Prius Politics: Or, Maybe People Aren't Just Raving Idiots?

I finally got around to reading Robert Samuelson's piece on 'Prius Politics.' The long and short of his argument is that most enviro goals are not really done with the goal of actually improving the planet. Instead, they are done for purposes of making yourself feel good about doing something, or even worse, making sure other people know that you're doing something. To wit:

Prius sales in the first half of 2007 totaled 94,503, nearly equal to all of 2006. Civic sales were only 17,141, up 7.4 percent from 2006. The Prius's advantage is its distinct design, which announces its owners as environmentally virtuous. It's a fashion statement.

I'm not particularly impressed with his rationale. For one thing, like Matthew said, tsk-tsking people for doing something to increase their status when it is, you know, actually a good thing (I think we can all, even non-enviro types, agree that burning less gasoline is a good thing in and of itself) is ridiculous. If something is good, then we should reward people for doing it. Increased status is a great way to reward something that requires some sacrifice (like driving a smaller car which costs extra money), because it doesn't actually cost the rest of us anything material at all.

For another, did it ever occur to Samuelson that people like the Prius because it actually makes more sense as a small car? It struck me when I went to Germany a couple years ago for work that almost every car I saw was either a station wagon or a hatchback. Plain old sedans and big SUV's seemed nearly unheard of. This only makes sense, really; in a world without SUV's, a hatchback is the ideal way to contain more space while using the same amount of metal and glass. No harder to build than a sedan, same mileage, same price, more space. Makes sense.

I am really excited to see the new generation of American ittybitty cars, which are all hatchbacks, such as the Nissan Versa, the Toyota Yaris, and the Hummer H3. Maybe we all buy the Prius because, since gas-sipping hybrids are going to be smaller cars, people appreciate the practicality of its body style.

But no, it's much more fun to shame people for conspicuous nonconsumption than to try and imagine what rational reason they might have for their actions...

My New Favorite Cure For A Headache

Some people just have too much free fucking time...

I Commune With A Gay Conservative Blogger

Andrew nails one of the reasons that Obama is inherently a superior candidate to Clinton. Since he was not politically active during the early 90's, he is not suffering from PTSD from the reaming liberal viewpoints took at the hands of the triangulating DLC'ers and the Gingrich revolutionaries. He is not convinced that his viewpoints are, inherently, unpopular, and hence does not have the automatic desire to get to the center whenever the heat is raised a bit.

Note that this is what makes him a better candidate, in the sense of 'would make a better president.' While I like to think that courage of conviction actually wins you points in elections, I know in my heart that it's actually centrist pandering, at which Hilary is the undisputed queen bee.

Department Of Excuses Department

Posting this week is going to be very sporadic this week, as work is pretty busy and I am in final planning stages for The 2007 Colorado Cup, the tournament I run every year in Boulder.

Faithful Readers in the Colorado area would be well-advised to come out to Pleasant View this weekend and check out the festivities. In particular, if you show up during the showcase gave Saturday at 5:30, you will have the chance for pizza, beer, ice cream, and Rare Air and Ozone, two of the hottest women's teams in the country, playing each other (hottest both in the sense of 'really good Ultimate teams' and 'damn those chicks are hot!')

Liberal Eugenics?

There's a very interesting discussion going around the 'sphere right now regarding the morality, and proper nomenclature, of the fact that we are rapidly eliminating serious, but not fatal, genetic abnormalities like Downs syndrome in America through the unsystematic but increasing use of selective abortion. Ross started the debate. Ezra responded, and then each of them has posted once more on the subject.

I have a view on this which is highly informed by my personal situation. I'm a carrier of Tay-Sachs disease, which, along with the nose, the curly hair, and the general lack of athleticism is one of more treasured inheritances from my Ashkenazi Jewish lineage. It's a so-called recessive-fatal disease, which means that if you carry one allele for it, you are completely asymptomatic and healthy. If you carry both alleles for it (in other words, if both of your parents were carriers and you lost the 1-in-4 lottery) then you are born lacking a crucial enzymatic function in your brain and you die a slow, horrible death by about the age of 2.

So for me, I am very very very very very glad for the existence of genetic tests and 'therapeutic abortion'. If I happen to have kids someday with someone who is also a carrier, any child we produce has that 1-in-4 chance of having a short, excruciating life. Ross can say anything he wants about the sin of abortion, but if there is a God, and he is putting babies on this earth to suffer through two extremely unpleasant years of life and then die, I fail to see any reason to acknowledge God's moral authority on the subject of abortion, at least in this case.

Now, of course, Downs is not a fatal disease. As Brian Beutler points out, a pretty strong case can be made that it qualifies as 'medically disastrous', based on the shortened lifespans and mental and physical ailments suffered by Downs babies, and also the high level of financial expense encountered by their parents. But there are countless examples of parents who, in the end, are glad that they had their Downs baby, and can't imagine what would drive others to go to such lengths to avoid this fate.

I am most definitely on the fence vis-a-vis abortion, per se. I don't think I could ever counsel someone to have an abortion, unless the circumstances were truly extraordinary. However, one of those little things about being a SNAG (Sensitive, New-Age Guy) like myself is that I recognize that just like one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's 'not such a big deal' can be another woman's 'truly extraordinary circumstances.'

And honestly, I simply don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think I, or anyone else, are the least bit qualified to judge exactly who would qualify under that benchmark and who would not. So, in the general case of abortion, I think the decision absolutely has to be left up to the woman (ideally, the parents) and her (their) beliefs.

Similarly, in this case, while I don't think that I would choose to abort a Downs child of mine, I simply can't say for sure without being in that circumstance. For some people, say a family who is already struggling to make ends meet, I can absolutely understand how it seems like a life-ending circumstance. And it is certainly my view that bringing a person into this world under conditions where they are unlikely to have the opportunity for a good life is worse than not bringing them into this world at all.

