The Senate has decided that trigger locks suck. A trigger-lock mandate, part of a bill limiting the liability of gun manufacturers in liability cases, has been stricken from the language. Who wants to wait a few moments to fiddle with a mechanism in order to activate their gun? In the immortal words of Homer J. Simpson, "But I'm angry NOW!"

Here's a particularly adorable quote from the representative behind the move to make it easier to shoot people: Marilyn "M&M" Musgrave. Read the article in yesterday's LA Times:

The Senate had voted 70-30 to impose the trigger lock sales mandate, which proponents said would prevent gun accidents and save lives, especially those of children who discover a parent's handgun.

But gun-rights advocates, led by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., countered that the new requirement is "equivalent to a tax on citizens who purchase firearms."

Well polish my barrel! A tax on good old down-homey gun owners. With taxes on cigarettes due to go up, not to mention alcohol taxes, it's nice to know that our government is more concerned about those who hurt others than those who hurt themselves.

I was busy checking out stopgunviolence.org for any relevant statistics when I realized it's actually based nearby; the website belongs to Orange County Citizens for the Prevention of Gun Violence, founded by Charles and Mary Leigh Bleck. In 1994 their son Matthew was killed during an attempted robbery in New York, and now the couple has relocated out here to further their message of prevention and harm reduction. From stopgunviolence.org:

Firearms were involved in 179 Orange County deaths: 110 suicides, 63 homicides, three deaths during legal intervention, two deaths due to undetermined intent, and one accidental gun death.(2002 figures)

People are willing to pay the rising price of cigarettes, even as they reach what Dave Chapelle labels "crack prices". Gun owners regale us with tales of responsibility, maturity, depth of knowledge and general omniscience when it comes to the blunderbuss or musket hidden in the closet with the kids' christmas presents, the porn collection and dad's stash, but they're not willing to spend a little more on a product that'll keep an intruder (or spouse, or child) from pulling a trigger? A penis is a warm gun; Happiness is a secure gun.

We swear this will be our final electric-car post, at least until the next one, but there was one other tidbit we learned from Chris Paine, the writer-director of the excellent Who Killed the Electric Car?, which is now playing at Edwards University in Irvine.

Paine, Seal Beach activist Doug Korthof and actor-director Peter Horton (who you may recall from TV's thirtysomething) were among the leasees of GM EV-1s who tried desperately to extend their leases, buy their cars outright and delay the automaker's confiscation of their prized autos as long as possible. You could feel the heartbreak when Horton's is shown in the film being towed away finally. All three also fought like the dickens to prevent their confiscated cars and hundreds more from being crushed--another losing battle, sadly.

But here's something the three also had in common: bills around $1,200 each from GM after their leases expired. Even though the cars were crushed, the dealers--like they do with the gas-powered versions--went through each vehicle with fine-toothed combs (or whatever the hell it is they use) to find any scratch or scrape they could bill the leasees for. Now, this makes sense for cars that are going to be re-sold, but vehicles headed for the crusher? Amazing.

The name Richard Nixon is not one you'd normally expect to find in a newspaper story about a yoga guru, but there it was in this morning's Los Angeles Times' story on yoga guru Bikram Choudhury and his problems with the city of L.A. Choudhury's been charged with 10 criminal safety violations at one of his yoga studios (Choudhury's the very litigious guy who introduced the concept of franchising to yoga, building a little empire of studios by injecting the marketing logic that made McDonald's great into an ancient spiritual practice). Naturally, Choudhury denies the charges, and not unsurprisingly, he's claiming persecution. In fact the only surprising thing about the Times story is Nixon, and he doesn't show up until almost the end.

Bikram said his yoga has helped stars such as Shirley MacLaine and Raquel Welch and athletes such as Kareem Abdul Jabbar and John McEnroe. He once said that he had cured Richard Nixon of phlebitis. (emphasis added)

Funny, I don't remember any yoga displays at the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Theme Park, Yorba Linda's No. 1 Family Friendly Fun Spot. But then, I don't suppose a sweaty Nixon in a unitard and wingtips doing the downward facing dog would really be "family friendly".

