Meet the Illegibles

I've decided that the rightwing blogosphere is populated by superheroes. Their powers? They can stretch the truth, leap to conclusions, and bend logic. They can read the minds of liberals, put words in the mouths of their opponents, and build the tallest arguments on the flimsiest of foundations. I call these superheroes the Illegibles. Let's go now to San Antonio to meet our first Illegible, Jim Forsyth at News Radio 1200 WOAI. While visiting the Cindy Sheehan vigil, he saw two women (not just “women,” but “prosperous looking white women” because we all know that the worst sort of hypocrite liberal is the white prosperous one) holding a sign that said “Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam.” Now, to see his super powers exercised to the fullest, read Jim’s reaction to this sign (And by the way, am I being pedantic by expecting grammatical correctness from journalists? I count five errors in the paragraph below): "By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn't understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn't work 'for them.' Its sad to see the same attitude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for 'those people,' in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims." Notice that Jim's first two sentences are things he “presumes." According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, presume means "to suppose to be true without proof." So he hasn't even left the starting gate yet and he's already making stuff up. This is the power of creatio ex nihilo (very potent). His third sentence is outright false. The anti-war crowd opposed the Vietnam war for a lot of reasons, but what he says is not true. (Incidentally, US involvement in Vietnam ended in 1973 with the Paris Peace Accords, so I don't know who was talking in 1975). So we see his whole argument is bullshit. He makes a disengenuous comparison between his opinion and a lie to arrive at a baseless conclusion, a clear manifestation of his powers of rhetorical levitation. I want to point out something else. In his second sentence, he talks about the horrible fate of the Vietnamese and Cambodian people after the US disengaged. I assume he is talking about the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. But, the Khmer Rouge came to power as a direct result of US bombings in Cambodia. In other words, he is tacitly agreeing with those prosperous-looking white women by admitting that the US could destabilize the Iraq region now as it did in Vietnam 30 years ago. This is a demonstration of his power to bend logic. Let's look at his last paragraph: "I recently watched the magnificent Don Cheadle film "Hotel Rwanda" with a group of friends, certified Bush Bashing Democrats all. After it was over, the general murmur in the room was 'why didn't America do something!' to stop the carnage in Rwanda. If Cindy Sheehan were to get her way, and President Bush would be 'impeached and tried for war crimes' over his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as she has demanded, the real losers will be the future citizens of Rwanda, and the other places where brutal dictators will have free reign to massacre people in large numbers, knowing that American leaders will pay too high a political price for them to get involved and 'do something.' And I don't think many of those places will be populated by white Europeans." Witness the powers of contortion. I mean, the citizens of Rwanda have already lost, haven't they? What about the citizens of Sudan right now? Bush hasn't been impeached yet, so where was he? So, Jim, let me repeat again, WE DID NOT GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ TO LIBERATE THE IRAQIS. Begone! Your powers of delusion will not work on me. Unfortunately, I am one of the lucky ones. Others have already succumbed.

Condemning the confusion

"A Supreme Court ruling that allows the government to seize private property has set off a fierce backlash that may yet be as potent as the anti-abortion movement." This line, which opens an article in the Economist about the recent US Supreme Court ruling Kelo v. New London, characterizes the misunderstanding and, frankly, the hysteria that surrounds that ruling. Some background: In a process called eminent domain, government is allowed to seize private property. Of course, government can't arbitrarily or capriciously seize any property. The Constitution, for one, requires due process and just compensation, and the seized property must be used for a public purpose. The acting of seizing the land is known as condemnation. The city of New London, CT, condemned Susette Kelo's property to make way for an economic development project that would increase the city's tax base. In short, New London would be transferring private property from one private party (Kelo) to another (the economic development project, a shopping area). Kelo sued and, after numerous appeals, lost. Sounds scary, certainly. The state can suddenly take your property and give it to someone else and there's nothing you can do about it. This ruling has unleashed a fury of outrage. First of all, though, the state has always had this right, and has been exercising it since at least the 1940's (through, for instance, redevelopment). This ruling did not create any new governmental power, but rather affirmed an existing one. More importantly, the case wasn't really about eminent domain. The salient passage can be found on page 10 of the Court's opinion: "The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a 'public purpose.' Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field." The key terms are "development plan" and "deference to legislative judgments." The Court is basically saying that local legislative bodies are the best ones to determine whether a project serves a public purpose, and that in this case the determination lies in the form of a development plan. The Court presumes a level of transparency and due process in the creation of that development plan and will not forestall a local government's decision in this regard. City planners applaud this ruling, not because it creates or expands a [real or imagined] municipal rapacity, but because it reaffirms the relevancy of the planning process. Read the American Planning Association's amicus curiae brief to see their point of view. Don't misunderstand me. I don't necessarily agree with the condemnation of Kelo's home, or really with redevelopment in general. But the Supreme Court says that the these decisions should be made at the local level. That is the real significance of Kelo v. New London.

