One conservative, one liberal addition

More added to the blogroll:

Belgravia Dispatch, a conservative weblog recommended by many liberals, with scathing criticism of the Bush Administration attitudes towards torture, and reasonably independent.

Eschaton, the most prolific liberal blog I look at frequently, and probably the most scathing one I look at in general.

Green-neocon alliance?

From Slate magazine: a number of hard-right neocons are taking up the energy conservation mission, for security and geopolitical reasons, not environmental ones.

I'll usually take allies wherever I can find them. These ones are a little scary though, especially the ones looking to promote Israeli dominance in the Middle East.

We'll see how effective their support will be. Greens have been talking for many years about how the religious environmentalists will open a new wave of support, and I've yet to see that happen.

And on to other news: global warming could be twice as bad as originally feared, with an average 11 degree Celsius rise, depending on some yet-unknowns. Link here. Okay, neocons, I guess we should talk.

Firsts! I call firsts!

From today's Washington Monthly, asking why Bush is pushing a Social Security proposal that will go nowhere:

"What's the point of loudly pushing a proposal you're going to lose? What's behind it all?

UPDATE: Turns out Ed Kilgore is wondering the same thing. His hunch is that it's a bait-and-switch: Democrats will end up loudly saying that private accounts are great, but only in addition to Social Security, not instead of it. So in the end, Bush will "compromise" and sign a bill that leaves Social Security alone but creates big tax-sheltered savings accounts ideally suited for tax avoidance by high earners.

Could be, I suppose. It sounds a little too clever even for the Karl Roves of the world, but I guess you never know. Something to keep an eye out for, anyway."

From yours truly, on September 17 last year, regarding what Bush will ultimately propose for Social Security:

"My guess is Bush will eventually just offer tax deductions for larger IRAs. By his standards that's not bad, it's only skewed towards the moderately wealthy that currently fully fund their IRAs. By responsible standards, however, it stinks."

Boy, I'm smart. That's why I'm allowed to have a blog.

P.S. Pretty good chance someone got there before me, even. I'll be sure not to try and find out if that's the case.

Short bits

Best pictures from the Titan probe that I've found on the net are here - a collection from volunteers who've taken the raw images and done a lot of work to improve them and fit the pictures together like jigsaw puzzles. Hopefully the European and American space agencies will do something similar sometime. Best running commentary on Titan and space in general is at the Habitablezone.com.

Something that's received little coverage in the awful news about the tsunami is the role that mangroves and coral reefs played in protecting coastlines. Mangroves have been removed in many places, increasing the tsunami's destructiveness. Coral reefs have also been threatened - in the short run I believe the threat is more to their biological value than their structural integrity, but in the long run, the bleached, dead coral will break down, and allow destructive tsunamis to enter coastlines at full force. More info here.

Fascinating story in the New York Times about how some Ukrainian secret police officials prevented a bloody crackdown on demonstrators and facilitated the current blossoming democracy. Those officials saw the parallel between their situation and Tianenmen Square in China, where some government officials sympathized with demonstrators, and were determined to avoid repeating China's events. I'm very happy that the tragic heroism in China that seemed to be in vain has in fact led to some good results.

Tangled Bank #19,

a list of recent science blog postings, is out. My favorite is number 4, discussing how behavior modification in species with the capability to learn could influence natural selection for physical traits. Bunch of good stuff in there.

Coolest space mission in 28 years is in 3 days

When the Huygens probe parachutes through the atmosphere of Saturn's moon Titan, letting us see what things are like from the surface (or near surface, anyway). I was nine years old in 1976 when the Viking landers made it to Mars. I remember writing NASA for information and feeling my eyes bug out of my head when they sent me a bunch of 8"x11" glossy photographs of the view from the landing sites. I've been a space nut ever since - hard facts eventually overcame my bias so that I grew to oppose the money-wasting, minimal science, manned space program, but I can't get enough of robotic exploration.

Huygens is the coolest since Viking because it will give a human's, groundview, perspective of being on another world. I'm not talking about scientific value, although it will have plenty of that, but the the feeling of being there. Pictures from orbit are great, but they don't have quite that same sense of personal exploration.

The other cool thing is that Huygens will have a microphone, so we'll hear sounds from another world. The only time we sent a microphone to Mars was on the failed, badly-built Mars Polar Lander in 1999, that crashed on the surface. No sounds came back from that one. Probably the only thing that could be heard is the probe's computer as it crashed down: "AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! DAMN YOU NASA!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH-"

Let's hope for better luck this time.

