Combing the Sphere

NY Times on Austerity

2011-10-15T06:54:00.001-04:00

Just a little quote:

Austerity is a political ideology masquerading as an economic policy. It rests on a myth, impervious to facts, that portrays all government spending as wasteful and harmful, and unnecessary to the recovery. The real world is a lot more complicated. America has no need to repeat Mr. Cameron’s failed experiment.

Conversation about free markets and the good society

2011-05-24T22:12:00.002-04:00

I believe that most people are kind-hearted, and do not enjoy the suffering of others. So let's take as a starting point that we all have the same sort of goals for our society:

It should always be possible for those who desire it and would benefit from it to get an education.
Even the poorest among us should be able to attain the essentials of food, shelter and medical care.
Even the poorest among us should be able to attain sanitary living conditions, without living in filth and stench.
We should protect the earth, so that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren can continue to enjoy its beauty and its resources.
The norm should be that we are not sickened by the food we eat and the water than we drink, are not poisoned by the medicines we take.
Innovation, creativity and talent should thrive.
It should be possible for a bright, hardworking individual to succeed, regardless of the circumstances of his/her birth. Not everyone will succeed, not even all those who are talented and work hard at it, but it is important that there not be a permanent underclass from which there is no hope of escape.

Before I go further, I have to consider that there could already be a certain divergence of opinion about these goals. Perhaps some believe that the threat of being reduced to a life of misery is necessary to motivate some people to exert any effort toward improving their lives. But I think there is substantial agreement that we don't want people to lack for any of the basics described above; we certainly don't want those who are willing to work hard and play by the rules to suffer.

Now, the question I have for conservatives & libertarians is this: What basis is there for believing that the free market alone will insure *ANY* of those goals? I don't think it will.

What economic theory tells us is that free markets evolve towards improved efficiency at producing goods and services. What it doesn't tell us is that the improved efficiency will benefit the population as a whole. One of the ways that goods and services can be produced more efficiently is by not "wasting" so much money on the workers producing them. Cutting salaries, cutting workforce, getting the workers to work harder, longer hours for less money are ways to improve the bottom line and become more efficient. Those techniques benefit the consumers, who can get their products at lower cost, but it doesn't benefit the workers who lose their jobs or who suffer salary losses.

Now, in an egalitarian society, the consumers and the workers are the same people. So there is no tradeoff between making consumers happy and making workers happy. But there is nothing in the economic laws of the free market that guarantee this happy outcome. As far as the free market is concerned, there is nothing (as far as I know) that prevents the outcome in which there is a tiny minority that owns everything, that gains the benefits from all innovation and all improvements to efficiency, while all others lead lives of misery, making just enough to survive and no more.

I will go further; it's not just that the free market allows such an unhappy outcome, it seems to me that free market forces tend to that outcome, if there are no counterbalancing forces. From the point of view of a business, if a worker is paid more than it takes to survive, that reflects an inefficiency. The existence of a middle class, people who are not wealthy, who do not own the businesses that employ them, but who enjoy the benefits of society beyond mere survival, reflects an inefficiency in the marketplace. And the "miracle of the marketplace" works to eliminate inefficiency.

There is no reason, as far as I can see, to believe that market forces will eliminate poverty. Those forces may greatly expand the total wealth of society, but there is no reason to believe that the expansion will necessarily "trickle down" to those who need it the most. And if there are large numbers of the poor, there is no reason to believe that market forces will provide education, shelter, sanitation and medical care for those poor. Markets go where there is money to be made, and there is no money to be made catering to the poor. As for the other items on my list of desirable goals for society, I do not see any reason to believe that market forces will see to any of them. There is no market incentive for keeping the Earth livable and unpolluted, there is no market incentive for keeping resources intact for future generations. So what basis is there for believing that market forces will accomplish the goals that I began this essay with?

Now, I do know that even the most gung-ho free marketers believe that there are forces besides market forces. In particular, there is charity. People don't want for others to suffer, and so those who have so much will want to use their wealth to alleviate the suffering of others, through charitable giving, founding public institutions, scholarships for the poor to go to school, etc.

I do not at all want to minimize the power of generosity or the principle of charity. Many great things have been done by rich philanthropists, and the world is a better place because of them. However, I do not believe that relying on generosity of the fortunate is sufficient to address the problems that I see with free markets. For one thing, wealthy people tend not to hang out with the poor; even if they are inclined to be empathetic, they have no reliable means of knowing the problems facing the poor. For another, there is always a "I gave at the office" limitation to charitable impulses; people decide that they have "done enough" based on how much they have given already, rather than on the actual needs.

The final obstacle to the use of charity to alleviate the failures of the market is that inclinations toward charity is actively discouraged by sound business practice. At the level of a wealthy corporation, the decision to divert corporate wealth toward good causes is "selected against" by competition. Except when it can be justified as a form of advertising, as an investment in public goodwill that will pay off monetarily in the future in terms of increased business, charitable giving is a waste of money that could better be spent in improving efficiency or acquiring more property. It's even possible that the CEO who gives away too much could be sued by the company stock-holders, since their profits are his/her first obligation.

So, for those who are committed to "free market solutions" to a country's problems, I ask sincerely, not as a rhetorical question: How do you think that the free market is compatible with the goals of a just society that I listed at the top? I can imagine three types of answers:

Through some mechanism that I have missed, or misunderstood, the free market will take care of the poor, the environment, the Earth's resources.
There are voluntary, non-market forces that will address these concerns.
The goals I listed might sound nice, but they are a fantasy, they are incompatible with freedom.

Review of The Blind Side

2011-05-03T07:13:00.001-04:00

Connie has been trying to get me to watch "The Blind Side" for a long time, and I've successfully resisted. I don't like football movies, and I don't like "feel good" movies. I mean, I don't want to, anyway. But I sat down and watched it with my famdamily last night and I found it very moving.

I'm not going to give a blow-by-blow description of the movie, but just this capsule summary that you probably have already heard: A rich white family (Sandra Bullock is the mom) in Memphis, Tennessee take in a homeless, really big, and big-hearted black kid named Michael. They believe in him when nobody else does, and against all odds they see him through high school, into college (thanks to enormous football talent) and into pro football.

I'm not one who can just take a movie at face value and enjoy it for whatever mood it imparts on its audience. I have to pick at it, and think about it. I can't really say that I liked a movie until I've thought about it a long time. (I know now that I like "Groundhog Day", which came out in 1993).

Here are some random thoughts about the movie, in no particular order:

Taking a chance on a stranger: This family takes in this kid without knowing anything about him, other than that he needs a place to stay. It turns out that he's a really sweet kid, but it occurred to me that things don't always turn out that way. There's a saying, "No good deed goes unpunished" for a reason.

Race relations: I felt a little bit uncomfortable with the racial issues at the heart of the movie. The white family truly comes to love Michael, and he comes to love them. So race is no barrier to love. But on the other hand, I wonder about the idea of white people "rescuing" poor black kids from their fates. That seems a little condescending to me. This is a more difficult issue for me, personally, because some people might think that Connie and I rescued our adopted kids. Sometimes I catch myself thinking that way, but then I'm ashamed of myself for it. We certainly have gotten so much from having them in our lives--it's a two-way thing. But certainly the idea of becoming adoptive parents was motivate partly by wanting to help poor kids who needed families. Maybe it's all simpler for birth families?

The other aspect of race relations was about the different sections of town. The neighborhood that Michael was from was a poor, crime-ridden area that pretty much only black people lived in. The white people of Memphis never set foot there. Except of course, Sandra Bullock's character, who doesn't back down when it comes to fighting for her family. (She's a Mama Grizzly type, I guess). When she is threatened by some guy, she tells him that she's personal friends with the Memphis DA, and that she belongs to the NRA, and that she's always packing heat.

Every child can learn: Michael, who was believed to be very low IQ, turned out to be able to do well in school, given a good tutor. The rich family was VERY rich (I'm not sure what they did for a living) and they hired a full-time tutor (played by Kathy Bates, who I love) to turn Michael around, academically. His GPA soared from below 1 (0.26 or something like that) to 2.5, which isn't great, but is above the cutoff for being able to participate in sports, and is good enough to get into college (if you are 6 foot 5 and weigh 290 pounds).

The message of this might have been that Michael was actually a pretty smart kid, and just needed somebody to believe in him and someone to help him out. But it occurred to me that EVERY kid could do a lot better if he or she only had a full-time dedicated tutor. That made me think that the "crisis" in education in America is really about money. We can't afford to give every kid a private tutor, so the issue isn't really how to educate our children, it's how to educate the most children for a reasonable amount of money. There's nothing wrong with that--you have to make decisions based on what you can afford. But when people argue about education policy and they insist that it's not about money---well, yes it is.

Feel good movies: In spite of all my cynicism, I got a little moist-eyed during this movie. It was a good movie. It was based on a true story, which probably made it more acceptable, because if it were complete fiction, it would definitely be too schmaltzy to take.

Core Truths of Conservatism

2011-04-30T13:44:00.005-04:00

It's not that I am incapable of understanding the point of view of those who disagree with me. I believe I have a good grasp of the core truths of conservatism. I see them as the following:

Centralized decision-making is inefficient and ineffective. Society is too complicated for a top-down plan for how to improve things. It works much better to decentralize power, and give lots of people little bits of power, and the opportunity to try things out, see what works and what doesn't, and change plans in light of new information.

Helping out those in need can backfire. First, it can create a culture of dependency, in which people don't learn to do for themselves. Second, it can encourage people to "play victim", pretend to be in worse shape than they are in order to get free handouts.

Progressive taxation can discourage hard work and risk-taking. If you take from people based on how much they have earned through hard work, innovation, and risk-taking, you discourage those qualities. People may feel that it isn't worthwhile to try to accomplish great things because they won't reap the rewards, anyway.

Government bureaucrats have an incentive to work to justify their own existence, rather than to improve things.

Free enterprise naturally directs activity toward those things that people value. The fact that people are more willing to spend money on X than on Y means that they value X more. When you let government decide how the people's money is spent, there's no guarantee that it is being spent on things that people really value (as opposed to thinking they should value it).

I Have Anger Issues

2011-04-30T13:41:00.000-04:00

I find myself angry all the time about politics, and I don't know what to do about it. Now, I can perfectly well accept honest differences of opinion about what goals the country should be pursuing, and what's the best way to pursue those goals. What burns me up is that we aren't HAVING any honest discussion about such things. One party, it starts with an "R", has made tremendous progress through dishonesty. In 2010, they got into office by lying to people. They lied about the origins of the deficit, they lied about the Democrats' health care plan. They spread malicious lies about Obama not being born in America, about his being a secret Muslim, about his wanting to institute "Death Panels" to decide who deserves to live or not. They raised fears of Obama instituting "Sharia law" in the US. They complained about Obama bowing to foreign heads of state. They accused Obama of wanting to brainwash children when he spoke to them in schools. They have accused Obama of wanting to set up internment camps for political dissidents. They have accused Michelle Obama of being totalitarian for trying to get children to eat healthily and exercise. They complain about Obama not making a proclamation about Easter. Lying, innuendo, propaganda, slander. These have become the primary tools of the Republican Party.

It really burns me up. And it upsets me that so many people who I respect go along with it, and say nothing in protest. I don't know what to do with this anger. I really don't.

Dear Miss Manners

2011-04-30T12:40:00.000-04:00

Dear Miss Manners: I have a number of good friends and loved ones who support a political philosophy that I believe will bring misery to untold millions, ravage the natural environment, and rob our society of hope for the future. It seems to me that adherents of this political philosophy tend to be mean-spirited, vindictive and contemptuous of both compassion and truth. Should I say anything?

Gentle Reader: I know how frustrating it can be to see one's friends participate in the destruction of all one holds dear. But the power of one person to change the beliefs of another is unfortunately limited, especially when those beliefs touch on politics or religion. You must weigh the very small likelihood that your words will change the world for the better against the much greater likelihood that those words will cause ill feeling among your friends without changing their minds in the slightest. Enjoy your friends and don't try to improve them.

Optimistic and Pessimistic Conservatism

2010-07-18T11:17:00.002-04:00

There are two different worldviews behind economic conservatism: an optimistic worldview and a pessimistic worldview. Interestingly, although these worldviews are diametrically opposed in their assumptions, they lead to the same conclusions about policy.

