The stag rears its ugly head

So just last week I noted that comments about stagflation might be overblown, given fairly strong GDP growth and fairly low inflation (despite rising energy prices). But that argument just developed a hole the size of oil barrel prices: the latest economic report shows growth slowing to 2.5% annually in the second quarter, but inflation surging at 5.6%. It may not be time to bust out the wheelbarrows, but with wages predicted to rise less than 4% this year, we'll all be making a little less on the same dollar by Christmas.

The even numbered key to Middle East conflict

Ever wonder why Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs/Hezbollah have been at it since 1948? Why there's more intense bloodshed now? Why Northern Ireland was a place of near-constant strife for 150 years?

A psychology professor from Harvard recently published an article in the NY Times where he discusses the two principles of the legitimate use of force and how the human brain regularly short-circuits our ability to follow them.

The two principles of justifiable force are:
1) that your strike must be even numbered (i.e. you are hitting back, not striking first - unless it be an oil-laden country whose leader "hurt your daddy")
2) that your strike not exceed the first in force (proportionality)

However, human brains are poorly wired to follow these principles. The problem with the first principle is simply that people count differently. What seems like the first offense to me seems like a measured response to you, and thus we each perceive that we are dealing out even-numbered strikes.

Proportionality is also short-circuited by the human brain.

Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.

The article illustrates this with a poking game, where two volunteers exchange pokes with instructions to poke back only as hard as they were poked. Despite the instructions, each person averaged 40% more force when returning a poke, quickly escalating the level of force.

In other words, these world-capturing conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere are simply large-scale human fallibility. Israel strikes at Hezbollah for capturing soldiers, while Hezbollah does that in retaliation for a previous offense. Each retaliation changes which strike is even-numbered, and no one remembers where it began.

Blowing a hole in the world's nuclear non-proliferation regime

Several weeks ago, the Bush administration proudly announced a deal to offer civilian nuclear assistance to India. While the aid itself is unremarkable, it is precedent-setting because until now, a country had to renounce nuclear weapons in order to receive civilian technological assistance and materials. No more.

The US is the first nuclear-powered nation to open the door to proliferation by signing a deal with India allowing the transference of nuclear technology. While the President has indicated that some safeguards will be in place, the Economist notes that there's no real way to keep the technology from being co-opted into India's active nuclear weapons program. In particular, India's shortage of high-grade uranium for bomb-making might be a problem of the past, as they would be able to divert uranium intended for civilian use into bombs.

I can't see how this is a good move in a region where two nuclear powers (Pakistan and India) are regularly practicing brinkmanship.

Breed for niceness?

According to this long-running study in the former Soviet Union, not only do mean people suck, but their meanness might be genetic. Apparently, Soviet scientists were essentially able to domesticate a silver fox and rats within a human lifetime by always pairing the most tame animals for mating. What shall we domesticate next?

Bulls, and Bears, and Stags - Oh My!

You don't hear much about economic downturns or inflation from the government and indeed not even much from the media. But The Austrailian doesn't shy from an assessment that the United States could be facing stagflation - a combination of a slowing economy and rising inflation that eats away the standard of living.

The Economist opined last year that while the United States was not facing the same dual punch as it did in the 1970s (with inflation above 7% and GDP growth hovering at 1%), the Federal Reserve was running too loose of a monetary policy to effectively contain inflation. This means that interest rates are still too low to act as a curb on borrowing and spending (which leads to inflation).

However, the data show that we aren't really in trouble yet. Pulling some data from the BLS, we see that US inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) was up 3.3% last year and is up at a similar annual rate this year. And GDP growth was 3.5% in 2005 and 5.6% (annualized) in the first quarter of 2006. So despite a growing number of news stories about it, do we really need to worry about stagflation yet?

Let's try a post 9/11 government

As usual, you can count on Bill Clinton to be articulate when describing the need to switch the party in control of government. Who's really interested in the security of Americans? It's not our administration!

Webpage logic game

Figure out the URL for the next number to continue.

• Knowing French helps
  
• So does knowing something about web design
  
• I'm on eeleeveen

Suffragists are suffering

If people are dumb enough to sign away their right to vote, should we let them?

We must protect the sheep - and the cute little chicks

If there's one thing sticking in Osama bin Laden's craw, it must be the "Great Satan's" ability to defend it's most valuable resources. That's right, Old MacDonald’s Petting Zoo is featured in the federal antiterrorism database, listed as a national asset alongside the Golden Gate Bridge, Empire State Building, and US Capitol.

Even better is the listing of Amish Country Popcorn. When the proprietor of this fine establishment was interviewed about his listing in the National Asset Database, he had this to say:

“I am out in the middle of nowhere,” said Mr. Lehman, whose business in Berne, Ind., has five employees and grows and distributes popcorn. “We are nothing but a bunch of Amish buggies and tractors out here. No one would care.”

But on second thought, he came up with an explanation: “Maybe because popcorn explodes?”

Open the books, Uncle Sam

One of the main ideas behind American government is that the people rule. And flowing from this principle is the concept that people should be informed so that they make good choices. Laws like the Freedom of Information Act - turning 40 this year - were designed to ensure that the public has access to documentation of the government's business. So what's with the dramatically increasing level of government secrecy?

This kind of restriction is what's happening to American government, as increased secrecy removes a lot of public decisions from the scrutiny of citizens. And since citizens are supposed to hold the power in a country with democratic self-rule, secrecy is the enemy of effective and responsive government. If you don't buy it from me, check out Jimmy Carter's recent commentary or view the secrecy video at openthegovernment.org.

Does Wal-Mart make it not organic?

Picture organic farms and you might see a farm family, carefully avoiding the use of pesticides or even mechanized equipment in order to raise the most natural animals, vegetables or grain. Technically, you might be overreaching, as the USDA defines organic food as stuff raised without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. But you probably don't imagine mass produced products at Wal-Mart as falling into the organic category. And there you'd be wrong.

Recognizing that organic food is a rapidly growing industry, Wal-Mart has decided to jump whole (grass fed) hog into the organic market. But the question is: once Wal-Mart goes organic, does organic really mean the same thing?

Beyond the USDA definition, Michael Pollan says that organic food "should be priced not high or low but responsibly." In other words, Wal-Mart's promise to reduce the premium on organic foods to just 10% of the conventional food price means that it won't be possible to do organic farming the same way. Pollan mentions the concept of "organic feedlots," where milk cows are raised - not roaming a grass-covered field - but in virtually the same way as conventional milk cows, substituting in organic grain.

The other factor in low prices is transporting organic food from the cheapest locale. However, while this organic food might avoid pesticides and herbicides, as Pollan puts it, it will be "drenched in petroleum." With oil profits often enriching large corporations - or more worriedly - illiberal regimes in the Middle East, perhaps cheap organic food is too costly to the concept of sustainability.

But at least it won't be elitist anymore...

A race to watch

Connecticut "Democratic" Senator Joe Lieberman is facing a primary challenge from Ned Lamont, a progressive who's drawing a stark contrast to Lieberman's unwavering support for the Iraq War. One tool in Lamont's arsenal is his advertising agency. The agency is run by Bill Hillsman, who helped Paul Wellstone's long-shot campaign for Senate in 1990. Hillsman also teamed up with Jesse Ventura in his successful 1998 campaign for governor of Minnesota and he made a great ad ("priceless") for Ralph Nader in 2000. See Hillsman's work here.

It's going to be rough going for Lieberman - not that I'll shed many tears for his poor policy choices.

Racial profiling by name

Is there really anything more we can do to alienate otherwise friendly Arabs? We already have few enough friends in the Arab world. And even though there may only be 200,000 Arabs living in the United States, each one serves as an ambassador of American ideas to their relatives back home.

So it probably doesn't do us any favors to have Western Union, citing Treasury Department policy, prohibiting money transfers to people with Arab-sounding names. Here's just a few reasons why this is dumb:

• We punish innocent people with Arab names
  
• As a result, we further erode Arab opinion of the United States
  
• We don't actually prevent terrorist money transfers, because there are alternative money-transfer services.

