Continuing from the previous post, we see McCain countering Obama's lack of boldness with a strong attack. Not wasting any time, he plumbs the depths of his own misunderstanding:

There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market, which in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or delivery of oil. [...] [W]e all know that some people on Wall Street are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising. And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end -- using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car. Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished.

Breathtaking! The man has come to play ball, giving 110% percent and taking it one game at a time. Extra credit for that bit about "productive commerce." The good old "labor theory of value" is always a winner.

How exactly does speculation in the oil futures market drive up the price of oil? Suppose I bet you that oil will be over $300/barrel next June. I am not buying any oil. Neither are you. I agree to pay you the difference in dollars if oil is under $300, you will pay me the difference if it's over $300. One of us will likely come out on top next June, but will our demand for oil change? No. Will a third party's demand for oil change? No. Will the quantity of oil supplied change? No. Will prices be affected by our bet? No. Please enlighten me John McCain, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill O'Reilly. Explain to me the mechanism, then maybe I will be willing to continue listening to your blathering.

Speculation in real estate and stocks (not in futures) is not the same thing, because in these cases speculators actually go out and buy houses, land or stock. If enough people do this, demand increases. The market becomes a seller's market, and the price goes up. But speculation in oil futures does not involve going out and buying oil, sequestering it in a tank somewhere with the plan of selling it later. If that were how it worked, then yes, it would affect the price. But that's not the way it works.

I wonder if McCain et al. believe that betting on a horse increases its speed. I wonder if they think buying homeowner's insurance boosts burglary rates. I'm afraid that they might.

Obama:

"Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," [Obama] said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

What fun! The presidential candidates are in a contest to see who is more economically ignorant. Obama opens with a classic Luddite platform, with a bit of socialism thrown in for flavor. Not a particularly bold opening strategy, but certainly a safe one. Once McCain counters, there will be plenty of opportunities to pull out the really inane ideas. National Industrial Policy perhaps? Let's wait and see!

Found via Instapundit.

* Ann comments: It dumbfounds me how, with a population of 300 million people, we ended up with these two as our only choices. They are both awful. We should be able to do better than this.

In "Singing in the Rain", neither the female nor the male lead are the ones to watch for the really fantastic dancing. Gene Kelly might have been the star and lauded for his dancing abilities, but just put in the disk, forward to "Moses Supposes" and see whose dancing draws your attention most. Donald O'Connor has greater grace and fluidity--and even style--in that routine. You can also tell that the filmmakers knew it. You see, through most of the really difficult bits, O'Connor is the one on the left of the screen. All else being equal, that's the side most people's eyes are drawn to (probably because we read left to right and we are hard-wired to look first to the left.) So, traditionally in dancing, you put your best dancers on the audience's left. You've gotta think that even Gene Kelly knew that, and knew which of the two of them should get the prime placement. This speaks a lot for Kelly, that he knew a better dancer when he saw one and wasn't such an ego as to place himself always in the prime spot.

After you've watched "Moses" a half dozen times, find the "Make 'Em Laugh" routine to see a dancer putting his life on the line for a fantastic routine. Pick any of the great wow-dances from Astaire (eg. dancing with a hat rack, or on the ceiling) and put it up against "Make 'Em Laugh" and my guess is most people would pick O'Connor's choreography and death-defying antics. Astaire couldn't have done that routine, and I doubt Kelly could have either. According to the IMDB:

For the "Make Em Laugh" number, Gene Kelly asked 'Donald O'Connor' to revive a trick he had done as a young dancer, running up a wall and completing a somersault. The number was so physically taxing that O'Connor, who smoked four packs of cigarettes a day at the time, went to bed (or may have been hospitalized, depending on the source) for a week after its completion, suffering from exhaustion and painful carpet burns. Unfortunately, an accident ruined all of the initial footage, so after a brief rest, O'Connor, ever the professional, agreed to do the difficult number all over again.

As for Debbie Reynolds; the 19 year old actress had never danced before being cast in "Singing in the Rain". For a complete novice, she did a pretty good job holding her own between O'Connor and Kelly.

But to watch a great dancer once again stealing the spotlight from Gene Kelly, go to "Broadway Melody" and watch Cyd Charisse. Lithe, lanky, and beautiful, she steals the show. I can't think of any other dance from the golden age of the MGM musical as dramatic and sensual as Cyd's work in her only scene in the movie.

Sadly, Cyd Charisse died on Tuesday here in Los Angeles.

Here's Astaire commenting on Charisse:

"When you dance with Cyd Charisse, you've been danced with."

Now I'm going to pop in one of her movies and enjoy a great dancer in her prime.

I was surprised to come across a mention of Grinnell College on National Review's website...in an article by Thomas Sowell, no less:

[ Measuring college outputs ] One of my own favorite measures of output— the percentage of a college’s graduates who go on to get Ph.D.s — was not used by either set of evaluations.

Small colleges dominate the top ten in sending their alumni on to get doctorates. Grinnell College, which was not among the top ten on either the U.S. News list or on Professor Vedder’s list, sends a higher percentage of its graduates on to get Ph.D.s than does either Harvard or Yale.

The college I went to is right smack between flooded Des Moines and flooded Iowa City. So, naturally, I was worried about the condition of the campus. Turns out, there was no need to be worried. (Background info: about a third of the campus of Grinnell College is on the opposite side of a set of railroad tracks from the rest of campus--at times, you'd have to wait for the train to go by to go to class.)

[ Grinnell College ] As much of Iowa and the Midwest battle rising waters, we are fortunate in Grinnell to confront only storms, waterlogged gardens, and wet basements. When the Rock Island Railroad identified "the summit of the divide between the Skunk and Iowa Rivers" to intersect their tracks, then J.B. Grinnell established his "colony," and then trustees relocated the campus in 1858, it assured the College — figuratively and now literally — would stand on solid ground.

Shows you they were a smart bunch of folks back then.

I love this.

[ London Mayor Boris Johnson on deciding to wear a helmet:] As I cycled around, I felt a surge of bonneted righteousness. I was socialised; I was showing a proper sense of community, and that is why I turned around on my doorstep, and within another three seconds I would have gone back to get my helmet, and I would have fastened the chinstrap of social obedience … except that for some reason I didn't. After weeks of helmeted conformity, I had a spasm of rebellion - and it is hard to say exactly why.

[On the other hand...] I have also brooded on the results of some study in Australia, which showed that making bike helmets compulsory deterred so many people from cycling that there was a rise in obesity - and more people ended up dying of heart attacks than were saved by the head-gear.