Optimistic conservatism holds that the world provides boundless opportunities for prosperity. Anyone willing to work at it can become a success. From this point of view, organized government programs to help the unfortunate are not only unnecessary but counter-productive: they breed dependency, which just delays the recipients from taking the steps necessary to achieve lasting prosperity. Optimistic conservatism also views efforts to manage the environment and natural resources as a waste of money and effort: nature is boundless, and we will never exhaust its riches; if we run out of some resource, we only need to look around to find a suitable replacement. Optimistic conservatism is the attitude of an idealized pioneer exploring the American West: endless land for farming, bountiful game for hunting, plenty of gold in the hills and streams to make anyone rich who would but put in the effort.

Pessimistic conservatism, on the other hand, has a much darker view of the world. The world is a brutal place, and misery is the lot of most of its inhabitants. Poverty, hunger, violence, ignorance are the norm for most of the people. We cannot hope to change their plight. The best that we can do is to work to insure that there is a chosen few who escape from the misery. We can work to build havens in which it is possible to practice a civilized life, to enjoy prosperity, to participate in civilized arts, sports, religion and politics. Pessimistic conservatives differ on exactly who the chosen should be, and what type of havens should be preserved: Should it be at the level of individuals, or families, or communities, or nations? Should the chosen be determined by merit (the brightest, hardest-working, most virtuous), or should it be determined by circumstance (what family you were born into, what country)? The pessimistic conservative objects to institutionalized efforts to help the unfortunate, because such efforts are doomed to failure (the poor will always be with us) and worse run the risk of taking everyone down. It's better to have a few people who are able to enjoy the fruits of civilization than it is to have everyone equally miserable.

So conservatism naturally inhabits the two ends of the pessimistic-to-optimistic spectrum. Liberalism is appropriate for those in the middle. We believe that we can have prosperity for all, we can have a healthy natural environment, we can have enough resources for all. But these things are only possible if we work together for the benefit of our planet and all its inhabitants. It's not going to happen by accident, it's not going to happen magically as a result of everyone pursuing their own selfish ends. It requires cooperation.

I think that there is a compromise possible between liberalism and conservatism. I don't think that there is anything wrong with forming havens of like-minded people who are only concerned with the well-being of their own people, provided they follow one commandment: Keep your hands off of other havens! If your way of helping your own involves exploiting others (clearing their forests, taking their resources, diverting their workers towards your own needs, rather than theirs) then it's not okay with me. If you want to be self-contained and mind your own business, like the Amish or isolated tribes around the world, go ahead. But if you are going to be an internationalist---getting resources from all over the world, getting laborers in distant countries to manufacture your goods for you---then I think you have to be internationalist in your notion of who "your people" are. Anyone who works for your benefit is one of your people, and their needs are as important as yours.

What more needs to be said?

2010-06-03T13:01:00.001-04:00

Remarks by President Obama on the Economy at Carnegie Mellon University:

It’s a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges. It’s an agenda that basically offers two answers to every problem we face: more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations.

....As November approaches, leaders in the other party will campaign furiously on the same economic arguments they’ve been making for decades. Fortunately, we don't have to look back too many years to see how their agenda turns out. For much of the last 10 years we've tried it their way. They gave us tax cuts that weren’t paid for to millionaires who didn’t need them. They gutted regulations and put industry insiders in charge of industry oversight. They shortchanged investments in clean energy and education, in research and technology. And despite all their current moralizing about the need to curb spending, this is the same crowd who took the record $237 billion surplus that President Clinton left them and turned it into a record $1.3 trillion deficit.

Isn't it ironic... (Talkin' 'Bout Tyranny)

2010-05-27T08:38:00.001-04:00

Warning: this note is the kind of venting that I keep promising myself that I will not do on Face Book, but I keep getting sucked into. So here's the deal: I'll post this, and then I will remove it tomorrow. So if you want to make a comment, get it in while you can.

My comment is this. There have certainly been actions done by the United States government that I would consider tyrannical. Some examples off the top of my head are these: (1) The Indian Removal Act (trail of tears). (2) Slavery. (3) Jim Crow. (4) Japanese internment in World War II. (5) The McCarthy-era communist witch hunts. (6) Various military and CIA actions, including the overthrow of Allende in Chile, the overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran (and the installation of the Shah). Now, I don't consider these horrible acts to mean that the US is an evil country. Everybody and every country makes mistakes; the key is to recognize mistakes and try as much as possible to make amends.

There are people who are offended when other people bring up these examples. They say things like: "Get over it! If you don't like America, then leave. Why do you hate America so much? If you loved your country, you wouldn't be bad-mouthing it."

What I find ironic is that the people who would accuse me of being anti-American or unpatriotic for bringing up these very real instances of tyranny are some of the very same people who are screaming that America is turning into a totalitarian dictatorship because of the health care reform bill, or the stimulus package, or whatever. I cannot make any sense of this.

Tea Partiers: They don't know what they are mad about

2010-02-14T09:07:00.003-05:00

To give just one example, 95% of all Americans received (small) tax cuts as part of Obama's stimulus program. But among people who identify with the tea party movement, 46% believe that their taxes are unchanged, and 44% believe that their taxes have gone up. Only 2% know the truth.

Other examples: they don't like the way that terrorists are given civilian trials under Obama, although that was the norm under Bush as well. They are outraged at the mounting federal debt, although historically it soared most under Ronald Reagan and GW Bush. They don't like bank bailouts, although that was initiated under GW Bush. They are outraged at possible cuts to Medicare, although Republicans have ALWAYS been in favor of cutting or eliminating Medicare.

Republican Hypocrisy

2010-02-10T11:27:00.001-05:00

(Political) On the Republican Response to the State of the Union Address

2010-01-29T08:59:00.000-05:00

With all due respect to my friends and loved ones who are Republican, I am at a loss when it comes to understanding how anyone can take the Republican Party seriously. Their responses to policy questions have no content whatsoever. It's a joke. Unfortunately, not everyone gets that it's a joke.

A case in point is the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address. Governor McDonnell of Virginia delivered this response. He said: "In the past year, more than 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren." What in the world is the word "yet" doing there?
He's complaining about spending too much on stimulus, and he is also complaining about not doing enough to increase employment. These two complaints are contradictory. The only power the government has to increase employment short-term is stimulus spending. Nothing else comes close in effectiveness, in the short-term. Tax cuts have a stimulative effect, but much reduced, since only a fraction of the money refunded goes to increasing demand for labor. Tax cuts cost more and do less (at least short-term).

Republicans pretend to be concerned about the deficit, but the deficit ALWAYS soars under Republican control. The federal debt, as a fraction of GDP was astronomical during World War II, but declined steadily under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. Under Reagan, it skyrocketed. It started declining again under Clinton, and then shot up again under G.W.Bush. Unless you are willing to make massive cuts in the most expensive programs (principally, the military budget---we spend as much on military as all the other countries in the world COMBINED), then there is basically no way to decrease our deficits except through tax increases. Which is exactly what Republicans have vowed never to do.

They have no coherent approach to solving any of the problems that they claim to care about. Their proposals would make all of our problems worse: the deficit, unemployment, lack of coverage of health care. It's a travesty. But it sounds convincing to too many people.

Another Post on Media Bias

2007-09-23T18:37:00.000-04:00

I just finished this survey from YourMorals.org. (My personal results are in green.)

One of the things that stand out here is that conservatives tend to place a higher value on loyalty, while liberals tend to place a higher value on fairness. I find that significant, because--unlike the other values on this chart--fairness and loyalty are inherently at odds. Fairness, or impartiality, means treating everyone the same—without favor, while loyalty means treating your favored person, group or organization better—with favor. Showing one means sacrificing the other.

Tying this back to media bias: a chart of these values, as they relate to journalism, would look very much like the chart of a liberal. It would probably be even more exaggerated—with fairness having an even higher premium, and loyalty, authority and purity being even lower. Fairness, balance, impartiality... these are supposed to be the guiding principles of journalism. “Without fear or favor” is not just The New York Times' motto, but the motto of journalism itself. Journalism also places some premium on harm, specifically on reporting harm and not causing harm, with significantly less emphasis on purity, authority and especially loyalty. Again, loyalty is the antithesis of impartiality. It is impossible to show loyalty without showing bias.

Respect for authority is also at odds with journalistic ethics—that “without fear” portion refers to not fearing the people in power and authority. And of course purity is a very difficult area for journalists. What does it mean? And who's idea of purity should they adopt, when some of the most contentious issues of our time center on opposing views of purity? So the “unbiased” media is stuck in a catch 22. In order to be unbiased, they must adopt the liberal viewpoint—always asking: “is this fair?” and often “is it harmful?”, but eschewing the questions: “is this pure?”, “is it loyal?” and “is it respectful?”

But here's the rub. This moral profile of journalism may appear liberal, and it may even be a liberal quality of journalism, but it must not be mistaken for a pro-liberal bias. Being unbiased may imply being liberal, but it should be obvious that being unbiased does not imply being biased. Ironically, even a medium with a pro-conservative bias may appear liberal if it strives for, or even gives lip service to, these journalistic ideals. Compounding the irony is that both liberal and conservative values, in the media, tend to benefit conservatives. Conservatives in the media (and in Congress, for that matter) prove their virtue by showing how loyal they are. Liberals prove their virtue by showing how unbiased they are—often by sticking it to their own side. This is why liberals have no counterpart to Rush Limbaugh; their consciences won't let them.

A case in point is the recent “General Betray Us” controversy. Democrats felt compelled to vote for a resolution condemning the Move On ad: “See how fair we are. We condemn our own allies, when they misbehave.” But Rush Limbaugh (and a host of other conservatives) use that kind of language all the time, without a peep of condemnation from the Republicans—much less a congressional resolution. In fact, he used the exact same language—calling senator Haggle “Senator Betray Us,” shortly before the Move On ad. Far from condemning his rhetoric, Republicans praise it—at least as long as it's directed at liberals. In 1994, congressional Republicans even named him an honorary member of Congress! Of course, in those days he was aiming his vitriol at “FemiNazis” and “Hitlery Clinton”--a smear he continues to use today.

Iran Looms on the Horizon: (Speaking of Smokers)

2007-03-09T19:17:00.000-05:00

Not that Scott Ritter has any special insight into Bush's brain, but in a speech in Durham, North Carolina, the former UN weapons inspector says that the President is already planning for another war. From Chris Outcalt in the Portsmouth Herald:

The United States is going to war with Iran, according to Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations.

"He says all options are on the table," said Ritter, "but the president has already made up his mind."...

According to Ritter, President Bush's use of weapons of mass destruction as a reason to invade Iraq is now happening with Iran.

"We're doing it all over again," he said. "The policy in regard to Iran is regime change; a nuclear weapons program is simply an excuse to rally support around the confrontation of Iran."

Ritter again stressed the importance of education at the end of his talk.

"We are collectively grasping for solutions in Iraq when we haven't the foggiest idea what we're doing in Iraq," he said. "Don't believe the BS that you get out of Washington. Be good citizens; a good citizen thinks for his or herself."

What's especially ironic about this is a line that Mort Zuckerman used to praise Bush before the war with Iraq:

We are fortunate to have in George W. Bush a president who recognizes the forces of darkness for what they are. For him, the war on terrorism is an intrinsically moral cause. As he put it, "Evil is real, and it must be opposed." This is the only tolerable response in a world where the enemy is not merely unrestrained by civilized values but glories in their debasement...
The first target in the war's next phase, clearly, will be Iraq. The West's lackluster efforts at nonproliferation have done little more than delay the inevitable-a Baghdad with nuclear weapons. So Bush and his team are determined to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. This, after all, is a man who uses poison gas on his own people, invades his neighbors, and dabbles with weapons of mass destruction. He is as close to a psychopath as we have ruling any country in the world today. The late Hafez Assad of Syria, no slouch of a dictator himself, once compared the tyrant of Baghdad to a chain smoker: "He cannot help lighting another one before he has finished the first. Only with Saddam, it is wars, not cigarettes."

Let's see...Bush started the war with Afghanistan, and before that was over, he started a war with Iraq, and before that is over, he's thinking about war with Iran. So who's the chain-smoker here?

Anti-smoking ads directed at parents of teens backfire (guess who sponsored them?)

2007-02-05T09:27:00.000-05:00

From WebMD:

Oct. 31, 2006 -- What's the best way to convince a teenager that smoking is a great idea? Tell him his parents want him to stop.

That's the rather disturbing suggestion of a study of teens who had watched tobacco-industry-funded television ads urging parents to talk to their children about smoking. The study shows that these teens were more likely to have smoked in the past month and more likely to say that they planned to smoke in the future.

There are three important points to get clear about the ads:

These ads were not ostensibly aimed at teenagers, instead they were aimed at parents of teenagers, encouraging them to talk to their kids about smoking. (Ads directly aimed at teenagers apparently have no effect on teen smoking.)
Teenagers who saw the ads were more likely to smoke afterwards. (Presumably on the theory that anything your parent's are against must be cool...)
These "unfortunately" counterproductive ads were paid for by the tobacco industry.