I'm just glad there weren't any Irish terrorists involved in 9/11.

Back from vacation

T've had the good fortune to have two mini vacations in the past few weeks, the first to Jamaica to see a friend's wedding and the second to family cabins. It's meant a lot of relaxing near water, the discovery of a local beer, and some sailing.

I was amused at my recognition of many land and water features on the plane ride to Jamaica, thanks to many hours wasted on Pirates!.

But now I'm back at the library, so I should be getting back to the punditry.

There's a stand-up guy...

I'm so glad that President Bush can admit his mistakes and reply forthrightly to criticism. In all cases except in his role as President, of course. My favorite line?

[The reporter's] only complaint is that the president didn't answer his question at the news conference.

So why do we do it this way?

A new report on prisons does an admirable job of marking the worst aspects of the American prison system. In spending $60 billion a year for imprisoning 2.2 million convicts, we are buying:

• A 60% recidivism rate (3/5 convicts reoffend when they leave).
• Public health threats from poorly treated inmates (who bring diseases like tuberculosis back into society).
  
• High rates of violence between inmates and between inmates and staff, often from overcrowding and cutbacks in prison programming.

What's disappointing is that no one should need this report to know that there are better ways.

Withdrawal from Iraq - at what cost?

We should consider withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Now that I've been labeled a cowardly commie or a "cut and run liberal" by 35% of registered voters, I'd like to consider a few pros and cons of ending American involvement in Iraq. After all, we've now paid close to $300 billion and over 20,000 killed and wounded Americans for our purposes in Iraq. Have we gotten what we paid for?

The White House has defined victory in Iraq in the short-, medium-, and long-term:
1) Short-term - Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Well, we're certainly still fighting terrorists in Iraq and we're making progress on these other goals, so I guess we can check off short-term victory. Of course, we already knew that.

2) Medium term - Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Since we're still in Iraq with no clear plan for exit, I'd say we're still losing in the medium-term (3 years and counting).

So at $300 billion and 20,000 casualties, we've only purchased short-term victory. So what are the consequences for early withdrawal?

• We "lose face"
• The military becomes demoralized
  
• Iraq becomes a failed state and a haven for terrorists
• A failed state in Iraq causes a domino effect of failed regimes in the Middle East
• The failure of Iraq jeopardizes oil supplies for American consumers

I think the first two are the kind of issues adolescents worry about and not adults. You win some and you lose some. Adults learn to cut their losses and learn from them, not repeat them. The failure of Iraq could potentially create a safe haven for terrorists, but it could also revert to the leadership of a dictator with no real interest in attacking America. It's true that the collapse of Iraq could create instability in the Middle East, as well, but how does that differ from now? Iran is going nuclear, Iraq is mired in violence, and Palestinians and Israelis are still killing each other.

It should be noted that dire warnings were issued about withdrawing from Vietnam as well, and other than losing South Vietnam to the communists, the greater geopolitical strategic significance of Vietnam came to about nil.

What it really comes down to is the possible effects on the United States: a terrorist attack or another oil shock. As far as terrorism is concerned, we are responsible for at least 2/3 the number of American dead caused by 9/11. We re-elected a man who sent our troops off to sweat and die in Iraq and it won't be long before more servicemen and women have been killed than civilians who died in the twin towers. Draw your own conclusions.

As far as oil is concerned, it might be worth asking if the cost of losing oil supplies from Iraq are worse than the $300 billion and 20,000 lives we've spent trying to keep it.

So what about the potential benefits of withdrawal? Well, we stop paying with dollars and lives. We can restore faith and trust with the international community. We can free up resources to face more serious threats from nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran.

I know where my vote lies.

Dignity and democracy

As of today in Iraq, 2,475 soldiers have given their lives and another 18,000 have been wounded, many thousand returning home with debilitating mental and physical disabilities. But while the body count comes up reguarly on the news (although with decreasing frequency), viewers are often "spared" the sight of our war casualties.

In stark contrast, Vietnam was a bloodbath of media coverage, with the grave images of war leading to a popular backlash and American withdrawal (a withdrawal that, incidentally, did not lead to the domino-like collapse of neighboring countries to communism - more on that later). But Iraq is different, with most news agencies not even bothering to publish pictures, even when they have them. Ironically, this reluctance to publish comes amid strong demand for the fare when it is available, via "The War Tapes" or "Baghdad ER."

So what's the right thing to do? The problem is that while the death of a soldier is individually a very private and sancrosanct event, the death of soldier(s) is a very public and political issue. In a democratic society, we the people ultimately hold the responsibility for the war and the soldiers who die. Are we better off insulated from the graphic images or would it be more responsible to present American citizens with a pictorial consequence of their Election Day choices?

A constitutional crisis or a legitimate search?

For those who have missed the big to-do, the FBI search of a Congressman's office last week has kicked up a duststorm between the legislative and executive branches. The Congressman is under investigation for various crimes, including bribery, and the FBI sought and obtained a warrant to search his Capitol Hill office. Legislators are displeased, to say the least.

The controversy comes down to a constitutional clause (Article I, Section VI): members of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."” The Supreme Court has affirmed that this clause protects a member's documents and files from search and seizure. And in the 219 years under this Constitution, there has never been a search of a member's office.

There's also the fact that the Congressman has not actually been indicted. I'm not a lawyer, but I can seen how that makes the issue a little more sensitive (the FBI still has a court-authorized warrant, however).

But the deeper analysis seems to support the FBI search as legitimate. First, many members of Congress, including Randy "Duke" Cunningham have been arrested and convicted of crimes while sitting in Congress. And the courts have upheld that the constitutional clause above does not shield legislators from criminal prosecution - it's supposed to protect their speech and votes on behalf of their constituents. The real danger in this instance is not the protection of Congressional privilege, but the potential for collateral damage when the representative's files are sifted by FBI agents, potentially imperiling the privacy of innocent third parties.

Ultimately, it seems that the search of the Congressman's office, however unprecedented, is simply the reasonable, court-sanctioned extension of a criminal investigation into a new area. However, as Akhil Reed Amar notes in his Slate article, " even if William Jefferson and his congressional colleagues do not have a winning constitutional argument, the president and his men might do well to tread lightly." Sage advice for the sake of constituent privacy and the peril of waking the sleeping giant in Congress.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

I'm off to visit family and cabins this Memorial Day, for only the second time in several years. I have typically tried to use my social coordinating skills to get a group of friends to spend a day at my family cabin or barbecuing at a local lake. Unfortunately, these efforts were frequently frustrated by people with other plans (although I certainly don't begrudge them their time).

Anyway, this year it's a new tactic - make my own family plans. Kloumr and I are off to see family with our new kitten on board. There will hopefully be some sailing (swimming might be a little cold), some frisbee throwing, and with any luck, some wiffle ball playing. The weather forecast looks great, for a change, so hopefully it turns out for the best.

Happy Memorial Day weekend to all my faithful (read: two) readers!

A commitment to truth in exercise

I know I grew up being told that my muscles got sore because of lactic acid, which supposedly built up in muscles because you exercised anaerobically or just exercised beyond your body's ability to supply oxygen to your muscles. However, one scientist questioned this 100-year-old finding and spent his entire life trying to discover if that was true. It's not. It turns out lactic acid is actually the fuel for muscles to burn while in use. George Brooks had discovered several years ago that lactic acid is absorbed by muscles within an hour of exercising, so wasn't likely the source of muscle soreness, which shows up hours or days later. Let's hear it for his persistence!

Now get off the computer and go groove your body.

Hair net saves transit system several thousand

Conventional wisdom suggests that government tends to react to problems with specialty solutions, all too often re-inventing the wheel. Well, not in Boston. An innovative technician for the T (the metro area transit system) discovered that a 5-cent hairnet and some duct tape worked better than any previous solution for keeping snow and ice out of T-engine intakes. In fact, the use of the hair net has now become standard policy.

Want pop? How about a diet?

In case you missed it, the United States made a huge step toward reducing its expansive waistline with the removal of soda pop from school vending machines. Thanks to negotiations by the William J. Clinton Foundation, the only beverages offered to elementary students will be fruit juices, low-fat milk and water. High school kids will still be able to buy "sports drinks" and diet pop.

