in highway performance.

 

 

And am thinking: well good for the EPA, and truth in advertisement. And even happy that I finally have one more concrete example when asked to name 5 things that I agree with in this admin (after all I often asked right wing whackops to name 5 things that Clinton had done right, because it's just impossible to ONLY make wrong decisions)

But this seems so, well, unlike this admin.

 

Until the other shoe drops of course

But for hybrids, which run off a gasoline engine and an electric battery, city driving estimates could drop 20 to 30 percent. The decline in highway ratings would be 5 to 15 percent, the same as for regular cars.

 

Buyers are willingly paying thousands of dollars above the price of conventional vehicles, and waiting up to a year in the case of Toyota's most popular hybrid, the Prius, all in the belief that they yield much better gas mileage -- the Prius officially gets 60 m.p.g. in the city and 51 on the highway.

 

While hybrids are almost always more fuel efficient than conventional vehicles, E.P.A. officials said their estimates for city driving would shrink more because their engines were more sensitive to changes in road conditions, as well as the use of fuel-draining features like air-conditioning and electronic controls.

 

I am really convinced that THIS admin in fact does wake up trying to screw the little old lady.

How much more transparent can these guys be?

[Meat Face]

hi