Before we get to this I just want to jump in and thank everyone for all the well wishings I've received regarding the CPA. It's always nice to feel supported! I guess I now have to think about the next crazy scheme I want to get myself involved in. Now on with question #2!
Put yourself in one of the following camps regarding climate change: it’s not happening, concerning but is blown way out of proportion, a big problem but we can overcome, or a dire emergency? Without getting into all the statistics, briefly state what has led you to that conclusion.
John:
Have to go with dire emergency. The carbon emissions in the air today won’t be broken down for another 30 years; meaning we have already committed ourselves to at least 30 more years of damage. Add in that China and India are ramping up production of coal-powered plants and the fact that we have just recently reached consensus that climate change is real and the depth of the problem becomes clear. Finally, for the first time we have an election where both sides have vowed to act, but it may be too little too late. I’m not predicting the apocalypse, but without significant advances in carbon sequestration in the next decade we will be looking at massive levels of refugees and probably an additional 25% of populated land being rendered uninhabitable by 2050.
Mike:
Can I put myself in neither camp? I’d like to because I feel this way about climate change: We may have had something to do with it, but probably not. However, because of that possibility, and the additional financial benefits of finding alternative forms of energy, we should explore ways to limit our impact on the climate. Conservatism should include, as a cornerstone, preservation and conservation of nature and its resources.
Eric:
I believe that climate change is happening, but is a problem we can overcome. I am still not convinced, however, that global warming is entirely the fault of humankind. Weather has been around since the Earth was formed, and yet we only have reliable data that goes back 100 years. From a scientific standpoint, this is not a large enough sample size to accurately provide irrefutable proof of anything. That being said, the combination of a rise in CO2 emissions and deforestation are sure to have effected some part of the global ecosystem.
Becky:
I believe the scientists when they say Earth is warming more rapidly than it ever has before, that humans are a significant cause, and that we need to put corrective measures into place. I trust in science and believe that scientists simply aim to find out the truths of the universe—that they aren’t out to prove a point for some political purpose (as alleged by some conspiracy theorists).
As to whether we can overcome it or not, I can't be sure. Various sources have put the point of no return anywhere between 10 to 200 years, so I don't know what to think. If we only have a few years to bring carbon emissions down, realistically that's not enough time for the human race to get its act together. For my own sanity, therefore, I have to choose to believe it's not as dire as some say, either because we have more time than some scientists have calculated, or because they overestimated the influence of humans. If it's too late to fix anything and we're all doomed, we may as well all just go straight into the hoarding of resources, jockeying for power, and general warring and bloodshed.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Interjection
Update (6/20): Didn't want to do a new post, but just wanted to let everyone know that this morning my final CPA exam grade was posted and I am in fact now officially a CPA!
OK, so I had planned to post all of the roundtable questions in consecutive posts but we seem to have reached another delay in the process and there are some other things I wanted to talk about.
After taking Ms. Clinton to task on numerous occasions for making some definitive statements one day and then reversing herself when it became convenient to do so, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't express my extreme disappointment that Obama announced today that he has decided to opt out of the public financing system for the general election. This completely contradicts a statement he made last November in a questionnaire where he said he would use public funding.
You can read his entire response to the question on page 2 here (http://tinyurl.com/4p7zuo) but here are some excerpts. The question was: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
"Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free
television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."
"My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election."
"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Much of the argument now boils down to the semantics about whether this represented a "pledge" (as Republicans contend) or merely an "option" (as the Obama camp maintains). However you want to characterize it, I think it's very clear that he intended to use public financing as long as John McCain did (which he agreed to do), and now he is reversing himself. For those that aren't very familiar with what this means, public financing for presidential elections comes from taxpayers (remember that "do you want $3 to go the presidential election campaign fund?" question on your 1040?). When a candidate accepts public financing, he is limited to using only that amount (currently about $85 million) in the general election campaign. By opting out, Obama can now use unlimited funds. And considering he has raised a total of $272 million since January 2007 (including $31 million in April alone) it's clear why it is an advantage for him to opt out.
So, what is his rationale for this reversal? In an e-mail to supporters today he said "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." That may be true, but I'm pretty sure it didn't break in the last 7 months, so that begs the question why did he support it then but not now? This appears to be another one of those stunning coincidences whereby a candidate reevaluates an earlier position and ends up with the epiphany that the correct position is the one that benefits them the most. And most insulting to me personally is the fact that he makes no mention of his earlier statement when announcing the decision. Not to mention the fact that he spent the entire primary deriding Hillary on the Iraq War by saying that we need a president who gets decisions right the first time. I don't want to blow this out of proportion; I am still an Obama supporter. But for someone who can credit his meteoric rise to the promise of a "new kind of politics" this sure looks like "old politics" to me. And while I can't say it's completely unexpected, it's nevertheless very disappointing.
I would also like to take a second to applaud McCain for his call yesterday to build 45 new nuclear reactors by the year 2030. As I have stated before, the danger of nuclear energy has been blown way out of proportion and I consider it to be a critical stop-gap in lowering carbon emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Again, as of right now it is only rhetoric, but it's good to hear the right rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle.
Lest everyone start to think that I'm moving to the right, I'd also like to comment on the recent Supreme Court decision to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detention in federal court. To me, this is simply a matter of upholding habeas corpus. I believe that Justice Kennedy succinctly said it best by stating that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law." Of course, critics of the decision were quick to revert to the time-tested retort of "be afraid; be very afraid!" New Gingrich said that "this court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city." He also called it "the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history. . . worse than Dred Scott." Now, I actually really like Newt Gingrich (I'm in the middle of his book right now) but this is a laughably ridiculous statement. The Dred Scott case returned a free man to slavery, while this decision did not free one detainee and offered absolutely no guarantee that any detainee would ever be set free.
Presumably the claim that this "may cost us a city" is based on the notion that some judge will eventually determine that some real terrorist has been wrongfully held and they will be released and then be integral in a plot that destroys a U.S. city. Well, if we want to go to extremes then how about considering the flip side of that? How about the terrorists we create because we hold an innocent person indefinitely and their family grows up hating the U.S. and gets recruited by Al Qaeda? I don't view either of these situations as very likely, and I fail to see the harm in forcing the government to present some form of evidence when deciding to indefinitely take away someone's freedom. If a foreign government held one of our citizens indefinitely and said simply "they are a terrorist" while providing no evidence to support it we would never accept that and, indeed it would probably be grounds for an attack. The problem with being the good guy is that you have to act like the good guy all the time, even when it has the potential to come back and bite you.
As a final note on this, 2 days after the decision was announced about 400 Taliban extremists escaped from an Afghan prison (read about it here if you missed it: http://tinyurl.com/5n56xd). You would think that would offer a little perspective, no?
OK, so I had planned to post all of the roundtable questions in consecutive posts but we seem to have reached another delay in the process and there are some other things I wanted to talk about.
After taking Ms. Clinton to task on numerous occasions for making some definitive statements one day and then reversing herself when it became convenient to do so, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't express my extreme disappointment that Obama announced today that he has decided to opt out of the public financing system for the general election. This completely contradicts a statement he made last November in a questionnaire where he said he would use public funding.
You can read his entire response to the question on page 2 here (http://tinyurl.com/4p7zuo) but here are some excerpts. The question was: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
"Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free
television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."
"My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election."
"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Much of the argument now boils down to the semantics about whether this represented a "pledge" (as Republicans contend) or merely an "option" (as the Obama camp maintains). However you want to characterize it, I think it's very clear that he intended to use public financing as long as John McCain did (which he agreed to do), and now he is reversing himself. For those that aren't very familiar with what this means, public financing for presidential elections comes from taxpayers (remember that "do you want $3 to go the presidential election campaign fund?" question on your 1040?). When a candidate accepts public financing, he is limited to using only that amount (currently about $85 million) in the general election campaign. By opting out, Obama can now use unlimited funds. And considering he has raised a total of $272 million since January 2007 (including $31 million in April alone) it's clear why it is an advantage for him to opt out.
So, what is his rationale for this reversal? In an e-mail to supporters today he said "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." That may be true, but I'm pretty sure it didn't break in the last 7 months, so that begs the question why did he support it then but not now? This appears to be another one of those stunning coincidences whereby a candidate reevaluates an earlier position and ends up with the epiphany that the correct position is the one that benefits them the most. And most insulting to me personally is the fact that he makes no mention of his earlier statement when announcing the decision. Not to mention the fact that he spent the entire primary deriding Hillary on the Iraq War by saying that we need a president who gets decisions right the first time. I don't want to blow this out of proportion; I am still an Obama supporter. But for someone who can credit his meteoric rise to the promise of a "new kind of politics" this sure looks like "old politics" to me. And while I can't say it's completely unexpected, it's nevertheless very disappointing.
I would also like to take a second to applaud McCain for his call yesterday to build 45 new nuclear reactors by the year 2030. As I have stated before, the danger of nuclear energy has been blown way out of proportion and I consider it to be a critical stop-gap in lowering carbon emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Again, as of right now it is only rhetoric, but it's good to hear the right rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle.
Lest everyone start to think that I'm moving to the right, I'd also like to comment on the recent Supreme Court decision to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detention in federal court. To me, this is simply a matter of upholding habeas corpus. I believe that Justice Kennedy succinctly said it best by stating that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law." Of course, critics of the decision were quick to revert to the time-tested retort of "be afraid; be very afraid!" New Gingrich said that "this court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city." He also called it "the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history. . . worse than Dred Scott." Now, I actually really like Newt Gingrich (I'm in the middle of his book right now) but this is a laughably ridiculous statement. The Dred Scott case returned a free man to slavery, while this decision did not free one detainee and offered absolutely no guarantee that any detainee would ever be set free.
Presumably the claim that this "may cost us a city" is based on the notion that some judge will eventually determine that some real terrorist has been wrongfully held and they will be released and then be integral in a plot that destroys a U.S. city. Well, if we want to go to extremes then how about considering the flip side of that? How about the terrorists we create because we hold an innocent person indefinitely and their family grows up hating the U.S. and gets recruited by Al Qaeda? I don't view either of these situations as very likely, and I fail to see the harm in forcing the government to present some form of evidence when deciding to indefinitely take away someone's freedom. If a foreign government held one of our citizens indefinitely and said simply "they are a terrorist" while providing no evidence to support it we would never accept that and, indeed it would probably be grounds for an attack. The problem with being the good guy is that you have to act like the good guy all the time, even when it has the potential to come back and bite you.
As a final note on this, 2 days after the decision was announced about 400 Taliban extremists escaped from an Afghan prison (read about it here if you missed it: http://tinyurl.com/5n56xd). You would think that would offer a little perspective, no?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Roundtable - Part I
OK, so we at least have all of our submissions for question 1 in, so let's go ahead and get started. I know pretty much everyone knows everyone, but as way of introduction in addition to me we have Mike Smith (who most people know as Christy's brother), Eric Weir (a friend of ours from college), and Becky DeForest (a friend of ours from high school) participating. I presented a total of 5 questions to each member of the panel and asked them to craft responses of around 100 words each. All involved have conceded that this is far more challenging than it first appears to be. The responses are not meant to be exhaustive and complete, but rather jumping off points for discussion and debate. As such, everyone else reading (which is, um, probably like 3 of you) are invited to comment on any/all of our responses as well as contribute your own.
One final note before we get to it is that no one read anyone else's responses (inculding me) prior to responding so any similarities are coincidental. Also, all I did was copy and paste the responses into here, so all emphasis and any typos/incoherence is the creation of the original authors. Now, on with question 1:
Who do you think was the most positively influential person in the last 100 years? I say positively in the sense that you believe the world is better off because of them (i.e. Stalin and Hitler were quite influential, but not in a good way).