Joseph Califano, former secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and the current director of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse says that these results are pretty predictable:

Califano urges tobacco firms to resume funding the National Public Education Fund, which sponsors the "truth" campaign of antismoking ads. Those hard-hitting ads portray teenagers confronting the tobacco industry for marketing a deadly product and lying about its effects. In one well-known "truth" ad, kids piled body bags outside of a tobacco company's headquarters as part of a protest.

Studies show that it's the most rebellious teens who are most at risk of smoking, says Joseph Martyak, marketing chief for the American Legacy Foundation, makers of the "truth" ads. The "truth" ads "speak to that rebellion" by encouraging rebelliousness toward the tobacco companies, Martyak tells WebMD.

By contrast, the "Talk, They'll Listen" ads, "by telling parents to tell the child not to smoke, draw a line in the sand for kids who are looking for a way to rebel."

This is a big issue for me at the moment because my teenager smokes and I really don't know what to do about it.

What I Don't Like About Christianity

2007-01-06T12:16:00.000-05:00

This post is sort of a followup on my post about atheism ("Christmas Sermon for the Heathens").

I have no interest whatsoever in scientific or logical arguments about the truth of religious beliefs. I don't care what people believe about the ultimate nature of reality EXCEPT when those beliefs affect how they behave towards the world. Along those lines, I thought I would share a bunch of things that I don't like about Christianity. [Click Permalink for the rest...]

Emphasis on souls: I don't like the Christian emphasis on immortal immaterial souls. This emphasis puts an artificial separation between humans and other animals (who presumably don't have souls). It also leads to shrugging off the physical body as insignifant, or even a nuisance. To think of bodies as just a shell into which we stuff a pre-existing soul is to miss out on what's miraculous and wonderful about life. To me, the miracle of human life is that our natural, material bodies can give rise to love and science and art.

Emphasis on life after death: This bugs me tremendously, for similar reasons as the above. It encourages people to be dismissive of this precious Earthly life. This was a remark made by Penn Jillette on his atheism: "I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me."

Miscellaneous ridiculous moral rules: Some of the greatest mischief done by Christianity (as well as other religions) has been to punish and shame those who do no harm to anyone. I'm talking particularly about sexual morality. Why should God give a damn whether someone is homosexual, or masturbates? Doesn't He have more important things to worry about?

Intolerance of dissenting thoughts: Surely the most harmful effect of Christianity has been the often violent oppression of those who believe differently, be they Jewish, or atheist, or Pagan.

The emphasis on duty to God: To me it seems that God is a big guy, he can take care of himself. Morality seems to me to be much more about how we treat the little guys---children, the poor, the downtrodden.

The emphasis on what's in your "heart": Christianity has this idea that if a person is evil his entire life, but then sincerely repents on his deathbed, then all is forgiven. I think that's completely backwards. Who cares what's really going on in your heart? Why isn't how you treat others the ultimate criterion for goodness?

I guess what it boils down to is that I'm actually emotionally a pagan, rather than a Christian. I care about the things of this world---the wind, the rain, animals, bodies, food---and not so much about otherworldly things (souls, heaven, etc.) I agree with Penn that the natural world is plenty, and we should appreciate it, instead of pining away for the oh-so-much-more-wonderful world to come.

Miscellaneous Post-Christmas Thoughts

2007-01-04T22:39:00.000-05:00

Dommiss received an electric scooter (top speed: 8 mph). I don't know what Santa was thinking. When I saw him riding it indoors, I hit the roof, and yelled at him for scratching our nice hardwood floors. But then he completely cracked me up by calmly patting my shoulder and saying "Dad, this is all just a big misunderstanding..."

The little kids gave out their own Christmas presents this year (since finding out about Santa's reckless non-existence, they felt that they had to take up some of the slack). They all purchased their presents at the local dollar store (no present cost more than $1). My favorite was Bridget's present for me: a very handsome Day Planner, dated 1998.

I noticed that a number of Christmas movies ("The Santa Clause" and "Elf" come immediately to mind) indulge the theme that Santa Claus exists, but that only children believe in him. Now, I have no problem with suspension of disbelief---if a movie wants to posit that there really is a Santa Claus, that's fine with me. But, assuming that he exists, how in the world is it possible that parents wouldn't know? I mean, on Christmas morning the Dad comes downstairs and there is a ridiculous present such as an electric scooter. For damn sure, Dad didn't buy it! Isn't the existence of Santa the only logical conclusion?

My brother Kyle suggested this resolution to the paradox: In the world of the movies, Santa exists, and leaves presents for kids on Christmas morning. However, he implants into the minds of parents fake memories of trudging miserably down the aisles of Walmart and staying up until 3 wrapping presents.

The tradition in my family holds that the Christmas season is not over until the last Christmas card arrives. If you haven't received one from me, then it's still Christmastime (to be precise, Christmas 1999 hasn't ended yet...)

Why Does Squinting Help?

2007-01-04T10:47:00.000-05:00

Via CognitiveDaily , LiveScience has a discussion of how squinting appears to help us see better. The gist of it is, according to the article, that

Squinting reduces the amount of peripheral light coming into the eye so that a greater percentage of light comes from the center of the visual field.

I don't find that explanation particularly illuminating. Why should blocking peripheral light make the image sharper?

[Click permalink to read more...]

When I have investigated this myself, it seemed clear to me that the key point of squinting is that it blocks all light except for that coming from a tiny hole. If you are nearsighted, then you can verify this for yourself by taking a sheet of paper, and poking a tiny pinhole through it. Images through the pinhole are much sharper. But why is that? I suppose that one could think of the pinhole as somehow like a lens, but it has one big difference from glass lenses: In the case of lenses, a lens that will help nearsightedness will make farsightedness worse, and vice-versa. In contrast, a pinhole seems to help both nearsightedness and farsightedness.

Well, here's my attempt at a simple explanation. Instead of dealing with eyeballs and retinas, I'm going to switch to the problem of how to take a picture. You want a sharp image of a point on the object you are photographing (I've chosen an arrowhead in the pictures below) to appear at a precise spot on the photographic plate or film.

Figure 1 below shows what happens if you just hold up a photographic plate next to the object. Light from your object shows up everywhere on the plate, and so you just get a smear of many, many images.

Figure 2 shows how a lens helps things. Light passing through the lens is bent, so that light rays directed at the top of the photographic plate are bent downwards, and light rays directed at the bottom of the photographic plate are bent upwards. This effect (with the right lens and the right distances between object, lens and plate) causes all the rays from the arrowhead to land at the same spot on the photographic plate. So you get a sharp image.

Figure 3 shows the effects of using a pinhole. Unlike a lens, the pinhole doesn't do any focusing. Instead, it blocks most of the rays coming from the arrowhead. Only those rays pointing in roughly the same direction make it to the photographic plate. So a sharp image is made on the plate.
Note: Figure 3 has one glaring inaccuracy about it. What is it?

Figure 1: Image is blurred on film, because light from arrowhead is spread throughout the photographic plate.

Figure 2: Inserting a lens bends some light rays up and some light rays down, so that light from arrowhead is focused at one spot on the plate.

Figure 3: Inserting a screen with a pinhole removes all images of the arrowhead except those that fall in one small region of the photographic plate.

The Effects of Sticky Tape on Cats

2006-12-18T22:43:00.000-05:00

This video seems like it a joke (a cruel joke on the poor kitty), but I found it fascinating. What does this tell us about cat navigation?

John McCain Beaten by a Girl

2006-12-18T21:48:00.000-05:00

Via Atrios, we see that the most recent Newsweek poll shows Hilary Clinton beating John McCain 50%-43%. And yet Newsweek (and everyone else) is ignoring this. American journalism is a paradigm example of bad science---you start with your conclusion (in this case, McCain has the inside track for 2008). Then you go about hunting for evidence to back up your conclusion, and burying evidence to the contrary.

Gandhi's Nonviolence: Can it really work?

2006-12-18T21:15:00.000-05:00

From The Harvard Gazette: (via 3Quarks Daily)

The nonviolent principles of Mohandas Gandhi may be the only way to bring peace to the world, Gandhi's granddaughter said. Human rights activist and former South African member of parliament Ela Gandhi told about 160 people gathered in Harvard Law School's Pound Hall that violent victory sows the seeds of its own destruction. It is only through nonviolent resistance and dispute resolution, the focus of Mohandas Gandhi's Satyagraha philosophy, that the world can become a peaceful place, she said.

I've been thinking about Gandhi recently in response to the news of relentless violence in Sudan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya and elsewhere. On the one hand, where ethnic hatred runs so high, one is led to assume the worst for nonviolent resistance: that the nonviolent will just be slaughtered like lambs. On the other hand, the slaughter is happening anyway. How could it possibly be any worse?

I have no idea whether any of the bloody conflicts in the world today could be turned around by a modern-day Gandhi. But we are seeing in Iraq that even the most powerful army in the history of the world is unable to bring peace through sheer military force.

Christmas Sermon for Heathens

2006-12-16T22:14:00.000-05:00

Religion has been a force in American politics for years now. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, James Dobson's Focus on the Family have all had enormous influence on the Republican Party and thereby the country. For better or for worse. (Okay, it's for worse, actually). In comparison, nonbelievers (and politically liberal believers) have typically kept a low profile (so low that there is not a single prominent atheist politician).

However, there seems to be a trend in the last year or so for atheists to become more outspoken about religion. Biologist and blogger PZ Meyers (his blog is Pharyngula) has been especially scathing in his denunciation of religious belief, which he dismisses as superstition. Other famous atheists that have been in the news recently include biologist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), philosopher Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), comedian Julia Sweeney (Letting Go of God), Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation), and Brian Flemming (The God Who Wasn't There). Are we heading for a showdown between atheists and believers? Believers have the advantage when it comes to numbers (less than 10 percent of the population of the US identify themselves as atheists), but atheists have the advantage when it comes to brainpower (among top scientists, believers are in the minority).

One thing that both religious conservatives and the New Atheists agree on is the role of belief in religion. To be a Christian means at a minimum that one accepts the following factual claims:

God exists, and He created the universe and watches over all its creatures.
There is a second life waiting for us after death, that will either be a reward or a punishment.
Jesus was the son of God. He performed miracles, was put to death, and arose from the dead.

In contrast, though, my mother never thought that religion had anything really to do with belief in such factual claims. My mother is as good a Christian as I have met, and she doesn't believe in any of that. She doesn't literally believe that there is a personal God who created the world. She doesn't literally believe that Jesus performed miracles, or that he arose from the dead. She doesn't literally believe that good people spend eternity in Heaven or that bad people spend eternity in Hell. In spite of these heresies, she has for her whole life attended church regularly, participated in the choir, taught Sunday school, and raised her children and grandchildren to be Christian. What does that make her?

It isn't as if she has been pretending all this time. She wasn't the type to harangue others with here philosophy, but she would quietly tell you her thoughts if you asked. But mostly to her, being a Christian was not about beliefs at all. It was about an attitude towards the world. Love your enemies. Love your neighbor. Be a Good Samaritan. Seek out the poor, the unloved, the misfits, those who society rejects. Love even those who don't love you back. Her goal was to live as she believed Jesus taught us to live. What is important is how we treat each other in this life. The miracles, the Virgin birth, the resurrection, Heaven and Hell are all just stories whose only purpose is to open our hearts to the possibility of miracles in this life, and to encourage us to become part of the miracle.

I've tried to live up to my mother's religion; to be good without the bribery of Heaven or the threat of Hell. This religion does not divide Christians from Muslims from Jews from Buddhists from atheists. If you love the world and the people in (that word always included animals for her), then you and my mother are on the same team.

Merry Christmas!

Genetically Engineered Proteins Generate Hydrogen from Sunlight

2006-12-04T17:27:00.000-05:00

Here's a very exciting scientific development:
Professors Tsuchida and Komatsu from Waseda University, Japan, in collaboration with Imperial College London, have combined two molecules that occur naturally in blood to engineer a molecular complex that uses solar energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, says research published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

From ScienceDaily

This could potentially lead to a boom for hydrogen-based fuel. Hydrogen is the perfect fuel in many ways, because burning it produces only water. No greenhouse gases, no pollution. Unfortunately, the only way to get hydrogen is to use electrolysis, which requires large amounts of electricity, which is often produced by fossil fuels. This biological alternative to electrolysis promises completely carbon-free energy.