The Obama people have opened up a "Fight the Smears" website. Sounds like a nice idea, but it's been done before. The trouble with these things is that they quickly devolve into political positioning rather than clarifications. It won't be long before you see this sort of thing:

• Lie: Obama's healthcare plan will result in healthcare shortages and increased costs.
• Fact: Obama's plan calls for health care for every American at a savings of hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

• Lie: Obama's plan to raise taxes will hinder economic growth and cost Americans jobs.
• Fact: Obama's economic plan calls for tax fairness and economic opportunities for all Americans.

• Lie: Obama's foreign policy will encourage our enemies and legitimize dictators.
• Fact: Obama's plan calls for a strong and peaceful America.

You get the picture. Also, it seems that the site has already done its own job of smearing.

The first smear mentioned: "LIE: Rush Limbaugh says a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word 'whitey' from the pulpit of Trinity United." Well. No. This is what Limbaugh said: "The rumor is -- and we don't like dealing with rumors here -- but the rumor is that Michelle Obama from the pulpit of this church used the term 'whitey.' Some are saying be very careful with this because she might have said 'why'd he,' why did he, the contraction 'why'd he' instead of 'whitey.' " He added: "I can't find anybody who's seen it."

Fight the Smears is not off to a good start.

I think Charles Krauthammer is one of the brightest pundits out there. His articles are always worth reading. Here, he points out the benefits of a tax on energy.

Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians, and Iranians do the taxing for us — and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.

Greg Mankiw links to Krauthammer's article too, as part of his ongoing series of links to relevant to the "Pigou Club." While I generally agree with the benefits of such a tax, I am less certain about what the outcome would be.

It's clear that if people know they are going to get rebated for a gas tax (as Charles indicates), then the tax will have no effect at all. In particular, whatever money is going to the Saudis etc. will continue to go there. Yes, this is true within the idealized model of the economy, but that's the playing field for economic analysts, isn't it?

It is not clear to me why the oil supply is more inelastic than the demand. Charles' and others' implicit assumption that an oil tax (or "windfall profits tax") will not just be passed on to consumers is based on a tax incidence analysis that you can read about here.

Unless the supply curve is steeper than the demand curve, at least half of the tax will show up as higher prices.

I have another point to make about this, to follow in another post.

I think it's important to remember that economics isn't really a science. For every economist that says oil prices will not rise much with a tax, you can probably find another who will say the opposite. Even if the economists agree on the equations governing the economy, they might not agree as to the outcome of a particular policy. Such equations, like theorems in math, are only correctly applied when the conditions fundamental to the theorem are met. With economics, there is most often a large degree of uncertainty as to the state of the economy or market under examination. Economists can't even agree if we are in a recession now or not.

This is kind of fun:

I didn't know until now that the original such Obama posters were made by ObeyGiant, an urban collective art project that's been around for twenty years or so. You have probably seen those creepy black, white and red "Obey" stickers pasted around cities.
The face in those stickers is wrestler/actor Andre the Giant, by the way. I can't say that I ever appreciated the whole "vandalism as art" thing. Now it seems to have gone a bit commercial and main$tream. And endorsing a presidential candidate? Doesn't seem very counter-culture to me. I wonder what ObeyGiant's positions on Social Security and free trade are.

This is the twentieth anniversary of Ronald Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech at the Brandenburg gate. A great moment.



Coincidentally, I happened to see "The Lives of Others" last night. It's a very good film that I highly recommend. It won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. This guy gives it a very appreciative and well-written review.

This post points to a case that may be considered by the Supreme Court regarding in-state tuition for illegal aliens at colleges and universities. It seems to me that the Kansas law (and similar laws in other states) is intended to allow for lower tuition for all residents of Kansas, without regard to their immigrant status. Thus they grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens who graduated from Kansas high schools, but not to US citizens who graduate from, say, Missouri high schools. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, Kansas may want to encourage the education of its residents, illegal or not. I don't see why I should care if Kansas wants to spend its tax dollars that way. The Kansas statute, according to what I could find on the web, requires illegal aliens to apply for legal status before this benefit is granted.

However, this also seems to be in violation of a federal law enacted during the Clinton administration:

Section 1623. Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment
of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits

(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any post secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
(b) Effective date
This section shall apply to benefits provided on or after July 1, 1998.

It looks to me that this law was specifically written to prevent tuition benefits such as the one in Kansas, especially that bit about "without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." So, whether or not one agrees with the law in Kansas, there is another issue, which is the enforcement of federal law. For some reason, immigration laws don't seem to carry the same weight as other federal laws. It has gotten to the point where towns, cities, and states feel free to flaunt (standard usage now!?) them.

This, I think, is a serious problem. Government is not going to work if people feel free to ignore laws they don't agree with, with the understanding that the executive branch is not interested in enforcement. If congress passes a law, and the executive branch ignores it while the court chooses not to hear the case, it amounts to an extra-constitutional veto.

Addendum- Thinking about this a bit more, it may be that Kansas is ok with this federal law, if it actually makes sure that illegal aliens apply for resident status before they get the benefit. Just applying may give the alien legal status while his or her application is being processed.

Congratulations to Ireland for rejecting the Lisbon Treaty.

Due to France and Belgium Holland--two countries who couldn't be more central to the EU--rejecting the Eurocrats' last attempt at forming a European super-state in 2005, only Ireland was permitted to hold a referendum this time around. And they were allowed it only because their constitution demanded it. If there was any way around it, the EU would have found a way.

As of now the results are:

No: 53.66%
Yes: 46.34%
with 45.56% of the votes counted.

There are already rumblings among the European elite about implementing the treaty anyway through the back door. After all, pesky little things like public opinion and democracy should not be allowed to stand in the way of the Great European Project.

With the recent reports that the sun has gone dormant with respect to sunspots, and with reports that other planets seem to be showing signs of cooling, it would be nice if we could come up with a space-based temperature measurement.

My guess is, that this would be easy.

I would think the Hubble, telecommunications satellites, or any number of artificial satellites probably have thermocouples on board to determine whether the thermal-shielding is working properly. I would think the Hubble's solar panels would have some sort of a heat tracking system--heck, what is a space-based solar panel but one big solar-output measuring device.

So, shouldn't we be able to assemble at least 18 years worth of solar output statistics based on such data? It would be interesting to see the variations and get a measurement that isn't tainted by light scattering in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases, feedback loops, or environmental gasbags.


Addendum by Steve: This is already done, I believe, by NASA.
"Our friend the sun. The sun is by far the hottiest planet in the solar system and would burn if...burn you...if you tried to eat it."
-Chris Peterson

It's wrong to judge others' cultures...

