the absurd observers

congratulations

2005-12-18T23:12:00.000-06:00

Though this blog has been silent for many months, I want to formally congratulate my brother Mark, an occassional commenter on this site, who overcame the fact that his only suit was a hole-ridden hand-me-down and his only overcoat one my father wore when we lived in Washington 15 years ago, to be offered a clerkship by Justice Kennedy.

Katrina donations

2005-09-07T09:54:00.000-06:00

Are you vulnerable to uncontrollable snacking?

2005-09-07T09:04:00.000-06:00

The Wall Street Journal's email update, summarizes a recent article by Melinda Beck, as follows:

Growing evidence suggests that with weight loss, it's not how much or what you
eat, but when you eat it that matters. Restructuring eating habits can stave off
the late-day cravings that make us vulnerable to uncontrollable snacking.

This article and the "growing evidence" it catalogs should hopefully shed some light on the greater problem of uncontrollable snacking. Of course, the article summary is slightly confusing. If it is not the quantity or substance of the food that I eat which determines my weight loss ability, then why would uncontrollable snacking be something to avoid. If how much I eat and what I eat truly do not matter, and only when I eat matters, then couldn't I eat two pizza every day and still lose weight, as long as I eat them at the right time - satisfying the dispositive when category.

If when we eat is all that matters, then couldn't I eat donuts and ice cream at all of my meals? If I ate a pint of ice cream and four donuts at every meal that was properly timed to help me lose weight, I would probably feel sick and not find myself susceptible to uncontrollable snacking. In fact, I am sold on this idea. It is not what I eat or how much of it that has made me overweight. Instead, it is my lack of timing and my difficulty in conceptualizing time that has packed the weight on my midsection. If I wore my watch more, I would be skinnier. Maybe all the fussing with day-light savings time is wreaking havoc on my BMI as well?

Mayor Nagin sounds off

2005-09-02T10:19:00.000-06:00

The following is a transcript of WWL correspondent Garland Robinette's interview with Nagin on Thursday night from CNN. Robinette asked the mayor about his conversation with President Bush:

NAGIN: I told him we had an incredible crisis here and that his flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice. And that I have been all around this city, and I am very frustrated because we are not able to marshal resources and we're outmanned in just about every respect. You know the reason why the looters got out of control? Because we had most of our resources saving people, thousands of people that were stuck in attics, man, old ladies. ... You pull off the doggone ventilator vent and you look down there and they're standing in there in water up to their freaking necks.
And they don't have a clue what's going on down here. They flew down here one time two days after the doggone event was over with TV cameras, AP reporters, all kind of goddamn -- excuse my French everybody in America, but I am pissed.
WWL: Did you say to the president of the United States, "I need the military in here"?
NAGIN: I said, "I need everything."
Now, I will tell you this -- and I give the president some credit on this -- he sent one John Wayne dude down here that can get some stuff done, and his name is [Lt.] Gen. [Russel] Honore.
And he came off the doggone chopper, and he started cussing and people started moving. And he's getting some stuff done.
They ought to give that guy -- if they don't want to give it to me, give him full authority to get the job done, and we can save some people.
WWL: What do you need right now to get control of this situation?
NAGIN: I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. We ain't talking about -- you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out here.
I'm like, "You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans."
That's -- they're thinking small, man. And this is a major, major, major deal. And I can't emphasize it enough, man. This is crazy.
I've got 15,000 to 20,000 people over at the convention center. It's bursting at the seams. The poor people in Plaquemines Parish. ... We don't have anything, and we're sharing with our brothers in Plaquemines Parish.
It's awful down here, man.
WWL: Do you believe that the president is seeing this, holding a news conference on it but can't do anything until [Louisiana Gov.] Kathleen Blanco requested him to do it? And do you know whether or not she has made that request?
NAGIN: I have no idea what they're doing. But I will tell you this: You know, God is looking down on all this, and if they are not doing everything in their power to save people, they are going to pay the price. Because every day that we delay, people are dying and they're dying by the hundreds, I'm willing to bet you.
We're getting reports and calls that are breaking my heart, from people saying, "I've been in my attic. I can't take it anymore. The water is up to my neck. I don't think I can hold out." And that's happening as we speak.
You know what really upsets me, Garland? We told everybody the importance of the 17th Street Canal issue. We said, "Please, please take care of this. We don't care what you do. Figure it out."
WWL: Who'd you say that to?
NAGIN: Everybody: the governor, Homeland Security, FEMA. You name it, we said it.
And they allowed that pumping station next to Pumping Station 6 to go under water. Our sewage and water board people ... stayed there and endangered their lives.
And what happened when that pumping station went down, the water started flowing again in the city, and it starting getting to levels that probably killed more people.
In addition to that, we had water flowing through the pipes in the city. That's a power station over there.
So there's no water flowing anywhere on the east bank of Orleans Parish. So our critical water supply was destroyed because of lack of action.
WWL: Why couldn't they drop the 3,000-pound sandbags or the containers that they were talking about earlier? Was it an engineering feat that just couldn't be done?
NAGIN: They said it was some pulleys that they had to manufacture. But, you know, in a state of emergency, man, you are creative, you figure out ways to get stuff done.
Then they told me that they went overnight, and they built 17 concrete structures and they had the pulleys on them and they were going to drop them.
I flew over that thing yesterday, and it's in the same shape that it was after the storm hit. There is nothing happening. And they're feeding the public a line of bull and they're spinning, and people are dying down here.
WWL: If some of the public called and they're right, that there's a law that the president, that the federal government can't do anything without local or state requests, would you request martial law?
NAGIN: I've already called for martial law in the city of New Orleans. We did that a few days ago.
WWL: Did the governor do that, too?
NAGIN: I don't know. I don't think so.
But we called for martial law when we realized that the looting was getting out of control. And we redirected all of our police officers back to patrolling the streets. They were dead-tired from saving people, but they worked all night because we thought this thing was going to blow wide open last night. And so we redirected all of our resources, and we hold it under check.
I'm not sure if we can do that another night with the current resources.
And I am telling you right now: They're showing all these reports of people looting and doing all that weird stuff, and they are doing that, but people are desperate and they're trying to find food and water, the majority of them.
Now you got some knuckleheads out there, and they are taking advantage of this lawless -- this situation where, you know, we can't really control it, and they're doing some awful, awful things. But that's a small majority of the people. Most people are looking to try and survive.
And one of the things people -- nobody's talked about this. Drugs flowed in and out of New Orleans and the surrounding metropolitan area so freely it was scary to me, and that's why we were having the escalation in murders. People don't want to talk about this, but I'm going to talk about it.
You have drug addicts that are now walking around this city looking for a fix, and that's the reason why they were breaking in hospitals and drugstores. They're looking for something to take the edge off of their jones, if you will.
And right now, they don't have anything to take the edge off. And they've probably found guns. So what you're seeing is drug-starving crazy addicts, drug addicts, that are wrecking havoc. And we don't have the manpower to adequately deal with it. We can only target certain sections of the city and form a perimeter around them and hope to God that we're not overrun.
WWL: Well, you and I must be in the minority. Because apparently there's a section of our citizenry out there that thinks because of a law that says the federal government can't come in unless requested by the proper people, that everything that's going on to this point has been done as good as it can possibly be.
NAGIN: Really?
WWL: I know you don't feel that way.
NAGIN: Well, did the tsunami victims request? Did it go through a formal process to request?
You know, did the Iraqi people request that we go in there? Did they ask us to go in there? What is more important?
And I'll tell you, man, I'm probably going get in a whole bunch of trouble. I'm probably going to get in so much trouble it ain't even funny. You probably won't even want to deal with me after this interview is over.
WWL: You and I will be in the funny place together.
NAGIN: But we authorized $8 billion to go to Iraq lickety-quick. After 9/11, we gave the president unprecedented powers lickety-quick to take care of New York and other places.
Now, you mean to tell me that a place where most of your oil is coming through, a place that is so unique when you mention New Orleans anywhere around the world, everybody's eyes light up -- you mean to tell me that a place where you probably have thousands of people that have died and thousands more that are dying every day, that we can't figure out a way to authorize the resources that we need? Come on, man.
You know, I'm not one of those drug addicts. I am thinking very clearly.
And I don't know whose problem it is. I don't know whether it's the governor's problem. I don't know whether it's the president's problem, but somebody needs to get their ass on a plane and sit down, the two of them, and figure this out right now.
WWL: What can we do here?
NAGIN: Keep talking about it.
WWL: We'll do that. What else can we do?
NAGIN: Organize people to write letters and make calls to their congressmen, to the president, to the governor. Flood their doggone offices with requests to do something. This is ridiculous.
I don't want to see anybody do anymore goddamn press conferences. Put a moratorium on press conferences. Don't do another press conference until the resources are in this city. And then come down to this city and stand with us when there are military trucks and troops that we can't even count.
Don't tell me 40,000 people are coming here. They're not here. It's too doggone late. Now get off your asses and do something, and let's fix the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country.
WWL: I'll say it right now, you're the only politician that's called and called for arms like this. And if -- whatever it takes, the governor, president -- whatever law precedent it takes, whatever it takes, I bet that the people listening to you are on your side.
NAGIN: Well, I hope so, Garland. I am just -- I'm at the point now where it don't matter. People are dying. They don't have homes. They don't have jobs. The city of New Orleans will never be the same in this time.
WWL: We're both pretty speechless here.
NAGIN: Yeah, I don't know what to say. I got to go.
WWL: OK. Keep in touch. Keep in touch.

McCain disappoints

2005-08-24T11:07:00.000-06:00

I am a John McCain fan. I am also an opponent of the proposed addition of intelligent design to science curriculum as a theory competing with evolution. That's why this hurts:

McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.

First, I am disappointed because I like to make lots of "then let's teach scientology in schools" jokes as a response to pro-intelligent designers and intelligent design-tolerators, and I don't want to rib McCain on this one. Second, I am disappointed because McCain is very capable of drawing distinctions between ideas that are not pointed out by others because it is politically inconvenient, and in this case he failed to do so. (For instance, addressing the Cindy Sheehan issue, he stated that she was a symptom, not a cause of the growing discontent with the war.)

I finally get around to posting something

2005-08-22T14:51:00.000-06:00

This opinion piece nicely captures how many liberals have completely abandoned one of the core lessons from vietnam - that military service and sacrifice do not entail a greater right to judge whether a war is just.

The trouble is, plenty of liberals have come to believe their own bleatings about moral authority. Liberal blogs are filled with attacks on "chicken hawk" conservatives who support the war but never served in the military. A recent story in the antiwar magazine Nation attacked my New Republic editor, Peter Beinart, a supporter of the Iraq war, for having "no national security experience," as if Nation editors routinely served in the Marine Corps.

The American dream, sizzling in the deep fry

2005-08-18T13:09:00.000-06:00

The washington Post published an article, available at MSNBC, which explains that although fast food places are offering healthy options, no one seems to be buying them.

A Burger King restaurant will sell just four or five of the chain's better-for-you Veggie Burgers a day, but at least 300 to 500 of any other sandwich or burger on the menu, according to Post. The chain's highly promoted low-fat grilled chicken sandwiches, added to the menu last summer, disappeared in less than a year.

The point of the article is that people prefer eating somewhere that has the option of eating healthy, rather than actually eating healthy food. The article quotes "Experts in eating behavior", who postulate that people don't like to sacrifice taste, healthy items are more expensive, and healthy food does not provide immediate gratification. These all seem like sound ideas, but they certainly do not exhaust the possible factors.

If you want a salad or some fruit, Burger King is not going to be your first stop. No vegetarian or vegephile is going to patronize an establishment that suggests a monarch, figurehead or not, who lords over meat. (It is possible that the Burger King is actually meat itself, which lords over other meat, but either way, I don't think vegetarians are going to support any sort of power construct that controls meat.)(This all depends on who or what the Burger Kind is. Man? Burger? Salad?) But what about other restaurants that avoid such politically charged names?
All fast food frightens us, but we have accepted the ambiguity of burgers. I know that what I order may be 10% beef and 90% mystery goo, but I have come to accept that fact over the many years I have eaten fast food. Salads, fruit, and low fat chicken are new kids on the block, and none of us is ready to eat after imagining a scenario where the salad greens are gathered from the cracks in the sidewalk and the scum skimmer from the local pool. We want to think of fruits as clean, ripe, and fresh; not sitting in a plastic crate next to the deep fry, with industrial strength fat dripping all over our pre-sliced melon.
Burgers, fries, onion rings, chicken nuggets, and hot dogs are a testament to the American dream. What was once dirty and gross and borderline toxic, is now tasty and addictive and borderline toxic. What was once liquid mystery meat is now a gelatinized patty. A simple Onion puts on a fancy outfit and he gets our respect - we call him by his full name. The "Rags to Riches" story of the little pieces of throw away meat that become hot dogs is enough to bring a tear to the eye of any warm blooded soul.

Interview of John Roberts causes problems for avoiding Geneva conventions

2005-08-17T16:38:00.000-06:00

The foul smell of activism

2005-08-17T12:40:00.000-06:00

The protests in Crawford, Texas is quite the scene for passionate sign holders on both sides of the political spectrum. However, not everyone likes a good Crossfire-style picnic:

Meanwhile, some Crawford residents urged county officials to crack down on the
protesters, citing traffic, parking and health concerns, the use of portable
toilets and security.

And this brings us to the downside of activism: porta potties. The quotation above clearly sets out distinct concerns, with porta potties and health concerns listed separately.

It seems that the issue the residents have with the porta potties is merely the aesthetic dislike of any reminder of the existence of fecal matter. One would think that living among the fields of cattle in this area would toughen these Texans to the idea of the need for living organisms to defecate. One would think, in fact, that Texans would embrace the idea of the porta pottie, and maybe even try and construct giant cow-sized porta potties, that cattle could be trained to use. It just seems odd that people would be upset to see a few instances of waste material being contained in small boxes, when cattle are spreading a much larger and pungent version of that waste material willy nilly across the range.

And though both parties have delegates protesting in Crawford, here is where we come to the core difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans celebrate freedom from regulation. Democrats desire to protect us from squalor through organization. Republicans don't want America to be told where to cop a squat, leaving us free to use any patch of grass or secluded forrest. While Democrats would rather designate a certain place to take care of business, so that we can walk through the grass without the fear of stumbling into someone else's freedom pie. It's a tough call, between the two, really - no one wants to be told where to go, and we all appreciate clean shoes.

The Abramoff "everybody's doing it" defense

2005-08-15T13:45:00.000-06:00

Jack Abramoff posted bail with a $2.25 mil. bond for an indictment of wire fraud and conspiracy charges in connection with a gambling boat operation. Abramoff is already under investigation by the Justice Department and congressional committees, under charges that he and his partner defrauded Indian Tribes out of lobbying money. However:

Abramoff's lawyers have said he did nothing wrong and that he and partner
Michael Scanlon are being singled out for activities that are commonplace in
Washington.