Spinachy Fields Forever

2006-11-20T18:55:00.000-05:00

From Rich Magahiz' Frabjous Times

You can blow me down cause I’m Popeye the
Sailor Man
I yam what I yam
And nothing goes down better than
Spinachy Fields forever

Read the rest...

Nanotechnology for Desalinization

2006-11-20T18:05:00.000-05:00

Again in ScienceDaily:

Researchers at the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have announced they have developed a new reverse osmosis (RO) membrane that promises to reduce the cost of seawater desalination and wastewater reclamation.

Reverse osmosis desalination uses extremely high pressure to force saline or polluted waters through the pores of a semi-permeable membrane. Water molecules under pressure pass through these pores, but salt ions and other impurities cannot, resulting in highly purified water.

The new membrane, developed by civil and environmental engineering assistant professor Eric Hoek and his research team, uses a uniquely cross-linked matrix of polymers and engineered nanoparticles designed to draw in water ions but repel nearly all contaminants. These new membranes are structured at the nanoscale (the width of human hair is approximately 100,000 nanometers) to create molecular tunnels through which water flows more easily than contaminants.

...With these improvements, less energy is needed to pump water through the membranes. Because they repel particles that might ordinarily stick to the surface, the new membranes foul more slowly than conventional ones. The result is a water purification process that is just as effective as current methods but more energy efficient and potentially much less expensive. Initial tests suggest the new membranes have up to twice the productivity — or consume 50 percent less energy — reducing the total expense of desalinated water by as much as 25 percent.

Kyle has been interested in cheap desalinization for years. It has tremendous potential for defusing future conflicts over water supplies in places like the Middle East and the American West.

Wireless Energy Transmission

2006-11-20T17:40:00.000-05:00

ScienceDaily reports on new technology being studied by Marin Soljacic, an assistant professor in MIT's Department of Physics and Research Laboratory of Electronics:

Soljacic is looking forward to a future when laptops and cell phones might never need any wires at all. Wireless, he said, could also power other household gadgets that are now becoming more common. "At home, I have one of those robotic vacuum cleaners that cleans your floors automatically," he said. "It does a fantastic job but, after it cleans one or two rooms, the battery dies." In addition to consumer electronics, wireless energy could find industrial applications powering, for example, freely roaming robots within a factory pavilion.

I've often thought that wireless energy transmission was potentially a huge field, but I could only think of two ways to make it work:

Transmission of the power in the form of microwaves/lasers, which had the drawback of possibly frying anyone passing between the power source and the target.
The use of "buzz lines"; a stream of tiny robotic insects that carried a tiny amount of fuel from some source. I don't think that's a serious contender, but it might work in a science-fiction story...

Alternate Universe: Zell Miller Prevents 9/11

2006-11-14T11:15:00.000-05:00

Lance Manion has an article explaining how Vice President Miller could have saved the day:

...with Miller on the ticket, Gore becomes President. Which means no 9/11 and no War in Iraq...Incidental to that, Zell Miller doesn't go nuts.

2006-10-30T15:41:00.000-05:00

Cornell Robotic Chair

Cornell University Builds Self-Repairing Robot Chair

2006-10-30T12:47:00.000-05:00

Here's a You-tube link to a film of the chair reassembling itself:

Google Opens Up Its Index

2006-10-24T12:04:00.000-04:00

Hoping to leave an even bigger imprint on the Internet, Google Inc. is opening up its vast online index so other Web sites can build their own specialty search engines.

The free service, unveiled late Monday, marks Google's latest attempt to expand its lucrative online advertising network and extend its influence on how people navigate the Internet.

"Now people can get the power of Google search even when they're not on Google.com," said Shashi Seth, group product manager for the custom search engine.

Mountain View-based Google already dominates Internet search, with a 45 percent share of the U.S. market through September, according to comScore Media Metrix.

The custom tools will allow other Web sites to limit the range of material that they want to include in their search indexes as well as rank the importance of specific pages.

The concept mirrors the approach of a small startup called Rollyo.com.

Google said it simplified the process so even technological neophytes should be able to tailor their own search engines in 10 minutes or so.

Language and Music

2006-10-24T11:50:00.000-04:00

Diana Deutsch, a psychologist who studies the psychology of music, has discovered a very interesting phenomenon connecting language and music. She recorded a lecture that he had given and played it back so that a single phrase looped over and over. After a while, she stopped hearing the phrase as spoken words, and began to hear them as music.

Dr. Deutsch was interviewed on New York Public Radio's "Radio Lab". She also has a web site, where you can hear this effect for yourself:

WAV file
MP3

Teen Controls Video Game with His MIND

2006-10-24T11:45:00.000-04:00

From ScienceDaily:

...a St. Louis-area teenage boy and a computer game have gone hands-off, thanks to a unique experiment conducted by a team of neurosurgeons, neurologists, and engineers at Washington University in St. Louis.

The boy, a 14-year-old who suffers from epilepsy, is the first teenager to play a two-dimensional video game, Space Invaders, using only the signals from his brain to make movements.

Harry Potter's Cloak: Not Magic, but SCIENCE?

2006-10-24T11:00:00.000-04:00

From NewScientist:

An invisibility cloak that works in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum has been unveiled by researchers in the US. The device is the first practical version of a theoretical set-up first suggested in a paper published earlier in 2006.

The cloak works by steering microwave light around an object, making it appear to an observer as if it were not there at all. Materials that bend light in this way do not exist naturally, so have to be engineered with the necessary optical properties.

But Harry Potter's cloak, unfortunately, is a ways off...

So far, the technology works only in the microwave region of the spectrum. The problem with visible light is that it has a much smaller wavelength, meaning an optical metamaterial would have to be built on the nanoscale, which is beyond the limits of current nanotechnology. It, too, would only work at a specific frequency.

(Photo from 3QuarksDaily is for illustrative purposes only.)

Chuck Norris Facts

2006-10-24T10:44:00.000-04:00

I was never a fan of Chuck Norris, but I have become a fan of Chuck Norris facts. I don't know who started these things, but I find many of them entertaining. Some of the best:

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.

Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice.

When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.

Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.

Chuck Norris once at an entire birthday cake before his friends could tell him there was a stripper in it.

It turns out that the real Chuck Norris is a creationist, but I don't know why anyone would want to spoil the fun by actually asking him to give an opinion on anything.

Representing the Great State of Exxon...

2006-10-19T22:37:00.000-04:00

I'm sure people have made this suggestion jokingly before, but I'm beginning to think that we would be better off if corporations were given their own Congressmen. The idea would be to allow corporations to just purchase a Congressman of their choice, for oh, maybe $10 million, or whatever the market would bear. The money raised through sale of Congressional seats would be used to provide public campaign financing for the remaining seats. Corporations would then be banned from contributing any money to the campaign of any candidate.

Personally, I think that this would be an improvement for honest government. Corporations currently spend approximately $200 billion a year on Congressional campaigns. Under my plan, that amount of money will buy them 10 Congressmen. These Congressmen would openly be advocates for their corporate sponsors.

Of course, corporations would balk at this change, because it would greatly decrease their influence in Congress.

US Army Changes Slogans

2006-10-11T00:22:00.000-04:00

The US Army is abandoning its slogan "An Army of One", (what's that supposed to mean, anyway?) and replacing it by "Army Strong". My suggestion for a recruiting phrase is this You and What Army?.

NY Governor's Race: Spitzer to Support Gay Marriage

2006-10-10T23:46:00.000-04:00

New York's Democratic Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said last week that he would work to make gay marriage legal in New York State. Spitzer:

We will not ask whether this proposition of legalizing same-sex marriage is popular or unpopular; we will not ask if it’s hard or easy; we will simply ask if it’s right or wrong.

This is pretty amazing, especially since Spitzer seemed to be ambivalent about the gay marriage issue a couple of years ago. Maybe his position has changed, or maybe his former opposition was based on the constitutional question of whether prohibition of gay marriage violated New York's equal protection laws.

I have no idea whether Spitzer's new stand will be greeted by cheers, boos, or yawns by New Yorkers. Anyway, Spitzer is now comfortably ahead in the polls, so he has room to take a potentially unpopular stand on an issue.

David Frum on North Korea

2006-10-10T22:40:00.000-04:00

In his article "Mutually Assured Disruption", David Frum (former speechwriter for George W. Bush) wrote that the North Korean atom bomb test signals the failure of diplomacy to rein in North Korea's ambitions:

It is, alas, an iron law of modern diplomacy that the failure of any diplomatic process only proves the need for more of the process that has just failed.

I guess it's bad science to argue that correlation implies causality, but North Korea refrained from going nuclear during the years in which diplomacy was attempted (the Clinton years). On the other hand, we have had no meaningful diplomacy with North Korea for the last 6 years, and North Korea went nuclear. So how does this show that diplomacy can't work?

What is Frum's approach to dealing with North Korea? Among other suggestions, Frum offers this bullet:

Encourage Japan to renounce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and create its own nuclear deterrent.

He also recommends cutting off all humanitarian aid for North Korea, and using sanctions to precipitate a humanitarian disaster.

Maybe I'm not giving his ideas a fair chance, but it seems to me that he is INSANE. Completely, stark-raving mad. The reason we care at all about North Korea going nuclear is that (1) It might lead to an arms race in the region, which could lead to conventional or nuclear war, and (2) Cash-strapped North Korea might be tempted to make money by selling their nuclear technology to unsavory groups such as Al Qaeda. What does Frum's plan do, other than make these two most horrible consequences much more likely?

I think conservatives have gone over the edge. They can't remember from one day to the next whether their goal is to protect the world, or to blow it up.

Gonzales: Tougher Penalties Deter School Violence?

2006-10-10T22:39:00.000-04:00

I can't seem to find a quote on the Web, but this morning, I was listening to radio news and I heard Attorney General Alberto Gonzales talk about the Bush plan to reduce school violence. Gonzales rejected calls for gun control. Instead, an important component of the Bush plan is toughening up the penalties for illegal gun use. Does that really make any sense? Someone brings a gun to school, shoots up a half dozen students, and then kills himself. If only he had known that misuse of guns could get him into serious trouble, he wouldn't have dared?

Torture In, Habeus Corpus Out

2006-09-29T10:55:00.000-04:00

Okay, the US government has clearly turned to the Dark Side of the Force. When do we start to work on our Death Star?

Cost of Driving, Part II

2006-08-28T00:50:00.000-04:00

According to Atrios: "it's important to acknowledge that automobile ownership overall is [] tremendously costly, and development which allows families to reduce the number of cars per household should be a goal." I have to respectfully disagree with the good professor on that last point; I see very little societal benefit to reducing the number of cars per household. In fact we would probably do better to increase it. It is the amount that people drive, not the number of cars they own, that we should be trying to reduce.

In my previous post on this topic, I described how per-mile insurance would raise the cost of driving but lower the cost of owning a car (with a net reduction in overall cost). This should reduce overall driving, but it would also likely increase vehicle ownership. Some people who cannot afford a car under the current insurance system, would be able to afford one if they paid for insurance only when they drive--when they take their children to the doctor, go to a job interview, get out of the path of a hurricane.... Some years ago, a young man bought an old car from me for $100. I thought I was doing him a favor, but he quickly discovered that he could not afford the taxes and insurance, and I believe he had to get rid of it.

Other people who already own a vehicle should buy a second one. In my own family, we have both a mini-van and an economy car. I drive the economy car most days, but it is totally inadequate for the whole family. If, as Atrios suggests, we should get rid of one of them, it's the economy car that would have to go. And I know plenty of people who's only vehicle(s) are vans and suv's--and plenty of couples who have two! Some of these people are finding their guzzlers very expensive these days, but they are not about to junk them. We should be encouraging those people to buy economy cars, and put their guzzlers in the garage--for special occasions. And we should structure our tax and insurance systems to make it more, not less, economical for them to do so.

And that leads me to my second suggestion: eliminate all vehicle taxes. Eliminate ad-valorem taxes on vehicles, eliminate all tag and registration fees, eliminate sales taxes on vehicles--as well as on parts and repairs. Raise gas taxes enough to make it revenue neutral. One nice advantage of this, in Virginia at least, is that our total taxes would go down; about 12% of our gas tax revenue comes from out-of-state motorists. I would even have gas taxes pay for the mandatory emissions and safety inspections we get every year--and feel not the slightest twinge of guilt at making out-of-state motorists pay 12% of that cost. It's small enough return for the pollution and congestion they give us.

As with per-mile insurance, this simple change in cost structure would make it less expensive to own vehicles--and more expensive to drive them. And both of those changes would be good things.