[Don't] take one and call me in the morning

A group called Pharmacists for Life has been garnering a lot of press lately. This pro-life group is making waves by refusing to fill prescriptions for drugs it sees as morally objectionable, which mostly means contraceptives. The pharmacists are invoking what is known as the "conscience clause"--a concept that allows medical care providers to refuse to provide service on moral or religious grounds. Several states, notably Illinois and Mississippi, have codified conscience clauses. I think it is easy to see the slippery-slope problem here. Under the conscience clause, a pharmacist can refuse to fill any prescription at all. (In fact, in 2004, a Dallas pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for Ritalin.) So what's the problem? As one lawyer notes, "There's nothing in the Constitution that says everybody has a right to any medical procedure they want, whenever they want, in the very convenient way that they want." Some even ask how this situation is different from that in, say, Montana, where a recent anti-meth law restricts customers to nine grams, approximately 300 tablets, of cold and allergy tablets every 30 days, and will be required to sign and show a picture I.D. before purchase. In both cases, customers are being inconvenienced but not absolutely denied service. To me the problem is this. In the Montana law situation, legislators, who are charged with acting on their constituents behalf, through public deliberation thoughtfully crafted a law that carefully considers all sides. (Okay, I may have painted an overly rosy picture of the legislative process, but I have been directly involved in drafting state law and I know how much goes into it). When a pharmacists refuses to fill a precription, however, the pharmacist knows nothing about the situation except that the pharaceutical in question is somehow disagreeable. We can all think of situations where day-after contraception, for instance, may be necessary--the condom breaks, a rape, a uteran cyst. Who knows? Certainly not the pharmacist. In my view, if you object to providing certain medical service for moral reasons, then maybe you are in the wrong field. Open up your own pharmacy. After all, there's nothing in the Constitution that says everyone has the right to any job that we want, however we want it.

Correlation and Causality, a primer

It seems that Nathan Tabor and I are going to become fast friends. Last week, I gleefully discussed an inane column of his, and today I get to do the same. His work is so preposterous, it makes a liberal blogger weep for joy. Today, he makes the case that "Abortion Causes Illegal Immigration." Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But I wasn't so quick to dismiss. After all, economist Steven Levitt makes the claim that abortion was responsible for radical drops in violent crime in the 90's in his bestseller Freakonomics. Perhaps Nathan was on to something similar. Well, sad to say, but no. I had to wade through all sort of ideological rhetoric, but in the end, I have five words for Nathan: cum hoc ergo propter hoc. As is the conservative wont, this article pulls in all manner of rightwing boogeymen, such as feminism, abortion, immigration, and welfare, and ties them all together into one knot of fallacy. The basis of today's absurdity: the number of illegal immigrants in the US, estimated at 12.5 million, is about the same number as abortions that have been legally performed between 1972 and 1983, 11.9 million. So, he continues, through abortion, we've created a labor shortage that had to filled by sucking up immigrants from south of the border. QED. (I give him credit. A common slogan against abortion is "You could be killing the next Einstein." He's the first to say, "You could be killing the next migrant agricultural worker.") Before we begin, we must ignore two inconvenient facts: -the number of illegal immigrants, almost by definition, unknowable and varies widely (from 8 million to as high as 20 million), not the hard 12.5 million he says. -43% of women who have abortion are not classified as "low-income." (Presumably, higher income children are less likely to fill the "menial, hard and dirty jobs that now go to illegal immigrants by default," to quote Nathan.) So let's just focus on his numbers: 12.5 million illegal immigrants vs. 11.9 million abortions. That's very compelling. But I propose a different scenario: Blogging causes illegal immigration! As of June 2005, there are now 12 million blogs. Each blog, through its penetrating insight into our great economy, attracted an illegal immigrant. No, wait. Illegal immigration causes home injury! Every one of those pesky illegal immigrants caused a home injury last year. We must fight the liberal hypocrisy and keep our homes safe. No, wait.... Need I continue?