The "everybody's doing it" defense. This is a complex idea, slightly eclipsed in sophistication by the "I know you are, but what am I" maneuver and the "Look at my thumb" strategy as illustrated by Otter in Animal House. The beauty of the "everybody's doing it defense" is that it strikes fear in the heart of every well-connected politician that maybe their lobbyist-friend is writing unflattering emails and creating dummy-businesses, run by a lifeguard who will eventually cooperate with an investigation and make them look corrupt by association.

Of course, at the same time, the public might listen to this defense and conclude that, if it is true that everybody is doing it, then maybe that's too much "it" being "do"ed. Will that be the public outcry? Perhaps. But I would venture a guess that more likely than not, people will wonder: Why doesn't this guy have his own tv show?

"Being Jack Abramoff", or "NewlyIndicted", or "Celebrity Alleged Fraud Camp", or "My Big Fat Obnoxious Alleged Wire Frauder", or maybe "Embezzle Eye for the Straight Guy". We'd follow Abramoff through a typical day: eating lunch, reading the newspaper, recording a new rock album, and attending grand jury hearings. Or he could have underling contestants that want to be his assistant, and each day they would compete to get his attention, only to be eliminated at the end of each episode with a line like: "you're guilty by association!" (Though the production company should try and copywrite that phrase before he does.) Each show could end with Abramoff writing on his computer, like Doogie Howser, except Abramoff would be writing another incriminating and offensive email to one of his buddies.

Boomers may need big words

2005-08-12T08:18:00.000-06:00

Thanks to my brother for this one.
Apparently, publishing companies are testing the Baby Boomer market for books with large type, which would be easier on their deminishing eyesight. This is one of a number of steps that businesses, the government, and other institutions will make to serve and pacify the Boomers.
The people with the real money making opportunity here, though, are the proprietors of extra large printing presses. Afterall, books are not the only item which requires large letters to be accessible to our aging BBs: restaurant menus, ingredient labels on supermarket items, road maps, newspapers, business cards. In fact, the entire stationary industry should expect a boom. If my business cards need to be in larger type, I will probably need business cards the size of Manila envelopes. Moreover, extra thick pens and pencils will be needed to write giant notes on supersized post-it notes and wall sized calendars. In a few short years, every Baby Boomer house will look like a lost room from Charlie and the Chocolate factory - "The cube of humungus lettering." Street signs will be doubled or tripled in size. Register receipts will need their own bag. Newspapers will be delivered via flat-bed truck, as will junk mail, which will be so large that everyone in your neighborhood will know that you are, in fact, already a winner.
But is all this necessary? Couldn't everyone could just wear glasses? Need we live in a Seussian picture book, where people must walk back and forth to read the assembly instructions because they are written in such large type that the pamphlet is the size of a football field? Yes, we must.

Case throws money at human folding

2005-08-09T15:47:00.000-06:00

CNN reports:

The Washington Post reports that Case is going into business with Jirka Rysavy, chief executive of Gaiam Inc., who the paper reports lives in a cabin in
Colorado without indoor plumbing. The newspaper said the investment is the
latest one by Case associated with a new-age lifestyle in the belief they are
going mainstream.

The business Case is investing $20M in produces yoga videos. The fact that Case has rejected indoor plumming, makes me wonder why he has embraced videos. Surely, a video is more new-age than a toilet. (Unless it was that "love toilet" from SNL, where two people could sit on a toilet together, facing opposite directions. That could be considered more new age than a video.) (Also, I suppose the videos could be in Beta cassette form. That would be enough of an obscure-retro medium, to qualify for honorary new-age status.)(But I digress.)

The more interesting point here - beyond the hypocrisy of shunning basic technology and investing in recent technological advances - is that Yoga is already mainstream. Yoga is taught in gyms, college campuses, and community centers around the country. Case's camp goes so far as to describe Yoga and the pursuit of healthy living as "nearing a tipping point", uttering the Malcolm Gladwell buzzword. But isn't yoga past the tipping point? If yoga classes are accessible pretty much everywhere that a yogaclass could happen, then aren't we passed the tipping point? I suppose there could be yoga classes in schools, but I'm sure there already are some.

People have been worried about getting in shape for years now. The proliferation of diets, gyms, and BMI analysis is testament to that phenomenon. Likewise, people have been into new age thinking for years now. Hippies, indoor water falls, power crystals, sandals, and people with futuristic head shaving looks are all a testament to that phenomenon. It seems that Case is slow on the uptake.

I say, stop Case now. What if he decides that toileltless living is on the next tipping point, and $20M worth of outhouses start popping up all over the country?

The conspiracy to smudge Harris's eye-liner

2005-08-04T09:18:00.000-06:00

Katherine Harris, when asked recently by Sean Hannity if jokes about her makeup bothered her, blamed newspapers for altering photographs of her:

"I'm actually very sensitive about those things, and it's personally painful,"
she said. "But they're outrageously false. ... Whenever they made fun of my
makeup, it was because the newspapers colorized my photograph."

That is quite the theory. She didn't single out any newspapers in particular, leaving the reader to infer that there is a Harris photo altering conspiracy. Has it come to this? Can a politician no longer admit their faults, even when those faults involve over-the-top rouge and lipstick application? I understand that politicians are reluctant to take responsibility for a misguided piece of legislation, or a politically incorrect joke, but use of cosmetics seems like an area a politician should be able to admit they are not expert in, rather than propose a media conspiracy.

The problem for Harris: she was on television, and her makeup looked ridiculous there as well. Were the television stations doctoring her makeup? If so, was it an independent move, or were they part of the newspaper conspiracy?

Moreover, if this is all a conspiracy, and not the result of Harris's trouble applying makeup, then why did the newspapers and television stations single her out for this rouge ruse? Why not spring this political smear campaign, figuratively and literally, on someone earlier? Where are the doctored pictures of Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush with too much eye-liner? Where are the altered photos of Christie Whitman? And, wouldn't the media conspiracy get even better results if they applied this tactic to male politicians: Frist in lipstick, Santorum with eyeshadow, etc? It just seems odd that Harris would be singled out from all the other women in politics for such an odd scam, which seems to be solely tailored to provide for late night talk show jokes.

Time to update that resume, Gumbi

2005-08-03T11:47:00.000-06:00

According to CNN, Furbies are back, and they're working at the UN:

Another noteworthy but less controversial "ambassadorial" appointment made a
United Nations' debut Tuesday when Hasbro marked the return of the new
multi-lingual Furby to a group of young international "delegates-in-training" in
New York.

This marks the highest position the a toy - animatronic or otherwise - has achieved in American politics, unless you're one of those people who thinks that Tom DeLay is the product of an expriment intended to create an evil Beanie Baby. The official position of the Furbies is unclear, but the picture shows a number of Furbies at what appears to be a security council meeting, so, at worst, they are important advisors to John Bolton.

The news has sparked interest in the role that other toys might play in America's political future. I suggest a few intriguing possibilities:

In the "spin alleys" after presidential debates, have the news teams interview muppets instead of real people. This would add credibility to the message candidates try to espouse. America trusts muppets, except for that hipster Gonzo. I wouldn't trust him to remember which candidate he was even working for. Puppets would work too, but muppets would add some pizzaz - maybe they'd do a few songs or help us with the alphabet or counting numbers during the down time.
Nominate the Magic 8 ball to Press Secretary. It would lead to some interesting back and forths. Q: "Secretary EightBall, what is the President's position on the Highway Bill?" A: "Inconclusive." Q: "Secretary EightBall, how many countries have ratified CAFTA?" A: "You're in luck." Q: "Secretary EightBall, when asked if Rove was involved in the Plame scandal, you said: 'No way', why did you say that?" A: "You betcha!"
Replace John Bolton with a Tickle Me Elmo. First, my guess is that Elmo would work better with the Furbies, and we need an efficient team at the UN. Second, if a primary strategy of America's is to keep policy and plans close to the vest, Tickle Me Elmo is most suited for the position. Other delegates would have to interpret various giggling noises in order to discern our intentions. Moreover, everyone likes Tickle Me Elmo to such an extent, that they would not block American initiatives.

Bush leaves the door open for Travolta

2005-08-02T10:58:00.000-06:00

In a recent roundtable discussion, when asked whether he thought intelligent design ought to be taught in schools, Bush answered:

"You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas,
the answer is yes," the president said.

As an alumni of a liberal arts school I am all in favor of "different ideas" and "exposure". However, it seems necessary to put some ideas in context. For example, it would not take a Scopes Monkey Trial to realize that telling students that some people believed the moon was made out of cheese would be alright as long as it was predicated with "here's a funny idea which science, and the smell of the night sky, proves incorrect..." Or, using one of my favorite examples: would it be alright to have Jon Travolta visit schools and teach children about the aliens and thetans and other sci-fi elements of scientology? I think it would be fine, as long as it was put in the right context: "Do you remember that funny guy from Welcome Back Kotter? Well, he's going to be here teaching us about his cult that caters to celebrities and other glib-sensitive characters. Immediately following his presentation, we will have a slide show addressing personality disorders."

Exposure to different ideas is a good thing, but it is the context in which those ideas are presented that makes many people shudder to think of where the intelligent design pseudo scientists will next cast their wands set to prove biblical literalism.

Is it time to prove the existence of the Garden of Eden? Is it time to create a woman out of a man's rib? Is it time to cast doubt on the idea that dinosaurs roamed the earth for anything longer than a day, or half a day? Is it time to prove that angels and demons are behind all the phenomena that science has explained - gravity, chemical reactions, eclipses.

It certainly is fine, and appropriate, to teach children that blood letting used to be the cure for many an illness, but we also ought to teach them that science has taught us more since then. Blood letting is a theory, championed by medievial barbers, but not by modern scientists.

McCain PAC in action

2005-07-28T07:40:00.000-06:00

John McCain has reactivated his PAC to pay for travel and to allow him to contribute to other candidates' campaigns. His PAC is named "Straight Talk America", which is apparently a derivation of the name of his 2000 primary campaign bus. Naming a PAC after a bus seems like the beginning of a decent idea. Most PACs seem to have names like "Freedom Commission" and other appealing terms that don't offer much in the way of substance. And if there's one thing I'm about, it's substance. So, here are my substance laden ideas for naming a PAC:

I would suggest maybe naming PACs after personal triumphs, to remind voters that the candidate has been successful in life. For unsuccessful people, this could be difficult, and might lead to people naming their PACs "High School honors English B+" or "making decent pie crust". For the successful candidates, however, this would be a great approach. Think "Saved people's lives", or "Filthy Rich", or "makes excellent pie crust."
Fashion the name of the PAC as a riddle. The DaVinci Code of PAC names. Something more than just an anagram. Maybe the name would lead people to an opposition candidate's dirty secrets. I don't know. I'm just brainstorming here. At worst, it would hold the public's attention - "why is this guy's PAC called 'A wet moose drinks at midnight'?"
Name a PAC after a popular film character. This approach would invite people to identify with someone that has made them laugh, or someone that they are at least interested in. I think this would be a great way to bring in new donors, that would otherwise not be interested in contributing. Think: "Senator John Blutarsky PAC", "Frank the Tank PAC", "Obi Wan Kanobi you're our only hope - the PAC".

Donuts propel Dan to victory

2005-07-27T09:22:00.000-06:00

Recently, I wrote Bruce Reed of Slate's "The Has-Been" political blog an email with my suggestion for how to choose which presidential candidate a political operative should work for. My suggestion, which I will summarize as outside the box, is explained by Reed at the above link. He dubbed it "the Homer Plan". I like to think that has a ring to it, much like the Monroe Doctrine and the Teapot Dome Scandal. My approach to decision making was put in a head -to-head battle with someone that decided to think of realistic decision making criteria, and my idea was overwhelmingly supported by the Has-Been readership, to the tune of a victory with 93% of the votes. That makes me feel like Mayor Daley.

This just goes to show that sometimes the good guys win. And sometimes those good guys are covered in donut crumbs.

I'd like to thank all my friends, family, colleagues, donut lovers, doughnut lovers, and fellow food sculptors for their support.

Unleash the Tucson Raging Grannies

2005-07-22T14:13:00.000-06:00

I apologize for the recent lack of posts, but we've been busy with work lately. And even though I will be working all weekend, I still found the time this afternoon to bring you this hard hitting news story. Apparently some elderly women in Arizona are getting political. After getting arrested, one woman explained why her group, the self-described "Tucson Raging Grannies", was booked for trespassing at a local army recruiting center:

"We went in asking to be sent to Iraq so our kids and grandchildren can be sent
home, but rather than listening to us, they called the police," said 74-year-old
Betty Schroeder.

Let's ignore the political issues involved, and the moral issues, and the practical issues, and all other complicated aspects of this story. I think it's important that we address what sent the bagel chips and hummus out my nose when I read this headline: the name "Tucson Raging Grannies". No punk rock band, hurricane, weather channel-named-blizzard, professional wrestler, muppet, politician, fast food promotion, tagline, slogan, or nasal spray has ever donned such an impressive name.

If anything, this name will carry these grannies into the media spotlight. How could it not? Is it possible to read the words "Raging Grannies" and not picture a bunch of elderly women going beserk in an IHOP because the syrup ran out? I think not. And if you can avoid that mental image it is only because you are imagining a horde of grandmothers tipping over slot machines and throwing their teeth at the pitboss in a casino.

"Raging Grannies" want to go to war? Who's going to stop them? How would you stop a Raging Granny? I mean, an ornery granny, maybe you could talk her down. An angry granny, maybe you could appease her with some jello or a romance novel. But Raging Grannies, well, they're in a rage! They are out of control, looting stores, getting tattoos, piercing their wigs, and cursing like sailors. Soon they'll be Raging Granny biker gangs, bouncers, security details, and, if they get their way, special forces.

Blame Canada

2005-06-29T15:19:00.000-06:00

TORONTO -- Canada can't continue to be a cheap "drug store for the United States" and intends to ban bulk export of prescription drugs when supplies are low at home, the health minister said Wednesday.

Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh said he must ensure Canadians continue to have access to an adequate supply of safe and affordable prescription drugs, and he would launch initiatives, including legislative and regulatory changes, to protect the supply and safety of Canadian drugs.

So basically Canada is just attempting to maintain its free-rider status with regards to Americans funding drug research and Canadians being the beneficiaries of price discrimination from the pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps we can respond by banning drug exports to Canada and prohibiting companies with US patents from producing drugs there.

Havel and Hagel

2005-06-15T10:07:00.000-06:00

Abuses of human rights and freedoms have never been and will never be solely internal affairs of any country. As someone who years ago experienced firsthand the arbitrary rule of a dictatorial regime but then lived to see better times -- to a large extent because of the international solidarity extended to us -- I appeal to all those who have the opportunity to act against such arbitrary acts to express their solidarity with people who to this day live in a state of "unfreedom."

- Vaclav Havel in today's Washington Post.

It is important to remind ourselves that we ought not feel precluded from resisting human rights abuses merely becasue they occur in another country. Perhaps someone should remind Chuck Hagel who is properly called to task here:

Abortion and consciousness

2005-06-14T15:55:00.000-06:00

Slate has an article on the coming ability of science to determine when consciousness begins.