John:
Albert Einstein. It’s true that many of his ideas contributed far more to the realm of academia than to the day to day life of the majority of the world’s population (when was the last time the theory of relativity affected your life?). But I think his biggest contribution and legacy is that of the celebrity scientist. He dispelled the image of the stuffy, sterile researcher and showed that it was possible to have genuine passion for math and science and to have those complement, rather than restrict, your imagination. He dedicated his life to learning and wasn’t afraid to alter his positions when the facts demanded it. His contribution in inspiring young minds to pursue math and science and to solve the seemingly unsolvable is immeasurable.
Mike:
In researching this question, I checked out the Time Magazine “100 most important people of the century” article from a few years ago as a starting point. So I started tearing apart their list. No sports figures, politicians or royals (Princess Diana… C’mon!), and no entertainers. All those people are pretty much full of it anyway, and to say the have had great influence would sadden me way too much to go on living.
So that leaves science, medicine, and business as the only PURE categories of people to make my list. My pick is Albert Einstein for his many contributions to Physics and Mathematics, and his views on politics and religion.
Eric:
Muhammad Yunus has applied microcredit to enable the poor to borrow small amounts of money for the purpose of creating new, or upgrading existing, small businesses. Since its inception in 1976, his Grameen Bank has grown to include 1,181 branches with a staff of 11,777. They have collectively loaned $3.9 billion with a recovery rate of 98%, or $3.6 billion. More than 94% of loans have gone to women, who suffer disproportionately from poverty. Grameenphone, an offshoot of the bank, has brought cell-phone ownership to 260,000 rural poor since 1997. In 2006, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Note: The loan statistics referenced above were taken from Yunus’ 1999 book Banker to the Poor. Wikipedia cites total Grameen loans at $6.38 billion to 7.4 million borrowers as of July 2007.
Becky:
I’m going to have to go with Henry Ford. He streamlined and popularized mass production, which changed the face of American industry. Plus, his serviceable (with interchangable parts!), affordable Model T's changed the way average Americans lived, traveled, and worked. The argument could even be made that the network of highways that were constructed to handle the boom of automobile traffic was a stepping stone for the telecommunications industry.
One final note before we get to it is that no one read anyone else's responses (inculding me) prior to responding so any similarities are coincidental. Also, all I did was copy and paste the responses into here, so all emphasis and any typos/incoherence is the creation of the original authors. Now, on with question 1:
Who do you think was the most positively influential person in the last 100 years? I say positively in the sense that you believe the world is better off because of them (i.e. Stalin and Hitler were quite influential, but not in a good way).
John:
Albert Einstein. It’s true that many of his ideas contributed far more to the realm of academia than to the day to day life of the majority of the world’s population (when was the last time the theory of relativity affected your life?). But I think his biggest contribution and legacy is that of the celebrity scientist. He dispelled the image of the stuffy, sterile researcher and showed that it was possible to have genuine passion for math and science and to have those complement, rather than restrict, your imagination. He dedicated his life to learning and wasn’t afraid to alter his positions when the facts demanded it. His contribution in inspiring young minds to pursue math and science and to solve the seemingly unsolvable is immeasurable.
Mike:
In researching this question, I checked out the Time Magazine “100 most important people of the century” article from a few years ago as a starting point. So I started tearing apart their list. No sports figures, politicians or royals (Princess Diana… C’mon!), and no entertainers. All those people are pretty much full of it anyway, and to say the have had great influence would sadden me way too much to go on living.
So that leaves science, medicine, and business as the only PURE categories of people to make my list. My pick is Albert Einstein for his many contributions to Physics and Mathematics, and his views on politics and religion.
Eric:
Muhammad Yunus has applied microcredit to enable the poor to borrow small amounts of money for the purpose of creating new, or upgrading existing, small businesses. Since its inception in 1976, his Grameen Bank has grown to include 1,181 branches with a staff of 11,777. They have collectively loaned $3.9 billion with a recovery rate of 98%, or $3.6 billion. More than 94% of loans have gone to women, who suffer disproportionately from poverty. Grameenphone, an offshoot of the bank, has brought cell-phone ownership to 260,000 rural poor since 1997. In 2006, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Note: The loan statistics referenced above were taken from Yunus’ 1999 book Banker to the Poor. Wikipedia cites total Grameen loans at $6.38 billion to 7.4 million borrowers as of July 2007.
Becky:
I’m going to have to go with Henry Ford. He streamlined and popularized mass production, which changed the face of American industry. Plus, his serviceable (with interchangable parts!), affordable Model T's changed the way average Americans lived, traveled, and worked. The argument could even be made that the network of highways that were constructed to handle the boom of automobile traffic was a stepping stone for the telecommunications industry.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Short Update
Well, today was to begin the roundtable discussion but certain member(s) who shall remain nameless (at least for now) have missed the submission deadline so we'll be delayed on that.
Christy and I have a busy week ahead of us. First, I got us free tickets to see an advance screening of Get Smart tonight, so that should be fun. I am hoping for the best, while expecting the worst. Something tells me that when it's over I'll wish that I had stayed home and just watched the original show for those 2 hours instead. Don Adams was great! Even if you didn't remember him from Get Smart, anyone near my age would certainly remember him as the voice of Inspector Gadget.
Then on Thursday we are going to see Mike Doughty at Martyr's. Kind of cool because he was only scheduled to play at Taste of Randolph on the 20th but an e-mail went out to his fan club members letting them know that he was actually playing a "secret" gig the night before. Very cool because Martyr's is a really small venue and you rarely get a chance to see him in such a small place anymore. Should be a lot of fun. It's doubly good because on the 20th we already had tickets to see Willie Nelson at Ravinia and now we don't have to make a choice between the 2. I'm not a huge Willie Nelson fan (although Stardust is a phenomenal album) but I had opportunities to see Oscar Peterson and Johnny Cash and didn't and now that they are gone I regret it and who knows how much longer Willie will be around for?
Still no word on the CPA exam, and they haven't even updated their stupid little memo to tell me when they're expecting to receive the scores. From past experience, it's supposed to be ~3 weeks after the testing window ends, which would be this Friday/Saturday. Really hoping I find out then. I've been able to put it out of my mind the last couple weeks but now that the time is once again approaching the restlessness has returned in earnest.
Finally, I'd just like to join in with everyone else in expressing my sadness in learning about Tim Russert's passing. The first time I remember seeing him was on election night 2000 when he grabbed a small wipe board and said (at about 5:00 before any of the polls had closed) "I'm going to write down 3 keys to this election tonight" and when he turned it around it read "Florida, Florida, Florida." After taking a long break from politics I've only gotten really into it over the past 2 years or so. Over that time, though, one of the things I looked forward to every week was coming into work on Monday mornings and listening to the Meet the Press podcast. It's really common when someone passes to hear people say "he was one of the good guys" but here I just can't think of a better way to succinctly describe him. His love for politics and politicians came through in every interview he did, and politicians on both sides describe him the exact same way professionally: tough but fair. This primary season was extremely gruelling but now I'm a little happier that it went on so long because in addition to Mondays I got to hear from him on umpteen Tuesday nights too, in his element doing what he loved. Not only did he push his competitors on the Sunday morning talk circuit to be better journalists, he also pushed politicians to be better candidates. He wasn't out for the "gotcha" moment, but if you came on the show unprepared he would nail you for sure. In the words of comedian Dave Allen: "Good night, and may your god go with you."
Christy and I have a busy week ahead of us. First, I got us free tickets to see an advance screening of Get Smart tonight, so that should be fun. I am hoping for the best, while expecting the worst. Something tells me that when it's over I'll wish that I had stayed home and just watched the original show for those 2 hours instead. Don Adams was great! Even if you didn't remember him from Get Smart, anyone near my age would certainly remember him as the voice of Inspector Gadget.
Then on Thursday we are going to see Mike Doughty at Martyr's. Kind of cool because he was only scheduled to play at Taste of Randolph on the 20th but an e-mail went out to his fan club members letting them know that he was actually playing a "secret" gig the night before. Very cool because Martyr's is a really small venue and you rarely get a chance to see him in such a small place anymore. Should be a lot of fun. It's doubly good because on the 20th we already had tickets to see Willie Nelson at Ravinia and now we don't have to make a choice between the 2. I'm not a huge Willie Nelson fan (although Stardust is a phenomenal album) but I had opportunities to see Oscar Peterson and Johnny Cash and didn't and now that they are gone I regret it and who knows how much longer Willie will be around for?
Still no word on the CPA exam, and they haven't even updated their stupid little memo to tell me when they're expecting to receive the scores. From past experience, it's supposed to be ~3 weeks after the testing window ends, which would be this Friday/Saturday. Really hoping I find out then. I've been able to put it out of my mind the last couple weeks but now that the time is once again approaching the restlessness has returned in earnest.
Finally, I'd just like to join in with everyone else in expressing my sadness in learning about Tim Russert's passing. The first time I remember seeing him was on election night 2000 when he grabbed a small wipe board and said (at about 5:00 before any of the polls had closed) "I'm going to write down 3 keys to this election tonight" and when he turned it around it read "Florida, Florida, Florida." After taking a long break from politics I've only gotten really into it over the past 2 years or so. Over that time, though, one of the things I looked forward to every week was coming into work on Monday mornings and listening to the Meet the Press podcast. It's really common when someone passes to hear people say "he was one of the good guys" but here I just can't think of a better way to succinctly describe him. His love for politics and politicians came through in every interview he did, and politicians on both sides describe him the exact same way professionally: tough but fair. This primary season was extremely gruelling but now I'm a little happier that it went on so long because in addition to Mondays I got to hear from him on umpteen Tuesday nights too, in his element doing what he loved. Not only did he push his competitors on the Sunday morning talk circuit to be better journalists, he also pushed politicians to be better candidates. He wasn't out for the "gotcha" moment, but if you came on the show unprepared he would nail you for sure. In the words of comedian Dave Allen: "Good night, and may your god go with you."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Recount!
OK, confession time. I actually voted for George Bush in 2000. Does that tinge my view of the following? I’d like to think not, but probably. I would like to add that I alleviate myself of responsibility for electing him though, on the grounds that Gore carried Illinois by a wide margin and thus my vote did not electorally contribute to him in any way. Is that rationalization? Yes. Yes it is. Does it help me sleep better at night? Yes. Yes it does.
So I watched the HBO film Recount the other night. For those poor souls without HBO and who haven’t heard of it, it’s a dramatization of the 2000 election in Florida and the days of madness that followed. Coming at the end of the Bush presidency, I think this is the right time for this film to have been made. The 36-days of confusion that occurred are of historic significance to the U.S. and is (hopefully) something we’ll never have to live through again. Had this film been made any sooner, the country wouldn’t have been ready to reflect on it. Any later and we might have collectively started to forget about it. Overall, the events depicted appear to be largely accurate, as they are approximately how I remember them. However, from listening to some of the filmmaker’s thoughts, it appears that they believed they were making a non-partisan film and I would have to say that in that regard they came up short. First of all, the story is told largely from the perspective of Al Gore’s chief legal counsel (played by Kevin Spacey). This inherently makes him the protagonist and, as the underdog, all of cinematic expectations lead us to want to root for him. That’s not by itself a bad thing, but it deals a blow to the claim of neutrality. Also, while I think they do a generally fair job of portraying each camp’s legal teams as simply doing whatever it takes to win within the confines of the law, where I think the film gets out of focus is in the portraying of the lower-level supporters of each candidate. If the film is to be believed, all Gore supporters wanted was to ensure that the intent of the voters was recognized, and all Bush supporters wanted was to stifle any and all efforts to give Gore any additional votes. While I’m quite sure there are lots of people that fall into those two categories, on balance I think Gore supporters weren’t quite as noble as they like to think they were, and Bush supporters weren’t quite so devious.
