LOL. (We just elected an African American President.)

I actually find it amusing to see the denial of the USA arriving at color blindness.

I had commented disputing the author's claim, that I *do not* believe Rice and Powell had anything to do with Obama's election.

That a "goodly" number of african and hispanic Americans voted for Obama *because* he is black, and that caucausians voted for him on merit, not on hip-hop multi culture. If you look at the stats, you'll have no choice but to wonder why so many minorities turned out this election, and why so many hispanics switched their vote from Republican to Democrat. Some of it is because of merit of course -- but I think it is wishful thinking to believe that most of the numbers who switched from voting for Bush to Obama did so on merit.

And I believe there are some caucasians who voted based on hip hop multi culture or diversity, but it would seem to make common sense that more voted based on merit.

In other words I think there are a lot blacks and hispanics who have turned the discrimination tables on caucasian politicians. I can't blame them because this is the *first* minority President, not to mention we are a long way from racial balance in politics reflecting the percentages of races in the citizenry. Particular speaking for hispanics. The same is true for teachers as I pointed out in another comment recently on a different blog. While color does not make a difference for the majority of caucasians, it apparently does make a difference for (x percentage?) minorities.

The answer is yes *and* no:

Yes: From a goodly portion of black and hispanic voters

No: From color blind caucausians who voted on merit

Conclusion: Obama was elected both on merit and *because* of his being black.

Tip: If you are an aspiring politician with merit, and you are caucasian, join a tanning salon, because the odds are against you.

I'm just calling it like a strategist. I think we should go with black policians who can hold their own in debates and on issues and who are articulate. Simple as that.

A. For all intents and purposes the majority of caucasians have arrived at Martin Luther King's Dream -- the USA is officially color blind. You can come up with whatever stories you want about how much hip-hop multi culture caused this arrival to take place, or any other stories. But the only thing that matters is the fact of the color blindness.

and

B. Minority politicians have an advantage of caucasian politicians because on top of the caucasian color blindness, a goodly portion of minorities are not color blind. Call it reverse discrimination, or call it what you will. It apparently exists when you look at the statistics of this election compared to the statistics of the previous elections.

There is however one question -- Obama is half black and half white. I don't know what Powell and Rice are. They were not voted into office. Powell looks half black and half white.

So the real test will be when we have someone who is 100 percent black. I hope the outcome will be the same regarding caucasian voters -- but we can't be sure until it happens.

Either way I still say we have arrived at color blind status in the USA. And I think it is a wonderful thing to be a part of.

I do think more minorities came out to vote because of Obama being something new for them.

Sure there might be a portion of white voters who put skin color as their top priority, diverse skin color that is. But I think you are in denial of the obvious fact that we have arrived at color blind status in the USA when it comes to majority anyways.

And I also think the election clearly shows minorities have an advantage now. Because if they can hold their own on issues and their own merit and talent with caucasians, they get all the bonus points with minority voters who might otherwise vote differently regarding issues. One look at the stats illustrates this clearly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

We could all abandon the Democratic Party and start a Labor Party. That way we would no longer be the target of the slanderous slogan of "liberal." As we can counter argue "centrist." Which in reality I think we really are. And the Green Party could then take up ranks in the Democratic Party.

I think this would be greatly to our advantage. But I also think the chances of getting it to happen are the snowflakes chance in in Ecuador.

Of course no tried and true Democrat wants that as a talking point. I don't follow politics enough to know what the ramifications of a Labor (I take it from my limited knowledge of politics that the UK Labor Party is centrist) would be.

But with the GOP's earthquake fault lines that we are reading about, and with politicians like Lieberman lurking about, I think it's possible for a middle of the road party to emerge.

Strrrike!

I think Obama will be more of a Wellbutrin than a Prozac -- I think he will really get the Nation's pistons firing, and not just on motivation or hope for the future. I think he's a bonafide decision maker and that he'll do as good of a job as can possibly be done. There are still plenty of moderate voting Dem representatives let's not forget. It won't be a dictatorship. And I liked Obama's use of the word humility last night when referring to the other side of the isle.

So for all those reasons I am hopeful for the future, I am counting the days 'til Crawford, and I have already started to be much relieved knowing Dubya and Co. will be duck hunting in a few months. And with any luck, more people who need an anti depressant will be able to take one.

I don't feel good about myself as much as I feel good about the future. If you look back at any good president, I think you'll notice they all accomplished that very same thing. There is only so much a president can do in reality, as you insiders know all too well. So why not motivate the Country while you are at the wheel?

I realize feeding trolls is generally not a good idea -- but for what it's worth, I've been a Democrat since age 18, (28 years), and I would have been proud if Colin Powell had run for and been elected as President. I gather he did not run because he was a friend of the Bush family, although I'm not well read on that -- just shooting from the hip. He would have been a much better President than Dubya, and tonight's election probably would have been closer if it were for Powell being President as well.

Yes M.J., this is more than change, it is sea change. You will find no black Disney princess for black girls to aspire to, but now they have role models living in the most powerful house on the planet.

p.s. I admit that I had to fight back tears when I saw Oprah Winfrey and Jessie Jackson cry on NBC when Obama's wife came out. It also strikes me as such a positive development for black children -- not only to have a black President, but to identify and look up to role model peers -- Barack's children -- living in the White House. It really is a sea change, even though President Obama claimed from the start that it was not about race (an unintentional sea change?)