Sometime in the next decade or so, neuroscientists will likely identify the specific neural networks and activity that generate the vague but vital thing we call consciousness. Delineating the infrastructure of awareness is biology's most difficult problem, but a leading researcher like Christof Koch, Gerald Edelman, or Stanislas Dehaene could soon solve it. Science will then possess what might be called a "consciometer"—a set of tests (probably an advanced version of a brain scan or EEG) that can measure consciousness the way kidney or lung function is now measured.

The implications on the abortion debate strike me as profound. Bizarrely the debate is currently framed in absolutes. Pro-life activists oppose all abortions whereas pro-choice advocates resist any state regulation. Meanwhile a majority of Americans seem stuck in between, opposing such things as partial birth abortion, while supporting abortion rights when there is less clearly a life at stake.

With the ability to determine when consciousness begins, science will finally have the ability to determine when meaningful life begins. (Although surely fundamentalists on both sides will continue to dispute equating consciousness with life). This shifts any analysis of the abortion issue into two separate questions.

The first question will be whether women ought to have the right to terminate potential life that is itself not yet life. To me, this seems like a no-brainer. If there is no life with competing rights actually in existence, then it seems impossible to justify imposing an obligation upon a woman to maintain her pregnancy.

The second, and much harder question will be whether once there is a human life inside a woman, she has the right to terminate it. Judith Jarvis Thompson has famously argued that there is a moral right to terminate a life in such circumstance. Other proponents argue that in terms of social policy, it is better to have legal safe abortions than illegal unsafe ones. Yet ultimately it seems to me government has a compelling mission to protect life whenever it exists. The rights of an actual human to live trump a woman's right to bodily integrity. (When the life of the mother is at stake, it seems she ought to have the right to protect her life by seeking an abortion)

My hope is that the coming of this ability to measure consciousness will shift abortion policy and attitudes so that women seek abortions prior to consciousness forming. Undoubtedly since the legalization of abortion, women have terminated fetuses that were conscious after being morally torn and unable to decide while the fetus had still not attained consciousness. Perhaps with the ability to measure consciousness, women will be less timid about earlier abortions and less willing to engage in late term abortions. I can only hope this happens.

Tierney on Social Security

2005-06-14T08:51:00.000-06:00

In todays nytimes, Tierney makes the case for the Chilean system of private accounts. I disagree that private accounts are themselves superior - the risk factor attendant to them seems to undermine the insurance function of social security, but the basic premise, that people ought to be able to receive benefits as soon as they demonstrate that they can support themselves based on the proceeds of their contributions seems accurate. My favorite bit is tierney's framing of the debate:

Men in their 70's raced on bikes for 40 kilometers in this month's National Senior Games in Pittsburgh. A 68-year-old woman threw the discus 85 feet, and a 69-year-old man hurled the javelin nearly half the length of a football field.

Is it possible that people this age are still physically capable of putting in a full day's work at the office?

I realize I'm being impolitic. In the Social Security debate, the notion of raising the retirement age is the elephant in the room, as Robin Toner and David Rosenbaum reported in The Times on Sunday. Both liberal and conservative economists favor the change, but politicians are terrified to even mention it to voters.

Americans now feel entitled to spend nearly a third of their adult lives in retirement. Their jobs are less physically demanding than their parents' were, but they're retiring younger and typically start collecting Social Security by age 62. Most could keep working - fewer than 10 percent of people 65 to 75 are in poor health - but, like Bartleby the Scrivener, they prefer not to.

The problem isn't that Americans have gotten intrinsically lazier. They're just responding to a wonderfully intentioned system that in practice promotes greed and sloth. Social Security is widely thought of as a kumbaya program that unites Americans in caring for the elderly, but it actually creates ugly political battles among generations.

worthwhile reading on Michael Moore and the state of the left

2005-06-07T15:35:00.000-06:00

Finally someone expresses a vision for an intellectually honest liberalism...

My favorite quote:

A short digression is in order here, because it is important for everything that follows. There is no real Left at this time in the United States. There are some thoughtful, "small-d" democratic leftists, and there is an entirely separate (and marginal) class of radical leftists who think that Fidel is a great hero and who are nostalgic for the Soviet Union. But there are no left-wing politics in the sense of having an agenda and a party. There is no party in American contemporary life, for example, that seeks a national, single-payer health care system. Or that advocates a steeply graduated income tax. Or that proposes full civil rights for gay people. There is no movement or party doing these things, certainly not the national Democratic Party. So I don't think that left politics exists in this country, and it's important to understand that.

The French crap out

2005-06-06T17:21:00.000-06:00

This excerpt came from the Wall Street Journal Online evening edition from last friday. Normally, I would make a joke before the block quotation, and then a series of jokes after the quotation. This time, however, the news is so entertaining, that I will resist the urge to add anything to this gem:

Low on fuel and struggling in bad weather, nine French fighter jets and a radar
plane couldn't return to their aircraft carrier during maneuvers with the
Canadian military and landed at the Atlantic City International Airport in New
Jersey instead. The Federal Aviation Administration helped the jets land, and
French marines and translators were sent to the airport to help the pilots,
Philadelphia TV station WPVI reported. The U.S. State Department also got
involved when one of the French pilots had his credit card rejected when he
tried to buy fuel, the TV station reported. The FAA couldn't confirm the failed
credit-card transaction.

Ok. I couldn't resist. Here are some questions raised by this news item.

Why were French planes conducting maneuvers with the Canadian military?
Why was a French radar plane part of the program?
Why were the planes so far over the United States that they had to land at the AC airport?
Why is the AC airport "international"?
If the AC airport had not been international, would the planes had to land at Newark International?
I understand why French translators were sent to AC, but why were French marines sent to AC to help?
Is it possible that this whole thing was no accident? Is it possible that a bunch of French pilots, marines, translators, and radar nerds all wanted to go to AC? Could Donald Trump be that magnetic?
Or, were the french conducting a massive spy operation on our nation's old people, trying to figure out whether or not this social security crisis really is a crisis?
Were the French spying on the Jersey shore? And if so, did their operation have anything to do with Bon Jovi? And if so, what pray tell?
Dramatic pause
Why - in the name of shell necklaces and seaside heights - is one of the French pilots using his credit card to buy gas? Couldn't we just take his word for it, that he works for the French government? That he's not just with a bunch of French Canadian guys that used Maple Syrup money to buy jet fighters, all in the hope of getting some free jet fighter fuel from some unwitting airport guys in AC? That his government will cover the cost because they'd rather not leave a jet fighter sitting at the AC international airport? Couldn't we make that leap of faith?
How much does a French fighter worth of airplane fuel cost? Could anyone's credit card handle that?
Was it pay at the pump, like most gas stations in the country, or, because this is Jersey, was it full service, by law?
Why didn't the other Frenchmen lend the lone fuelless Frenchman their credit card?
Was this all just to film a scene for a Jean Claude Van Damme film?
Was this all just to film a scene for a Depardieu film?
Why didn't they just take one of the free gambler busses back up north?
After the cancelled credit card, and before the State Department saved the day - where the loan sharks? AC, say it ain't so? The AC loan sharks couldn't step in, give them 20 points on the loan, just to keep up Jersey's good name in the loan sharking business?

Confirmed

2005-05-31T16:04:00.000-06:00

Woodward and Bernstein now confirm that Felt was Deep Throat.

We Now Know Who Deep Throat Revealed Was... Or Do We?

2005-05-31T10:50:00.000-06:00

If Felt admits he is Deep Throat, and is telling the truth, why won't Woodward and Bernstein confirm:

Carl Bernstein, who with Bob Woodward broke the story as Washington Post reporters, issued a statement neither denying nor confirming Felt's claim. Bernstein stated he and Woodward would be keeping their pledge to reveal the source only once that person dies.

Surely any pledge they made to the real Deep Throat not to reveal his identity until he died would be irrelevant if he publicly admitted he was Deep Throat. Is it possible he is just claiming to be Deep Throat to turn a profit before he dies:

In the article, O'Connor reports that Felt's children, Joan and Mark Jr., urged him to go public after he revealed his secret to them in 2002.

Felt argued with them, O'Connor writes, saying he didn't want the story out there.

“I don’t think (being Deep Throat) was anything to be proud of,” Felt indicated to his son, Mark Jr., at one point, according to the article. “You (should) not leak information to anyone.”

But Joan is quoted as saying that "Bob Woodward's gonna get all the glory for this, but we could make at least enough money to pay some bills, like the debt I've run up for the kids' education. Let's do it for the family."

O'Connor adds that Felt finally agreed, saying "that's a good reason" even though Mark Jr. recalls him as saying "he wasn't particularly interested" in disclosing the secret.

Moreover, if someone else is Deep Throat, then Woodward and Bernstein cannot deny that Felt was Deep Throat without making it easier to determine the real Deep Throat.

It seems that despite Felt's claim, we won't know the truth until he dies. Only then will Woodward and Bernstein confirm that it was him. If they still say nothing, then we can surmise that it is someone else.

Texas is the winner

2005-05-27T08:49:00.000-06:00

We made our way back to Austin, sated. I had driven 1,800 miles in seven days, eaten 15 barbecue meals in a row, and finally found bliss in Texas. The four Texas barbecue meals I ate in 24 hours were better than any other barbecue I ever had in my life (save my one meal at Cooper's in 1989). I had found my barbecue bliss, and I was done. My lower intestine had ground to a complete stop, and I had a slight pain in my chest. It was time to go home.

As someone who traveled to Texas several times to visit my grandfather when I was young, I agree whole-heartedly that Texas barbecue is a step above the rest - way above. As much as I enjoy Chicago's ribfest, nowhere else can compete. The only place that compares, is Rockland's Barbecue in Washington, DC. I encourage those blog readers who live in the DC area to try it if they have not done so already. You will not be disappointed.

Take your time...take your time...

2005-05-26T17:13:00.000-06:00

The Bolton Nomination will not come to a vote tonight. The Dems were able to round up 42 votes against ending debate over Bolton. Usually, I am all for efficiency and progress and moving on (but not in a Moveon.org sort of way), and yet I am happy about this rejection of cloture.

Partly because I like saying the word cloture, it either sounds like the name of the frat guy that would eat pizza that's been under the couch for three months or like a word destined to be used by sports announcers in the next few years - Bill Walton: "That's what I call cloture! The Lakers think they have cloture, but they just learned the hard way that cloture isn't just a bunch of guys standing around pretending."

Partly because I like having pictures of Bolton served up daily. I like imagining him running through a hotel, yelling at people, his mustache and hair out of control, people staring at him wondering if someone stole part of his comic book collection. I like hearing more accounts of him bullying people, and listening to the arguments made against and in-favor of his bullying.

Mostly, though, I like the idea of the Senate grinding to a halt. I love the theater. I like the idea of the Dems getting excited about one little victory and going nutty with clogging tactics for other matters. I want to see the look on hard line right wingers' faces similar to the look on Seinfeld's face when he found out that something of his had been in the toilet. I want all the chicanery to blow up in the Democrats faces. I want the GOP to fall apart. I want votes on volatile issues. I want inquiries and investigations and references to Caligula, Wile E. Coyote, and Darth Vader. I want spectacle. And then, in the end, I want Arnold to stroll in and call them all girlie men. Have the moderates start their own party. And watch the rest of them battle it out in hot dog eating contest.

Andrew Sullivan Defends Bush's Stem Cell Policy

2005-05-26T16:29:00.000-06:00

In my view, he's right to veto federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. There is a very clear principle here: do you take life to save lives? My conviction is that you don't, and that the human life in embryonic form is still human life. The idea of cloning embryos to experiment on them is morally repugnant; equally, using left-over, frozen embryos for the same purpose is using human beings as means, not ends. If that isn't a clear, moral line, then I don't know what is. My own religious faith in the dignity of human life is not necessary to support this argument, whatever the NYT says. We're all humans; whatever we believe about our origins or destiny, we can all agree that each of us deserves to be treated as ends in ourselves, not material for others' benefit. If we cede that principle, then we will slide (and have already slid) toward hideous forms of eugenics. Now I know many people disagree. But the pragmatic arguments they deploy - these embryos will be destroyed or kept in limbo anyway, they're teensy-weensy - don't circumvent the deeper moral issue. The only logical justification is an entirely utilitarian one, in which the use of "lesser" humans for the benefit of more developed ones is justified. But this begs an important question: in our society, there is no fundamental moral consensus any more, especially on contentious issues like these. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that the government should remain as neutral as possible between moral claims. The NYT interprets neutrality as funding embryonic stem cell research. That's a funny form of neutrality. In this case, the president has carved out a policy that is, indeed, about as neutral as it could be. If the private sector wants to pursue this course, it can; if individual states want to, ditto. But no American taxpayer should be required to fund from her own dollars what she regards as a moral outrage. Keep the feds out of it. Let the states and private sector do as they will.

While usually I respect Andrew Sullivan's intellectual honesty, in this instance he is disingenuous. He assumes that embryos are humans and therefore labels proponents of stem cell research as utilitarians. While any moral intervention that saves lives can theoretically be labeled utilitarian, this label falsely presumes a moral calculus that disregards individual rights in favor of the group good. Yet if one rejects Sullivan's assumption that embryos are humans, then there are no such rights that are being violated by stem cell research. The choice is between allowing real people to die and intervening to save their lives. It is perfectly proper for the government to intervene to save the lives of its citizens. In fact there is no more compelling role for government to play.

Rejecting that embryos are human is hardly a radical position. That they one day can become human is not the same thing as them being human. They do not yet have cognition and as such, they lack the capacity to have subjective experiences - an essential aspect of humanity.

That some might label embryos human beings does not mean that the government ought to remain neutral about the issue. It is simply impoossible to conduct public policy if the subjective beliefs of crazed religious zealots must be respected. Many of those who stand against funding stem cell research also protested government funding of AIDS research and prevention on the grounds that this too was immoral. Theoretically they did not have to be religious to hold this view. I wonder whether Sullivan would say goverment should remain neutral on that too.

2005-05-25T10:18:00.000-06:00

Will Saletan criticizes Bush's hypocrisy on the death penalty and stem cell research:

The standard Bush set four years ago and repeated last week is that we shouldn't take one life—even an embryonic life—in order to save others. Cost-benefit analysis is never sufficient grounds for the premeditated killing of civilians—except when it comes to the death penalty. When the discussion shifts from embryos to murderers, Bush and his spokesmen routinely argue that killing is justified not because murderers deserve it, but because it's moral to take one life in order to save others. He doesn't say that Person A should be executed because Person A is a danger to society. He says that Person A should be executed because the execution will deter Person B from killing Person C.

While Bush is a hypocrite, Saletan slightly misses the point. Bush can distinguish the killing of embryonic stem cells from the killing of murderers on the basis of guilt. There is a plausible argument (though i disagree with it) that a murderer gives up his right not to be killed when he kills someone else. This does not inherently mean that he ought to be killed, but merely that it is ok to kill him if if advances some utilitarian purpose. For someone delusional enough to believe that embryos are actually full human lives, however, it is plausible to say that embryos have sacrificed no such right and therefore cannot be destroyed for the benefit of others.

