Dazzling Knowledge

Joe Cocker Video

2009-09-22T22:14:00.001-04:00

2009-07-09T17:12:00.002-04:00

I realize I'm a bit late, but here are some Independence Day thoughts:

Here are some questions about the American Revolution for which you may find you have no good answer:

One: why do the American loyalists share a nickname with a British political party? Is this just a coincidence, or does it imply some kind of weird alliance? And what is on the other side of said alliance? If the loyalists are called Tories, why does no one call the Patriots Whigs?

Two: what on earth is the British strategy? Why do the redcoats seem to be spending so much time just hanging around in New York or Philadelphia? Valley Forge is literally twenty miles from Philly. Okay, I realize, it's winter. But come on, it's twenty miles. General Washington is starving in the snow out there. His troops are deserting by the score. And Lord Howe can't send a couple of guys with muskets to go bring him in? Heck, it sounds like a well-phrased dinner invitation would probably have done the trick.

Three: if the Stamp Act was such an intolerable abuse, how did the British Empire have all these other colonies — Canada, Australia, yadda yadda — where everyone was so meek? Surely we can understand the idea that taxation without representation was the first step toward tyranny. So where is the tyranny? Where are Her Majesty's concentration camps? Okay, there was the Boer War, I guess. But more generally, why is the history of America so different from that of the other colonies?

Four: why does no one outside America seem to resent these unfortunate events at all? I mean, the Revolution was a war. People got pretty violent on both sides. In some parts of the world, when people lose a war, they don't feel that it was just God's will. They feel that God would be much more satisfied if there was some payback. And they tend to transmit this belief to their offspring. In the American unpleasantness, a lot of people — loyalists — got kicked out of their homes. They had to leave with only a small travel bag. When this sort of thing happens in the Middle East, it's remembered for the life of the known universe.

Still with me? Read more.

And now? Maybe you are ready for the reactionary world of Mencius Moldbug.

2009-07-09T16:38:00.002-04:00

Jack Hough argues that the four-year college degree isn't worth the trouble anymore, and that colleges don't do a good job of teaching anymore.

A more inclusive four-year degree isn't the answer; the degree itself often obstructs learning. Consider the laid-off sales clerk who wishes to pursue a college education in hopes of finding a better job. If he wants to go to a name-brand school he must study for and take an admissions test and apply. He must also file a financial-aid application as long and complex as a tax return. He then must wait and cross his fingers. If accepted by the school, he must wait again for the right part of the academic calendar to come around and hope that the classes he wants aren't full. Suppose all goes well. He'll be sitting in front of a teacher a good 18 months after first deciding to learn. What folly.

As I write this, Google is putting every book ever written online. Apple is offering video college lectures for free download through its iTunes software. Skype allows free videoconferencing anywhere in the world. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and many other schools have made course materials available for free on their Web sites. Tutors cost as little as $15 an hour. Today's student who decides to learn at 1 a.m. should be doing it by 1:30. A process that makes him wait 18 months is not an education system. It's a barrier to education.

He argues that degrees should be replaced with certified transcripts that basically summarize the subjects in which one has demonstrated proficiency by passing something like the AP test.

I can only guess what this knowledge transcript would look like -- something like a résumé or credit report, perhaps. I picture a scrawny tree drawn on a page, with the branches representing the fields of learning and the student tasked with extending them. Perhaps vocational certificates would be listed, too. Maybe, once the tree reached a prescribed fatness, we'd call the student a bachelor of arts. But employers could select whatever tree shapes suited them, and college would no longer be a degree-or-nothing affair. Learning would be available everywhere and at a moment's notice, and would be rewarded right away.

This knowledge transcript would care nothing about where a student had learned, how much he spent or how long he took. It wouldn't care whether he was 12 or 60 when he proved he knew algebra or how many times he failed before succeeding, or whether he knew important people. Employers would have better proof of what students knew. Policymakers, too. Students wouldn't pile on debt. They wouldn't be misled by a college degree into believing they knew more than they did. They'd become true stewards of their own lifelong education.

Universities, I'm guessing, would look much the same. Students would always want to go on long learning sabbaticals at places with top teachers and well-appointed classrooms, and to be around like-minded people for collaboration, sports, fellowship and, not nearly least, mating. But schools would have to truly compete on price and teaching excellence. They'd no longer be able to charge students high prices just because of their ability to confer on them high pay. They'd teach as many students as would learn, since doing so would strengthen their brands, not dilute them.

Best Golden Child reference EVAR

2009-06-19T19:50:00.002-04:00

Apparently one of these kids who was chosen as a reincarnated lama grew up and decided to ditch it:

"As a toddler, he was put on a throne and worshipped by monks who treated him like a god. But the boy chosen by the Dalai Lama as a reincarnation of a spiritual leader has caused consternation -- and some embarrassment -- for Tibetan Buddhists by turning his back on the order that had such high hopes for him.Instead of leading a monastic life, Osel Hita Torres now sports baggy trousers and long hair, and is more likely to quote Jimi Hendrix than Buddha.Yesterday he bemoaned the misery of a youth deprived of television, football and girls. Movies were also forbidden -- except for a sanctioned screening of The Golden Child starring Eddie Murphy, about a kidnapped child lama with magical powers. "I never felt like that boy," he said."

Jesse Walker's take is the best part:

"The guy is studying film, so it should occur to him after a while that his story requires him to go home in the third act. The script writes itself: The rock'n'roll lama is welcomed warmly but shocks the square Buddhists with his westernized ways; in the end he learns the value of spiritual practice as he teaches the uptight monks to get down. I'm seeing Justin Timberlake in the lead, with Richard Gere as the expatriate American who helps Torres find himself and Eddie Murphy as the voice of the wisecracking donkey."

More here.

Wolfram Alpha

2009-06-19T19:48:00.002-04:00

Have you heard of Wolfram Alpha? It's not a superhero duo, but it's still of high interest to nerd-types. Check it out if you're the kind of person who'd be interested in a computational knowledge engine.

Man with a great-great-great grandchild

2009-06-19T19:31:00.002-04:00

For some reason, I've been wondering lately if anybody lived to see children beyond great-great grandchildren. Apparently, you can. A British man is now the world's oldest man, at 113 years old. He's a WWI veteran and a founding member of the Royal Air Force. According to Reuters, "Allingham's life has spanned three centuries and six monarchs, starting with Queen Victoria. He has five grandchildren, 12 great-grandchildren, 14 great-great grandchildren and one great-great-great grandchild." I tried to link the photo, but had trouble. Here's the link to the story, but trust me, he's old-looking. He looks a bit like the Emperor.

Freaky Friday science links

2009-05-29T16:24:00.002-04:00

Scientists have altered mouse communication by giving them the human version of a gene called FOXP2. FOXP2 is required for human speech. The chimp version of the FOXP2 protein differs from the human version by only two amino acids. The mouse version differs by only three amino acids. Normal mouse pups call for their mother with a high-pitched squeak. Pups with the human version of FOXP2 said, “Gimme some cheese.” Well, they actually squeaked at a lower pitch. Still kinda cool. Whole NY Times article here.

Stem cell breakthrough. Scientists at Harvard have reprogrammed human skin cells to become pluripotent stem cells by exposing the cells to four proteins. They used these cells to culture a variety of adult tissue types. These cells appear to have the same developmental potential as embryonic stem cells, and can be made without destroying human embryos. Plus, they offer the potential for patient-specific cell lines. This was a significant improvement over a previous method that used viruses to turn adult cells into stem cells. Yeah, it sounds scary. I wonder if you could inject someone with that virus and turn him into Benjamin Button. Anyway, we're still a long ways from any potential therapies from this stuff. Whole Reuters article here.

Graph Jam

2008-08-02T15:41:00.005-04:00

Graph Jam calls itself "pop culture for people in cubicles."

10 things to not worry about

2008-07-31T18:17:00.001-04:00

Read this refreshing article to find out why you don't have to be concerned about these ten things:

1. Killer hot dogs.
2. Your car’s planet-destroying A/C.
3. Forbidden fruits from afar.
4. Carcinogenic cellphones.
5. Evil plastic bags.
6. Toxic plastic bottles.
7. Deadly sharks.
8. The Arctic’s missing ice.
9. The universe’s missing mass.
10. Unmarked wormholes.

Awesome story of the day

2008-07-29T13:37:00.000-04:00

Two German police officers responding to a complaint about loud party noise on Saturday night were met with cheers and applause from the guests who mistook them for male strippers.

“A young woman was giving a party and there seems to have been some confusion initially because the partygoers thought the two officers were a strip act,” a spokesman for the police in the south-western town of Simmern told SPIEGEL ONLINE on Monday.

Male strippers often dress as policemen and the line “We’ve been called to investigate a disturbance” can serve as a cue for them to discard their uniforms and perform an erotic dance.
Not this time though. “The misunderstanding was swiftly resolved and calm was restored,” the spokesman said. “And there was no theft of any parts of the uniforms.”

Want to become Batman?

2008-07-28T14:36:00.002-04:00

Scientific American interviews a kinesiologist to find out what it would take to become the Dark Knight.

What have comic books and movies told us about Batman's physical
abilities?
There's a quote from Neal Adams, the great Batman illustrator, who said Batman would win, place or show in every event in the Olympics. Probably if I were Batman's handler, I'd put him in the decathlon. Although Batman is shown in the comics as being the fastest and the strongest and all these other things, in reality you can't actually be all of that at once. To be Batman properly, what you really need to do is be exceptionally good at many different things. It's when you take all the pieces and put them together that you get the Batman.

What's most plausible about portrayals of Batman's skills?
You could train somebody to be a tremendous athlete and to have a significant martial arts background, and also to use some of the gear that he has, which requires a lot of physical prowess. Most of what you see there is feasible to the extent that somebody could be trained to that extreme. We're seeing that kind of thing in less than a month in the Olympics.

What's less realistic?
A great example is in the movies where Batman is fighting multiple opponents and
all of a sudden he's taking on 10 people. If you just estimate how fast somebody could punch and kick, and how many times you could hit one person in a second, you wind up with numbers like five or six. This doesn't mean you could fight four or five people. But it's also hard for four or five people to simultaneously attack somebody, because they get in each other's way. More realistic is a couple of attackers.

How long would Bruce Wayne have to train to become Batman?
In some of the timelines you see in the comics, the backstory is he goes away for five years—some it's three to five years, or eight years, or 12 years. In terms of the physical changes (strength and conditioning), that's happening fairly quickly. We're talking three to five years. In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years. Probably the most reality-based representation of Batman and his training was in Batman Begins.

Time Magazine thinks Libertarians are not lunatics!

2008-07-15T21:28:00.002-04:00

This Time article is mostly about Bob Barr's bid for president. Will average Americans start thinking seriously about the fact that both major parties represent an increasingly expanding version of Leviathan? Probably not. Will the LP shave enough votes off of McCain in the Mountain West to hurt him in the November election? Maybe. Will this lead the Republican Party to pay more attention to its limited government wing? Who knows?

It's tempting to think of Libertarianism as nothing more than old-school Republicanism, but it's always been partially left-wing, drawing from a long history of American anarchism. The modern challenge is to unite those two wings--or, as magician (and stalwart Libertarian) Penn Jillette told me, "Convince the dope guys that the gun guys are O.K., and vice versa." And many Libertarians believe the time is now. It helps that the U.S. has been throttled for a century by two parties whose core differences are narrowing. The current general election has seemed at times a contest about who can crib off the other party's platform more, from McCain's enthusiasm for using government to fight global warming to Obama's hedging on warrantless wiretapping. For an electorate having a harder time distinguishing Coke from Pepsi, there's a thirst for something--anything--new.

epMotion Video

2008-07-15T21:22:00.001-04:00

I wouldn't link to a video for a science product if it wasn't worth it.

No Yuengling in Ohio

2008-07-02T16:55:00.003-04:00

My friend Dan forwarded me a story on the lack of Yuengling in Ohio. Parts of the article dealing with cult beers are interesting. The parts about Barack Obama drinking it are not. Here's what really caught my eye:

It's brewed in Pottsville, Pa., at America's oldest brewery. The name is pronounced "Ying-Ling," the locals shorten it to "Ying," and it means "young man" in German.