At least 19 albinos have been killed in Tanzania in the past year, victims of a growing trade in albino body parts.

but come on! Read the whole story. I am keenly aware of how fortunate I am for having been born in the USA.

From the Great White North:

Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.

What will those affable little snow creatures think of next? I can see why the American Left continues to see Canada as some sort of paradise. It doesn't have that pesky 1st amendment to stand in the way of progress.


As an American, I am often offended by insensitive comments coming out of Canada. Perhaps I should file a complaint with their Human Rights commission too. It's time to stop the hate.

I watched Juno last night. This is the critically acclaimed movie from last year that won an academy award for best screenplay. It's a story about Juno, a 16 year old high school student who gets pregnant and decides to give the baby up for adoption. You can see from RottenTomatoes that it got a 100% rating from top critics. Roger Ebert, in particular, gave it a gushing review and declared it the best picture of the year.

I beg to differ. I think the movie was ok, and I made it through to the end, but it is not anywhere near as good at the critics say. In fact, much of what audiences and critics liked about the movie I just found tiresome:

1) The characters aren't remotely real. Juno's character in particular behaves like no 16 year old I ever knew. This is especially so in the first 15 minutes of the movie, where her reaction to her pregnancy is insouciance and little else. Her hip-ness and coolness grates on you throughout the entire movie. Only her mother in law (surprisingly), her father, and her boyfriend seem remotely real, but they are not very central to the movie. Frankly, even the characters in the quirky Napoleon Dynamite seem more real.

2) The dialog is too edgy for its own good. Every line between Juno and her friend is filled with hip jargon and foul language. Practically every slang word ever uttered is worked in somehow. Boss? Her boyfriend is boss? Juno and the adoptive father-to-be discuss obscure punk bands from the 70s. Sure. Juno discusses admiringly the films of Dario Argento, citing Suspiria (1977) in particular. Give me a break. Suspiria, by today's standards (Saw and Hostel,) would seem like a joke to today's 16 year old.


3) The music. So very very bad. It's a collection of indie rock/folksongs from no-talent "bands." I guess having no musical ability is what passes for talent these days. If you can't sing or play guitar, why not celebrate that fact and become an indie folk-rock singer/guitar-player? Anyone can make an album these days. It doesn't mean everyone should.

I seem to be getting more and more removed from mainstream tastes in movies. I'm not sure why. I had a similar reaction to "Dan in Real Life," another critically acclaimed stinker filled with characters I would avoid in real life.

Hence the title of this post. Is it them or me?

On my former blog, I used to carefully track the employment statistics which came out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics each month. This means that the first Friday of every month is Data Day!!

What has surprised me most in the past year and a half, is that the job numbers have been really pathetic for 18 months now, but the press has said very little about them.

If you're unfamiliar with how this report works, here's a primer.

There are actually 2 employment reports that come out each month. The first is the "Household Survey". The BLS calls people up and asks them if they and other adults in their house have jobs. That's then tallied into one employment number. It is this survey which provides the data for the Unemployment Rate, which this month is up to 5.5%.

The second survey is the "Establishment Survey". The BLS calls major employers and asks them how many people are working in their factory/offices. This is usually the data that is talked about each month.

I track both, but it is the Household Survey that has been the most interesting.

The numbers have been a flat line since December, 2006.



The average number of jobs added a month from 3/04 - 12/06 was 231,000.
The average number of jobs added a month from 12/06 - 6/08 was    6,667.

Now, I've speculated that these numbers aren't quite what they seem, because there are a number of factors adding in to these.

For example, in May, 08, the number of people reporting that they have jobs dropped by 285,000, but the size of the labor force grew by 577,000. Creating a swing of 861,000 more unemployed. Where did the half a million people now looking for work come from? In April that number was only 173,000 (and 362,000 new jobs were added, for a positive swing of 189,000 fewer unemployed.)

Other factors which may be adding to the flat-line:

• Reports keep coming in that illegal aliens are leaving the country for home. Since the BLS has no way of distinguishing a legal from an illegal person over the phone, they are included in the statistics. As they leave, the number of job-seekers and job-holders should drop.
  
  
• At some point soon, the Baby Boomers' retirement will begin being a major force in these statistics. Early retirements are already hitting the statistics as the start of the wave is turning 63. Ten years from now the peak of the baby boom will be in their early 60's and starting to leave the work force. This has been talked about as a major problem for the future—lack of workers to pay for the massive numbers of retirees, but no one puts 2 and 2 together and mentions that the employment statistics must take a hit accordingly.

Which brings me to the odd question: if there have been essentially no jobs added in the last year and a half, why aren't the media using that fact in their arsenal to bash Bush with?

My guess, in line with what I said in a post below (about statistics being the most-important/worst-taught class in school), I doubt there's a reporter out there competent enough in either basic math or the workings of a spread sheet to bother putting the data in every month. It takes about 3 minutes to update a chart, but I guess hunting for the next Larry Craig is more interesting.

From a local blogger:

Thanks to a reader, it has come to my attention there are some mistakes in one of my stories from today’s paper. In “Review requested of Conquest inquisition” the phrase “an African-American” is italicized. This is a mistake. It was not in my original story and occurred while the page was being laid out and paginated. Furthermore, the term should read “a black man.” I sincerely apologize for these mistakes. They were not meant to hurt or offend anyone.

I salute this blogger for coming clean and apologizing. It's hard to believe such transgressions still occur in the blue-est of blue states. Let the healing begin.

We look better than we sound.

And I'm not saying we look good!

Ann: Wow! Jerry Garcia lives!

I am certainly no fan of Bill Clinton. I think a lot of Democrats were willfully blind to his problems for years, but now, finally, waking up to them.

That said, the much-talked-about Vanity Fair piece by Todd Purdum is a disgusting piece of bull.

There are almost no on-record, attributed quotes. A large portion of it is nothing but a guilt-by-association attack (Clinton associates with playboys, therefor...wink, wink!)

The worst part is the quasi-medical claim that Clinton is effectively suffering from arterial plaque-induced dementia. Basically, the claim is that since some of his coronary arteries were 90% blocked, it stands to reason that the ones in his brain are blocked too--they fixed the heart ones, but the ones in his brain are causing his strange behavior.

Clinton is right to say there is hardly a fact in the entire piece.

I'm not one to carry water for Bill Clinton, but this piece should never have been printed in a major magazine.

Vanity Fair should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a grudge and innuendo such a prominent place in their pages.