Bush's hypocrisy, however, lies in the fact that the death penalty is inherently imperfect. As numerous studies have suggested, the amount of innocent people put to death is far from insignificant. The only way to justify such a system is to say that while some innocent lives will be lost, more will be saved by the deterrent effect of the death penalty (although, notwithstanding a recent paper by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, most studies have concluded that there is not much of a deterrent effect). Yet this is exactly the tradeoff Bush refuses to make with stem cells when the lives to be saved are indisputable and the "lives" taken barely human life. Therein lies the real hypocrisy.

But can you eat a filibuster?

2005-05-24T14:54:00.000-06:00

Much has been made lately about preserving the right to filibuster. One argument can be summarized: we need to preserve the traditions of the Senate.

I agree with the idea that Senate traditions should be preserved, but I wonder if we should put so much energy into preserving the filibuster. Afterall, we can't eat a filibuster.

We can, however, eat bean soup. Apparently, Bean Soup has been a regular fixture in the Senate for more than a 100 years. If the GOP is willing to neuter the filibuster, what will stop them from discontinuing the bean soup? I bring this up because clearly there are some Senators that would be coerced by such a threat. Sure, the filibuster mess could cause a shut down, but without soup, the Senate would petrify.

I make this argument not in an attempt to dishonor the tradition of the filibuster, but rather to honor the tradition of the soup, which is getting scant attention in the main stream media. Soup, and bean soup in particular, might not be as flashy as a filibuster. It might not bring in the lucrative CSPAN audience. It might not inspire a bipartisan group to gang together and find a compromise over a related issue - like soup spoons. But, the Senate Bean Soup is a tradition we must protect, not because the soup protects the rights of a political senate minority, but because the tossing out of soup would create a slope, slippery with soup, down which the majority party could toss every tradition we hold dear, like gerrymandering, pork barreling, and other shadiness.

A decline in war

2005-05-24T11:19:00.000-06:00

Gregg Easterbrook makes a compelling case that notwithstanding all of the conflicts that regularly make the news, war and death from war is on the decline. Of course if North Korea decides to launch an atomic weapon or give one to terrorists, this trend will be completely reversed.

Our Uzbek Problem

2005-05-24T10:52:00.000-06:00

It is rare that i agree with the Weekly Standard, but they get this issue exactly right:

The Uzbek regime that was part of the solution in 2001 is now, with its bloody suppression of protests, part of the problem.

Sweet barbecue

2005-05-24T10:50:00.000-06:00

there is nothing remotely political about these posts. But they are odes to gluttony, and for that they deserve recognition. An example:

After my long walk, I took Carolyn Wells to lunch at another celebrated Kansas City smokehouse, Fiorella's Jack Stack in the suburb of Martin City. Wells—who founded the Kansas City Barbeque Society and still runs it—is tall, energetic, and charming, with a brassy Southern accent. For a while we batted back and forth theories about why barbecue is so iconic in America—its cowboy roots, the intimate connection of barbecue and drinking, the thrilling alchemy of turning a cheap cut of meat into a delicacy, etc., etc.—until finally she said the most romantic, and most true, thing I have ever heard about barbecue.

"Once, I was judging a competition, and there was a box of shoulder, and I opened it up. It was so beautiful! I just wanted to stick my face in it. I just wanted to bury my face in it."

Hitchens on Afghanistan

2005-05-24T10:46:00.000-06:00

While Hitchens has gotten tiresome with his repetitive theme of the harm of not judging Arabs by the same standards we apply to ourselves, this is one of his better pieces:

Over the last week, the flag of the United States of America has been cheerfully incinerated by grinning crowds in several cities... Some of us can be offended at insults to our culture, and we, too, possess unalterable convictions and principles. Many people take the same view of the desecration of Old Glory. But we would never dream of venting ourselves in random assaults on mosques or Muslims, and if anyone on our soil did dare to commit such atrocities, I hope and believe that they would not receive moist and sympathetic treatment in the pages of the American press.

Part of the answer to 100 million missing women

2005-05-24T10:42:00.000-06:00

For those familiar with Amartya Sen's famous essay, there appears to be an interesting benign answer to 50 million of them - hepatitis B.

Other columnists

2005-05-20T15:03:00.000-06:00

In the continued spirit of the Slate piece I thought it worthwhile to list my 10 favorite columnists/journalists. As should be self-evident, they span the ideological spectrum, so I am not just listing people with whom I ususally agree. Anyway, here is my list:

1. Anne Applebaum
2. Nicholas Kristof
3. Peter Beinhart
4. Christopher Hitchens
5. Dahlia Lithwick
6. David Corn
7. Andrew Sullivan
8. Tom Friedman
9. Jonah Goldberg
10. George Will

Worthless Krugman

2005-05-18T15:32:00.000-06:00

I agree with Dan on refusing to pay for Krugman. I would go a step further and say that I have stopped bothering to read him even though it is free. I thought it impossible for a semi-intelligent person to somehow lose a debate with Bill O'Reilly, yet somehow Krugman managed to pull it off last fall, with Tim Russert as the moderator no less. Essentially Krugman combines Maureen Dowd's analytical ability with the humor of a typical Kristof genocide column. A recipe that appeals to party-line alarmists, but not to people who actually try to analyze issues on their own.

For the record, my alottment would be:

Kristof $10
Friedman $8
Brooks $3
Tierney $1
Rich $1
Dowd $1
Hebert $1

Columnist budget

2005-05-17T12:14:00.000-06:00

Chatterbox, on Slate, is asking people to budget how they would spend $25 on NYT columnists. The budgets/contributions/votes are due this afternoon. The results/rankings will be posted at some point in the future.

This suggests a great program for newspapers to use with their own columnists. Every year let readers vote off one of the columnists. Bring some fresh perspective to the papers. Get rid of some of the dead weight. Provide another gambling opportunity. Give us more chances to compare business management to reality television. It's a win win win win scenario.

For purposes of the slate column:
Brooks $8
Friedman $8
Kristof $5
Dowd $3
Herbert $1

President Bush: a nonbeliever.

2005-05-16T10:58:00.000-06:00

Apparently, President Bush doesn't believe in magic. Recently, he said:

"Americans are concerned about high prices at the pump and they're really
concerned as they start making their travel plans, and I understand that," the
president said. "I wish I could just wave a magic wand and lower the price at
the pump. I'd do that. But that's not how it works."

Isn't it odd that Bush, a man of faith, spits in the general direction of people that believe in magic wands. Maybe adherents to the religion of magic wands, who call themselves Wanderers, are not your traditional religious group, but why should that matter? For them, that is "how it works". It might just seem like a sideshow to Bush, but to many people magic is real. They believe it is real. And by scoffing at the power of magic wands he is trampling all over their beliefs. Is the "beliefs" rhetoric just rhetoric, or does Bush really believe it?

Wanderers don't hold press conferences like Bush and announce: "I wish I could do that Ten Commandments thing and then go to heaven. I'd do that. But that's not how it works." No. They are much more savvy than that. People who believe in magic accept other faiths, and respect the beliefs of people of other faiths - like scientologists and their beliefs in that Travolta movie about aliens.

Wanderers have been quietly pushing for stickers in text books that would question the concept of gravity. "Gravity is just a theory. Other theories involve magic wands." And yet, the intelligent designers get all the press. Where is the fairness?

Eventhough most Wanderers believe in dragons and fairy princesses, that doesn't mean they don't vote. I think it's time that the believers in magic wands stand up and form a left-wing religious base, dedicated to the proposition that all faiths should be recognized, whether they involve witches and trolls, or not.

Hostage saved by pizza

2005-05-09T11:37:00.000-06:00

I have praised the power of pizza and other fast food quite often. It seems that the world is starting to catch on:

An Australian prison siege ended on Monday after a group of inmates agreed to release a guard they had held for two days in return for a delivery of pizzas, prison officials said.

And it makes me wonder: have we stunted the magic of pizza? Have we held back pizza, simply because we misunderstood its greater gifts and social muscle? Yes, we have.

Pizza soothes football rivals watching a game in the same living room. Pizza sends college students to bed, when only mayhem awaits them at night. Pizza signals the end of a children's pizza party. Pizza teaches us how to share. It shows us that compromise is possible. Pizza is a mouth watering treat and a lesson in diplomacy.

Maybe the problem with Oil for Food was that we weren't being specific enough with "Food". Maybe Oil for Pizza would be more successful.

Maybe the Jets and the Sharks wouldn't have had the dance-rumble if someone had delivered a pizza to their meeting place. Perhaps a slice of cheese would have helped them "stay cool boy."

I'm not saying that all the world's conflicts could be solved by pizza. But it might give us the right place to start. Compromise between world leaders would find its seed crystal in a negotiation over the last slice of pepperoni. Mutual benefits would be realized when rival companies bit into a slice of Chicago-style.

The world would be a better place...if we just let pizza make it better for us.

And we wonder why schools are failing...

2005-05-06T14:59:00.000-06:00

A high school student was suspended for 10 days for refusing to end a cell phone call with his mother, a soldier serving in Iraq, school officials said.

Super-Duper Size me

2005-05-03T15:57:00.000-06:00

A restaurant in Pennsylvania is now serving a 15 pound burger:

Dennis Liegey, the owner of Denny's Beer Barrel Pub in Clearfield, 120 northeast
of Pittsburgh, said the "Beer Barrel Belly Buster" weighs in with 10 pounds of
meat molded into a 20-inch patty on a specially baked, 17-inch bun.

I'm glad that they mention that the bun is "specially baked", because I was slightly worried that if I ordered the burger it would come out on a hot dog bun.

This gargnatuan burger raises the question: who will eat such a burger? I, of course, have already put together a short list:

Actors and actresses that want to gain weight. The surest way to win an award is to ugly up or gain weight. Now, thespians could be one step closer to an Oscar after one meal. After two meals, they might look like the girl from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that chews the wrong gum.
Competitive Eaters. These people eat between 30-50 hot dogs in a matter of minutes. One 15 pound burger is wind sprint to these thoroughbreds. (When will competitive eaters be as acclaimed as other great athletes? When will society respect the fast twitch fat of the stomach as much as the fast twitch muscle of the leg? When will the strategy behind shoving hot dogs down one's gullet be as revered as a quaterback identifying a defense in a football game?)
Elvis impersonators. If you could change from skinny Elvis to fat Elvis in the same day, you would have a more versatile performance range. No longer would impersonators have to slog through fried PB and Banana sandwiches for months. Plus, if this burger was around while Elvis was alive, I'm sure he'd have eaten it.
World leaders. This restaurant would be the home to many a successful summit. Centuries of conflict could be settled as two leaders shared a gigantic slab of beef, cheese, and shredded lettuce. Smaller feuds could be settled over the Belly Buster as well. Maybe Tom DeLay could take out the Democrats on the House Ethics Committee, and they could all share the burger, compliments of Jack Abramoff.

Exploding toads in Germany

2005-04-28T13:32:00.000-06:00

Toads start exploding in Germany around the same time as a German is elected Pope... I am waiting for Michael Moore to find a conspiracy. Or Jerry Falwell to say it is some sign from God.

Spitzer targets spyware company

2005-04-28T11:54:00.000-06:00

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer on Thursday sued a major Internet marketer, claiming the company installed ''spyware'' and ''adware'' that secretly install nuisance pop-up advertisements which can slow and crash personal computers.

It is about time someone put an end to the various deceptive and annoying programs that get stuck on computers. Anyone who has had the misfortune of downloading weatherbug or other such worthless programs should be thrilled. I wonder how long until someone targets the the advertisers who use these programs rather than the software manufacturers. Once that happens, the market will get taken away and these infuriating programs will be eliminated. If there is not already a legal theory that supports targeting such advertisers, hopefully Congress will pass legislation enabling such lawsuits. After the do not call registry case, there should not be too many First Amendment problems.

An ode to enjoying life

2005-04-24T16:17:00.000-06:00

The release of a report in The Journal of the American Medical Association indicating that overweight people actually live longer than normal-weight people represents an important moment in the history of world civilization. It is the moment when we realize that Mother Nature - unlike Ivy League admissions committees - doesn't like suck-ups...

The chief moral lesson I take away from this report is that Mother Nature is happy to tolerate marginally irresponsible misbehavior. She doesn't want you to go completely to seed. If you're truly obese and arouse hippos when you visit the zoo, you could still punch your ticket at any moment.

But she does want you to eat the occasional Cinnabon, so long as it isn't bigger than Delaware. She wants you to have that fourth glass of wine, and lecture the dinner table on the future of the papacy based on your extensive reading of "The Da Vinci Code." She wants a little socially productive mediocrity.

I tried to avoid the MJ case, but I failed

2005-04-22T08:13:00.000-06:00

All I want to point out about the Jackson case is that nothing concerning Jackson is normal. For instance, the court considered some security logs from his ranch:

The logs showed, among other things, that on Feb. 20, 2003, the boy now accusing
Jackson of molestation was hit by a golf cart driven by a relative of actor
Marlon Brando.

Marlon Brando's relative hit someone with a golf cart! If I had written that line as a non sequitor joke, I doubt anyone would take me seriously. How is this just coming out now? There could be treasure trove of ridiculous happenings in those security logs:

Maybe Gray Davis's barber slipped on a banana peel left in a hallway by one of the Three Stooges grandnephews.
Perhaps Gary Coleman unleashed a swarm of bees on Emanuel Lewis's agent while both were riding on parallel water slides.
And, there's always the chance that Gary Busey brought 1000 bottles of peanut butter to Neverland, created a river of peanut butter that compromised the power supply of the ranch, postponing the festivities for the Tito Jackson birthday party.

I know these sound ridiculous, but not much more than Brando's reckless driving relative. Hopefully I will have a post later today with some real news, but for now, I just could not let this one go. I apologize to anyone reading this blog, who has come to count on Seth and I for hard hitting news.

Justice Kennedy123

2005-04-20T08:35:00.000-06:00

Tom DeLay is incredibly upset that Justice Kennedy has looked at international law when reaching his decisions, but that's not the worst of it, DeLay explains:

And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the
Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous.

This statement leads to the question: what is it that is so outrageous? Is it that Kennedy uses the internet? Is it that he does the research himself? Neither possibility seems to gel with the criticism DeLay has dogmatically repeated a number of times: judges are activists and isolated from the American people.

I agree that the internet can isolate people. However, my guess is that Kennedy is not staying up all night reading slate.com, listening to celebrity prank phone calls, or downloading mp3s. The internet isolates people by stimulating them with asocial activities. Yet, even that analysis is limited, because the internet can also be very social. Maybe Kennedy is chatting online with other justices or instant messaging with some circuit court judges. My guess is that judges would have great email addresses and screen names, like "LawNerd", "RockinJustice", or "Souter2005". Maybe Kennedy is posting comments on blogs and hurling insults at the other players at his internet poker table. The point is, Tom DeLay, the fact that he uses the internet means there's a chance he's not isolated.

I think the real issue here is that DeLay doesn't want people enjoying Al Gore's invention - can't give a Democrat more exposure. If Kennedy had said he conducted research by spraying bugs with pesticide, I'm sure DeLay would want to put him on his PAC payroll. "Chart the course for Moscow boys, we're taking this legal eagle for a ride!"