Volokhs in need of correction

The Volokh Conspiracy, one of the better conservative blogs, beats up on hybrid cars, so I feel a need to respond. First, author Todd Zywicki cites to a stupid Washington Post article that is mystified why the hybrid Prius is selling so much better than the hybrid Honda Civic, ignoring the fact that the Prius gets 33% better mileage, a significant factor for hybrid buyers (like moi).

Next he cites a more recent, stupid Washington Post article saying people buy hybrids because they can use the carpool lanes in the DC area. Funny how the hybrids are selling just as well in California, where they can't use carpool lanes (state law changed last summer to allow their use, long after the hybrid craze started, but federal approval still hasn't happened), and sales are also brisk everywhere else.

Moving on, he says single occupancy hybrids allowed in carpool lanes requiring 3 people must be three times more environmentally friendly for the deal to be worthwhile. While he later realizes this argument may be flawed, he still says he is aware of no support for the idea that they are 3 times as friendly.

Awareness beckons - the hybrid Prius is a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle that is ten times as environmentally friendly regarding pollutants measured by the Clean Air Act, which are a big reason (maybe THE biggest reason) for carpool lanes. Here in George Bush's America, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, so the 50-100% improvement in mileage/CO2 efficiency doesn't keep the hybrids from being 1000% better on pollutants. George promised to regulate CO2 as a pollutant in 2000, but with Al Gore "defeated" he quickly gave up that principle.

One more thing - the author cites a stupid website that waves its figurative arms at the environmental costs of producing batteries to suggest hybrids are a bum deal. An actual life cycle analysis shows that the arm-waving is wrong, that the long-term environmental savings outweighs initial environmental costs of producing hybrids. More annoyingly, the stupid website discusses the expense of hybrids, without disclosing figures. The hybrids are generally moderately-priced cars that cost about $4,000 more than comparable non-hybrids, and hybrid owners save about $2,000 over the car's lifetime due to better mileage. We're not talking Hollywood-celebrity wealth, here. Tellingly, the main page of the stupid website currently goes into a lather over how great some ridiculously expensive sports car is. The website probably just hates any suggestion that their gas-guzzling favorite cars are somehow bad.

I look forward to the Volokh Conspiracy authors recognizing the value of buying hybrids, and joining the club.


keywords: Volokh Correction, hybrid cars

Yes! Rudimentary democracy!

Here in the United States, no less - Congressional Republicans retreat from two of three proposals to repeal several ethical rules and remove the Republican Congressman chairing the House Ethics Committee who was standing up to Tom DeLay.

The proposals were:

1. Allow a Congressman indicted and facing trial for a felony to remain in the Republican Party leadership (DeLay faces a slight risk of being indicted soon for fundraising scandals).

2. Remove the "catch-all" ethics rule calling on Congresspeople to act "at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." (DeLays fundraising trouble and bribe-like behavior got him in trouble on this one).

3. End the current practice where a tie vote in the Ethics Committee over whether to investigate a Congressperson means the investigation goes forward.

First two are gone, third one stays. Not clear yet if Republican Congressman Hefley will be thrown out for his impertinence towards DeLay.

These decisions were made in a closed Republican caucus - I'd give a lot to be a fly on the wall with mind-reading powers. The Post says DeLay was facing a revolt, but the question is why. Potential guesses:

1. Polls showed Republicans this stuff was big trouble.
2. Constituent letters and calls showed the same.
3. Republican gut instincts said the same, along with memories of the scandals faced by Dems in the 90s.
4. It's like the evil Star Trek Enterprise crew members in the alternate universe from Star Trek: The Original Series - lowranking Republican congressmen smelled blood, a chance to weaken a powerful superior officer, and go in for the kill sometime later.
5. They did it because it was the right thing to do, except for the one ethical relapse they accepted so DeLay wouldn't feel so bad.

Who can tell which is the real reason?

(For more background, see Talkingpointsmemo here and scroll up.)

Getting your Nerd on

From Tim Lambert, a scientific test of nerdiness. I scored as "somewhat nerdy", beating 52% of my fellow test takers. I need to improve...

