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.