For those skeptics out there, "Soda pop provides the average 12- to 19-year-old boy with about 15 teaspoons [about 1/3 cup] of refined sugars a day and the average girl with about 10 teaspoons a day." The same study on "liquid candy" (as they call pop) notes that 25 years ago, boys consumed twice as much milk as soft drinks, but that ratio has reversed. It's not just the sugar that's harmful, but the complete lack of nutritional value in soft drinks means every pop that replaces a healthy beverage reduces nutritional intake.

Good work, Mr. Clinton. We're missing you right now.

Update 5/31: Unfortunately, this legislation does not restrict so-called "sports drinks," which are capable of delivering nearly as much sugar as soda pop (and according to teacher KMR, are drunk at astonishing rates by high school kids). So much for progress against obesity...

Laws are inevitable, but compliance is optional

In the United States, we hold that our leaders are still subordinate to our laws and our Constitution. It's why the President's oath of office reads:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So it's interesting that our Presidents have, with some regularity, challenged laws enacted by Congress and used "executive discretion" to argue that they will not enforce or follow the law. What's not so remarkable is that President Bush as disproportionately resorted to this tactic, having challenged the authority of the law on no fewer than 750 occasions.

True, laws are different from constitutional articles, but one might argue that the law is the spirit of the Constitution. In his book The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria notes that the difference between successful and failed democracies is not freedom, but rule of law. The illiberal democracies have leaders who amend constitutions or ignore laws they find inconvenient, frequently throwing the country into turmoil.

It's disappointing to see that in addition to providing poor leadership on issues of human rights and torture, we're doing the same when it comes to equal justice under law.

A Leader by Example

It's fairly depressing when the world leader in freedom and democracy gets berated in front of a UN panel on torture. By China.

But before your righteous and indignant retort about Chinese hypocrisy, read up on the allegations and the American response to allegations of torture.

Nature - a commercial break

When I went camping as a kid, it was always "car camping." (I didn't even realize that was a real phrase until last year, when I went backpacking in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area for the first time). Anyway, on these childhood trips we brought along the station wagon, a Coleman stove, and a variety of games and books. We did at least leave behind things like TV, refrigerators, phones, etc. Particularly once we arrived at the various national parks and natural areas, we left everything technological behind except the camera and then went out to enjoy nature.

So why is it that today's campers can't seem to let technology go? Visitors to national parks come in RVs, unable to leave the toilet and TV behind. And now telecom companies are pressing for access to build mobile phone towers throughout Yellowstone National Park.

I certainly understand the benefits to safety - being in touch means being able to call for help. But it also means allowing people to talk to the office, to people at home, and anywhere else instead of appreciating the natural place they came to. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned and most Americans just want to do a little nature tourism, driving through Yellowstone, snapping a few photos (on camera phones, of course) and then getting to the next McDonald's.

But it seems to me that some natural areas should be experienced and not just viewed through a car window or as a brief commercial break. And to make sure there are still some of those areas, we can't put up cell phone towers or permit motorized vehicles to get everywhere. Because all it takes is one chatterbox on a cell phone to ruin the natural experience for anyone in earshot.

Conservative foreign policy has failed - so what does that leave us?

It's an interesting era in American foreign policy. Conservatives, long critical of liberal multilateralism, have finally had their time in the sun. Unfortunately, nobody was wearing sunscreen. The Iraq War has shown that unilateral nation building falls flat; Abu Ghraib has disgraced American principles of justice; and pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol has merely set us back years in tackling climate change. Perhaps it's unfair to mention that attempts to halt the nuclear amibitions of Iran and North Korea (remember them?) have gone nowhere.

But Peter Beinhart writes in the New York Times that "for all their practical failures, conservatives have at least told a coherent political story, with deep historical roots, about what keeps America safe and what makes it great."

Beinhart summarizes the conservative foreign policy as supreme confidence in American principles: "In a one-superpower world, [conservatives] argued, America no longer had to tailor its foreign policy to the wishes of others...[the] willingness to indulge governments that would not bend fully to American principles and American wishes was yet another sign that Americans did not truly believe in the righteousness of their cause."

Obviously, the belief that America can lead a benevolent empire has proven false, a promise fallen into the shadow of enormous hubris. But does America have an alternative vision?

Beinhart continues, "Liberals, by contrast, have offered adjectives drawn from focus groups and policy proposals linked by no larger theme...these disparate, worthy proposals are not grounded in an account of the world America faces, or the sources of American strength." In other words - no.

It wasn't always so. The post-World War II Marshall Plan was the pinnacle of liberal foreign policy, as was Cold War containment of Communists and the avoidance of nuclear war. So where are the liberals?

Get Sblounskched!

It's been a while since I've visited Strongbad, but during a nail-clipping episode this morning, I was looking for diversion. And there I found the "candy product" email, describing the chocolatey-covered, half-eaten pants bar.

Don't buy that hybrid just yet

Fuel efficiency doesn't have to mean hybrid. 7 of the 10 most fuel efficient cars are actuall driven by conventional gas engines.

Nostalgic procrastination

I should be working on my graduate thesis, but instead I'm watching this:

Nine cogent reasons that oil prices are high

Hint: none of them are oil company price gouging.

Let's fight fire with gasoline!

Oops! Members of Congress are belatedly realizing that when gas prices get high, citizens no longer ignore the massive tax breaks for companies making record profits.

In the typical scurry for scapegoats when faced with a tough policy decision, both Democrats and Republicans are looking to revoke massive tax cuts given to the oil and gas industry in the most recent energy bill.

So what? We'll get some of that cash back to pay down the debt or shoot some Iraqis.

Or, instead of saving the cash, let's just spend it. It's an election year, so we'll give every American a $100 gas rebate from the federal government.

Whoa! As exciting as $100 is, let's look at the original point of energy policy - a secure, stable supply of fuel for the American economy. How do these policies measure up:
1. Tax breaks for oil companies making record profits: D-. True, greater supply would help reduce prices, but a number of scientists and geologists argue that increasing supply any further isn't even possible.
2. Taking back the tax breaks for tax cuts: F. When supplies are tight enough to drive prices this high, giving people more gas money doesn't send the right message.

Instead, Congress needs to develop an energy policy that addresses the root issue: oil supplies may have peaked and we have to shift to policies that shrink demand. For example, increasing CAFE standards to raise fuel economy, creating tax breaks for fuel efficient cars (but NOT hybrid SUVs), or a bigger gas tax.

Don't test the meat - it's safe

Mad cow disease took the world by storm in the 1990s as English herds were found to carry a form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The fear spread quickly, causing many countries to ban beef imports from counties where even a single cow tested positive.

The United States avoided much of the challenge, one could argue, because the USDA refuses to test more than 1% of the herd.
Despite the emotion around mad cow, the USDA asserts that its policy of testing 1% of the American herd is sufficient because the American herd is safe (one could argue that from a statistical standpoint, 1% might suffice). Supporting the USDA's position are the facts that we've banned the use of slaughtered cattle as animal feed and only 3 cases of mad cow disease have been discovered in U.S.-raised cattle.

Since the USDA is confident of our beef safety, how might we expect them to react when one American beef company displays interest in testing every head of cattle it slaughters (at its own expense)?

Dismay, of course. If we test more cows, we might find more disease. And 58 countries banned US beef after the first mad cow case was discovered here in 2003. In fact, the USDA is so afraid that regular and thorough testing might expose previously hidden mad cow disease that they plan to prohibit Creekstone Farms from implementing full testing.

The irony is almost overwhelming, since Creekstone is pursuing full testing in order to instill confidence in its foreign customers that US beef is safe. Statistically, testing every head of cattle is silly, but Creekstone Farms has hopes to sell beef to more than just the statisticians.

A season of roaring, spewing machines

Clean the exhaust. And since they run at a volume associated with hearing loss, how about an actual muffler, too?

Politics meets internet cartoons

In a campaign for governor of Nevada, Jim Gibson has created a cartoon parody of his opponent accepting money from the evil Emperor of Enron. Has his opponent truly gone to the Dark Side?

