A. Barbara, part of your question contains the answer: That stretch of I-5 is too close to the 91. More specifically, the restriction is there to keep you from getting sideswiped.
Painting crews striped off that section of the freeway specifically because of the interchange between the two freeways, per rules enforced by Caltrans.
"We can't have drivers weaving in and out of that car-pool lane," said Laura Scheper, spokeswoman for the Orange County Transportation Authority. The OCTA was the driving force behind the $335-million I-5 project.
Until that work widened I-5 through Buena Park last year, there wasn't a car-pool lane to begin with on that stretch of the Santa Ana Freeway.
Slowly, the OCTA and Caltrans are working to make most of Orange County's car-pool lanes continuous access. But in those areas where there are interchanges involving car-pool lanes, those sections will continue to be blocked off by the double-yellow lines.
Roadside attraction: In a Friday speech, President Obama talked about the government opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should the reliability of Middle East oil supplies become even more suspect. Until that happens, we can probably count on gas prices ratcheting ever skyward.
AAA has these tips for economizing every bit of dinosaur juice:
Slow down; vehicles burn more fuel at higher speeds. Besides, does it really make you feel that much better to beat out two cars to get to the freeway on-ramp first?
Minimize braking by watching traffic ahead. This means you, tailgaters.
Avoid quick starts and stops.
Keep your tires inflated to recommended pressures. It's better to check pressure when the tires are cool, after the car has been sitting for a few hours. Most tires list their optimum pressures on their sidewalls. While you're at it, remember to check the pressure in the spare tire!
Lighten your load; vehicle weight affects mileage. It's a car, after all, not a storage unit. If you're done skiing for the year, find another spot for those chains.
Sixty percent of Senate freshmen and more than 40 percent of freshmen in the House are millionaires, compared to 1 percent for Americans at large, according to a new report from
the Center for Responsive Politics.
The median estimated wealth for Senate freshmen is $3.96 million, topped by Sen. Richard
Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, at $94.87 million. The median estimated wealth for House
freshmen is $570,418.
"Even though millions of Americans continue to struggle financially, most of the nation's
newest congressional representatives are a world away from such constituents' financial
realities," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center
The figures are not precise because members of Congress are required to report their assets
only in broad ranges. The Center, a nonpartisan research group, uses minimum and maximum
asset values to arrive at an "estimated" figure.
Overall, freshman members of Congress have an estimated wealth of $533.1 million and a
maximum net worth of $845.2 million.
Blumenthal, who married into a fortune, spent millions to defeat Republican Linda McMahon,
herself a multimillionaire, in 2010's most expensive congressional campaign.
After Blumenthal, the next seven wealthiest freshmen in Congress are all House members and
all Republicans. They are: Diane Lynn Black of Tennessee ($49.4 million), Rick Berg of North
Dakota ($39.2 million), Blake Farenthold of Texas ($35.8), Scott Rigell of Virginia ($29.9),
James Renacci of Ohio ($28.4), Steve Pearce of New Mexico ($23.2), and Richard Hanna of New
York ($22.1).
At the other end of the scale, Rep. Joe Walsh, an Illinois Republican, has an estimated worth
of minus-$317,498.
Other members of Congress whose minimum worth is less than zero: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.;
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis.
Among all freshmen, "some are Democrats, some are Republicans, many are tea party
conservatives while others are unabashedly liberal," said Dan Auble, manager of the Center's
personal financial disclosure database. "What unites these freshmen is that, on balance,
they're rich."
The candle-lit world of Earth Hour is a decadent celebration of an era that we ought to be
glad we've left behind.
Printer-friendly version Email-a-friend Respond
On 26 March 1886, the House of Lords debated amendments to the recently enacted Electric
Lighting Bill, with Lord Houghton proclaiming electric lighting had a ‘very brilliant future
before it'. Exactly 125 years later, on 26 March 2011, the lights will go out on this
optimistic vision of a better future.
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is asking for lights to be switched off in homes, public
buildings and historic monuments for 60 minutes during Earth Hour, an annual event
highlighting the impact of energy use on the environment. ‘Switching off your lights is a
vote for Earth… [L]eaving them on is a vote for global warming', states WWF. Unfortunately
the symbolism of this gesture is entirely misplaced and ignores the socially and
environmentally progressive story of artificial lighting.
In 1859, a small farm in Pennsylvania became the site of the first successful oil well in the
United States. Oil was about to save the whale. With the Gulf of Mexico spill still fresh in
our minds this seems scarcely credible. However, it had been known since 1854 that oil could
be fractionated into a range of liquids including paraffin for lamps. Prior to this, oil from
whales lit many American homes. So, in a reversal of the usual environmental narrative, the
oil industry saved the whale. This is why the symbolism of Earth Hour is so entirely
misplaced, and indeed rather ironic. The wonderful story of artificial lighting has been one
of vast improvements in energy efficiency, plummeting costs and soaring utilisation. We now
burn coal, methane and uranium to power artificial lighting. In the past, we burned whales.
