February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

Man cannot aspire if he looked down; if he rise, he must look up.

-Samuel Smiles

April 30, 2006

Tattoo You

Thanks Jon Henke for passing this along. If you have a couple of minutes to watch a news report from Rhode Island, please follow this link and prepare to be amused. I'm thinking about doing this myself.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

April 29, 2006

Does Free Speech Equate to Corruption?

Sometimes it seems like you can't swing a dead cat without hitting some supposed right or another that has been reserved for quote We the People. All of these Amendments cluttering up the place... if only there were an honest politician handy to clean things up.

As if on cue, RedState has a video clip of Senator John McCain telling radio personality Don Imus that he prefers McCain-Feingold to the dirty old First Amendment.

"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform... I know that money corrupts... I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Ah... it's about time for the issue of campaign finance to jump back to the front burner, what with the 2006 elections coming up this fall. Now, I am sure that John McCain has honest intentions... of keeping his Senate seat forever, that is. He is a power broker - one of about a hundred in the Senate. Are there really Republicans who are hoping he makes a run for the presidency in 2008? Why?

As one of the commenters at RedState says, "He is a terrific AMERICAN citizen and a war hero; however, he should not hold any political office." And yet, the people of Arizona keep sending him back.

Any chance Senator McCain would like to look into some of the other anti-corruption techniques... like term limits?

Let's agree that campaign finance is a Major Issue again, shall we? I need to be pointed toward a member of Congress, or even a candidate, who will take a solid libertarian stance on the Major Issue. You know - that the Constitution means what it says, and says what it means. That it enshrines and protects our rights, which are not to be skirted with attempts to "clean up". Anyone?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Let the Market Work

From The Economist:

Alternative fuels will not become common overnight, as one veteran oilman acknowledges: “Given the capital-intensity of manufacturing alternatives, it's now a race between hydrocarbon depletion and making fuel.” But the recent rise in oil prices has given investors confidence. As Peter Robertson, vice-chairman of Chevron, puts it, “Price is our friend here, because it has encouraged investment in new hydrocarbons and also the alternatives.” Unless the world sees another OPEC-engineered price collapse as it did in 1985 and 1998, GTL, tar sands, ethanol and other alternatives will become more economic by the day (see chart 2).

Sure, it hurts to pay $3.00 per gallon when we remember gas being less than a dollar. The average 2-driver American household now spends well over $4,000 per year on gasoline, driving an average of over 40 miles per day. We have placed ourselves in a very vulnerable position over the last couple of generations, with inefficient vehicles and long commutes. It is our right to choose this lifestyle, and it is our right to have to afford it. The anger at Big Oil is ridiculous. The call for government intervention is dangerous.

Americans are honestly ignorant of how the market works. The obvious solution to higher gasoline prices is to use less gas or adjust your household budget. Alternative fuels will be made available just as soon as businesses can afford to do so - this works without government investigation or interference. It's too bad that our nation's collective ignorance might prevent things from developing of their own accord.

April 28, 2006

Leftist Guilt: Made in China

China Flag.gif

There was a good comment over at Mark Steyn (reprinted in entirety below) that got me thinking. The commenter pointed out that increased CO2 emissions will “accompany the use of coal from the 200 new coal mines China is opening in the next 5 years." This is another one of those extremely tricky areas for the Left and their love of Communism, and I'm wondering how they're going to handle the hypocrisy. Communism is great; China's got it right; Can 1.5 billion Chinese be wrong?; U.S.A is evil; etc. College students will soon be hanging up their hammer and sickle tees in favor of the more fashionable yellow star. [Ed. note: not a racial epithet, the star is actually yellow.]

And yet, China is well on the way to being, if not already, the most egregious environmentally harming country in the world. How can the Left, with their chosen religion of Environmentalism, reconcile that their beloved China is "desecrating" the earth?

Wulf responded:

Rammage, this is an easy one. China is polluting more because they are turning to corporatism. They used to lub the environment, until wasteful Americans shipped them Cokes and Nikes and corrupted their leaders.

He’s right of course. When the People’s Republic of China began their economic reform in 1978 towards a market-oriented economy, they abandoned the Left’s love of a centrally-planned economy. In effect, becoming less Soviet-esque and becoming more [ptooey] Americanized.

No where is this attitude more obvious in the currently airing Sundance movie "Mardi gras: Made in China."

It's typical for one of their documentaries: juxtapositioning white-guilt American indulgence with the poverty-laden Chinese sweatshop workers making the beads. It's so wonderful. It really gets you into the mind of a Leftist. The Left has seemingly already found an answer to the hypocrisy: It's not China's fault for polluting, it's American Consumerism that is to blame. If not for the evil American capitalist pigs, the Chinese would have no need for massive, polluting factories churning out plastic crap like Mardi gras beads. The Chinese are doing nothing wrong; it’s American excesses that are to blame.

I have been postponing writing about this anti-globalization documentary because there were just so many directions to take with it:

The fact that the left is so fractioned, i.e. the social personal freedoms of Mardi gras versus the labor that makes them possible.
Or maybe just comment about what the Chinese workers would be doing now if not for working in the bead factory.
Or maybe just the fact that someone like me watches these documentaries and says to himself, "Wow, this is great, unfolding exactly as things should." It's horrific for the anti-capitalists who ~~are making money on the~~ made the film, but all I can see are people working for the betterment of their lives and hopefully, someday, their country and standard of living.
Or maybe just question why they are attacking the consumers, instead of the Communist government that flirts with the free market but will not commit.
Or, I don’t know, ask about how many pieces of the filmmaker’s camera parts were made in China, and did the filmmaker’s spend more money on camera equipment that was made in America, or choose the lowest priced equipment regardless of where it was manufactured.

So many directions to take, so little time. So, I’ll leave it to the reader to view the film and judge for him/herself. That is, of course, if you can guarantee that no part of your television was made in China.

I am not sure if Mark Steyn saves his comments for an extended period, so I wanted to reproduce it here:

NEW FATAL TRENDS As a keen climatology student in the early 1970's I dutifully quoted the peer-reviewed journals in their conclusions that the planet was doomed unless industry could be stopped from emitting all those particulates and aerosols which were blocking the sun's saving warmth from penetrating the atmosphere. One scientist took pains to demonstrate that no foreseeable amount of increased CO2 would be enough to offset the fatal trend that we were on.

A generation later, that same scientist and thousands like him have embraced the opposite "consensus", and I suppose if I looked long and hard enough I could find someone claiming in a peer-reviewed paper that no amount of emission of particulates and aerosols would be enough to offset the new, opposite fatal trend.

Adapt, move or perish. Those have been mankind's choices as the world's climate has cycled between cooling and warming, as it always has. The self-righteous ecochondriacs fantasize that if others would only embrace their prescribed brand of self-denial the planet would reach climatic equilibrium for the first time ever. Self-abasing guilt-ridden consumers and opportunistic politicians seem willing to substitute this new religion for the inconvenient old one of being good stewards mindful of the ten commandments. And why not? A little sacrifice on my part, perhaps nothing more than spending an extra $5000 on a hybrid SUV which will never recoup in fuel savings the extra money that I spent, and I can feel more holy than my neighbors, and do so publicly.

The futility of our little gestures is never calculated against the sheer volume of CO2 in the carbon cycle, the uncertainty in the climate models of everyday forcings such as cloud cover, changes in vegetation and water vapour, or the increased CO2 emissions that will accompany the use of coal from the 200 new coal mines China is opening in the next 5 years. The fact that the rate of temperature change in the last 30 years matches the rate of change that preceded the mid-century cooling anomaly is ignored.

Worshipping at the altar of climate change seems to require earnestness and genuine sacrifice, but the fruits of this religion will amount to nothing more than the satisfaction of having done something purely symbolic. Requiring genuine sacrifice for merely symbolic ends isn't much of a basis for public policy.

A couple of more cold winters in Europe and eastern North America will cool the global warming zealotry. I predict it will be replaced by fears of "extreme weather", fueled by clashes between warmer air over here caused by CO2, and colder air over there caused by particulates and aerosols. All bad weather can be blamed on this phenomenon, and so it will be.

Sadly, due to other societal changes we are running out of virgins to throw into the volcano.

Stuart Elliot, Edmonton, Canada

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

April 27, 2006

FEMA Unprepared to Manage Collapse of FEMA

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security has recommended that the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) be abolished, and a new federal agency with a new, shinier name be created in its place.