If there is one thing that is apparent and, I believe, true about the film is that the U.S. Supreme Court decision was exceedingly . . .odd. In case your memory of the events is a bit hazy, the Florida Supreme Court, on December 8th, ordered manual recounts in counties with a large number of undervotes. Then on December 9th the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction stopping the recount and set a hearing for December 11th. Then on December 12th they ruled that the recounts hadn’t been valid because different counties were using different standards in the recount, and that now there was no time to complete the recount under new standards. So basically, they said, “We really don’t know who actually won, but we can’t trust these new numbers and they’re incomplete anyway, and now there’s no time left so we have to go with what the previous result was.” But perhaps the oddest part of the decision was that it was "limited to the present circumstances", meaning that it could never be cited as precedent. The film indicates that this is the first time the US Supreme Court has ever done that; I can neither confirm nor deny that.
My belief is that, under the way that the system was set up, you ultimately couldn’t call that election any other way. But the system should have worked better. I am reminded of the 2002 baseball All-Star game (stay with me here), which ended in a tie in the 11th inning after both teams ran out of relief pitchers. The fact that it ended in a tie didn’t really bother me. After all, it was an exhibition game (this was the year before the winner determined home-field advantage for the World Series). What bothered me was the 20-minute stoppage of play before the 11th inning while league officials met to discuss what to do. It was as if it had never occurred to any of them that this was a possibility, despite the fact that 5 games per week end up in extra innings. A lot of baseball games are close, so it seems like there probably should have been some guidelines in place. Well, some elections are really close, so it kind of seems like there should have been some guidelines in place there too. What are the standards for manually recounting ballots? How should you deal with pregnant or dimpled chads? I don’t know, but I know this: the day after the election is not the time to hold a debate about it. In a stunning coincidence, people’s opinion about those line up almost exactly with the position of the candidate they support.
Now, to bring this into the current realm, once you have standards you need to stick to them! Last year, in a stunning display of stupidity that only the Democrats can produce, the DNC voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates for moving their primaries up. In October, Hillary Clinton said of Michigan “It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything.” Well, apparently something happened between October and April to make it less clear, because suddenly she was champion of the people of those two states and decided to do everything in her power to make sure they counted. When the DNC ended up allowing half the states delegates to be represented, and further awarded Clinton slightly more delegates in Michigan it was the Clinton camp that was outraged. But the group that should have been outraged was Obama (which, of course, he would have been had it actually mattered). What is the point of establishing the rules and standards if you’re just going to change them “when it counts”? I can’t believe that any Democrat who complains about Bush's supposed trampling on the Bill of Rights during his presidency could possibly support Clinton in this type of ridiculous logic. With the Patriot Act and things like warrantless wire-tapping, our president has basically said that sometimes the security of the nation is more important than an individual’s rights when the country is in danger. I disagree. I think that when the country is in danger, that’s when our civil rights are the most important. Similarly, it is during close elections where it is most important to adhere strictly to our established standards and guidelines. At the end of the day, the main goal in counting ballots is objectivity. Do I believe that the butterfly ballot was confusing? Yes, but so what? There was a process in place to approve it 30-days prior to the election and neither party filed a complaint. Hence, that argument holds no water. Don’t like the ballot? Then change it next time.
Someone could astutely point out that I voted for Bush and Obama, so of course I support these two outcomes. I would argue that I’m also an accountant, and as such hold a particular affinity for the absolute nature of numbers and recognize the need for rules and standards to clarify the subjective.
One final note on the 2000 election that I encountered. Being from Wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt. I did find it interesting though:
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes. The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out.
So I watched the HBO film Recount the other night. For those poor souls without HBO and who haven’t heard of it, it’s a dramatization of the 2000 election in Florida and the days of madness that followed. Coming at the end of the Bush presidency, I think this is the right time for this film to have been made. The 36-days of confusion that occurred are of historic significance to the U.S. and is (hopefully) something we’ll never have to live through again. Had this film been made any sooner, the country wouldn’t have been ready to reflect on it. Any later and we might have collectively started to forget about it. Overall, the events depicted appear to be largely accurate, as they are approximately how I remember them. However, from listening to some of the filmmaker’s thoughts, it appears that they believed they were making a non-partisan film and I would have to say that in that regard they came up short. First of all, the story is told largely from the perspective of Al Gore’s chief legal counsel (played by Kevin Spacey). This inherently makes him the protagonist and, as the underdog, all of cinematic expectations lead us to want to root for him. That’s not by itself a bad thing, but it deals a blow to the claim of neutrality. Also, while I think they do a generally fair job of portraying each camp’s legal teams as simply doing whatever it takes to win within the confines of the law, where I think the film gets out of focus is in the portraying of the lower-level supporters of each candidate. If the film is to be believed, all Gore supporters wanted was to ensure that the intent of the voters was recognized, and all Bush supporters wanted was to stifle any and all efforts to give Gore any additional votes. While I’m quite sure there are lots of people that fall into those two categories, on balance I think Gore supporters weren’t quite as noble as they like to think they were, and Bush supporters weren’t quite so devious.
If there is one thing that is apparent and, I believe, true about the film is that the U.S. Supreme Court decision was exceedingly . . .odd. In case your memory of the events is a bit hazy, the Florida Supreme Court, on December 8th, ordered manual recounts in counties with a large number of undervotes. Then on December 9th the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction stopping the recount and set a hearing for December 11th. Then on December 12th they ruled that the recounts hadn’t been valid because different counties were using different standards in the recount, and that now there was no time to complete the recount under new standards. So basically, they said, “We really don’t know who actually won, but we can’t trust these new numbers and they’re incomplete anyway, and now there’s no time left so we have to go with what the previous result was.” But perhaps the oddest part of the decision was that it was "limited to the present circumstances", meaning that it could never be cited as precedent. The film indicates that this is the first time the US Supreme Court has ever done that; I can neither confirm nor deny that.
My belief is that, under the way that the system was set up, you ultimately couldn’t call that election any other way. But the system should have worked better. I am reminded of the 2002 baseball All-Star game (stay with me here), which ended in a tie in the 11th inning after both teams ran out of relief pitchers. The fact that it ended in a tie didn’t really bother me. After all, it was an exhibition game (this was the year before the winner determined home-field advantage for the World Series). What bothered me was the 20-minute stoppage of play before the 11th inning while league officials met to discuss what to do. It was as if it had never occurred to any of them that this was a possibility, despite the fact that 5 games per week end up in extra innings. A lot of baseball games are close, so it seems like there probably should have been some guidelines in place. Well, some elections are really close, so it kind of seems like there should have been some guidelines in place there too. What are the standards for manually recounting ballots? How should you deal with pregnant or dimpled chads? I don’t know, but I know this: the day after the election is not the time to hold a debate about it. In a stunning coincidence, people’s opinion about those line up almost exactly with the position of the candidate they support.
Now, to bring this into the current realm, once you have standards you need to stick to them! Last year, in a stunning display of stupidity that only the Democrats can produce, the DNC voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates for moving their primaries up. In October, Hillary Clinton said of Michigan “It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything.” Well, apparently something happened between October and April to make it less clear, because suddenly she was champion of the people of those two states and decided to do everything in her power to make sure they counted. When the DNC ended up allowing half the states delegates to be represented, and further awarded Clinton slightly more delegates in Michigan it was the Clinton camp that was outraged. But the group that should have been outraged was Obama (which, of course, he would have been had it actually mattered). What is the point of establishing the rules and standards if you’re just going to change them “when it counts”? I can’t believe that any Democrat who complains about Bush's supposed trampling on the Bill of Rights during his presidency could possibly support Clinton in this type of ridiculous logic. With the Patriot Act and things like warrantless wire-tapping, our president has basically said that sometimes the security of the nation is more important than an individual’s rights when the country is in danger. I disagree. I think that when the country is in danger, that’s when our civil rights are the most important. Similarly, it is during close elections where it is most important to adhere strictly to our established standards and guidelines. At the end of the day, the main goal in counting ballots is objectivity. Do I believe that the butterfly ballot was confusing? Yes, but so what? There was a process in place to approve it 30-days prior to the election and neither party filed a complaint. Hence, that argument holds no water. Don’t like the ballot? Then change it next time.
Someone could astutely point out that I voted for Bush and Obama, so of course I support these two outcomes. I would argue that I’m also an accountant, and as such hold a particular affinity for the absolute nature of numbers and recognize the need for rules and standards to clarify the subjective.
One final note on the 2000 election that I encountered. Being from Wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt. I did find it interesting though:
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes. The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Moving on to Something Less Controversial: Immigration!
One of the things I remember most from my life as a student was one particular night in my Taxation course during my MBA program. We were in about the 7th or 8th week and discussing the nuances about a particular tax code item. I won’t bore you with all the specifics here (but feel free to ask me about it if you care) but it had to do with a change that was made in order to close a loophole that existed and ended up resulting in some fairly disastrous consequences that were completely unintended and unforeseen. That led our professor to make the following statement (and I’m paraphrasing); “whenever I hear debates about making major changes or simplifications to the tax code, I always say ‘unless you can tell me at least one major negative that this change will cause, you haven’t thought hard enough about it.’” That’s actually how I feel about a lot of our problems where it is common to hear 30-second sound bite solutions of “we just need to do X” and everything will be fine.
I am using this as the intro to my discussion on immigration because, simply put, it’s quite a tangled mess that has no easy answers. Every solution I’ve heard either has serious negatives attached to it or is logistically impossible (or both). That’s not to say that none of them are the “correct” choice, but it’s just infuriating to hear various solutions presented as though they are the clear “right” answer and that there are no drawbacks. By the way, this could also be said (especially) of health care, but that’s a blog for another day.
Of course, the long-term solution to the immigration problem is a prosperous and stable Mexican economy. However, I haven’t seen and don’t anticipate any politicians campaigning on the platform of “Your tax dollars for Mexico!” so I think that doing what we can from our end and continuing to encourage free trade is about the best we can do.
First, I want to start with the fence on the border. I never really got to the point of thinking about this on a philosophical level, because I have a very practical objection to it- it doesn't work. I hate always citing this, but on Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t they studied the specifications of the wall and built a replica of a section of it. They picked up a group of illegal Mexicans at a Home Depot and had them build the wall (but didn't tell them what it was for). Then they had them, in groups of two, try to get around it. One group tried to go over it, one group through it, and the other one under it. It took the group going through it the longest: just over 5 minutes. The group going over got through in less than 3. Even if we build double or triple layers, that's still slowing them down by less than 10 minutes. That hardly seems an efficient use of taxpayer money. A tv stunt is certainly not a scientific experiment, but considering there are large sections of the wall that are being built by recent immigrants I think it’s at least somewhat valid. Then there’s just the obvious problem that the fence only covers an extremely small portion of the border. Sure, that may be where the majority of illegals cross but is our goal really just to get them to cross somewhere else?