Another thing to add to my sisters posts, gas and gas II. This comes from Gateway Pundit via Classical Values. Here is a map showing where offshore drilling is prohibited:

I think it's pretty telling. Look who doesn't have any qualms about drilling 50 miles from Key West:

There's a lot of buzz out there about a video tape in which Michelle Obama makes some offensive statements about "Whitey." Mostly it seems to be getting pushed by this guy.

I think it's bogus, and way past the "put up or shut up stage." But what I find interesting, and hilarious, is that even though nobody has seen such a tape, there is already a response to it. Obama supporters are claiming that she's not saying "whitey" at all, she's saying "why'd he." A completely fabricated response to what is at this point a non-existent tape!

My college made the LA Times today, with a story about a handful of inner city kids who went to a college in the corn fields.

Franco and Herrera entered tiny, idyllic Grinnell four years ago as members of a "posse" of 10 disadvantaged but promising high school graduates from Los Angeles.

By banding together, the students would help one another navigate unfamiliar academic and social terrain in this remote college town surrounded by fields of corn.

Grinnell would cover their tuition -- $1 million worth -- and in return get a little more diversity on its campus of 1,500 students, virtually all of them white.

The story was a follow-up to one they did in 2004.

I spent some time on the DoE's stats pages, and made this graph. The blue line is gasoline "U.S. Total Gasoline All Sales/Deliveries by Prime Supplier" which I have normalized to January 1985's value. As you can see, it has gone up by 28.4%. The pink line is the "U. S. Operating Crude Oil Distillation Capacity", which I have again normalized to January 1985. It has gone up only 19.9%. So our gasoline sales have gone up 10% more than our refineries have been producing.



Gee, I just don't understand why gas prices have gone through the roof?!

Which just goes to show that the second most-poorly taught, and second most-important subject in American schools* is Economics. Gee, supply and demand? Never heard of it.

* the number 1 worst-taught/most-important subject is statistics.

I had a coworker last week decry the rise in gas prices. She seemed genuinely clueless about why it was happening.

To me it is so mindbogglingly obvious why it was happening, that I was a bit dumbfounded at her lack of knowledge. I explained that 10 years ago neither China nor India were using nearly the amount of energy resources that they are now, and that there have been world-wide supply problems--such as in Nigeria, and pretty much stopped there. I figured going into the complete lack of adequate refinery capacity would be a bit out of her depth.

But not beyond "Reason". Here's an article they wrote on the fact that there has not been a single refinery built in the US in 32 years.

But getting an oil refinery built is next to impossible, hence the 30-year construction drought. There will always be environmental activists who fight any new proposed refinery, regardless of where it might be located and how environmentally safe it is. And our environmental rules give them the upper hand.

The environmental impact-report process mobilizes the "not in my back yard" elements to oppose any proposed refinery, but it does not mobilize people or groups who are looking at national energy needs. You wind up with a very lopsided discussion where potential problems are thoroughly and perhaps overly represented, but the only group pointing out the benefits of the refinery is the "evil" oil company asking to build it - even though every automobile driver would benefit.

Carpe Diem--where I found the Reason link--posted a graph of the number of refineries since the 1950's.



He didn't give a source for his graph, but a quick search for "operable oil refineries" pulled up this data from the Department of Energy.

And on this page at the DOE stats site, supply and demand appears in two stunning numbers at the bottom of the page:

Total World Oil Production (2005): 82,532,000 barrels/day
Total World Petroleum Consumption (2005): 83,607,000 barrels/day

That's a production deficit of over 1 million barrels a day. Carry that out over years, and price must rise rather staggeringly.

What to see how math education has deteriorated over the last half century? This is from Britain, but I'm sure it would apply equally here in the states. Here are sample questions of exit exams over the decades. The first two are reasonable, the ones from more recent decades are pathetic:



There is an accompanying article at the Daily Telegraph.

Consider two recent controversies in the Democratic presidential campaign. First, there is Sen. Clinton's mentioning of RFK's assassination. Have a look at this clip, long enough to get context:



So she's listing many Presidential races where the losing candidate is still running in June. Her list includes RFK, who was assissinated in June. This is what the Obama camp is outraged about? Give me a break. Again, Obama and his supporters seem to be going out of their way to be offended.

"Mr. Obama, I knew RFK. RFK was a friend of mine... Mr. Obama, you are no RFK." (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

The other controversy came after Obama said his uncle was involved in the liberation of Aushwitz:



Turns out it was Buchenwald, not Aushwitz, and it was his great-uncle. A non-trivial blunder, in my opinion. I would expect someone with Obama's education to know that Aushwitz was in Poland and was liberated by the Soviets. Still, I think the coverage by pundits on the blog-o-sphere and TV was beyond what was appropriate.

I just saw Bill Nye (The Science Guy!) on TV. He was speaking about the Phoenix probe, which will be looking for life near the north pole of Mars. He said that if life is found, it will "change the Earth!" i.e. bring on a dramatic a change in how we think about our place in the universe. He compared it to Copernicus revealing that the Earth orbits the Sun. I've heard similar statements from scientific commentators. Frankly, I don't think so. I think it will appear as little more than an interesting curiosity to all but a few scientists.

Joe: Did you hear that Mable? Life on Mars! Who'da thunk it!
Mable: That's nice dear.

It would be different if the life discovered were something we could communicate with, but if it's more like bacteria, the event is not going to be Earth shaking.

I suspect that Mr. Nye and his kin feel that discovery of life on other planets will send a shudder through the foundations of Christianity and other religions. If so, it's a rather naive view of religion. I don't know of any Bible verse that precludes the existence of life on Mars. But even if there were something about it in the Bible, it wouldn't matter. Religions would adapt, re-interpret, or ignore, just as they have in the past.

I wish he were a candidate...

[he] ..has more confidence in government than I do. I have more
confidence in freedom — your freedom; your freedom to choose your child’s school, your freedom to choose the car or truck that’s right for you and your family, your freedom to spend or save your hard-earned money instead of having the government spend it for you. I’m not anti-government. I just don’t want any more government than we can afford. We don’t want government doing things it doesn’t know how to do or doing things the private sector does better or throwing more money at failed programs because that’s exactly what makes people
lose faith in government.

The conventional wisdom is that Small Government Republicans are a thing of the past. But if this character's philosophy is so popular, why don't we have such a candidate?

Mark Steyn writes a nice article on our current oil situation. Particularly interesting is a piece of text taken from the so-called NOPEC bill passed by Congress 324 to 82:

“It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act,” declared the House of Representatives, “to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product… or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum product in the United States.”

Apparently, our representatives are economic nincompoops. Have any of them ever taken an economics class? Were they paying attention?