I mean, how could a person avoid the internet with all those juicy stories about politicians flying to Scotland to read?

Why Not a Second Lincoln Brigade?

2005-04-17T15:05:00.000-06:00

In yet another column today, Nicholas Kristof calls upon the world to do more to prevent the genoicde in Darfur. In the article he chronicles the world's history of looking the other way as genocide occurs:

When Turkey was massacring Armenians in 1915, the administration of Woodrow Wilson determinedly looked the other way. The U.S. ambassador in Constantinople sent furious cables to Washington, pleading for action against what he called "race murder," but the White House shrugged.

It was, after all, a messy situation, and there was no easy way to stop the killing. The U.S. was desperate to stay out of World War I and reluctant to poison relations with Turkey.

A generation later, American officials said they were too busy fighting a war to worry about Nazi death camps. In May 1943, the U.S. government rejected suggestions that it bomb Auschwitz, saying that aircraft weren't available.

In the 1970's, the U.S. didn't try to stop the Cambodian genocide. It was a murky situation in a hostile country, and there was no perfect solution. The U.S. was also negotiating the establishment of relations with China, the major backer of the Khmer Rouge, and didn't want to upset that process.

Much the same happened in Bosnia and Rwanda. As Samantha Power chronicles in her superb book, "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," the pattern was repeated over and over: a slaughter unfolded in a distant part of the world, but we had other priorities and it was always simplest for the American government to look away.

Yet it seems to me that the political calculus in Darfur is decidedly different than in these other genocides. In this instance, there are not the same geo-political risks. The Sudan is a rogue nation with a pathetic military. A well equipped army would easily end the genocide there. While the usual amoral countries of the world would criticize intervention, the political fallout would be minimal.

Which raises a new question...

If America as a government is unwilling to act for whgatever reason, it should nonetheless permit and encourage individual Americans to fund and/or create a private army to combat Janjaweed. When Sierra Leone was facing the ravages of civil war in which children were being mutilated accrrss the country, they briefly hired a small South African mercenary force that was able to put a halt to the carnage.

The Lincoln Brigade today is hailed as a noble effort to stop the spread of fascism. They faced nearly insurmountable odds. Today, the enemy is weak and American power and wealth great. If private individuals were permitted to create an army and fight against genocide, the world would be well served. If America is too self-interested to take action, it should at least permit individual americans to do so.

Frown now, go crazy later.

2005-04-15T13:11:00.000-06:00

According to a recent study pessimism and anxiety are signs of dementia later in life:

A study of a group of 3,500 people showed that those who scored high for
pessimism on a standardized personality test had a 30 percent increased risk of
developing dementia 30 to 40 years later.

I have two points:

(1) While there are certainly countless lessons to glean from this information, I am going to focus on an extremely narrow piece of the analysis, stretch logical principles, and then make an outrageous claim - all in this long, grammatically-challenged sentence: the trick to avoid dementia is to always be pessimistic.

Sure maybe this study just shows a correlation between pessimism and dementia, without any real conclusions. Perhaps pessimism is a symptom of early dementia. Maybe pessimism makes people demented. Maybe pessimists are simply more likely to be demented for some other reason. Their point is: who knows? And my point is: who cares?

The study says: if you are pessimistic, then you are more likely to develop dementia in 30-40 years. So, I figure, as long as I stay pessimistic, dementia is always 30-40 years away.

(2) Ha! I was just messing around with that first point. It is clear from the study that the best way to keep away dementia is to avoid pessimistic thoughts and not read the results of the study. Just messing with you again. For my second point I will not stretch logic and reason, but, instead, completely abandon all rationality.

Here's what I think this data reflects: pessimists go bonkers. They have all sorts of secret predictions about the universe, and they obsess over them. When the world doesn't end or their Soap Opera gets renewed for another 10 years or the cookie does not crumble, the pessimist loses it. Good luck is the sugar in their gas tank. So, therefore, this statistic is really just the number of pessimists whose fears are not realized. In contrast, pessimists that see their fears come to pass are left feeling depressed, pessimistic, and validated. It is clear that if one is a pessimist one ought to make sure that bad things actually do happen, otherwise, one will develop dementia. Now, thanks to this study, people can just have a fear of developing dementia that signals the development of dementia.

Eating urgency

2005-04-12T12:57:00.000-06:00

The WSJ reported today that the maker of a Shrek "mini" candy would remove "for a limited time" from its marketing approach because that phrase created a "sense of eating urgency". The Journal concludes this move is a response to growing criticism of fat kids.

There is nothing as urgent as the need to devour sugar laden treats modeled after cartoons before they're removed from the market. I once ate 6 ice cream sandwiches because the power went out and they were melting in the freezer. I could feel the urgency. I gorged myself. I was covered in vanilla ice cream and graham crackers minutes later, somewhat dazed, wondering what had propelled me through such a gluttonous bonanza. It was the urgency. I was intoxicated with urgency - with the fear of no dessert and the nightmare of an ice creamless future. So, a sense of eating urgency could transform a person into an animal. The effects of eating urgency are real.

However, what of the danger of ignoring an "eating urgency"? In other words, if those Shrek candies truly are only offered for a limited time, then a sense of eating urgency is appropriate. We don't want to make the world so safe from false alarm eating urgencies that we miss the real urgencies. I say if one sense of eating urgency is missed in the name of protecting us from a faux urgency, and a product line of candies, ribwiches, processed pastries, or other food is gone forever and no one had the chance to stuff their face with reckless abandon, then what has become of us as a society. I implore you all to err on the side of urgent eating.

Why the Pope did not end communism

2005-04-08T15:20:00.000-06:00

It is important not to overstate the importance of someone's achievements when they die. This article properly puts John Paul II's role in ending communism into perspective.

The money making machine of obesity

2005-04-06T14:43:00.000-06:00

CNN reports that a study in California finds that obese people are a drain on the economy:

The study estimates that overweight and inactive Californians cost $21.7 billion
a year in medical bills, injuries and lost productivity.

This is preposterous. Obesity is the modern-day gold rush of real and potential profits. Sure, people have more health problems because they get fat, and maybe they injure themselves, and can't go to work. However, these criticisms are the result of a narrow perspective on fatness.

First, Obesity might be a sign of an unhealthy individual, but it is also the sign of a healthy economy. Fat people are a symbol of prosperity and consumption.

Eating three slices of pizza instead of one will make you fat. Drinking four beers instead of one will make you fat. The more you eat and drink, the bigger you will get. However, the more you eat and drink, the more you spend on food and beverage. Gluttons make this economy of ours run smoothly like a piece of butter sliding across a frying pan.
Watching television all day will make you fat, or at least, it won't help you trim the waistline. The more people that watch television, the more advertising dollars spent to reach that lazy-audience.
Surfing the internet incessantly is not as healthy as exercising. It's not that difficult of a concept to digest. However, the more people surfing the internet, the more advertising dollars spent to reach that large-bellied audience.

Second, obesity has created a market for eliminating obesity.

Atkins, the Zone, Weight Watchers, and countless other dieteers depend on fat people and others that fear becoming fat. Any celebrity that loses weight writes a book about their diet or exercise regimen. A smart businessman would sell both fatty addictive candies and diet books. The two exist in a symbiotic relationship - one always tempting and destroying the work of the other, and thus renewing the need/desire for the other.
Plastic surgeons make money off of fat people. This study was published in California? I would have thought the plastic surgeons would have put a stop to this. Without fat to vacuum out of people's bellies, they would be entirely dependent on breast and calf implants.

The point is: fat people are a sign that business is good and its only going to get better. When I go to a fast food place, I don't see fat people - I only see dollar signs.

The extremism of today's conservatives

2005-04-05T15:16:00.000-06:00

Dahlia Lithwick properly takes to task the recent conservative opposition to an independent judiciary :

Cornyn's analogy between disgruntled defendants and angry conservatives is perfectly apt. In both cases, angry citizens refuse to accept the fact that sometimes one loses in court and childishly react by taking the law into their own hands. Whether an unhinged individual pulls out a gun or an unhinged senator rationalizes such vigilantism is merely a question of degree, not kind. In both cases, the suggestion is that the rule of law means nothing if you don't get the outcome you desired.

Donuts show signs of life

2005-04-04T11:09:00.000-06:00

Krispy Kreme received $225 million in financing to pay off some loans. For those of you that do not follow the donut industry, this is indeed good news. CNNMoney explained that now that these financial difficulties are adequately postponed, the company can return to its roots:

"With more liquidity and no near-term payment deadlines, we look forward to
getting back to the business of selling doughnuts and coffee," President and
Chief Operating Officer Steve Panagos said in a statement.

Normally I would not intervene with any biting sarcasm, ridiculous suggestions, or non-biting sarcasm, but when someone messes with donuts, I feel the need to be heard.

Donut companies - like pizza companies and anyone that makes chili cheese fries - have a duty to stay afloat. Why? Because America needs donuts. Donuts and America have a history together. They are the classic snack of the everyman. There very existence is ridiculous. Saying the word "donut" makes me smile. It is kind of like saying the word "jello". I think of jelly-filled, powdered, sprinkle-topped, with icing, krullers, and donut holes. There is something about donuts that can't quite be nailed down - a je ne se quois of donuts that seems comical.
Their roundness inspires metaphysical debate at breakfast tables around the country. Their synergistic relationship with coffee has propelled the bean-based hot drink well in front of the leaf-based tea drink of Europe. Donuts teach us about restraint: "I guess if I had only eaten 4 donuts, I wouldn't have ripped the elastic on my pants." Donuts teach us about diversity: "I usually only eat the jelly donuts, but I branch out to the icing variety if they have sprinkles". There is a saying: "You can't trust a man that doesn't know his donuts." It seems that only frighteningly skinny people dislike donuts, and that's probably more of a jealousy thing.

When I think of people solving problems and overcoming differences, I think of them meeting over donuts. Nothing would be as disarming as watching a rival squirt jelly onto his face as he bites into a powdered donut at a conference table. I could see Tom Delay and Ted Kennedy eating donuts together, both realizing maybe they were not too different, with jelly piled on their shirts, powder on their ties and fingers sticky from the glaze.

Russian lawmakers think outside the box

2005-03-30T13:17:00.000-06:00

A brawl errupted in the Russian Parliament today. A number of lawmakers were caught in the fracas, but an ultranationalist stepped into the Ron Artest instigator role:

Zhirinovsky, who is also deputy speaker of the parliament, spat at Andrei
Savyolov from the leftist Rodina party and grabbed his hair.

The pictures are disturbing. The witness accounts are alarming. However, this melee has raised some salient arguments in favor of American politicians getting into a rumble in the Capitol Building.

People like fights. Strategically, it seems that engaging in fisticuffs would be wise. When a fight breaks out people watch, some yell "fight! fight!", and most tell the story of the fight over and over throughout their lives as a little evidence for everyone else of the storyteller's rough side. The Romans loved their gladiators and America loves the Indiana Pacers. It reminds us that we are animals, and we love that. We love the idea that all it takes is a vote in Siberia for a loogie to splatter into another guy's face. Neocons should like the machismo spoils given to the winner of the fight. Deaniacs should like the bitter defiance and resentment of the loser of a fight.
Releasing their frustration. Some politicians seem to settle their differences by supporting or blocking each other's legislation. The problem with this "professional" approach is that it affects the entire country. I say let the congressmen battle it out in a steel cage and leave the rest of the country out of it. It's possible that arm-wrestling could solve the problem, but, as the story from Russia makes clear, nothing sends a message like an old fashioned saliva-slap.
Entertainment. We want our lawmakers to hit each other. That's why DeLay's nickname is "the Hammer". You give someone a nickname like that because you want to see them throw a beer at stray party members or have a Tyson like moment biting off some filibusterer's ear. I'm sure C-Span is all for this idea. Their ratings would go through the roof, although ultimately FOX would outbid them for the contract. Plus, the lawmakers would be for this. If some junior Senator fish-hooked a ranking opposition party member, he would become a household name - maybe even get an endorsement deal from Nike or Brooks Brothers.
Educating the public. The question most often uttered among people watching a fight is: "why are they fighting?" (Though, I'm sure "that corndog is making me feel sick" is a close second.) America would want to know why Kerry and Kennedy had held Trent Lott's head in the toilet. How could you not want to know? America needs an increase in political literacy. I think with the appropriate number of crazy melees, America would stop reading about Justin Timberlake's sock preferences and start reading about social security, the Patriot Act, and the deficit.

Quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read from a purportedly reputable magazine

2005-03-29T12:40:00.000-06:00

As the fate of Terri Schiavo was decided and then carried out, the enigma of Jewish liberalism came again to the fore. What accounts for Jews whose idea of dying "with dignity" included this incapacitated Florida woman being dehydrated to a state of living mummification like the ghoulish images of Nazi death-camp survivors?

...

To add to the sense of values gone topsy-turvy, Mrs. Schiavo's ordeal was climaxing over the festival of Purim. Parallels with the Purim story, the Biblical book of Esther, leap out at you. In both, a vigorously determined personality (Haman, Michael Schiavo) seek to take the life of an innocent or innocents (the Jews, Mrs. Schiavo) with the aid of a high government official (King Ahashuerus, Judge Greer) while the people (Persia's Jews, America's Christians) weep, fast, and don sackcloth. Simultaneously, a protagonist (Queen Esther, Governor Bush) closely linked to the head of state contemplates intervening.

Evidently the minor distinction that Terri Schiavo is brain dead and rotting away whereas the Jews who died in concentration camps were fully living seems lost on conservatives. If anything such comparisons insult the true victims of persecution whose lives are taken out of pure malice, not to preserve their dignity. Even if conservatives, disregarding conclusive medical evidence, fool themselves into thinking that Schiavo is not brain dead, surely they ought to recognize that the motivations of those wishing to let her die with dignity are not the same as those who sought to commit genocide.

Fatty sandwich causes confusion

2005-03-28T12:51:00.000-06:00

Burger King has unveiled a new breakfast sandwich packed with fat. Commenters, whom I guess we could call sandwich-pundits, have weighed in on the excellent earning potential of this Enormous omelet sandwich. Others, whom we could call lipiphobes, are making critical statements like the following:

"Eating like this is a step on the way to a heart attack," Fred Pescatore,
author of The Hamptons Diet told the newspaper. "It's irresponsible."

My question is: what does Fred Pescatore find irresponsible? Or, more precisely, what does the "it" mean, in "it's irresponsible"? If irresponsible means acting without the worry of being held accountable, then the meaning of "it" takes on great importance.

The ambiguity of the pronoun has created a number of possibilities. If Pescatore meant "eating like this" is irresponsible, he is just plain wrong. People who eat the sandwich would be held accountable for their actions by their circulatory systems, and thus they would not be irresponsible. Additionally, if Pescatore meant BK was irresponsible, this would also be incorrect. If BK starts serving meals that kill people, they will lose loyal customers, and thus BK will be held accountable for their actions. (I'm not saying BK hasn't conducted some cost/benefit analysis on this issue, I merely point out that the action will have repercussions.)

Therefore, Pescatore must surely mean that it is the enormous omelet sandwich itself that is irresponsible. And that I agree with. The sandwich will not be held accountable for its fattiness. The sandwich will not be held accountable for its tastiness. Furthermore, I think this special treatment must stop.