OK, so if a fence won’t work then what will? Well, I’m sure it comes as a surprise to no one that the reason immigrants come here is due to the economy and job opportunities being vastly superior over here than in the majority of Mexico. Hence it would make sense that in order to stem the flow of illegal immigrants we need to remove that motivation. That means tougher laws and penalties on businesses that hire illegals. However, we also need to be careful here. You don’t want to make the documentation rules so oneruous that you cause businesses to discriminate against legal immigrants just so they can avoid any possibility of having legal problems. Creating that kind of climate would further exacerbate the situation because then illegals lose more motivation to ever become legal. Nevertheless, better enforcement and creating incentives for adherence to the existing laws seems like a reasonable course of action and a good place to start. I am fully in support of that.
Then we get to the question of what to do with the millions of illegals currently in the country? The common answer given to this is "send 'em back!" Again, I immediately have an objection to this on the practical level. I don’t know, and have never heard of, a reasonable way to do this. One of the most frequent arguments used to expound on the need to get a handle on immigration is “we know nothing about who these people are, where they come from, or what they are trying to do.” This is definitely true and is a problem. While few would argue against the statement that the vast majority of Mexican immigrants are simply seeking to raise their standard of living, it is probable that at least a few are exploiting the open border for more sinister purposes. But the reason it is a problem is also the problem with any solution. How do you identify and round up a group you have no information on? You are literally chasing invisible people. How will you ever know if you have them all? Actually, how will you even be able to quantify it at all?
Then there’s the problem from the U.S. economy side. If we actually were successful at rapidly expelling all illegals out of the country our economy would be absolutely decimated (at least in the short term). The last report from DHS (issued last August for data through 1/06) estimates that there were approximately 11.6 million “unauthorized” immigrants living in the U.S. It is further estimated that 7.8 million of these were in the workforce. At that time, total unemployment in the U.S. was 7 million. That means that in the event that we actually were wildly successful in expelling immigrants, we would end up, in a best case scenario, with a deficit of almost a million jobs that we’d have no way to fill. And of course, practically speaking it would be far higher than that. The 7 million unemployed come from all over the country while the population of illegals is much more concentrate in the southern states. Eventually, Americans and legal immigrants can fill the jobs of illegals, but not immediately and not at the same rate. The biggest part of motivation to hire illegals from an employer side is the ability to pay them less than the minimum wage. This keeps the cost of goods and services lower and allows the business to be more competitive. Now, if all of a sudden they are required to pay minimum wage, then one of two things occurs. If their competitors are still employing illegals, they can no longer compete and go out of business. Or, assuming everyone now has to use legal workers, the result is a definite increase in price to the consumer. How much? Well, again since we don’t have great information no one really knows for sure.
Thus, it seems like this is a problem that, by necessity, needs to move slowly and incrementally. I’d say that Congress has the slowly part down but I don’t think “inert” quite qualifies as a speed. It doesn’t seem practical to just round up nearly 12 million people and it seems as though we’d have a lot of problems if we actually were able to do it. It is for that reason that I’ve come around to support at least a limited policy of amnesty. I detest the idea of rewarding people for their illegal actions, and I fully admit that at this point I don’t have much of an idea as to hammering out the specifics for how this would happen. And the absolute worst thing for the U.S. would be to encourage a sudden rush of border hopping to get into the country before some arbitrary date. Nevertheless, it seems like setting up some way of encouraging illegals to come forward and identify themselves is the only likely way to get the situation moving forward. I'd also like to further clarify that this would only apply to those who come forward. Those caught in an INS raid should rightfully be deported. This would have the dual effect of encouraging more illegals to come forward rather than be caught, and also to discourage businesses from continuing to hire illegals.
So in summary and to paraphrase a quote on democracy, I believe that amnesty is the worst solution to the immigration problem; except for every other solution. So, for those of you ready to jump on me and propose your own solution I ask that you please list at least one significant negative to what you propose. If you cannot do that, I believe you do not have a true appreciation for the real complexity of this situation.
I am using this as the intro to my discussion on immigration because, simply put, it’s quite a tangled mess that has no easy answers. Every solution I’ve heard either has serious negatives attached to it or is logistically impossible (or both). That’s not to say that none of them are the “correct” choice, but it’s just infuriating to hear various solutions presented as though they are the clear “right” answer and that there are no drawbacks. By the way, this could also be said (especially) of health care, but that’s a blog for another day.
Of course, the long-term solution to the immigration problem is a prosperous and stable Mexican economy. However, I haven’t seen and don’t anticipate any politicians campaigning on the platform of “Your tax dollars for Mexico!” so I think that doing what we can from our end and continuing to encourage free trade is about the best we can do.
First, I want to start with the fence on the border. I never really got to the point of thinking about this on a philosophical level, because I have a very practical objection to it- it doesn't work. I hate always citing this, but on Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t they studied the specifications of the wall and built a replica of a section of it. They picked up a group of illegal Mexicans at a Home Depot and had them build the wall (but didn't tell them what it was for). Then they had them, in groups of two, try to get around it. One group tried to go over it, one group through it, and the other one under it. It took the group going through it the longest: just over 5 minutes. The group going over got through in less than 3. Even if we build double or triple layers, that's still slowing them down by less than 10 minutes. That hardly seems an efficient use of taxpayer money. A tv stunt is certainly not a scientific experiment, but considering there are large sections of the wall that are being built by recent immigrants I think it’s at least somewhat valid. Then there’s just the obvious problem that the fence only covers an extremely small portion of the border. Sure, that may be where the majority of illegals cross but is our goal really just to get them to cross somewhere else?
OK, so if a fence won’t work then what will? Well, I’m sure it comes as a surprise to no one that the reason immigrants come here is due to the economy and job opportunities being vastly superior over here than in the majority of Mexico. Hence it would make sense that in order to stem the flow of illegal immigrants we need to remove that motivation. That means tougher laws and penalties on businesses that hire illegals. However, we also need to be careful here. You don’t want to make the documentation rules so oneruous that you cause businesses to discriminate against legal immigrants just so they can avoid any possibility of having legal problems. Creating that kind of climate would further exacerbate the situation because then illegals lose more motivation to ever become legal. Nevertheless, better enforcement and creating incentives for adherence to the existing laws seems like a reasonable course of action and a good place to start. I am fully in support of that.
Then we get to the question of what to do with the millions of illegals currently in the country? The common answer given to this is "send 'em back!" Again, I immediately have an objection to this on the practical level. I don’t know, and have never heard of, a reasonable way to do this. One of the most frequent arguments used to expound on the need to get a handle on immigration is “we know nothing about who these people are, where they come from, or what they are trying to do.” This is definitely true and is a problem. While few would argue against the statement that the vast majority of Mexican immigrants are simply seeking to raise their standard of living, it is probable that at least a few are exploiting the open border for more sinister purposes. But the reason it is a problem is also the problem with any solution. How do you identify and round up a group you have no information on? You are literally chasing invisible people. How will you ever know if you have them all? Actually, how will you even be able to quantify it at all?
Then there’s the problem from the U.S. economy side. If we actually were successful at rapidly expelling all illegals out of the country our economy would be absolutely decimated (at least in the short term). The last report from DHS (issued last August for data through 1/06) estimates that there were approximately 11.6 million “unauthorized” immigrants living in the U.S. It is further estimated that 7.8 million of these were in the workforce. At that time, total unemployment in the U.S. was 7 million. That means that in the event that we actually were wildly successful in expelling immigrants, we would end up, in a best case scenario, with a deficit of almost a million jobs that we’d have no way to fill. And of course, practically speaking it would be far higher than that. The 7 million unemployed come from all over the country while the population of illegals is much more concentrate in the southern states. Eventually, Americans and legal immigrants can fill the jobs of illegals, but not immediately and not at the same rate. The biggest part of motivation to hire illegals from an employer side is the ability to pay them less than the minimum wage. This keeps the cost of goods and services lower and allows the business to be more competitive. Now, if all of a sudden they are required to pay minimum wage, then one of two things occurs. If their competitors are still employing illegals, they can no longer compete and go out of business. Or, assuming everyone now has to use legal workers, the result is a definite increase in price to the consumer. How much? Well, again since we don’t have great information no one really knows for sure.
Thus, it seems like this is a problem that, by necessity, needs to move slowly and incrementally. I’d say that Congress has the slowly part down but I don’t think “inert” quite qualifies as a speed. It doesn’t seem practical to just round up nearly 12 million people and it seems as though we’d have a lot of problems if we actually were able to do it. It is for that reason that I’ve come around to support at least a limited policy of amnesty. I detest the idea of rewarding people for their illegal actions, and I fully admit that at this point I don’t have much of an idea as to hammering out the specifics for how this would happen. And the absolute worst thing for the U.S. would be to encourage a sudden rush of border hopping to get into the country before some arbitrary date. Nevertheless, it seems like setting up some way of encouraging illegals to come forward and identify themselves is the only likely way to get the situation moving forward. I'd also like to further clarify that this would only apply to those who come forward. Those caught in an INS raid should rightfully be deported. This would have the dual effect of encouraging more illegals to come forward rather than be caught, and also to discourage businesses from continuing to hire illegals.
So in summary and to paraphrase a quote on democracy, I believe that amnesty is the worst solution to the immigration problem; except for every other solution. So, for those of you ready to jump on me and propose your own solution I ask that you please list at least one significant negative to what you propose. If you cannot do that, I believe you do not have a true appreciation for the real complexity of this situation.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Post-American World Review
So last week I finished The Post-American World and I have to say it was one of the best books I have ever read. Although relatively short at 259 pages, it is amazing the breadth of information he has managed to pack into it. I can’t remember another book where I found myself nodding in agreement to almost everything he said. I do have a problem with the title, though. It absolutely makes sense in the context of the book but I think it’s a little too inflammatory for those that aren’t familiar with his work and it will probably cause a fair amount of people to dismiss it as “just another anti-American book.” Really, it is anything but that. While he certainly doesn’t pull any punches in criticizing American blunders, he is also careful to point out the myriad of successes and instances where we’ve gotten an undeserved bad rep. Overall he presents a vision of a world where, yes, America will inevitably be stepping down from its role as the sole super-power but where we also have a very important new role to play and we will be instrumental in determining whether or not the age of globalization surges ahead smoothly or lurches forward unsteadily. In the analogy of the world as a corporation, we will be the Chairman of the Board. We wield the most power at the table, but we will no longer be able to unilaterally act without the cooperation of the rest of the Board of Directors.
Rather than expound on the subjects he talks about, I thought it would be better to give it to you in his own words, with some commentary from me after each quote.
On Terrorism
“Some Western leaders speak of a single Islamist movement – absurdly lumping together Chechen separatists in Russia, Pakistani-backed militants in India, Shiite warlords in Lebanon, and Sunni jihadists in Egypt. In fact, a shrewd strategist would emphasize that all these groups are distinct, with differing agendas, enemies, and friends. That would rob them of their claim to represent Islam. It would also describe them as they often are: small local gangs of misfits hoping to attract attention through nihilism and barbarism.”
This is such a great point. Even in anecdotal discussions with pretty well-informed people I have often heard (and been guilty of saying myself) things like “well, the Sunnis want this, and the Shiites want this” when the reality is far more complex. In the U.S. if someone were to make a statement that the KKK, the IRA, and pro-lifers that bomb abortion clinics were all the same because they are all radical Christian-based organizations, people would rightfully look at them like they were crazy. But far too often we are eager to group things together and gloss over all the extremely important complexities of the situation. We do so at our own peril.