Less Than Meets The Eye

Firstly, how exciting is it that I am getting spammed in my comments? As Mikey points out, now I know that I've made it big-time, if not quite big-time enough to pay someone to filter out the comment spam...

For your enjoyment, a list of the 7 most useless Transformers of all time. Although I don't know why everyone has to hate on Soundwave like that.

How Lindsay Got Her Boobs Back

Okay, technically this post has nothing to do with Lindsay Lohan's boobs. But hey, gotta bring in the hits somehow, right?

I don't think a negative review has ever made me want to see a movie quite so much as The Onion A.V. Club's review of Lohan's new stinker, I Know Who Killed Me. Money quote:

Having broken free of the Disney machine that molded her, Lohan now seems intent on destroying her career and credibility on her own terms.

A Gmail Says What?

I, like oh so many other wannabe-cool kids on my block, use Gmail to get my e-mails. I love it; the Java-based interface reduces wait times, the 'conversation/tab' style of sorting and organizing messages is perfect for me, and I much prefer the label format to the folders that usual e-mails have.

One of Gmail's funnier aspects is that, since it is run by Google, it puts little ads on the side and top of your screen, just like after you do a Google search. I'm told that these ads are put in by a computer program which scans my e-mails and analyzes things I might be interested in seeing. Cool.

Oftentimes, these ads actually are relevant to things that I am writing about and thinking about, although I have never actually bought anything from one of them. But I am really curious what the hell I wrote about that led Google to think that this is something I would be interested in...

But Was He Wearing Space-Diapers?

Okay, if you're going to drive 1300 miles to burn down the trailer of a guy who called you a nerd over the internet, aren't you kind of, you know, proving his point?

But Whatever Happened To The Fat Guy She Drank Under The Table?

Via Ross, we learn that, apparently, the as-yet-unnamed Indiana Jones IV will feature an appearance by none other than...

Marion Ravenwood!

I don't know how I feel about this. She was, obviously, the only female lead (hell, only female character) worth anything in the first 3 movies. But still, does it really make sense to do a 'handing off to the next generation' movie by bringing back the long-in-the-past girlfriend?

I guess she's going to end up being the mom of Indy's kid, which is a good enough reason to do it. It will be interesting to see how a kid raised by someone who had such a love-hate relationship with Indy treats said dad...

In Which I Go For The Cheap Laugh

With the new Harry Potter book and movie out, I feel like now is a good time to refer to this classic Onion piece about how the Potter books are have been a real boon to the Satanist cause.

Money quote, from 6-year-old Jessica Lehman:

Hermione is my favorite, because she's smart and has a kitty...Jesus died because He was weak and stupid

On a similar topic, while searching for this article, I came across a slightly different site, which claims that the Onion article is actually satanic in origin, as it is a well-known topic of Satan hisself to use parody "designed to make the concerned Christian look foolish."

When we all know that they are eminently capable of doing that without anyone's help at all! If you ever need a good laugh or cry, simply Google 'Harry Potter Witchcraft Satan'...

From The Department Of Vocabulation

Ana Marie Cox on ways to bring us all together...

You know if the Senate would just call it "legislative waterboarding" and not "oversight," I bet they could get Cheney to support it.

Better Living Through Biochemistry

So let me get this right...there's a new drug coming down the pipe which makes you tanner, decreases your appetite and helps you lose weight, and increases lustful feelings in both men and women, while also helping (if not actually causing) men to have erections?

I am truly joyed and humbled to think that, in my lifetime, we might finally see a true human utopia on earth, full of svelte, tan, beautiful people, constantly popping boners and having sex just all over the place. I'm sure that this society will all die of either some sexually transmitted disease or skin cancer after only a few short years, but it would totally be worth it.

A Comment On My Commenter

Commenter Ryaison claims that I have misrepresented Hilary Clinton's views on the importance of diplomacy in yesterday's post on the subject, which caused me to have to actually read up on the subject, an act I found to be truly distasteful. Here's a bit on Politico which makes for a good summary of the controversy.

However, as a bit of mea culpa, I do have to admit that he's actually, you know, right. Clinton and her subordinates have gone out of their way to indicate that it's important to conduct diplomacy, including high-level envoys. In fact, I don't really have a huge problem with her position.

My point, however, still stands, I think. Obama got first chance to answer this question, and what he said was eminently reasonable. Clinton chose to take issue with what he said, and magnify one specific section. Obama didn't say anything riduculous. Clinton tried to manufacture a controversy with a statement saying that meetings with the American president will be used for PR purposes by the leaders of rogue nations.

I think, essentially, I agree with Obama. Meetings with foreign leaders can be a good thing whether or not you are on best of terms with them and their countries. If nothing else, occasional reminders that there are actual human beings on the other end of the wire are an overall good.

While I don't think Clinton's position is particularly problematic, I do dislike the way she chose to try and create a big controversy over a relatively minor issue. I think it makes it look like there's a big disagreement on the Dem side about this, which makes the casual observer think that this might lend some credence to the Bush diplomatic doctrine. Which is a Very Bad Thing.

Only After You Clean Your Room Can We Discuss The Possibility Of Negotiating Your Getting The Car Keys

I'm definitely with Matthew on this one. It is completely, well, insane that the Clinton campaign appears to have adopted the Bush administration theory to foreign policy which says, roughly, that direct negotiations with the US are a reward in and of themselves. The immediate consequence of this is that the standard Bush administration line is approximately:

1) We want country X to do action Y (North Korea to stop purifying uranium, Iran to stop helping the Shiite militias in Iraq, etc.)

2) We probably have something (money, oil, promise not to invade their country) that country X would like from us (call it action Z.)

3) Therefore, once country X does action Y, we can all sit down at the table and begin a nice good-faith negotiation about whether or not we will do action Z.

In other words, it used to be that the point of negotiations is that you sit down and everyone says what they want, what they're willing to give up, and you see if there's some combination that is acceptable to everyone. Under the Bush administration, however, the negotations are their own reward, rather than the US actually taking any real actions, and so we refuse to take part in any negotiations until the country in question completes the action that we are negotiating about.