Ying is a good beer that recently received a "Hot Brand" award. Partly because you can't get it everywhere, it's achieved cult status. Even with the addition of a former Stroh's brewery in Tampa, it's only available in 10 states, Ohio not among them.

"Ying"?! WTF? It's lager, Ohioans.

Tpotdomescandal for Harding

2008-06-16T14:12:00.002-04:00

Perhaps you would suspect that, given my pseudonym, I would be among the many who consider Warren G. Harding among our worst presidents. In fact, I usually view rankings of presidents as if they were written backwards, and am more critical of acclaimed presidents who are praised for their "leadership," which usually seems associated with war, expansion of the state, and erosion of civil liberties (by this standard, it's hard to see how W won't end up near the top some day). Here's a nice post by Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy on the good things Harding brought to the White House:

If I had to name the most underrated president in American history, Warren Harding would be at or near the top of my list. Harding is routinely ranked at or near the bottom in presidential ratings by historians and other experts.

In Sunday's New York Times, Yale historian Beverly Gage has an interesting article suggesting that Harding may have been the first "black" president in the sense that it is possible that he had a remote black ancestor.

Unfortunately, Gage's article about Harding and race relations completely ignores the fact that Harding made a well-known speech advocating full legal equality for southern blacks in 1921, in Birmingham, Alabama. As W.E.B. DuBois pointed out at the time, Harding went farther in advocating equal rights for blacks than any other post-Reconstruction Republican president (the Democrats, at that time the party of southern whites, were even worse). Indeed, no president went as far as Harding in advocating equal rights for southern blacks for several decades thereafter. Harding also lobbied hard for a federal anti-lynching bill to curb the rampant lynching of blacks by whites in the South - again, the first post-Reconstruction president to do so (the bill passed the House, but died in the Senate due to the threat of Democratic filibusters).

As DuBois pointed out in the linked article, Harding was not wholly free of the racism common among whites at the time. But he was a lot better than the vast majority of his contemporaries.

Nor were these Harding's only positive aspects. As Gene Healy discusses in his interesting recent book, The Cult of the Presidency, Harding is also notable for reversing the severe violations of civil and economic liberties that had proliferated under his predecessor Woodrow Wilson. It's easy to belittle Harding's campaign slogan - "Return to Normalcy." But Harding's notion of "normalcy" included an end to the imprisonment of political dissenters (such as Wilson's notorious "Palmer Raids"), abolition of wage and price controls, and the reversal of Wilson's numerous illegal seizures of private property. As David Bernstein and I briefly discuss in this article, Wilson's administration was also highly racist and segregationist even by the standards of the day; here too, Harding was a sharp contrast.

I'm not arguing that Harding was a great president. His administration included some serious corruption (such as the famous Tea Pot Dome Scandal), and his intellectual and political skills were not especially impressive. And, as with most politicians, his successes were to a large extent the product of broader political trends, not just his personal efforts. However, Harding's achievements in ending Wilson's harmful policies and his laudable efforts on behalf of civil rights greatly outweigh the relatively limited harm caused by his corrupt underlings. And, by all accounts, Harding himself was clean (though many of his appointees definitely weren't).

Harding will never be ranked among the top few presidents. But he deserves much greater respect than he gets.

Saddest Picture on the Internet

2008-06-15T09:18:00.000-04:00

Click here to see it, if you dare.

Gummi Lighthouses

2008-06-13T15:37:00.001-04:00

They must be crafted by gummi artisans who work exclusively in the medium of gummi. Sounds cute. What could go wrong?

Submitted without comment

2008-06-10T19:37:00.002-04:00

From GQ's profile of Meghan McCain, daughter of Republican presidential hopeful John McCain:

Meghan confesses that her real love life hasn’t been especially active lately. She’s gone on only one official date since her dad’s campaign began, but she bowed out early with a “headache.” Then there was also the rumor that she’d been seen with—horrors—a Ron Paul supporter.

“That has been blown out of proportion in every way!” she exclaims. “What happened is that I dropped my coffee and he helped me with it and was like, ‘Do you want to go to Baja Fresh?’… Not that I would be against dating a Ron Paul supporter, but he turned out to be very strange. He collected Barbie dolls. I called my girlfriends after and was like, ‘That’s weird, right?’ ”

Tpotdomescandal's Top 10 TV Shows

2008-06-09T17:27:00.001-04:00

#1 The Simpsons

Of course it’s The Simpsons. I’ve had entire conversations that consisted of Simpsons quotes and allusions. I made a t-shirt with a hand-drawing of Chief Wiggum, featuring quotes such as, “Oh my God! Somebody’s taken a bite out of the giant rice krispie square!” I went to a taping of Late Night with Conan O’Brien because I was a fan of his work as a writer during the glory days of The Simpsons. The Simpsons had it all: the dizzying highs, the terrifying lows, the creamy middles. The Simpsons taught us a lot about life: “A woman is a lot like a refrigerator. Six feet tall, 300 pounds, makes ice. Actually, a woman is more like a beer. She looks good. She smells good. You’d step over your own mother to get one. And once you have one woman you can’t stop. You gotta have another woman, and another… gulp gulp gulp.”

One thing I like to point out about The Simpsons is the surprising pervasiveness of religion. Really I think that it is one of the underappreciated reasons the show is such a unique look at family in America, which is a uniquely religious country. Characters pray regularly. They go to church. Lisa converted to Buddhism. The conservative Christian neighbors, the Flanders, are major characters. There was a whole show devoted to Bart’s soul. God and the Devil have made multiple appearances. We’ve seen heaven (Ben Franklin and Jimi Hendrix playing ping-pong), and hell (an unsuccessful attempt to overfeed Homer with doughnuts in the ironic punishment division). Krusty’s Judaism and Apu’s Hinduism have been featured. There was an episode in which Bart and Homer briefly were Catholics. The Flanders are an interesting case in themselves. Frankly, they may be the most sympathetic portrayal of evangelical Christians in popular culture. Yes, they are portrayed as odd, and are often the brunt of jokes, but so is everyone else on the Simpsons. In most popular portrayals of conservative Christians, they must be shown to be intolerant, or hypocrites, or secret sinners, or just plain the Bad Guys. The Flanders are portrayed as earnest righteous people who really would give you their shirts after you stole their coats.

While The Simpsons has been criticized by morons in the media as crass and base, it’s actually intelligent and warm. I get a little choked up at the end of “And Maggie Makes Three,” when we see all the pictures of Maggie covering letters to turn “Don’t forget, you’re here forever” to “Do it for her.” I could give other examples, but I don’t want anyone to think I’m a wuss.

The Simpsons doesn’t really have an anti-government message, but they do as good a job criticizing government as anybody. Joe Quimby, a walking catchall parody of local government, Democrats, and Kennedys, is summarized by Birch Barlow, himself a parody of conservative talk radio: “our six-term mayor - the illiterate, tax-cheating, wife-swapping, pot-smoking spendocrat: Diamond Joe Quimby.”

I defy you to find a sport not featured in The Simpsons. Jai alai is a good guess, but Homer references betting on Jai alai in the Caiman Islands after discovering the internet.

The Road to Hell Is Paved with Nationalized Cement

2008-06-03T10:20:00.017-04:00

Would anyone who still thinks socialism is a good idea please pay attention to what's happening in Venezuela right now? Hugo Chavez is doing everything in his (expanding) power to run that country into the ground, and is on course to accomplish this feat in record time.

Choosing to remain shockingly ignorant about what causes inflation, Chavez decided to address the nation's recent 29% surge in consumer prices by raising the average public worker's wage by thirty percent. Ho ho! How clever, Señor Presidente! Why didn't anyone think of this sooner? When the water rises, you just throw out more ice for the people to float on. Never mind if it melts later, there's plenty more ice where that came from (i.e., windfall taxes).

Why the sudden boost in bread for the masses? Perhaps it has something to do with Chavez and his Socialist colleagues seeking more power in November's elections. Remember that just last year, the majority of voters said "no" to Chavez's attempt to remove a constitutional limit on his terms as president. Further electoral setbacks could diminish his support among the governors of Venezuela's 23 states.

Chavez's economic policies, such as they are, have ruined what once was a period of economic growth spurred by foreign oil investment in Venezuela. The oil-rich nation's government has alienated those same investors by nationalizing oil fields and placing progressive windfall taxes on oil based upon its current revenue (e.g., 60% at $110 or more per barrel).

Any company who complains, as Exxon-Mobil has in a $12 billion lawsuit, is immediately labeled a "corporate terrorist." Rather than deal with such headaches, investors are taking their money elsewhere, and Venezuela's GDP is expected to be just over half of what it was only two years ago.

The latest outrage from Venezuela's dictator is positively Bushian in its sheer moxie: A new law proposed by Chavez that would imprison those refusing to cooperate with state intelligence agencies and secret police, as well as warrant-less wiretapping and the ability to detain anyone under suspicion without proper legal representation. Sound familiar, civil libertarians?

Chavez in pre-election cash spree [BBC News]
Venezuela 'spy' law draws protest [BBC News]
(Chavez supporter photo via AP; Exxon flyer photo via AFP)

Tpotdomescandal's Top 10 TV Shows

2008-05-28T14:27:00.001-04:00

#2 Seinfeld

“He took it out.” “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” “She’s a low-talker.” “Puffy shirt.” “I’m a marine biologist.” “The second spitter.” Everybody knows what these quotes mean, because Seinfeld produced some of the most memorable, and finniest lines, scenes, and characters in sitcom history. Two things really stand out about the success of Seinfeld. First, I was among many people who watched the show nearly every week while it was on. Occupying the prime Thursday night spot, Seinfeld was a shared community experience, and it earned it. Second, one can still enjoy watching just about any episode on syndication. If you want, you can probably watch two or three reruns every day. I still probably watch Seinfeld four or five times a week. The staying power is remarkable. Anyway, there’s not much more I can add to what’s already been said about a remarkable show about nothing starring an actor who couldn’t act. I don’t need to, because I know you love Seinfeld, too.

Do we need public finance of science?

2008-05-21T14:38:00.002-04:00

As a scientist who wants to see the size of government reduced, I have maintained that we can and should cut public investment in science, as long as we cut almost everything else first. A new book, provocatively titled Sex, Science and Profits: How people evolved to make money, argues that public finance of science has been unnecessary in fueling technological progress and development, and that the government may be doing more harm than good (color me shocked!). Ron Bailey reviews:

Does government funding of scientific research speed technological progress and spur economic growth?

…

…in nearly every case the crucial inventions of the past two and half centuries were called forth by markets, not invented by scientists working from ivory towers. These include the steam engine, cotton gin, textile mills, railroad engines, the revolver, the
electric motor, telegraph, telephone, incandescent light bulb, radio, the airplane—the list is nearly endless.

The story of the airplane is instructive. After the Spanish-American War, the federal government supplied a grant of $73,000 to the director of the Smithsonian Institution, Samuel Pierpont Langley to develop heavier-than-air craft. All six of Langley's prototypes crashed, the last one on October 7, 1903. Two months later, Ohio bicycle mechanics, Orville and Wilbur Wright, launched their first successful flight at Kitty Hawk, N.C. Their R&D budget? About $1,000.

…

…government funded civilian research didn't appear to hurt the private sector but there was not much evidence that it helped, at least in the short term. The report concluded, "Research and development (R&D) activities undertaken by the business sector seem to have high social returns, while no clear-cut relationship could be established between non-business-oriented R&D activities and growth." Economic growth associated with R&D was linked almost entirely to private sector research
funding. The OECD report did allow that perhaps publicly funded research might eventually result in long-term technology spillovers, but that contention was hard to evaluate. The 2003 OECD study also noted, "Taken at face value they suggest publicly-performed R&D crowds out resources that could be alternatively used by the private sector, including private R&D."
A 1995 analysis done by American University economist Walter Parker also finds that government funding crowds out private research. "Once private research is
explicitly controlled for, the direct effect of public research is weakly negative, as might be the case if public research has crowding-out effects which adversely affect private output growth," concludes Parker. Weakly negative? Government funding may retard technological progress? Is it possible that the funding for NASA has
crowded out private space transport research and development? Or more currently, that private companies are not investing in carbon capture and sequestration research as a way to mitigate man-made global warming because they are waiting
for the federal government to fund such research?