“Here is the bottom line. In the six years since 9/11, Al-Qaeda Central – the group led by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri – has been unable to launch a major attack anywhere. It was a terrorist organization; it has become a communications company, producing the occasional videotape rather than actual terror. Jihad continues, but the jihadists have had to scatter, make do with smaller targets, and operate on a local level – usually through groups with almost no connection to Al Qaeda Central. And this improvised strategy has a crippling weakness: it kills locals, thus alienating ordinary Muslims. . . The minority that wants jihad is real, but it operates within societies where such activities are increasingly unpopular and irrelevant”
Now I’m sure a lot of people will see this as goading the terrorists but I think this is a far cry from Bush’s “Bring it on” from 2004. The most important thing, and the thing we need to improve the most upon in this country, is to keep the threat of terrorism in perspective. If you don’t like the above quote, consider this one: “Get on the damn elevator! Fly on the damn plane! Calculate the odds of being harmed by a terrorist! It’s still about as likely as being swept out to sea by a tidal wave.” That’s from John McCain’s book (Why Courage Matters, 2004). Fighting terrorism, like fighting crime, is an important part of any country’s safety. It should not, however, be dominating the political agenda.
The Effects of Terrorism on the Economy
“In the West, the effects of terrorism have diminished with each additional attack. After 9/11, global financial markets collapsed and did not return to 9/10 levels for 2 months. After the Madrid bombings in 2004, the Spanish market took a month to recover. After the London bombings in July 2005, British stocks were back to pre-bombing levels in 24 hours.”
As an economics geek, I find this kind of thing really interesting, and it is one of the things I have believed for a while. Since terrorism cannot kill the genocidal type numbers of a huge war, the only way it really succeeds is if it manages to create instability and fear within a population. That is why I was actually upset when, on the evening of 9/11, there was nothing to be found on the TV but WTC coverage. Certainly I don’t think that it wasn’t newsworthy, I just thought that the best response to the attack would have been a collective shrug where we get on with our lives. It bothered me that we kept saying “the terrorists failed” while all the while further solidifying that 9/11/01 will be a pivotal date etched into the history books. That’s what they wanted to do, and they succeeded. 9/11 should not be our date or our rallying cry. 9/11 is about a group of misguided extremists who decided to bring tragedy and destruction into the lives of innocent people. That’s their date. You know what our date is? 7/4. Always has been, and always should be. To quote The World is Flat, “we need to restore 9/11 to its rightful place on the calendar. The day after 9/10 and the day before 9/12.”
Climate Change
“Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build 800 new coal-fired power plants – with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords.”
Again, this is all about perspective (though this time in the reverse). It’s all well and good for us Americans to switch to fluorescent lights and even drive our hybrid cars, but unless we are able to get China and India on board in the fight against climate change, it’s probably all moot. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, though.
American Hypocrisy
[This is Fareed quoting a Chinese government employee]“When you tell us that we support a dictatorship in Sudan to have access to its oil, what I want to say is ‘And how is that different from your support of a medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia?’ We see the hypocrisy, we just don’t say anything, yet.”
Fareed expounds on this a lot in the book. Bush is fond of saying how much he loves democracy and condemns countries that support non-democratic regimes. Yet the rest of the world sees our relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and our words seem very hollow. We consider those countries to be “exceptions”. But we either need to stop having our own exceptions or realize that other countries are entitled to their exceptions too and drop the empty rhetoric.
“On terrorism, both parties continue to speak in a language entirely designed for a domestic audience with no concern for the poisonous effect it has everywhere else.”
When our politicians fall all over themselves decrying this and that country and leader, it’s always with the mindset of how American voters will see the issue. But the rest of the world watches too, and it does not set the stage for very effective diplomatic relationships.
The Global Economy
“For all its abuses of power, the U.S. has been the creator and sustainer of the current order of open trade and democratic government – an order that has been benign and beneficial for the vast majority of humankind.”
“That is why it seems perfectly natural that the largest casino in the world has been built in Macao, China – and it is an imitation of St. Mark’s Square in Venice, which is itself strongly influenced by Moorish (Islamic) design. Is it Chinese, Western, Moorish, or modern? Probably all of the above.”
From the Pew Global Attitudes Survey – “Of the 47 countries polled, however, the one that came in dead last in terms of support for free trade was the US . . .We want the world to accept American companies with open arms, but when they come here – that’s a different matter.”
“Over the last 15 years the U.S. has placed sanctions on half the world’s population. We are the only country in the world to issue annual report cards on every other country’s behavior.”
“Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that, in the early decades of the 21st century, the United States succeeded in its great and historic mission – it globalized the world. But along the way, they might write, it forgot to globalize itself.”
I don’t have a lot of comments on these individually, as I think they generally speak for themselves. I think together they paint a pretty good picture of the role the U.S. has had in shaping the current world and global economy we operate in, and also the challenges that we face in now needing to reshape the way we interact with this new world order.
Rather than expound on the subjects he talks about, I thought it would be better to give it to you in his own words, with some commentary from me after each quote.
On Terrorism
“Some Western leaders speak of a single Islamist movement – absurdly lumping together Chechen separatists in Russia, Pakistani-backed militants in India, Shiite warlords in Lebanon, and Sunni jihadists in Egypt. In fact, a shrewd strategist would emphasize that all these groups are distinct, with differing agendas, enemies, and friends. That would rob them of their claim to represent Islam. It would also describe them as they often are: small local gangs of misfits hoping to attract attention through nihilism and barbarism.”
This is such a great point. Even in anecdotal discussions with pretty well-informed people I have often heard (and been guilty of saying myself) things like “well, the Sunnis want this, and the Shiites want this” when the reality is far more complex. In the U.S. if someone were to make a statement that the KKK, the IRA, and pro-lifers that bomb abortion clinics were all the same because they are all radical Christian-based organizations, people would rightfully look at them like they were crazy. But far too often we are eager to group things together and gloss over all the extremely important complexities of the situation. We do so at our own peril.
“Here is the bottom line. In the six years since 9/11, Al-Qaeda Central – the group led by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri – has been unable to launch a major attack anywhere. It was a terrorist organization; it has become a communications company, producing the occasional videotape rather than actual terror. Jihad continues, but the jihadists have had to scatter, make do with smaller targets, and operate on a local level – usually through groups with almost no connection to Al Qaeda Central. And this improvised strategy has a crippling weakness: it kills locals, thus alienating ordinary Muslims. . . The minority that wants jihad is real, but it operates within societies where such activities are increasingly unpopular and irrelevant”
Now I’m sure a lot of people will see this as goading the terrorists but I think this is a far cry from Bush’s “Bring it on” from 2004. The most important thing, and the thing we need to improve the most upon in this country, is to keep the threat of terrorism in perspective. If you don’t like the above quote, consider this one: “Get on the damn elevator! Fly on the damn plane! Calculate the odds of being harmed by a terrorist! It’s still about as likely as being swept out to sea by a tidal wave.” That’s from John McCain’s book (Why Courage Matters, 2004). Fighting terrorism, like fighting crime, is an important part of any country’s safety. It should not, however, be dominating the political agenda.
The Effects of Terrorism on the Economy
“In the West, the effects of terrorism have diminished with each additional attack. After 9/11, global financial markets collapsed and did not return to 9/10 levels for 2 months. After the Madrid bombings in 2004, the Spanish market took a month to recover. After the London bombings in July 2005, British stocks were back to pre-bombing levels in 24 hours.”
As an economics geek, I find this kind of thing really interesting, and it is one of the things I have believed for a while. Since terrorism cannot kill the genocidal type numbers of a huge war, the only way it really succeeds is if it manages to create instability and fear within a population. That is why I was actually upset when, on the evening of 9/11, there was nothing to be found on the TV but WTC coverage. Certainly I don’t think that it wasn’t newsworthy, I just thought that the best response to the attack would have been a collective shrug where we get on with our lives. It bothered me that we kept saying “the terrorists failed” while all the while further solidifying that 9/11/01 will be a pivotal date etched into the history books. That’s what they wanted to do, and they succeeded. 9/11 should not be our date or our rallying cry. 9/11 is about a group of misguided extremists who decided to bring tragedy and destruction into the lives of innocent people. That’s their date. You know what our date is? 7/4. Always has been, and always should be. To quote The World is Flat, “we need to restore 9/11 to its rightful place on the calendar. The day after 9/10 and the day before 9/12.”
Climate Change
“Between 2006 and 2012, China and India will build 800 new coal-fired power plants – with combined CO2 emissions five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords.”
Again, this is all about perspective (though this time in the reverse). It’s all well and good for us Americans to switch to fluorescent lights and even drive our hybrid cars, but unless we are able to get China and India on board in the fight against climate change, it’s probably all moot. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, though.
American Hypocrisy
[This is Fareed quoting a Chinese government employee]“When you tell us that we support a dictatorship in Sudan to have access to its oil, what I want to say is ‘And how is that different from your support of a medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia?’ We see the hypocrisy, we just don’t say anything, yet.”
Fareed expounds on this a lot in the book. Bush is fond of saying how much he loves democracy and condemns countries that support non-democratic regimes. Yet the rest of the world sees our relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and our words seem very hollow. We consider those countries to be “exceptions”. But we either need to stop having our own exceptions or realize that other countries are entitled to their exceptions too and drop the empty rhetoric.
“On terrorism, both parties continue to speak in a language entirely designed for a domestic audience with no concern for the poisonous effect it has everywhere else.”
When our politicians fall all over themselves decrying this and that country and leader, it’s always with the mindset of how American voters will see the issue. But the rest of the world watches too, and it does not set the stage for very effective diplomatic relationships.
The Global Economy
“For all its abuses of power, the U.S. has been the creator and sustainer of the current order of open trade and democratic government – an order that has been benign and beneficial for the vast majority of humankind.”
“That is why it seems perfectly natural that the largest casino in the world has been built in Macao, China – and it is an imitation of St. Mark’s Square in Venice, which is itself strongly influenced by Moorish (Islamic) design. Is it Chinese, Western, Moorish, or modern? Probably all of the above.”
From the Pew Global Attitudes Survey – “Of the 47 countries polled, however, the one that came in dead last in terms of support for free trade was the US . . .We want the world to accept American companies with open arms, but when they come here – that’s a different matter.”
“Over the last 15 years the U.S. has placed sanctions on half the world’s population. We are the only country in the world to issue annual report cards on every other country’s behavior.”
“Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that, in the early decades of the 21st century, the United States succeeded in its great and historic mission – it globalized the world. But along the way, they might write, it forgot to globalize itself.”
I don’t have a lot of comments on these individually, as I think they generally speak for themselves. I think together they paint a pretty good picture of the role the U.S. has had in shaping the current world and global economy we operate in, and also the challenges that we face in now needing to reshape the way we interact with this new world order.
Friday, May 23, 2008
One More Down, One Still Pending!
Well, my last post has confirmed what I’ve always thought: you get the most interest when you talk about sex or death (though, preferably not at the same time). In any case, I’m working on a couple more serious posts but hey, it’s Friday so let’s turn to some more fun stuff!
The big news from today is that at long last I finally found out one of my CPA scores (the Financial Reporting section) and I did indeed pass! Contrary to my other two exams, where I far exceeded the minimum passing score of 75 (87 on BEC and 91 on REG), this time I got through by the skin of my teeth with a 77. I like the way my co-worker put it when I told him this morning: “That just means you studied exactly the right amount.” Still waiting on the final section (Audit) but I am ecstatic that I will never need to study this Financial Reporting junk again. That was by far my weakest area and the one I was dreading the most going into this process. Even though it will suck if I have to retake Audit, I will appreciate the inherent irony that I have been an Auditor for 7 years and that might be the one section I don’t pass. More than anything, though, I just hope I find out sooner rather than later. With the holiday weekend upon us, I have the distinct feeling that if it isn’t posted today by 5 I won’t find out till Tuesday at the earliest.