Nearly all industries have limited production and distribution. This is by the law of supply and demand, not some monopolist conspiracy. The text of the bill makes it seem like Congress is demanding maximum oil production at all times, whether or not that would be the equilibrium level of output in a free and competitive market. In the jargon of economics, Congress is demanding an inelastic supply curve at the maximum level of output that technology can provide.

Sure this grilling of oil executives is put on as political theater. But I get the impression that most of congress (like our presidential candidates) have very little understanding of the way our economy functions.

Over at Libertas, "Top-Five: Future Steven Soderbergh Projects:"

2. Pol Pot, the Student Years - focusing on his exciting college years in
politically tumultuous Paris. Special guest appearance by Sean Penn as
Sartre.

Go join the fun!

In light of the discussion around here (and here) last month about how much solar energy reaches the earth, and the acreage needed to power everything we do:



Hat tip: Carpe Diem

I feel like I have just seen the coining of a new word. "Ecochondria Retards Progress in Reducing Hunger"

European governments, meanwhile, have clung to an import ban on high-yielding, genetically modified crops — thus dissuading African nations from using a technology that could increase production. “The two biggest follies are biofuels in America and the ban on genetically modified crops in Europe,” said Paul Collier, a professor of economics at Oxford University.

Hat tip to the always great CCNET.

Ann adds: This is especially strange in light of the blasé attitude toward human engineering.

I love ecochondria, too.

A warm welcome to my sister, who has kindly agreed to help out with this blog! She's on the west coast, I'm on the east. We have them surrounded!

My big brother invited me to join in.

Cool.

I have a political, news commentary blog on hiatus/technichal meltdown called Ann's Fuse Box, and I have a Blogger blog on educating young kids called Square Dots, so I'm an old pro at blogging.

For a start, here's my biggest puzzle of the year: Why does anyone vote for Obama? I can see voting against McCain (boy, can I see voting against McCain), and I can see why even a Democrat would vote against Hillary, but what gets people actually voting for Obama?

To me he is an overly-young man who has accomplished nothing in his life beyond graduating from a top law school and writing a couple premature autobiographies.

(Not that I have anything against premature autobiographies in general. I remember buying Kenneth Brannaugh's, which he wrote a very very long time ago, just after "Henry V". But in the preface he said he wrote it to raise money for a theater production and tour, and I wanted to show support--I later saw two of the productions, Midsummer and King Lear, and they were wonderful. During Midsummer, if I hadn't been sitting one-seat-in from the aisle, I would have been rolling in it.)

He's never been the primary writer of any major or minor piece of legislation. He walked into the Senate after what must have been one of the easiest elections in American history: his first opponent crashed and burned in a sex scandal and his second was the carpetbagging blowhard, Alan Keyes. He has never had a private law practice. He's never been a professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or assistant professor to the associate professor's younger cousin. He's never run a business, never run a non-profit, never run a state, never run a city, never run school board meeting, never run the marathon (though my brother has!), and never even run a pair of nylons.

His one impressive credential is running the Harvard Law Review, but even that falls apart under scrutiny: he never actually wrote anything for it. Not a single article.

His whole career can be summed up by listing all the things he hasn't done, and there's nothing on the other side of the ledger.

So why?

I don't get it.

But the upside is...I actually think, and have actually always thought, that McCain will win in November.

And so, as they say in Townsville: The day is saved.

From James MulvaCEO, ConocoPhillips:

Now, if you look at gasoline prices at the pump -- let us say around $3 a gallon -- 60 percent of that $3 is tied to oil prices. So take $3 gasoline, the price at the pump, that is $1.80. Then, on top of that $1.80, there's about 60 cents which is the cost of bringing the crude oil to the refineries, running the refineries, the pipelines, the transportation, and the marketing. On top of that, then there's 50 cents of taxes. So you add and you get to $2.90. Our profit on a $3 gasoline price at the pump is about 10 cents a gallon, and that's in good times. In times when the price is lower or there's more supply, then the price is less than 10 cents -- profits less than 10 cents.

People who see the Oil Companies as evil are quick to point out profits in terms of dollars. But these large profits are due to the size of the industry. On a per-dollar of sales basis, these profits do not seem great to me. Government profit is five times as much. Perhaps it is the government that is gouging?

P.S. Michelle Malkin is reading my mind.

Senator Kennedy has a malignant glioma. I've heard it's high-grade, but didn't see that in any official announcement.

NBC used the opportunity to do its usual Bush-bashing. Emotional situations such as this involve a strange political dichotomy. Bashing Kennedy's opponents is ok, but criticizing his allies is not. For instance, it would be bad form to describe the type of care the Senator could expect under a health care system advocated by Hillary Clinton. Nor would it be appropriate to point out the number of new cancer therapies that have been developed by the "evil drug companies," as described by Clinton, Obama and (unfortunately) McCain.

I doubt there is place in the world better than Boston's Hospitals for Senator Kennedy to get the care he needs. I wish him and his family well.

I have to disagree with this opinion:

It’s about time. After an excruciating and absurd debate, double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius will be allowed to compete in the Olympics. Pistorius won his appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport today which immediately overturned an asinine ruling by the International Association of Athletics Federations which stated Pistorius gained an unfair advantage from his prosthetics.

Nice unbiased reporting there! But on the issue, I don't think he should be able to compete. Frankly, the arguments "for" are pretty weak, appealing to emotion rather than the science and engineering involved. Typical is the argument that whatever benefit he gets from the artificial legs merely balances out the disadvantages he has. How this magical balancing calculus is made is not stated.

One commenter pointed out these things:

While your friends are still playing at ground level, you will be able to jump in 6 ft leaps over them - imagine that! How would you like to run at a lightning speed of around 20 mph without any extra effort than normal running? In fact it's even easier than normal running because you are power assisted by the POWERIZER.

Maybe we should have an olympic event where everyone wears springs.

Has questions for Senator Obama. Good ones.
In the interest of fairness... he has questions for McCain too.

A bit about the guy who is trying to compete in the Olympics with artificial legs:

... Robert Gailey, an associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami Medical School, who has studied amputee runners.
...
According to Gailey, a prosthetic leg returns only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent, providing much more spring.

The lesson here? Never ask a "professor of physical therapy" a question on physics.

The UN is going to investigate the USA for racism.

GENEVA (Reuters) - A special U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism, an issue that has forced its way into the race to secure the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
...
His campaign has increased turnout among black voters but has also turned off some white voters in a country with a history of slavery and racial segregation.

It seems that fact that Obama is very close to winning the presidential election is evidence of how very racist America is. If that seems logical to you, perhaps you should consider a job with the UN. Someone show me a heterogeneous society where there is less racism than the USA.