According to the for-profit Orange County Automobile Dealers Association, the top new retail car and truck registrations this year through May:

Toyota: 29.3%

GM: 12%

Honda: 11.5%

Ford: 9.7%

DaimlerChrysler: 6.3%

Nissan: 5.6%

According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense, the percentage of carbon dioxide--the main pollutant causing global warming--emitted by vehicles on the basis of brand through 2004 was:

GM (64.4 million vehicles): 31%

Ford (49.8 million): 26%

DaimlerChrysler (30.4 million): 16%

Toyota (18.6 million): 9%

Honda (13.3 million): 6%

Nissan (10 million): 5%

You'll notice that those with the most cars on the road naturally had the highest pollutant percentage. Environmental Defense added that the U.S. accounts for 5% of the world's population but contributes 45% of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide. Americans own 30% of the world's vehicles, drive farther than the international average and burn more gasoline per gallon than anyone else. Which can mean only one thing:

WOO-HOO! WE'RE NO. 1!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

The Supreme Court today ruled the Bush administration must do one of those things it is always extremely reluctant to do: obey the law. By a vote of 5-3, the Supremes said the administration can't proceed with its plans to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay before military tribunals. Writing for the majority, John Paul Stevens (appointed by President Ford) declared the planned tribunals were illegal under both US law and the Geneva Conventions.

Over at SCOTUSblog (SCOTUS may sould like a skin disease, but actually it's short for Supreme Court Of The United States), Marty Lederman, who teaches at Georgetown University Law School, thinks this ruling may have much wider implications for the administration.

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I'm right about this, it's enormously significant.

Whether this prediction will hold true in cases in which Chief Justice Roberts participates-- he had to recuse himself from this case, since as an appeals court judge he had already ruled on it, siding with the administration (naturally, he didn't get where he is by choosing the rule of law over the president's wishes)-- remains to be seen. But at least for today, it is a hopeful sign.

We pity the fool who gets in the crosshairs of our favorite Hollywood muckraker, Nikki Finke, who operates out of our mother ship, LA Weekly, and whose popular, daily Deadline Hollywood column we link to with gusto from our website. Case in point: MarketWatch Media Web columnist Jon Friedman.

"Finke's prickly distrust for (figures of authority) practically borders on disrespect, if not outright disdain," writes Friedman, who also says "nobody writes tougher stuff than this LA Weekly scribe." Finke says she's different than other reporters who cover the movie industry because she focuses on business, not celebrity, and because she could care less about what Tinseltown royalty thinks of her: "I write mean--end of story. I'm unapologetic about it--end of story. I watch out for the shareholders--end of story."

Which is why we love her--end of story.

But as Finke responds on her blog, she considers Friedman's column a hit piece, and that he "wouldn't have dared write an article like this about a male business journalist working for a mainstream newspaper." She also accuses him of attributing his own statements to her and printing her off-the-record remarks.

We swear we already warned you about a congressional vote to drill off our coast, and then rejoiced with you when it was defeated. Yeah, wasn't it like two weeks ago? Never underestimate the power of Big Oil lobbyshits. Congress, obviously in need of a diversion from far more grave national matters like flag-burning amendments (really, has anyone ever seen a flag burning? In the U.S.? In person? No, your annual family vacation to Tehran does not count!), once again has put despoiling our coastline on its corporate-crumbs encrusted table. And those tireless souls at Surfrider are once again asking you to contact your local congressperson and tell him or her to keep their drilling bits to themselves (who do they think they are? Clinton?) and not expose our sensitive shoreline to oily mishaps (where to they think this is? The Gulf Coast of Texas?).

Take it away, Big Kahunas ...

Greetings,

Your Representative in Congress is preparing to vote on a bill that will open up our nation's coasts and oceans to oil and gas drilling by removing restrictions that have had bipartisan support for 25 years.

H.R. 4761 would repeal the offshore oil and gas drilling moratorium for areas more than 50 miles from our coasts and allow states to opt out of the moratorium for areas closer to shore. This is a direct threat to our coasts and your Representative needs to hear from you.

Please take a moment to send a message to protect our coastlines. Send a letter to your Congressperson. Below is the sample letter:

Subject: Please Vote NO on H.R. 4761

Dear [decision maker],

I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 4761, which would reverse 25 years of bipartisan offshore drilling protections and put our country's billion-dollar coastal economies at risk.
Offshore oil and gas drilling is a slow, dirty and expensive way to produce energy. Opening our coasts to destructive drilling would do little to lower prices at the gas pump, but it would threaten our beaches with pollution and potential oil spills. An offshore spill could easily be carried by ocean currents to neighboring states, with disastrous results. Tourism, property, and commercial and sport fishing wrecked in the wake of a huge oil slick could impair millions of jobs and weaken our coastal economies.
We simply do not need to sacrifice our beaches and coastal waters to meet America's energy needs. Cleaner, faster and less expensive energy solutions like energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy could start saving consumers and businesses money today and protect our beaches, marine waters and coastal economies.
Again, I urge to protect our nation's beaches and coastal areas by voting NO on H.R. 4761 and supporting clean energy alternatives.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

Hot on the heels of last night's Orange County Film Society's premier of Chris Paine's Who Killed the Electric Car?– a documentary that makes the "compelling case: that oil companies, automakers, lawmakers, consumers and the media killed a workable solution to air pollution, global warming, soaring gas prices, dwindling oil reserves and international terrorism", according to the Weekly's film maven (and chicken and vegan pasta enthusiast) Matt Coker– comes the news that "American cars and pickup trucks are responsible for nearly half of the greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles globally, even though the nation's vehicles make up just 30% of the nearly 700 million cars in use".