Seconds on the brussel sprouts?

Since time began, parents have insisted that you must eat your vegetables and the US government has issued its guidelines (currently 5 servings a day). But it looks like those nutritious vegetables have been losing their nutrition. Better make that six servings a day...

The War On Drug Use, Part 2

Just a couple days after seeing news of antibiotic resistance in US agriculture comes news that drug-resistant salmonella is making rounds in Austrailian fish tanks. Apparently, ornamental fish used in home aquariums are often raised in regulation-free areas of Southeast Asia. By the time they get to an aquarium, the only bacteria left are those that have resisted the massive use of antibiotics in the fish farm.

What's more important, higher sales of ornamental fish or still having a few antibiotics that work on human disease?

A nuclear future?

Being born in 1979, the year of Three Mile Island, and seven years old when Chernobyl blew its lid in the Ukraine, it's no surprise I haven't been a big fan of nuclear power. The spent fuel is highly radioactive and contains a number of toxic heavy metals too boot. That might explain why the United States still lacks even one long-term storage facility for waste.

Furthermore, nuclear power brings along with it the risk of nuclear proliferation, a challenge we see in India and Pakistan (and Israel) - nuclear powers who have refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty - and in North Korea and Iran. Matters aren't improved when the US President threatens the use of nuclear weapons on some of these "rogue states." After all, if someone threatens to use a big gun on me, it might be to my benefit to build my own big gun, eh?

So, it's with some interest that I saw an article this Sunday by a Greenpeace founder defending nuclear power. Why?

Because the threat of global climate change is so real and so huge, and nuclear power is the only known, large-scale power supply that can replace baseload power plants like coal. The reason wind and solar can't do it, unfortunately, is because they are "intermittent" power sources (we can never be sure when and how hard the wind blows or the sun shines). Nuclear, according to Patrick Moore, can supply steady baseload power, is cheap (if you don't count construction costs), safe (from accidents), and more resilient to terrorism than many fossil fuels. Plus, it's carbon-free.

This is a big bonus, because the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is titanic. In fact, to merely avoid the doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, the world has to reduce project carbon emissions by 7 billion tons (7 gigatons) by 2055. To give you some perspective, changing almost all of the 600 coal power plants in the U.S. to nuclear would reduce carbon emissions by .7 gigatons. That's 600 new nuclear plants!

The Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative describes this kind of emission reduction strategy as the "wedge game," since emissions reductions have to get larger as time goes on. Other wedge game solutions (wedges) include increased energy efficiency, solar and wind power, higher fuel efficiency standards, etc. However, it will take multiple strategies to make it.

Since nuclear is a known commodity, even if some of its externalities such as spent fuel and proliferation aren't solved, it might be a way toward stopping climate change.

The newest front in the War on Drugs

A study in Australia has revealed that prohibiting the use of certain antibiotics in animals helps lower antibiotic resistance in human diseases. Since more vulnerable germs means easier-to-treat disease and shorter treatment times, this is a big deal.

Since many American food producers simply use drugs prophylactically to avoid disease in their animals (that are frequently kept in filthy and densely-packed buildings), perhaps following the Australian model might pay off in terms of easier-to-treat disease.

The good news is that we're already on the way. Last year, the FDA banned the use of cipro-class antibiotics in poultry. Now, how about the cows?

Go for the mpg

It turns out that some implementations of hybrid technology are more about feel-good than do-good. Take, for example, the hypothetical hybrid Dodge Durango, whose impressive 14 mpg would reap a federal tax credit, leaving the 40 mpg conventional Honda Civic out in the cold. This is environmental policy?

The inside story of government lobbying

Joey: "Dad, why is the American government the best government?"

Nick: "Because of our endless appeals system."

Go see this movie

Easter candy and motion pictures

Now that the Lord's day hath passed, it's time to investigate things more banal, such as the origin of Easter candy, the rise of peeps, and the ridiculousness that is Lord of the Peeps.

It's "summer" and it's nasty

Many of us have our rituals for marking the seasons. Planting flowers, raking leaves, shoveling snow. My measure of summer is the arrival of the temperature inversion, when being inside is suddenly cooler than being outside. Today's labor in the library is marked by temperatures that are rather uncomfortable for the jeans and polo shirt combo I selected this morning.

Despite being somewhat chilly, however, the temperature isn't what's nasty today. That award goes to an old man who's been sharing the library all day. Every 10 minutes or so, there's a furious spate of throat-clearing and phlegm-loosening that reverberates from the library walls. Get a tissue (or a spittoon)!

House for sale, $(one red paperclip)

Most people try to scrimp and save for the downpayment, but this guy decided he would start with a paperclip and try to trade his way up to a house.

He's already got a year rent-free in Phoenix to trade you...

Keep the change

This weekend, I got a call from a staff person at the library, "Hi, we found a folder of yours here and we're going to leave it at the information desk." See, one of my current jobs involves working in a public library several hours a week. So at first blush, I thought I had simply left something on the table I work at and was appreciative of the courtesy call.

The more I thought about it, though, the less it added up. I'm not actually employed by the library, but since I'm there 15-20 hours a week, I like to leave my 2-pocket folder and a related book in one of those 25-cent-deposit lockers between days there. Since the table I work at is about 8 feet square and has nothing on it except my stuff, it's kind of odd that I would have left something behind. I tend to just leave everything in the locker.

Bad idea.

See, the library staff must expect the lockers are only used by people actually in the library. So when they find one locked on a weekend, they assume it's because someone has forgotten their stuff or decided that the locker key was worth more than the 25-cent deposit. So when I arrived at the library today, I not only discovered my materials at the front desk; the library staff had disassembled the locker in order to empty it out.

After collecting my things, I sheepishly handed the now-useless key back to the receptionist, who promptly offered me the 25-cent locker deposit back. Embarrassed, I stammered out a refusal and slunk into the library, folder and book in hand.

Cost and coverage are not the same

I want to thank the Los Angeles Times for offering a very nuanced, if brief summary of Massachusetts' new law for unversal health care. For once, a reporter caught on to the fact that universal health care - while an extremely important step for justice - does little to address rising health care costs. While expanded health care coverage should reduce emergency room care by allowing people to seek less expensive preventive care, it does not actually reduce the cost of treatments or the administrative overhead of health care providers.

Note: While it does mandate that all people buy health insurance, with subsidies for the poor, the Massachusetts system will not require all employers to offer health insurance (and even when they do, they fee for non-compliance is small). It will be interesting to see how this impacts the health-care-through-employer model over time.

Jesus was nonpartisan

Garry Wills has an interesting look at Christianity in American politics, claiming that Republicans have been wrong to make Christianity our public religion and that Democrats are wrong to want Jesus on their side.

Can't Blog This?

Who knew that after his music career had peaked, MC Hammer would turn to blogging? On blogspot, no less?

Ding dong, the witch is dead!

Hooray!

Just keep breathing, George

In an essay on the difference between England's Prime Minister and our President, Woodrow Wilson once noted that to stay in power, “A Prime Minister must keep himself in favor with the majority, a President need only stay alive.”

Memo: how to oppose a war

To all those Democratic Congressmen (and women) who had trouble saying "no":

In opposition to a spending bill to escalate the Vietnam War, Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin voted nay (against nearly all his colleagues), declaring that:

The support of the Congress for this measure is clearly overwhelming. Obviously, you need my vote less than I need my conscience.

Get your poop in a group

A teacher in Bird Island, Minnesota, is currently under investigation for making several kindergarten students clean up a feces-smeared bathroom. The story notes the outraged parents and concerned school administrators who are worried about the idea of young kids having to clean up poop. The father of one of the students-turned-custodian remarked that he'd be taking his boy to the doctor.

This same father, however, noted that the bathroom in the kindergarten classroom had been smeared with feces several times over the past month. I've seen enough vomit around college dorm bathrooms to know that personal responsibility starts young. Kiddies, break out the sponges...

You get bad news because the news isn't good

Starting to believe that the press only wants to cover the bad news in Iraq? CNN's Lara Logan has a few words for you.