We should tell Doudou, with his history of idiocy, to take his investigation and shove it.

This sort of thing is not going to be good for the Obama campaign. He was supposed to be the candidate that trancends race, no?

This video has been around for a year, but it's getting attention again. It's pretty amazing footage. Be sure to stay until the end. National Geographic has a whole TV show built around it. "Caught on Safari: Battle at Kruger" tomorrow, May 18, at 5pm on the National Geographic Channel.



If the leader (grand poobah?) of those water buffaloes were running for president, I'd vote for him.

An alarmist, keeping it real:

"Not one dinosaur is alive today. Maybe someday it will be our fossils that another race will dig up in the future, " said Roger Bracke of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, underscoring his point that no less than extinction is faced by the human race, unless we are able to address global warming and climate change in this generation.

Yes, that will convince people. Convince them you've lost your mind.

it's the thinness thereof. President Bush's speech in Israel contained this bit:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Senator Obama and his campaign took this to be a political attack against Obama and his foreign policy, and are outraged. It seems we aren't supposed to criticise the Messiah for his positions. I guess it's time to move beyond the destructive politics of policy analysis. Grow up Barry, you're running for President.

Greg Mankiw has an interesting post relating to this year's farm bill. How wealthy farmers wield such political clout? Sure, the donate to both parties, but is it really so much? Especially appalling is the sugar subsidy. Why has our government decided that we should pay a higher-than-market price for sugar and sugar-containing products? I've seen estimates that the cost of sugar in the US is twice what the the market would have it. I remember a 60 minutes episode, I'm guessing 20 years ago, which blamed much of it on the political operations of a single family, the Fanjuls. Sweet deal for them.

Note also that some excellent-sounding provisions suggested by President Bush have been removed. Such as this one:

Under current law, US food assistance for hungry people around the world must be spent purchasing US crops. The President proposed to allow up to 25 percent of US global food assistance to be spent purchasing food from local farmers (in the country where the people are starving). This allows US dollars to be spent purchasing food, rather than paying transportation costs. It also encourages the
development of farming infrastructure in these countries.

The Farm Bill is all politics. Blame and shame to both parties, but I credit the President at least for trying.

I'm l00king forward to the annual Medical Bill once the government takes over health care.

John McCain unveiled his plan for combating global warming yesterday. His plan includes:

He also set a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.

Let's put pencil to paper to see just how realistic this is. Assuming a modest 3% annual growth rate for our economy, spanning the 60 years from 1990 to 2050, we have, by the "miracle of compound interest," an overall growth factor of

(1.03)^60 = 5.9

So in 2050 our economy will likely be about 6 times the size it was in 1990. McCain wants us to be 60% under the the 1990 level of CO2 emmissions, so that gives a factor of

5.9/(1-0.6) = 14.73

The bottom line is that McCain wants us to produce roughly 1/15-th the amount of carbon per unit of GDP, compared to how we did in 1990. Good luck with that John. Nuclear power anyone?

Now, I don't think McCain's plan is any more absurd than that purposed by Obama or Clinton. Still, it's a disappointment that none of these candidates seems capable of creating a plan that is at all realistic. I suppose it is due to a combination of politics and scientific and economic ignorance.

Here is an insight into the mind of an Obama supporter. The subject is a housing bailout:

Even some voters who support a government rescue are uneasy about haste. "I don't think we can just stay hands-off," says Walt King, a mechanical engineer from Downers Grove, Ill. "The people who got sucked into this are not capable of making calculations about whether they could afford this." But Mr. King, 62, who says he is likely to vote for Sen. Barack Obama, is wary of a rushed political response. "I don't know what the answer is," he said. "The election year is not a year to pray for objectivity."

This guy is a mechanical engineer. I assume he doesn't consider himself stupid. He just believes other people are stupid and need to be cared for by Big Government. I feel all warm and fuzzy knowing there are good folks out there like Mr. King to look out for me and my wittle bwain.

Open Office is a free open-source alternative to Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and Excel. I've used it, and it's not bad. I agree with this guy on Microsoft's products:

But the one biggest kudo I have for Open Office is that it doesn't try to help me or automatically format a document I'm working on when I don't want it to. That is one of Microsoft Office's biggest annoyances, that it “knows better” what I want to do than I do. I've lost count of how many times I've had to undo something MS Office insisted I wanted to do even though I had no intention of doing what MS Office did for me.

Man, is that annoying, and it happens all the time. Unfortunately, I can't recommend Open Office, based on my experience. Perhaps it's better than when I used it, but there was a problem with compatability with the Microsoft Versions. Someone sends you a document he made with Word, and when you try to edit it and send it back, something fails. Probably he has used some feature not fully supported by Open Office. In any case, it is too much of a pain to work with if you are doing work with other folks who use Microsoft products.

More nastyness from the Chi-coms: FBI probe nets counterfeit Chinese networking parts. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese government is involved. How much longer are we going to put up with this kind of thing? China is an enemy of the free world. It's time our leaders acted appropriately. If I have to pay more at Walmart for some products, so be it, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

This is pretty cool:



My guess is it wouldn't fare so well outdoors, where it would have to deal with wind. Still, it would be futuristic fun to see them floating around a shopping mall or indoor stadium. I wonder if it can handle the breeze from air conditioning!

It's hard for me to take much of the statistical analysis coming out of the climate debate seriously. The game seems to be to massage your data until you get the result you are looking for. Here's an example pointed out by Climate Audit. Kudos to the folks at that site by the way, they are performing an invaluable service and taking a lot of heat for their efforts.
Here's an equation from that article:

... an estimate of a seasonal or quarterly temperature when one month is missing
from the record depends heavily on averages for all three months in that quarter. This can be expressed by the following equation, where are the months in the quarter (in no particular order) and one of the three months is missing:

In the above, T is temperature, q is the given quarter, n is the given year, and N is all years of the record.

You could come up with a dozen formulas for this in theory. Why is this one preferred? Looks like they are trying to fill in missing data by a weighted linear combination of data for neighboring months and the historical difference between the missing month the neighboring months. In the case when the neighboring months' data matches the historical average, the formula returns the historic quarterly mean. Seems reasonable!

It's not clear to me why they need to fill in the missing data in the first place.

The Corner linked to this story about the environmental effect of discarded plastic bags. It seems the danger has been greatly exaggerated. I'm shocked.

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims. The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds. Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags, saying that they were “one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste”. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him...The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Of course, it was always obvious that this claim was preposterous. I think the fact that this story was accepted as truth says something about environmental scientists. Either they are incompetent or the are driven by politics more than science. I'm not sure which is worse.