Idiot writes book

No, not me - Michael Crichton, writing State of Fear. He's thoroughly debunked by Real Climate, a blog authored by climate change scientists. I'll repeat just two of the blog's points. First, global warming involves average temperature, and is not contradicted by local cooling in some places. Second, sea level rise is very difficult to measure locally, so the relatively small sea level rise that has happened so far might not show up in the one place the Crichton points to, but it still exists and is still a huge future problem. For the rest, see Real Climate.

A pro-environmental rider legislative act

I had wondered if this ever happened - someone stuck in a piece of rider legislation on a budget bill that actually helped the environment, instead of hurting it. This one removes some non-native birds from the protections of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so their populations can be controlled. Good job, and by a Republican congressman too.

BTW, I came across this from The Tangled Bank, which is a biweekly sampler of science blogs, and an interesting thing to take a look at.

The 9/11 Commission Report

Exciting book report time!

Finally finished the audio version of The 9/11 Commission Report, over 20 hours long. The main thing I wanted to mention was that simply reforming the intelligence system was only part of its recommendations - tightening port security and providing actual support for democracy in Muslim countries (not just talk) were important recommendations that haven't seen much support from the current administration.

I part company from my fellow semi-libertarians in believing there would be nothing wrong with a national identity card, just like many other democracies have, rather than the 50 state identity cards (driver licenses) we use. My suggestion for civil liberties is that noone is required to carry any I.D. (exceptions as appropriate like when driving, hunting etc.), BUT if you're convicted of a crime and not carrying I.D. when arrested, then you get extra punishment. So we won't become a "papers, please" society, while still having some security safeguards.

Going way further out on a limb, I'm half-convinced there's nothing wrong in requiring biometric information like a retinal scan or identifying genetic information as part of the card. The DNA would only be enough to identify someone, not the complete genetic code that would allow the government to learn scary secrets about ourselves. If it's required of everyone, not just those unfortunate enough to be arrested without being convicted of a crime, then it's a much fairer system. I'm not totally on the bandwagon for this, but it's intriguing.

How the left can make the Social Security situation worse

1. They can suggest a worse alternative - the left realizes just being against Republican proposals and for the status quo will not seem very forward thinking. One proposal is to suggest an incentive system for "private retirement accounts outside of the Social Security system so that the debate is not between 'doing nothing' and 'the Bush plan to fix Social Security' but between the Democratic plan to give you new ways to save for retirement and the Bush plan to dismantle a savings instrument you already have."

The problem is what kind of incentive would be created. An expansion of the IRA tax deduction is regressive, because increased income tax deductions provide proportionally more money to people who pay higher income taxes, i.e. the wealthy. A tax credit, which is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes for retirement savings, is not regressive if it includes an Earned Income Tax Credit for those too poor to pay income taxes, but it's expensive and will add to the budget deficit in the same way the Bush plan would add to the budget deficit. A tax credit accompanied by a tax increase on the wealthy to pay for it would be a good idea. Just as proposing a worse alternative could make things worse, proposing a better alternative could make things better. Of course, it doesn't fix the moderate-sized, long-term problem Social Security probably has.

2. They could end up fighting a good idea proposed by the Bush administration. This is a very low likelihood, but we can't completely eliminate the possiblity that Bush will come up with something that isn't completely awful. Two of my favorite blogs, Washington Monthly and Talkingpointsmemo (and many others), are trying to make opposition to privatization a litmus test for Democrats, but I think that should only be done for privatization that fails certain criteria, rather than a blanket opposition. Hard to believe I'm coming out to the right of them on this issue.

The sex offender down the street

According to California's new website registry of sex offenders, one of them lives four doors down the street from me. In my four years here, I've never seen anyone who looks like the man in the picture, making me wonder about the value of the website.

I had a discussion with a friend about the whole idea of the website registry. On the one hand it seems like an extra punishment for a crime someone has already paid for, but on the other hand the information was already public, in theory. It's a good example of information that used to be semi-private because it was hard to get now becoming available to everyone. A less-than-wonderful trend.

Mainly, the idea is a lost opportunity. They could have exempted people who were long-ago offenders or who have completed rigorous therapy programs. The whole idea could have facilitated rehabilitation by giving people a way to avoid being on the registry. But in America we don't believe in rehabilitation.

Pledge a picket

Via BoingBoing, I found that Planned Parenthood has a pledge-a-thon, where you give money based on the number of protestors that are picketing them.