This is kind of stupid. Really stupid, in fact. And it pisses me off into about the fifth dimension that Clinton apparently accepts it as the proper way of going about diplomacy. Or else, she is saying that merely to be able to accuse Obama of being willing to kowtow to dictators, which is worse.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Cephalapod Overlords

Well shit, there goes the planet.

The giant squids have arrived in California.

It was fun knowing you all while it lasted.

I Would Have Gotten Away With It, Too, If It Wasn't For Those Meddling Kids!

And damned if Zeitlin the Younger hasn't, once again, scooped me on a post before I got around to writing it. But, in the spirit of me knowing that I wrote it before reading his post, I'm going to leave mine up. In your face, you eerily intelligent and well-written 17-year-old!

Cat Yelled At For Lounging In Sun

There has been a lot of discussion about a diarist at The New Republic's website who claims to be an ex-Iraqi soldier. I'm not down on all the details, but apparently he is claiming to have witnessed several atrocities and is detailing them. The conservasphere is in an entirely-predictable uproar about the situation, since such claims kind of put lie to the idea of a Just War being fought in Iraq by our angelic troops, who can do no wrong.

Honestly? I have no idea whether the post is true or not. Some of the 'can't be' arguments sound pretty valid to me, but I have no basis for analyzing it one way or the other. But I agree pretty much with Grame Wood here. Whether or not this particular set of claims bear out, it is an undeniable fact that many, dozens, hundreds of horrible things have taken place under our auspices in Iraq.

This isn't particularly surprising. We train our soldiers to do two things: to kill people and to blow shit up. Why, then, should we be the least bit surprised when we find out that their instinctive reaction, in a stressful situation like a firefight in a strange town with unknown assailants, is to start killing people and blowing shit up?

The fact is, we shouldn't. Most of our soldiers are good, honest, patriotic young men and women. Some are sadists who joined up because they liked the idea of killing people with government license. It's simply impossible for an organization of a million people to maintain perfect order and quality control in every single circumstance. They're real people, which means that they're going to have flaws, make mistakes. Even the 'good' ones.

The implication of this fact is that we should do our best to keep our soldiers out of places where their instincts, their human-ness, can lead to bad outcomes. Like trying to control and rebuild a country the size of California where we don't understand the language, or the customs, and where we are most decidedly not wanted.

Unless, of course, it is really warranted. In 1942, there was a real possibility that the Germans could take over the entire continent of Europe, which, allied with a Japanese empire, could have led to an eventual bi-coastal threat to the sanctity of the US. So it made sense to send troops to Europe and into the Pacific.

In 2003, there was simply no chance of a serious threat to US sanctity. Even if you believe that Saddam was close to reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, at best that justifies an invasion, an overthrow of the existing government, destruction of said programs, and then getting the hell out of Dodge. Morally, not the best way of going about things. But neither is what's going on over there right now....

I Am Shocked, Shocked!

Large, if not at all surprising, news out of the Tour de France today, as everyone's second-favorite Kazakh, Alexandre Vinokourov, tests positive for doping. In this case, it appears that he received a blood transfusion from a second person, as he showed evidence of two different kinds of blood in his sytem. Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, kinda gross.

For a long time, I've felt that the quest for doping-free sports is absolutely quixotic, for a simple reason. If I were Dr. Von Dopenheimer, and had come up with a new method of doping which was undetectable by current testing, I would have two options. 1) Go to the head trainer of, say, Team Discovery Channel and offer to sell it to them for 3 million dollars, or 2) Go to the World Anti-Doping Agency and tell them about it, at which point presumably they say 'great, thanks, Good Samaritan; now we'll go figure out a test for it.'

The decision is obvious; you sell to the highest bidder. So the testing will always be well behind the training.

I am reminded of a typically excellent piece written several years back by Malcolm Gladwell about doping in sports. I really like his proposed solution, which is that you don't outlaw the concept of doping. After all, pretty much all of the drugs used now don't leave a telltale signature in the bloodstream or urine. Instead, you are left testing for things like the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone. The solution, then, is to set an upper limit to this ratio, which is higher than naturally occurs in any people, but low enough to guarantee safety for the athletes involved. It may mean that you are implicitly encouraging some level of doping, whatever brings you near but not over that level.

But who cares? Should we really just declare that someone born with a natural T:E ration of 4 to 1 ought to have a better chance of winning the Tour de France, just by luck of the genetic draw? Especially since you are never going to actually win these battles, the sensible option is to limit the damage, make sure that the athletes aren't doing anything detrimental to their health, make sure everyone is competing on a level playing field, then throw your hands up and say 'well, that's all we can do!'

Sports Scandal #2

Okay, on to the NBA ref scandal. For those just crawling out from under their rock to start the week, an NBA ref, Tim Donaghy, has been accused by the FBI of gambling on games, including games he was officiating in, and then getting involved with some point- and spread-fixing after getting behind on his payments with some of the mobsters who were taking his bets.

Pretty much, if you want to know what I think about it, all you have to do is read what Bill Simmons had to say on Friday. However, it is worth pointing out this video, made by a Phoenix fan, of the highly controversial Game 3 of the Suns/Spurs series in round 2 of the Western Conference playoffs this year. The video is a bit long; as far as I am concerned, all you really need to see is the first play in the video, where Donaghy makes an egregiously bad call, 3 seconds late, on a play that happens underneath the basket, when he is standing near midcourt.

It seems pretty obvious, to me, after watching that play, that the outcome of the NBA playoffs were affected by mob activity. That's a pretty dang serious thing; hopefully you agree even if, like LJ, you hate the fact that I am posting about the NBA again.

I'll have more to say, doubtlessly, as more information comes out regarding this case. I hope, like Simmons, that it spurs David Stern to start really looking seriously at changing some major things about his league. The refs are only the beginning, but improving the officiating would be a good start.