Gregory Kutz, managing director of special investigations for the Government Accountability Office, said he had little confidence that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be ready by June 1 to safeguard taxpayer dollars should a another major disaster like Hurricane Katrina strike.

(story link)

This proposal would be a disaster for FEMA Acting FEMA Director R. David Paulison admits that the agency is not adequately prepared to deal with its own demise. “There simply is no response plan for a disaster of this magnitude to hit the agency itself. This would be a Category 5 Dismantling of the Agency, a direct hit.”

Paulison has asked President Bush to declare the agency a disaster in order to speed aid to the agency. Trucks of bottled water are being dispatched to regional FEMA headquarters, and governors are being asked to call out the state militias to provide support to FEMA facilities as their management threatens to collapse. Early reports indicate that the Army Corps of Engineers had predicted that FEMA might encounter a topping of congressional support, but the imminent total breach is unexpected.

Said President Bush, “I don't think anybody anticipates the breach of congressional support for FEMA.”

Meanwhile, Louisiana Governor Blanco is questioning the wisdom of rebuilding a federal agency in a field so likely to experience similar flooding of criticism in the future. Blanco:

FEMA is injured. It´s going to take more than surgery and a cast to mend it. To restore the nation´s confidence in times of crisis, the call for help must be answered and it must be answered quickly. I´m pleased that Congress and the White House are tackling this issue.
It´s no secret that I´ve long believed the Stafford Act is inadequate to deal with natural and manmade disasters of the magnitude that hit Louisiana last year. I urge Congress to consider the entirety of the nation´s ability to respond quickly and adequately to catastrophic events like Katrina. Until then, any emergency agency will fail to meet the needs of protecting the people.

But some FEMA residents want to stay and rebuild, no matter what the danger.

“This agency is my home, it is my life,” said a tearful employee who was also a noble member of an oppressed racial minority. “What am I supposed to do? I won’t leave.”

FEMA is planning to issue $2000 debit cards to all FEMA employees, and anybody who claims to be a FEMA employee, possibly excluding blacks.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Top 10 Draft Picks from 2005

While we all are eagerly awaiting this year's NFL Draft '06, I took a moment to look back to the draft in 2005. To me, there is way too much hype put into each draft, and each year it gets worse and worse. I would wager that most people could name last year's #1 pick. But could they name the top 5? Top ten? Probably not. I would also wager that most strong NFL fans would remember who their favorite team's #1 pick was, but after that it probably becomes a blur.

So I took a look back at last year's 2005 draft, and looked up the stats for the top ten Round 1 players. I just find it amazing how, year after year, each pick comes with such hopes of a player that saves the franchise, when in effect most of the picks are players that take a year, or years, to have any impact at all. Granted, there are those rare exceptions that make immediate impacts their rookies years, but there are just as many (if not more) that fail to make even a ripple in the NFL their rookie years, if ever in their careers.

So here we go, a look back at 2005, with stats, and grades on how their performances were last year. For those players that did not play they received a grade stating as such.

1. San Francisco 49ers - Alex Smith*, QB Utah

Pass Yds	TD	Yds/Game	Int	QB Rating
875	1	97.2	11	40.8

For a #1 pick, Alex's numbers were downright awful. Ok, he was a rookie on a horrible team, so we can't fault him 100% for all this. For those of you that actually saw him play, however, you really had to be wondering why he was selected #1. He looked lost, overmatched, and frustrated. His second year will be huge, to see if he learned from his "trial by fire", or if what we saw in '05 was just how he is. (Side game, see if you can count the number of sports/NFL clichés in this article. Lots of them, you can bet on it.)

Grade: F

2. Miami Dolphins - Ronnie Brown, RB Auburn

Carries	Yds	Avg	Long	TD
207	907	4.4	65	4

Can you say "immediate impact"? (Ding - Sports cliche). Ronnie came in and gave the Dolphins a running game that they sorely missed with Ricky Williams gone. What a great rookie season he had. His TD numbers were not that high, but when you look back and watch film of his games, he did not look like a rookie at all. Watch his 65 yard run and then try to call him a rookie. Excellent pick by the Dolphins, who are hoping he can improve upon '05 in '06.

Grade: A

3. Cleveland Browns - Braylon Edwards, WR Michigan

Rec	Yds	Y/G	Avg	Lng	YAC	1stD	TD
32	512	51.2	16.0	80	6.3	22	3

Braylon Edwards had, for the most part, a very productive rookie season. Mid-season injuries really hurt his totals, but when you compare the games he played to other rookie receivers, he stands up just fine. Cleveland isn't exactly an aerial spectacle, and with Kellen Winslow Jr. out (again, don't get me started on him) Braylon was a marked man on the field. Despite being a rookie and having not a lot of weapons around him, Braylon showed promise and gave Browns fans hope that he might be a good receiver for them for the long haul. Of the three rookie WRs in the top ten, Braylon did have the best numbers. I prefer not to think about the 80 yard td he had against my beloved Packers, but that was a great play on his part.

Grade: B

4. Chicago Bears - Cedric Benson, RB Texas

Carries	Yds	Avg	Long	TD
64	272	4.1	36	0

Poor Cedric. Picked a fine year to be drafted by Chicago, only to have Thomas Jones finally remember that he can still play. Thanks to TJ's resurrection, Cedric saw very little playing time, as his number indicate. In fact, Cedric was #3 on the Bear's list for yards, behind TJ and Adrian Peterson. The one bright spot for Cedric was his 4.1 yds/average, and that is encouraging. What does this mean? Well, for 2005 it earns him a bad grade overall, especially considering how hyped he was going into the draft. I think, however, in the long run not playing too much in '05 can benefit him. RBs wear out very quickly, and if he took '05 to learn the position and keep himself fresh, he could have a very productive '06. Ronnie Brown, as great as '05 was, might have shaved time off his NFL career by being a workhorse too soon. Time will tell, and unfortunately for Cedric the grade is for '05, not for potential.

Grade: D

5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Carnell "Cadillac" Williams, RB Auburn

Carries	Yds	Avg	Yds/Carry	TD
290	1178	84.1	4.1	6

Wow. Can you say, "wow?" I remember very clearly, going into the '05 draft, how many pundits were quibbling over who to take, Cadillac, Ronnie Brown, or Cedric. 2 out of the 3 chosen proved to have great rookie seasons. Cadillac gave Tampa Bay a much needed running attack, and his numbers were impressive for any RB, never mind him being a rookie. Ronnie Brown's and Cadillac's rookie years were very similar in a few ways. They both contributed big, they both surpassed high expectations, and they both look to be the futures of their franchises for years to come. Cadillac, if there was a knock on his '05 season, was injured and missed a few games. He still had 290 carries, and that's just mind boggling. Tampa Bay made the right pick here, and they were rewarded as such.

Grade: A+

6. Tennessee Titans - Adam "Pac Man" Jones, CB West Virginia

Non-offensive players (no pun intended) are tough to gauge in terms of pure stats. Lineman, defense, and special teams are tough to really track in terms of quality vs. statistics. If we look at the stats for Pac Man, one number truly stands out.

GP	Tot Tckl	Sacks	Int	TDs	FF
15	53	0	0	1	0

To me, the big number is that he played in 15 games last season. 15 games, as a rookie, is a very good stat. What is missing from the stats (ok, I will be honest, I am way too lazy to dig really that deep for them) are the stats about how many times he was not throw at, or how his influence affected a game. He had 0 sacks, and 0 ints. The sacks, as a DB, we can forgive. To have 0 Ints, however, is not a good thing. Even a rookie should be able to get one or two, especially if you are a #1 pick. He did score a defensive touchdown, so there were some bright spots. Overall though, I am sure the Titans coaches would tell you that they were very pleased with his play, and I cannot argue with that.

Grade: B

7. Minnesota Vikings (from Oakland) - Troy Williamson, WR South Carolina

Rec	Yds	Avg	Lng	TD
24	372	15.5	56	2

Overall, not horrible numbers. He was #4 on the yards list for the Vikings, and they do have some very good WRs on that team. However, factor in Dante having a poor year, to being a rookie on a team loaded with WRs, that equals not having great stats. From the games I saw, Troy definitely had some promise, and if he stays healthy can do very well in the years to come. However, I felt that he was not used as much as he should have been. His fault, or the Viking's fault, not really sure. What I do know that he had a good rookie season, all things considered, and that he should only get better.