Tpotdomescandal's Top 10 TV Shows

2008-05-20T17:44:00.001-04:00

#3 The Sopranos

I actually became a fan of the Sopranos late in the game. Despite all I heard about HBO’s groundbreaking series, I was reluctant to watch. I am no fan of the mobster genre, and am normally turned off by the glamorization of the lifestyle that occurs in works of fiction such as The Godfather. Then I finally watched the first episode and was blown away. To me the show wasn’t just about the Mob, but used the drama of a Mob kingpin’s family to examine the trials and tribulations of modern suburban living in America. I was hooked right away, and The Sopranos became must-see TV.
The Sopranos certainly did not glamorize the Mafia lifestyle. While we certainly rooted for Tony as the protagonist in sometimes complex ways, it was hard to view him as heroic in any way. Contrast him with Michael Corleone: “Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in.” Tony is never presented as a noble figure who is cast in the role of Mob boss through a series of unavoidable circumstances. Instead, you watch how every breath of his miserable life is consumed with petty sin and violence. He steals from everybody. He is capable of violence for any reason at any time. He lies and prevaricates and rationalizes constantly. His sex scenes were always ugly, and never titillating. Of course, he was still a good protagonist because he seemed like the best of a bad lot. All of the other characters were pathetic, psycho, proud, unstable, or a combination of the above.
Of course, I have to talk about the final episode. My first reaction was ambivalent. I didn’t think it was great, I didn’t hate it, and I didn’t feel too strongly about it. In the next few days, I realized what a genius move David Chase had done. While indulging my bad habit of listening to sports talk radio, I notice that the idiots who call sports talk radio almost all hated the ending. It occurred to me that anything that pisses off idiots this much had to have something going for it. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that if you disliked the final episode that you are an idiot, I’m just saying that if you are an idiot, the final episode apparently made you apoplectic. There’s just something to be said for that. Plus I like how nobody gets off the hook. We enjoyed watching the contemptible antics of Tony Soprano for eight years. We were not allowed to purify our souls by enjoying watching him get his final comeuppance.

Tpotdomescandal's Top 10 TV Shows

2008-05-16T12:17:00.002-04:00

#4 Dexter

With just two seasons in the books, Dexter is already a heavyweight in my mind. It’s a Showtime series about a man, Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall) who is a forensic investigator by day and a serial killer by night. The first season was the best thing I’d seen on TV since the first season of The Sopranos. The show is typical of contemporary high-minded dramas in that the storylines involve several characters interacting and moving parallel to each other over the course of several episodes. At the same time, each episode normally succeeds in telling an interesting story in itself.

Since the protagonist is a sadistic murderer, the viewer is definitely dealing with some moral gray areas. The show succeeds in dealing with this in a few ways. First, you’re definitely rooting for Dexter, even if you feel uncomfortable about it at times. Second, it doesn’t devolve into merely a creepy vigilante drama; the moral ambiguity is maintained. Finally, the show itself doesn’t celebrate depravity, or ask the viewers to feel either comfortable with evil or desensitized.

Dexter also happens to be great popcorn TV. The show is scary, suspenseful, mysterious, and sometimes wickedly funny. Hall gives a performance for the ages. His character is constantly lying and scheming and full of rage, and Hall masterfully uses facial expressions and body language to convey Dexter's often subtle, sometimes outrageous, and constantly changing emotional states.

Dexter’s relationships with his foster father and sister are major plot features, but I’ll avoid spoilers here, as the show is current, and I’m kind of one of its evangelists. Dexter and his colleagues are definitely known to down some beers at the bowling alley.

Tpotdomescandal's Top 10 TV Shows

2008-05-14T13:46:00.002-04:00

#5 The X-Files

The show started out as a quirky sci-fi drama that appealed mainly to quirky fans of the paranormal like myself, but it became much more. As the production values and writing improved, the show weaved together a grand plot of alien visitors and government cover-ups while delivering a new monster mystery every week. The show really became great when 1) the relationship between FBI special agents Mulder (David Duchovny) and Scully (Gillian Anderson) became one of TV’s classic unfulfilled sexual tension stories and 2) the episodes included more humor and irony while still bringing some of the best horror and suspense to primetime TV. Also, Scully definitely had great “nerd sex appeal” for a while. At its peak, The X-Files was my favorite show, but the downer final seasons in which Duchovny and Anderson were replaced with scabs were dreadful.

Skepticism of the government was a huge theme, as they were literally the bad guys in many episodes (Trust No One!). The stereotype of the smoking villain was a major topic. The Mulder family was an important theme with Fox’s obsessive pursuit of his abducted sister, and the implications of a Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader thing going on between Fox and the Cigarette-Smoking-Man. Spirituality wasn’t an overriding theme, but angels, devils, and stigmata made their appearances, along with Scully’s Catholicism. Even sports came up more often than you’d think. One of my favorite episodes explored race and alienation in the form of a Negro League team called the Grays that had a secret alien on it.

The X-Files drinking game.

More on farming

2008-05-14T13:18:00.002-04:00

In addition to ending farm subsidies, I think we can all agree with these propositions from Joel Salatin, the self-proclaimed “Christian-conservative-libertarian-environmentalist-lunatic.”

1. Make and sell ready-to-eat foods on the farm: “Virginia just legalized homemade jams and jellies to sell. As ridiculous as that sounds, that’s a pretty important shot across the bow.”

2. Sell raw milk and other dairy products: “Officialdom believes that only pasteurized milk is safe. The fact that people have been drinking raw milk throughout human history, and still drink it all over the world and in 20-some states, means nothing to them.”

3. Sell custom-slaughtered meat by the piece: “My position is that if meat [slaughtered outside the normal factory processes] is OK for people to eat, give away, or feed their children—which indicates that it is not an inherently hazardous product—we should have freedom to also sell it. The restrictions are on the commerce of it. The attitude is: The only thing that is safe to eat is something with a government stamp on it, unless you get it free. Exchange money, and it’s somehow not safe.”

Of course, some of the arguments of small-farming advocates are so irrational that they make my head spin. It's people like Dan Barber that make me skeptical of the whole movement.

Farm frenzy continues

2008-05-14T13:14:00.002-04:00

Regardless of your basic positions on organic, agribusiness, etc., I think that the best farm policies will evolve in an environment without the market-distorting effects of special interest legislation. That said, ugh:

"We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the farm bill immediately," Barack Obama declared last November. It was a weird thing to say, since the farm bill, which subsidizes an arbitrarily chosen section of the economy at the expense of taxpayers and consumers in general, is special-interest legislation by definition.

Whole thing here.

Tpotdomescandal's Top 10 TV Shows

2008-05-09T18:32:00.001-04:00

#6 Battlestar Galactica

Suicide bombings, secret agents, a president who leads with religious faith, torture, biological warfare. Am I talking about 24? Love triangles, estranged fathers, secret adoptions, dead fiancées. Am I talking about Days of Our Lives? Actually, I’m talking about Battlestar Galactica on the SciFi Network. This remake of the 1970’s cult classic is one of the smartest shows on television. In this version, the Cylons, who look like humans, chase the last survivors of the attack on the human colonies across the universe while the humans look for a legendary home called Earth. Edward James Olmos plays Commander Adama and is a total badass. The show also features many strong female characters: the edgy, cigar-chomping antihero, Starbuck (Katee Sackhoff), the resolute President Roslin (Mary McDonnell), the evil but beguiling #6 (Tricia Helfer). By the way, #6 can take over my home planet any day. My favorite character is Dr. Gaius Baltar (James Callis), the brilliant but egocentric scientist who carries on a secret mental love affair with a cylon beauty.

The action sequences are terrific, especially for basic cable, and the romance and relationship drama make for good popcorn television. However, the real beauty of the show is the moral drama. The show is definitely not about something as simple as good humans versus evil robots. After some particularly jarring scenes, I am reminded, “Oh yeah, we’re not the good guys, we’re just humans.”

There’s a lot of drinking and smoking and cursing (Frak!). The whole series is pervaded by spirituality and metaphysiscs. Is there one God, or are there many? Can we change our destiny? What about sin, freedom, and community? Family ties are important, too. Commander Adama’s relationship with his son, Captain Lee Adama (Jamie Bamber) has many ups and downs. Anti-government themes explored include the tension between liberty and security, and the distinction between terrorism and freedom-fighting.

Tpotdomescandal's Top 10 TV Shows

2008-05-08T17:21:00.001-04:00

#7 Cheers

There are a few sitcoms that everyone watched, and remained almost eternally enjoyable in syndication. Cheers was one of those sitcoms. Indeed, ask even the most casual consumers of pop culture can tell you al about Sam, Diane, Rebecca, Cliff, Norm, Coach, Woody, Carla, and Frasier. It claimed to be the place where everybody knows your name, but it was also the place where you know everybody’s names.

I take perverse Domer pride in pointing out that George Wendt (Norm) failed out of Notre Dame.

The show had a sports angle, as Sam was a retired relief pitcher, and everybody was drinking all the time, of course.

Dying Professor's lecture

2008-05-08T17:07:00.001-04:00

I guess I'll get around to being the last blogger to post a link to the famous Last Lecture. It's about 12 minutes long, but very inspirational.

Green Conservatives

2008-05-08T16:39:00.002-04:00

When I have to go into Whole Foods, I am suffocated by the feeling that I'm surrounded by a bunch of commie, pinko, hippie liberals. I feel like yellin pro-Bush slogans just to cheese them off. That said, my sister and mother like whole foods, too, and they're Christian neocons! My sister's interest in green conservatism prompted my previous post on organic foods. Anyway, I'm a fan of all things that fit the category of what I call "Purple America," that is, neither red nor blue, so here's an article on green conservatism that my sister likes. The article is by the "Crunchy Con," Rod Dreher. I was attracted to some of his writings because he has some Christian anarchist in him, but I am all too often disappointed by his reasoning. Still:

Earth Day is not my day, not really.

As both a conservative and an avid indoorsman, I've always seen it as a high holy day for hippies, Whole Foods devotees, spotted-owl fetishists and sundry crunchy-granola types who believe that "Think Globally, Act Locally" is the Eleventh Commandment.

But you know, I've got to wonder how much longer we on the right can justify an environmental philosophy that amounts to little more than sneering at liberal tree-huggers.

For one thing, whatever the self-righteous excesses of the environmentalist left, it is impossible to be true to traditional conservative values (to say nothing of the Christian faith conservatives like me profess) and hold laissez faire attitudes about the use and abuse of the natural world. And for another, have you noticed that, um, it's getting really warm in here?

I justified my hostility to environmentalists because of their alarmism, their stridency and even a narrow but toxic vein of misanthropy among their lot. What turned me around was reading Dominion, a book by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully, who made a conservative moral case for animal welfare.

Scully's critique rests on the classical virtue of piety — a term taken these days to mean religiosity but which, in its older usage, means a deep sense of reverence and humility as a fundamental stance to reality. In fact, piety toward nature is part of traditional conservatism's intellectual patrimony.

Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver, two founding fathers of modern American conservatism, hated the way industrial capitalism saw nature as merely a thing to be exploited. Weaver observed that we moderns "have allowed ourselves to be blinded by the insolence of material success [and] the animal desire to consume." He saw this as alienating us from nature and the foundations of a sustainable conservative order.

Kirk wrote: "In America, especially, we live beyond our means by consuming the portion of posterity, insatiably devouring minerals and forests and the very soil, lowering the water table, to gratify the appetites of the present tenants of the country." He demanded that Americans act with more self-discipline to honor "the future partners in our contract with eternal society."

A world with no limits

As it turns out, the ecological catastrophe Kirk feared that would be the consequence of our impiety appears not to be one of radically diminished resources, but of potentially catastrophic climate change. It comes from an arrogant refusal by a modern consumerist society to accept limits on its desires. Kirk's idea of the "eternal society" evaporates before the insatiable demands of the Everlasting Now.

No serious person can deny the overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing dramatically for the worse. Conservative skeptics, however, argue that the science isn't clear enough to pinpoint the degree to which human activity is responsible. Even if that were true, given the staggering magnitude of the stakes, it is wildly imprudent to wait for a level of certainty that may never come, or come too late.

Tim Flannery, an Australian scientist and former global-warming skeptic, says there is no way to account for the temperature rise outside of human activity. In his book The Weather Makers, Flannery writes, "Skepticism is an indispensable element in scientific inquiry, but when the intention is to mislead rather than clarify, we have not skepticism but deceit."