McLaugh-in

2006-08-19T13:25:00.000-04:00

I watch the McLaughlin Group most weeks. Don't ask me why--habit, I guess. This week they were discussing the benefits of racial/ethnic/religious profiling in preventing terrorist attacks. Lawrence ODonnel offered that: "[since] 100% of the terrorists have been Muslims...." He repeated that at least twice, "100%". The other pannelists nodded their heads and echoed the claim.

That's odd. Was Eric Rudolph a Muslim? Timmothy McVey? The Unibomber? Is Aum Shinrikyo an Islamic cult? I didn't think so.

Cost Of Driving, Part I

2006-08-19T12:05:00.000-04:00

Daryl brought this article on per-mile car insurance to my attention (with thanks to 3 Quarks Daily). It's something I have written about before (pre-blog). Dean Baker thinks we could cut gasoline consumption 10% just by switching to mileage-based car insurance. I think he is understating the case, as well as missing some major ancillary benefits.

If you're a typical driver, you pay about 10 cents per-mile in car insurance, which is comparable to what you pay for gasoline. (If you are driving a guzzler, you probably pay a bit more for both.) But unlike fuel expenses, you do not save anything on insurance when you drive less. Having your spouse pick up some groceries on the way home, instead of driving 10 miles round-trip, will save you a dollar in gas, but it won't save you a dime in insurance. If we switched to per-mile insurance, then you would save a dollar on gas and another dollar on insurance. Put another way, per-mile insurance would have about the same effect on average driving habits as an additional $3/gal. gas tax.

Six dollars per gallon wouldn't be enough to get you to cut down on driving? How about $18? While the average driver pays 10 cents per mile for auto insurance, bad drivers pay 50 cents or more--about $500 per month--or the equivalent of a $15/gal gas tax. That's based on a conversation I had with some insurers a few years ago (coincidentally while van-pooling with them); I assume it's even more today. In our car-crazy country, even bad drivers, with multiple tickets and accidents on their records, still need to drive. So they bite the bullet, pay their $500/month, and drive as much as they ever did. If per-mile insurance would get an average driver to cut down 10%, it should get the klutzes and idiots to cut down 20% or more.

And it's not just the klutzes and idiots; it's the teenagers! Or is that redundant? (Sorry, Sheen.) My insurance was actually averaging much less than $.10/mile, until recently. Then my daughter got her license. For some crazy reason, the insurance company assumes that now that she's discovered the joy of combustion, she's going to be driving--a lot. So they averaged her anticipated driving in with my known driving, and boy did my rates go up! But if we were paying by the mile, then her car would be metered separately. And she would not drive as much, because she could not afford to.

Getting the most dangerous drivers to drive less reduces the risk and the insurance cost for everyone. So not only would you most likely be driving less, you would be paying less for the miles you do drive--in addition to being safer, breathing cleaner air and facing less traffic. Oh, and one more thing: you'd be paying less for gas. It's estimated that if America cut its consumption by just 3%, the price of gas would drop $1/gal. Need a platform, anyone?

Bush: Terrorists are like puppies

2006-08-19T09:57:00.000-04:00

"If we leave before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home," he said.

Aw! Can we keep him?

Bigotry and Irrationality, Part 1

2006-08-03T00:06:00.000-04:00

The hostilities between Israelis and their Arab neighbors have ignited into what looks like all-out war in Lebanon. (It's a funny kind of war, because although Israel is attacking Lebanese territory and Lebanese civilians are getting killed, Israel isn't actually at war with Lebanon, but with Hezbollah). In Iraq, Sunni/Shiite violence has claimed tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Ethnic, racial, or religious conflicts have plagued Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Northern Ireland, Kashmir, East Timor, Sri Lanka, India...the list is absolutely staggering.

I don't know if I have anything to say about this insanity, except to say that all the evidence seems to suggest that this is the normal course of things, like the law of entropy. I'm not saying that we should give up; on the contrary, I'm saying that we must constantly be on guard against descending into barbarity. I have lots of incoherent thoughts on this subject, and I'm going to try to get rough drafts down as blog entries. These are along the lines of "thinking out loud" rather than polished essays.

First, even though the situation of ethnic hatred and violence is insane, the actions of individuals leading to the situation are really not so irrational. You have two groups, the star-bellied sneetches and the plain-bellied sneetches, for example. There is really no rational reason for the one kind of sneetch to hate the other kind of sneetch. However, it doesn't take much for some sneetches to come to the conclusion that the other sneetches are bigoted. The last three rulers have all been star-bellied sneetches. That can't be just a coincidence, can it? Once the suspicion arises that the star-bellied sneetches are getting more than their fair share, the plain-bellied sneetches start grumbling and being resentful. Then the star-bellied sneetches can rationally justify discriminating against plain-bellied sneetches: they are more likely to be resentful grumblers. I don't want any kind of tension, so I should probably stick to star-bellied sneetches. So discrimination grows and grumbling grows, and eventually grumbing turns into violence. Then the star-bellied sneetches learn not to go in plain-bellied neighborhoods, and the two groups become more and more polarized.

The basis for discriminating is almost completely irrelevant, except that to really get a good ethnic conflict going, the differences have to be roughly hereditary. Religious and language preferences aren't actually hereditary, but they might as well be---children strongly tend to make the same choices as their parents (especially if the people who chose differently live in different neighborhoods).

So acting on irrational bigotry is not necessarily irrational. It's a fact that people of one racial or ethnic group cannot safely walk in some neighborhoods dominated by another group. So being scared of the other group is rational, in many cases. As Yoda can tell you:

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Hooray for Kansas

2006-08-03T00:04:00.000-04:00

Kansas votes the creationists off the state school board.

Middle East Peace

2006-07-30T14:43:00.000-04:00

Kevin Drum started an evocative discussion recently about the Israel-Lebanon-Palestine situation. It mostly served to illustrate how pointless it is to start an evocative discussion about the Israel-Lebanon-Palestine situation. Since then, things have gotten worse. Many people have died; many more have been injured; and many times that many now hate Israel and the United States with unbridled passion--some, so much that they would be willing to die just to have a chance of giving us a taste of what we have given them. And yet discussing how that has come to be and even what we should do now is totally useless. Nothing we can say is going to change any of those things. What we need to be discussing is: where do we go from here? What is the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I honestly do not think that the Israelis will ever be willing to withdraw from the bulk of the occupied territories, or to offer the Palestinians a real state on anything close to what they seized in the '67 war. And I don't think that the Palestinians will ever be willing to settle for chopped liver--or fried chicken or whatever. So, if nothing close to an equitable division of land is possible--and nothing less would be acceptable--what's left?

The other alternatives are: let the Palestinians remain an occupied, subjugated people in perpetuity, relocate them, or make them Israeli citizens so that they are no longer occupied, subjugated people. The first option is morally reprehensible and simply means a never-ending war. Relocation of all the Palestinians would be nearly impossible, almost as immoral, and just as unacceptable to the Arab world. And granting Israeli citizenship to all the Palestinians is out of the question for Israel.

So the only thing left is none of the above--or some combination of all of the above. What if Israel agreed to grant full citizenship to a portion of the Palestinian population, if others agreed to emigrate? Some kind of formula could be worked out, say one Palestinian would be given citizenship for every two that emigrate elsewhere. This is not so far-fetched. The peace talks have always included provisions for the return of some, but not all, Palestinian refugees.
As miserable as their situation is in the occupied territories and the refugee camps, most Palestinians would be unwilling to emigrate today, even if the opportunity existed. Instead, they choose to hold on to the thin hope that they, or at least their family, will some day be returned to their homeland. (I do not personally know any Palestinians. But I think I have a pretty good grasp of their mindset here, because I do know several Cubans/Cuban Americans.) But many Palestinians are obviously willing to accept sacrifice for the sake of that hope. And many more would be more than happy to seek a better life elsewhere, given the opportunity--especially if it did not seem like a betrayal of those they would leave behind.

As a portion of the Palestinian population is relocated--some to Israel, more to other places--the pressure in the refugee camps will be relieved. And so will the motive to become a terrorist. And the support for those terrorist within the Palestinian and Lebanese communities, the willingness to support them, to hide them and even to tolerate them will begin to dry up. As Israel begins to see tangible benefits to the peace process, it will be more willing to support that process and to go the extra mile to reach some lasting solution. That solution will probably include a Palestinian state, but one that is likely to be a bit smaller than they would have accepted if a portion of their population had not found homes elsewhere.

Key to all this is that other countries must be willing to do their part to help Palestinian refugees relocate. America, and Americans who want peace must be willing to kick in some money towards that end. Would a typical Palestinian be willing to simply leave and move to Chad or Niger? No way, and neither would they welcome him. But whole villages could be relocated there if a little money was thrown in to sweeten the deal. There was a recent article on NPR about white South African farmers settling in Niger (it might have been Nigeria), and they were welcomed there, both for the money they brought and for their farming expertise. I suspect that some Palestinians know something about desert farming. That, and a little money, could make the deserts bloom.

Nutsville

2006-07-25T18:17:00.000-04:00

Here's one for Media Matters' record book. On the McLaughlin Group, Tony Blankley refered to Palestine of the 1940' as a place "where there were very few people -- there were no Palestinians. There were Arabs, wandering Arabs, who happened to live there, and not that many of them."

Wandering Arabs? I'm pretty sure that Palestine included cities such as Jerusalem, Ramallah, Haifa and oh, little towns like Bethlehem. And do you think he calls Americans, "Europeans (mostly), who happen to live here"?

You'd think that one of the five other panelists--respected journalist, all--would have corrected him. You'd be wrong.

Lebanon Update

2006-07-17T22:50:00.000-04:00

Angelica of BattlePanda has a bunch of updates on the fighting in Lebanon. Check her out.

It's unbelievable what Lebanon (especially Beirut) has been through in the last few decades. To think, once upon a time, Lebanon was a tourist destination. Hopefully, it will be again. Photos from Tourism in Lebanon

Talk about getting it wrong...(NYT on Hillary)

2006-07-17T22:38:00.000-04:00

According to Media Matters, a New York Times online article on Hillary Clinton by Anne E. Kornblut not only gave a false impression, it implied the opposite of what she said.

Kornblut:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: “We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.”

“We are wasting time,” the senator told a group of Democratic women here, on part of a two-day swing through a state that could provide an alternate hub to New York if she starts a national political campaign.

But those quotes are taken out of context from Hillary's speech. To give context, here's more of her speech:

And so we were talking one day and saying, you know, we as individuals, we have all of this legislation, we can't get it on the floor of the Senate. We can't get a vote on it because the Republican majority wants to vote on other things. So we pulled all our best ideas together. Wouldn't this be a good agenda for America: safeguard America's pensions; good jobs for Americans; make college affordable for all; protect America and our military families; prepare for future disasters; make America energy independent; make small business and healthcare affordable, invest in life saving science; and protect our air, land, and water. You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems. But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."

Hillary is clearly chastising the Republicans for preventing the Senate from accomplishing anything, not her fellow Democrats.

This is so weird. Did Kornbluth listen to the speech, or just spin out a story from a collection of quotes supplied by someone else?

The World on Fire

2006-07-17T22:28:00.000-04:00

3 Quarks Daily has a list of some of the items in the news recently. Israel on the verge of war with Hezbollah (in Lebanon) and Hamas (in Gaza). Afghanistan falling apart. Iraq on the brink of civil war. Iran and North Korea determined to acquire nuclear capability (and delivery systems, in the case of NK). Tensions flare between India and Pakistan...

So much for the theory that the war in Iraq would "drain the swamps" where violence breeds.

Scientists Say Clones would be Individuals

2006-07-17T13:47:00.000-04:00

From the BBC:

A cloned human would probably consider themselves to be an individual, a study suggests.

What's odd about this is (a) the fact that anyone thought they needed a study to figure this out, and (b) the strange use of the word "probably". Did anybody really think that clones would be some kind of hive-mind, like the Borg?

Jew Blind

2006-07-15T18:59:00.000-04:00

From Tapped, Ezra Klein writes, "When Jason Horowitz called to ask me about anti-Semitism’s influence in the blogosphere, my first response was... Say my name, real slowly, and then ask again." This reminded me of something that I have noticed before, namely that political writers seem to be able to recognize Jewish names easier that I can and--like Ezra--seem to expect everyone to be able to do this.

Growing up in a small southern town, I knew exactly one person who I knew to be Jewish--Amy Wolstein. (I didn't make acquaintance with her brother Byron, until after high school.) I just didn't have enough exposure to Jewishness to learn to recognize it; I'm pretty sure the first place I ever heard the word "dradle" was on South Park; I would have been about 37 or 38 at the time. (Not only did I not recognize Klein as a Jewish name, I was surprised to learn that Ezra was a man's name. Most people I can think of with similar sounding names are women--Essala, Evita, Elmira, Elvira....)