Years before it was plastic bags, the threat was supposedly from those 6-ring plastic connectors that used to be used to hold 6-packs of beer and soda cans together. You remember them? Supposedly all sorts of animals got their heads caught in them. Again, the claim was absurd, but that didn't stop it from being generally accepted. There was even an amusing parody of this claim on the Simpsons, where Mr. Burns uses a net made of these 6-pack rings to "sweep the oceans clean... so that not a single creature is wasted!" Not wasting things is the essence of environmentalism, you see.

Even more preposterous, but again accepted as truth, was the "killer yogurt container" controversy. It seems somebody decided that those semi-conical containers of Yoplait yogurt were just the right size for skunks to get their heads stuck in. No, I'm not kidding. The story was that skunks would be attracted to the remaining yogurt at the bottom of the container, stick their heads in, get stuck, and starve to death. I shudder thinking how many skunks were killed this way. Indeed, according to my calculations, approximately 640,000 skunks died in the 90's alone as a result of French corporate greed. Thank heavens they finally changed the package design before their skunk genocide program was complete.

Continuing on the topic of unions, check out this anti-card-check ad I saw on tv the other day. Well done!

Check out the flier I was handed today on the streets of Brookline:

A local electrical worker's union was handing it out. Beth Israel is a fine hospital, and the tactic here is pretty underhanded. The back of the flier is a list of doctors at the hospital who have paid malpractice claims. This has nothing to do with hiring non-union electricians of course. It's just an intimidation/retribution tactic. The mad scientist picture is a nice touch.

It would be amusing if Beth Israel put out a flier of its own. Perhaps it could get a list of union members, and cross reference to public records for arrests and criminal convictions. Statistically, there are bound to be a few hits. "Is your electical contractor hiring criminals? Are there criminals in your living room? Or in your childrens' bedrooms!?!?"

Found this on the net (a pdf file about the history of Portage Wisconsin)..
.That's my great-grandfather August. Futher proof that everything is out on the net now.

Continuing from the post below, here's a graphic showing the total area of all the pavement in the USA. It's the red box in Texas, about 200mi on a side, likely an overestimate. Well, I think it's interesting. Does it seem like a lot to you, or not as much as you thought?

A message from my sister:

Steven Den Beste ran the numbers a few years ago on the absolute maximum amount of energy you can get from terrestrial solar harvesting. He looked at a simple fact: the amount of solar energy that hits a square meter in Albuquerque.
Assuming 100% efficiency (ha ha ha--a scientific impossibility) of the solar harvester, it would take an area of 89 square miles of solar panels to supply California with enough energy to merely replace its use of gasoline (based on 1998 data)--he did not calculate our current electrical or other energy usage. Assuming gas amounts to about half of our energy consumption, and assuming a 33% energy efficiency, you'd have to cover an area approximately 21 miles by 25 miles with solar panels to make up for California's energy needs.

525 sq miles, just for sunny California.

You can do all the nanotech and science experiments you want, but in the end, you can't make the sun send more energy down to the earth.

Indeed! Let's add a bit more perspective. According to the CIA, the USA has 4,165,110 km of paved roadway. Let's assume that the average width of a roadway is 50 feet, just a guess. Suppose that instead of paving all those streets, roads, highways and expressways we paved a big square in the middle of the desert. How big on a side would that square be?

sqrt(4165110 * 5/8*5280*50)/5280 = 157.0078

That square would only be 157 miles on a side. Think how much effort it took to pave that much. Think about how much effort it would be to cover that area with solar panels.

I agree for the most part with Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) in his article "Green and Smart." Developing energy sources other than fossil fuels is a good idea, whether or not Global Warming is a threat. I think he undersells the potential of nuclear though, and oversells solar. Also, what is the reason for Instapundit's endless fascination with nanotechnology? I'll be more excited about nanotech when it actually exists. Ok, perhaps that's a bit harsh, but nanotech is mostly hype at this point. Even Wikipedia agrees.

Sums it up nicely. Here's the Angry Renter Website.

I can't imagine standing there in the middle of nowhere for 10,000 years. I'm reminded of the opening of T.S Eliot's "The Wasteland"

And I saw with my own eyes the Cumaean Sybil herself, hanging in a bottle, and when the little boy asked her, 'Sybil, what do you want?' she answered 'I want to die' – Petronius The Satyricon

The gods granted Sybil eternal life, but she continued to age. Eventually she was so shriveled up they kept her in a bottle. Be careful what you wish for.

Here is an excellent article on Global Warming and the Third World:

In other words, even if the most dire predictions about global warming come true, some of the poorest people in the world may still be better off tomorrow if they are able to enjoy some of the fruits of development, such as education, health care, electricity, etc.

The author is too kind. People here are concerned about the environment and global warming because they can afford to be. I'm tired of sanctimony from people who carry around a $3 bottle of designer water and buy $7/gal milk at Whole Foods.

Just after that last post, I saw this floating around the blogosphere. They really do think today's situation is more serious than WWII. Check this Time cover. As they say, "you can't make this stuff up."

The Climate Change people are getting more and more desperate to be taken seriously. You can tell because their claims are getting more and more ridiculous. Check out the caption of Leonardo DiCaprio's upcoming movie. This is apparently "Mankind's Darkest Hour." Perhaps you hadn't noticed. Black Plague? That was nothing compared to today's situation. World War two? A relative picnic in the park.

It's difficult for me to believe this sort of approach is helping their cause.

CNN Apologizes After Commentator Calls China a 'Bunch of Goons and Thugs'

The commentator says he didn't mean all Chinese, just the leadership. Seems obvious to me. I'm not sure what CNN thinks it needs to apologize for.

I don't like his policies. His demeanor disturbs me. Of course, I respect his service to his country during the Vietnam War. But that doesn't mean I want him as my President. Come November, voting for him will be a tough pill to swallow, and I'm seriously considering sitting it out. What is it that sticks in my craw? The usual conservative complaints:

1. McCain-Feingold. Hands down the biggest assault on our first-amendment right to free speech in modern history. Not only that, but it's been an unqualified failure in terms of what it set out to do, i.e. limit the influence of big money in politics.
2. McCain-Kennedy. Another potential disaster, narrowly avoided. Is it too much to ask that we favor the immigrants and H1-visa holders who are here legally over those who are not? Is it too much to ask that we have an immigration policy that is generally fair to nationals of all countries, giving them an equal chance to emmigrate to the US?
3. The lastest potential disaster is McCain's support of a journalist shield law. I agree with Instapundit in his analysis. I find the whole idea disturbing.
4. His support of a housing bailout.
5. His yammering on about "excessive CEO pay." As if it is the role of a president or senator to decide how much a company chooses to pay its officers. Yeeesh!