(Another story cribbed from 28th Avenue)

Climate change is a real problem now

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times brings his usual clarity and perspective to climate change in this op-ed from earlier this month, arguing that climate change should be absorbing a lot more of our political interest than it is.

I am shamelessly linking to another blogger who has posted this otherwise subscriber-only column.

Fire and brimstone sells better than love

As 28th Avenue notes, things get interesting when religious groups want to be on television. The United Church of Christ tried to air a commercial about its inclusiveness and it was rejected by all five networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and WB). Too controversial? You be the judge.

This ad follows on a previous spot that was also rejected by major networks. The CBS explanation for rejecting the ad was as follows:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations...and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

It's easy to respond that the UCC ad is being barred because TV networks favor the religious right, who seem to be on TV all the time. But one network, ABC, rejected the ad because it refuses to air any religious advertisement, period. And there's a distinct difference between the mediated talk show time and advertising.

But even in talk shows, the religious right seems to be favored. Focusing on ABC's This Week, a "news" talk show, the UCC notes that:

Over last eight years, individuals like Jerry Falwell, Richard Neuhaus, James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson have appeared on the program. In fact, James Dobson and Gary Bauer have appeared three times each and Pat Robertson has appeared seven times.

In the same time period, ZERO leaders have appeared from some of eight largest mainline protestant churches, representing more than 23 million parishoners.

Can't really blame the UCC for wanted to advertise...

What will they think of next?

A chair for the boys

IIt's a tax, and now we know who voted for it

Adding one more piece to the government accountability puzzle, Minnesota Public Radio has reintroduced their Votetracker, so see how well legislators back up their rhetoric. I find it refreshing that they refer to the cigarette revenue measure as a "tax."

Gmail the godsend or godforsaken?

Ha, and you thought that moldybluecheesecurds never hyped a headline.

My friend at 28th Avenue recently posted a rave review of Gmail features, a few of which I have encountered and used to great satisfaction. When it comes to speed, usability and features, I find Gmail easily bests any other webmail clients.

But what about that privacy thing? We already know that Google scans messages and offers up context ads much like it does for its famed search engine. For whatever reason, this does not bother me much. But then there's the recent court case where a judge required that a defendent's Gmail be opened to the court and it was revealed that those deleted email messages aren't really deleted.

There's probably not much sympathy for this chap, since he seems to be involved in shady doings. But privacy rights shouldn't be decided as part of criminal proceedings. Whether or not I'm ever involved in a legal row, I think I prefer that my deleted items actually are deleted. After all, even if I wrote something down, it may have been just to vent, not to share. It's disconcerting to know that while I can shred a letter I've composed, that deleted draft might dwell in a Google server for the next 30 years.

I guess there are two issues:
1) Would privacy and user intent be better respected if Google actually did "delete forever" items users had deleted?
2) Are concerns about privacy enough to prevent anyone else from using Gmail as their primary email program?

A federal budget primer

Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO)

With the recent return of deficit spending by the U.S. federal government, it pays to remind folks that there's a simple rule to return fiscal sanity. It's not a balanced budget amendment and it's not a line-item veto (the former having never been passed by Congress *gasp, surprise* and the latter being ruled unconstitutional).

Instead, we need to return to PAYGO. This rule, passed as part of the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, stated that any new spending or any tax cuts had to be budget neutral. So, if I want more money for roads, I have to raise taxes or take money from education. If I want a estate tax cut, I have to cut programs or raise taxes somewhere else. This rule includes entitlement spending increases (such as Social Security).

Overriding PAYGO would require a supermajority vote (60 votes in the 100-seat Senate).

In other words, PAYGO means you have to pay for things with real money and not borrowing. It means that renewing President Bush's tax cuts (responsible for more than 60 percent of the current deficit), would involve raising more revenue or cutting spending a similar amount. [That's almost $400 billion in credit card tax cuts - good luck]

The resistance of many conservatives to this proposal (it was recently defeated in the U.S. Senate with 51 votes - all Republican - against it) is hilarious. In fact, it's worth quoting an excerpt from a Heritage Foundation memo verbatim:

Merely retaining the "tax relief" [quotes added] that Americans now enjoy would, under PAYGO, require 60 votes in the Senate and a waiver in the House. To avoid this supermajority requirement, lawmakers seeking to prevent tax increases would have to either: A) raise other taxes; or B) reduce mandatory spending by a larger amount than has ever been enacted. Option A is still a net tax increase (raising one tax to avoid raising another), and option B is probably politically unrealistic.

To summarize the Heritage Foundation, PAYGO would force lawmakers to:
a) repeal tax cuts that were never paid for OR
b) actually follow "starve the beast" theory and cut government spending - a task that is "politically unrealistic" in large part because Americans don't actually want their government programs cut.

The kicker is the Heritage memo's conclusion that lawmakers should support the House plan (sans PAYGO) for its $13 billion in savings by cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse in entitlement programs." Maybe we should cut the $400 billion in credit card tax cuts instead.

Is the Republican sky falling?

A lot of folks on the left are salivating as President Bush's approval rating seeks a new low. But does this president's failure mean the end of the conservative movement?

Jonah Goldberg thinks the center-right is doing fine:

Majority coalitions have big internal arguments for the same reason that pirates fight over buried treasure after they find it and not when they're still looking for it: They have something to fight over. They have to govern, which means pleasing some constituencies and infuriating others.

He also notes that just as Republican presidents had to appeal to liberals during the New Deal era (Eisenhower and Nixon), Democratic presidents have to appeal to conservatives now (Clinton). He has a point.

Civilian > military

I get really tired of hearing members of Congress hide behind military commanders when it comes to taking responsibility for what happens in Iraq. In a recent interview, Representative Mark Kennedy kept repeating that we must "listen to the commanders in the field." First, on any number of occasions, this administration has not done that when it would be inconvenient (e.g. sending more troops). Second, deferring to field commanders respects their expertise and experience, but there's a reason our commander in chief is an elected civilian.

C'mon, all together now

I meant to blog about an interesting NY Times article on Democratic prospects in the 2006 election. Bush's approval rating seeks new lows and even on his vaunted issue of national security, his ratings are falling. But the Times article noted that "For Democrats, Lots of Verses, But No Chorus." In other words, each candidate has their own message to address their Republican opponent, but the party as a whole lacks the cohesive statement such as the 1994 Republican Contract With America.

Despite having waited until this article has been put behind the wall of TimesSelect, it's still an interesting point. Even though Republicans are being swept up in scandals, causing the federal budget to hemorrage money by opposing pay-go legislation, and facing the looming civil war in Iraq, Democrats still don't have a unified opposition message.

It wouldn't be that hard to say:
1) We'll impose strict new ethics standards overseen by a neutral third party
2) Balance the federal budget (like we did under Clinton)
3) and do something smarter in Iraq (you could even campaign on bringing the troops home)

No, I'm not suggesting this is the winning formula, but it's better than no cohesive message at all.

The agony of defeat

It has been noted on occasion that I have a tendency to leave things ajar. Sometimes it's the milk (I was just going to use that) or a drawer (for quicker clothes access) or a kitchen cabinets (it's easier to find things when the door is open). It's a point of tension on occasion, when one of the aforementioned cabinets meets Kloumr's head or knee or other sensitive spot.

Since I never intend to be such a point of pain, it was a special moment this morning when I realized that such incidents had virtually vanished in recent weeks. You can teach an old dog new tricks!

A split second later reality hit home, via this image of our kitchen:


Brilliant

Ports, Arabs, and Innuendo

I know you've all been hungering for an update on the ports issue (Senor Caliente aka Slumlord, in particular, likes to keep up to date on the ports).

Okay, enough juvenile sexual innuendo. On with the politics!

As you may recall, a big stink was created in the past couple weeks when the Bush administration approved Dubai Ports World from the United Arab Emirates to administer several major U.S. ports. I will spare you the charge and counter-charge of "9-11" and "terrorism" that have infested the mass media and instead deliver (without a TimesSelect subscription) Nicholas Kristof's assessment:

Let's be blunt: this fuss about ports is really about Arabs.