It's time we stop blaming companies and people, and time we start blaming the actual objects that hurt us. Sandwiches, cigarettes, and beer are the real culprits. Inanimate objects have existed in a world without justice for too long. The irresponsibility of sandwiches, the smugness of cigarettes, and the downright hubris of beer must end now. Join me in a campaign to end the tyranny of pizza and the cruelty of donuts. Stand up and claim your right to exact revenge on a pint of ice cream.

Justice: its not just for people anymore.

Hitchens Captures The Absurdity Of The Schiavo Affair

2005-03-28T10:54:00.000-06:00

It is nice to hear Christopher Hitchens returning to form and talking about something other than how the Bush administration has been unfairly blamed:

A family lawyer appears before an American court and solemnly proposes that his client's "client" might have to spend extra time in Purgatory, or even in Hell, if the feeding-tube decision is adjudicated the wrong way. One Catholic fanatic, Patrick Buchanan, argues that federal marshals ought to burst in and preserve a corpse. Another Catholic fundamentalist, William Donahue, says that this would be unwise, but only because it might set a precedent for the rescue of living people on Death Row. Presiding from a distance is a nodding, senile pope whose church may possibly want to change the subject from its indulgence of the rape and torture of real-life children.

Now I can cheer for the Redskins without feeling guilty

2005-03-28T02:12:00.000-06:00

The sweet smell of stem cells

2005-03-24T10:21:00.000-06:00

Doctors in Australia, with the help of funding from the Catholic Church, have developed stem cells taken from human noses. This is quite the discovery since it could eliminate the ethical dilemma facing the religiously inclined. However, it does raise a number of issues and new problems:

Obviously noses will become commodities. Noses will regularly be traded, analyzed, and regulated by the government. People will sell noses on the black market. Nose dealers might withhold some of the nose supply, like some sort of nose OPEC, in order to raise the nose value. Nose futures will be traded on commodity exchanges. People will begin to covet the nose, which brings me to...
What about people with runny noses, nose rings, broken noses, and fake noses? The upper-crust of society will quickly leave them behind. Why? It's simple. If person A has a job and a nose that could be harvested for stem cells, and person B has a job, but a nose without stem cell potential, who would take person B with the barren nose? The infertile nose will doom a section of society to mediocrity, at best.
What happens to all the noses that were stolen from babies by their grandparents? Surely, that trove of noses should be appropriated by the government so that scientists could have better access to noses. Also, maybe the government should think about hiring grandparents to collect noses, afterall, empirical evidence suggests they can gather the noses painlessly and without any tools or surgery.

Creationists take over the movies

2005-03-23T14:39:00.000-06:00

This story harkens back to the Scopes Monkey Trial.

IMAX theaters in several Southern cities have decided not to show a film on volcanoes out of concern that its references to evolution might offend those with fundamental religious beliefs

Ironic that fundamentalists, who argue intelligent design is just anohter theory worthy of being debated in the class room, use their economic influence to block movie theaters from showing something that only tangentially supports evolution.

This is the ostrich approach to reality. If there is something that you don't like, cover your eyes and it won't be there. At what point will the absurd bubble that fundamentalists live in be popped?

Tasting one's own medicine

2005-03-22T14:13:00.000-06:00

News agencies report that IBM has software that will return spam back to its source. This has obviously excited the thirst for revenge that has been gnawing at many of us since Al Gore created this thing called the internet. The idea of a spammer getting spammed really tickles the "I'll show you" part of our brain which is contiguous with the "You want it? You got it" part of our brain. Now, that the synapses in the revenge part of my brain have been activated, I feel the need for more. So here are my suggestions for products, protocols, and practices that will make us feel like there is a little justice in the world:

A smart cigarette. Every time you take a drag, smoke enters the lungs of tobacco executives. Why should they be worried? It's not like cigarettes are addictive or harmful. Right? I know this sounds difficult, what with the physical impossibility and all, but maybe we're just not trying to develop this technology yet.
Scientology in school textbooks. People want religious ideas about the creation of the universe in their textbooks? Fine. Unleash Travolta! Let loose Tom Cruise and the Scientologists on our school curriculum. I don't know much about scientology, but I'm sure they's have some unique sci-fi opinion on the world that would be unwelcome in the bible belt. While we're at it, we could also make room for other religions. Give everyone an equal voice in the education system. There's a crazy guy with a megaphone who mentions god occasionally that I see downtown from time to time, I bet he'd have some interesting things to say about mitosis or post-colonial nationalism. Give everyone a voice.
Papparazi papparazi. Cameramen follow the cameramen. We make it a lose-lose game. No one has any more privacy. We all have someone taking pictures of us. Coupled with this scenario would be the tabloid journalist who writes about tabloid journalists.
Cash plus advertisements: Businesses want to make me sit through commercials and read advertisements? Fine. When they cash my check it makes them sit through a number of commercials all about me. I want TV and I have to watch a commercial about McDonald's, so McDonald's wants my money, but they have to watch a commercial about me. Again, I have no idea how this would work. The check could actually make noise, or flash messages on it. I'm just a guy who's had too much coffee and figures if money talks, it might as well say something annoying.

Conservative hypocrisy

2005-03-21T13:27:00.000-06:00

Last night Congress passed a bill expressly granting federal courts jurisdiction to hear the Schiavo case. This is only he latest in a long string of hypocrisy from a conservative movement that claims to favor states rights. Be it Bush v. Gore, the FMA, or now this, it is becoming more and more apparent that the rhetoric of states rights is only used by conservatives when they want to block something whose substance they disagree with.

Don't disrespect Disrespect

2005-03-21T12:12:00.000-06:00

Apparently, two New Jersey Assemblymen have introduced a resolution calling for people to be nicer to each other. CNNMoney explains:

Bramnick and Johnson's resolution, which is waiting for a hearing by an Assembly
committee says "increased courtesy and respect among residents will reduce
stress and make daily tasks more enjoyable," but does not aim to legislate
behavior.

At first glance this seems to be a noble enterprise. However, upon further reflection, it is clear that the resolution is misguided - not because there's something wrong with legislating behavior, but, more fundamentally, because increased courtesy and respect will not reduce stress or make life more enjoyable.

Feeling respected is surely a great experience, especially these days when so many feel disrespected. (See every athlete and every tough guy.) However, is there a better feeling one gets than when one disrespects? I doubt it. That is the pure pleasure of trash talk. Disrespect is the catalyst of the put down. It is the inspiration for the taunt, the tease, and the mocking limerick. Disrespect is the mother of spoof and the father of satire. It is the brother of Weird Al. It is the seed crystal of late night talk show monologues and the instigator of punditry. It has more names than Apollo Creed in Rocky, and that should tell us something. But Disrespect is more than just an entertaining way to tease people; the fear of disrespect makes society go.

The fear of disrespect makes many personalities productive. The fear of disrespect fuels the desire to distinguish one's self. Without disrespect what would the point of competition be?

Life without disrespect would be a distopic enterprise indeed. Why not just drug everyone and force feed them Disney movies constantly? We'd all be happy right? We'd all be courteous - probably because we'd have trouble interacting with each other at all, what with the challenge of drinking from a juice box while on Aldous Huxley's soma all day. The point is: we need disrespect.

It is not the thought of an America that resembles Leave it to Beaver that urges me to work. Rather, it is the fear of disrespecting myself and the opportunity to disrespect someone else that drives me on. And if this legislation eliminated disrespect, for a world full of respect, I might just sleep in everyday and do nothing.

TNR screws up game theory

2005-03-18T14:18:00.000-06:00

Thomas Mann argues in The New Republic that game theory suggest democrats ought not compromise on social security because tit-for tat has been proven to be the most effective strategy in delaing with the prisoner's dilemma:

The lesson for Democrats? If they believe that Bush's single-minded embrace of personal accounts is a defection from a cooperative game to deal with the solvency of Social Security (and it is), they should respond in kind: by withholding any specific proposals on benefit reductions and revenue increases until the President withdraws his insistence on personal accounts. If Bush's interest in solvency is genuine, he will then have no choice but to bargain.

Aside form transforming a game with two options (cooperate and trust the other party to do the same or don't cooperate) into one with a thrid option (negotiate), Mann completely ignores the reason why tit-for tat is an effective strategy in certain circumstances.

Becasue I am too lazy to explain the basics of the prisoners dilemma, I refer you to a page that explains it.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrisonersDilemma

As anyone who has studied game theory knows, tit-for-tat is the most effective strategy for ongoing interactions with a variety of different players. The basic stategy is to cooperate first and then imitate whatever the other player's last move was. If his last move was to defect, a player using tit-for-tat defects, if it was to cooperate, then a player using tit-for-tat cooperates. This strategy works when there are numerous other players because it protects against exploitation by those who defect, but gains the benefits of cooperation if other players cooperate.

Tit-for-tat is not a flawless strategy, however, it is merely the best strategy amongst many different ones. If there are only two players, then it is quite possible another strategy will be most successful. The success of any given strategy will depend on the strategy employed by the other player.

Let us assume that Bush is purusing a strategy of reverse tit for tat. This leads him to defect first and then imitate democrats prior move. If democrats follow tit for tat, then every time Bush defects, they will cooperate and vice versa. The result will be the least efficient outcome for all parties involved. Certainly that would not be the ideal strategy.

By contrast, if Democrats follo an always cooperate strategy, then only on social security will the country loose and on all other issues, both parties will be better served.

Obviously no one actually pursues such simple strategies in politics, but hopefully this illustrates why Mann's attempted application of game theory to politics is worthless.

Sell me cereal, but only if everyone else stays fat

2005-03-17T13:11:00.000-06:00

The NYT reports:

Labeling Shrek cereal by General Mills and a promotional children's book that features Kraft's Oreo cookies as extreme examples of marketing to children, Senator Tom Harkin issued a sharp rebuke on Wednesday to the nation's largest food companies.

And Harkin is not alone. The article explains that food companies have been shifting the allocation of advertising dollars away from sugar-loaded kid food to healthy food. The article does not mention the old gun control argument, which in the cereal debate reads: "if we stop marketing Shrek cereal to kids, then only criminals will have Shrek cereal". But, I think they may be saving that rhetoric for a rainy day.

I too am for curtailing the marketing of cereals and cookies to children, but not because I think children are fat. I want advertisers to start marketing cereal and cookies to me. The twenty something professional. I want to see boxes of cookies that have a picture of a couple people talking at the coffee machine. Maybe some cereal boxes with the picture of a guy throwing his alarm clock across the room. How about a marshmellow cereal with the picture of a bunch of guys playing poker, smoking cigars, and drinking beers. That would sell, I think. The point is, I feel left out. Maybe there could be a "401SpecialK" cereal.

However, if this whole marketing shift creates a reduction in the number of fat people in America, then we have a host of new problems. Football teams will get smaller, "you so fat" jokes will decline in sophistication, and fat people nicknames (Tubby, Chubby, Slim, and Jaba the Hut) will all but dissappear. The dieting industry would become obsolete. People would live longer and soak up more social security benefits. There'd be no strangers to talk to at McDonalds. I guess what I'm saying is: America needs fat people. And I'm willing to forego my desires for advertisements targeting me if that means that we can keep America plump.

Marketing America

2005-03-16T14:56:00.000-06:00

In his argument that America's imagine in the world will be more shaped by America's actions rather than "branding", Fred Kaplan, identifies a number of problems with trying to create the idea of America. He mentions that during the cold war we broadcast radio shows into the USSR and exposed people to jazz music and talk shows, but he contends that now that tactic would be less successful:

Today, an official American image, even a well-crafted one, would have to
compete with a vast array of newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts and, most
crucially, satellite TV networks—some state-sponsored, some independent—that
have a much better idea of what appeals to their viewers than we do.

Kaplan's point: America's actions create anti-American sentiment. He thinks advertising only sells sellable products:

...not even Bill Cosby's endorsement could overwhelm the wide consensus that
the New Coke was swill.

However, I disagree.
Spinning current policies is easier than developing new policies. Pleasing everyone is harder than fooling people into thinking they are pleased. Sure, it may be difficult, and others may have a better idea of what appeals to viewers, but how is that a problem? Hire those people. Fire the think tankers and bring in the people that put together the marketing team behind Michael Jordan. It wasn't the shoes that made people buy Air Jordans. It was the songs, it was Spike Lee, and it was the marketing concept that made people believe that shoes could make their dreams come true, or at least make them look cool.

Use America's marketing resources. Pop-culture, fast food, sports, etc. Sneak subliminal messages into Friends reruns and little American flags into KFC's popcorn chicken. Cosby couldn't sell New Coke, but people eat tofu because hippies market it as cool. Package the American dream as it was packaged many years ago to attract immigrants. Package the American sense of nobility as it is packaged every election period.

Most Americans have trouble comprehending what fuels anti-American sentiment. Most of us also have trouble articulating what makes something cool. Why not take advantage of the world's embrace of ambiguous concepts and market America as cool?

Applebaum weighs in on Kinsley v. Estrich

2005-03-16T11:25:00.000-06:00

This conversation was sparked, as media junkies will know, by a bizarre attack launched on Michael Kinsley, now the editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, by Susan Estrich, a self-styled feminist. In a ranting, raving series of e-mails last month, all of which were leaked, naturally, Estrich accused Kinsley of failing to print enough articles by women, most notably herself, and of resorting instead to the use of articles by men, as well as by women who don't count as women because they don't write with "women's voices."

Here I declare an interest: Michael Kinsley hired me to write an op-ed column when he was the editor of the online magazine Slate. As for Estrich, I don't know much about her at all, except that she's just launched a conversation that is seriously bad for female columnists and writers. None of the ones I know -- and, yes, I conducted an informal survey -- want to think of themselves as beans to be counted, or as "female journalists" with a special obligation to write about "women's issues." Most of them got where they are by having clear views, knowing their subjects, writing well and learning to ignore the ad hominem attacks that go with the job. But now, thanks to Estrich, every woman who gets her article accepted will have to wonder whether it was her knowledge of Irish politics, her willingness to court controversy or just her gender that won the editor over.

Ex-milkman guilty of securities fraud

2005-03-15T13:03:00.000-06:00

Ebbers was found guilty of securities fraud and filing false statements. CNNmoney provides more background on the Ex-CEO of Worldcom:

Ebbers, a former milkman, basketball coach and Best Western hotel owner before
he discovered the telecom business in 1983...

He was a milkman? That's pretty unbelievable, and not because I don't believe in upward mobility. I find it unbelievable because a milkman seems like an honest man. Norman Rockwell paintings don't show milkmen planning elaborate deceptions or stealing milk from the residents of a sleepy little town. This article might be the first time that anyone has ever used the words "milkman" and "chicanery" within a paragraph of each other. In fact, reading the words in such proximity of each other makes me a little depressed.