It's been said that President Bush's idea of diplomacy is shaking hands with himself. During the 2000 presidential campaign, he was criticized for his lack of foreign policy experience. Perhaps he has made up for this lack of experience by pretending the rest of the world isn't there. From his withdrawal from the antiballistic missile treaty, to his refusal to sign the Kyoto Accords, to his treatment of the international community during the lead-up to the war in Iraq (famously squandering never-before-seen international goodwill)--all are examples of a dangerous unilateralism. Here's an egregious example: the International Criminal Court. The ICC is the world's first permanent court with jurisdiction to try individuals accused of some of the most serious international crimes. The US was very heavily involved in the creation of the ICC, that is, until the ICC actually came into being in 2002. Since then, the Bush Administation has withdrawn from all negotiations and has taken a very strong position against the ICC, actually requiring that US citizens be outside the ICC's jurisdiction. Worse yet, it has begun to punish allies that do not support it's latest act of hubris. Latin American in particular is feeling the brunt of this. Regional leaders "complain that the aid cuts are squandering good will and hurting their ability to cooperate in other important areas, like the campaigns against drugs and terrorism." "Squandering good will." Sound familiar? Worse yet, General Bantz Craddock, the commander of U.S. military forces in Latin America, says that alienating this region could allow China to step in to fill the void. It's time to realize that despite our [temporary] superpower status, we are still members of a world community. And even as a superpower, we can only do so much on our own. If Bush spent more time abroad than he does cutting brush in Crawford, he might see this.

If you build it, they will pay

It's been a subject of debate for a while among public finance types whether or not major league sport stadiums warrant public subsidy. Note that the debate is not whether these stadiums should get public subsidies, since they already do, but whether they deserve the subsidies they get. Those who support using public resources to help a stadium (and the forms of support vary from land donation to tax rebates to loan guarantees to outright gifts of cash) claim that a major league stadium generates economic activity for the host city through jobs, ticket sales, concessions, tourism, and "putting the city on the map." Opponents, of which I am one, claim that none of that is true. (See here, here, here). But as you dig down, I think that you'll find that no one really believes that stadiums generate revenue. The truth is, public officials make staduim decisions based more on boosterism and perceptions of prestige than sound fiscal policy. Unfortunately, those decisions have consequences. Alameda County, California, taxpayers may have to cough up $65 million to honor agreements local officials made with the Oakland Raiders to lure them from LA. Here is a quote from Gail Steele, the chair of the public stadium oversight body, taking about the root of Oakland Coliseum's current financial straits: "judgments were colored by the excitement of the moment -- "this passion of, as I call it, a tsunami wave.'' She admitted she was a neophyte at the time. "There were hundreds of press out there at the Coliseum, and I thought to myself ... I'd get shot by a Raider fan if we didn't go through with this thing.''" I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like reasoned financial thinking to me. Unfortunately, as economists Roger G. Noll and Andrew Zimbalist note, "Given the profound penetration and popularity of sports in American culture, it is hard to see an end to rising public subsidies of sports facilities."

Everything but the kitchen sink

I found this op-ed piece from The Conservative Voice enlightening because it contains in compact form many of the beliefs and fears of what the Pew Center would call Social Conservatives. (The piece is called "I Are a Minority," and while I'm sure the author meant the title to be funny, I doubt he realizes its rascist provenance). Pulling out some lines from the article, we will find almost the complete conservative package: PC media--the media are liberally-biased political elites, and other assorted activist morons--distrust of leaders and of political activism uncontrolled immigration problems, and all the associated health and economic problems--fear of and possibility misunderstanding of immigration draining hard working citizen's pockets for more boondoggles into the failed public education system. --self-explanatory, even if not strictly grammatically correct I believe in individual merit--the Horatio Alger story as the idiots in charge of our country --more distrust of government/leaders without our consent and most likely to the detriment of American citizens --distrust/dislike of big government if the high cost is worth it for what passes for a university education today --decline of social values established privileges for minorities and minority-biased rules that swamp our society --distrust/dislike of affirmative action since the hypocrisy of the government and liberals alike knows no bounds -- the catch-all All that's missing is something about liberals hating God.

It's about time!

Vat-grown meat! This will solve so many problems that I can't believe it's taken this long to arrive.