Kristof provides a number of balms to soothe the terrorism fever: DPW is from Dubai, the "Disneyland" of the Arab world that is pro-Western; many DPW executives are from Western countries. However, it might be worth pointing out that at some point we have to start trusting some Arabs, too, not just those that work under Westerners.

Kristof's stronger point is that we can't run our global economic policy on paranoia, because that's what "has led us to Iraq, Guantanamo and domestic N.S.A. wiretaps." There's no better fodder for Al Qaeda propagandists that the "Great Satan" using racial profiling at the ports. Sure, the world has changed since 9/11, but since we haven't had much luck winning Arab hearts with wars and breaching civil liberties, maybe it's time to try diplomacy and trade.

Two stories give this a little context:
1) I went to my caucus last night, a place for partisans to get together and select delegates to conventions, make silly party rules, and propose platform resolutions. This last item is interesting, as it's a chance for the party grassroots to set party policy. One ancient women wanted to propose a resolution against the port deal on the grounds that Muslims are called by their faith to holy war against non-Muslims. What she said explicitly is what a lot of powerful politicians are saying implicitly.

2) I had the good fortune to hear a talk by Kathleen Hall Jamieson (of factcheck.org)before I attended my caucus. She said that psychologists have known for a while that it's really easy to believe things that square with your stereotypes - in fact, it's when you hear something that sounds right that you are most likely to be duped. So when Democrats heard a couple weeks ago that the Bush administration was going to hand over ports to an Arab country despite all the 9/11 stuff, it seemed to ring true with their assessment of Bush's intelligence. I think there's a substantial chance of being duped by that interpretation. In other words, "if it seems right - think twice."

Better than goats

Always in search of the latest technological fix for our disposable culture, scientists have identified bacteria that can digest styrofoam into a recyclable and biodegradable plastic. No word yet on whether they were resistant to all antibiotics...

Childhood heroes shouldn't die young

I owe to him part of my lifetime interest in sports and my belief that one not-so-athletic appearing guy can always make a difference. It's in his image that we always tried to make leaping catches at the fence and did that silly kick-swing at the plate. Hearing Bob Casey call his name was the best part of baseball games as a child: We're sad to see you go......the centerfielder....number thirty-four....Kirbeeeeeeeeeee Puckett!

UPDATE: mlb.com has a nice tribute video including footage of Puckett's most famous hit, the homerun that forced Game 7 of the greatest World Series ever.

The clock that makes you wake up

As someone who generally snaps awake to his alarm, I always find gimmicky alarm clocks amusing. I think I posted about one that actually rolls away from you when it goes off, but this one is also fun - you have to assemble four puzzle pieces in order to disengage the alarm. Given the studies about mental capacity immediately after sleep, I don't think even a four-piece puzzle will feel amusing when waking to the sounds of the latest public radio pledge drive.

Should have gone with coaster

UPDATE (3/2/06): Apparently, this CD had not been released to the general public at the time this was originally reported. The Republican Party has promised that people will be notified that their data will be sent to the party and that the online database of names and responses will be secured (it hadn't been yet).

There's been some news about the Sony rootkit, a program that installs itself in your computer and can disable antivirus programs and or disable your hardware. Offering proof that some people should never be let near technology, the Minnesota Republicans have taken it to a whole new level. Sending you an "informational" CD on immigration and abortion issues that asks your opinion and then phones the information (including your name and address) back to GOP headquarters.

I almost feel sorry for the Republican faithful who get suckered into using this CD for anything other than a drink coaster.

Almost.

P.S. Do not, under any circumstances, put this in your computer, MyCapacity. It is not a search tool...

Life tip for February 26th

Do not apply hand lotion immediately prior to flossing teeth unless:
a) sufficient time passes between application and flossing
b) you plan to wash off said hand lotion in advance
c) you have the dexterity to floss without touching any portion of your mouth
d) you have flavorful hand lotion

I chose (e), none of the above.

Great.

Come about hard to port!

The port debate involves issues of economics, national security and politics. But I think Steve Sack captures the essence of the issue best:


I particularly enjoy the double-edged commentary. Bush gets his comeuppance for his incessant use of 9-11 to justify anything, but Democrats are simply sinking to the same level.

I'm not sure if I agree that the port issue is pure politics, but it certainly beats Terri Schiavo any day of the week.

Depicting Mohammed, a changing taboo

Over time, religions tend to change to suit the times. Popes change what Catholics can eat, and clerics change what Muslims can draw. Interestingly, depictions of the prophet Mohammed were more common in the Middle Ages, so the taboo appears to have strengthened over time. Fascinating, or it would be if people weren't being killed over it.

(added note) The host of these Mohammed images seems to have a fairly conservative, pro-Israel perspective, so I'd like to emphasize that the site should be taken with a grain of salt - as should mine. However, I followed a few links back to their source (The Metropolitan Museum of Art), so they seem to be true.

Disturbing Thing About the Bush Administration #1,048,576

From tomorrow's print edition (and right now's web edition of the New York Times:

[Senator] DeWine is calling for legislation that would explicitly authorize the wiretapping and exempt it from the 1978 law that created the intelligence court to review classified applications for wiretapping inside the United States. The White House has embraced that concept, because it would take away the uncertainties of judicial review. (emphasis added)

Uncomfortable uncertainties such as:
a) "No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" (the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
b) "Nor shall any person be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
c) And "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" (the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

Perhaps the President should recall his position on the U.S. Constitution

This is no Family Circus

Several dozen people have died, a few embassies have burned, and a lot of Muslims are offended. So what's really with these cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed?

Politics
Kwame Appiah of the Philadelphia Inquirer says it's about the political inequality. It's easy to shrug off slights of your religion and person when you are powerful and the slanderous are not. But when a Danish paper can mock one billion Muslims with impunity, it's more about the political power to do so. Appiah has a nice historical role reversal, of a Saint Perfectus in 9th Century Spain.

The Christian Science Monitor seconds the political notion, but argues that it's internal. Arab leaders (in countries like Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) are looking to score political points with their people by creating a common enemy to rally around, in their ongoing competition against Al Qaeda for the hearts of the faithful. In Iran, for example, young activists have protested in favor of greater democracy and secular government. This cartoon fiasco is the perfect chance to create "Persian nationalism" and anti-Israeli sentiment.

Free Speech
The Christian Science Monitor and others also discuss the free speech issue. For example, CSM editors opine that the Danish newspaper had the free speech right to publish the cartoons, but that the Danish paper recklessly used its freedom in solicited offensive depictions of Mohammed. Other US Media outlets such as the Washington Post agree that it's no reduction in free speech to refrain from publishing gratuitously offensive material.

Time Magazine writer Andrew Sullivan argues that its one thing to enforce a taboo internally, but one can't expect non-believers to adhere to Islamic taboos. "I eat pork, and I'm not an anti-Semite," he writes.

Writer David Morris also defends free speech, in particular for the opportunity to learn about other cultures. How, for example, can Americans even understand what is offensive if they can't see the cartoons? Or why, you might add, was it okay for an Egyptian newspaper to publish the cartoons with a condemnation if the depiction of Mohammed is always taboo? His strongest point concerns Salman Rushdie, who wrote a novel called the Satanic Verses that earned him the following:

In February 1989, the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict. He called for Rushdie's death, for blasphemy. His fatwa extended also to "those publishers who were aware of its contents...I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islam again...…" Iran offered a $1 million reward to spur Rushdie's execution.

In other words, these Danish publishers were trying to emphasize how fear of violence from extremist adherents of Islam is chilling free speech, even in European countries.

Was it worth it?
Judge for yourself. This link goes to the Brussels Journal, allowing you to see all 12 cartoons for yourself.

Let the idiocy air out

An interesting twist on free speech has arisen in Minnesota this week. Since the war in Iraq began, there has been a consistent effort by partisans of both stripes to paint the war favorably or unfavorably. Politicians, parties and their associates debate whether the war was a distraction or an intergral part of the War on Terror, and whether we are in fact "making progress," as President Bush says several times a day. This week, the battle is back in advertising.