Here are some other phrases that I hope will not be associated with each other:

"New coffee flavor" and "green olives" (because black olive coffee has a chance)
"Bush" and "I.Q. score of ____" (because I'd rather just not know)
"Mr.T." and "retires" (because then who would pity the fool?)
"television" and "monopoly" (because competition is responsible for such classics as "the surreal life")

the contradiction of mourning

2005-03-15T11:11:00.000-06:00

Gregg Easterbrook makes the following point:

[L]et's think ahead to his [Pope John Paul II] approaching end and the likelihood there will be international expressions of grief. If Christianity is true, there is no need to mourn the natural death in old age of any believer, much less a future saint. When a Christian lives a full life and dies a natural death in senescence, there is nothing to be sad about--if Christianity is true.

As an agnostic, I have always wondered whether religious people actually believe the metaphysical claims of their religions or whether they simply think it wrong to act as if anything other than the claims of their religion could be true. The case of Christian mourning illustrates this point. Easterbrook, argueing from the presumption that Christianity is true, claims that there ought to be no mourning.

I argue the opposite. The mourning of devoutly religious people, who purport to believe that the righteous are going to heaven, indicates at least some doubt on their behalf. Rather than embrace the genuine sorrow people ought to feel at the end of a person's existence, Christianity allows people to pretend that nothing sad has really happened. Yet with the displays of sorrow and mourning that accompany death, this diversion is less compelling. No matter hwo much people may claim to believe in the dictates of their religion, they still harbor some doubt.

Liberals desire outlets for invented stories

2005-03-14T14:44:00.000-06:00

Apparently, some liberal bloggers have held a few conference calls with major news outlets in an effort to bridge the gap between their internet conspiracy theories and real news. The NYT reported:

Mr. Fertik maintains that the blurring of boundaries has benefited left-wing
bloggers less than their adversaries on the right, saying that reports posted on
conservative blogs more easily make the jump to the main news media. "The way we
perceive it," he said, "is that right-wing bloggers are able to invent stories,
get them out on Drudge, get them on Rush Limbaugh, get them on Fox, and pretty
soon that spills over into the mainstream media. We, the progressives, we don't
have that kind of network to work with."

So it appears that the problem is really just a lack of outlets for the left's invented stories. Surely there are some pundits waiting in the wings, ready to spread rumors and gossip, aspiring to be the next Limbaugh, Drudge, or Fox. I think that problem isn't just a lack of outlets, or a lack of a network. The problem is more fundamental. The invented stories are just not interesting enough. Here are some suggestions of stories for these ambitious bloggers to invent:

Cheney is actually a robot, created by the Ron of Ronco, the inventor that made hair that people could spray out of a can. This story would be particularly interesting because Cheney has no hair.
W. misses a cabinet meeting because he is busy thumb wrestling with secret service agents. More reports suggest that thumb wrestling is where Bush gets his military strategy ideas. Accounts surface that Bush repeatedly urged Powell to "go for the sneak attack because no one sees the index finger coming."
O'Reilly is seen drinking a smoothie with wheat grass extract. He is wearing a hemp necklace and a Grateful Dead Tshirt at the time. The conservative establishment disowns him.

Now those are some good made up stories - things that America could really sink its teeth into. Now, as for the "network" for disseminating this "news", I know there's not too many left-leaning limbaughs and drudges out there, but I heard that "Kermit the Frog" may be available.

Weak dollar thwarts hippie lifestyle

2005-03-11T15:25:00.000-06:00

The BBC reports that European companies are upset about the sliding dollar. While these companies are large corporations, the BBC has determined that executives won't be the only ones left out in the cold due to the dollar's plunge.

And VW said the feeble dollar had forced it to ditch plans to bring to the
US a successor for its iconic minivan, once much favoured by hippies.

My question is: where is the hippie outrage? Does nothing short of a lack of cheese flavored chips coupled with an extinct lava lamp rally the hippie ire? Don't the hippies realize that if the weak dollar can take down the minibus, it can undercut the hemp necklace? Then what would be left of hippiedom? Just a few people singing karaoke versions of "Me & Bobby McGee" as their friends flash peace signs from their barstools, I guess.

I mean, if the weak dollar threatened the livelihood of "the lazies", which is my set, I'd be outraged. If the weak dollar took out Lay-z Boy chairs, remote controls, or those moving walkways at the airport, I'd certainly advocate a different fiscal policy. The hippies need to put their game face on.

Math persists, despite shortcomings.

2005-03-10T13:10:00.000-06:00

Jordan Ellenberg, in his Math column on Slate, reviews a book on Godel and discusses the impact of Godel's incompleteness theory. The theory can be understood as "no system of logical axioms can produce all truths about numbers because no system of logical axioms can pin down exactly what numbers are. " JE points out that people have coopted this theory and stretched it out to include arguments against evolution.

In a clever passage, JE writes the following aphorism: "Any scientific result that can be approximated by an aphorism is ripe for missappropriation." This statement mirrors Godel's paradox: "P is not provable using the given axioms". This kind of trickery appeals to me.

However, what I really liked about the piece was the suggestion that the truly interesting thing about Godel's theory is that it exposed the lack of foundation for math, and yet, math survives. He uses the analogy of a country where the constitution is destroyed, and yet, the citizens lives do not change. Math seems like a fiction or maybe a dream. It is a system that operates without being attached to the ground.

So, things exist in the material world without a theoretical framework? Ideas based on intuition? That's right. Think of:

Busses without schedules. Intuitively I know the bus comes at a certain time, but the schedule definitely does not exist.
The goodness of Jello. Intuitively I know it tastes good, but I don't think I can prove it.
Dick Cheney. Intuitively we know he exists but we can't prove it.

Congress and steroids

2005-03-10T01:59:00.000-06:00

This seems like a somewhat novel use of the congressional power to subpoena. In essence, congress is taking something of national interest, in the sense that the nation is interested in it, and elevating it to the level of national interest in the sense that it is in the nation's interests to find out the truth. While such an approach may over-step the historical bounds of congressional authority, I, for one am thrilled to see it used in such a manner. While this scandal hardly rises to the level of Watergate or Iran/Contra, the potential danger for future abuse seems minimal. Since baseball had such a ridiculously lax steroid policy until recently, the only way to ensure the integrity of the game is to coerce testimony in some manner and thereby arrive at the truth. Only Congress and federal prosecutors have the power to coerce such testimony as part of an investigation. Since grand jury testimony is sealed (at least in theory), a Congressional hearing seems like the only feasible way to restore legitimacy to the game. Hopefully the threat of jail for false testimony will force the various athletes into telling the truth and we can finally know who was using what when they set their various records.

Bolton to the U.N.

2005-03-09T23:08:00.000-06:00

Anne Applebaum has an interesting defense of Bush's nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. secretary on the grounds that he doesn't really belive in the b.s. that that U.N. spews and that is the type of candidness the agency needs.

greetings from the middle of nowhere

2005-03-09T22:53:00.000-06:00

Apologies for not being able to post for a few days. I am stranded in Midland, Michigan on a case I am working on. Highlights of the town include no cell phone reception, an airport whose main feature is a video arcade and food options centering around Applebee's and Wendy's.

Anyway, I finally have a moment to post a few thoughts, so here goes...

Prosecutors think dog is human

2005-03-09T16:09:00.000-06:00

Apparently, prosecutors in Arkansas sent out a subpoena for a murder suspect's dog. This raises many different issues ranging from "could a dog be a witness?" to "why does it seem like Keanu Reeves is running the prosecutor's office?" However, the question I am mulling over is whether people should convince their dogs to take their last names?

I think that dogs should take their owners' last names. Here's why:

Things without last names sound pretentious and preposterous. Think: Cher, Madonna, W., Fedex. They all sound ridiculous. Furthermore, think about what would happen if we took away last names: Michael J. _____, the Foreman ______, Jello Pudding ______.
What would Scooby Doo have been without the Doo? Just Scooby? I don't know, sounds a little casual for a reference to the dog who saved so many days and dehooded so many evil-doers. Surely the Doo family would have been upset. In fact, it is making me upset right now to think that he could have just been Scooby. Why? Because he was so much more. He will always be Mr. Doo to me.
Because dogs are just as important as people doesn't mean that we should allow a breakdown in the family unit. Dogs without last names would confuse our children. It would threaten the family as we know it. I would think right-wingers would join me on this point. Traditional family values start with last names for dogs.
Dogs save lives, comfort people, entertain, serve as companions, and look funny when they eat peanut butter out of a jar. And that's more than I can say about some people and we let them have last names.
Maybe it's time we get past the tough guy attitude and admit that dogs deserve last names because we think of them as family, and it's the thought that counts. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the theory behind greeting cards and smiling at people, and frankly you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Dogs should also have middle names, but that's more of a religious argument.

Terrorists protected by NRA lobbying positions

2005-03-08T13:07:00.000-06:00

So, the GAO figures that terrorists can buy guns, and that the FBI has trouble stopping them because of the laws protecting the privacy of gun owners. Is this the time for an all out diatribe about gun control? Should this post be 1000 words on the multiple levels of idiocy that permeate the anti-gun control arguments? No, that's for another day. However, this is the perfect moment for biting sarcasm and extending criticism to ridiculous conclusions.

The article explains that the gun lobby cites privacy concerns for gun owners as a justification for creating the procedures that now protect terrorists:

The N.R.A. and gun rights supporters in Congress have fought - successfully, for
the most part - to limit the use of the F.B.I.'s national gun-buying database as
a tool for law enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount to an
illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.

I think that public gun records or a registry of gun owners nationwide would accomplish the some of the other rationales the gun lobby uses to oppose gun control. I am thinking of the safety argument - if guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns, and making it more difficult to get guns only makes it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. And the "Constitutional Argument", which seems to boil down to "it's in the Constitution, and that's the end of the story. No need to look any further or ask what purpose the Amendment serves. If you disagree you are against the Constitution."

Public registry of guns would accomplish the goals of both the safety rational and the "Constitutional Argument". Here's how:

If a criminal knows that a person has a gun they are less likely to attack them. Who wants to attack some guy with a gun when some other person sits at home without a gun? If I am less likely to be attacked, I am safer than I would otherwise be. (The NRA should love this idea: the only way to be safe is to own a gun. This would increase gun ownership, because no one would want to put themselves in the pool of easy targets for criminals.) The idea is: the more we scare each other, the less likely we are to mess with each other. Consider it a little like Hobbes Leviathan - a brutal dictator that established order with fear - except the world is made of lots of mini-Leviathans, each one frightening the other.

Also, the "Constitutional Argument" would be satisfied by a gun registry. First of all, there is no mention of privacy rights in the Constitution, so we missed a bullet right there. (Sorry for the pun/cliche combo.) Moreover, if ownership of a gun is a fulfillment of a Constitutional right, then isn't publicizing ownership of a gun, merely a celebration of the Constitution? Isn't a registry of gun owners accessible to everyone really just a list of patriots? Isn't keeping gun ownership private or protected by privacy just unpatriotic? If someone is against transparency of gun ownership, aren't they just against the Constitution? Traitors.

Democrats and the military

2005-03-06T21:57:00.000-06:00

Beinhart argues that democrats should do a better job of appealing to veterans, much like Republicans have done a better job of reaching out to African-Americans and Hispanics. Yet Beinhart curiously argues that one easy step would be to oppose the bans on military recruiting at various college campuses. While I think these bans are laughably stupid, it seems to me that Beinhart confuses form and substance. While it seems worthwhile for Democrats to change their rhetoric on the military, this differs from chaning their underlying policy positions. An argument to change rhetoric ought not be conflates with an argument to change policy. While at times it may make sense to abandon an unpopular policy because supporting it inhibits other more important things, this calculus is much different than simply changing rhetoric, which does not in any way abandon an underlying set of values.

Hezbollah backs Syria

2005-03-06T21:36:00.000-06:00

Ironic that a "resistance" movement backs the continued occupation of Lebanon by a foreign power. Hopefully those Hezbollah apolgists will stop claiming they are anything more than a bunch of anti-semitic terrorists.

Boosting national savings with reality television

2005-03-03T13:14:00.000-06:00

Today Greenspan proposed a consumption tax, and one of the benefits of such a tax, he explained, would be a boost in national savings. Maybe he's right, but I've got a better idea.

I propose a national reality tv show where everyone retiring is competing for savings accounts. My inspiration for the idea came from some simple principles.

America loves reality tv shows - especially when someone wins and someone loses.
Everyone is worried about social security and the viability of retirement accounts. The drama is appealing. The tension: palpable.
Social Security would have less problems if there were less people in the Baby Boomer generation.
Old people love to gamble. If Las Vegas can thrive from the gambling habits of retirees, why not the rest of America?

So, take everyone who could retire in the next five years and put them on a show.

We could have the retirees vote each other "off the island";
we could have America "call in and vote";
we could have Simon Cowell and the American Idol crew comment on the retirees hobbies and plans, and maybe have the retirees sing a Ricky Martin song or two;
we could set it up like the bachelor or one of the reality love shows, and every retiree that could pair off with someone else would get a joint retirement account, kind of a social security musical chairs type program;
Donald Trump could fire all the retirees that couldn't organize a celebrity golf tournament, and the rest would get retirement accounts; or
In the spirit of Joe Millionaire, we could tell the retirees that they were competing for a retirement account, then, at the last second explain that there was no retirement account, and the reitrees would feel cheated and slightly embarrassed that they didn't figure it out when the retirement account refused to eat foie gras.

I think this is a show everyone would watch. The government could use the advertising revenue. Maybe the show would make so much money, that we could actually provide social security for everyone afterall. Maybe the only way to save social security is to eliminate it, and then right when it looks like the retirees are going to get zilch, just like in Joe Millionaire ... at the very last second, we could give everyone a check that makes them happy.

Only in Iran

2005-03-02T18:56:00.000-06:00

An Iranian woman has requested a divorce from her husband on the grounds that he has not washed for more than a year.

...

Divorce is a notoriously difficult process for women in Iran, who normally have to prove that their husband has neglected them financially or sexually, is a drug addict or physically abusive.

Hopefully the Shiites in Iraq differ in their positions on showering.

Pepsi will stop targetting kids

2005-03-02T15:40:00.000-06:00

Apparently, PepsiCo is going to tone down its advertisements aimed at children in response to rising obesity levels. This measure, on its face, seems responsible and admirable. Yet, when I read the article I found:

Our intent is not to just beat our chests and try to take credit for what we're
doing," said Irene Rosenfeld, the chief executive of Frito-Lay North America,
PepsiCo's snacks unit. "We're just quietly doing it because it's the right thing
to do."

And that quotation saddens me. Why? Because when it comes down to it, I believe in beating your chest and taking credit. Chest beating, or chest thumping, is more than just showing off or humiliating an opponent. Chest beating is how we highlight greatness. Now, sometimes, charlattans chest thump when really they have done nothing, but that is less an indictment of chest thumping and more of an indictment of people from charlotte.

For example, some kids are watching a football game and they see T.O. dance in the endzone. His dance highlights the achievements it takes to be great. The children understand - a touchdown is good. Similarly, take a small corporation, watching a big corporation on msnbc. The small corporation sees the big corporation thump their chest, and it too knows what actions it takes to be thump-worthy. Chest thumping is what America is all about. The founders of this country thumped their chests when they wrote the Declaration of Independence.