Then there is McCain's nuttery (vaccines cause autism???), and reported temper problems.... the bottom line being that I just don't trust him. Without some sort of unifying philosophy, you really have no clue what he is going to do one issue to the next.

The push to use ethanol as a fuel in our cars has begun to have serious repercussions. Who didn't see this coming? The Environmentalists have framed the Global Warming situation is such life-and-death terms that we have forgotten the importance of a *real* threat to life, i.e. adequate food production. Now riots have sprung up around the globe as food shortages push up prices. The morality of (what amounts to) burning food in our cars escapes me. Did the Environmentalists really think the world would love us for burning less fossil fuels? Idiots.

In fairness, much of the blame here has to be put on agri-business lobbies and Senators and Congressmen from farm states. Shame on them, and on us for allowing it to happen.

I also put some blame on the community of economists. Just what are they good for anyway? Is it too much to ask that they point out what should be obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics?

I've been away for some time. The main reason was a major change in my life, i.e. the birth of my daughter Shivani at the start of the year. It's been a wonderful experience! Baby and Mom are doing fine. Shivani is a joy and changing every day. It's truly an amazing thing to watch.

I've been looking for this version of "A Christmas Carol" for years. I remember seeing it as a kid on our old black and white TV. It seemed scary at back then; perhaps that's one of the reasons I remember it. According to IMDB, it won an Oscar for "Best Short Subject, Animated Films." It has been unavailable for quite some time, but now anyone can watch it on Google Video. Enjoy!

Greg Mankiw posts a little something on the equivalence of the government fining someone $1000 and the government giving a $1000 tax rebate to everyone except that one person. What he doesn't mention is something I have thought for a long time, i.e. that the Federal government can and does use a similar technique to overstep the limits of its authority under the Constitution. If, for example, the Feds want the drinking age raised to 24, they run into constitutional trouble with legislation that simply fines states that don't comply. But if they threaten to withhold highway funds for non-compliance, then somehow this is perfectly fine. Isn't taxing everyone, but then funding only to those in compliance effectively the same thing as a fine?

The right-wing blogosphere is abuzz today with talk of the damage that the focus on religion is doing to the Republican presidential campaign. I've even seen the term "political suicide" come up. I couldn't agree more with Charles Krauthammer, in his piece "Redundance on Religion."

I find the way these candidates are wearing their religion on their sleeves distasteful. Now they seem to be in a fight to "out-Christian" each other. I think that religious faith is a positive aspect of a candidate, but religious tolerance is a "litmus test" issue to me. Further, I think that if a presidential candidate believes that the Earth is a few thousand years old, or does not believe that natural forces have in some way shaped life on Earth, then his scientific ignorance makes him unqualified for the office. That means you, Mr. Huckabee.

Huckabee's surge has the potential to be every bit as damaging to the GOP as Dean's was to the Dems last time around. I originally liked Romney. Now I find the campaign focus on religion driving me more and more into the Guiliani camp.

Mixing of science and politics has been in the news a lot lately. Usually, the Bush Administration gets knocked in particular for its position on stem cell research (c.f. the so-called "Republican War on Science", see also this article in the Volokh Conspiracy for a very nice critique.) Why is it that the Left, and Tom Harkin in particular, are not criticized for their undying support of alternative medicine? And by "support" here I mean direct federal funding. The budget for the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is $121,465,000. I tend to agree with this guy.

Kudos to Michelle Malkin for telling like it is on the proposed mortgage bailout. Read the comments too. Housing prices are finally starting to come down here in the Boston area, to the point where my wife and I can consider buying. Now speculators are demanding the government step in to protect their investment, aka gamble. Like it does by bailing out people who build houses on the beach in hurricane zones, the government seems intent on rewarding reckless behavior and punishing the fiscally responsible. And I have no sympathy for lenders here either. If they made risky loans to people who couldn't afford them, that's the bed they've made. Let them lie in it.

Update: Via Instapundit, Going Under In A Lexus.

From The Anchoress. Right on sister!

Finally, the truth can be told about the Cold War

RANDY FORSBERG, who died this month at age 64, left a remarkable legacy: She helped end the Cold War, the most costly and dangerous confrontation in world history. ... . In 1980, she invented the call to freeze the nuclear arms race, and this simple but compelling idea - essentially, a moratorium on new nuclear weapons as a prelude to gradual disarmament - became the rallying cry for millions of people sickened by the rush to develop and deploy new nuclear weapons and missiles, space weapons, stealth bombers, and all the other expensive, provocative gadgets of the arms industry.

Yes, that's exactly how it happened. The Soviet Union was brought down by the "nuclear freeze" people. I can't wait until the history of the Iraq war comes out, naturally attributing its end to the tireless efforts of Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and the 9/11 Troofers.

I don't watch much football anymore, just a few games a year. I figure I've pretty much seen it all. But I never saw anything like this.

The Nobel Peace Prize is back on course, i.e. on a downward spiral approaching zero credibility. Last year's award to Yunis and Bank, a reasonable choice, can be seen as an aberration.

• 2007 Gore and the IPCC: His Holiness Chicken Little and a self-appointed, self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientific bureaucracy.
• 2005 ElBaradei and the IAEA: More bureaucracy, dedicated to enabling and empowering dictators and despots.
• 2002 Jimmy Carter: For his philosophy easily summed up as "I never met at terrorist or autocrat I didn't like, except of course for George W. Bush."
• 2001 The UN and Kofi Annan: See 2005.
• 1994 Yasser Arafat: For grand theft and mass murder.
• 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev: For rolling tanks over the Baltic States, but not over Moscow, er... much. Like giving a prize to a guy for not beating his wife.
• 1989 UN Peacekeepers. Perverts, but so ineffective!

Who takes the Peace prize seriously anymore? At least they didn't give the prize to Gore in Physics. Remember the 1995 prize in Chemistry to the "Ozone Hole" guys? What? You don't even remember the "Ozone Hole?" It was the Religion before Global Warming.

In case you haven't heard, Cox & Forkum have decided to call it quits. It's a shame they were never picked up my more than a few newspapers.

Our Governor Patrick has signed into law a bill that permits unionization without a secret ballot. It's clear what this is about. It's about union leaders strong-arming employees into unionizing when they can't do so through a legitimate vote. Since when is Democracy something to be feared? Governor Patrick's approval of this law is appalling.