Sports Stories

Okay, there are two big sports stories of the day, the NBA ref scandal and the Michael Vick dogfighting allegations.

I'll comment first on Vick, because I really don't think there's much of anything to say. If it turns out that he actually is involved with what he is alleged to have done, his NFL career should be over, he should be sent to prison, and, in a fair world, his estate would be liquidated, with the proceeds being donated to the ASPCA, or the Humane Society, or some set of similar organizations.

In a really fair world, maybe he would be given to a humanfighting gang, where he would be forced to fight other people to the death for the rest of our entertainment, but I'm kind of glad we don't actually live in that world.

Excuses, excuses

Hey, apologies (again) for the very light posting last week. The sad thing is, I was sitting in front of my computer almost the entire week, because there were no lasers for me to be working on, so I was writing documentation instead. However, writing documentation is such a soul-sucking activity that I didn't have the heart or interest in posting thoughts.

Then, this weekend, I dove into 'Deathly Hallows', only emerging around 11:30 last night. I'll post a review soon, although it'll be spoiler-containing, so I'll be sure to warn you.

The exciting news from the weekend is that the robins who built a nest on top of my bat box, whose eggs have been sitting quietly for quite a while now, finally hatched two babies Saturday morning. I'll be keeping a daily photograph log here on the blog. Here are the photos from Saturday (left) and Sunday. You'll notice that the big change by Sunday is that their eyes were starting to open.

Petey on Matt Yglasias's blog comments points to this good little article by James Surowiecki in this month's New Yorker.

Surowiecki makes several good points about collective action problems. He keeps his discussion very specific to the question of SUV's and mileage standards, but it's actually a very general problem.

There are literally dozens, or hundreds, of situations like this. It's all an expression of the old concept of the Tragedy of the Commons. Briefly, the TotC refers to the old problem of the commons in old English villages, which were pastures publicly owned by the town. They were available to use animals for grazing. Inevitably, what would happen is that every farmer would try to maxmize the time their animals spent grazing on the commons, which meant they were overgrazed, and soon destroyed. What was needed was an agreement by all parties to limit their grazing time to preserve this valuable resource for everyone's use.

Unfortunately, every farmer had strong incentives to cheat such an agreement, since his animals would get more food, and be healthier. This is one of the basic arguments for the principle of a central government; to force people to take collective action that it is in everyone's best interest to make happen, and to prevent cheaters from free riding; that is, from drawing benefits without paying into the system.

Even conservatives agree with this concept, to some extent, when they support the concept of a strong defense. Defense is an issue where it's in my best interests to have it, but it's inefficient for me to pay for it on my own. Besides, if all my neighbors team up to defend the neighborhood, I get it for free. But they all, knowing that, are unlikely to want to pay into such a system. So you have to have a central government that ensures that everyone is paying into the pot, and then provides the services.

Sadly, the same incentives are exponentially multiplied when it comes to the question of safety and SUV's. SUV's are not, in and of themselves, safer cars. In a single-car accident, you are about as likely to die in an SUV as you are in a sedan, due mostly to the vehicle's increased weight (hence increased likelihood of high speed loss of control) and highly-increased likelihood of rollover. However, in a 2 or more car crash, what being in an SUV really does is make you into a killin machine. If you are in an SUV involved in a crash with a sedan, you are something like 6 times as likely to kill the passengers in the other car than your passengers are to die.

So, people mistakenly bought SUV's for safety purposes, but now that they make up something like half of all cars on the road, it really is a safety concern, because you, as a sedan driver, are so much more likely to be killed if you are in an accident with an SUV.

Of course, this has also spawned the eeevil era of the mega-SUV, since the only way to be safer when in a wreck with, say, an Explorer is to driving an Excursion!

Just Like the Transformers I Loved, Only With Cussing

Forget about new movies. Clearly, the future of Transformers is in redubbing of classic episodes.

I Knew Ezra Klein, I Worked With Ezra Klein, and Senator, You're No Ezra Klein

And then, just as I get my rant on, Ezra goes and posts this. So I'm thinking that he, like me, is coming down firmly on the side of saying that he doesn't need to justify his policy preferences by making up data that shows it will improve the economy. There are many ways to do what is good for people, and offering them, if not requiring them, the option to work a little less, isn't necessarily such a bad one.

Catching Up

Okay, I know I promised massive amounts of blogging while I was on vacation, and I will deliver it at some point. I did get a lot written, two seriously long posts plus another shorter one. But I want to get them edited and tightened up a bit; they are too wordy even for me at this point.

So, it is perhaps ironic that I now want to jump into the ongoing blogosphere discussion about paid vacations and federal mandating thereof.

To set the backstory, Ezra wrote an LA Times editorial which argues that Americans are overworked, receiving no federally mandated vacation days, and averaging many less such days taken per year than any other industrialized nation. Matt Yglasias responded, arguing against Ezra, although I didn't think he really refuted Ezra so much as raised a completely different set of issues and concerns (economic instead of humanitarian.) Renowned conservative economist Tim Lee (who also writes for Slate's The Dismal Science column) posted to The American Scene on this issue, taking up Matt's points and making, to my mind, better arguments.

However, I think that both Matt and Lee are arguing with straw men, to a point. Especially Lee, when he writes

Reading through the comments on Matt’s blog, there seems to be a basic empirical disagreement: to what extent does forcing employers to offer more vacation days cause proportionately lower wages? It seems to me that basic economic suggests that in the long run, at least, if people work 5 percent fewer hours they’ll produce 5 percent less stuff. And if a worker is producing 5 percent less stuff, he’s going to receive (again, on average and in the long) 5 percent lower wages.

I don't think Ezra is arguing that we can have a free lunch in the form of less work for the same pay. Instead, he argues that because Americans are more productive,

You would think that we'd take advantage of the fact that we can create more wealth in less time to wrest back some of those hours for ourselves and our families.