A local television station in Minneapolis, KSTP, has taken the bold step of refusing to air an issue advertisement by the conservative 527 Progress for America Voter Fund. This "Midwest Heroes" video is an effort to sway public opinion on the war by politicizing troops returned home. These citizen soldiers exercise their free speech to say that the Iraq War is the front in the War on Terror (Al Qaeda is the enemy!) and that the media distorts the real progress being made in Iraq. Their message is driven home by the burning World Trade towers as their backdrop. KSTP's rationale for refusing the ad is that their newscast does not distort the facts, and they will not air a commercial that falsely accuses them of doing so.

In fact, KSTP is correct that the advertisement is false, misleading, inaccurate (ad nauseum). However, these soldiers and their conservative financial backers still have the right to express their opinion. In fact, with the reprehensible misuse of World Trade Center footage as the backdrop, I think increased airtime only enhances the morally vacuous nature of the piece.

But here's the best part. The ads claim that "the media" distorts the truth about Iraq. Let's address a few reasons why the reports from Iraq might not be to the heroes' satisfaction:

• 2,273 American deaths since 2003.
  
• Al Qaeda only showed up in Iraq because the U.S. decided to attack.
  
• The whole "going to war on false pretenses" thing.
  
• "virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below preinvasion values." (2/9/06 NY Times story by James Glanz)

So what's that media bias, again?

What. Were. You. Thinking.

It was one in the morning
and all through the house
not a creature was stirring
not even a mouse.

When outside there began
such a scrape and a roar
men with snow shovels
and two big ass snowblowers.

They cleaned up the sidewalk
from the front to the back
and then did the driveway
of noise there's no lack!

The kicker was talking
like it's noon of broad day
so I called the cops
to come haul them away.

Alas it's too late
to get a night's sleep
But maybe next time
better hours they'll keep!

Bush sets de-facto troop withdrawal date

After months of machismo about troop withdrawal, the Bush administration found a backdoor method to set a withdrawal dealine - the federal budget. By forecasting no expenditures beyond 2007 for either the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts, the Bush administration budget is saying that all the troops should be home by Christmas '07.

Among other implicit policies: no more aid for New Orleans after 2006, no changes in the Alternative Minimum Tax, and no plans for handling skyrocketing Medicare costs (an unfunded liability topping $62 trillion).

But the deficit will be halved by 2009. And the troops will be home!

Getting too big for his britches

Alberto Gonzales was on the stand yesterday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend the executive branch's claim that it has been given extra-legal powers to conduct surveillance without warrants. Some features of his testimony:

Senator Russ Feingold accuses him of perjury, because Gonzales responded to a question about such a warrantless surveillance program during his confirmation hearing with "that would be entirely hypothetical." Since the program was underway at that point, I guess it wasn't hypothetical was it, Mr. Gonzales?

Senator Arlen Specter notes that Congress was trying to make warrants easier to obtain at the time this program began, effectively saying, "we, the law-making body, will make it easier for you to legally listen in on suspected terrorists." In other words, Congress was affirming that Bush did not have the authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to pursue warrantless wiretaps.

Not only is Bush unashamed that his administration has clearly overstepped the authority granted it by Congress, but he has the audacity to say that he can act without legal authority. The last time a president so flagrantly violated the law, he was forced into resignation. Take note, Mr. President: in the land of checks and balances, the pendulum always swings back.

Get the beef and get it faster (rev3)

One reason I remain only mildly impressed by the President's attention-grabbing note that we are "addicted to oil" is that his proposal doesn't really ask people to work that hard. Reduce oil imports...(good)...from the Middle East...(okay, that's still most less than half (thanks, Slummy!) of them)...by 75%...(I'd like to go for energy independence, but 75% ain't bad)...by 2025...(all these caveats and it takes 19 years?).

No, the economy doesn't turn on a dime and neither does the way we use oil. But 19 years? Even a private company (GE) has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in six years. Why can't we move quickly?

Let's think about this. 2/3 of our oil goes to the transportation sector. We already have the technology to have cars run on 80% biofuel (such as ethanol), to be gas/electric hybrids, and to plug in to the wall to give us the first 20 miles from electricity each day. Thomas Friedman has noted that this could push fuel efficiency over 500 mpg. If we review the "Nerdy Math" section from my original post on this, we could achieve complete oil independence in two years for the lowly sum of $170 billion. That's about 6.6% of the total federal budget, but it gets the job done in 1/10th the time. What are we waiting for?



P.S. How to get $170 billion? We use 9,063,000 barrels of gasoline per day, that's 139 billion gallons a year. If we increase the federal gas tax by $1.22 $0.61 a gallon, we pay for energy independence in two years (sorry about that. The initial figure would have financed the change in one year). It costs, but it's better than sending that money to the mullahs.

We're addicted to oil

In the first step in moving the United States along a 12-step program, President Bush finally admitted that this country is addicted to oil on Tuesday night. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to watch the speech, so until I give the transcript a full read, I'm relying on secondhand assessments. One, by the Christian Science Monitor notes that although Bush's bold statement talks about reducing oil imports from the Middle East by 75% over the next 19 years (once again, a ridiculously long time horizon for a Bush environmental proposal), his plan doesn't really match.

"The president's initiative ties an oil savings target to a basket of energy solutions for homes and businesses, which have nothing to do with our oil problem," Gal Luft of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, an energy security think tank in Washington, said in an e-mail.

It's a bold statement, George, but where's the beef?

This is not a liberal post

In honor of my Ferret Friend, and at risk of driving traffic to a site filled with misinformation, I present to you a selection from the "Liberal Dictionary." A preview for those who prefer not to click through:

• Public Interest- A liberal cause.
  
• Special Interest- A conservative cause
  
• The Poor- Anyone who will vote for liberals but can't make a donation to the DNC
  
• Campaign Finance Reform- What needs to happen when Republicans find legitimate ways to raise more money than Democrats
  
• Right-wing Extremist-
  1. Any Appellate or Supreme Court nomination by a conservative President.
  
• Loophole- Giving a conservative a special tax break
  
• Target Tax Cut- Giving a liberal a special tax break

And proving that in every partisan screed, there is at least one nugget of truth:

• Media Bias- The right-wing slant of The Washington Times, National Review, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Channel.

A few more facts on this economic analysis

My ferret friend recently noted that President Bush is "a failure as a President and a person." While this sounded like a great preamble, Mr. Business went on to tout the President's record on the economy. An analysis follows:

In 3rd Quarter 2005 GDP grew 3.8%...But actually, that's the tenth consecutive quarter of growth over 3%. To put that in perspective, it's the longest streak of consistent growth since World War II.

I almost hate to point it out, but according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the so-called "Clinton expansion" recorded 37 straight quarters of GDP growth (inflation adjusted). According to my eyeball analysis, 13 of those quarters had a higher percentage growth in GDP than all but one quarter under Mr. Bush's tenure. So maybe it's not quite time for the champagne.

Other indexes are equally good. 4.2 million jobs have been created since May 2003.

The main issue I have with this stat is that it's an example of "any statistic looks good if you pick the right window." A look at employment statistics shows (naturally) that May 2003 was the last month of the recession. Slick, let's count jobs since then! Of course, one could also point out that this job growth is not (comparatively) so great. During two consecutive comparable timeframes in the 1990s, we added 7.0m and 6.6m jobs.

The current unemployment average of 5% is lower than averages in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s,

So, this unemployment statistic compares a one-month figure against a decade-long figure...Anyway, I should point out that average unemployment was below 5% for five consecutive years from 1997-2001, not just one month. As for decades, how about comparing the 2000s to these prior decades instead of just January 2006?

and inflation has remained tame.

Inflation always pisses me off, because policy wonks like to study "core inflation" which leaves out "volatile" items like food and energy (you know, things you can't do without). Anyway, according to some more government sources, inflation is running at its highest two-year average in at least the past 10 years. I got too lazy to look back further since the Census Bureau notes that median household income is unchanged after inflation from 2002-2004. Now that's stagflation.