Liberals hate freedom, Conservatives hate making sense

I am perplexed, dumbfounded really, every time I come across another cry of "Liberals Hate America." I don't think I need to elaborate on what I'm talking about because it's so common. Indeed, best-selling hatemonger Ann Coulter has built a career on this tired refrain. Whenever I read it, after first surpressing my amazement at the right's seeming ability to read my innermost mind, I ask myself, "Do they really believe this?" I mean, in all seriousness, does Ann Coulter really think that I am a traitor because I sit to her ideological left? Unfortunately, I can never answer my own question because their arguments are illogical, disingenuous, or just plain false. And that leads me to the latest instance. Read this, please. It is so fraught with fallacy and non sequitir that I had a hard time formulating a rebuttal. The author, Nathan Tabor, is described as "a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has his BA in psychology and his MA in public policy." I have to say that I'm a tad bit disappointed in Nathan. I, too, went to public policy school, where I learned some critical thinking skills. Nathan must have skipped that class. After reading it, you may have had your fill. But if not, let's go through it step by step. The italicized sections are direct quotes. Our brave men and women in uniform are fighting and dying on foreign soil, thousands of miles away from their homes, so that these misguided, misanthropic Liberals can exercise their Constitutionally protected rights to whine, moan and protest in public. But isn't that what our military is for, to protect our Constitution? And isn't that what the Constitution is for, to protect our right to free speech (which includes public protest)? In other words, aren't these misanthorpic Liberals just being...Americans? Their last presidential nominee even threw his own Vietnam War medals away. I need not contrast Kerry's military service, which included winning medals for valor, with our current president's, which included string-pulling to avoid combat and a period of being AWOL. (NB. Kerry threw his ribbons, not his medals. There's difference, and someone who served would know that.) Conservatives, on the other hand, truly love freedom - so much so that when necessary, they are willing to fight to preserve and protect it, as well as to export it around the world and extend it to other peoples less fortunate than we are. What he really means is, Conservatives are willing to send other people to fight. Somehow, I don't think Nathan is seeing a lot of action there in Kernersville, North Carolina, right now. Let me give you a few examples of how patriotic Americans should support our troops. I'll sum up his examples: Conservatives love freedom so much that they shut up and support military actions they disagree with. But is that patriotism...or sycophancy? Here's another Conservative conflation--if I protest the war, I am not "supporting the troops." But I would say that the highest form of troop support is not to send them unnecessarily into harm's way in the first place. If Nathan had friends or family in Baghdad, as I do, he would probably agree with me. Bill Clinton was one of the worst Presidents in American history. Before we pass judgement on a president based on his "military misadventures," let's remember that there's more to the president's job than being commander-in-chief. He has a rather large country to run back here at home. And I would say that a president that is presiding over a fiscal policy disaster of unparalled size, that has gutted environmental protections like no president before him, that takes more vacations than any president in history, and who has squandered international goodwill like never before, among other superlative missteps, also deserves a vote or two for worst ever. The answer to all these questions is simple. Liberals don't really hate war. They hate freedom. Oh, that explains why Liberals fight so hard to preserve our eroding civil rights and liberties, why they protest the illegal (by the standards of international law) incarcerations at Guantanamo Bay, why they continue to combat rascism, why they are against capital punishment. 'fess up and just be honest with the American people. This is a common right-wing tactic, to imply that the liberals are some sort of marginalized group living furtively among god-fearing, conservative Americans. However, over 48% of America voted Democrat in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. (Only 47% of America voted Republican in 2000, but I won't bring that up). Who needs to be honest with whom? Here's the hard truth. Liberals are pro-abortion, pro-death, pro-gay, and anti-American. They don't love our freedoms, let alone the Constitution that guarantees them. I'll let this drivel speak for itself. At least he had the decency to admit that being pro-abortion and pro-gay doesn't automatically make one anti-American. Liberals are just anti-American on top of everything else, I guess. And they don't really mind the State's using war to advance their utopian goals of universal peace. And Conseratives don't mind the State's using war to advance their utopian goals of universal freedom. Or at least that's what Nathan told us a mere 4 paragraphs ago. Why don't you want the women and children of Iraq to have the same freedoms as you do here in America? Well, we do. But we didn't go to Iraq to liberate the Iraqis. We went to Iraq because we were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that their use was imminent. We know now that not only was this untrue, but that we were deliberately misled. Surely even Conservatives should protest that. about your spoiled, pampered children having to go to war to defend them. Where did this conservative myth come from? I suspect we can thank John Lindh and his "Marin hot-tubbers." But according the Pew Research Center, Conservatives are richer than Liberals. So it must not be income. It must be that famous Conservative discipline. Whew, that was exhausting.