Grade: B-

8. Arizona Cardinals - Antrel Rolle, CB Miami (Fla)

GP	Tot Tckl	Ast	Sacks	Int
5	26	2	0	1

If we were to compare Antrel to Pac Man, we would say that Antrel played in about 1/3 less games than Pac Man. That's a strike against him right there. He did have 1 int (hence my point about how come Pac Man doesn't have any) so that helps him right there. It seemed that Antrel played in very limited situations, and was still in the "rookie learning curve" for most of the season. By no means is he a bust, and these numbers are pretty much average for a rookie. However, as I have stated before, Antrel was a top 10 pick, and thus expectations for higher numbers come with such a pick.

Grade: C-

9. Washington Redskins - Carlos Rogers, CB Auburn

GP	Tot Tckl	Ast	Sacks	Int
12	42	4	0	2

Carlos, being our third CB of the top ten (I sense a trend here) gives us a very good measuring stick in which to gauge the other two. He did not play in as many games as Pac Man did (15), but he played in 12, and for a rookie that is significant. He had twice as many tackles, assists, and Int's than Artrel, and 2 times as many Int's as Pac Man. So where does that put him? Having a very good rookie season, in my book. The Redskin's D has improved quite a bit over the past couple of years. While statistically it was down last year compared to the prior year, they still were pretty darn good. Carlos was a good addition to that D, and earns a good grade for it.

Grade: B+

10. Detroit Lions - Mike Williams, WR USC

Rec	Yds	Y/G	Avg	Lng	YAC	1stD	TD
29	350	25	12.0	49.3	9	20	1

Ok, I will be honest. I totally expected Mike Williams' numbers to be dreadful, and I was ready to rip into him good here. However, I must have been thinking of one of the other Detroit Ne'er do well WRs, because Mike actually had a pretty good year for a rookie. I was shocked that he played in 14 games, and as a rookie WR that is a good thing. His 350 yds and 1 TD is respectable, and I know he started to have some better games towards the end of the season. Make all the Joey Harrington jokes you like, the truth is that Detroit had to pass in '05. A lot. I mean, a lot. So that meant that someone, somewhere, was eventually going to catch the ball. If you compare Mike Williams to Troy Williams, their numbers are very similar. I think that Mike had a higher impact for his team, and thus gets a slightly higher rating.

Grade: B-

So there you have it, the top 10 picks of '05, broken down. I would have done all 30, just so I could make fun of Aaron Rodgers (who just can't seem to get a break) but that would involve a lot more work, and since I am not on espn's payroll, my free time for this is just about up. I hope you enjoyed this trip down memory lane, and please remember to take the draft of '06 with a grain of salt. Or beer, either one, that's fine too.

Posted by Boon | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 26, 2006

The Chair

Take a moment and step into a world that as of today does not exist. A hypothetical world that has created an invention so amazing and so wondrous that its very existence will change the lives of everyone from the moment it is activated. Imagine if you will, a world that creates an invention called "The Chair", and this invention's purpose is to once and for all clean up the world's legal systems.

For far too long legal systems around the world have been bogged down with paperwork and politics. Criminals found 'not guilty' are set free, even though they are not innocent. Innocent people are found guilty and punished accordingly, even though they were not responsible for the crime laid upon them. It is these tenants that force a group of scientists and engineers to create a lie-detection system so strong and so foolproof that it becomes the ultimate in deciding guilt or innocence.

Picture in your mind a chamber, much like a courthouse, with a judge's bench, only there is no jury box. It is not necessary. Instead, there resides the Chair. Resembling a grand throne, only dark in color and with many wires attached to it, it is far from regal indeed. Two, large lights hover above the throne. While not in use the lights are dim, but in use they simply show one of two colors. Red, or green.

Now picture in your mind a trial in session in this room, and the defendant is hooked up to this chair. Prosecution lawyers have their list of approved questions, and the defense attorney's only job is to agree on said questions to be asked, and to make sure that the defendant is treated properly. This particular case involves the murder of a six year old girl, and the man in the chair is accused of the crime. A murder trial, in the real world, would last how long? Weeks? Months? Perhaps years? How much would the trial cost taxpayers? This does not include appeals or suspensions or even mistrials.

This particular trial takes 10 minutes. That's it.

The judge comes in, everyone rises, the bailiff reads the procedures, and the prosecution lawyer begins. To verify that the Chair is working fine, they ask the defendant (Mr. Smith) a series of mundane questions to verify the results. Are you Mr. Smith? Where were you born? What is your middle name? Questions to that effect. To each response a green light glows above his head, indicating truth. After two minutes of this, the dance is over, and the real questions begin.

"Mr. Smith, did you murder (insert victim's name here)". Mr. Smith shifts uncomfortably, visibly sweating, and answers

"No I did not." Red light appears above his head. Red, menacing, and glaring. The crowd in the courtroom murmurs amongst its self. The defense sighs and the prosecution continues.

"Mr. Smith, do you recognize this?" (Shows Mr. Smith a picture of the murder weapon.)

"No I do not." Red light flashes again.

Now, the cynic in us would immediately doubt the accuracy of such a machine. A machine that could detect a lie or truth within humans so accurately, that it would become an official part of the legal proceedings. Lawyers of the defense variety would be fighting each other to keep the Chair from ever, ever being used.

But remember, this is a hypothetical world, a world where the Chair's accuracy was tested and questioned and tested again for years, and never, ever failed a test. Not once. It's usefulness proven beyond a doubt, that its use in the courts now is no longer questioned.

Also keep in mind the flip side of having such a tool. Flash back to Mr. Smith, sitting in the chair, but different circumstances.

"Mr. Smith, did you murder this girl?"

"No I did not." Green light flashes above Mr. Smith's head, and his defense nods knowingly, while the prosecution scratches its head and wonders what its next move will be. The prosecution pauses, and then asks Mr. Smith another question.

"Do you know who did murder her?" The smug smile fades from Mr. Smith's face quickly, and suddenly he is sweating. The defense objects, because that question was not approved, but the damage is already done.

So you see, dear reader, the power of such a machine if used in a courthouse. How much time, how much money, how many lives could be spared by such a gift? Imagine historical moments re-written by such a machine.

"Mr. Simpson, did you murder Nicole Simpson and/or Ron Brown?"

"Mr. Oswald, did you shoot President Kennedy, and if so, did you work alone?"

"Mr. Hussein, do you have weapons of mass destruction?"

Now we all know that a machine does not exist. Variations of it does, but they are not nearly the answer that the Chair represents. We are years, perhaps decades or centuries, from obtaining such an invention. Perhaps it is within our own human nature to never have such an invention exist.

Therein lays the rub. Would humanity accept and assimilate into the very fabric of their society a machine that robs us of what we do best? The truth, as an ideal, is a great concept, but we all know that we are far from obtaining it. Whether lying to others or lying to ourselves, humanity is based upon lies, or half-truths, or distorted facts. Could such a machine truly exist in our world? Sadly, I would submit that it probably could not. Humanity has the capacity for many things, but being able to accept the honest truth is a concept that we cannot accept.

Posted by Boon | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Coal is the Energy Source of the Future?

Most interest in "alternative" energy (i.e. non-petroleum based) focuses on solar, wind, or biomass. Anywhere but coal. But GreatPoint Energy is looking to make methane from coal - cleanly and cheaply. It sounds too good to be true. Founder Andrew Perlman:

If you can take the most highly used fuel source in the US, that's extremely dirty, and convert it into a fuel that burns very cleanly, then you actually do have an impact on people's lives and people's health...

NPR story here. As is often the case, the story does not spend much time on the fact that changing the fuel source for our electrical generators is a totally different issue from our automobile dependence on petroleum. Electric cars would be our best bet, but consumers have yet to jump on that option. I don't know that cleaner coal derivatives would matter to most people. But I still find alternative fuel sources (both autos and electric) completely fascinating, and worthy of investigation and discussion.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

April 24, 2006

Light Blogging

With two major projects wrapping up soon, it is likely that I will be posting even less prodigiously than usual. Considering that Rammage is too busy turning the gears of the US military-industrial complex, and G-Dawg has been AWOL for nearly a month, it is likely that AtlasBlogged readers will be relatively deprived, and may become distracted by bright, shiny objects. If that happens, please enjoy the bright, shiny object carefully, as such items often have sharp edges.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 22, 2006

Earth Day 2006

Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog asks On This “Earth Day,” Who Will Defend the Facts?

He then shares some of those facts as relayed in today's (subscription only) WSJ editorial. It's worth a read. Tom comes across as neither a Love Canal apologist, nor the well-intentioned but completely uninformed environmental activists who represent themselves as the only ones who really care about nature. You know the type.