There's much self-deceit about global warming among us conservatives. To take this stuff seriously would mean confronting the fact that we cannot continue living as we like. It would mean dealing like grown-ups with the real possibility that we are condemning future generations to excruciating hardship because we refuse our duty to stewardship.

A spiritual duty

For too long, conservatives have ceded political efforts to care for creation to liberals. We Christian conservatives are finally recognizing that conservation is a matter of moral and spiritual integrity. And we're learning that the challenge facing humankind from climate change dwarfs the narcissism of the usual left-right politics.

Politics, however, is the primary way to address a challenge to the commons this massive — and politics won't shift until our paradigm for thinking and talking about the environment does. The responsibility for that lies with open-minded and imaginative folks from both the liberal and conservative camps — men and women who care more about conserving the natural world and the human civilization dependent on it than they do about protecting their political purity and fundraising base.

Bottom line: When people like me start to believe Earth Day is for us, too, the earth will move under Washington's feet. But as long as cultural perceptions keep Earth Day a sectarian holiday for secular liberals, the pace of political change will be, alas, glacial.

Me, I'll just continue to sneer at liberal tree-huggers.

Organic food myths, continued

2008-05-08T16:27:00.002-04:00

My sister wanted me to post the response to the Independent's article on organic food myths. Here are excerpts, with my rebuttals in bold.

Fact one: Organic farming is good for the environment

Organic farming is not perfect; it was only developed 60 years ago, and we still have much to learn. Agreed, so why don’t you work on it before you use the state to force it on everybody. Over those years, organic research has been starved of funding because most investment went first into developing pesticides and then into GM crops. The fruits of those investments are what is called “The Green Revolution,” which has produced an abundance of safe, healthy food, and represents one of the greatest achievements in human history. Organic farming was started by scientists and farmers who wanted to develop what we would now call a more sustainable way of producing food. Their main concern was with the link between healthy soils, healthy food and human health. However, those pioneers did create a farming system that has clear environmental benefits. Organic farming is better for wildlife on farms. The science is clear cut. Scientific literature reviews have found that, overall, organic farms have 30 per cent more wild species, and 50 per cent higher numbers of those species. Based on scientific research, the Government says that organic farming has clear environmental benefits – better for wildlife, lower pollution from sprays, produces fewer dangerous wastes and less carbon dioxide. The Sustainable Development Commission says that organic certification represents "the gold standard" for sustainable food production. I farmed non-organically for more than 30 years, and switched to organic, mainly to try to bring back wildlife on the farm. We have far more birds, and data on hares before and after switching to organic show numbers doubled from 20 to 40. This year we found 56.

Fact two: Organic farming is more sustainable

First of all, I wish someone would explain what “sustainable” means. Last week's article contained several errors – for example, the statement that organic tomatoes take double the amount of energy to produce is wrong, as were the figures for different types of tomato. The information on the climate change impact of organic food omitted one of the key benefits of organic farming: storing carbon in the soil. When this is included, the climate change impact of organic food goes down by between 12 and 80 per cent. Government-funded studies have shown that across a range of sectors, organic farming uses 26 per cent less energy than non-organic farming to produce the same amount of food, and the Government agrees that organic farming is better for climate change. If this is true, then the cost savings must be immense. Then, by all means, bring your foods to market at a lower cost, and we won’t have to worry about this whole argument.

Fact three: Organic farming doesn't use pesticides

We've never claimed this! Perhaps not, but I assure you that this is a very commonly held misconception. Hence a myth.

Fact four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous

I'd say certainly risky, and potentially dangerous. In the EU, one food item in 30 contains levels above European legal limits. Nearly 40 pesticides, which we were promised were safe, have been banned or withdrawn from use over the past decade. People who want to reduce their exposure to potentially harmful pesticides can buy organic food. A US study showed that within one day of switching to an organic diet no traces of pesticides could be found in children's urine. When the children switched back to a non-organic diet, pesticides were found immediately. We live longer, healthier lives than ever. Age-adjusted cancer rates are down. Still, ideologues declare harmless substances “risky,” lobby for them to be banned, then claim that the fact that they were banned is evidence that they were dangerous. This is pure sophistry.

Fact five: Organic farming is healthier

In terms of food safety, the Food Standards Agency says there is no difference between organic and non-organic food. Right, so it’s not healthier.

Fact six: Organic food contains more nutrients

Published research shows that, on average, organic food contains higher levels of vitamin C and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron and chromium, as well as cancer-fighting antioxidants. Organic milk is naturally higher in Omega 3 fatty acids, Vitamin E, Vitamin A (beta-carotene) and some other antioxidants than non-organic milk. I’ve seen research that supports this, in some cases. Again, if you can provide a better product, then do it. Why do you need to cajole the rest of us into consuming something that you claim is cheaper, cleaner, more nutritious, and safer?

American child

2008-05-06T23:19:00.001-04:00

Do you like pictures of babies? Country music? Well, if you're like 50% of my readership, then you are my mother or sister, so yes. Enjoy.

Meet my Paladin

2008-05-06T23:12:00.002-04:00

His name is Hayek. I thought he was a badass. Dom thinks he looks like the gay lovechild of He-Man and Randy "Macho Man" Savage. What do you think?

Organic food myths

2008-05-02T14:50:00.002-04:00

From an article in the Independent that calls for sanity and reason when discussing food options.

Myth one: Organic farming is good for the environment
The study of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for the UK, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should concern anyone who buys organic. It shows that milk and dairy production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). A litre of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than conventional milk to produce, has 20 per cent greater global warming potential, releases 60 per cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes 70 per cent more to acid rain.

Myth two: Organic farming is more sustainable
Organic potatoes use less energy in terms of fertiliser production, but need more fossil fuel for ploughing. A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one.

Myth three: Organic farming doesn't use pesticides
For example, organic farmers can treat fungal diseases with copper solutions. Unlike modern, biodegradable, pesticides copper stays toxic in the soil for ever. The organic insecticide rotenone (in derris) is highly neurotoxic to humans – exposure can cause Parkinson's disease. But none of these "natural" chemicals is a reason not to buy organic food; nor are the man-made chemicals used in conventional farming.

Myth four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous
The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a "cocktail effect" of pesticides. Some point to an "epidemic of cancer". In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years.

Myth five: Organic food is healthier
Large studies in Holland, Denmark and Austria found the food-poisoning bacterium Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but only a third of conventional flocks; equal rates of contamination with Salmonella (despite many organic flocks being vaccinated against it); and 72 per cent of organic chickens infected with parasites.
This high level of infection among organic chickens could cross-contaminate non-organic chickens processed on the same production lines. Organic farmers boast that their animals are not routinely treated with antibiotics or (for example) worming medicines. But, as a result, organic animals suffer more diseases. In 2006 an Austrian and Dutch study found that a quarter of organic pigs had pneumonia against 4 per cent of conventionally raised pigs; their piglets died twice as often.

Tpotdomescandal's Top 10 TV shows

2008-05-01T14:27:00.004-04:00

#8: Quantum Leap

Theorizing that one could time travel within his own lifetime, Dr. Sam Beckett stepped into the Quantum Leap accelerator and vanished .... He awoke to find himself trapped in the past, facing mirror images that were not his own and driven by an unknown force to change history for the better. His only guide on this journey is Al, an observer from his own time, who appears in the form of a hologram that only Sam can see and hear. And so Dr. Beckett finds himself leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home.

It still gives me chills. Quantum Leap was a fine example of episodic programming, in which each episode began and ended in a similar manner and told a similar type of story. I often prefer more complex structures in television, but Quantum Leap excelled because of its heart and its unique ability to completely change settings from week to week. The show’s great heart came off as genuine, rather than hokey. Part of the reason is that Scott Bakula’s Sam Beckett was believable in his heroism and innocence. You rooted for him to right what once went wrong. The structure of the show allowed Sam to be in a different era every episode (well, between 1958 and 1987). This added variety and increased its appeal, especially to nostalgic types who grew up in the 50s and 60s. The show could be funny, dramatic, or smart, but it was always about doing the right thing. In fact, like Futurama, Quantum Leap succeds as a sincere and intelligent scifi porogram precisely because it avoids the pretention and jargon of conventional scifi. The cigar-chomping skirt-chasing Al was a classic sidekick character.

The spiritual theme developed over time, and in the final seasons, there was a good deal of metaphysics. Righting what once went wrong explicitly took on a dimension of working to do God's will. There was even an anti-leaper working for the devil to make things wrong. All along, Al puffed his cigar.

If you're not familiar with the art of wikigroaning, quantum leap (scientific term) vs. Quantum Leap (television series), is a great example.

Tpotdomescandal’s Top 10 TV shows

2008-04-18T14:07:00.002-04:00

#9: Futurama

You knew there would be cartoons on this list, right? Futurama, a brainchild of Matt Groening, is about a pizza delivery boy named Fry who is cryogenically preserved until he is revived in the year 3000 in New New York. In the future, he gets work as a … delivery boy, and travels the cosmos with his new companions: Bender, a drinking, smoking, cursing robot; Leela, a one-eyed mutant (yeah, but I’d still make out with her); Dr. Zoidberg, a crustacean/humanoid physician whose poverty is matched only by his loneliness; Professor Farnsworth, a 150+ year old mad scientist; Hermes, the Rastafarian accountant; and Amy, the token Asian. Is this a funny show? Is the Space Pope reptilian?

The series was consistently funny and well-written and featured likeable characters (can’t you tell by my descriptions?). Honorable mention goes to some other Adult Swim cartoons: Aqua Teen Hunger Force and the Venture Brothers.

There’s lots of smoking and drinking on the show, mostly by Bender. Bite my shiny metal ass!

Here’s a good review of the show as a work of science fiction.

Tpotdomescandal’s Top 10 TV Shows

2008-04-14T16:46:00.002-04:00

#10: Big Love

Big Love is an HBO drama, currently between its second and third seasons. It has the two main characteristics of other critically-acclaimed pay cable dramas: terrific acting, and a view of the modern American suburban family represented by an extremely unusual and dysfunctional family.

Big Love is about a modern day polygamist, Bill (Bill Paxton), and his three wives, Barb (Jeanne Tripplehorn), Margene (Ginnifer Goodwin), and Nicki (Chloe Sevigny). The show features drama, action, comedy, and romance as Bill moves among his interconnected worlds. There’s his public persona as a normal (monogamous) successful Mormon businessman, there’s his relationship to a shadowy compound of breakaway Mormon fundamentalists, and his family life, which itself is partially compartmentalized. One of the striking realizations is that, regardless of religious upbringing or personal background, fans can’t help but root for this family, and root for it in it’s current form. Nicki is a terrific character who is manipulative, passive-aggressive, and compulsive, yet strangely likeable (to me, anyway).

Family is a major theme of the show. I especially like how the show ends up touching on the concerns of everyday families, even though Bill’s is anything but an everyday family. Spirituality is very important in the show, which features Mormons, breakaway polygamist sects led by creepy “prophets,” and a genuine, albeit strange theology that permeates the lives of Bill and his family. There’s plenty of skepticism of the government, from the full-on defiance of the polygamist compounds, to Bill’s attitude that he just wishes he and his family would be left alone.

Big Love homepage.

Time review.

Tpotdomescandal’s Top 10 TV Shows

2008-04-14T16:45:00.000-04:00

Over the next few weeks, I will be revealing my top 10 TV shows, starting at # 10 and ending with #1. I will include some information on the show and some reasons I like the show. I also plan to include some commentary on themes that I found to run through many of my favorite shows: family, drinking, spirituality, sports, smoking, and skepticism of government authority.

Hard Evidence That Politicians Do, In Fact, Pay Taxes

2008-04-11T13:05:00.009-04:00

This excerpt is taken from page 28 of an actual IRS document:

Publication 525: Taxable and Non-Taxable Income [IRS]

US needs to scrap visa program for skilled workers

2008-04-07T15:09:00.002-04:00

Paranoia over immigration is causing America to shut it's borders to even the most skilled of foreign workers, workers we need to maintain our competitive edge in the global technology economy. Meanwhile, other countries are getting wise:

England recently scrapped its Byzantine work permit program in favor of a Canadian-style point system that will allow entry to some skilled workers even before they get a job. New Zealand has a remarkable program that gives accredited private companies fast-track access to work visas that they can hand to foreign workers along with a job offer. Australia is considering modifying its skilled visa program along similar lines.