Gas prices

Take a look at gas prices around the world. The average price in the US right now is $2.54 a gallon, right between Nicaragua and Panama.

A left-wing vision that's right

In 2004, George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, published a book called "Don't Think of an Elephant." For a while now, but especially since the 2004 election, commentators have been pointing out that the Democratic party is floundering, and Lakoff's book discusses ways for the Democrats to get back on track. The book is short, so I encourage everyone to read it. But the basic premise is that the Democrats are not properly communicating their values to the electorate. Whereas the Republicans can package, or "frame" to use Lakoff's phrase, their ideas in ways that resonate with voters, the Democrats do not likewise frame their own, so they always end up fighting a rearguard action against the right. The book has been very influential, and in my opinion, insightful. Many would argue, however, that the problem with the Democratic party is not the manner in which they frame their ideas, but rather that they don't have any ideas. And even though I think many of Lakoff's critics don't really "get" his book, I do agree that the left lacks a coherent, compelling vision. Here is an interesting article that offers just that vision. It's bold, and it's certainly a refreshing change from the status quo.

Brother, can you spare a BTU?

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK has developed a fascinating idea for reducing energy use. The idea is called Domestic Tradeable Quotas (DTQ), and it is based on the idea of tracking and charging individuals for their use of carbon-based energy, whether it is gas, electricity, natural gas, or what-have-you. Here's how it would work: everyone would receive an annual, identical allocation of carbon units. Each person would also be issued a plastic card like a credit card with a preset spending limit. Every time you use carbon-based energy (at the gas pump, lighting your house, cooking your food) you'd have to swipe your card, and a number of DTQ points would be deducted. What happens when your DTQ points are exhausted? You buy new ones from someone else who didn't use his entire allocation. Since those who save DTQ's can sell them for profit, and since those who exceed their limit must pay, everyone is incentivised to conserve. This idea may sound like some sort of socialist rationing, but in fact it derives from the grandest of free market thinking. It's based on an economic theory called the Coase theorem. The Coase theorem says that if you create a market for a good that otherwise wouldn't have a market (Coase's original paper dealt with radio stations competing for the same frequencies), the market will determine the most efficient allocation of that good. The United States already has a similar system in place for trading sulfur dioxide emissions, which has been very successful in reducing these precursors to acid rain. Further, the US has proposed a world-wide carbon dioxide trading program as an alternative to the measures in the Kyoto Accord. So the DTQ program is not so far-fetched after all. It's easy to think of reasons this idea won't gain support (privacy concerns, the high cost of monitoring, the fairness of identical carbon unit allocation), but this is just the sort of creative thought that we need (and aren't getting). The UK looks poised to implement this idea soon. Wouldn't it be nice if the US could lead in energy reduction instead of follow?

Hydrogen economy, here we come

Earlier in the week, I lamented the lack of leadership in tackling the US's energy situation. I guess I was premature. According to The Onion, Bush has developed an aggressive plan to eliminate American oil dependence by the year 4920.

On the road to employment

It bothers me that whenever the federal transportation bill is signed, it's always about jobs: "So the bill I'm signing is going to help give hundreds of thousands of Americans good-paying jobs," said President Bush. Well, hey, what about some decent transportation while you're at it? I'm not just talking about the pork, which the current law seems to have in record amount. I'm talking also about the focus of lawmakers on transportation projects as job-producers instead of as ways to actually, you know, transport things. Many of the special job-producing projects in the current law were included AGAINST the judgement of state and local transportation officials as excessive, unnecessary, or outright bad. But if a transportation bill is about jobs, then why should lawmakers listen to transportation experts?