BizzyBlog:

The worst polluters of the world over the history of the industrialized world have been the communist and totalitarian regimes that so bankrupted their economies that no resources were available for any kind of environmental protection, let alone cleanup. Even where the totalitarians have some wealth, as in China, the environment festers and decays in ways enviros would correctly deem unacceptable here.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 19, 2006

Michelle Malkin - Center of Blogosphere

I am a big fan of Michelle Malkin.

Her website, to me, is the center of the blogosphere. When I want to do a quick search of the web, I go to Google. When I want to do a quick search of the blogosphere, I go to Malkin. My desire to write for a political blog, the impetus behind Atlas Blogged, the use of Movable Type as a content management system, and even the clean interface of Atlas Blogged all derive inspiration from Michelle Malkin's blog. She was the first link added to our blogroll, and the first major blog to link to Atlas Blogged. If two hours go by without a new article posted, I actually get a little impatient - as if I were paying for a "Malkin Newswire Service" or something.

That being said, it's sad to see these UC Santa Cruz idiots resort to intimidation and threat. There was little doubt in my mind that this day was coming - the day that someone posted her home address and phone number accompanied by implicit threats. I only wish it had been a more worthy adversary than these snot-nosed, spoiled-brat punks who weren't imaginative enough to find something legitimate to protest about, so they decided to obey the orders handed down to them by Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. Ironic that they would protest other soldiers. I've got two words for you: Solomon Amendment.

Regardless, what's done is done. I only hope that Malkin sticks to her convictions and continues to blog with impunity. It is the opinion of this Atlas Blogged writer that Michelle Malkin is a modern day Atlas, who has decided against shrugging.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

April 17, 2006

How is Your Job?

Rammage emailed:

Guess what is The Best Job in this country :-)

Be sure to note how Money picked the best jobs, explained here.

Teaching didn't exactly make the rankings, despite how cushy the general public knows it to be*. But I could always jump back to physical science as a career, or (as Rammage noted) college professor came in #2. The rigors of academia!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

April 15, 2006

Iran Seeks Nukes Nikes

From an email sent to our list by Rammage:

Wow. Wulfman's been singing this tune (see below) for at least five (5) years now. He and I could have had this conversation today. In fact, I think we did have this conversation today...

Wulf - Glad you enjoy these "Day in History" finds. I found this post to be particularly apropos, considering the talk today...

So, what were we talking about five (5) years ago? An article by John Derbyshire, titled Hesperophobia. It appeared in the National Review Online on September 14, 2001.

And I did my best to pick that article apart for my friends on the email list. And now I'm posting it here at AtlasBlogged for further discussion.

I disagree!!!!

The fundamental reason America is under attack by Arab terrorists, several dozen people want me to know, is that the U.S. supports Israel.

This is true - it's not the only reason, but it is the major fundamental reason.

And the only reason we do that, several of them have said, or hinted, is because of the political power of the Jewish lobby here in the U.S.A.

Okay, that's at least party wrong. They walk, talk, and dress like we do. They are the "good guys" as we grow up. They're even the "good guys" in the Bible - well, for most of it. There is a cultural allegiance that guides our democratic decisions to engage in supporting them in their religious war. And that same allegiance (plus memories of Hitler) will get one called "Anti-Semite" faster than one can down a matzo ball, if ever one should mention that it might be better for our own national security if we did not overtly involve ourselves in their fights.

...at the risk of yet more ill-tempered or abusive emails, I am going to declare that I don't think these recent outrages can be blamed on the Jews, nor even on pro-Israel American politicians.

Okay, I buy that it's not to be blamed on Jews or on Israel, but it's ridiculous to discount the role of our alliance in all of this. The Jew-hating Muslim terrorists want to destroy Israel, so why is the jihad against Israel and the USA? Because we dress alike? No! It's because we send money and weapons to these people! As the author himself says later on, Israel is severely outnumbered over there, and they know that they would get overrun without us. Bin-Laden knows that too - that's why we are targeted. We are the ones who facilitate their survival and control of Muslim holy ground. That's what the acts of war are all about.

The root phenomenon is not American involvement in Middle Eastern affairs: the root phenomenon is hesperophobia.

I disagree to some extent - the article is very interesting and very well written, and I appreciate exposure to the new word, but I cannot accept his conclusions.

I can't see any strong reason for believing that if the state of Israel were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, hesperophobia would disappear with it.

Red Herring! He has tricked the reader into assuming that the hesperophobia (independent of financial and military backing) is the basis for the terrorist actions themselves - thus making it easy for the reader to agree that killing the Israelis wouldn't stop the terrorism. Check your premises.

They hate us because we humiliated them, showed up the gross inferiority of their culture. To them, and similarly humiliated peoples, we are the other; detested and feared in a way we can barely understand.

An excellent and insightful note. Imagine - really try to imagine - if China announced tomorrow that they had developed cold fusion, transhumanism, and FTL travel. And they won't sell - they'll only assimilate those who want in. How would we feel? Imagine if we resisted, how would we feel in 50 years? Holy shit.

However, imagine if they didn't demand assimilation. Imagine if we could have those things just by throwing away parts of our culture - say, the internal combustion engine and other fossil-fuel engines are outdated, and all of our medicine is antiquated, and every form of transportation is slow.

Would we resent them still? Well, we would if we couldn't meet their price. The hesperophobia comes from the fraction of the population who is more focused on clinging to the old ways, and they are of course among the most vocal (as is often true here, too). The way to win them over is not to carpet-bomb Kabul and beautiful Baghdad, but rather to offer free trade.

Aren't you hungry for Burger King now? Most of them are - and Nikes and Nokias and Nordstrom's, too. They would love westernization - at their own pace. And it would not have to be violent. Let them buy what they like and refuse what they don't. That certainly works, or we would not have the distinction that the author himself makes between their Arabs and our Arabs - the Kuwaitis and Saudis, cowering in their plush-lined air-conditioned bunkers being waited on by their Filipino servants while we did their fighting for them. (btw, far from accusing him of anti-Semitism, I would note that the author seems to have a very strong prejudice against Arabs, whose culture is referred to as "squalid, hopeless, irredeemably inferior", and who he divides into two categories "the mad phobics and the cowering, pampered, Westernized Arabs.)

The mall in Dubai is more culturally diverse, classically liberal, and "Westernized" than any mall I have seen in the USA. And they make better coffee. But if there is a sense that they've lost control to us, of course they will resist and pull away! It has to be at their own pace - the same way each of us keeps up (or doesn't) with the latest technologies. It's no different.

If the present state of Israel were inhabited by Christian Lithuanians or Frenchmen, the hatred would be nearly as intense.

I agree - it's about the land!! Why do people fail to recognize that? The irrational belief that Jews should live in that strip of land because God gave it to them, and that it is our duty to protect them because that's our God too and he's for whatever reason not available to rain fire on their enemies like he used to so we should show some religious solidarity and kick Arab ass for our beloved Jewish friends who have been there since way back in the 1940s, IS ABSOLUTELY INDEFENSIBLE AND STUPID!

A Western state on "Arab land," is an outrage, an illegitimate creation, a crusader state. The fact that the Jews had a wealthy and powerful nation on that land three thousand years ago counts for nothing. Israel is, from the point of view of most Arabs, an alien graft that must not be allowed to "take."

This is meant to be facetious, but I agree with it. In this country we are outraged by the number of Arabs who own prime real estate in our best cities, and there is great resentment toward the fairly new Arab parts of town. How would we feel if we had lost WWII and Hitler gave New England and the Mid-Atlantic States to some new pals from Persia and Palestine? An Arab state controlling the birthplace of American democracy? We would fight - throwing rocks at tanks if necessary, and we don't even have the cultural cohesion that Palestinians have. Why is their point of view so difficult to understand?

So, so, so, is this any of America's business? What are we doing, meddling in the Middle East? Where is our interest? Well, U.S. politicians must speak for themselves, but if I had any position of authority in any Western nation, I would be urging full support for Israel, and I am not Jewish. It's a matter of cultural solidarity.

"Cultural solidarity"? We were pretty culturally similar to, say, King George's England. Should we have stood by them? How about the Civil War - should the North have refused to fight based on the fact that the Southerners looked and talked pretty similar to Northerners? How about the Germans? Or, was that because they weren't as much like us as the UK was?