Even more radical is the blue card program that the European Union proposed last year to bump up its skilled workforce by 20 million over 20 years. The card will admit not only skilled workers – but their entire families – and give spouses the legal right to work in all 27 EU countries within three months of applying. By contrast, the U.S. Congress recently questioned even a relatively modest suggestion by Bill Gates to raise or scrap the annual H-1B visa cap. Astoundingly, this cap was lowered to 1990 levels four years ago.

Whole WSJ article here.

Bacteria Subsisting on Antibiotics

2008-04-04T13:54:00.002-04:00

Crazy, scary superbug news from Science:

Antibiotics are a crucial line of defense against bacterial infections. Nevertheless, several antibiotics are natural products of microorganisms that have as yet poorly appreciated ecological roles in the wider environment. We isolated hundreds of soil bacteria with the capacity to grow on antibiotics as a sole carbon source. Of 18 antibiotics tested, representing eight major classes of natural and synthetic origin, 13 to 17 supported the growth of clonal bacteria from each of 11 diverse soils. Bacteria subsisting on antibiotics are surprisingly phylogenetically diverse, and many are closely related to human pathogens. Furthermore, eacha ntibiotic-consuming isolate was resistant to multiple antibiotics at clinically relevant concentrations. This phenomenon suggests that this unappreciated reservoir of antibiotic-resistance determinants can contribute to the increasing levels of multiple antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria.

2008-04-03T12:13:00.001-04:00

A new study confirms something I've always believed: that we don't actually do drink eight glasses of water every day.

From The Telegraph:

Scientists say there is no evidence drinking large amounts of water is beneficial for the average healthy person, and do not even know how this widely held belief came about.

Myth: Healthy people do not need eight 8oz glasses of water a day

Specialists in kidney conditions in America reviewed research on claims eight 8oz glasses of water help flush toxins from the body, preventing weight gain and improving skin tone.

Dr Dan Negoianu and Dr Stanley Goldfarb, of the Renal, Electrolyte and Hypertension Division at the University of Pennsylvania, said no single study indicated average healthy people needed to drink this amount of water - a total of 3.3 pints - each day.

"Indeed, it is unclear where this recommendation came from," they say in a review in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The researchers did find some evidence that individuals in hot, dry climates, as well as athletes, need to increase the amount of water they drink. Studies have also shown that drinking lots of water helps the body to clear salt and urea.

But no studies have found any benefit to the organs of increased water intake.

Drs Negoianu and Goldfarb also investigated the theory that drinking more water makes you feel full and curbs appetite.

advertisement
Proponents say this may help maintain a healthy weight and fight obesity, but the evidence for this claim remains inconclusive, states the review.

No carefully designed clinical trials have measured the effects of water intake on weight maintenance.

Headaches also are often attributed to water deprivation, but there is little data to back this up, claim the scientists.

Only one small trial has addressed this question, and while trial participants who increased their water intake experienced fewer headaches than those who did not, the results were not statistically significant.

In addition, water has been touted as an elixir for improved skin tone.

The authors said that while dehydration can decrease skin stiffness, no studies have shown any clinical benefit to skin tone as a result of increased water intake.

The literature review by Drs Negoianu and Goldfarb reveals there is no clear evidence of benefit from increasing water intake. On the other hand, no clear evidence exists of a lack of benefit. "There is simply a lack of evidence in general," they explain.

On average, the body uses between 1.7 and 2.6 pints (one-1.5 litres) of water daily and more in high temperatures or when exercising.

This is replaced through drinks but a large amount is also contained in food, so it is not necessary to drink an equivalent amount to replace water levels.

Too much water can affect the balance of salts in the body causing "water intoxication", which can be fatal.

Another stupid idea from government

2008-04-01T17:43:00.002-04:00

Remember when the government banned regular light bulbs so that we would all have to use crappy compact fluorescents? Oopsie!

What is it about government mandates that curse innovation to failure?
...
NBC’s “Today” show featured the bulbs on its “Today Goes Green” series Jan. 23, 2008, as one way average Americans can adjust their lives to be more “environmentally friendly.”
...
But what the media ignored or downplayed in the run-up to the ban was that CFLs contain mercury, a highly toxic metal infamous for its presence in thermometers. In the last two years, network news shows mentioned the CFL-mercury link only seven times. Four of the reports came after the incandescent ban had already been signed into law.

Each CFL contains about 5 milligrams of mercury. That’s enough for state environmental agencies to recommend complicated and expensive cleanups for accidental bulb breaks in homes.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection recommended a woman contact a hazardous waste cleanup company when a CFL broke on her child’s bedroom carpet, sending the mercury level to more than six times the “safe” limit. The crew estimated the cleanup would cost $2,000.

The Maine DEP no longer recommends such an expensive cleanup process, but now suggests a 14-point cleanup plan.

The 5 milligrams of mercury are also enough to contaminate 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, according to a March 19 MSNBC.com article that “extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury.”

‘The Cost of Good Intentions’

But even when the networks mentioned the mercury risk, reporters and other proponents of the bulbs downplayed the significance, especially before the federal law was passed to ban traditional bulbs.

Several NBC broadcasts characterized mercury in CFLs as a “small amount.” ABC’s “Good Morning America” called it a “tiny amount of mercury” on May 3, 2007. Unfortunately the “tiny amount” multiplied by the millions of bulbs now in use could mean a lot of contaminated water.

Whole thing here.

Reaon TV spot on immigration

2008-04-01T17:38:00.003-04:00

Here's a short 5-minute video featuring Drew Carey talking about immigration. Nothing hard-hitting, but a nice summary of the history of immigration, fear of immigrants, and assimilation.

Beer contains female hormones

2008-04-01T17:26:00.001-04:00

Last month, The University of Georgia scientists released the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer.

Men should take a concerned look at their beer consumption.

The theory is that beer contains female hormones (hops contain estrogens) and that by drinking enough beer, men turn into women.

To test the theory, 100 men drank 8 pints of beer each within a 1 hour period. It was then observed that 100% of the test subjects:

1) Argued over nothing.
2) Refused to apologize when obviously wrong.
3) Gained weight.
4) Talked excessively without making sense.
5) Became overly emotional.
6) Couldn't drive.
7) Failed to think rationally.
8) Urinated frequently.

No further testing was considered necessary.
April fool!

Results of a poll taken in North Carolina

2008-03-26T13:16:00.001-04:00

If John Edwards endorsed Hillary Clinton, would it make you more likely or less likely to vote for Clinton, or would it not make a difference?

More likely to vote for Clinton - 12 percent
Less likely to vote for Clinton - 31 percent
No difference - 57 percent

Awesome.

The Bare Necessities

2008-03-25T16:32:00.003-04:00

The Bare Necessities explores the experience of economic insecurity among people who are actually quite priveleged.

Times are tough in many old industrial areas of the country. And middle-class anxiety about the costs of health care and higher education is real. But new data from the Census Bureau reveal that Americans of all income groups have made enormous gains in their standard of living in recent decades. As late as 1970, air conditioning, color TVs, washing machines, dryers and microwaves were considered luxuries. Today the vast majority of even poor families have these things in their homes. Almost one in three "poor" families has not one but at least two cars.

Consumption in real per-capita terms has nearly doubled since 1970. The single largest increase in expenditures for low-income households over the past 20 years was for audio and visual entertainment systems — up 119%. In 2007 Americans spent an estimated $1 billion to change the tune of the ringer on their cellphones. Eating in restaurants used to be something the rich did regularly and the middle class did on special occasions. The average family now spends $2,700 a year dining out.

There's a wonderful new video on Reason.tv called "Living Large." In it, comedian Drew Carey goes to a lake in California where people are relaxing on $80,000 27-foot boats and goofing around on $25,000 jet skis that they have hitched to their $40,000 SUVs. Mr. Carey asks these boat owners what they do for a living. As it turns out, they aren't hedge-fund managers. One is a gardener, another a truck driver, another an auto mechanic and another a cop.

When I was young my parents used to drill in me the moral imperative of eating everything on my plate, and they recited the (tall?) tale of how they even ate what would now be considered dog food during the darkest days of the Great Depression. The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association reports that Americans now spend $36 billion a year on their dogs, cats, turtles and so on, and one of the hottest-selling consumer items is "diet pet food." We have become a nation of fat cats — literally. I have a friend whose daughter insisted that he spend $200 on eye surgery for their hamster. (I want to see that hamster read the eye chart!)

After my lecture, one young woman walked up to me on her way out and huffed: "What I favor is a radical redistribution of wealth in America." I tried to tell her that America's greatness is a result of our focus on creating wealth, not redistributing it. But it was too late — she was already tuning in to her iPod.

Via Isegoria, where you'll also find this related note:

Burglaries are on the decline in the United States — because "everybody has everything now":

Detroit Mayor's Pants Are Still On Fire

2008-03-24T12:15:00.005-04:00

Further strengthening the anarchist's case that no government is good government, another public figure has embarrassed himself by failing to keep Mister Happy in his pants.

The Associated Press reports that Detroit Mayor (for now) Kwame Kilpatrick has been charged with perjury. The evidence: When asked under oath if he was the mayor of Detroit, Kilpatrick answered, "Hell, no! Have you seen that place?!?"

Something for the ladies

2008-03-14T14:02:00.002-04:00

Sorry about all the politics and stuff. Here are some pictures of cute animals. No, seriously... cute animals.

Why David Mamet is no longer a "Brain-dead Liberal"

2008-03-14T13:43:00.002-04:00

David Mamet has written a brilliant article about how he has changed his mind about politics. The change started when he was writing a play:

But my play, it turned out, was actually about politics, which is to say, about the polemic between persons of two opposing views. The argument in my play is between a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter.

The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it's at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention.

I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.

As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

...

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

I'd observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

This is one of the best explanations of the value of our Constitutional system I've ever read:

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.

To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.
I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.

On class in America:

Do I speak as a member of the "privileged class"? If you will—but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). On the other hand, the rich and the children of the rich can go belly-up; the hegemony of the railroads is appropriated by the airlines, that of the networks by the Internet; and the individual may and probably will change status more than once within his lifetime.

On the ability of individuals to cooperate without a state or other coercive agent:

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

See also that most magnificent of schools, the jury system, where, again, each brings nothing into the room save his or her own prejudices, and, through the course of deliberation, comes not to a perfect solution, but a solution acceptable to the community—a solution the community can live with.

If you're into this sort of stuff, read the whole thing.
Also, check out Isegoria, where I first saw this.

Better Dead Than High

2008-03-10T13:24:00.001-04:00

Radly Balko on the perverse logic of drug warriors.

For several years now, the drug naloxone has been used in emergency rooms and clinics to treat people who have overdosed on opium-derived drugs like heroin or morphine.

A new version of the drug is even more promising in that it can be administered outside of hospitals. The new version comes as a nasal spray, and retails for about $10.

...

But not everyone is happy. Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, recently told National Public Radio she opposes the distribution programs because—and hold on to your hat for this one—she believes life-threatening overdoses are an important deterrent to drug use.

"Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras said.

Madras' reaction offers a telling glimpse into the mind of a drug warrior.

We're told that certain drugs have to be prohibited because they're too dangerous. But we should also resist efforts to make them less dangerous because doing so might encourage drug use.

It's a bizarre argument until you consider the real motivation behind it: In truth, it's not so much about the harm some drugs do; it's about an absolute moral opposition to the use of some drugs.

Even if they were completely harmless, some people simply don't like the idea that we can ingest chemicals that make us feel good.
Over the years, drug warriors from former Drug Czar William Bennett to current Czar John Walters to recent DEA Administrator Karen Tandy have defended the efficacy of alcohol prohibition. All three have called the experiment a "success," and the notion that it failed a "myth."

They insist alcohol prohibition was a success because it reduced alcohol consumption. That assertion itself is debatable, but even assuming they're right, the argument itself is revealing.

Americans didn't pass prohibition because there's something inherently evil about alcohol. They passed it because of the alleged deleterious effects associated with drinking.

To call Prohibition a "success," you'd have to ignore the precipitous rise in homicides and other violent crime during the period; the rise in hospitalizations due to alcohol poisoning; the number of people blinded or killed by drinking toxic, black-market gin; the corrupting influence of Prohibition on government officials, from beat cops to the halls of Congress to Harding's attorney general; and the corresponding erosion of the rule of law.