Big Brother IS watching out for you

From 1997 to 1999, Florida had mandatory motorcycle-helmet-use law in effect. In 2000, it repealed that law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) just released a report on the increase in fatalities due to the law's repeal. The conclusion: "Motorcyclist fatalities increased by 81 percent comparing 2001-2003 to 1997-1999, compared to 48 percent nationally." This should come as no suprise. Study after study have shown two things: -Mandatory helmet laws do increase the use of helmets (according to a 1992 NHTSA report, only 28 to 40% of motorcyclists would wear a helmet if it weren't required by a law), - Helmet use reduces motorcycle fatalities (California saw a 37% decrease in such fatalities after it passed its law; Nebraska a 22% decrease). So even though it makes sense to wear a motorcycle helmet, most motorcyclists won't wear one unless they have to. In other words, even though you can't legislate morality, you can legislate common sense. Many motorcyclists complain nonetheless, because after all, isn't it their personal choice to engage in risky behavior? Sure, it's their choice, but their actions burden the rest of us. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: "Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare. In Seattle 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds. In Sacramento public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists in 1980-83. Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital in 1982-83 were uninsured. " Admittedly, these are old studies. But, the 2005 NHTSA report showed that in Florida, 21% of motorcycle injury medical costs were paid for by public funds, to the tune of $10.5 million. SO it still holds true. Economists would call these medical costs "externalities," or costs incurred by an action that the person incurring the cost does not have to pay. The costs instead are passed to society. The Supreme Court found a whole string of externalities in motorcycle injuries: "The public has an interest in minimizing the resources directly involved. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume responsibility for his and his family's subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned." A mandatory helmet law saves taxpayer money by eliminating externalities. Maybe big brother ain't so bad after all. But, there is free market solution. Making those who incur an externality actually pay it is called "internalizing the externality." Charge motorcyclists for the ability to forego a helmet. For instance, motorcycle registrations could include a helmet-free surcharge (probably on the order of $500 to $1000 a year). Or, motorcyclists could buy a pass from the DMV that allows them to leave the helmet at home. The money thus generated would go into a fund that pays the externalities resulting from their choices. Which is the better path--laws or fees?

No Pseudoscientific Claptrap Left Behind

One of the topics that I love to hate, and one which will likely show up in these pages often, is Intelligent Design Theory. This theory has many nuances, but it basically says that some elements of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than as the product of an undirected process such as natural selection. The "intelligent cause" is never explained or described, but it pretty much means God. (Michael Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box" posits that the intelligent cause could be super-advanced aliens). Bush has suggested that intelligent design should be taught in schools alongside evolution, adding his tremendous moral authority to an increasingly fierce debate in this country about the place of these two topics in the classroom. His suggestion is worthy of contumely for several reasons. First, education has traditionally been the demesne of the states, a fact with which I heartily agree. (Local government is better attuned to local needs). However, the federal government has been slowly seeping in. First, No Child Left Behind, now the president making curriculum suggestions. Second, even if we accept this creeping federalism, why doesn't the president address classroom size or teacher salaries or falling test scores, or the dozens of real issues our schools face? Third, intelligent design theory is a CROCK OF SHIT. I will be happy to expound on this assertion later. But it's no wonder that the US is losing its long-held lead in science and technology when we continue to confuse religious dogma with legitimate science. This is a battle that we've been fighting for 80 years. Haven't we figured it out yet?

Leadership vacuum

The retail price of gas has been steadily increasing for at least two years. Meanwhile, the US imports 57% (12 million gallons a day of a 21-million-gallon-a-day habit) of its petroleum, a figure that has also been steadily increasing for at least the last 12 years. Half of this comes from the Middle East. Now, I think everyone agrees that Islamic terrorism is linked in some way or another to oil production in the Arab world. So it's not a stretch to think that somehow decreasing our dependence on Arab oil would be a big part of any strategy in the Global War on Terror (or whatever the Bush Administration is calling it nowadays). Petroleum in the US is used for many things, but its largest use is as transportation fuel, so improving the fuel efficiency of automobiles (and aircraft) would take a huge bite out of our oil consumption, and therefore contribute to the solution of terrorism. (I won't even talk about the environmental benefits, nor the favorable effects to foreign trade). Is that too much to expect? Apparently so. We already now the Administration's position. Look at the new energy bill. What about industry? Well, take a look at Jeep's newest offering. It's their biggest SUV yet and it gets the worst gas mileage of anything they produce. My point is that to solve the oil problem (and it is a problem), we need leadership from both government and industry. We are getting it from neither. We deserve better.