How did they start fighting in the first place? What a crock - look at what he's saying. The Arabs aren't like us and the Jews are, so that's why we should support Israel fully. It's complete and total racist, cultural elitism - and that's the real reason people hate Westerners. JFC!

What, after all, does the Buchananite program offer us, if carried through?

Using Buchanan's name is an emotional appeal, and not even an appropriate one. Most people who don't feel we are justified in supporting Israel in their struggle against Arabs do not have old Pat's extremist's attitudes. I for one say we throw open the doors to all Israelis - hey, it's not a police state over here, so if you can be peaceful and lawful, we'll let you live in our country, where there are not car bombings by people who feel that you're living in their ancestral homeland! But if you feel it's more important to stick to your religious guns, I can't help you - ask your God.

But if we don't arm the Israelis, who will?

Allow me to take a moment to say that I am not advocating any actions that would prevent private companies from selling arms or sending money to Israel; nor do I feel we should try to prevent our citizens from forming a Foreign Legion that operates sans tax dollars and outside the government's sanction - hey, if you want to risk your life freeing the Israelis or Bosnians or Chinese, that's your right. But when you use my tax dollar to fund a war in which you send my brother or son in a draft over to fight a war, in which they and I do not believe, that is unjustifiable and wrong.

Don't tell me it can't happen - the draft was in effect less than 30 years ago, in support of a war that was not on our soil and was controversial in justification (to put it mildly).

You just have to think straight. You just have to understand that the war between civilization and barbarism is being fought today just as it was fought at Chalons and Tours, at the gates of Kiev and Vienna, by the hoplites at Marathon and the legions on the Rhine.

And so the civilized, non-barbarous thing to do would be to escalate the situation and continue the practices that have incurred so much hatred and violence in the first place? I think the author is off base.

Well, it's been a long five (5) years. A lot has happened. And it is taken as a given that we are, in fact, in the middle of a war between civilization and barbarism, as John Derbyshire said. But I still say that free trade would have had a much better long term impact on the Middle East than war did. And I have always felt that would be the case for Cuba, as well. How has anybody benefited from the forty year grudge match embargo we have against that island?

For Iraqis, there was a better option than living under Saddam Hussein, and it remains to be seen how many of them will be able to enjoy that in peace as a result of US military action. Iraq has been since its inception an artificial state with hateful rival ethnic groups, and it is still possible for their situation to deteriorate into civil war. On top of that, we are looking at possible armed or nuclear conflict with Iran - well, I don't believe shots will be fired, but everybody else seems to.

This changes the heart and mind of the average guy on the streets in the Middle East how, exactly?

Ironically, this point was also made the other day by Rimjob at DailyKos, who asks
Will Mickey Mouse & Coca-Cola Destroy Radical Islam? The folks in the comment section don't seem to be getting the point at all, but Rimjob seems to be singing my tune:

Could the American culture be a greater weapon against the terrorists & the radical Islam they represent, than any Nuclear Bomb could ever be?

Answer: Yes. If you don't think so, then I really feel sorry for you, and I would like to try to help you see the light. Amid all the fear of the dhimma that awaits us if we don't "take out" Iran, some people seem to have lost sight of the fact that freedom and capitalism are good - in fact, they are better. I have absolute confidence in our way of life triumphing over any other - and I am not talking about the English language, Christianity, a two-party system, and warrantless wiretaps. I am not even talking about the internal combustion engine and bottled beer. I am talking about the personal freedoms that come with economic options. Free trade makes for free people. Free people make for poor extremists - which is why the downtrodden American libertarians have never managed to have a rally for their freedoms.

Rimjob may sound like a cultural elitist (i.e. ugly American) when he says,

I believe in my heart of hearts that most people (maybe not all but most), whether here or in Iran, China, Cuba, or anywhere, want to come home at night & sit in front of a 60 inch television, eat hamburgers, and drive a nice car if given the chance.

But I agree with him - except to clarify that most people want that option, even if they wouldn't partake of it. After all, I have not elected to get a 60 inch television. But you can bet your ass I would resent being told I couldn't have it.

Rimjob refers readers to Thomas Friedman's famous Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention. I am familiar with the theory, but I have to admit that I have never read The Lexus & The Olive Branch, nor Friedman's other tomes. But I intend to, even if they are only going to support beliefs I already have about globalization and economic freedom.

It is refreshing to see this diary entry by Rimjob. DailyKos is held up as an example of what is wrong with lefty bloggers, to the point that the site has become a punchline. But Mickey Mouse and Coca-Cola will destroy radical Islam, and socialism, and any other extremist political and economic movement in the world, if we will only get our politicians out of the way of the forces of the American economy. This is a really important point that most Americans don't seem to grasp - at least become familiar with Friedman's point, please.

I have never suggested that Americans shrug off the rhetoric of the Iranian regime, or the al-Qaeda terrorists, or the socialist dictators in Latin America. But for the long term vision of the world, Americans need to recognize that our most powerful weapon is capitalism.

It is (to coin a phrase) the Unknown Ideal.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 14, 2006

What Would Spidey Do?

As much as it pains me to link to USA Today, with this story, I just have to.

Shades of the Patriot Act? In what Marvel Comics calls "the most politically charged comic series ever," superheroes must reveal their secret identities and register with the government or resist and be hunted. The seven-issue miniseries, Marvel: Civil War, on sale May 3, finds the government enacting the Super Hero Registration Act, declaring that such folks as the Hulk, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four are "living Weapons of Mass Destruction."

The story "is an allegory for the current American political landscape," says editor in chief Joe Quesada. "Should people sacrifice their civil liberties to create a safer world?"

Strait-laced heroes such as Iron Man are willing to comply, but rebels such as Captain America are ready to resist. Which side will each hero choose? That's part of the sell.

And don't miss Marvel: Civil War #2 in June. Creators promise Spider-Man's decision will be one of the biggest shocks in that character's (gasp!) 44-year history.

I never collected comics. But these, I think I will have to pick up.

Comments from Andrew A. Smith of Scripps Howard News Service:

"Civil War" has been building in titles like "Amazing Spider-Man," "Fantastic Four" and, most importantly, a one-shot called "New Avengers: Illuminati." These books have established that public concern in Marvel books has been building over the burgeoning numbers of masked, super-powered vigilantes during a time of war.

"The end of the series has massive ramifications," [Series writer Mark Millar] said. "This is one of those things that comes along that shapes things for times to come. ... There's very much a pre-Civil War and post-Civil War Marvel Universe coming at you."

"On the one hand you know people are saying there's all this political allegory," Millar said. "But at the other end it's all about these big Marvel fights between these two characters, which is all I read growing up. ... Marvel has always been about who's the biggest and who's the strongest, whether it's the Hulk or the Thing. In many a ways it's a 7-year-old's fantasy."

But a fantasy with teeth. And unlike most comics, no side is presented as completely correct and no facile answers are supplied or suggested.

So this isn't just kid's stuff. And reading around on some different sites, I note that Millar says in interview after interview that he doesn't want this to be a black-and-white issue... or rather, a red-and-blue issue. None of the superheroes comes out as a conservative, apparently, nor do any claim to be liberals. The series promises to tackle complex issues of liberty and security, so for those of us who never owned more than a few comics, or even for those of you who have never read a single one, maybe on this subject you ought to. It could be thought provoking. And if not, then hopefully it will at least be fun.

Comic fans might enjoy this article by Dave Richards at The Comic Wire - check the forum and the Related Articles at the bottom.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Representative Brad Miller on Government Science

DailyKos today features Representative Brad Miller (D--North Carolina), who sits on the House Committee on Science. He discusses the politics of science, and accusations that the current administration uses intimidation and the withholding of research grants to silence scientists whose research does not give the conclusions that certain politicians want. (see here).

We're looking for instances of stacked advisory panels, edited reports, researchers who appear to have been blacklisted for coming to politically inconvenient conclusions, grants pulled because the research was going in the wrong direction, reports not published or released, and on and on--you'll know it when you see it.

Excellent, Representative Miller. The House Committee on Science should be very concerned with even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to the relationship between elected officials, bureaucrats, and supposedly objective and independent scientists. Of course, I would expect all investigation to be non-partisan, or at least equitably bi-partisan, to make sure that the watcher of watchers is not playing political games. It might prove useful to have scientists start recording the instances of intimidation and grant withholding - so it is not anecdotal evidence. Did this happen under Clinton? Bush 41? Reagan? I am quite certain it did, but if we don't have very good data on it, then we can't make very good conclusions.