I am aware that there is a strain of anti-semitism in some parts of the country. I remember Daryl being surprised by it in Chicago. But some writers, who want to see anti-semitism in every sideways glance, need to learn that not everyone thinks that way. I, for one, had no idea that many neo-cons were Jewish until David Brooks accused liberals like me of being prejudiced against them for that reason.

Three Deaths

2006-07-12T18:04:00.000-04:00

I was on vacation last week to beautiful Cape Fear region of North Carolina (specifically Carolina Beach), so I missed the opportunity to say anything about Enron founder Kenneth Lay'sdeath from a heart attack on July 5, 2006. It appears he beat the rap.

I hope this is not too disrespectful of the living or the dead, but Ken Lay always reminded me of veteran comedian Tim Conway, of McHale's Navy and the Carol Burnett Show.

Syd Barrett, one of the founders of Pink Floyd, died July 11, 2006. Syd's mental deterioration (presumably due to drugs) led to his being forced out of the band, and inspired the album Wish You Were Here. The songs "Wish You Were Here" and "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" were both addressed to Syd, as I understand it.

Fred Epstein, a surgeon known for his innovative and aggressive treatment of brain and spinal tumors in children, died July 11, as well. I had never heard of him, until someone got all up in arms about Syd Barrett getting more publicity than Fred Epstein. He sounds like he was a wonderful human being.

Ah Hyperbole!

2006-07-11T21:45:00.000-04:00

In an otherwise excelent deconstruction of Jonathan Chait's recent silliness, Digby writes: "If you want to see a purge in full glory, keep your eyes on the right if they lose the election. Nobody does it better. Not even Stalin."

Not even Stalin? Somehow, I doubt that the Republicans will be sending death squads after the neo-cons who manage to escape to Mexico. But what do I know? I didn't believe that the Supreme Court would subvert the Constitution to steal the 2000 election either, but they did.

Torturing Ants in the Name of Science

2006-06-30T16:22:00.000-04:00

Via 3QuarksDaily, the National Geographic reports:

Hunting for food, ants roam haphazardly. But when they find it, they use celestial cues, perhaps from the sun, to head back to their nests more or less in a straight line—rather than retracing the tortuous journeys they'd made on their outbound searches. Instead, a new study suggests that ants have internal "pedometers," or step counters, that help them gauge how far they have traveled. Food was placed about 33 feet (10 meters) from an ant nest. When ants found the food the researchers collected the insects before they had time to carry it back to the nest.

Twenty-five of the ants were then put gently on their backs. Scientists glued stilts made of pig bristles to the insects' legs—a delicate procedure that had to be done quickly so the ants wouldn't forget what they were doing and fail to return home. Another 25 ants had their legs surgically shortened by chopping off part of the bottom segment. For the ants on stilts, each step now covered more distance than they were used to. They overshot the nest, running an average of more than 50 percent farther than they should have. Those with shortened legs undershot by nearly as much.

First comment: This result is consistent with other research suggesting that ants figure out their location relative to their nest using "dead-reckoning". This technique, which seems incredible without a computer, works this way: the ant keeps track of how many paces it has walked and how many times it has turned, and what angles it has turned through, and numerically integrates to figure out its current position.

Second comment: They chopped off a poor bug's legs? They glued hog bristles to another bug's legs? Ew!!! Sounds like evil scientists from a bad science fiction movie experimenting with brain transplants.

This reminds me of what an old friend, Mark Muldoon, once said about people who grow bonsai trees: "What if somebody cut your arms and legs off to try to get you to grow into an interesting shape?"

Georgia Update

2006-06-30T12:16:00.000-04:00

Kyle and I both grew up in Georgia, and we love our home state, but sometimes I love it in the same way that you might love a batty old aunt whom you are embarrassed to admit (in public) is your relative. A couple of recent news stories:

From The Oxford Press: Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday began weighing the pros and cons of reinstating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, knowing the decision it reaches could force a special session of the General Assembly and bring conservatives to the polls in November.

The court heard oral arguments for 40 minutes, but the justices gave no indication of when and how they would rule. But several attorneys and legal experts said that the issue of civil unions could be key in the court's deliberations.

A lower court judge in May found that the amendment — approved by 76 percent of voters in November 2004 — violates the "single-subject" rule of the state Constitution because it addresses both marriage and civil unions.

From The Gwinnett Daily Post: Laura Mallory, a Loganville mother of four, is appealing the Gwinnett Board of Education's unanimous decision to keep the best-selling [Harry Potter] books on school shelves.
Her appeal will continue the debate that began when Mallory filed complaints against each of the six books, writing that they included "evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells and teaching children all of this." (Via Shakespeare's Sister)

Loganville happens to be where my sister, Michelle, lives. She's my children's beloved aunt, but not a batty old one...

Speed limit enforced by AIRCRAFT

2006-06-28T23:56:00.000-04:00

Expanding a bit on a comment I made to Kevin Drum: if the SWIFT program was losing its effectiveness ("The bad guys figured out how we were catching them."), then the logical thing for the government to do was to bring the program out into the open. Sometimes the police run speed traps, but other times they just put up big signs that say, "we're watching you" and hope that will deter people from speeding. Of course, it's even more effective if the warning comes from someone else. Most people ignore those signs, but slow right down if an oncoming car flashes its lights.

To use another analogy: if you find a rat hole, you might want to put traps around it. But eventually the rats will get wise to the traps, and then the best thing to do is to plug the hole. In the NSA's case, the best way to plug the hole (terrorists using foreign banks to transfer funds) would be to leak the fact that they are monitoring the transactions.

No Longer Weird

2006-06-28T22:44:00.000-04:00

Chuck Shepherd gives a list a weird stories that have happened so often they can no longer be considered weird.

Via Avedon Carol.

Flag Burning Amendment Fails

2006-06-28T08:23:00.000-04:00

From YahooNews

The 66-34 tally on the flag amendment Tuesday was one less than the two-thirds, or 67 votes, required to send it to the states for ratification. The House cleared the two-thirds threshold last year, 286-130.

Thank God (or whoever). As Rich Magahiz points out in comments,

This column ran in our local paper today: "The countries that enacted national bans on flag desecration are Cuba, China, Iran, Nazi Germany and Iraq under Saddam Hussein."

More Universe-Hopping

2006-06-28T08:16:00.000-04:00

Another comment about this (99.5% goofy) theory:

The down side is that, if it's true, then you are in constant danger of slipping to an alternate universe by accident. If you are not aware of the fact that Warsaw, rather than Kracow, is the capital of Poland, then you are in danger of slipping into an alternate universe in which Krakow really is the capital of Poland. That gives poor students a new explanation for their ignorance: "Well, in the universe that I come from, Benjamin Franklin was the second President of the United States."

Quantum Universe-Hopping

2006-06-28T07:45:00.000-04:00

Now for something completely different...Here's my (only 95% goofy) idea for how to use quantum mechanics to travel between alternate universes. (Okay, maybe 96% goofy...)

According to one interpretations of quantum mechanics (namely, the Many-Worlds Interpretation, due to Everett and later expanded on by Dewitt), the universe is constantly "splitting" into alternate realities.
[Click permalink to read more...]

You flip a coin, and there is some world in which the coin comes up "heads" and another, almost identical world in which the coin comes up "tails". This is the popularized version of Everett's idea, and there is a lot that can be said about why this popularization is not completely correct, but that would take me too far astray from my (maybe 97% goofy) idea. So assume that this is correct for now.

So if there are these alternate universes, then why can't I see them? What pins me down to this universe? Why can't I travel to the universe in which Gore was elected President in 2000?

The short answer is correlations. My brain, with its billions of neurons, contains lots of information in the form of memories, and this information correlates my state with that of the rest of the universe. If I have memories of some particular historical event (such as that deplorable election) then I'm marooned forever in the universe in which that event occurred, with no hope of rescue. In contrast, the simple carefree electron, with no memory, is free to wander to any alternate universe, blissfully unconcerned about plotline consistency or continuity.

So the solution to the problem of travel to alternate universes is simple: Put yourself into a state that is equally "at home" in both universes, and you can easily slip from one to another. To be specific, close your eyes and completely erase all memories of the 2000 election. Then when you reopen your eyes, you are just as likely to find yourself in the universe in which Gore won as the one in which Bush won. Unfortunately, if you find that Gore won, you won't be able to celebrate this successful application of quantum mechanics, because you will have no memory of it ever having been different. If you have any suppressed unconscious knowledge of your previous universe, then that knowledge will block your successful universe-hopping.

That's the thing that makes it 99% goofy---it really is completely untestable. However, if you are ever in the situation in which your death is imminent (you are in a plane about to crash), then you have nothing to lose --- you might as well try to hop to a universe in which you are perfectly safe.

Buffet Joins the Good-Guy Billionaire Club

2006-06-27T11:11:00.000-04:00

From BusinessWeek Online

[Warren] Buffett, the world's second-richest man, announced Sunday that he will soon begin giving about $1.5 billion a year to the Gates Foundation, essentially doubling the pot of money the world's largest philanthropy doles out each year.

[Click permalink to read more...]
That's amazingly generous. What's amazing to me is how egoless it seems. Warren Buffet will be spending billions on charity, and he won't even have a foundation named after him.

So the list of billionaires that I admire:

Warren Buffet

Bill Gates (grudgingly), for his work on behalf of world health

George Soros, for his (so far, fruitless) efforts to fight back against the American right-wing

J.K. Rowling, because of Harry Potter, and because it's cool that someone can become a billionaire just by writing kids books.

Speaking of billionaires, here's a mind-blowing fact: 5 of the top ten richest people in the world (in 2002) were siblings, the Waltons, heirs to the WalMart fortune.

And I remember thinking that the Waltons were such a humble family. Good night, John Boy.

More Nonsense from the Worst Congress Ever

2006-06-27T07:33:00.000-04:00

From The Houston Chronicle (the first Google hit on this topic):

A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration is headed toward its best chance of passage in 15 years with a cliffhanger vote later this week in the Senate.

[Click permalink to read more...]
I'm not surprised that this is a high priority for this Congress. The world is running out of oil. Global warming is threatening our coastal cities. The cost of medical care is threatening to bankrupt our country. We are running a $400-billion per year deficit. 2500 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars have been lost in a war with no end in sight. And this congress is worried about people mistreating pieces of cloth.Unbelievable. What does a US flag stand for, if it doesn't stand for political freedom?

Am I exaggerating to say that we have the worst Congress in 50 years, perhaps ever? Put that together with the worst President and the worst Supreme, and we've hit the trifecta. Lucky us.

Unified Theory of Ecology and Economics

2006-05-31T00:56:00.000-04:00

I'm sure there is nothing original or profound about my observations here, but it has occurred to me that it is possible to summarize both the tendencies of an evolving ecosystem and an evolving marketplace by a single unifying principle: The world adapts so as to maximize the rate at which resources are consumed. I'll call this the Principle of Maximized Consumption.[Click permalink to read more...]

This isn't a law, so much as it is a general tendency. To illustrate: solar energy is a resource, and plants evolved to take advantage of it. Plant biomass is a resource, and herbivores evolved to take advantage of it. The meat of herbivores is a resource, and carnivores evolved to take advantage of it. If there is an untapped resource, then some critter will tend to evolve to take advantage of it.

Of course, what prevents this from being a law is that evolution is too slow to take advantage of all possible resources, and there are limitations to what biological systems can digest. So even though coal and petroleum and uranium ore are potential energy sources, it's unlikely that any ordinary creature would evolve that can make use of them. That brings us to humans.

Humans are pretty much unique in being able to make use of resources other than through bodily processes. We can build gasoline engines or coal-burning plants or nuclear power plants that allow us to use resources that we could never eat or digest. Once we start talking about humans, we enter into a different field, economics rather than evolution. But I think that the same general principle applies: Humans, working as free economic agents, work so as to maximize the rate at which resources are consumed.

That's the reason that free enterprise and capitalism leads to increased prosperity: because as time goes on, a greater and greater fraction of the Earth's resources are diverted to the satisfaction of human wants and needs.

That works fine up until we start running out of resources. The magic of markets doesn't lead to conservation---it leads to the opposite, towards more consumption. When there is an alternative to existing resources, then this magic may work to prevent shortages. For example, once upon a time, wood was the major fuel source. Growing populations would have deforested the Earth except for the fact that consumption could increase even faster by switching to petroleum.