If you're against dancing in the endzone, then I say: you're against America.

The point is, chest thumping doesn't just promote imitation of the dancing and the posturing and the thumping. It shows kids, adults, companies, and politicians what to strive for. So thump your chest PepsiCo! Showing off is good. Showing off is what makes America great!

liberalism imploding

2005-03-02T15:19:00.000-06:00

Bush demands that Syria leave Lebanon. I don't like the word "demands". I don't want another war.

What is the world coming to when alleged liberals oppose people "demanding" that occupied countries be free?

The world's hypocrisy

2005-03-01T23:00:00.000-06:00

Why do those who protested worldwide when America allegedly violated international law say nothing when their governments ignore the convention against genocide, the most fundamental of all international laws?

Why does George Bush, who now claims to have ignored the U.N. in the name of protecting the innocent of Iraq, hide behind the U.N. when it comes to protecting the innocent of the Sudan?

Why do civil rights activists who still today demand reparations for the enslavement and slaughter of blacks 150 years ago say nothing about the enslavement and slaughter of blacks today?

How does the world nominate a film about African genocide for numerous awards, yet do nothing as genocide unfolds again in Africa?

Senator's violent reaction to obscenity is obscene

2005-03-01T13:52:00.000-06:00

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens wants to apply decency standards to cable and satellite broadcasting. CNN reports:

Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that
Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on what they air.

My guess is that Stevens has a problem with the violence, porn, and curse words that get broadcasted on tv these days. He has a violent problem with violence, porn, and swear words.

My other guess is that Stevens would approve of his own violence, the violence of his disagreement, but not the violence of, say, Die Hard. (I wonder if Stevens also pornagraphically disagrees with cable companies that argue they can show porn.) In other words, watching violence, porn, or hearing people swear makes Stevens violent, by his own account.

The problem for most of America however, is that we, unlike Stevens, get enough violence from our tv that we don't need peripheral violence that is created from people watching the tv. In fact, if Stevens gets violent when he watches tv, then maybe we've got another issue here.

I think most of America would consider people who have violent reactions to violent television to be unbalanced. More frightening to me, however, is that when Stevens thinks of other obscene television, like porn or people cursing, he also has a violent reaction. It seems that a violent reaction to porn is clearly dangerous. Furthermore, a violent reaction to curse words is just plain hypersensitive. If people swearing makes Stevens violent, I am surprised he hasn't run into trouble for road rage. Violence, porn, and swearing is bad enough, but when those things produce violence, we have a real problem.

Some people like to blame tv for their problems. Stevens claims tv makes him violent. It's a narrow view of causation. It's a cop-out. It's time for Stevens to tone it down and stop being so violent. I am starting to find him obscene.

Now this I agree with

2005-03-01T11:31:00.000-06:00

The death penalty is not for juveniles or the mentally retarted. The death penalty, as stated in previous blogs, is to be reserved for those crimes that are atrocious in nature, performed by a cold and calculating killer. Those who are minors or mentally retarted are incapable of the mindset neccessary to commit such acts.

While we should keep the death penalty around for the Bin Ladens, BTK killers and Dahmers, the supreme ct has made a wise and just ruling today.

A moral question that follows

2005-03-01T11:29:00.000-06:00

While I applaud any restrictions on the death penalty, I wonder whether there is a meaningful case to be made for why executing a defendant who committed a crime as a17-year-old is cruel and unusual, but executing a defendant who committed a crime at 18 is not. The attainment of moral responsibility is obviously somewhat indeterminate and differs amongst individuals. Clearly some 18-year-olds are less morally sophisticated than some 17-year-olds. We have arbitrary age cut offs for many things in society, but we do so presumably because the transaction costs of figuring out individual responsibility would be too great without such an age cut off. We could not, for example, in any organized and non-discriminatory manner investigate the individual worthiness of citizens to vote. In the case of the death penalty, however, the entire sentencing exercise is an effort at determining the individual moral culpability of the defendant. After the guilt phase of the trial, there is an extensive sentencing phase where the jury specifically considers moral culpability and recognizes youth as a mitigating factor. I am not sure the imposition of 18 (or 16 for that matter) as an arbitrary, death-eligible cut off makes any sense.

The obvious answer is that minors are denied full rights in society on account of their age and so it is hypocritical to impose full acountability on them. This argument merges practical and moral judgments, so i am not convinced it is ultimately persuasive.

finally some humanity on the death penalty

2005-03-01T11:18:00.000-06:00

A shift on the right?

2005-02-28T23:42:00.000-06:00

Weed through the typical right wing rhetoric, and what this article shows is a refreshing shift in conservative politics. Perhaps in a post-hoc effort to rationalize Bush's invasion of Iraq, a regular on the Wall Street Journal editorial page endorses humanitarian intervention. Gone is the me-first, stability-at-all-cost, attitude that conservatives have historically embraced both domestically and internationally. The challenge for liberals in the coming years may be to avoid opposing humantarian intervention for the mere fact that conservatives support it. Liberals ought to embrace the fact that conservatives are finally seeing the non-selfish light and expand such rhetoric to the domestic sphere as well, the next time the wall street journal complains that taxes should be higher on the poor and lower on the rich.

Gonzales is against blocking? Me too.

2005-02-28T16:26:00.000-06:00

A.G. Gonzales, has outlined some objectives. They are the usual sort of thing an AG would try to squash, except for one, described by CNN as:

Ending Senate blocking of judicial nominees, a "broken process that must be
fixed" before there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

I too, am for ending blocking, but not because I think the system is broken, but because I am bored.

So, here are my suggestions for other ways to go through the nomination process:

Rubix cube contest. (Disclosure: I've suggested this in the past.) Let's face it, if you can figure out a rubix cube, you're smart. If you can't, well you're just like everyone else, and you shouldn't be a judge.
Arm-wrestling. Except if you won the arm-wrestling, you'd be disqualified. We need more weaklings on the bench. Plus, it's easy to figure out who won and who lost.
Questions. A beloved part of an old drinking game, where everyone has to keep asking questions without accidentally giving an answer. "Hey Dan, how smelly are your feet?" "Hey Seth, when are you going to grow facial hair?" (and so on). This type of competition would cultivate the "let me answer your question with another question" mentality that American's love in their judiciary.
Fantasy Spelling. In this contest, each nominee would pick a few Senators. Then there would be a Senate Spelling Bee. The nominee that picked the winner of the Spelling Bee would get confirmed. This could spawn a whole cottage industry of Fantasy Spelling strategists and websites. If no one wanted to spell, then there could be a pie-eating contest, or maybe an intense game of Simon Says or Red Light Green Light.
Staring Contest. (I've suggested this before, as well.) I'm talking about a real staring contest, without blinking. Winning one of those babies is impressive, and it would intimidate any naysayers from saying nay.

A new era in the Middle East?

2005-02-28T12:39:00.000-06:00

Despite the rampant incompetence and deception of the Bush administration, it may have done the right thing for the wrong reasons. When I favored the war in Iraq, days like today were what I was hoping for. We will all have to wait and see if the anlogy to Eastern Europe holds, but the signs certainly are positive.

The Golden Spines

2005-02-25T15:09:00.000-06:00

Apparently, Dean, Kucinich, and Tubbs Jones have all been recipients of some Golden Backbone award. It appears to be some sort of honor for liberal democrats.

I consider myself liberal. However, I also consider myself poised to criticize at the drop of the hat, and this award, is just the drop of the hat I've been waiting for this afternoon.

According to http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050121-054922-2261r.htm

The group -- the Backbone Campaign -- is not only unhappy with the Bush
administration, but they find their own party somewhat compliant because many
will not stand up to President Bush and his policies.

Here are my criticisms:

1. Isn't the failure of progressive politics tied to more than a lack of courage?

2. Doesn't it distract from the real obstacles to focus the blame for the failure of progressive policies on something as, dare I say, Republican as questioning a politicians' toughness?

3. How much courage does it take to play to the party faithful and the outspoken far-left?

4. Wouldn't it take more courage to alienate the liberal base of the Democrats and compromise on some issues? If you think not, then answer these questions:

a. are you a serious liberal?

b. would you feel alienated if Dean compromised on some of his issues or Kucinich ate a cheesesteak?

5. Politics is about compromise. Courage and Backbone are the rubric of the fringe, always pulling in their own direction, challenging people's manhood for not challenging the people that challenge people's manhood.

So I ask, who deserves a golden backbone?

Some concrete proposals to end the unfairness of social security

2005-02-24T17:39:00.000-06:00

Since CB and others have been demanding some concrete proposals on this site, here are a couple on how to make social security more fair.

First, it should be noted that Social Security allegedly has two purposes, to make certain that retired people do not neglect savings and therefore have enough money when they retire to avoid poverty and second to insure people against the dangers of living past their retirement savings.

As currently set up, social security punishes people who die young by taxing them yet not providing any benefits to them and also drains the federal budget over time becasue, in the aggregate, the amount of benefits retirees receive exceeds the amount of contributions they make (plus a reasonable interest rate).

To address these problems, while simultaneously protecting the goals of social security, the following things should be done.

First, benefits should be limited to the amount of money people contribute plus a reasonable rate of interest. Second, benefits should be converted to a lump sum payment made at the time people retire, or if they die prematurely, their estate should receive their accrued contributions plus interest. Third, upon retirement people should be required to purchase an annuity that will pay them enough anually to be kept above the poverty threshhold, but not significantly higher. Any excess money should be returned to the beneficiaries to do with it what they see fit. Lastly, people should be ineligible to receive social security until they can demonstrate the ability to purchase such an annuity with their accrued benefits.

Such a system would continue to force people to save for retirement. It would preserve the insurance function by requiring people to purchase an annuity that would serve the same purpose. It would eliminate the unfairness to people predisposed to die young, by paying their estates the benefits they had paid into the system if they died before retiring, or if they retired would give them a greater amount of money becasue the cost of their annuity would be smaller. lastly, it would eliminate the endless budget drain by making sure that the benefits paid do not exceed the contributions.

Obviously, such a system would have to be phased in, given the number of people who have either already retired or have planned retirement around an inflated rate of social security, but, transition costs aside, it would preserve the goals of social security while eliminating the unfairness inherent to our current system.

The Jaker on Social Security

2005-02-24T14:06:00.000-06:00

The Jaker proposes a solution to the social securty shortfall:

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. The easiest way to eliminate the projected shortfall in Social Security is to eliminate (or at least raise) the cap on taxable income from its current level of $90,000. It's an immensely popular solution - 81% (the number of the day) support it, versus less than 50% who support benefit cuts, retirement age increases, etc.

It is important to recognize what exactly this proposal entails. If this proposal is in fact meant to generate money for the system without also generating greater future debt, then it must not only be that the cap on taxable earnings is eliminated, but that the money generated will not be repaid as part of social security benefits when such people retire. Essentially this proposal is merely a tax increase on upper-incom wage earners.

As a general priciple, taxes on the wealthy have been far too low. The question, however, is why do this through the ruse of social security. People who demand the benefits of social security argue that it is not a redistribution scheme, but rather a pension/insurance system in which people have earned the benefits they receive by paying into the system their entire lives. Despite the fact that beneficiaries usually take out well more than they pay in (and any interest that money would have generated), this tortured claim has always afforded social security a certain legitimacy that other redistribution schemes lack. When the system simply becomes tax the rich and a distribution to the old, hopefully the redistributive nature of social security will be more evident.

Additionally, it seems foolish to tie such a redistribution scheme to payroll taxes. Even if you buy the argument that old people have right to a comfortable retirement on the backs of everyone else, tying the scheme to the payroll tax only targets wage earners and does not touch people earning income from other sources. If we are merely redistributing money from rich to old, it seems most just to tax income, not just wages.

Of course, since defenders of social security already look favorably on people who recieve money for doing nothing productive, who knows?

Does he really believe this?

2005-02-24T13:26:00.000-06:00

Democracies always reflect a country's customs and culture, and I know that," Mr. Bush told reporters today at a joint news conference with Mr. Putin. "Yet democracies have certain things in common; they have a rule of law, and protection of minorities, a free press, and a viable political opposition."

An ironic statement from a president who has repeatedly decided that the law does not apply to him, sought a constitutional amendment to curtail the rights of minorities, minimized his exposure to the press, and entrenched a majority in Congress by blatant gerry-mandering in his home state.

Immigration is the key to a strong military

2005-02-24T11:27:00.000-06:00

As my fellow contributors can attest, I have been saying this for years. In fact, Seth Y called me today and said: "You won't believe this, but someone just wrote an op-ed that basically outlines your crazy immigration/military idea."

I think the piece hits on all the reasons I think such a proposal would work, but my argument mostly focused on the immigrants themselves.

People are willing to die to get into the US. They are willing to sit in storage crates on long boat rides. They are willing to build a raft out of fruit rollups. They are willing to risk life and limb just to enter the country. I think people would also be willing to risk life and limb to enter the country and gain full citizenship. Plus dieing on the field of battle just seems more honorable than dying while being forced into prostitution by some immigrant traffickers or dying of starvation on a raft.

Not only should the idea appeal to people who want to become citizens of the US, but it should also appeal to citizens of the US. Here are people that are willing to die for our country, our safety, and the ideas that make this country great. I say if someone is willing to die for our country, than they are more than worthy of being an American citizen.

A response to Seth

2005-02-23T17:31:00.000-06:00

No - not balance in the sense of an eye for an eye in every case - i just think there is something to be said about the uniquness and finality of a murder that must be punished... basically in summary all I am saying is that people who commit heinous crimes should be put to death - i think it is a travesty that a Jeffery Dahmer was allowed to live in prison (luckily he was killed in prison).... again I am not condoning killing an insane person or someone who may not have comitted the crime... but in a theoretical instance in which someone is 100% guilty of the crime and the murder they have comitted was sufficiently heinous - that person should be put to death...

I believe that the state has the power because the person committing the crime has lost his right to live by committing the act and furthermore the state is showing its respect for life, by showing that the taking of a life cannot occur without serious consequences (i.e. death)...

I pose this question: If someone tortutred your mom/sister/dad/wife etc. - they had their way with him/her for hours... raped them, pissed on them, and slowly stabbed them and watch their life get sucked away - should that person not be put to death? What gives that person the right to live, while your family member does not have a choice? Your family member will never get to take another breath, will never get to smile, will never get to dream etc... I think the gift of life given to these killers is extremely unfair and unjust... the line btw death and life is so huge that clearly the punishment does not fit the crime if you only put the person in prison...

I can see how from a policy stand point countries may want to appear more "civil" etc by not putting murders to death - in essence saying they are above killing - however "realistically" speaking the country is being dupped by a person who has now elevated themselves above everyone else and gets to play god - the state/country can play god because by comitting this sick sick act the defendant has lost his/her own right to live...

In conclusion, while I am not for the death penalty in all circumstances and I don't think we should try to model ourselves after the countries CB listed - I do think however that the Death Penalty should be kept as an option, a fall back, to be used in extreme cases...

A brief response to Reeve

2005-02-23T14:36:00.000-06:00

Does "balance" mean that rapists ought to be raped, torturers tortured, thieves robbed from, and arsonists' property burned?