From DarkSyde, who interviews Rep. Miller:

The stories and rumors keep coming: The Bush-Cheney White House, enabled by the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress, stands accused of reaching deep into tax supported public science organizations and oversight boards and engaging in suppression of any facts or data which their political funding base finds inconvenient. These are our organizations. They are funded by our tax dollars and often times charged with assessing matters of grave importance to each and every one of us. Rep. Miller is determined to return them to their rightful owners: We the People.

It is almost tiresome to again make the libertarian point that it is the tax dollar itself that should be returned to its rightful owner. A call for less government in science will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, as NOAA, NASA and the like are not the social welfare programs on which most libertarians like to focus. They're full of neat stuff, and have cool websites and press releases.

Representative Miller:

We should be able to rely on impartial scientific research in a variety of policy areas. And we should be able to depend on traditional peer review to reveal any bias or other flaws. Scientific research needs to inform our policy choices, not justify policy decisions already made.

It is impossible to respond intelligently to this without sounding like a cynic. So be it. Representative Miller is right - we should be able to rely on impartial scientific research. And little children should always have loving parents and plenty of food. But that isn't the real world. Scientists have agendas. Grant review boards have agendas. The president and his administration have an agenda. Representative Miller has an agenda. Often the most enlightening aspect of a scientific article or discovery is to see who funded it. And so long as the funding comes from the federal government, there are strings attached. Strings people will try to pull in order to support their particular vision.

Perhaps it would be best if the scientists stuck to science, and let the politicians handle the politics. As was noted on this blog a couple of months ago, the two just don't mix well.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

April 13, 2006

Nuclear Iran, Revisited

On March 9th, 2006 in an entry called Nuclear Iran, Wulf said:

Face it, we aren't going to do anything that will stop [Iran] from getting the bomb. The only thing that can stop Iran now is a catastrophic earthquake or a large meteor that destroys the sites where the technology is being developed.

I hadn't thought about it at the time, but Major Mike over at My Sandmen offers a few man-made alternatives in his recent article Responding to Hugh Hewitt's "Arguments Against Striking Iran" Post. While his ideas may not prevent Iran from getting the bomb, it may at least slow them down. Here is a sampling:

Destruction, denial of use, barricade, harassment and interdiction…are all ways to preclude the use of a facility or an operational site. Destruction is not the only way to preclude the Iranians from continuing their development of nuclear material.

Access to and from known sites can be denied through direct air interdiction, air-delivered scatterable mines, continuous harassment, site blockading, and supply vehicle targeting. Eventually a combination of these activities will result in the “virtual” denial of use of the facility; stymieing or halting production of nuclear material. Targeting entrances, ventilation systems, electrical service systems and power generation systems would all have the same…denial of use, result.

Then all we'd have to worry about is the Straits of Hormuz.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Iranian Mines vs US Minesweepers

Juxtaposition:

News story April 4:

Amid concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, analysts are worried it could resort to a wide range of weapons and tactics to disrupt the world's busiest oil shipping lanes if armed conflict erupts with the United States, AFP reported.

Because its shores line the narrow Straits of Hormuz, Iran could quickly hit both military and commercial shipping with missiles launched from land, air or sea as well as cripple maritime traffic with mines or sunken ships, they said.

Despite a technological edge, US and allied navies would have less time to react to such threats in the lanes between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean than in, say, neighboring Iraq, Washington-based analyst Andrew Koch said.

"Absolutely, they have the ability to do that (block shipping) today," he said.

Now, blogger Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money, April 13:

Interesting article in the latest Defense News about the Navy's decision to fold its minesweeping assets into the Anti-Submarine Warfare Command. The move obviously doesn't make sense to the minesweeping community, and doesn't make much sense to me, either. The Navy has been quiet about the move, but the article suggests that the decision was made by officers without much interest and experience in mine warfare. The move will also result in the retirement of half the USN minesweeper fleet. Some of the material gap will be covered by the minesweeping module of the new Littoral Combat Ship, but the folding of mine warfare into ASW has some officers concerned that minesweeping will get the short end of the budgetary stick in a Command dominated by ASW.

Why is this a problem? Mine and submarine warfare are both naval equivalents of asymmetric warfare. They are weapons of the weak, designed to offset an enemy surface or air advantage. Of the two, mine warfare is less expensive and potentially more dangerous, especially as the USN's focus has moved toward littoral areas where mines will likely be most effective. Anti-submarine warfare is more expensive, more interesting, and higher tech, which is probably why the Navy seems more interested in it than minesweeping. While this isn't the most serious crisis facing the Republic, it is evocative of a Pentagon culture that continues to focus on expensive, high tech solutions to problems and ignore low tech, asymmetric threats.

Pop quiz: Does Iran have a lot of high-tech submarines, or a lot of smalll, hard-to-find, quick-to-deploy mines?

I commented on the dangers of Iran's low-tech naval tactics a couple of weeks ago in the discussion thread of a story at QandO. Iran's plans for shutting down the Straits of Hormuz in the event of a major conflict are for real. I find this latest USN fleet development very distrubing. I keep re-reading the part about The move will also result in the retirement of half the USN minesweeper fleet.

If you were shocked by the sight of a gaping hole in the side of the USS Cole, consider the fact that Since World War II, 14 U.S. ships have been sunk or damaged by mines, while only two have been sunk by enemy fire. See this NPR story from three years ago for more about mines in the Persian Gulf. And ask yourself what other disturbing developments might come from failing to take Iran seriously in the Straits of Hormuz.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 12, 2006

Florida High Schoolers Could be Required to Declare a Major

Would it make sense to ask high school students to have more freedom and control over their own studies? I recognize that for most students, one of the worst parts about being in high school is the lack of control over their own curriculum. It really doesn't matter how much you hate math, poetry, or phys ed. You are going to take it. Is this paternalism? Or is it a realistic requirement when providing children with an education? To what degree could 13-year old could be expected to map out an education plan for themselves? Can we expect that children that age know what is best for themselves?

Legislation that unanimously cleared the Florida Senate Education Committee last week would require incoming high school freshmen to declare a major and a minor course of study. I think there are some obvious problems with this plan, and I would like to see how they will be addressed.

1) What majors will be offered? They will have to be pretty broad, because some schools won't have the resources to offer more than a basic "math and science", "social sciences", "arts and humanities" option.
The Bradenton Herald reports that vocational coursework would count - "fields like carpentry or auto repair."

The district in which I teach (in Virginia, not in Florida) is big enough to offer a math/science center, a foreign language center, an IB program, and a lot of vocational opportunities - but that's a big district with a relatively flexible budget. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that all of these kids will be able to pick bioinformatics. What will be the bare minimum a district would have to offer under this law, and how is that bare minimum different from the current required courses? There is a possibility this will just be an extra stack of files in the guidance department for many rural schools.

2) What if a kid wants to change majors? At the college level, this is easy enough. Worst case scenario is that it takes you longer to get your degree. So if a high school junior says that she feels she was misinformed about what "social sciences" entails, and she wants to switch to a hard science major, do you tell her "no"? Do you tell her she will graduate high school a year late? Obviously, the answer to these two questions will have to be "no". So what exactly is the point of calling it a "major" if it is really just an opportunity for students to pick and choose their classes?

3) What minimum competency would be required in the core classes? I suppose districts could default to the federal standards of minimum competency in math and ~~English~~ language. If you think the bare minimum is enough, then ok. But some people choose to learn more and we encourage that, ok? You do want to express yourself, don't you?

It is my understanding that many other countries have a system like this for their public schools. In particular, I have had several scientists and engineers from Germany tell me that they were separated from students with other interests by age 14. Provided that this is voluntary on the part of the student, this seems like an idea with potential. I would love to hear from any readers who are more familiar with a comparable working system.

And for you libertarian readers who would say "this, too, would be best addressed by privatization of all schools", please answer the question of what subjects must be studied under the Florida plan, or under total privatization. Are you so libertarian as to support a parent's freedom to send their child to madrasses? I am not just playing devil's advocate - I feel that question to be at the heart of the issue of unmotivated students in public schools, which is exactly the problem this Florida bill hopes to address.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

What is the Difference Between a Journalist and a Blogger?

This week, Andrea Seabrook takes over the reins at Mixed Signals, the NPR blog. Apparently they are on a rotation over there. It's a young enough blog that they seem to still be getting their identity - or at least, still conveying it to readers.

One of Andrea's first blog entries was a fairly blog-stereotypical post about a story that the blogosphere had picked up, but the MSM had missed.