Last night Christy and I got out to see the new Indiana Jones movie on opening night. Since I’m assuming most of you haven’t seen it yet but are planning to, I won’t give away any specifics and will just let you know my reaction to it. Overall, I was actually really impressed. My first thought as the credits rolled was “that was a far better job of preserving the legacy of a historic series than the new Star Wars films.” Everything about the film still *feels* like an Indiana Jones movie. The way it’s shot, written, acted, the action scenes, the sound effects, and even down to the Indy one-liners are all done pitch-perfect. They don’t shy away from the fact that he is a lot older than he was in the last one, and I’m glad for it. It does add a tinge of sadness to the whole proceedings, because where the other stories felt like we were seeing just one adventure in a long series that began long before and would continue long after, this one really feels like it is his last adventure and thus almost plays out like a long epilogue. But, hey, by all accounts it really IS the last adventure for him, so that feel is appropriate too. There are subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the previous films, but rather than seem contrived or superfluous they feel logical within the context of the story. It manages to exceed in walking a very tight line of invoking nostalgia while at the same time being an exciting new adventure in its own right. This is definitely a film I can see myself watching over and over again. The only complaint that, to me, really keeps it from being masterful is the ending. Again, I won’t give specifics, but I’ll just say that while I won’t go so far as to call it bad, I think underwhelming is a good descriptor. I think that’s partially a function of the fact that all 3 previous films managed to have unbelievably awesome endings. Seriously, the opening of the ark in Raiders, the mine cart race and rope bridge fight in Temple, and the trials and choosing the right grail in Crusade would all probably be in the top-50 most memorable scenes of all time. The end of this film will most definitely not be included there, but that’s ok. For me, it knocks it down from a 10 to a 9/10, but that’s still pretty impressive and a lot better than I was expecting. I was also trying to think of where this film ranks out of the four films and you know what? I can’t do it; because I actually can’t rank the other three either. Depending on the day, I can make an argument that any of the other three are my favorite. The only things I can say definitively is that on no day is Raiders my least favorite, and on no day will the Crystal Skull be my favorite. Everything else is up for grabs though.
This is Captain Tollway, the new mascot for the Illinois er . . . tollway I guess. For the moment I am going to bypass the inherent ridiculousness of having a mascot for tolls (what’s next? Taxy the IRS mascot who looks like a cab?) and just concentrate on the absolute absurdity of the appearance of this particular one. First of all, why are only his lower teeth showing and why exactly is his lower jaw three times the size of the top of his head? Second, I question the decision to give him the Cameron Diaz There’s Something About Mary hair. I also don’t understand why his knees curve inward instead of out, and I am moderately disturbed by the sharp, triangular (possibly cancerous) growths protruding from both biceps. All that being said, I can’t wait to pick up my free Captain Tollway coloring book and crayons! Yes, that’s our tax dollars at work.
Finally today, I’ve come up with an idea for some group participation (no, not that; get your minds out of the gutter people). Since there seems to be a fair amount of opinionated people that read this, I thought it might be neat to do a sort of “round table” discussion. I’ve seen this done on some other sites (mainly sports blogs) and I thought it was pretty cool. Basically, I’ll come up with a list of topical questions (maybe 5 or 6) and me and 3 other people will provide short (~100-200 word) answers to them. It’s basically meant to simulate if we were all on one of those Sunday morning talk shows (or discussing over a few beers at a bar). Anyway, let me know if you are interested in participating. Not sure how many people will be, but to keep it fair if I get a lot of volunteers I’ll just take the first 3 I get. I haven’t even started to put together questions yet, but I’m thinking I’ll do that in the next week, send them out, and then give another week to get everyone’s response. I vow to reprint your responses exactly as I receive them (typos and all); no censorship of any kind. Anyway, let me know if you want to participate.
OK, I think that’s all for today. Monday or Tuesday I will post my comprehensive review of Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World, complete with a ton of quotes from the book that I think are awesome (hopefully I don’t get sued).
Have a good holiday weekend everyone!
The big news from today is that at long last I finally found out one of my CPA scores (the Financial Reporting section) and I did indeed pass! Contrary to my other two exams, where I far exceeded the minimum passing score of 75 (87 on BEC and 91 on REG), this time I got through by the skin of my teeth with a 77. I like the way my co-worker put it when I told him this morning: “That just means you studied exactly the right amount.” Still waiting on the final section (Audit) but I am ecstatic that I will never need to study this Financial Reporting junk again. That was by far my weakest area and the one I was dreading the most going into this process. Even though it will suck if I have to retake Audit, I will appreciate the inherent irony that I have been an Auditor for 7 years and that might be the one section I don’t pass. More than anything, though, I just hope I find out sooner rather than later. With the holiday weekend upon us, I have the distinct feeling that if it isn’t posted today by 5 I won’t find out till Tuesday at the earliest.
Last night Christy and I got out to see the new Indiana Jones movie on opening night. Since I’m assuming most of you haven’t seen it yet but are planning to, I won’t give away any specifics and will just let you know my reaction to it. Overall, I was actually really impressed. My first thought as the credits rolled was “that was a far better job of preserving the legacy of a historic series than the new Star Wars films.” Everything about the film still *feels* like an Indiana Jones movie. The way it’s shot, written, acted, the action scenes, the sound effects, and even down to the Indy one-liners are all done pitch-perfect. They don’t shy away from the fact that he is a lot older than he was in the last one, and I’m glad for it. It does add a tinge of sadness to the whole proceedings, because where the other stories felt like we were seeing just one adventure in a long series that began long before and would continue long after, this one really feels like it is his last adventure and thus almost plays out like a long epilogue. But, hey, by all accounts it really IS the last adventure for him, so that feel is appropriate too. There are subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the previous films, but rather than seem contrived or superfluous they feel logical within the context of the story. It manages to exceed in walking a very tight line of invoking nostalgia while at the same time being an exciting new adventure in its own right. This is definitely a film I can see myself watching over and over again. The only complaint that, to me, really keeps it from being masterful is the ending. Again, I won’t give specifics, but I’ll just say that while I won’t go so far as to call it bad, I think underwhelming is a good descriptor. I think that’s partially a function of the fact that all 3 previous films managed to have unbelievably awesome endings. Seriously, the opening of the ark in Raiders, the mine cart race and rope bridge fight in Temple, and the trials and choosing the right grail in Crusade would all probably be in the top-50 most memorable scenes of all time. The end of this film will most definitely not be included there, but that’s ok. For me, it knocks it down from a 10 to a 9/10, but that’s still pretty impressive and a lot better than I was expecting. I was also trying to think of where this film ranks out of the four films and you know what? I can’t do it; because I actually can’t rank the other three either. Depending on the day, I can make an argument that any of the other three are my favorite. The only things I can say definitively is that on no day is Raiders my least favorite, and on no day will the Crystal Skull be my favorite. Everything else is up for grabs though.
This is Captain Tollway, the new mascot for the Illinois er . . . tollway I guess. For the moment I am going to bypass the inherent ridiculousness of having a mascot for tolls (what’s next? Taxy the IRS mascot who looks like a cab?) and just concentrate on the absolute absurdity of the appearance of this particular one. First of all, why are only his lower teeth showing and why exactly is his lower jaw three times the size of the top of his head? Second, I question the decision to give him the Cameron Diaz There’s Something About Mary hair. I also don’t understand why his knees curve inward instead of out, and I am moderately disturbed by the sharp, triangular (possibly cancerous) growths protruding from both biceps. All that being said, I can’t wait to pick up my free Captain Tollway coloring book and crayons! Yes, that’s our tax dollars at work.
Finally today, I’ve come up with an idea for some group participation (no, not that; get your minds out of the gutter people). Since there seems to be a fair amount of opinionated people that read this, I thought it might be neat to do a sort of “round table” discussion. I’ve seen this done on some other sites (mainly sports blogs) and I thought it was pretty cool. Basically, I’ll come up with a list of topical questions (maybe 5 or 6) and me and 3 other people will provide short (~100-200 word) answers to them. It’s basically meant to simulate if we were all on one of those Sunday morning talk shows (or discussing over a few beers at a bar). Anyway, let me know if you are interested in participating. Not sure how many people will be, but to keep it fair if I get a lot of volunteers I’ll just take the first 3 I get. I haven’t even started to put together questions yet, but I’m thinking I’ll do that in the next week, send them out, and then give another week to get everyone’s response. I vow to reprint your responses exactly as I receive them (typos and all); no censorship of any kind. Anyway, let me know if you want to participate.
OK, I think that’s all for today. Monday or Tuesday I will post my comprehensive review of Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World, complete with a ton of quotes from the book that I think are awesome (hopefully I don’t get sued).
Have a good holiday weekend everyone!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
An Argument Against Capital Punishment
OK, so usually even in my political posts I try to inject a little bit of humor there. After rereading this one, I realize that it is an exception. So, sorry, but this is one that will be all serious.
This is a topic I’ve had a lot of thoughts about over the last year and since I just read an article related to it I thought it would be a good time to bring it up. CNN is currently running a series of articles on DNA exonerations in the Dallas, TX area. To date, 17 people in the Dallas area (and, according to The Innocence Project, 216 nationwide) have been freed due to DNA evidence which has come to light since their incarceration. The latest is a man (James Woodward) who spent 27 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. While he will never get those 27 years of his life back, one of my favorite expressions applies here; things can always be worse. He could have been executed.
I suppose one of the reasons this issue has been on my mind is that it’s only been in the last year that I’ve changed my mind about it. Prior to that, I was firmly in the pro death-penalty camp. Largely my rationale was consistent with a conservative, Ayn Rand line of thinking where I was not in favor of using taxpayer money to support the lowest dregs of society. In many ways, I still believe that. However, I heard an argument on Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! that, try as I might I cannot refute.
Essentially, it boils down to an issue called the “paradox of the death penalty.” It means that if you believe that people responsible for murder deserve to be put to death then you are forced to believe that no innocent person has ever been falsely convicted and put to death. Otherwise you, as a member of a society that kills people, are responsible for the death of an innocent and therefore you yourself deserve to be put to death. While that may seem like academic rhetoric, I think it’s a very powerful point. How can you possibly support a policy where it is known that it will result in the death of the innocent?
Well, I guess I always knew that theoretically some people were imprisoned wrongfully. But seeing ironclad proof of it, as has been the situation with these DNA cases, is something else entirely. One of the scariest things about the James Woodard case is that he happened to be “lucky” enough to be convicted in a county that has evidence preservation laws. Had he not been, all the DNA evidence would have been destroyed long ago and he would still be in jail today. How many hundreds of other people does that apply to sitting in prison today? How many does it apply to that have been executed? We’ll never know the answer to either of these, and that’s what is so disturbing. The other thing that is just as frightening in his case is that it appears that during his original trial the police didn’t follow-up on several key leads and the prosecution apparently didn’t share information they were legally obligated to. The fact that this did not appear to even come up or factor in any of his appeals cases is further evidence of the fallibility of our legal system and further strengthens my case.
One of the counter arguments is that these anomalies represent “collateral damage.” The injustice done to a few individuals is minor when compared to the increase in safety to the public from ridding the world of dangerous and deranged criminals. After all, whenever the military engages in struggles there will inevitably be civilian casualties. Doesn’t following my logic indicate that I must believe all military action is immoral as well?
