As we all know, conservatives are evil bastards who are likely to claim that the reason that liberals vote the way they do is because they’re evil and/or un-American. Liberals, on the other hand, would never do anything like that. No, the reason conservatives vote the way they do is because we’re apparently stupid, and don’t read enough:

If more Americans read books every night instead of watching TV, we’d live in a more productive society. If more Americans watched the news and read real newspapers and magazines, instead of crappy programs like American Idol, then I’m confident that George Bush would not be our president. But heck, that’s what our leaders really want deep down… a mindless, uneducated populous that will work 40 hours a week so they can earn enough money to buy things to keep them distracted from the evil deeds that our leaders and suits in Fortune 500 companies are conducting everyday under your noses.

Let’s see… while I can’t deny loving television, I have a tendency to read everything I can. I’ve got a voracious appetite for reading, and if I go very long without reading a book of some sort, I get a bit depressed and feel very much not-myself. I’ve never watched American Idol, and have absolutely no desire to do so. According to Tao of Pauly, I should have voted for Kerry, right?

But I didn’t.

Liberals need to understand this — a good number of people who voted for Bush, myself included, didn’t do so because we thought he had been a great president in his first term of office. We didn’t vote for him because we thought he was absolutely the best man for the job. We voted for him, quite simply, because we had even less confidence in the ability of John Kerry to do the job than we did George Bush. A lot of us can give fairly solid reasons for that, too. You may not agree, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have them.

Just like conservatives who dismiss liberals as “un-American” (or liberals who do the same thing — see Cardinal Martini‘s Blaine Chronicles category for an example), people who blame Bush’s election on conservatives who “don’t read enough” are doing nothing but stifling the debate of issues — if you can blindly dismiss your opponents as stupid, illiterate fools, well, there’s no reason to assume that their argument is even worth considering. That’s much easier than actually thinking about the issues, isn’t it?

( þ WWdN in Exile )

I’ve wondered before why the Prius and other hybrids didn’t allow you to “fill up” the batteries as well as the gas tank — surely, if all of the electricity didn’t come from the engine, that would increase fuel efficiency some, wouldn’t it? (Of course, I’m still paying for the electricity that’d go into it, but that’s beside the point.) Forbes explains why that’s not feasible:

The problem is batteries–they are why the dream of a purely electric car has yet to come to fruition. Today’s battery technology cannot give the necessary power and range to make batteries practical for the average consumer. They also add weight and are costly.

Hybrids are different from electric cars. Most hybrids use nickel-metal-hydride batteries, which last for many years–perhaps as long as the car. Toyota tells me there are Priuses that have gone more than 275,000 miles on the original batteries. The secret to such longevity? According to Toyota, the car never charges its batteries to more than 80% of their capacity nor drains them below 50% capacity.

The philosophy behind a plug-in hybrid is that it drains the battery to almost empty before the gas engine cuts in. That is how they make those 100-mpg claims. This requires a bigger battery pack and, preferably, a lithium-ion battery, which packs more power per pound than nickel metal hydride.

… and I missed it

But, Rick Lee and Sharon have pictures.

I didn’t know this guy, but I did drive by his shop every day on my way to and from work (until a couple of weeks ago when I moved):

A Clendenin area man known for his special-themed, custom-made motorcycles shot and killed his wife and then himself Monday night, while his son was in the house.

Robert L. “Bear” Parsons Jr., 43, and Sarah A. Parsons, 27, were found dead of gunshot wounds in their Cromwell Estates house at 118 Spencer Road, Robert Parsons’ business partner and friend, Gale Hershberger, said outside the residence late Monday.

I know these sorts of things happen far too often in our society, but to have it happen that close to home just kind of unnerves me.

Responding to a Chicago Tribune repot about an increased crackdown on internet usage at work (Registration Required), Glenn Reynolds has an article at TCS Daily about why these crackdowns aren’t necessarily a good idea:

Well-run companies look at outputs — how well people are doing their jobs — rather than simply trying to make sure that employees look busy. And given that U.S. economic performance over the past few years, as Internet usage has boomed, has been excellent, it’s hard to believe that this websurfing is really threatening productivity. Instead, I suspect, it’s threatening management’s sense of control. (After all, if they really cared about people wasting their time with computer technology, they’d ban PowerPoint, not Web-surfing.)

Glenn goes on to note that blocking internet access from the work computer is, at best, a stop-gap measure. Laptops are, increasingly, being equipped with cards that not only access Wireless LANs, but EVDO cards that allow for wireless internet access anywhere you can get cell phone service. Sure, companies could ban those laptops, but what about cell phones (My UTStarcom PPC6700 provides internet access that beat my home access until I moved a couple of weeks ago, and while it’s not optimal (very few websites provide a separate look for handheld screens), it’s certainly sufficient for most of the stuff people would want to look up on a whim) and PDAs?

From the Chicago Tribune story:

“If you’re watching video, you’re probably not working,” said Vimal Solanki, director of product marketing at McAfee Inc., a software vendor whose products to block Web access are selling briskly.

That is an astounding observation, isn’t it? “If you’re watching video, you’re probably not working.” Probably true, but is that really sufficient reason why companies should restrict internet use? If “not working” is banned in the workplace, I want to see a concerted effort to ban personal phone calls, doodling, daydreaming, casual non-work conversations with co-workers, and every single other non-work activity that goes on during the day.

Of course, there are good reasons for cracking down on at least some types of internet usage. It wouldn’t take very many people watching streaming video to tie up bandwidth otherwise reserved for business usage. There are also security issues to deal with, as well as the potential for lawsuits if one employee uses the internet to access sites that could be considered sexually harrassing (or simply causing a “hostile work environment”). Trying to manage every minute of an employee’s time, though, isn’t sufficient reason.

I’m certainly not saying that companies don’t have every right to ban internet usage (or, in fact, any of those other things I just mentioned) in the work place, but doing so is shortsighted at best. As Glenn points out, the best way to increase workplace productivity is to monitor, well, productivity, and reward/reprimand workers based on whether or not they’re getting their job done.