Over the last couple of days there's been a lot of blog buzz about this Wired story that details another possible NSA eavesdropping program... My question is why hasn't this bubbled into the mainstream media?

What I find especially telling, however, is the fact that she sounds less like a blogger and more like a journalist. For example, she noted:

the ever-self-obsessed blogger set is in a tizzy about the news.

Ever-self-obsessed? Well, sure, that describes bloggers pretty well. But most bloggers can't note that without sounding, well, ever-self-obsessed. Seabrook manages to sound like an outsider who is dabbling in the blog fad. So what is the difference between a blogger and a journalist, really?

NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin wrote yesterday about the Mixed Signals blog. His tone, and that of JJ Sutherland and Robert Smith, who authored the blog before Seabrook, imply that the main difference is that bloggers are snarky and puckish.

For the past weeks, Sutherland and Smith... have commented on a astonishing range of NPR stories, backroom gossip and extra angles on stories that didn’t quite make it past the editors, but which the bloggers, in their own puckish way, deemed worthy of note and mention.

Without the blog, these guys were just journalists; snarkless, puckless, and therefore able to draw a salary - though today, Seabrook asks why she can't be snarky as a journalist. Would this blur the line too much?

Mr. Dvorkin also gives some insight to the origin and purpose of Mixed Signals. I had assumed it was an attempt by NPR to reach out to the new medium, as the NPR website itself once extended from the radio network. A sort of asexual budding, as NPR tried to produce a version of itself that could speak the language of blogosphere denizens. And to some degree, that appears to be the case.

...it is another opportunity for listeners to comment on and to challenge NPR’s programming decisions.

Dvorkin quotes Jeffrey Katz, the Senior Supervising Producer at NPR Digital Media:

We started a daily blog to bring a voice to our Web site. It's a way of guiding our audience through some of the most interesting offerings we have on the air and on the Web. It's also a way of connecting what we do to the rest of the Internet, pointing out stories and developments that we think will be of interest.

We have a lot of remarkable audio on our Web site, and we've increased our photographic resources, too. But our readers have told us they also want more text, to be able to have more that they can read and scan. And blogs are a convenient way for readers to respond to what they hear and read on NPR and to connect with one another. We received about 2,000 comments to our blog and to two community forums in the past month. Those readers' opinions and ideas add real value to what we do.

But, interestingly, Mr. Dvorkin indicates that the purpose is not just to be a news blog, but also an office journal.

Newsrooms have always been great sources of endlessly amusing storytelling, absurdist observations and wry notes on the idiosyncrasies of humanity -- especially the foibles of journalists.

So Mixed Signals is meant not to be a news blog, but more an actual log of the thoughts of the journalist du jour - something more along the lines of what blog researcherer James Richards is talking about when he says:

In my experience blogs are demonstrative that we all have something to share about our lives and blogging is just one of many ways of doing this.

This is not traditional journalism by any stretch of the imagination; nor is it for commerical gain.

In this sense, it may have more in common with blogs by chefs, wedding planners, preachers, prostitutes, teachers, delivery drivers, and secretaries than with the main NPR website. But as I noted, it is a young blog, and is still getting its identity. And each time they switch writers, they may be changing the motivation for blogging.

Seabrook's desire to be snarky may ultimately be the biggest difference between journalists and bloggers. I do not have any financial incentive to refrain from blasting away at any public figure or policy that strikes me as foolish. What are you going to do - cancel your subscription to this site? There are no financial strings attached to my writing, nor consequences for unsubstantiated assertions or conjecture. Provided I steer clear of actual libel, I can get away with saying quite a bit that Seabrook cannot afford to say. While the title of this piece may sound like the opening to a joke, it is a question that is more and more topical as newspapers, magazines, and now radio networks attempt to delve into the blogosphere. But if the media blogger is a journalist first, they won't be able to help sounding like a journalist - an outsider who is dabbling in the blog fad. It may be that the average reader won't know or care about the difference, but it will still be there. Would a simple dash of puckishness be enough to make a newspaper "blog" a part of the regular Daily Kos / Glenn Reynolds community?

Let me leave you with this final thought from the NPR Ombudsman:

The value of a blog is precisely in its spontaneity and in the play of opinions between the blogger and the listeners. The blogger must do this several times a day in order for the blog to remain "fresh."

Several times a day? Ouch. AtlasBlogged = pwned.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

April 9, 2006

Investing in Alternative Energies

Update below

The world runs on petroleum. The stuff fuels industry and economy. It dominates geopolitics. It is arguably the most important natural resource in the world. And it is a great big headache looming in America's future, for each of these reasons.

As a matter of science and engineering, I find alternatives to petroleum to be very exciting. I would feel this way even if alternative energies were not a pressing issue in politics and economics. It seems to me that this topic that should have very broad appeal for conversation, research, and investment. Consider:

For environmentalists, alternative sources of energy would reduce oil drilling and shipping, and would ~~eliminate~~ reduce pollutants, including greenhouse gases.

For ~~diners at the trough of socialist pork~~ farmers, biofuels would cut back on subsidies by providing a steady market for crops.

For national security, a reduced dependance on oil has obvious benefits.

For scientists and engineers, alternative energies are an absolute field day - a cornucopia of exciting ideas and employment.

And for investors? Well, for investors it's... um... for investors.......

Okay, for investors, alternative energy is a little more hit-or-miss. It seems like a pretty rosy long-term outlook, if you can guess correctly which alternative energy sources will take off, and when. You don't want to put money into windmills and find Don Quixote took out your investment for personal spite. You don't want to buy stocks in nuclear power and then see a repeat of TMI or Chernobyl. The politics, patents, and polls are surely more difficult to divine than some other, safer investments. Petroleum alternatives are exciting for some people, but in all honesty, investors may be better off with commoditites - even petroleum! Unless, of course, they are investing with taxpayer money instead of their own (see Rediff India Abroad article):

In a bid to reduce American dependence on oil "that feeds Middle east terrorism," prominent Indian-American venture capitalist Vinod Khosla is financing a state-wide ballot initiative to get Californians to tax oil producers and endorse clean energy.

The initiative would bar oil companies from passing the tax on to consumers in the form of higher pump prices...

The planned economy - the only reason it didn't work for the Soviets is because they didn't have the right people planning, I guess. Khosla is a Republican, keep in mind. You know what that party stands for - smaller government, right? It's a good thing the Democrats aren't running things. (/sarcasm)

If passed, it could raise as much as $380 million a year to develop alternative fuels and reduce the state dependence on oil by 25 per cent within a decade.

$380 million a year. This money will be slushed over to other causes, squandered in bureaucracy, and invested unwisely, as always happens to government money. If Khosla wants to see real development in alternative energies, he should be rallying up private organizations to do the investing and the research.

I think Mr. Khosla's goals are fantastic - something that should have broad appeal, as stated above. From a recent article in The Economist:

His plan is to use technology and entrepreneurship to tackle big social and environmental problems: "In venture capital, we fail far more often than we succeed," he says. "I've decided that I'd better focus on taking on problems that really matter, so that when I win it makes a difference to the world." He likens his need to get involved with worthy causes to a drug addiction.

Again, the aim is laudable. But the means to this end are not good. Back to the Rediff article:

"We have an energy crisis on our hands. We have our oil feeding Middle East terrorism, and we need to do something about it. Besides, consumers are paying too much."

Khosla says the measure, which he's already spent more than $1 million to back, is not about him, but about "doing the right thing."

Consumers are paying too much - to the government, that is. Well over $380 million per year is already taken in by the California state government from the sale of petroleum products, and consumers do not need to be made into the unwilling investors in any new schemes, no matter how noble. If it is about doing the right thing, then I say again that Mr. Khosla should stick to forming private investment groups in the field of alternative energies.

Count me a part of what this article calls "a coalition of oil companies and anti-tax activists is opposing the alternative energy initiative".

"This is not about alternative energy development," said John Martini, chief executive of the California Independent Petroleum Association.

"This is about getting the taxpayers to pay a dedicated revenue stream into the preferred projects the proponents have investments in."

The Road to Serfdom is paved with good intentions. Invest your own time, energy, money and enthusiasm in alternative energies. Do not dictate these investments to others. Such behavior has no place in a free society.