So Long, Screwy... See You In Camaguey

2008-02-19T09:25:00.012-05:00

Fidel "I loooooove killing people!" Castro has decided to step down as president-for-life of Cuba. Strangely, he has not stepped down from living. Go figure.

Aside from leading the 1959 revolution that toppled former Cuban leader (and a dick in his own right) Fulgencio Batista, Castro created the kind of Soviet-funded Socialist utopia that got Cubans so excited they couldn't wait to get into rubber rafts and tell their friends in Miami about it.

Castro's successor held a press conference and had this to say:

In response to the news of Castro's retirement, President Bush stated,

"I believe that the change from Fidel Castro ought to begin a period of a democratic transition...Eventually this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections. And I mean free and I mean fair."

The president continued, "Not the kind of election where someone loses the popular vote and still becomes president thanks to a shady judicial ruling. I mean free and fair. And not the kind of elections where voting machines are tampered with and senior voters are confused by poorly-designed ballots.

"I mean free and fair. And not the kind where people who are not allies of the U.S. government get elected to power. I mean free and--"

At that point the president's microphone mysteriously cut off.

Fidel Castro retires [Yahoo! News]

Beagle wins best in show

2008-02-13T13:33:00.002-05:00

I just figured that people who know Trusty and Charlie would be surprised to know of the existence of a well-behaved beagle that doesn't smell funny.

Because Nothing Screams "Respect Me, Punk!" More Than A Fat Guy In Bicycle Shorts

2008-02-13T12:59:00.013-05:00

My guess is this particular Baltimore police officer is not happy having to work the skateboard beat along the Inner Harbor. Perhaps he'd rather be venturing into other, more lucrative areas of Charm City law enforcement?

Yes, teenagers can be -- and often are -- bratty and disrespectful (which believe it or not is far from a recent development), but these kids were guilty of little more than catching a grumpy cop on a bad day. While this officer's reaction may go over well with the Fox News crowd, it was completely out of line.

Fortunately for all, we were spared the near-inevitability of a new catchphrase du jour: "Don't tase me, ~~bro~~ dude!"

Baltimore Cop vs. Skateboarder [YouTube]

Why do all cultures have dragon myths?

2008-02-12T16:45:00.000-05:00

I've long wondered about where the ideas for our mythical creatures came from, especially ubiquitous ones like the dragon:

Of all the hoary old monsters, dragons are the most persistent, appearing everywhere from mall crystal shops to Disney movies. Cryptozoologists search for its cousins, the Loch Ness monster and the mokele-mbembe of the Congo swamps.

Dragon images have been found on the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, on scrolls from China, in Egyptian hieroglyphs and Ethiopian sketches, on the prows of Viking ships, in bas relief on Aztec temples, on cliffs above the Mississippi River and even on bones carved by Inuits in climates where no reptile could live.

Now scholars drawing on primitive art, fossilized bones and ancient legends are struggling to explain how cultures that had no contact with one another constructed mythical creatures so remarkably similar. And why did dragons persist so long?
...
In ''An Instinct for Dragons'' (Routledge, 2000), Dr. David E. Jones, a professor of anthropology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, posits a biological explanation that jibes with the Jungian notion of unconscious collective fears. He argues that the dragon image, fermented in the primal soup of man's first nightmares, is a composite of the carnivores who fed on human ancestors when they were tree-dwelling monkeys: the pythons, the big cats and the raptors.

Whole article here.

The teacher who couldn't read or write

2008-02-12T15:49:00.000-05:00

Of course he's a public school teacher in California.

John Corcoran graduated from college and taught high school for 17 years without being able to read, write or spell.
...
He cheated his way through high school, receiving his diploma in June 1956.
...
He stole tests and pursuaded friends to complete his assignments. Corcoran earned an athletic scholarship to Texas Western College. He said his cheating intensified, claiming he cheated in every class.
...
In 1961, Corcoran graduated with a bachelor's degree in education, while still illiterate he contends. He then went on to become a teacher during a teacher shortage.

"When I graduated from the university, the school district in El Paso, where I went to school, gave almost all the college education graduates a job," said Corcoran. For 17 years Corcoran taught high school for the Oceanside School District. Relying on teacher's assistants for help and oral lesson plans, he said he did a great job at teaching his students.

Meet the world's smallest bodybuilder

2008-02-12T15:47:00.001-05:00

Story and more pics here.

Still no Malthusian panic here

2008-02-12T13:43:00.000-05:00

Are you worried about population growth, consumption, and sustainability? I'm not, and neither is Ronald Bailey:

Globally fertility rates have been falling since the 1960s. What does this mean
for the future? At the Transvision 2007 conference, Jerome Glenn, head of the
United Nations' Millenium Project and author of its annual State of the Future
report, pointed out something what I've been saying for years—that the U.N.'s
low variant trend appears to be the path that world population is following. If
that trend holds, Glenn noted, that would mean that world population would grow
to about 8 billion in 2050 and start declining to 5.5 billion in 2100. That's a
billion fewer people than currently live on the planet.

...

A 2006 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that "among 50 nations with extensive forests reported in the Food and Agriculture Organization's comprehensive Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, no nation where annual per capita gross domestic product exceeded $4,600 had a negative rate of growing stock change." Biotech tree plantations would enable humanity to produce all the timber we need on an area roughly 5 percent to 10 percent of the total forest today. This would mean that more of the Earth's forests could remain in their natural states.

Note that the above paragraph correlates conservation with wealth.

The strangest spam I've ever received

2008-02-07T17:18:00.000-05:00

I received two spam emails from "Foty Cameron." Here's what the first message said, along with a bunch of animated emoticons:

"Hi, this is my e-mail address. please send some pics, say hi to mum, Emmanu"

The second had this message:

"Hi, Morning these are some photos hope you would like them and re call. bye talk to yopu later."

And it came with all these photos attached. All spelling errors sic, natch.

2008-02-06T12:57:00.000-05:00

According to the Telegraph:

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
…
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
…
Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.

Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
…
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.

But Michael Moore told us that health care is free in the UK. What is all this talk of "costs"?

Meanwhile, the NHS and nanny staters in the United States ignore the overall savings that smokers and the obese provide to health care systems… by dying young.

According to Dutch researchers:

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for ncreasing health expenditures.

The researchers used their model to estimate the number of surviving individuals and the occurrence of various diseases for three hypothetical groups of men and women, examining data from the age of 20 until the time when the model predicted that everyone had died. The “obese” group consisted of never-smoking people with a BMI of more than 30; the “healthy-living” group consisted of never-smoking people with a healthy weight; the “smoking” group consisted of lifetime smokers with a healthy weight. Data from the Netherlands on the costs of illness were fed into the model to calculate the yearly and lifetime health-care costs of all three groups. The model predicted that until the age of 56, yearly health costs were highest for obese people and lowest for healthy-living people. At older ages, the highest yearly costs were incurred by the smoking group. However, because of differences in life expectancy (life expectancy at age 20 was 5 years less for the obese group, and 8 years less for the smoking group, compared to the healthy-living group), total lifetime health spending was greatest for the ealthy-living people, lowest for the smokers, and intermediate for the obese pople.

Besides the fact that the fallacy of saving health care costs by eliminating smoking and obesity is intuitive, I believe there is another reason so many people believe that smokers and fat people should be denied health care. People don’t like smokers and fat people for moral and aesthetic reasons. Therefore, they think that it is good for “those people” to suffer.

All blue-eyed persons have a single common ancestor

2008-02-06T12:39:00.000-05:00

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

What is the genetic mutation?
“Originally, we all had brown eyes”, said Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. “But a genetic
mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes." The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin. The “switch”, which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris – effectively “diluting” brown eyes to blue. The switch’s effect on OCA2 is very specific therefore. If the OCA2 gene had been completely destroyed or turned off, human beings would be without melanin in their hair, eyes or skin colour – a condition known as albinism. Limited genetic variation Variation in the colour of the eyes from brown to green can all be explained by the amount of melanin in the iris, but blue-eyed individuals only have a small degree of variation in the amount of melanin in their eyes. “From this we can conclude that all blue-eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor,” says Professor Eiberg. “They have all inherited the same switch at exactly the same spot in their DNA.” Brown-eyed individuals, by contrast, have considerable individual variation in the area of their DNA that controls melanin production.

Professor Eiberg and his team examined mitochondrial DNA and compared the eye colour of blue-eyed individuals in countries as diverse as Jordan, Denmark and Turkey. His findings are the latest in a decade of genetic research, which began in 1996, when Professor Eiberg first implicated the OCA2 gene as being responsible for eye colour.

Nature shuffles our genes
The mutation of brown eyes to blue represents neither a positive nor a negative mutation. It is one of several mutations such as hair colour, baldness, freckles and beauty spots, which neither increases nor reduces a human’s chance of survival. As Professor Eiberg says, “it simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.”

That Line Would Have Gone Over Like Gangbusters In The 2000 Campaign

2008-01-28T13:07:00.000-05:00

Providing indisputable evidence that conservative white men are exactly seven-and-a-half years behind the rest of pop culture, I present you with "Extreme Caucasian Awkwardness," Mormon-style:

Seriously, was this the only thing Romney could think of to say to a crowd of young, black Americans?

"Mind drawing blank... so many Negroes... I wonder how many are non-voting felons?... think, Mitt, think!...wait, remember that non-offensive rap song you heard while flipping to Disney Radio in the car?... something about dogs... quickly, damn it, reference the chorus!... Romney, you're a genius."

No word yet on whether Romney sang Macarena to a group of Hispanic business merchants shortly afterward.

Oh Noes!

2008-01-24T17:55:00.000-05:00

So much for that Thompson-Kucinich throwdown I hoped would destroy American politics as we know it.

Democrat Kucinich quits White House race [Yahoo! News]

2008-01-24T17:13:00.000-05:00

If you like baseball and think the government is crap ("Me! Me!"), then you might be interested in these links regarding the steroid controversy.

The first analyzes the whole problem from a variety of ways. It even includes a surprisingly convincing evidence that steroid use has minimal effect on power numbers, and that power numbers have not even gone up in the steroid era.

And there's this: "We first need to note that there is scarcely some runaway epidemic of usage. Current adolescent use rates for steroids are about 1.5% (bet you didn't know that) and dropping (bet you didn't know that, either). And those results are from multiple very large-scale scientific surveys."

The second is just a good argument from Radley Balko explaining that steroids in sports is no big deal, and certainly not the business of congress. "I’d submit it’s about paternalism and control. A few luddites and prudes have successfully induced a full-blown moral panic over a set of substances that for whatever reason have attracted the ire of the people who have made it their job to tell us what is and isn’t good for us."

It's worth a try

2008-01-24T17:10:00.000-05:00

You bet I signed this petition.

2008-01-24T16:37:00.000-05:00

The best but least popular way to help to poor of the world, particularly the "Bottom Billion," is freedom of migration:

Pritchett is the author of a powerful new book that catalogues the staggering gains to be had from a liberalized immigration regime. Let Their People Come (Center for Global Development) relates, simply and unrelentingly, the voluminous data on global migration. If the 30 affluent countries making up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) were to allow just a 3 percent rise in the size of their labor forces through loosened immigration restrictions, claims a 2005 World Bank report, the gains to citizens of poor countries would amount to about $300 billion. That’s $230 billion more than the developed world currently allocates to foreign aid for poor countries. And foreign aid is a transfer: The $70 billion that rich countries give leaves those countries $70 billion poorer. According to the World Bank study, wealthy nations that let in 3 percent more workers would gain $51 billion by boosting returns to capital and reducing the cost of production.

The aggregate gains from a regime of completely open borders are so large as to seem unreal, but immigration policy is perhaps best understood at the level of the individual. According to World Bank economists Martin Rama and Raquel Artecona, data from the 1990s show that a Vietnamese laborer who moves to Japan will make nine times what she would at home, adjusted for purchasing power. A Guatemalan will find wages for the same work increase sixfold in the United States; a Kenyan who moves to the U.K., sevenfold. “These wage gaps create pressure for migration,” Pritchett writes, “because they are not primarily explained by differences in the characteristics of people. Wage rates are predominantly characteristics of places.” The biggest single determinant of how well off you will be is not the college you get into, the color of your skin, your gender, or your work ethic; it’s the country listed on your passport.