According to the Los Angeles Times, a new report by Environmental Defense explains that this astounding output is the result of "Cars in the U.S. [being] driven more miles, fac[ing] lower fuel economy standards and us[ing] fuel with more carbon than many of those driven in other countries". Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, SUVs are not the worst offenders. According to the report, "small cars emitted more carbon dioxide than SUVs, 25% of the total compared with 21%. That is because there are more older small vehicles with higher emissions still in service, said lead author John DeCicco, a mechanical engineer specializing in automobile research." That's because there are more smaller cars, and more older, smaller cars on the road than SUVs. Of course, that doesn't mean SUVs aren't the Devil's favorite mode of transportation. "As Americans we're going to be living down the SUV boom for a long time," DeCicco told the Times.

Cutting emissions is a long term project, but if you want to do something more immediate, you can drive your greenhouse gas belcher to a local theater this weekend and see Who Killed the Electric Car?, which opens in OC on Friday.

Lord knows, that if there's one thing I find even less appealing to think about than Rush Limbaugh, it's Rush Limbaugh genitals. So when the story broke that Rush had been busted at the airport with a questionable stash of Viagra while returning from the Dominican Republic (which I now understand is a major sex tourism vacation spot– who knew?), I couldn't imagine wanting to read anything about this story, unless it ended with a new mug shot for Limbaugh. But I'd underestimated the skills of the blogger known only as Digby (an homage to the great 19th century Anglo-Indian journalist William Digby? Probably not.), who wrote an excellent and entertaining post on Rush's trip "to one of the underage sex capitals of the world with a bottle of Viagra in one hand and God knows what in the other", and how Rush can turn his limpness into something positive. Read the whole thing here.

In yesterday's thrilling Clockwork, we shared the weirdness that ensued after we interviewed Who Killed the Electric Car? writer-director Chris Paine, when we discovered during the entire chat our Los Angeles Times was open, unbeknownst to lil' ol' us, to an Associated Press story with the headline: "Silicon Valley Races to Develop Electric Cars." The story even mentioned Paine's film.

Well, the hits keep coming. The film's PR company sent out links to two other stories on recent electric-car developments that also mention Who Killed the Electric Car? in passing. CNNMoney.com carried a story on General Motors--which poured a billion dollars into developing the popular EV-1 all-electric vehicle, only to end the leases of them, confiscate them and then secretly crush them; and GM then pushed most of its resources into trucks and SUVs, only to now fall farther behind the Japanese, whose gas-electric hybrids have become the rage amid soaring gas prices--indicating that it will look into developing a hybrid that will use less gas and can be plugged into standard household electrical outlets.
Who Killed the Electric Car? producer Dean Devlin said after GM's announcement: "If they actually sell to consumers a real plug-in hybrid that can run on pure electrics, then I applaud GM for enormous corporate vision and leadership. If however this is simply another marketing ploy, then it's simply history repeating itself."

The second story the PR company forwarded was actually from the June 16 Washington Post. It was about an electric car display being booted from the Smithsonian. That also gets some play in my interview with Who Killed the Electric Car? writer-director Chris Paine that appears in Thursday's Weekly:

During a KTLA Morning News report from the Peterson Automotive Museum to promote a recent show there, the museum rep showed off an EV-1 to reporter Gayle Anderson. The rep noted that GM made disabling the vehicle a condition of showing it off there, and when Anderson asked why these cars were no longer available considering rising gas prices, out spewed The Big Lie.
Paine did not know about the KTLA segment but he showed the exact same EV in his film. Chelsea Sexton, who loved the EV-1 so much that she became a sales specialist for GM, is seen next to the car, reiterating how great they are and that Peterson is one of few places where the public can see them. Seems innocent enough. But Paine just received word "that I will never be invited to the Peterson Automotive Museum again." He then mentioned that the Smithsonian recently removed its own EV display--and replaced it with a robotic Hummer SUV. Both museums rely on contributions from corporations like GM.