I would counter that military action, when properly used, is supposed to be a last resort. The wielding of death and destruction is meant to be used when there is no other option available. And that is the key: the lack of other options. With the death penalty, there is another option. And that option is locking criminals up and keeping them segregated from the general populace for the rest of their lives. True, it does not eliminate the injustice of imprisoning an innocent, and it is also true that it means that public money must be used to support them. All I can say is that sometimes you do have to choose the least worst option, and I believe that this is it.
I suppose it comes down to a fundamental question: are you willing to financially support 99% of people convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable in order to avoid killing the 1% that were falsely convicted?
This is a topic I’ve had a lot of thoughts about over the last year and since I just read an article related to it I thought it would be a good time to bring it up. CNN is currently running a series of articles on DNA exonerations in the Dallas, TX area. To date, 17 people in the Dallas area (and, according to The Innocence Project, 216 nationwide) have been freed due to DNA evidence which has come to light since their incarceration. The latest is a man (James Woodward) who spent 27 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. While he will never get those 27 years of his life back, one of my favorite expressions applies here; things can always be worse. He could have been executed.
I suppose one of the reasons this issue has been on my mind is that it’s only been in the last year that I’ve changed my mind about it. Prior to that, I was firmly in the pro death-penalty camp. Largely my rationale was consistent with a conservative, Ayn Rand line of thinking where I was not in favor of using taxpayer money to support the lowest dregs of society. In many ways, I still believe that. However, I heard an argument on Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! that, try as I might I cannot refute.
Essentially, it boils down to an issue called the “paradox of the death penalty.” It means that if you believe that people responsible for murder deserve to be put to death then you are forced to believe that no innocent person has ever been falsely convicted and put to death. Otherwise you, as a member of a society that kills people, are responsible for the death of an innocent and therefore you yourself deserve to be put to death. While that may seem like academic rhetoric, I think it’s a very powerful point. How can you possibly support a policy where it is known that it will result in the death of the innocent?
Well, I guess I always knew that theoretically some people were imprisoned wrongfully. But seeing ironclad proof of it, as has been the situation with these DNA cases, is something else entirely. One of the scariest things about the James Woodard case is that he happened to be “lucky” enough to be convicted in a county that has evidence preservation laws. Had he not been, all the DNA evidence would have been destroyed long ago and he would still be in jail today. How many hundreds of other people does that apply to sitting in prison today? How many does it apply to that have been executed? We’ll never know the answer to either of these, and that’s what is so disturbing. The other thing that is just as frightening in his case is that it appears that during his original trial the police didn’t follow-up on several key leads and the prosecution apparently didn’t share information they were legally obligated to. The fact that this did not appear to even come up or factor in any of his appeals cases is further evidence of the fallibility of our legal system and further strengthens my case.
One of the counter arguments is that these anomalies represent “collateral damage.” The injustice done to a few individuals is minor when compared to the increase in safety to the public from ridding the world of dangerous and deranged criminals. After all, whenever the military engages in struggles there will inevitably be civilian casualties. Doesn’t following my logic indicate that I must believe all military action is immoral as well?
I would counter that military action, when properly used, is supposed to be a last resort. The wielding of death and destruction is meant to be used when there is no other option available. And that is the key: the lack of other options. With the death penalty, there is another option. And that option is locking criminals up and keeping them segregated from the general populace for the rest of their lives. True, it does not eliminate the injustice of imprisoning an innocent, and it is also true that it means that public money must be used to support them. All I can say is that sometimes you do have to choose the least worst option, and I believe that this is it.
I suppose it comes down to a fundamental question: are you willing to financially support 99% of people convicted of the most heinous crimes imaginable in order to avoid killing the 1% that were falsely convicted?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Is it the end, the beginning of the end, or just the end of the beginning?
One of the classes I never thought I'd take but was really glad I did in undergrad was Nuclear Engineering 100. I knew it was going to be a good class right away when the professor said on day 1: "I can't promise anything, but I try to blow up at least one thing during every class period." The thing I learned that was most interesting to me at the time was how to make a still (sadly, I have never put this knowledge into practice). I also got to do a presentation on how rockets work, a topic I picked for the sole reason that I wanted to use the headline "This IS Rocket Science". However, the most interesting thing I learned that has stuck with me was an analysis of the different forms of energy production and some speculation on what the near and long term future might look like. Among the things I learned: nuclear power plants aren't nearly as dangerous as they are perceived (not surprising coming from a class called Nuclear Engineering), solar power is good on a micro level but is unlikely to ever make up more than a minor portion of our power needs, coal is just about the worst possible way to generate power, and finally that the end of the oil age was coming a lot sooner than most people expected.
I remember very clearly the day we discussed oil, because I was completely taken aback by the figure presented to me. According to the latest estimates, at present consumption levels it was projected that there was approximately 60 years left of oil in the world. This included ~40 years from sources that we knew about, and a best guess of another 20 that were either undiscovered or to this point impossible to drill for (i.e. underneath the ocean floor). This was in the spring of 2000 that I was told this, and I just remember thinking "wow; we're talking about 2060 here. If I just slightly beat the national average lifespan we're talking about my lifetime here." But that was 8 years ago; a veritable eternity in terms of scientific progress. In addition, that was based on 2000 consumption levels, and with China and India on the rise that has increased markedly since then. So, I figured that this would be a good time to revisit this. Just how much oil is left in the world?
Well, to the surprise of probably no one, the answer is that no one really knows. I have tried to track down some hard numbers but all you really ever get from anyone is a range. So, I will go ahead and do what I was trying to avoid: use wikipedia for some quick, back-of-the-envelope type calcs. For the record, though, the other sources I consulted (which included American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips, Collapse by Jared Diamond, and The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery) also pretty much support the numbers in wikipedia.
Essentially, there are 2 problems that make calculating a hard number difficult and they have to do with the concept of "peak" oil and the rate of discovery. A good definition of the "peak" concept comes from American Theocracy: "Geologists define it as the point at which at least half of the field's reachable oil has been extracted. After this stage, getting each barrel out requires more pressure, more expense, or both. After a while . . . more energy is required to find and extract a barrel of oil than the barrel itself contains. By then, production becomes uneconomic - at least until the price of oil rises or the cost of extraction drops." This explanation is used to describe one particular oil field but can be expanded to discuss all oil in aggregate. Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to try and calculate the point when the world will hit "peak" oil production, and of course all of them have been wrong so far. A big part of the problem is that many of the world's largest oil fields are government-owned, and by and large these governments do not have an open-book philosophy on the data from these fields. As a consequence, we're left to largely speculate. Pessimistic projections say that oil may have already peaked or will in the next couple years, and very optimistic projections say it won't peak until 2050. The year 2030 is probably cited the most often and I imagine it is not just coincidental that it is around the mid-point of the divergent opinions. Obviously, the difference between oil peaking next year versus oil peaking over 40 years from now has tremendous implications on how urgent the situation is.
The other issue that is very speculative and causes significant variance in the overall oil supply number is the discovery rate. As the name implies, this is the measure for how often either previously unknown sites are discovered or where previously unextractable oil becomes feasible. Here again, depending on what you project the discovery rate to be has huge implications on the ultimate oil supply number.
So, with all this uncertainty, what's the bottom line? Basically, we get a huge range: between 2 and 3 trillion barrels of oil. The 2 trillion number represents the average finding of major oil surveys done since 1960. The 3 trillion estimate comes from a 2000 USGS survey. I would classify the 2 trillion estimate as generally realistic with a tinge of pessimism while the 3 trillion estimate is more on the side of wild optimism. This is because the worldwide discovery rate has been steadily falling since 1960 and the 3 trillion estimate counts on the discovery rate to suddenly and dramatically reverse itself. That seems unlikely, but of course that doesn't mean it won't happen. It should be noted, however, that the trend of falling discovery rates has continued in the 8 years since the USGS released their report.
So, if we agree that the actual amount of oil in the world lies between those two numbers, what does that mean in terms of years of oil left? Here again, we will have to make some assumptions about projected future use, but at least we have solid data on the current usage. Right now, world oil consumption from 2007 was just over 85 million barrels of oil per day. That translates into just over 31 billion barrels per year (these figures come from the US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo). If we apply just the current consumption to our range of estimates that works out to about 65 years (for 2 trillion barrels) and 97 years (for 3 trillion barrels). However, that figure is not very realistic since oil consumption has risen markedly from a little over 27 billion barrels per year in 2000 to the current 31 billion. That's almost a 15% increase in just 8 years. The EIA further projects global oil usage to rise by 1.2 million barrels per day in both 2008 and 2009, leading to annual global oil usage of over 32 billion by the end of 2009. Obviously the farther we get out from here, the fuzzier the numbers get. Just for the sake of simple math, lets assume that we rise to the level of 35 billion barrels per year and then level off (this seems likely to be a vast underestimate given the recent growth of China and India that shows no signs of abating soon). This gives us projections of 57 and 85 years, respectively.
So; all in all I'd have to say that the estimate of 60 years given to me back in Nuc E 100 seems to be just about right. Even though there is obviously all sorts of assumptions being made in the above calculations, there is one truth that is inescapably clear: the age of oil is ending, and faster than most people realize. Of course, I don't really think we will physically run out of oil. I have tried to phrase this analysis in isolation of the problem of climate change, but of course in reality they are inexorably linked. We cannot burn another 2 trillion barrels of oil over the next 60 years without disastrous environmental consequences. That is why it was nice to see McCain talk about attacking climate change earlier this week. The Democrats countered (with some justification) that it is just empty rhetoric, but given that even the rhetoric has been sorely lacking from the right even empty rhetoric still represents progress.
In summary, I hope if nothing else this clarifies my statement that I believe gas at $10/gallon would be a good thing. Both the climate change and oil problems can be likened to riding on a train that is heading for a ravine where the bridge is out. Maybe the ravine is still hundreds of miles away, but it is inescapable that if we continue on the present course we are assuring our destruction. In that context, I am in favor of anything that moves us towards stopping the train as quickly as possible. All other considerations (economic and political) are important but decidedly secondary.
I remember very clearly the day we discussed oil, because I was completely taken aback by the figure presented to me. According to the latest estimates, at present consumption levels it was projected that there was approximately 60 years left of oil in the world. This included ~40 years from sources that we knew about, and a best guess of another 20 that were either undiscovered or to this point impossible to drill for (i.e. underneath the ocean floor). This was in the spring of 2000 that I was told this, and I just remember thinking "wow; we're talking about 2060 here. If I just slightly beat the national average lifespan we're talking about my lifetime here." But that was 8 years ago; a veritable eternity in terms of scientific progress. In addition, that was based on 2000 consumption levels, and with China and India on the rise that has increased markedly since then. So, I figured that this would be a good time to revisit this. Just how much oil is left in the world?
Well, to the surprise of probably no one, the answer is that no one really knows. I have tried to track down some hard numbers but all you really ever get from anyone is a range. So, I will go ahead and do what I was trying to avoid: use wikipedia for some quick, back-of-the-envelope type calcs. For the record, though, the other sources I consulted (which included American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips, Collapse by Jared Diamond, and The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery) also pretty much support the numbers in wikipedia.