Reason's Kerry Howley interviews Pritchett here.

Education Joke

2008-01-16T15:45:00.001-05:00

Rip Van Winkle awakens in the 21st century after a hundred-year snooze and is, of course, utterly bewildered by what he sees. Men and women dash about, talking to small metal devices pinned to their ears. Young people sit at home on sofas, moving miniature athletes around on electronic screens. Older folk defy death and disability with metronomes in their chests and with hips made of metal and plastic. Airports, hospitals, shopping malls--every place Rip goes just baffles him. But when he finally walks into a schoolroom, the old man knows exactly where he is. "This is a school," he declares. "We used to have these back in 1906. Only now the blackboards are green."

No Balloons for You!

2008-01-15T13:17:00.000-05:00

Enthusiasts of high-pitched voice gags, take note: The world is running out of helium. Really.

The element that lifts things like balloons, spirits and voice ranges is being depleted so rapidly in the world’s largest reserve, outside of Amarillo, Tex., that supplies are expected to be depleted there within the next eight years.

This deflates more than the Goodyear blimp and party favors. Its larger impact is on science and technology, according to Lee Sobotka, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and physics in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.

...

“Helium is non-renewable and irreplaceable. Its properties are unique and unlike hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas or oil), there are no biosynthetic ways to make an alternative to helium. All should make better efforts to recycle it.“

The helium we have on earth has been built up over billions of years from the decay of natural uranium and thorium. The decay of these elements proceeds at a super-snail’s pace. For example, one of the most important isotopes for helium production is uranium-238. In the entire life span of the earth only half of the uranium-238 atoms have decayed — yielding eight helium atoms per uranium atom in the process) and an inconsequential fraction decay in, say , 1, 000 years. As the uranium and thorium decay, some of the helium is trapped alongwith natural gas deposits in certain geological formations. Some of the produced helium seeps out of the Earth’s mantle and drifts into the atmosphere, where there is approximately five parts per million of helium. However ,this helium, as well as any helium ultimately released into the atmosphere by users, drifts up and is eventually lost to the earth.

Whole article here.

Snorting a Brain Chemical Could Replace Sleep

2008-01-03T17:20:00.000-05:00

When I first saw this article I thought, "Yeah, it's called cocaine."

In what sounds like a dream for millions of tired coffee drinkers, Darpa-funded
scientists might have found a drug that will eliminate sleepiness.
A nasal
spray containing a naturally occurring brain hormone called orexin A reversed
the effects of sleep deprivation in monkeys, allowing them to perform like
well-rested monkeys on cognitive tests. The discovery's first application will
probably be in treatment of the severe sleep disorder narcolepsy.

The best take on this was at Isegoria, where Matt remarked that he'd "like to perform like a well-rested monkey."

Virus Starts Like a Cold But Can Turn Into a Killer

2007-12-11T16:13:00.001-05:00

I've been keeping an eye on stories about a particularly virulent strain of adenovirus (basically, the common cold) seen around the country:

Gilbert alerted state health officials, a decision that led investigators
to realize that a new, apparently more virulent form of a virus that usually
causes nothing worse than a nasty cold was circulating around the United States.
At least 1,035 Americans in four states have been infected so far this year by
the virus, known as an adenovirus. Dozens have been hospitalized, many requiring
intensive care, and at least 10 have died.
Health officials say the virus
does not seem to be causing life-threatening illness on a wide scale, and most
people who develop colds or flulike symptoms are at little or no risk. Likewise,
most people infected by the suspect adenovirus do not appear to become seriously
ill. But the germ appears to be spreading, and investigators are unsure how much
of a threat it poses.

The cold really does make you sick

2007-12-06T16:43:00.000-05:00

I've always been skeptical of claims that "Oh, you don't get sick because of cold weather, you get sick because of viruses." Well, I know that viruses cause the infections, but why do we seem to get more of them in the winter? Here's the answer:

The answer, they say, has to do with the virus itself. It is more stable and stays in the air longer when air is cold and dry, the exact conditions for much of the flu season.

Whole thing.

Duke scientists map 'silenced genes'

2007-11-30T16:19:00.000-05:00

From Yahoo! News:

Remember biology class where you learned that children inherit one copy of a gene from mom and a second from dad? There's a twist: Some of those genes arrive switched off, so there is no backup if the other copy goes bad, making you more vulnerable to disorders from obesity to cancer.

Whole article.

This is an example of gene imprinting, when the expression of an allele depends upon the parent that contributed the allele. This is another example of one of my favorite phenomena, epigenetics. The weird thing is that scientists really have no idea whether this is adaptive. On one hand, it's hard to see how turning off valuable genes that will be inherited by your offspring is adaptive. On the other, this is a common and specialized function of cells, so it's hard to see how imprinting would persist without conferring some sort of advantage. Time will tell...

No, This is Real.

2007-11-21T12:02:00.000-05:00

Here's an actual campaign ad being run by Republican Mike Huckabee in Iowa.

Here are priceless Chuck Norris Facts.

Rooks rike it's time for time-out

2007-11-19T15:40:00.000-05:00

China has some image-polishing to work on before the Olympics come around. Now they're trying a new technique: threatening to take away everyone's allowances. Of course, here's another example of how I'm more concerned with the behavior of the Chinese government than that of its citizens.

You Fought For Our Freedom, But Don't You Dare Exercise It

2007-11-12T13:52:00.000-05:00

From Yahoo! News comes this sad bit of GWoT reality:

BOSTON - Several anti-war veterans were arrested when they protested their exclusion from a Veterans Day event by refusing to move away from a podium.

The Boston chapter of a group called Veterans for Peace estimated 15 of its members and supporters were arrested Sunday at the event sponsored by the American Legion. Boston Police said several arrests were made, but did not have an exact number. The detainees were later released on bail.

"We're opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq; we're opposed to the planned invasion of Iran," said group member Winston Warfield, a Vietnam War veteran. "A lot of veterans view us as traitors."

Not having had to serve in the military myself (thank you, Milton Friedman!), I feel it's only right that men and women who put their lives at risk on my behalf (and yours, Mssrs. Bush and Cheney) should have the freedom to say whatever the hell they want.

To any American vets who disagree with this view, all I can say is that it looks like you fought for the wrong country.

War foes arrested at Veterans Day event [Yahoo! News]

Justice for Genarlow?

2007-10-26T10:44:00.000-04:00

He is not white, nor rich, nor a lacrosse player, but Genarlow Wilson may still catch a break from the Southern U.S. legal system. Because he was caught on videotape in 2003 receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old girl -- while 17 years old himself at the time --, Wilson was found guilty of violating the state of Georgia's child molestation laws. He has served four years of a 10-year sentence.

Today in a majority decision, the Georgia Supreme Court ordered Wilson's release. The law regarding criminal penalties for the 1995 statute Wilson had violated was changed in 2006, rendering the act of sexual contact between teens close in age to be treated as a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

The appeal heard by the Supreme Court called for reducing Wilson's sentence from 10 years -- which the judge filing the appeal called a "grave miscarriage of justice" -- to 12 months, which would mean Wilson's time had long since been served, and he could leave prison immediately. The dissenting opinion in today's decision stated that the change in penalty could not be applied retroactively in Wilson's case.

Nonetheless, the court has rendered its decision, and Wilson should be freed soon, pending an appeal by prosecuting attorneys -- which at this point would seem like a petty, vindictive and ultimately pointless move.

Ga court: Release man jailed in sex case [Yahoo! News]
Wilson v. State of Georgia [Wikipedia]
Outrageous Injustice [ESPN]

We Need Immigrants

2007-09-20T15:10:00.000-04:00

A couple of thoughts have really crystallized for me recently on the immigration issue. The first is the response to: "But they broke the law!" Really? What law? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'd like them to answer. What I find to be the case is that the most ardent critics of immigration really have no idea what the laws on immigration are. If these laws are so improtant that the people breaking them represent an existential threat to the nation, then you would think that people might know what the laws are. Is any immigration legal anymore? How much? From where? Does the religion or skin color of the immigrant matter? Does it matter which U.S. state they enter? What is the difference between an H1-B visa and an H2-B visa? Most critics of immigration have no idea what the answers are, only what demagogues have shouted. They are all for legal immigration, of course, just not illegal immigration. Of course, whatever that means.
Also, I believe that we should have legal immigration to this country. I think most people agree with me on this basic point. Then we have to ask the following questions, among others: How many? From where? What jobs will they do? What skills do they need? Does it matter if they have family here already? Will they go back home? If so, when? In which states will they work? Given that we want and need immigrants, these are all legitimate questions. There are two sources of answers. One is the free market, which will determine the availability of jobs and housing and opportunities on the basis of mutually beneficial exchange and the freedom of association. The other option is for a bunch of beaurocrats in Washington to decide the answers to everything and determine the magical difference between legal and illegal. I invite conservatives who support free markets, but oppose immigration, to consider which option they prefer.

Here's another excerpt from an Isegoria post:

Immigrants, Our Country Needs Them, Nick Schultz interviews British economist Philippe Legrain, who's new book, Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, just came out:

Schulz: Lots of folks in the US say something to the effect of "I have no problem with legal immigrants, it's illegal immigrants that are the problem." What do you make of that argument?
Legrain: I think the argument is back to front. Illegal immigrants are not the problem, they are the symptom of the real problem: immigration restrictions that are economically stupid, politically unsustainable and morally wrong. Far from protecting society, immigration controls undermine law and order, just as Prohibition did more damage to America than drinking ever has.
That immigrants are in the US illegally is a sign not of moral turpitude but of misguided government intervention in the labor market: since employers cannot obtain visas for foreigners to come work legally, immigrants have no choice but to come illegally instead. These generally hard-working and enterprising people's only crime is wanting to work hard to earn a better life for themselves and their children - the epitome of the American Dream. Without them, America would grind to a halt. Who would do construction work, clean dishes, hospitals and hotel rooms, and look after Americans' young kids and elderly parents?
In any case, even if you think the federal government should be banning immigration from poorer countries, it cannot enforce the law without turning the land of the free into a police state. That is something which no true American patriot would want. If only for pragmatic reasons, then, opponents of immigration should accept the case for looser controls and regularizing the status of the 12 million or so illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, in Superbug News...

2007-09-18T17:50:00.000-04:00

A Yahoo! News article on the rise of new forms of resistant strep infections.

A vaccine that has dramatically curbed pneumonia and other serious
illnesses in children is having an unfortunate effect: promoting new superbugs
that cause ear infections.
[...]
Prevnar prevents seven strains responsible for most cases of pneumonia,
meningitis and deadly bloodstream infections. But dozens more strep strains
exist, and some have flourished and become impervious to antibiotics since the
vaccine combats the more common strains.
[...]
But it is a unique vaccine because it covers only seven of the 90-odd
strains of the germ. By contrast, measles is caused by one type of virus.
Booster shots are needed for chickenpox, mumps and measles because immunity
wanes, not because the germ changed.
Prevnar, however, is losing its punch because strains not covered by the
vaccine are filling the biological niche that the vaccine strains used to
occupy, and they are causing disease.
One strain in particular, called 19A, is big trouble. A new subtype of it
caused ear infections in the nine Rochester children, ages 6 months to 18
months, that were resistant to all pediatric medications, said Dr. Michael
Pichichero, a microbiologist at the University of Rochester Medical
Center.
The children had been unsuccessfully treated with two or more antibiotics,
including high-dose amoxicillin and multiple shots of another drug. Many needed
surgery to place ear tubes to drain the infection, and some recovered only after
treatment with a newer, powerful antibiotic whose safety in children has not
been established.

I have been following this issue, of course. We expected these new variants to arise eventually. Unfortunately, while we hoped to get 10 to 20 years of effectiveness from these vaccines, it's closer to 10 to 20 months. Scientifically, it's interesting. From a humanist standpoint, it's scary.

via Isegoria.

This Agnostic Says God May Or May Not Be Available For Comment

2007-09-18T09:35:00.000-04:00

Nebraskans, your tax dollars at work:

State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he's trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.

Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

The Omaha senator, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, also says God has caused "fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes."

He's seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.

Good luck with that. While I wholeheartedly support his stand against frivolous lawsuits, I can't help but wonder if this gesture, paid for with the involuntarily-surrendered income of a mostly God-fearing state, won't somehow... you know, backfire.