As we begin running out of petroleum, will the magic of the markets save us? Well, if some new resource, such as nuclear power or solar power promises to provide more energy than we are currently getting from petroleum, then we will make the switch. But if conservation is also necessary, that is not going to come from the free market. Voluntary conservation is, I believe, a joke. The problem is that, according to the Principle of Maximized Consumption, if a significant number of people voluntarily consume less of some resource, the market will step in and find other ways to consume the savings. Total consumption is not going down without national and international governments getting involved.

A Thought Question about Opinions

2006-04-26T22:52:00.000-04:00

Here's something to think about. You don't have to answer out loud, and there are no right or wrong answers:

What opinions do you hold but you are embarrassed about?

This isn't about "heretical" opinions, or "iconoclastic" opinions, or "dissident" opinions. People are quite often proud of those sorts of contrary opinions. The sort of opinions that people are embarrassed to hold are opinions that would

diminish you in the eyes of people you respect

make you seem to be in agreement with people who you despise

offend or hurt those you care about

imply terrible things about you that are not true

I will admit to having a number of such embarrassing opinions, but of course I'm not going to tell you what any of them are.

Misunderstanding Satire

2006-04-26T22:15:00.000-04:00

Digby's blog, Hullabaloo, has an article about a line of "humorous" conservative t-shirts, including this one about journalists:

Other shirts for sale by the same organization make similar jokes about killing liberals and French people. I'm sure the people making these shirts would say that these sentiments are satire, but I think that they're confused about that word. As I understand it, in a satire, one makes fun of a person or an idea through exaggeration. So talking about lynching journalists (or liberals or Frenchmen) counts as a satire if it is making fun of those who hate those groups. It isn't satirizing those groups, however.

I always forget what the technical term is for the type of humor that goes: "You better run, because I'm gonna punch your lights out." Whatever it is, I don't think it's satire.

Oil Company Profiteering

2006-04-26T22:03:00.000-04:00

I have very mixed feelings about the subject of price-gouging on the part of oil companies. On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to those who are outraged that these companies are making record profits off of the misery of consumers who are paying $3.00 per gallon. But on the other hand, it seems to me that high gasoline prices are actually the quickest way to get Americans to curtail their dependence on oil and to encourage them to look for alternatives. So there is a part of me that is glad the prices are so high.

On the other hand, both Democrats (Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer) and Republicans (President Bush, in particular) have given "I feel your pain" speeches about gas prices and have promised to do something. The Democrats want to make price-gouging illegal, and force the oil companies to lower their prices. The Republicans want to lower prices by (1) weakening environmental regulations, (2) opening up ANWR for oil drilling, (3) cut back on our contributions to the strategic oil reserves. Bad ideas all, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what is the right policy. Perhaps let the oil companies whatever they like, and then slap a huge windfall profits tax on them, the proceeds going to energy independence efforts?

I forget, which war are we protesting?

2006-04-26T21:57:00.000-04:00

I was invited by an activist friend of mine to go to New York City this weekend as part of an anti-war protest. For a full two days after receiving her message, I was thinking of the wrong war. Not Afghanistan, not Iraq, but Iran. Who knew that there was a war with Iran to protest against? I can't keep up...

My 700 million children

2006-04-26T21:49:00.000-04:00

According to the New York Times, if a man believes himself to be the biological father of a child, then he is right over 98% of the time. On the other hand, when he believes himself not to be the biological father of a child, he is wrong 70% of the time.

Using the most extensive data on nonpaternity rates assembled to date, the researchers tentatively concluded that men confident about their paternity are usually right: they are biologically unrelated only 1.7 percent to 3.7 percent of the time.

Those who insist they are not the fathers, on the other hand, are in fact the biological fathers in more than 70 percent of cases, a figure derived from data released by paternity testing laboratories.

Okay, so there are approximately 1 billion children, worldwide, who I would insist are not my biological children. If I'm wrong 70% of the time...

In New Orleans, Nagin and Landrieu Headed for Runoff

2006-04-24T21:55:00.000-04:00

Mayor Ray Nagin

Challenger Mitch Landrieu

Civics Question

2006-04-11T22:16:00.000-04:00

The phrase, "[a]s policy, we don't discuss ongoing legal proceedings within the courts," is to the Bush Administration as this is to a typical thug:

The fifth ammendment
"I want a lawyer."
"F*** you."
All of the above.

John McCain Is A Liar! -Again

2006-04-04T23:10:00.000-04:00

At an AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department event McCain offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.
Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.
"I'll take it!" one man shouted.
McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

Let's get this straight. He says that no one would do something that most people would gladly do. (Can he be so out of touch with the average American that he actually believed that in the first place?) To prove his point, he makes an insincere offer. Then, rather than simply admit that he wasn't serious, he lies again. Telling his critic that he cannot do something that thousands of people do every year! Liar. Liar. Welching liar.

As A Matter of Fact, We Did Get a Trophy

2006-04-03T15:20:00.000-04:00

From The Poor Man Institute:

Kaye Grogan, Friday:

Let me say a big AMEN! . . . to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, for suggesting that prisoners pick the crops in the United States. This is an excellent idea to make prisoners productive.

Since the taxpayers are already footing the bill for thousands and thousands of incarcerated prisoners — we wouldn’t be burdened with billions of dollars (draining our economy) adding millions of illegal immigrants (trying to take over our country) if we put prisoners in the “picking” crops’ business. […]

“We are all immigrants” has just about run its course. Every country started with immigrants, and they would not put up with millions of Mexicans or any other nationality trying to invade and take over their territory — so why is America expected to take in everybody from rogue nations?

Are we getting a gigantic trophy for being the most stupid country in the world?

Apparently:

More Numbers Games

2006-03-22T20:56:00.000-05:00

...or Bo Bo's Bad Bad Boo Boos.

Last Friday, on The Newshour With Jim Lehrer, David Brooks made the statement:
"People choose the reality that -- that flatters their partisanship. For example, in the Reagan years, unemployment went from 13 percent to 5 percent. If you asked Democrats, at the end of that, did unemployment go up or down under Reagan, 60 percent said it went up. Republicans said down."

When I heard that, I was more than a little suspicious. But Media Matters has the goods. The 13% figure was totaly bogus, but more importantly, unemployment did go up in the Reagan Years. It went up the first year he was in office. On average it was higher for the first four years and the first eight years than for the previous four and/or eight.

So why do Republicans say down? Well, maybe Republicans do choose the reality that flatters their partisanship, even if Democrats don't. Or maybe it's because the media keep lying to them.

Choose Your Words Carefully

2006-03-22T20:43:00.000-05:00

"I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America" --George Bush.

And of course, Michael Moore was very carefull never to say that George Bush ordered the attacks on America. So, why, why do people keep saying that bush blamed Hussein and Moore blamed Bush? Doesn't choosing your words carefully count for anything anymore?

Top 25 Library Books

2006-03-22T16:22:00.000-05:00

Via Uncertain Principles

Based on the number of holdings by public libraries, here are the top 25 library books. Which of these is not like the others?

1. Bible [various] Library holdings: 796,882
2. Census [various] United States Library holdings: 460,628
3. Mother Goose Library holdings: 67,663
4. Divine Comedy Dante Alighieri Library holdings: 62,414
5. Odyssey Homer Library holdings: 45,551
6. Iliad Homer Library holdings: 44,093
7. Huckleberry Finn Mark Twain Library holdings: 42,724
8. Lord of the Rings [trilogy] J. R. R. Tolkien Library holdings: 40,907
9. Hamlet William Shakespeare Library holdings: 39,521
10. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland Lewis Carroll Library holdings: 39,277
11. Don Quixote Miguel de Cervantes Library holdings: 38,485
12. Beowulf Library holdings: 37,914
13. Koran Library holdings: 37,080
14. Night Before Christmas Clement Clarke Moore Library holdings: 33,343
15. Garfield Jim Davis Library holdings: 33,234
16. Tom Sawyer Mark Twain Library holdings: 32,233
17. Aesop's Fables Aesop Library holdings: 32,232
18. Arabian Nights Library holdings: 31,728
19. Macbeth William Shakespeare Library holdings: 30,388
20. Gulliver's Travels Jonathan Swift Library holdings: 29,066
21. Robinson Crusoe Daniel Defoe Library holdings: 28,669
22. Romeo and Juliet William Shakespeare Library holdings: 28,646
23. Bhagavadgita Library holdings: 28,588
24. Christmas Carol Charles Dickens Library holdings: 27,928
25. Canterbury Tales Geoffrey Chaucer Library holdings: 27,863

Numbers Game

2006-03-20T22:42:00.000-05:00

I'm a regular reader of The American Prospect. They are on the side of the angels--if way more balanced than an overtly partisan publication has any reason to be. But this article by Garance Franke-Ruta is the kind of writing I just cannot somach:
"A Prospect examination of the authors published [in the NYT op-eds] between late February 2004 and late February 2006 found that 90 percent of writers -- including staff columnists -- who discussed abortion on the Times op-ed page over the past two years were male. These men wrote 83 percent of the op-eds that mentioned abortion.

Even more surprising, more op-eds that mentioned abortion in the Times were written by pro-life men than by women of any belief system."

"Even more surprising?" How could anyone be surprised by that second paragraph if they read the first? Assuming the first paragraph is true, then the second would almost have to be. In fact, that statement would be true if even 21% of the men were pro-life and 100% of the women were pro-choice. When a writer feels the need to play that kind of game with numbers, I strongly suspect that the numbers do not support her case.

Spotting Future Conservatives

2006-03-20T11:41:00.000-05:00

This is a cheap shot, but hey, it's science!

From The Star via Suburban Guerrilla

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids’ personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There’s no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it’s unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

God Hates Shrimp

2006-03-20T11:33:00.000-05:00

God Hates Shrimp

From godhatesshrimp.com

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

Environmental Study: Setback for Up-Is-Downism

2006-03-16T12:48:00.000-05:00

From YahooNews

A government report released Thursday does not recommend giving the Environmental Protection Agency the power to stop states from adopting tough vehicle-emission standards similar to those in California.

Let me get this straight: the EPA was attempting to block environmental protection efforts by the state.

The End of Deficits

2006-03-14T22:14:00.000-05:00

Deficit spending is, in some ways, a very appealing way to fund the government. It does not, as is often claimed, mean that we will pay later for the benefits of government that we receive today. It means that other people will pay later for the benefits that we receive today--our children, mostly--or better yet, other people's children. This is especially true if we can shelter our future earnings, and our children's inheritance, from future taxes.

It is no coincidence that the same people who are leading the charge to fund the government through deficit spending (while protesting that they don't want to do it, but just can't help themselves) are also pushing to eliminate inheritance taxes, reduce or eliminate capital gains taxes and create tax shelters to shield their and their children's future earnings from the high taxes that must inevitably follow years of deficit spending.

A classic example of a tax shelter designed by and for deficit spenders is the Roth IRA. With a traditional IRA (or 401k or the like) taxes are deferred on the investment until after the investor retires--when presumably one's income, and therefore tax rate, will be lower. But with a Roth IRA, one pays taxes on the investment immediately and then pays no tax on the interest or growth of that investment. The two give the exact same result--as long as tax rates are the same at the time of investment as they are at the time of withdrawal. If tax rates go down, the traditional IRA is better. If tax rates go up, the Roth is better. But they're supposed to be retirement accounts! Why would anyone expect taxes to be higher after retirement, than it is in peak earning years? Well, if one is a Congressman, and has decided to tax much less than is needed to fund the government, then one knows that the bill will eventually come due. Roth IRA's were designed by Congressmen who did not want to pay for the government today--and did not want to be stuck with the bill after they retired.

Having identified the problem--a problem, if you're one of those people who does not want to stick our children with the bill for our spending--the solution is simple. Change the tax structure. Don't have future earners pay for today's spending--have past earners pay for it. Interest and repayment of the national debt should come from taxes on assets--rather than from taxes on earnings. In this way, the people who benefit the most from deficit spending--those who are and have been acquiring wealth, while the government is acquiring debt--are the same ones who will pay for that debt. In this way, the net effect on future generations is essentially zero. While we are burdening them trillions of dollars of debt, we are also leaving them equal trillions of dollars of assets, in the form of government bonds. And, for the most part, the same people who will receive the one will be paying the other.

By shifting a portion of the tax burden away from income and on to assets, we also shift a portion of our tax burden away from Americans and on to foreign investors in the U.S. Foreigners own about $10 Trillion in U.S. assets, out of about $50T in total private wealth. If we exempted $20T, then one third of this tax would actually be paid by foreign investors. $20T is enough to give all senior citizens a $500K personal exemption and everyone else about $200K.* With a net tax base of $30T, interest on the national debt could be covered with about a 1% tax.