To me, this seems spot on. Coming back from two vacations in a short period of time, I know that I am feeling like life is very good indeed. I didn't feel the least bit guilty about taking off for nearly two weeks out of 4, and my life is improved for having done it. I am not feeling nearly as stressed or unhappy about work as I was a month ago.

I don't know if Ezra is quite willing to go so far as I am in terms of making this argument, but my belief is: so what if we are less productive? Who cares? I know that classic economics argues that we always have to grow grow grow, in order to keep raising our standards of living. To which I say, what if I like my standard of living right now? I have a good job, good benefits, a great set of friends, and I live in one of the most beautiful places on earth. How is more money really going to help make my life better?

Now, I do have sympathy for Matt's point, that some people might prefer to work that extra week, because they need the money for this or that. And I don't like the idea of forcing someone to take time off when something fun or exciting is going on at work. But, at the same time, I think the world would be a better place if we were a little bit better at stepping back from work occasionally, realizing that the world will not end if we are unplugged for a few days. I would argue, in fact, that this mentality of all work, all the time, is quite harmful to us as people. If we define ourselves in terms of our ability to produce, rather than our ability to enjoy, I think we are coming up well short of our potential as human beings.

So my tentative suggestion would be something along the lines of 3 weeks guaranteed every year, with explicit directions put in for employers and employees to be able to adjust that number as suits both parties. I think that leaves plenty of freedom for individual circumstances to be catered to, while ensuring that here, in the richest country in the history of the planet, we encourage people to be a little better at seeing the big picture, and see if we can maybe make them a bit happier and healthier for it.

Highly Irresponsible Journalism

Okay, I know I can't be the only person who thinks it's totally ridiculous that this Reuters story did not include a picture.

Bad Day's Posting

Sorry for the light posting, but with the motorcycle adventure starting tomorrow (technically tonight, as I am posting from the Best Western in Estes Park, CO), I have been seriously crunched both at work and out, getting ready.

So, I haven't been doing a lot of reading or thinking about much of anything that most of you will be interested in, although I will have something to say about my commenter on the subject of Harry Potter soon.

The good news is, after reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance recently, and being on my own motorcycle Chatauqua of a sort, I think I'll be inspired to write quite a bit starting tomorrow. You, Faithful Reader, can hope so, at least.

In the stead of more writing on my part, I will recommend that you check out this Onion A.V. Club article talking about various 80's toys which still demand the Michael Bay cinematic treament.

A Self-Imposed Moratorium On All Things Potter

Okay, I have officially delved too deeply into the realm of Harry Potter arcana, when I find myself skimming over a multi-thousand word article explaining why Snape must be evil, because there is a reference in Machiavelli's The Prince about an emporer Severus who attacks Niger (Niger = country of blacks, hence refers to Sirius Black) and deceives Albinus (obvious reference to Albus Dumbledore).

I am henceforth declaring a moratorium on all-things Potter related, other than rereading 'Half-Blood Prince' and possibly seeing movie 5 until I finish book 7.

But, if you have too much free time on your hands, check out the article. It is pretty convincing...

This Week's Sign Of The Pending Apocalypse

Oh. My. God.

Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition

It's an old political trope that conservatives look for converts, liberals look for heretics. Like any cliche, it almost certainly has a ring of truth to it.

Along those lines, I'm glad that Pete Domenici has decided that maybe our plan to just keep sending our boys and girls over to Iraq to blow up summa them brown people might not be the optimal foreign policy. But I'm entirely unsatisfied with his reasoning for doing so:

Speaking to reporters on a conference call from Albuquerque, Mr. Domenici said his change of heart came after conversations with the families of New Mexico soldiers killed in Iraq who asked him to do more to save those still serving there.

“I heard nothing like that a couple of years ago,” he said. “I think that’s the result of this war dragging on almost indefinitely.”

Once again, this is a terrible example of our fetishistic worship of the troops and their families. Again, I am amazed at the patriotism and bravery of our troops, and their willingness to put their lives on the line to help keep me safe. I don't know if I am man enough to volunteer for that sort of duty. But their courage does not make them foreign policy experts, nor does it do so for their families, in the horrific circumstance of the soldier's death.

Part of being in government, I imagine the hardest part, is making that decision to send American troops into harm's way. The responsibility a Senator or the President assumes, then, is to really be able to see, objectively, whether doing so is in America's best interests or not. If it is, then whether or not the objective is popular, it should be done. And if not, then I don't care if every soldier in the Army wants to go on the mission, it's the leader's job to say 'no.'

For years, the Republicans, including Domenici, have been telling us that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. It is absolutely vital that we stay, and win, and failure to put the entirety of our confidence and faith in the mission is tantamount to giving Osama Bin Laden the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Now, Domenici tells us that he's ready to change the mission because some people aren't happy about the rate of progress.

Either Domenici has been lying to us for five years, or he is a craven fool who invites the destruction of our Republic. Which is it, Senator?

Once More, Into The Breach

Okay, I got into trouble for straying into this territory last time, but hey, if I can't take advantage of my position as a completely unknown blogger to alienate my friends, what's the point?

I will not get too involved into a huge discussion of my opinions on this subject (you can read my first post here, if you want), instead I will just point towards this article about the fairly traumatizing experience of a woman going through fertility treatments, which absolutely broke my heart, and ask: are we really confident that it's the best use of our money, in the sense of using it to actually maximize happiness, to spend tens of thousands of dollars in an all-too-often futile quest to seed the planet with our biological offspring?

From The Department Of Reality

Now that we're finding out more about the suspects in the UK bomb plots, and we're finding out that at least a couple of them were Iraqis, pissed off at what's been happening in their country the last 5 years, who went to England to try to kill people, can we stop pretending that stationing troops in Baghdad is somehow preventing 'The Terrorists' from coming over here to get us?

There are both humanitarian (Colin Powell's 'Pottery Barn Rule') and national security (raging civil war in the world's oil breadbasket = bad idea) reasons to keep troops in Iraq. The idea that, somehow, the troops there are preventing bad guys around the world from executing their evil plots is nearly farcical.