God works in strange ways. Of course the haters will use this against him in 2012, but if Hussein backfired this time, perhaps We With Him will backfire the next time around (and as my wife got an email regarding this from another Iranian expatriate, I am not the first one to post about it I'm sure.)

(And yes I believe their God is the same as our God -- just with different prophets.)

On the one hand I am (pleasantly) surprised to see a person of color elected President. But on the other hand I believe Colin Powell would have won if he had run against Bush, so to that end I really am not surprised to see this happen in the new millenium.

Boy would we have been better off with Powell! (No Iraq War #2 for starters -- or if there had been a war, there would have first been an exit strategy.)

When I postulated that high speed trains would be even less fuel efficient, it was a hasty assumption, and this addendum fixes that part of my above post.

Here's another link I found searching for fuel efficient trains though that supports my snap calculation that Prius's are more efficient than today's trains even with only one passenger:

http://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?id=128

But he has overlooked I think the economic terrorism of what one well placed railside bomb does to the passenger train industry. Once it happens, who rides a train? With planes, we were able to fix the problem in a jiffy after it happened. Not so with the hundreds of miles of rail strewn across the land. Unless terrorists have brought surface to air missiles into the States, trains are not as easy a target to protect. SAMs are more expensive though than bombs I would think, and bombs can be assembled within the States rather than solely imported as SAMs would have to be.

A freeway side bomb would cause a big scare as well, but we have the freedom to drive the back or country roads if we need an alternate route, unlike with rail where you are on a predetermined route.

(Assuming a high fuel efficiency car is used such as a Prius, which seems to be the way of the near future.)

US Transportation Energy Data Book for 2006 -- Note that this is not a high efficiency hybrid type of vehicle.

Transport mode Average passengers per vehicle Efficiency per passenger

Vanpool 6.1 1,322 BTU/mi 2.7 L/100 km (87 MPGeUS)
Motorcycles 1.2 1,855 BTU/mi 3.8 L/100 km (62 MPGeUS)
Rail (Commuter) 31.3 2,996 BTU/mi 6.1 L/100 km (38 MPGeUS)
Rail (Transit Light & Heavy) 22.5 2,784 BTU/mi 5.7 L/100 km (41 MPGeUS)
Rail (Intercity Amtrak) 20.5 2,650 BTU/mi 5.4 L/100 km (43 MPGeUS)
Cars 1.57 3,512 BTU/mi 7.2 L/100 km (33 MPGeUS)
Air 96.2 3,261 BTU/mi 6.7 L/100 km (35 MPGeUS)
Buses (Transit) 8.8 4,235 BTU/mi 8.7 L/100 km (27 MPGeUS)
Personal Trucks 1.72 3,944 BTU/mi 8.1 L/100 km (29 MPGeUS)

From: http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/rail_vs_autoEE.html#s9

"The very low rolling resistance of a steel wheel on a rail is partially canceled out by the high weight of passenger trains. The higher weight also means more energy used for accelerating and climbing grades although some of this could be recovered by coasting and regenerative braking. Aerodynamic drag is low for a train at moderate speed but increases rapidly (with the square of the speed). Thus one may say that passenger trains are potentially energy efficient, but in actual practice such trains turn out to be little more energy-efficient than the automobile."

Here is another chart showing 2.3 average passengers with a non-hybrid type car I think:

Vehicle Average no. of Passengers MIles traveled per gallon Passenger-miles per gallon
Automobile 2.3 28.4 65.3
Bus 23.2 6.2 143.8
Jetliner 89.6 0.34 30.5
Train1 20.5 2.6 53.3

So it would seem once you have two people in the car, even if it's an average car by today's mpg standards, it is more fuel efficient than heavy rail. When two people are in a Prius I would think the value almost doubles beyond this value.

From here: http://www.sierraclub.org/howgreen/getaway/answer.asp

"How do commercial airplanes, trains, and cars rank from most to least efficient per passenger mile?

B is the right answer: Trains are the most efficient, followed by cars, and then planes. You get partial credit if you guessed A since you realized that planes are the least efficient. According to the DOE, passenger trains use 2,978 British thermal units per passenger mile, while cars use 3,496 BTUs/passenger mile, and airplanes use 3,959 BTUs/passenger mile. However, if you include personal trucks and SUVs along with cars, the nation's vehicle fleet uses 4,329 BTUs per passenger mile, which is worse than airplanes. You could vacation Easy Rider style on a motorcycle, which uses 2,272 BTUs for every passenger mile. Or consider a bicycle trip: just as breezy as the Harley but gasoline free. "

However -- no Prius is used or included in this example obviously. And the DOE's average passenger per car again is 1.5, not 2. (or 3 or 4 for that matter.)

Perhaps that isn't fair as we would have full trains as well if they were in vogue. But if you are going by the use of a Prius, it would seem the efficiency is higher than a Train pretty much no matter how you slice it, due to the train's inherent heavy weight. High speed trains would be even worse, but so would an Autobahn.

http://www.bimmerfile.com/2008/09/10/confirmed-new-4-cylinder-in-development/ .

Jim G

http://www.bimmerfile.com/2008/09/10/confirmed-new-4-cylinder-in-development/ .

Jim G

p.s. I don't care for the electoral system either.

So I say let them rot.

Regarding the train initiative -- as an environmentalist from the get go, I like the sounds of it of course, as trains produce less pollution than jets, but I also think trains are an easy target for terrorists since there are hundreds of miles of track to locate a bomb. As in California when it's been years since a Big One has struck, we forget about the dangers of terrorism.