One might expect that, since investors would get a slightly smaller return on their investments under this tax system, interest rates might go up. But that is unlikely. Interest rates are determined by the threat of inflation and by the profitability of alternative investments. In fact, a modest asset tax can actually encourage investment and help to bring down interest rates, as it discourages luxury purchases. And there is some evidence that asset taxes are more effective at fighting inflation than income taxes. It would likely cause a small drop in the dollar against other currencies, which is neither all good nor all bad.

An asset tax would be a far more equitable and less painful way to pay for the deficit. But perhaps more importantly, it would virtually insure that we would never run another deficit. Why? Because wealth is much more concentrated than income, and even a flat asset tax is far more progressive than our 'progressive' income tax. When the millionaires and multi-millionaires who run the U.S. government realize that they are the ones who will have to pay for the national debt, believe me, they will get religion on deficit spending. They will become budget-balancing fanatics! The richest 1% of Americans earn 13% of all income and pay 25% of national income taxes. (But only about 17% of total taxes, and as I said, they are working hard to lower that share.) By contrast, however, seventy-five percent of all private wealth in America is owned by the richest 10% of households, and 40% is owned by the richest 1%. With even a modest exemption, a national asset tax will be paid entirely by the very wealthiest American households--and foreign investors.

*Since most Americans have much less than that in net assets, I am assuming that only about half of the personal exemption would be applied.

Friends Don't Let Friends Eat Ballpark Food

2006-03-13T16:46:00.000-05:00

From grrlscientist

A friend sent me an article that describes Baseball's Best Burger that you can get only at an Illinois ballpark. This gut-busting artery-clogger is comprised of a hamburger patty topped with sharp cheddar cheese and two slices of bacon, all of which are nestled inside a "bun" made of a sliced Krispy Kreme Original Glazed donut.

Thomas Kincade Does Cthulu

2006-03-13T14:52:00.000-05:00

Thomas Kinkade's depiction of Cthulu's savage revenge

John McCain Is A Liar!

2006-03-11T17:47:00.000-05:00

"Anybody who says the president of the United States is lying about weapons of mass destruction is lying," --John McCain said.

The World's Angriest Hummingbird

2006-03-10T13:10:00.000-05:00

Brilliant Fury, originally uploaded by Acreepingmalaise.

Via Majikthise

Quote about General Relativity

2006-03-10T11:59:00.000-05:00

This is possibly an urban legend, but supposedly the astrophysicists Arthur Eddington once said: "General Relativity is so simple, a 10-year-old could understand it---provided that he was familiar with tensor calculus."

Schlesinger on "Doughface Progressives"

2006-03-08T11:07:00.000-05:00

The classic indictment of the `elite' mindset was written in the late 1940s by American public intellectual Arthur Schlesinger Jr. In his book The Vital Center Schlesinger criticized an intellectual type he called `Doughface progressives'. According to Schlesinger the Doughface preferred impotence to responsibility, rhetoric to action and myth to reality.

"The weakness of impotence is related to a fear of responsibility - a fear, that is, of making concrete decisions and being held to account for concrete consequences. Problems are much simpler when viewed from the office of a liberal weekly than when viewed in terms of what will actually happen when certain ideologically attractive steps are taken.

``Too often the Doughface really does not want power or responsibility. For him the more subtle sensations of the perfect syllogism, the lost cause, the permanent minority, where lie can be safe from the exacting job of trying to work out wise policies in an imperfect world.

``Politics becomes, not a means of getting things done, but an outlet for private grievances and frustrations. The progressive once disciplined by the responsibilities of power is often the most useful of all public servants; but he, alas, ceases to be a progressive and is regarded by all true Doughfaces as a cynical New Dealer or a tired Social Democrat.

"Having renounced power, the Doughface seeks compensation in emotion. The pretext for progressive rhetoric is, of course, the idea that man, the creature of reason and benevolence, has only to understand the truth in order to act upon it.

``But the function of progressive rhetoric is another matter; it is, in Dwight MacDonald's phrase, to accomplish "in fantasy what cannot be accomplished in reality." Because politics is for the Doughface a means of accommodating himself to a world he does not like but does not really want to change, he can find ample gratification in words. They appease his twinges of guilt without committing him to very drastic action.

``Thus the expiatory role of resolutions in progressive meetings. A telegram of protest to a foreign chancellery gives the satisfaction of a job well done and a night's rest well earned. The Doughfaces differ from Mr. Churchill: dreams, they find, are better than facts.

``Progressive dreams are tinged with a brave purity, a rich sentiment and a noble defiance. But, like most dreams, they are notable for the distortion of facts by desire."

Sexy Blonde Crustacean

2006-03-08T08:25:00.000-05:00

Via Pharyngula, it seems that the appeal of silky blonde hair is not limited to humans (or even vertebrates).

Scientists said the animal, which they named Kiwa hirsuta, was so distinct from other species that they created a new genus and new family for it.

A team of American-led divers found the animal in waters 7,540 feet deep at a site 900 miles south of Easter Island last year, according to Michel Segonzac of the French Institute for Sea Exploration, or IFREMER.

Rotation Of Earth Plunges Entire North American Continent Into Darkness

2006-03-07T13:36:00.000-05:00

NEW YORK—Millions of eyewitnesses watched in stunned horror Tuesday as light emptied from the sky, plunging the U.S. and neighboring countries into darkness. As the hours progressed, conditions only worsened.

At approximately 4:20 p.m. EST, the sun began to lower from its position in the sky in a westward trajectory, eventually disappearing below the horizon. Reports of this global emergency continued to file in from across the continent until 5:46 p.m. PST, when the entire North American mainland was officially declared dark.

From The Onion, of course.

The Plague Caused the Little Ice Age?

2006-03-06T23:06:00.000-05:00

Via BBC News, from researchers in the Netherlands comes a new theory of the cause of the "Little Ice Age" responsible for putting Europe into a deep freeze (much colder than average winters) for 300 years (killing off all descendants of Viking colonists in Greenland). The new theory claims that the Bubonic Plague was responsible. How did that work?

Well, the Bubonic Plague swept through Europe in the 14th century killing by some estimates 1/3 of the population of Europe. As many as 200 million deaths were due to the plague. Because of this devastation, many farms in Europe fell idle, lacking the manpower to keep them in production. Trees sprung up where there was once plowed fields, and the resulting reverse greenhouse effect (too many plants taking carbon dioxide out of the air) caused a general cooling, resulting in the little ice age.

She's No Lady (bug)

2006-03-06T22:45:00.000-05:00

Via the photography blog 10, 60, 200

If you see this creature, either kill it, or if you're not the violent type, get far away. It's an evil bug, and it bites. It looks a lot like a ladybug, but this is a different insect, known as the "Japanese Biting Beetle".

Here's a real ladybug (from The University of Kentucky Department of Entomology)

Some friends and I were menaced by these monsters while in Evanston for a college reunion a few years back, and I assumed that they were ladybugs gone bad.

Thanks to Richard Magahiz for the link.

Japanese Make Gasoline out of Bullshit

2006-03-03T21:07:00.000-05:00

The energy crisis has been solved!

President Chauncey Gardiner warned about Katrina

2006-03-02T08:30:00.000-05:00

A newly released videotape from AP shows that President Bush was briefed in full about the threat to New Orleans posed by Hurricane Katrina, including dire warnings about the potential for serious flooding and the levees breaking. During the briefing, Bush did not ask a single question, but afterwards assured Lousiana officials "We are fully prepared." As we know, Bush only 4 days later declared "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees".

To his credit, feckless FEMA director Michael Brown at least had the sense to be worried:

"My gut tells me ... this is a bad one and a big one," then-federal disaster chief Michael Brown told the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29...

A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and Brown, then the
Federal Emergency Management Agency chief, told the president and
Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.

"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.

Sometimes it seems that George W is barely even aware of what is going on in the country. His claims to know nothing about a topic is not actually contradicted by the fact that he was briefed on it, because he treats White House briefings the way a 9-year-old boy with ADD treats his school lessons: something to be endured, and immediately forgotten.

Given Bush's astounding political successes, you don't want to "misunderestimate" him, but all the evidence that I've seen is consistent with the theory that he is nothing more than a charming (to some, anyway) face put on the machinations of those actually in power.

Picture from Boston Harbor, Summer 2005

2006-03-02T07:39:00.000-05:00

This is my kids, my wife, various nephews and sisters-in-law, a brother-in-law, and a niece. Oh, and Marty.

Cartoon Violence

2006-02-08T14:36:00.000-05:00

Recent headlines about "cartoon-related violence" makes me think of anvils dropping on people's heads and exploding cigars. But the Muslim reaction around the world to a Danish newspaper's publishing of cartoons mocking Mohammed brings up some serious issues.

On the one hand, rioting and setting fire to embassies is a ridiculous response to images on paper. On the other hand, the Danish newspapers were very insensitive. No western newspaper would ever make fun of Jesus that way. As a matter of fact, the same newspaper that published the Mohammed cartoons had refused to publish cartoons making fun of Jesus as too offensive. Clearly, there is a double standard here. Muslims are not treated with respect by Westerners, and the Muslim rioting is an after-the-fact justification in the minds of many. It's a vicious circle: if you don't treat people with respect, they are not inclined to behave civilly towards you, either.

Maybe western news should hold a "freedom of speech" week in which nothing is taboo in political cartoons. Let's make fun of Jesus, and God, and Bush, and the Pope, and the Jews, and black people, and white people and Christians, and every other group we can think of. Prove that the west really believes in freedom of the press. Would that make a difference?

Bush Justice Deprt Wading into Partisan Fight

2006-02-08T14:30:00.000-05:00

This sure seems like an abuse of power to me.

The Bush administration has come to the defense of Texas in a legal battle with political overtones, telling the Supreme Court in a brief filed yesterday that the state's 2003 congressional redistricting plan, drafted by Republicans, is fully consistent with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The redistricting plan, drawn up at the request of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who was House majority leader at the time, was designed to give Texas's House delegation a Republican majority to match the state's overall voting preference. After the 2000 census, the state's delegation grew from 30 seats to 32, and the shift to a Republican majority in Texas helped cement GOP control of the House...

Justice Department lawyers initially recommended rejecting Texas's plan, saying it would harm black and Hispanic voters, but were overruled by senior Justice officials. The legal standards used in the lawyers' analysis, however, were different from those at issue in the current case, which focuses on a separate section of the Voting Rights Act.

Two Black Eyes for NASA

2006-02-07T17:05:00.000-05:00

First, this story in the New York Times:

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Next, this story in CNN:

NASA Inspector General Robert W. Cobb is under investigation after subordinates complained that he failed to investigate safety violations and retaliated against whistle-blowers, The Washington Post reported Friday.

With the Bush administration, corruption seeps into absolutely every branch of the federal government...

The Worst Person in The United States

2006-02-07T09:11:00.000-05:00

The title of "Worst Person" is regularly bestowed by MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. The recipient is often a journalist/pundit, such as CNNs Glenn Beck, or Fox's Bill O'Reilly, or talk radio's Rush Limbaugh. As deserving as these people are for recognition, there is really one person who literally makes my skin crawl thinking about him, and that is Rev. Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist of Topeka, Kansas.

Among his greatest hits from him and his congregation:

Congregation members picketed the funerals of
AIDS victims with protest signs that read, "God Hates Fags."

Congregation members picketed the funerals of West Virginia coal miners with signs saying: "Thank God for Dead Miners," "God Hates Your Tears" and "Miners in Hell," arguing that the miners' deaths were a sign of God's wrath at America for tolerating gays.

After the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, Phelps suggested building a monument with an inscription reading "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

If Hell exists, then surely that's where Phelps is going. (If he's going to Heaven, then please, God, I'll take Hell.)

In response:

States are rushing to limit when and where people may protest at funerals — all because of a small Kansas church whose members picket soldiers' burials, arguing that Americans are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals.

I think that such legislation is pointless. The way to fight against Phelps is to stand in solidarity with the people he persecutes.

Supersize Big Mac Meal, with a Diet Coke

2006-02-07T08:47:00.000-05:00

The administration's new budget projects that this year's deficit will soar to an all-time high of $423 billion, surpassing the old mark in dollar terms of $412 billion set in 2004...

But finally, George W. Bush is getting serious about cutting the federal budget. His proposal: cutting $63 billion over the next five years:

$36 billion in Medicare, $5 billion in farm subsidy programs, $4.9 billion in Medicaid support for poor children's health care and $16.7 billion in additional payments from companies to shore up the government's besieged pension benefit agency.

He also proposes extending his tax cuts, which will cost $1.4 trillion over the next decade.

"I'll have a diet coke---oh, and also a supersize Big Mac meal, while you're at it."