A Plea For All Major Media Organizations

For the love of all that is holy and good on the planet, can we all please agree, when filing stories about Hilary deploying Bill on the campaign trail, to refrain from referring to a man, who certainly had his share (and your share, and my share) of sexual misadventures, but who still was the President of the United States, as 'The Big Gun'?

Pretty please?

Dorks Of The World, Unite!

Needless to say, Dad and I are having an in-depth discussion about the chemistry and physics of fireworks, including the materials that they use to generate various colors.

God bless the internet.

For the record, Dad was wrong about what they use to make blue fireworks (he claimed Borax, while the answer is copper compounds.) I was wrong about green; I said chromium, actual answer is barium. And yes, if you are still reading this, you are also a dork.

Heh, Heh, Fire's Cool

Okay, so some of the new fireworks that they have out this year are just ridiculous. During a playing of the Sesame Street theme song, they had pyrotechnics that were numbers (2, 3, 5), as well as actual smiley faces. There are also some really impressive 3-D spheres-within-spheres, and spheres with rings around them and such.

But the 10-second shot of an unknown couple sucking face seemed vaguely unnecessary, if entertaining in a 3rd-grade fashion.

Oh dear lord, it's just like NFL season all over again...it's been 20 minutes, so it must be time to hear 'This Is Our Country' again...

God Bless This U.S.A.

Okay, it's not strictly having to do with the Boston Pops Fireworks Spectacular, but is it sad that the thing that makes me feel the most patriotic is the fact that the Americans have finally recaptured our position as the most gluttonous people on earth, winning the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest for the first time in like 6 years?

66 hot dogs. With buns. In 12 minutes. You can keep your four-minute mile. This is a real athletic accomplishment.

No, Really.

Okay, putting the Scottish guy in a Boston FD fireman's jacket and having him talk in a mock-southern accent doesn't help.

Having him say 'with a can of soda and a couple of corn dogs, you're just as patriotic as any other American'? That's ridiculous, stupid, and offensive. Good job!

First Impressions

So, you, the few, the proud, my fortunate Faithful Readers, will be lucky enough to get a little live-blogging of the Boston Pops Fireworks spectacular. The general lamosity of my parents, coupled with my general exhaustion from being up playing poker until 1 AM last night (thanks, Matt J, for that nice $40 contribution at the end of the night!), has led to a 4th night in the living room, rather than over at the Boulder County Fairgrounds to see the fireworks live.

Firstly, ummmm....CBS? This is the Fourth of July. It's, like, our country's birthday. It's kinda, sorta, stupid to have a Scottish guy MC'ing the event. I don't care if he's the host of your late late show and you think that putting him front-and-center will somehow get more people to watch. It's just unAmerican. And today, of all days, just find some mouth-breathing, corn-shucking American to host the damn thing.

And also, John Mellencamp sucks. He is not a 'superstar.' And that song, 'This Is Our Country'? It sucks so hard that Dyson is actually going to implement its sheet music in their next-generation vacuum cleaners. Please, stop.

Really. Stop. Please.

Oh, The Rockets' Red Glare, The Bratwursts In The Air

Happy Fourth, y'all. I am about to head into work, tragically, for a few hours. Plus, the parental units arrived in town yesterday, so I am going to be busy and posting will be light or nonexistent for the rest of the day.

However, in honor of the Fourth, I will refer you over to Olberman's Special Comment yesterday, regarding the Libby pardon. I certainly don't agree with everything that he says, but I appreciate the sentiment plenty, and love listening to him talk.

Comment Of The Hour

Okay, I know I haven't been very good at feeding back to my comments. I do promise, though, that I have read all of them, and appreciate them.

Commenter Ryaison raises one point for comparison on my post about campaign finance reform, talking about a French law which mandates, within a certain percentage, equal coverage of every candidate.

As I said earlier, I don't like large parts of the current system. In particular, I definitely want to know who is behind the groups showing various commercials, and I want the regular news organizations to take some interest in who, for instance, the Texas bazillionaire who funded the 'Swift Boat Veterans For Truth' was. But this idea, of mandating equal coverage, just strikes me as a little silly. I don't want equal coverage. Frankly, I don't want Mike Gravel getting equal time on the air as Hilary or Obama. He's not going to win, and I don't particularly care what he thinks.

I am, at heart, a marketeer. If the market is interested in your ideas, then you'll find some play for them. Obviously, even though Obama has been very vague in his policy prescriptions, the market approves of what he's doing. The dude had a quarter of a million individual contributors last quarter! So clearly, either what he is saying, or how he is saying it, is more interesting to people. And so, I believe that he should have more opportunities to have it heard than someone who isn't as interesting, or compelling, or whatever. That's the market, and it's a good thing.

The fundamental problem, I think, is not too much market; it's too little. Let me explain. The issue is not a problem with the application of market forces, it's a problem with the weakness of market forces. In particular, the asymmetry that comes from the difference in power levels between individual consumers and vast corporations.

This issue displays itself differently in economic market interactions, but in the political realm, the problem has traditionally been that it's been much easier to raise vast amounts of money by appealing to a few large donors than to appeal to many smaller ones. And so, politicians have been encouraged to take positions that appeal to money, rather than to people. Or, if you want to be a bit more classist about it, to rich people rather than to regular people.

And so, the solution, in my opinion, is not to reduce the market forces at play in politics. It's to level them. Fundamentally, politicians should be vying for votes, for people's opinions, not for their money. Now, we're not going to remove money from the game. That's just not going to happen. But, instead, we can level the playing field by reducing the appeal and power of the moneyed interests.