Update: Jon Henke, blogging on the topic at QandO, links to some articles on ethanol, which is a reasonably efficient alternative energy source for automobiles. One of the links is to the American Enterprise, where Dr. Robert Zubrin argues ethanol over hydrogen fuel cells, for reasons of efficiency. As is noted in the Q and O comments section, and in the Economist article I mentioned in my post (found here), ethanol requires infrastructure investment. Gallon to gallon, ethanol comes out pretty well - in the laboratory. Bringing it to the BP on my corner puts it at a huge cost disadvantage to gasoline.

For this reason, as I said at Q and O, Because of the infrastructure issue, the only alternative energy source that seems likely for automobiles in the near future is electricity. We can’t pipe ethanol very well, but we can set up local electrolyzing stations all around the country, without any new infrastructure. And it’s a snap to develop home battery charging devices for electric cars or for "pure" hybrids - cars that run pure electric under 30 mph or so.

For the record, my personal interest in alternative energies is not limited to automobiles. But that's a separate topic, for another day.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Define "Protestor"

Headline: Protester shot dead in Nepal

Story:

KATMANDU Nepal (CNN) -- Nepalese police shot and killed a protester Sunday in the Banepa region when pro-democracy protesters tried to storm a police post, a government official said.

Prostestor? Or... "riotor"? Or Maoist terrorist? It depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

Nepal is pretty much the last place I want to be, with Maoists fighting to overthrow a monarchy. I couldn't support either side. Plus, it is my understanding they do not play hockey over there. Sounds like hell.

I guess I have nothing useful to say here - I just noted the headline on Google News and decided to check out the story. And I was struck (yet again) by the difficulty news organizations and reporters seem to have with objectivity and impartiality. This is the kind of stuff that makes me roll my eyes when people compain about Fox News having a bias. Hey, show me a news source that doesn't.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 8, 2006

San Francisco, City of Refuge and Solution to Illegal Immigration

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting:

A cross-section of elected officials, religious leaders and immigrant-rights advocates in San Francisco is vowing not to comply with proposed legislation that would criminalize living in the United States illegally and make helping undocumented immigrants a felony. Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will not cooperate with any federal attempt to criminalize illegal immigration. "This is a city of refuge," Newsom said at a press conference Thursday.

This got me thinking about my own ideas for illegal immigration reform.

Charles Krauthammer says that we should:

Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

I agree, but for one difference. Instead of building this double-barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, as Krauthammer believes, I think it should follow the border from Texas to California. At the California border, the wall should turn right and encircle the entire state of California, separating it from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. California, with San Francisco as the new capital, should open her doors to unlimited illegal immigration, with the city of refuge being the hub for registering for all new immigrant social programs that California will offer.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said that San Francisco is a "sanctuary city, a city of ~~refuse~~ refuge, and we always will be." I couldn't agree more. And what better way to show it than opening the doors to your city to all of the illegal immigrants.

Judging by these photos at Zombie Time, it's clear to me that San Francisco is composed of some of the finest, most compassionate and tolerant people America has to offer. You all are great Americans and will be performing a wonderful service for your country.

In retrospect, though, I guess you must be a little embarrassed about rejecting the USS Iowa now. The retired battleship would have made for fantastic converted housing.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 7, 2006

More Immigration Thoughts

An interesting note that I caught this afternoon on NPR's All Things Considered:

The nation's unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent in March, the lowest level since 2000, and employers added 211,000 jobs to their payrolls. Economists say growth in service and construction may explain why the unemployment rate for immigrants is lower than that of native-born Americans.

The emphasis is mine. Never before has the unemployment rate for immigrants been lower than that of native-born Americans. I suppose there are a lot of thoughts that might arise when noting the low unemployment rate. For example, it buries the canard that people come here for our socialist programs - they are indisputably here to work. I think the real point to take from this news is one that should be obvious anyway; Immigration will continue, so long as jobs are available. Legalities have never stopped the flow of workers, and the people who come know that they can find employment. No walls, fences, amnesty, American flags, or Congressional deal will stop the flow.

Why is there any opposition to making legal immigration to the United States easier? It obviously isn't about security - I am reminded of Cato's Daniel Griswold testimony last year before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship:

Our focus, one might say our obsession, with keeping Mexicans from crossing our Southwester border illegally has not served our national security interests. It has diverted resources and attention away from efforts to identify and keep out people who truly intend to do us harm.

(transcript here)

But instead of demanding real and useful reform of the immigration laws, many bloggers are wailing about the sensationalist "Reconquista" protests. Where is the serious political counter-movement? Or a campaign to remind the Latino youth that Caesar Chavez actually protested illegal immigrants? I don't see it. I just see predictions that our children will all be speaking Spanish.

I'll be honest, I don't give a damn what language my descendants are speaking in a century or two. I care more about whether they will be protectionist, socialist, unionized, fearful, and still have useless policies regarding immigration, but serve no security purpose.

Call me loco.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Atlas Blogged Asks...

...What are the three words?

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

April 5, 2006

Big Box Urban Expansion

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., often accused by critics of harming local businesses, announced Tuesday it plans to build more than 50 stores in struggling urban neighborhoods over the next two years to create jobs and help small establishments...

What a great move. It will not sway the rabidly anti-Wal-Mart pseudo-socialist anti-corporatist faction who is incapable of recognizing the ways in which Wal-Mart benefits communities. But who cares? Let them talk, and let Wal-Mart act, and then we'll take a look at which is more helpful.

Ten of those stores will anchor "Wal-Mart Jobs and Opportunity Zones" that will help local businesses, especially minority and women-run enterprises, with free advertising, grants to local chambers of commerce and seminars and advice on doing business near Wal-Mart and with Wal-Mart...

Scott said the new stores in blighted neighborhoods will all go into big metro areas, where Wal-Mart is starting to expand after building its base in mainly rural areas.

The stores could generate more than $100 million in state and local tax revenue, he said.

(story here)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

April 3, 2006

Supply and Demand

It is often said that people in some countries (mostly Mexico) fill a demand for low-wage jobs. Not blue collar jobs, but dirty blue collar jobs. Agriculture, housekeeping, food service, construction... how true is it that Americans won't take those jobs?

Our system of ~~free~~ compulsory public education has brought us to a point where children are told that anybody can go to college, and more importantly, everybody who is anybody does go to college. High school students who are not planning to go to college are usually embarassed to say so. Frankly, it is becoming that way with regard to graduate degrees as well. And what person goes to college for four (or more) years in order to pick fruit?

Ours is an overschooled (though undereducated) society. We all have expectations for ourselves and our children. And to paraphrase Michael in Office Space, nobody would clean sewage if they had a Master's degree.

Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute writes:

The U.S. economy continues to produce opportunities for low-skilled workers in important sectors such as retail, services, construction, and tourism. Meanwhile, the pool of Americans happy to fill those jobs continues to shrink as we grow older and better educated. Yet our immigration system has no legal channel for peaceful, hard-working people to come to the United States even temporarily to fill those jobs. The result is widespread illegal immigration.

I keep hearing that legal immigration and guest worker programs are easy and unlimited. But that appears to be in dispute - I am no expert myself. The best answer is greater legal immigration - not just because it is good for the economy, but because it is a value that a free society would hold dear.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

April 2, 2006

Breaking the Law, Breaking the Law

I am opposed in principle to immigration limits. I recognize why it could be pragmatic to have them in a democratic society, but in reality they are mostly about xenophobia and protectionism. American workers panic over immigration for the same reasons they panic over a lack of tariffs - they fear losing everything. They fear losing jobs, homes, power, everything, and they especially fear losing it to people who are different.

Immigration is a big topic right now. I will ease into the conversation slowly, perhaps building up points over several days. Let's start with the article Are 'Illegal' Immigrants Illegal? at Cafe Hayek, where Professor Boudreaux says, "not everything declared illegal by statute is, in fact, illegal."

Although not as universally accepted today throughout America as is consensual sex among unmarried adults, immigration without permission of government is widely enough accepted that we can conclude that it is lawful, despite what is written in the statute books.

I am picturing lawyers, police officers, and legislators around the nation shaking their heads. Or maybe not, I don't know. But most Americans want to see it made easier for immigrants to enter this country legally, and harder to come in illegally. They don't like the status quo. Does this make it analogous to civil disobedience? Or violating the speed limit? Or having sex without being married?

Well, yeah. For millions of Americans, it does. I think the only issue is that of pragmatism with regard to national security. As millions of peaceful, hard-working people slip undocumented across our border, how many thieves, murderers, would-be terrorists, and other criminals are slipping in with them?

Professor Boudreaux obviously takes the point of view of a libertarian economist, but issues of security must be addressed. With that pragmatic caveat, I agree with him.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)