Furthermore, why on Earth would anyone try to sue God? There's a reason he made the Jews his chosen people: Unlimited access to some of the world's best legal resources. Thank you and good night!

Perversion For Profit -- And Fun!

2007-09-05T15:42:00.000-04:00

There's an ages-old broadcaster named George Putnam. Maybe you've heard of him; if not, you may at least have heard of his 1965 film, "Perversion For Profit." Never have the puritanical fears of mid-20th century American been voiced with such eloquence, not to mention a deep, sonorous baritone.

But sadly, some non-God-fearing (possibly Communist) sicko has twisted the brilliantly-expressed moral outrage of Putnam's original screed, and created this abomination, which regretfully I display for your disgust and revulsion. Enjoy! (Warning: naughty bits censored but still NSFW.)

You can check out Mr. Putnam's original version on YouTube.

When satisfied (not in that way, you libertine!), give a listen to Tom Lehrer's contemporary musical retort.

Go back to the Middle Ages, Hippie!

2007-08-31T17:52:00.000-04:00

Imagine an egalitarian world in which all food is organic and local, the air is free of industrial pollution, and vigorous physical exertion is guaranteed. Sound idyllic?

But hold on... Life expectancy is 30 at most; many children die at or soon after birth; life is constantly lived on the edge of starvation; there are no doctors or dentists or modern toilets. If it is egalitarian it is because everyone is dirt poor, and there is no industrial pollution because there are no factories. Food is organic because there are no pesticides or high technology farming methods. As a result, producing food means long hours of back-breaking physical work which may end up yielding little.

There is - or at least was - such a place. It is called the past.

Whole thing.

via Hit and Run

Irish Slaves

2007-08-31T17:48:00.000-04:00

Disturbing post on the forgotten history of the trade of Irish slaves.

Although the Africans and Irish were housed together and were the property of
the planter owners, the Africans received much better treatment, food and
housing. In the British West Indies the planters routinely tortured white slaves
for any infraction. Owners would hang Irish slaves by their hands and set their
hands or feet afire as a means of punishment. To end this barbarity, Colonel
William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of
Negro slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay much more
for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was
wanting in the case of (Irish)...." many of whom, he charged, were killed by
overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50
pounds Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for
an Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer
problems. The biggest bonus with the Africans though, was they were NOT
Catholic, and any heathen pagan was better than an Irish Papist. Irish prisoners
were commonly sentenced to a term of service, so theoretically they would
eventually be free. In practice, many of the slavers sold the Irish on the same
terms as prisoners for servitude of 7 to 10 years.

Via Isegoria.

All Politics, No Principle

2007-08-31T17:43:00.000-04:00

Sikha Dalmia tries to explain the Bush administration's craven reversal on immigration reform:

It is not like it does not understand that the "problem" of illegal
immigration is purely a function of existing immigration laws, not "evil doers."
These laws don't exactly roll out the welcome mat for high-skilled immigrants
that California's Silicon Valley badly needs. But they are downright hostile
toward "unskilled" workers who form the backbone of the agricultural,
landscaping and hotel industry in the Golden State and elsewhere.

On paper, there are two types of visas available for unskilled workers: H-2A for
campesinos, or farm workers, and H-2B for other seasonal jobs. But thanks to
copious red tape, these visas rarely ever arrive on time for the job. Even
worse, they are usually good for less than a year and can only be renewed a few
times. Once they expire, workers have to return home because neither they, nor
their employers, can apply for a green card or permanent residency. Such a
dead-end process leaves workers no choice but to work illegally.

...

So why drive out the workers we have? Employer sanctions have been on the books
for years. Why enforce them if there are no upsides for national security—only
downsides for the economy?

...

The only plausible reason is that the administration has not just abandoned
rational immigration reform, which would be understandable under the
circumstances. It has actually made a conscious decision to embrace its opposite
to win back its lost base before next year's elections. In short, its
immigration policy now is driven neither by conviction, nor the needs of the
economy—but naked political calculation, even if that involves targeting
"willing employers" and "willing foreign workers," the very victims of that
policy.

Wingers and Their Zingers

2007-08-23T12:29:00.000-04:00

In fairness I haven't watched the entire debate, so I can't say for certain who came out on top. But Al Franken versus Ann Coulter just doesn't seem like a fair fight, on paper.

Maybe it isn't hard to make Coulter look foolish, but it's always fun when somebody does. Observe:

From the Connecticut Forum; link provided by RADAR magazine (www.radaronline.com).

News Flash: Americans Don't Like Pain

2007-08-20T12:37:00.000-04:00

Jacob Sullum in reason.com's Hit & Run section has an interesting piece about our society's (or at least the media's) ambivalence regarding the pharmaceutical treatment of pain. Is there a limit to how much can be prescribed and to whom? Which types of medication are acceptable? Finally, should law-abiding citizens be denied access to stronger forms of painkilling medication just because others have chosen to abuse and illegally manufacture said painkillers?

More detail can be found by clicking the link above. In the meantime, here's a word from our sponsor:

[Note: I'm the "SPB" Mr. Sullum gives props to at the end of the post, although I leave comments on H&R as "SPD." Eh, close enough.]

An 'Alarming' Improvement in Pain Treatment [reason.com]

Try this maze

2007-08-12T18:01:00.001-04:00

The Maze! Test your skills! Try to reach the goal without touching the walls! How steady is your hand? Let's find out! Try and beat all four levels! Play NOW!

Why we cannot reform infrastructure maintenance

2007-08-10T19:36:00.001-04:00

Soon after the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota, I thought about what could be done to reform the system so that we can prevent such avoidable disasters. It soon occurred to me that the big problem would be politicians. Think about it, even with ample funding, what incentive does a politician have to invest in the mundane, but important task of routine infrastructure maintenance. Nobody gets credit when things run smoothly. Politicians get credit for highly publicized projects that are often of questionable civic value.

Here's Jim Peron on the issue:

Earmarks divert spending from the necessary projects to the frivolous. The New York Times reports that in spite of historically high spending on transportation, highway funds are allocated according to "the political muscle of lawmakers, rather than dire need," which means "construction on new, politically popular roads and transit projects rather than the mundane work of maintaining the worn-out ones."

The Times adds that politicians are keen to fund politically-correct projects for transport over actual maintenance projects. This has "resulted in expensive transit systems that are not used by the vast majority of American commuters."

The chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is Representative James Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota. Oberstar recently bragged about bagging $12 million in funds for the state, but the New York Times notes that $10 million of that "is slated for a new 40-mile commuter rail line to Minneapolis, called the Northstar," and "the remaining $2 million is divided among a new bike and walking path and a few other projects, including highway work and interchange reconstruction."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says that the political process means "that routine but important things like maintenance always get shortchanged because it's nice for somebody to cut a ribbon for a new structure."

When Gamers Have Babies

2007-08-10T19:32:00.001-04:00

Via Isegoria.

Eco-Stars: Walk The Walk, Then Talk The Talk

2007-08-06T13:01:00.000-04:00

RADAR magazine -- absolutely, definitely in business this time! -- has an interesting article about how the most prominent and vocal proponents of environmental conservation have a hard time practicing what they preach (and preach, and preach, and preach...).

The only thing people like Laurie David and Barbra Streisand defend stronger than their pro-ecology stances are their own carbon-spewing lifestyles in defiance of said beliefs. Curiously enough, pointing out the hypocrisies of the globally-thoughtless are slammed by their admirers as right-wing attack jobs. So then the right-wing is more environmentally aware than the left? I'm confused.

Remember, folks, true care of the environment begins at home. Not my home, mind you, but yours.

Green Fakers: Why Eco-Hypocrisy Matters [RADAR]

Outsource Insource This!

2007-07-31T10:58:00.000-04:00

As the United States continues to move further from a strictly manufacturing and agriculture-based economic power to one that depends increasingly on service-related industries, the outcry of concern for many was that suddenly white-collar jobs as well as blue-collar ones were migrating overseas. Customer service and tech support would become chief sources of income for firms based out of India, which hosts a large population of college-educated, tech-savvy, English-speaking citizens for whom the U.S. dollar goes much farther.

However, according to this article in techlogg.com, what goes around comes around: some Indian IT companies have exhausted their supply of available workers, and now they are forced to -- wait for it -- outsource jobs to the United States:

“The market has already seen the first signs of this trend. For example, the Indian embassy outsourced its visa collection and delivery services to a U.S. company. Many Indian IT firms with operations spread across the U.S. and Europe are now outsourcing a part of their administrative work locally” Roy said.

The irony is that as India booms, it may be forced back to western countries to find suitable workers, workers who were most likely put out of work when companies chose India to offshore its IT & T services in the first place.

I, for one, welcome our new Indian overlords, and would like to take this opporunity to compliment their ancient culture, beautiful actresses and multi-armed deities.

P.S. Outsourcing tech support overseas isn't always an ideal solution for U.S. companies.

2007-07-27T18:16:00.001-04:00

Attorney Insists Vick Ate Every Dog He Killed

K-WHAT? Unbuilt Maui TV station lands questionable call letters

2007-07-27T17:46:00.000-04:00

A broadcast company just acquired the call letters, "KUNT" and "KWTF." Apparently this kind of thing is a byproduct of everything being computerized.

From Skokie, Ill., comes a sincere apology "to anyone that was offended," said Kevin Bae, vice president of KM Communications Inc., who requested and received KUNT and KWTF. It is "extremely embarrassing for me and my company and we will file to change those call letters immediately."

The call letter snafu was a source of great mirth for Bae's attorney.
"I can't tell you how long he laughed at me when he learned of my gaffe," Bae said.

Broadcasters for generations have joked among themselves about call letters resembling off-color words or acronyms knowing the FCC would never approve their assignment -- but that was before computerization.
KCUF-FM near Aspen, Colo. got its F-word-in-reverse call letters in August of 2005 and has been on the air since December, "Keeping Colorado Uniquely Free," its Web site says. Uh, yeah.

File under Things I'm Surprized Haven't Happened Before, and Please Insert Your Own Jokes

2007-07-24T15:58:00.000-04:00

Jesse Walker finds the science headline of the year:

Tiny brain no obstacle to French civil servant

Religious Persecution in China

2007-07-24T15:55:00.000-04:00

The Chinese government is set to blow up a historic shrine to Our Lady. Story.

Old Bill Gets Frustrated Pretty Easily These Days

2007-07-24T11:26:00.000-04:00

This video is for those who like turtles. Or dislike Bill O'Reilly. Or both.

Feel Safer?

2007-07-15T18:38:00.000-04:00

If you know anything about search patterns, you should not be surprised to find that airport screeners are too preoccupied with water bottles and nail clippers to actually look for something that might be, you know, dangerous. Not only are these fake security measures a waste of time, but they actually make it more likely that we will get blown the %$#@ up.

Security was porous last week at Albany International Airport, when officials from the Transportation Security Administration were able to slip fake bomb components past screeners at a passenger checkpoint. In Wednesday's editions, an exclusive story by staff writer Brendan Lyons revealed that the TSA inspectors had concealed the components in carry-on luggage, along with a bottle of water, which is also prohibited under TSA rules. But while the Albany screeners did confiscate the water bottle, they missed the bomb materials. In all, the inspectors managed to get four banned items through the airport's main checkpoint, while security measures failed in five of seven tests.

Whole article here.

Via The Agitator.

World's tallest man meets world's shortest

2007-07-14T18:36:00.001-04:00

They were also supposed to be met by the man with the world's smallest penis, but Chamomiles Davis was unavailable.

2007-07-14T16:39:00.000-04:00

Jam band fan or Taliban?

2007-07-13T18:17:00.000-04:00

Steve Chapman on the War on Terror:

Crime is a serious national problem that used to be even worse. At the height of the mayhem, more than 24,000 Americans were murdered annually—a Sept. 11, 2001, attack every six weeks. Yet even when the toll was at its worst, we insisted that police respect the constitutional rights of suspected criminals. We maintained the limits on the power of the president and other law enforcement officials to investigate and imprison people. For the most part, we kept our perspective.

After the World Trade Center came down, by contrast, we let ourselves be convinced that many restrictions were an unaffordable luxury. Any concern for civil liberties was met with the retort: "We're at war." And in war, anything goes.

Whole thing here.