The best idea, far and away, that I've seen for this problem is outlined here. The short version is that every US citizen, or I guess every taxpayer, is earmarked $25 which they can donate to the politician of their choice. The next effect of this flood of money into the system ($25 by, say, 200 million taxpayers, is 5 billion dollars, about 5x what is expected to be raised and spent on the presidential race this time around. A lot of money, to be sure, but isn't it worth it to achieve a freer, more open, more democratic system?) would be to pretty much eliminate the ability of corporations, or wealthy individuals, to have a huge influence on the game.

I'm still working through my ideas on this issue, but this seems right to me - the answer is not to reduce market effects on the process, because money just finds a way. It would be great if we could have a wonderful crop of saintly politicians, halos in tow, who were not influenced by people who gave them free cigars, or junkets to tropical islands. Unfortunately, we're stuck with actual human beings for our politicians, which means that they are going to be influenced, and corrupted. A more pragmatic solution to reduce the corruption is to democratize it, bring it out in the open, and let everyone play.

And This Might Be Even Awesomer

Of all the things you might think of that could blow your cover as a mountain-side pot farmer, I doubt that deer getting into your stash and alerting authorities with their 'unusually frisky' behavior ranks very high on that list.

Hat tip to Andrew.

This Is Just...Awesome

What other word could be used for an entire article celebrating Takeru Kobayashi's jaw injury, and how it brings dignity to the sport of competetive eating?

Two Good Questions

Courtesy of Steven Benen, guesting at Kevin Drum's blog, two Fox News-style questions that enterprising, liberal reporters could start asking Republican candidates in the wake of the Scooter Libby pardon:

• Would you, as president, routinely overturn criminal sentences for unrepentant convicted felons before they serve time behind bars?

• If obstruction of justice and perjury are not serious crimes deserving of serious punishment, what other felonies are you inclined to disregard?

This is something along the lines of my previous critique of the Supreme Court nominees. If you elect conservatives to the executive and legislative branches, you will get conservative judges. If you (re-!)elect amoral cronyists for whom party-line loyalty is the one and only important value in a government employee, you get felony convictions for obstruction of justice and inappropriate, undeserved pardons.

Guess I can kiss my new conservative demographic goodbye after this one...

Money Talks, But Is Money Speech?

The Supreme Court decision from last week that has probably spawned the most discussion was the one regarding free speech and campaign finance restrictions. I'm not going to get involved in the grist of the decision because, frankly, I don't know about the specifics of it, nor do I care.

Two very different, but informative, discussions can be found on different bloggingheads episodes. Brink Lindsey and Josh Cohen discuss it here, with Josh being pro-reform and Brink being anti-, while Jim Pinkerton and Mark Schmitt (very surprisingly to me, in the second case) both make the case against finance restrictions here.

I actually found Brink's arguments surprisingly convincing, much moreso than anything either Pinkerton or Schmitt had to say. Instinctually, I am pro-campaign finance reform. I hate the importance and influence that the sound bite and the 30-second attack ad have gained in modern-day American politics (a question to any knowledgable Faithful Readers: how do elections in other countries you know about compare on this front?) I think that it's sad that the modern American dialectic encourages the adoption, not of policies which are 'the best', but instead which can be most effectively boiled down to 10 words or less, and discussed with deep, slightly raspy voices while telling you to 'call Senator X and ask him why he doesn't want to put criminals behind bars.'

So, on the face of it, I am for reforms which will reduce the influence these sorts of media can have on the political discourse. But Brink makes a very good point, which I will try to paraphrase here. It's not like you gain your political knowledge and wherewithal in a vacuum, Descartes style (I think, therefore I vote Democrat?) Instead, you get it from, broadly, the media. Whether that's reading my blog, or Yglesias, or The Corner. Or watching NBC Nightly News. Or reading the paper. Or, for that matter, by watching The View. Or, from the commercials which come on during your daytime soaps.

Is it really fair, or right, to restrict some of these forms but not others? It puts an awful lot of trust in the TV news media, say, to restrict what commercials can and cannot be run, but allow Katie Couric's staff to put anything on the air that passes their journalistic muster.

So, reluctantly, I think I'm coming around to the side of maximal openness, but minimal restrictions, on political speech. I definitely want to know if Rupert Murdoch (or George Soros) is sponsoring an interest group whose interests somehow align with his ulterior motives. But if he wants to, so be it. It's not to say that I think this will be an optimal world, but it is part of it. The part which will be much harder, but equally important, is education. I'm not particularly convinced, one way or the other, by 30-second attack ads, because I read about the issues and know the relevant facts. The point is, we have to raise the general level of knowledge such that the ads are less effective. It's the only thing which will really work.

Sadly, it's much harder than just banning the ads. How do we get there? Oh hell, if I actually knew that, I wouldn't be spending so much time writing this blog that almost nobody reads, would I?

My 15 Minutes Starts...Now

Wow, I'm famous.

Many thanks to Andrew at confirmthem.com for citing my entire entry of a couple days back on the Supreme Court decisions. Check it out. This also becomes the first time that I have a comment on the blog from someone I don't know personally. Very exciting. If only I could get Ezra to notice me in homeroom, this would be the best. day. ever.

Welcome to any erstwhile Redstaters who decide to click through the link onto my blog. Please stay and look around. I doubt you'll find a whole lot to agree with, but hey you never know, right? And please, let me know you were here in the comments. I love the attention.

New Poll Shows 97% Of Teens Have Impure Thoughts. Also, You Are Fat.

This is a completely ridiculous story. A new Pew Poll shows that nearly one-third of teens reported being the victims of online bullying. However, quoting the AP article:

According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the most common forms of cyberbullying are publicly disclosing someone else's private e-mail or messages, sending threatening or aggressive messages and spreading rumors online.

Pew also counts as cyberbullying the posting of an embarrassing picture of someone else without permission.

So, essentially, it sounds like talking about someone in a way that is anything less than entirely flattering counts as cyberbullying. Honestly, to me, the biggest surprise in this article is that only one-third of teens report being victims of these sorts of incidents. I would think, especially for teenage girls, if I remember high school correctly, that this sort of behavior would occur up around the 90-ish percent rate.