The Elusive American Dream

Anyone who believes that the poor are poor just because they don't work hard enough should read the this Brookings Institution report. The report is 68 pages longs, so I've copied a key paragraph below: "Philadelphia’s low-income working families pay higher prices for most everyday goods and services than other households. In general, these families pay more to buy and insure their cars. They pay higher prices to buy groceries in their neighborhoods. They pay higher prices to buy and insure homes.They pay higher prices to buy furniture and appliances. They pay higher real estate taxes. And, they often pay higher prices for utilities. In fact, aside from the lower value of their homes, low-wage families in Philadelphia pay higher prices than other households for nearly every basic necessity. In particular: • Car purchases: Low-income families in Philadelphia can pay over $500 more for the same car bought by a higher-income household. • Car loans: More than half of households with an auto loan that earn less than $30,000 a year pay a higher interest rate than the average borrower. • Car insurance: The annual cost to insure the exact same car and driver in the Philadelphia area is over $400 more in a neighborhood with a median income less than $30,000 than in a neighborhood with a median income more than $70,000. • Buying groceries: Philadelphia’s low-income neighborhoods have smaller grocery stores and more convenience stores than other neighborhoods. • Cashing checks: Most of the city’s 147 check-cashing establishments are in low-income neighborhoods, which are allowed by state law to charge up to $450 every year to cash checks for ahousehold earning $15,000. • Short-term loans: Although Pennsylvania is often heralded as a state that has banned payday lending, state regulations allow providers of short, two-week loans to charge an annual percentage rate over 450 percent. • Establishing utility service: Current state regulations make low-income families more likely to pay a higher security deposit to use Philadelphia’s utilities than other households. • Gas prices: At current rates, it costs the typical family in Philadelphia about $300 more every year to use a typical amount of natural gas than households in the suburbs. • Home loans: Low-income households can pay hundreds, even thousands, more every year for the same mortgage taken-out by a high-income households. • Home appliances and furniture: A survey of Philadelphia’s rent-to-own stores, used almost exclusively by low- and moderate income households, found that the average installment plan mark-up was 90 percent over thepurchase price. • Real estate taxes: Homes in Philadelphia’s low-income neighborhoods are much more likely than homes in high-income neighborhoods to be assessed at values higher than their worth." Now consider these welfare facts: -Only 6% of welfare mothers are teenagers. Less than 3% of poor families are headed by women younger than 19. -The typical welfare family includes a mother and two children, about the same as the average American family. -Welfare mothers on average receive $367 a month, even with food stamps worth $295, this is still 31% below the poverty line for a family of three. -Benefits have lost about a third of their value since 1979. -38% of welfare parents are white, 37% are African-American, and 18% are Latino. -Over 70% of women are on welfare for less than 2 years; only 8% remain over eight years. -Full-time, year-round work at minimum wage puts a woman and two children $3,000 below the poverty line-with no health care coverage. Finally, consider that a 2001 NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School poll showed that 52 percent of poor people believed that "most welfare recipients today really want to work." My point? If you're on the bottom, you don't want to be there, but it's sure hard to climb your way out.

"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith." -J. William Fulbright

Astute Blogger demonstrates some particular obtuseness with this headline: NYCLU WANTS THE JIHADOTERRORISTS TO ATTACK NY SUBWAYS http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/ Regardless of how he feels about the effectiveness of random searches on public transit systems (and I happen to feel that a cost-benefit analysis would show that they are good for no more than making people feel better), surely he can't seriously believe that because the NYCLU is fighting to protect our constituitional rights, fighting to protect the very thing that our country was founded on and the very thing that the Islamic fundamentalists would like to dismantle to establish a theocratic state, that they are themselves terrorists. He can't be so jejune that he really believes that the ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION (emphasis his) is the NYCLU wants New Yorkers to suffer a subway attack just like the ones on London. He didn't discuss his reasoning to arrive at this conclusion, but is he so purblind that maybe the fact that some people value their 4th Amendment rights over specious gains in security escapes him? I suspect not. So what gives?

Inaugural Post

There are a million blogs already out there, and for the longest time, I resisted adding my voice to the din. But lately, I've come across so much rubbish (from the left and the right, but mostly from the right) that for the sake of my mental health, I decided to enter the fray. I hope to get a wide readership, but I also hope to get a thoughtful, informed readership (of all stripes), and I worry that those two things are self-cancelling. As for format, we'll see how it goes. I have a life, so I don't want to spend too much time here (no 2:43 a.m. posts from me). On the other hand, I am faced daily with such idiocy (the flag burning amendment, intelligent design theory, the new energy bill, the Rove/Plame affair are some things that quickly come to mind) that I will no doubt post more often than I think. So, welcome to the Hammer of Judgement. The hammer is about to fall!