While the use of paraffin saved whales, Thomas Edison killed the paraffin lamp. In turn,
Edison's filament electric lamps were eventually replaced by tungsten, fluorescent and now
highly efficient solid-state lighting. Each new innovation delivered a step change in energy
efficiency. However, these improvements in efficiency did not lead to a reduction in energy
use but, wonderfully, greater energy use, brighter homes and workplaces and an escape from
the diurnal day-night cycle.
Until recently, the world was an unimaginably darker place. At the start of the eighteenth
century, humanity used 100,000 times less energy for lighting than at present. The candle-lit
world of Earth Hour is a temporary and theatrical recreation of this pre-industrial era, the
passing of which should be celebrated rather than used to symbolise our current excess.
Improvements in energy efficiency can also be seen in the transition from wood to coal, oil,
methane and uranium. Each fuel produces more energy per unit weight and significantly less
carbon. For example, one kilogram of coal can power a light bulb for four days, one kilogram
of methane for six days and one kilogram of the carbon-free uranium for a remarkable 140
years. These energy transitions did not take place because of emissions targets set by the
Victorians, but because each new fuel offered lower costs or better energy utility. As an
entirely unintended consequence we have been continually reducing the quantity of carbon
emitted per unit of energy produced. It is through an acceleration of this long-term
historical decline that carbon emissions will eventually start to fall while global energy
consumption continues to rise.
The recent ABC series "Made In America" is already causing nationwide conflict among
those who think the report is full of hypocrisy and false messages.
A report from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is saying that the ABC story
is hypocritical for focusing on consumers, instead of corporations like parent
company Disney. FAIR claims that consumers do not choose where products are made,
manufacturers (like Disney) do.
They are deeming this an "action alert" criticizing that the report should have
focused on the major corporations who hold more power in their decision making,
versus the consumer. But many everyday consumers would beg to differ.
Elizabeth Manzo, a teacher from The Laureate School in San Luis Obispo, is a strong
believer that her dollars do indeed count, especially since she is the only one who
ultimately decides where they go.
"The Mom and Pops are my friends, my neighbors and my family. I work hard for the
money I earn, realize my dollars are my voice in many ways, and want to share my
efforts with regular people, not corporations," Manzo explains. "I check to see where
things are made to support real people I can see."
But Manzo admits even the conscious consumer can fall victim to a quick, cheap
thrill. But she’s working toward the ideology that having an overall awareness is
better than nothing. "I had a friend who used to always check the tags when we were
shopping, especially if she wasn’t sure she ‘needed’ it. She’d look and see where
it was made, and if it was made in China, she decided to put it back," explained
Manzo. "I didn’t realize it, but just being around her made me start doing the same
thing, and now it’s become my own habit. It’s amazing how the power of 1 can become
the power of 2 and so on."
Not everyone can afford the American made goods however, even though the ABC report
pointed out that most items in the home were around the same price point as the
foreign made objects. And even though the lamp they ultimately decided on ended up
costing 250 dollars, they made a point to showcase cheaper lamps running the same
cost as the family’s previous lamps had.
Marie Kinnaman, a popular interior redesigner who emphasizes green design, finds that
hard to believe. Kinnaman had a sustainable home decor, art and apparel store in
Fallbrook, CA, and found the all-American made lamps to be handcrafted and expensive,
not mass produced. "It's highly unlikely American made lamps could sell for the same
price as foreign made lamps."
Diane Sawyer, who led the Made In America report, did conclude that many of the
products which were believed to have been made in the USA, actually were not. The
fact that many manufacturers don’t know where their products are made did not
surprise Kinnaman.
"Working together with craftsmen and local producers became easier than trying to
argue with wholesale companies who wouldn’t be honest about the origin of their
wares," she said. "They were either completely defensive when you asked where it was
made and played dumb, or it would take them hours to track down someone who could
tell them where it was actually manufactured."
Apparently, one of the most popular ways to throw off a potential buyer was to answer
the question of origin by saying, "It's designed here." Buying only American made was
not Kinnaman’s focus. It was more so to assure she was seeking out original items
made in various economies around the world, and not just China. According to her, it
was actually easier than you’d think to stock an entire 2,000 sq foot store with
products made from around the world, including the US.
In fact, Forbes magazine is disputing the report, claiming there are still plenty of
American made products, they are just of higher value and not things the common
consumer can find in a retail store. Think pharmaceuticals or airplanes for example.
But so what? Isn't it still important to draw attention to the fact that the average
consumer really doesn't seem to care where their products are manufactured? When you
think about which stores are thriving across the United States, the ones that come to
mind are the big box corporations that jam pack their stores with inexpensive,
cheaply made products.
And while in all fairness there is definitely a market for those items (many people
can not afford domestically made) the point of the ABC report was to let the American
consumer know they have choices, especially when it comes to quality.
One of the biggest debates was quality over quantity. The coffee table found for the
project's home was three times more expensive than the foreign made competition, but
would be sure to last through three generations, and not just three years.
So the average American consumer is faced with the question, "Is American made
important to me?"