This story, however, is just sad. And hilarious. Except for the peacock, for whom it is only sad.

Cocksucker Motherfucker Douchebag

I can't believe my blog is only rated R. What's a guy got to do to get an NC-17 around here???

Totally Uneducated Constitution-Blogging

There's a lot of talk in the 'sphere recently about the spate of 5-4, conservative decisions made by the Supreme Court this week. In particular, it was noted several times that the Rehnquist court would probably have come to the opposite decision, also 5-4, by virtue of switching out Sandra Day O'Connor's vote for Samuel Alito.

Although I disagree with most of the rulings, I have trouble working myself up into much of a lather over them. In particular, I had real problems with the way the Democrats, and liberals in general, behaved themselves during the Roberts and, particularly, the Alito hearings.

There is no constitutional right to an ideologically balanced Supreme Court. If a Supreme Court member dies or retires while the Democrats hold both houses of Congress and the White House, I will damn well expect them to nominate a liberal judge for the post. And, assuming that the person is intelligent, can write and think coherently, and generally is qualified for the position, I would expect that person to be confirmed.

Likewise, when the Republicans were in charge of the whole shebang, I supported their right to confirm qualified judges who they thought were good for the post. Of course Bush is going to nominated conservatives. And I think the Senate's job is to confirm that the person is qualified, not that they agree with the nominee's ideology.

If you don't want the Supreme Court to be packed with conservative crazies, win more elections. That seems to be a pretty good way to generally get the government to do the things you want it to do. If your views aren't popular enough to win many elections, then you shouldn't have much of a say in the makeup of the Court.

Now, this is not to say that it's all 'harmless, oh well, it'll all wash out in the end.' In particular, the problem is that, even if the country decides that they detest the conservative mindset tomorrow morning, we're stuck with Justices Alito and Roberts for another 25 or more years. To that end, it seems reasonable to encourage the Court to take a more limited view of itself and its powers, and to work to structure the system accordingly.

Our governmental system, although it certainly has problems, also has advantages. The Justices are immune from certain types of pressure, which could be considered corrupting, due to their lifetime appointments. But, those kinds of pressure can also be considered a good thing, as it is part of what encourages elected officials to actually represent the viewpoint of the citizens they represent. I think the Court has an important role to play, but it's really to everyone's benefit to keep it more limited, and let the legislatures, which are more immediately accountable to the citizenry, be in the business of making laws.

This does not, however, render me a 'strict constructionist.' Mostly, I think the job of the Court should be to guarantee that the Congress and the Executives don't run completely roughshod over the Constitution. I am definitely a believer in the Living Constitution doctrine, which says that as cultural norms change, constitutional interpretations need to keep up. For instance, you could never convince me that the Founding Fathers would consider it one of the primary, most important rights imaginable for an 18-year old to be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a rifle whose only imaginable purpose is the mass slaughter of human beings. They'd be much more interested, I suspect, in Network Neutrality, whose passage would guarantee free access to future media distribution networks.

So, in short, Democrats: win more elections, and quit crying in your non-fat-half-caff-sugar-free-hazelnut-lattes about the results of elections you already lost.

What I'm Listening On

I spend a lot of time listening to podcasts. Podcasts from bloggingheads.tv. Podcasts of ESPN Radio's various and sundry shows (my favorite is The Big Show, on the extremely unusual days when both Dan Patrick and Keith Olberman appear.) Podcast summaries of Olberman and Chris Matthews' shows on MSNBC. Not to mention the fact that I haven't watched any of the Big 3 Sunday news shows (Meet The Press, Face The Nation, or This Week) on TV in months.

So I am a big fan of my mp3 player. What I'm listening on is an old Sandisk 512 MB mp3 player, which also has an FM radio and a voice recorder (a 3-year old version of this one.) It certainly doesn't have the bells-and-whistles of an iPod; no video screen, no fancy software-interface. Also, the hardware interface sucks. 4-ish buttons, each of which has a completely different function in the 3 different modes. Learning how the hell to change radio stations took me weeks.

But I actually prefer it to an iPod. For one thing, I like that it doesn't talk to iTunes. I'm a computer guy; it makes sense to me to go in and rearrange files however the hell I want to, and the easiest way to do that is directly through the Windows interface. When you plug this one in, it looks just like a drive to Windows. Easy as pie to work with. For a second thing, it doesn't have a rechargable battery; instead, it runs about 15 hours off a fresh AAA alkaline battery. This means I get 8-10 hours from a fully-charged Ni:MH AAA battery. This is perfect for me. It means that, if I'm going backcountry or snowboarding, I can easily take 2-3 extra batteries and easily have several days' worth of playtime. Plus, if and when the batteries start to die (as happens with the lithium cells as well), I just throw them out and get a new one for about 75 cents.

Bigger to me, of late, has been headphones. I've been looking for a light set of headphones with sufficient noise-blocking capacity that I can use them on an airplane. I saw a brief article in the Rocky Mountain News for these guys. They were pretty nice; memory foam pads which you roll up, like a pair of foam earplugs, and they fill up your ear canal. Supposedly they provide up to 33 dB of passive noise blocking; I know that I could listen to either mp3's or my portable DVD player on buses, trains, and airplanes without issue.

But the cord was kind of shitty; on two pairs I got, a bad tug pulled one of the internal wires loose, and one of the ears stopped working quite as well. So I decided to change brands. At the advice of the extremely uninformed-seeming dude at Circuit City, I tried Sony's MDR-EX51LP's.

And, well, my ears are in love. These guys don't have a one-size fits all ear pad; instead, you have a choice of 3 different rubber plugs. The default one fits my ears perfectly. It's almost eerie how little you can hear of the outside world when you get them seated just so. Plus, the volume and sound character is roughly 1,000,000 times better than my previous pair.

For $40, I firmly believe you're not going to get a better set of headphones. They have the Dave stamp of approval. Go buy them.