Pretty cool. I think this was adopted from the Howard Dean campaign blog, where people pledged money based on the number of trolls attacking the campaign in the blog. It apparently got rid of most trolls - we'll see if it has any effect on protestors.

Bush bordering on torture?

Kevin Drum reposts a news article confirming that:

the Bush order approved interrogation tactics that include "sleep deprivation and stress positions," as well as "loud music, interrogators yelling at subjects and prisoners with hoods on their heads."

That doesn't sound quite like torture to me, or at least not-so-bad torture. But the question I've had about these "stress position" requirements we keep hearing about, is how do they force prisoners to maintain those positions? The only way I can see that is if they will do something worse to prisoners if they move from the position. Stress positions seem to be synonymous with beatings, and that's torture.

P.S. I suppose people could be tied/chained into stress positions. I think the term encompasses more than that, positions that prisoners have maintain like a low crouch. Someone tied in a stress position long enough would experience excruciating pain, anyway, and that seems to me to be an authorization for torture, directly from our dear president.

UPDATE: From Laura Rozen: stress positions included "forced squatting for an extended period".

Biology and free will

Chris Mooney has a post about the religious beliefs of evolutionary biologists. Apparently they're not very religious. I got in a discussion in the comments section to the post, about free will and the lack of religious beliefs. I argued that in the absence of something supernatural, free will is just an illusion. Don't know if I convinced the guy in the argument.

Good post on Social Security privatization

A post by Brad DeLong covers some of the for- and against- arguments on Social Security privatization. The part I'm most sympathetic to is this one:

"Kent Smetters and company might say that Kinsley's (3a) is wrong: that once the privatized parts of Social Security are off the books, the Republican High Politicians will have no option but to propose serious spending cuts or tax increases in order to bring the Federal Government's General Fund into long-term balance."

Social Security is a partially pre-funded retirement program, so if the federal government can no longer use the prefunded SS surplus to partially cover up the deficit, then there will be a better chance to fix the deficit, especially by letting part of awful Bush tax cuts sunset as currently planned. That's why the Bush accounting proposal of to simply declare the increased costs from privatization ans not part of the deficit is truly horrible.

Absent this Enron-style accounting suggested by the Bush administration, I still think partial privatization can have some benefits.

Shocker - Unocal settles human rights lawsuit over Burma

Unocal reached a confidential settlement in principle over a human rights lawsuit alleging it benefited from government repression while building a gas pipeline in Burma. The pipeline was built in an area where I used to do volunteer work, many years ago. The people I worked with are now refugees, driven out by government repression.

This is great news for the people there and for the principle that multinationals can't make use of repression by foreign governments in order to make money.

Details are completely missing (the settlement is not "certainly" worth millions as the website says), but still, it's great.

By the way, I used google news, and all the American reports on this story about an American company were 1 paragraph long, while the British website above was much more detailed. For what it's worth.

(Thanks Bob for letting us know!)

Applying biblical morality

I've been meaning to post this for some time, a letter that's been circulating through the internets.

(Thanks Mark and Melissa for the pointers!)

Dear President Bush,





            Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding

God's law.  I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that

knowledge with as many people as I can.  When someone tries to defend

the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.  End of debate.

 I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other

elements

of God's Laws and how to follow them:



            1.  Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both

male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. 

A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to

Canadians.  Can you clarify?  Why can't I own Canadians?



            2.  I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as

sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.  In this day and age, what do you think

would

be a fair price for her?



            3.  I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while

she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24).  The

problem is, how do I tell?  I have tried asking, but most women take

offense.



            4.  When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know

it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9).  The problem is my

neighbors.  They claim the odor is not pleasing to them.  Should I

smite

them?



            5.  I have a neighbor who insists on working on the

Sabbath.  Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. 

Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police

to

do it?



            6.  A friend of mine feels that, even though eating

shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination

than homosexuality.  I don't agree.  Can you settle this?  Are there

"degrees" of abomination?



            7.  Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of

God if I have a defect in my sight.  I have to admit that I wear

reading

glasses.  Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room

here?



            8.  Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,

including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly

forbidden by Lev. 19:27.  How should they die?



            9.  I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a

dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear

gloves?



            10.  My uncle has a farm.  He violates Lev. 19:19 by

planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by

wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread

(cotton/polyester

blend).  He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. 

Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the

whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)?  Couldn't we just

burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people

who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?



            I know you have studied these things extensively and thus

enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can

help.



            Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is

eternal

and unchanging.