But we have to wait and see if Congress will extend the 2003 tax cuts which expire in 2008. These cuts are pro-investment, and failure to extend them is equivalent to a 33% tax hike on capital gains, and a 133% bump on dividends. The market won't like that. However, if Congress extends them, the Dow could go over 12,000.

Since the Bush economy is going so great, how about balancing the federal budget again? The Congressional Budget Office shows that these "pro-investment" tax cuts have driven the deficit consistently above 300 billion until 2012 (above 500 billion if we're honest and don't count the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund), when many of the tax provisions expire. Oh, and let's not forget that these tax cuts are all about the rich, with an increasing share going to the wealthiest 1%.

I'd go so far as to say that the economy is going good, but I don't think it's time to celebrate. Especially when the President has authorized illegal spying on Americans. After all, this is a post-9/11 world and we have to be wary of those who hate what America stands for. Like our President.

Politics is the opiate of the partisan

A new study by Emory University has confirmed what conventional wisdom had been saying for years: strong partisans ignore the facts. In other words, those bleeding-heart liberals will catch every contradiction in President Bush's statements, but explain away all the gaffes or inconsistencies of their own candidate's positions. Same goes for Republicans.

Apparently, the catching of contradictions in an opposing candidate or the smoothing of your own is quite satisfying. Researchers on the project described this reaction as "similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix."

There will be some happy folks around town next Tuesday.

Less purity, more spunk

Minnesota Democrats, called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party for the past 60 years have finally figured out that winning is more important than purity. For years, candidates have been damned by the party for running in the primary after the endorsement process. This year, the floodgates have opened and candidates in state races across the board are planning to take their case to the general public in the fall.

Basically, the promise to abide by the endorsement was just a stupid purity test. If the endorsement is really worth something, then it should carry a candidate through the primary. It hasn't, nor has it helped the DFL do well in general elections. There hasn't been a DFL governor in Minnesota since 1990. It's time for a little less purity.

Earn some extra credit

I'm finishing my master's in public policy this semester, and this excerpt from a course on energy use and the environment should explain why I'm not suffering from an abudance of free time:

The relative importance of land plants (versus uptake by the ocean) is also indicated by a latitudinal gradient in the isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2, which is fractionated by photosynthesis, but not by dissolution in seawater.

(Reproduced without permission).

5 points if you can identify the source of this obscure quote.
15 points if you can post a comment explaining what it actually means.

NBC News, fair and balanced

I caught the NBC Nightly News last night over dinner and noticed something fascinating. All in a tizzy over the new bin Laden tape, the news analyst described for us again how Osama has managed to stay at large for so long. According to the correspondent,

In 2000, when caught on tape in Afghanistan by a CIA Predator drone, the Clinton administration failed to pull the trigger. Then, three months after 9/11, bin Laden was reportedly wounded in the battle of Tora Bora but still managed to escape.

Nice. When it was a Democratic president, the president failed. When Bush was in power, bin Laden "managed to escape." Thank you, NBC, for your "fair and balanced" coverage.

Black Friday

Today, I shelled out $150 to injustice. Not to some greedy corporation, or even a mafia don. No, I shelled out $150 in a mercy plea to my state university.

If this had been a private corporation, I could have contested the collections notice without even having a mark on my credit report. At the University, however, you have to contest under duress, because they do the following:
a) put a hold on your student account that freezes financial aid, prevents course registration, and even stops you from graduating.
b) threaten to forward your debt to the state department of revenue, whereby it will be garnished in full from your income and property tax returns.

This is similar to when the United States enters into trade negotiations with Ethiopia.

The whole business was over a bus pass that I was supposed to cancel, but didn't, and that the University failed to cancel when I contacted them two months later. So instead of a cancelled bus pass and a two month bill, I got billed for nine months of a bus pass I didn't even have anymore. Of course, I have no records of my cancellation, since I did it over the phone and the U claims to have contacted me by phone and mail on several occasions after my March phone call (though I received none of these communiques).

The irony is that the bus pass in question was discarded the day I quit my job, so it had long been incinerated or landfilled. I only wish it could have been picked out of the dumpster by some welfare mom and used for those nine months, so I could have heard about it as some scandalous news story instead of feeling like I just paid for a nine-month old piece of trash.

Science - always learning new things

Most folks understand that sleep deprivation can increasestress and anxiety and decrease physical performance. But apparently, so can sleeping. In the minutes just after waking up, even from eight hours of rest, volunteers on a sleep study "have more impaired thinking and memory skills than someone kept awake for 24 hours -- equivalent to being drunk."

While I can't say I'm surprised, having earned a fair share of bruised shins moving from bedroom to bathroom in the morning, I guess it's nice to have scientists quantifying all of this. Plus, now you have something to tell the officer when you get pulled over. "I'm sorry, officer, I just woke up. Just give me a few miles and it'll wear off."

In other news, scientists have also discovered how bees fly. Ahh, science. Always learning.

Touching convenience

The Cub Foods I frequent has recently introduced a Pay-By-Touch system. Attached to each credit card swiper at the checkout is a little pad right out of a Bond movie. You place your finger on the pad and *voila*, your checking account can be debited without writing out "eighty-five and 00/---------". Slick system, but I can't help but wonder about security.

To apply, you need a voided check and a photo ID. So I guess that's a fairly standard measure. It's as much as a credit card company requires to set up automatic payment. But what about the touch scanner? A CNN affiliate (KOIN - nice consumer reporting!) looked at the system, but didn't ask much about the security of it. In fact, they were more interested in asking whether Joe Blow thought it was safe than asking a security expert.

And where does Pay-By-Touch store all that personal information? I've received a couple of those "your information may have been compromised" notices in the past few months from my bank and mortgage company, so how do I know these guys are any good? It's just one more place personal information can be leaked.

The convenience, of course, is the sales pitch. No cards, signatures, or checks, no wallets or pockets. Just a fingerprint and a receipt. Of course, nothing can save you from the customer in front of you who grabbed the wrong coupon item and wants to wait for the largest and slowest employee in Cub history to go fetch it from the far corner of the store. And with Pay-By-Touch, you don't even have a credit card with which to open a vein...

A new year survey

It's 2006 and time to resume writing things for my faithful one or two readers. I've been on vacation and there's nothing more fun than staying as far away from one's place of work (the laptop in my study) unless it's to play Roller Coaster Tycoon. They've now reached the third iteration of this fun game, and managed to reduce all the fun of designing coasters and making a good theme park into a mish-mash of cutesy graphics. Congrats.

Anyway, here's a survey of interesting things in the world since I last touched the keyboard:
1. Courtesy of 28th Avenue, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean stuffs Wolf Blitzer's attempt to be a Republican pretty boy. No, Wolf, Jack Abrahamoff gave money to Republicans for votes. No Democrat received any money from Abrahamoff. None.

2. In the spirit of the New Year, former state finance commissioner John Gunyou tells the Minnesota Legislature how to govern. My favorite? Focus on what matters. Here's a hint: The future of our state is not inextricably linked to guns, gays, gambling or gametes. And for those who may have forgotten, Change that silly law that pretends inflation doesn't exist. That's the law that says we don't calculate inflation for expenses, just for income. And we thought Enron played cheap.

3. Eminent domain. Whereas previously eminent domain was reserved for public goods like highways or urban "renewal," there was a landmark ruling in the Supreme Court last year allowing cities to use eminent domain for private economic development. In other words, if the city thinks your plot of land is worth more as a Target than the Johnson family residence - goodbye! While Supreme Court justices might call it constitutional, legislators are realizing it may be hard to win re-election if the government grabs constituent land for private use. One bill in Congress threatens to withhold federal economic development funds from municipalities that use eminent domain in this new fashion. However, that might not be threat enough if the potential tax windfall is greater.

4. The peace process in Israel is in as frail a condition as its prime minister. Ariel Sharon's bold strategy to unilaterally withdraw from Palestinian territories represents a badly needed move in the peace process and its unclear if this strategy will long outlive the ailing PM. By pulling many hawks on the right into a centrist coalition, he had a rare chance to solidify support for setting permanent borders. The Christian Science Monitor examines some of the potential consequences if Sharon is unable to return.