Essentially, there are 2 problems that make calculating a hard number difficult and they have to do with the concept of "peak" oil and the rate of discovery. A good definition of the "peak" concept comes from American Theocracy: "Geologists define it as the point at which at least half of the field's reachable oil has been extracted. After this stage, getting each barrel out requires more pressure, more expense, or both. After a while . . . more energy is required to find and extract a barrel of oil than the barrel itself contains. By then, production becomes uneconomic - at least until the price of oil rises or the cost of extraction drops." This explanation is used to describe one particular oil field but can be expanded to discuss all oil in aggregate. Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to try and calculate the point when the world will hit "peak" oil production, and of course all of them have been wrong so far. A big part of the problem is that many of the world's largest oil fields are government-owned, and by and large these governments do not have an open-book philosophy on the data from these fields. As a consequence, we're left to largely speculate. Pessimistic projections say that oil may have already peaked or will in the next couple years, and very optimistic projections say it won't peak until 2050. The year 2030 is probably cited the most often and I imagine it is not just coincidental that it is around the mid-point of the divergent opinions. Obviously, the difference between oil peaking next year versus oil peaking over 40 years from now has tremendous implications on how urgent the situation is.
The other issue that is very speculative and causes significant variance in the overall oil supply number is the discovery rate. As the name implies, this is the measure for how often either previously unknown sites are discovered or where previously unextractable oil becomes feasible. Here again, depending on what you project the discovery rate to be has huge implications on the ultimate oil supply number.
So, with all this uncertainty, what's the bottom line? Basically, we get a huge range: between 2 and 3 trillion barrels of oil. The 2 trillion number represents the average finding of major oil surveys done since 1960. The 3 trillion estimate comes from a 2000 USGS survey. I would classify the 2 trillion estimate as generally realistic with a tinge of pessimism while the 3 trillion estimate is more on the side of wild optimism. This is because the worldwide discovery rate has been steadily falling since 1960 and the 3 trillion estimate counts on the discovery rate to suddenly and dramatically reverse itself. That seems unlikely, but of course that doesn't mean it won't happen. It should be noted, however, that the trend of falling discovery rates has continued in the 8 years since the USGS released their report.
So, if we agree that the actual amount of oil in the world lies between those two numbers, what does that mean in terms of years of oil left? Here again, we will have to make some assumptions about projected future use, but at least we have solid data on the current usage. Right now, world oil consumption from 2007 was just over 85 million barrels of oil per day. That translates into just over 31 billion barrels per year (these figures come from the US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo). If we apply just the current consumption to our range of estimates that works out to about 65 years (for 2 trillion barrels) and 97 years (for 3 trillion barrels). However, that figure is not very realistic since oil consumption has risen markedly from a little over 27 billion barrels per year in 2000 to the current 31 billion. That's almost a 15% increase in just 8 years. The EIA further projects global oil usage to rise by 1.2 million barrels per day in both 2008 and 2009, leading to annual global oil usage of over 32 billion by the end of 2009. Obviously the farther we get out from here, the fuzzier the numbers get. Just for the sake of simple math, lets assume that we rise to the level of 35 billion barrels per year and then level off (this seems likely to be a vast underestimate given the recent growth of China and India that shows no signs of abating soon). This gives us projections of 57 and 85 years, respectively.
So; all in all I'd have to say that the estimate of 60 years given to me back in Nuc E 100 seems to be just about right. Even though there is obviously all sorts of assumptions being made in the above calculations, there is one truth that is inescapably clear: the age of oil is ending, and faster than most people realize. Of course, I don't really think we will physically run out of oil. I have tried to phrase this analysis in isolation of the problem of climate change, but of course in reality they are inexorably linked. We cannot burn another 2 trillion barrels of oil over the next 60 years without disastrous environmental consequences. That is why it was nice to see McCain talk about attacking climate change earlier this week. The Democrats countered (with some justification) that it is just empty rhetoric, but given that even the rhetoric has been sorely lacking from the right even empty rhetoric still represents progress.
In summary, I hope if nothing else this clarifies my statement that I believe gas at $10/gallon would be a good thing. Both the climate change and oil problems can be likened to riding on a train that is heading for a ravine where the bridge is out. Maybe the ravine is still hundreds of miles away, but it is inescapable that if we continue on the present course we are assuring our destruction. In that context, I am in favor of anything that moves us towards stopping the train as quickly as possible. All other considerations (economic and political) are important but decidedly secondary.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Back to Some Random Thoughts
While I am still researching the question of how much oil is left on the planet (I've got some rough estimates but they are from wikipedia and I'd like to get some more solid sources) there are a whole bunch of other thoughts I've had over the past couple of days.
The Summer Movie Season
The Summer Movie Season
Last year's summer movie season was touted as "The Summer of Sequels" and it certainly lived up to that name. Of the 16 summer movies that made over $100 million, 12 of them were either direct sequels, remakes, or were based on long-running tv shows (in other words, they were not original works). This included Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Bourne Ultimatum, The Simpsons Movie, Rush Hour 3, Live Free or Die Hard, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Evan Almighty, and Hairspray. If you're curious, the 4 that did represent "original" works were Ratatouille, Superbad, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, and Knocked Up. I have nothing specifically against sequels, and I will admit that I have seen all but 3 of the previously mentioned films (Evan Almighty, Hairspray, and Harry Potter because that was the one book in the series I hated). I figured if Hollywood was going to advertise it as "Summer of the Sequel", that must mean it was a rare, near fluke occurrence that all these just happened to come out in one summer. Well, now here we are heading into the next summer and, appropriately, this looks to be "Summer of the Sequel II: Even Sequelier" (or "Sequel Harder" if you are a Kevin Smith or Die Hard fan). This summer we get: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Incredible Hulk, Speed Racer, Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Sex and the City, Get Smart, Hellboy 2, The Dark Knight, X-Files 2, and The Mummy 3. Even one of the "original" works is Iron Man and considering it's the umpteenth summer superhero movie and is based on a 45-year old comic book character I'm not sure how "original" you can claim it is. Balanced against that, I could only find 7 other likely hits coming out this summer (Kung-Fu Panda, You Don't Mess With the Zoltan, The Happening, Hancock, Step Brothers, Pineapple Express, and Tropic Thunder).
I remember in 1997 when I heard that the movie Good Burger had just been released I asked "Has Hollywood just completely run out of ideas?" And now I ask the same question again. Unfortunately, the answer is actually worse than that. Now moreso than ever, big studios are hesitant to dump big money into something that may turn into a colossal failure. It doesn't take many Waterworlds to make you gunshy. At the same time, executives hold on with an icy death grip the rights to any film that ends up profitable and has any form of sequel potential (i.e. every film in the eyes of studio execs). Maybe it was just my perception, but it used to be that you made a movie and if it turned out to be a success, you'd see if maybe you could get everyone back together and catch lightning in a bottle again. Sequels were the exception. Now, they are the rule. Almost every major film and tv deal has a clause locking them up for a number of sequels just on the off chance the studio decides it wants to make them. This becomes particularly frustrating for fans of a show like Firefly that was cancelled by Fox after 6 episodes; yet they own the rights to it for 10 years. Thus even if a network like Sci-Fi wanted to pick it up, they can't because Fox would rather see the show dead than have it become a hit somewhere else and make them look stupid(er). Fortunately, at the same time all this is happening in the major studios, technology has progressed to the point where really high quality films can be made for progressively cheaper and as a result we are seeing some of the best independent films ever made. The only problem is that unless you are a hardcore film geek (like me) you aren't seeing any advertising for them and you probably don't even know that they exist.
And now, just to undercut everything I've just said, I've heard that Iron Man is really good and I'm excited to go see it this weekend.
Obamania!
Well, Indiana couldn't quite come through for me with a Barrack victory, but the result is much the same and the race is, for all intents and purposes, over. A lot of people are wondering why Clinton hasn't already dropped out. There's actually a couple legitimate reasons why she hasn't (well, one legitimate, and one selfish). The selfish reason is that she loaned her campaign over $11 million, and if she drops out now it's all a complete loss. She's in a position now where she can continue to raise money and not have to spend a lot since she's heavily favored in both West Virginia and Kentucky and they are small media markets anyway. The hope on her part will be that after 2 weeks she will have enough campaign cash to pay herself back. Let me just add that even though I said this was selfish I don't blame her. $11 million is a lot to eat, even for millionaires like the Clinton family. The legitimate reason for her to stay in the race is, ironically, as a courtesy to Obama. Much like it was a little embarassing for McCain when Huckabee kept winning southern states after the race was over, it would be embarassing to Obama to still lose West Virginia and Kentucky with Clinton gone (which he still would). With her still as a candidate, she can give one more victory speech next Tuesday in West Virginia (which should also help fundraising) and then go out on a semi-high note the following Tuesday when they split Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th. May 20th is really the key date here, because that will be the day that Obama is projected to go over the halfway mark of all delegates (pledged and super), thus finally making it mathematically impossible for her to catch him. Hence, we should be looking towards the evening of May 20th or the afternoon of May 21st for her to officially withdraw from the race. The only possible reason she would have to stay in after that point is to make good on her commitment to make sure Michigan and Florida delegates are seated (which they will be regardless, now that it won't matter). That meeting occurs on May 31st. Well, I guess there's another reason she could choose to stay in after that: just to be a bitch.
So now that the field looks to be officially set for November, the next question will be who the VP picks will be. I have absolutely no idea who McCain is going to pick. The hip pick of the moment from pundits is Condoleeza Rice, which would make sense in a weird sort of way, but I don't see it happening just because it gives the Democrats way too much fuel to continue to hammer that McCain represents "a 3rd term of George Bush". On the Obama side, though, I see a clear front runner, and it's Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell. It makes a ton of sense to me (much moreso than the "dream ticket" of Obama-Clinton) but rather than expound on the reasons, since I'm getting long-winded anyway, the reasons are laid out very nicely in this article (http://tinyurl.com/69xyq6) so you can read it if you are interested.
Also, just to finish my thoughts on the Democratic primary, there is a good article describing the mistakes that Clinton made here: http://tinyurl.com/3za5nd. Nothing mind-blowing here, but it's a good summation.
Books
As I mentioned before, one of the things I was most looking forward to after being done with the CPA was getting back to reading. In the last 2 weeks I've finished two books, and they were both excellent. The first was The Teapot Dome Scandal by Laton McCartney. It is a fascinating true story about a political scandal that most people only know by name. It is about how Big Oil literally bought the Republican nomination for Warren Harding in exchange for an agreement that he would make one of their people Secretary of the Interior, who would in turn open up the Teapot Dome oil fields (they were naval reserves at the time) for private drilling. It is all the old-time, smoke-filled room, underhanded bribes with stacks of money in suitcases changing hands that people imagine when they thing corrupt politics. One of the most amazing things comes right at the beginning. At the 1920 Republican convention, the clear favorite was General Wood. After the first round of votes he had far more votes than any candidate, just not enough to get the nomination. Here's the thing, though; he wouldn't cut a deal. The party leaders and members from the oil company came to him and tried to make the same deal with him that Harding had. He refused. Then they said, over a phone call, "Ok, well just give promise us any 3 cabinet posts." At this point, his political advisor covered the phone up and said to Wood, "with one word here, you will be the next President". His response was "I am my own man, and I will make my own decisions. I promise nothing." And with that, the nomination went to Harding. I read that and had great ambivalence. On one hand, I thought "What an idiot! He had it wrapped up!" and at the same time I thought "Wow! That's some amazing ethical principles to turn that down. Think of what kind of a President someone with those kind of morals could have been!" Unfortunately, we'll never get to know, and General Wood will forever just be a small footnote in U.S. history.
The second book I read was The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch. This story has gotten a lot of press lately, but for those that may not have heard about it here's a quick recap. A lot of universities have professors give a "last lecture". It's supposed to be a hypothetical situation where if you knew you were dying and that this would be your final lecture what would you say that you would want to be remembered for? Well, in the case of Randy Pausch, there was nothing hypothetical about it. He had recently been diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer and knew he had less than a year to live. This book is an expansion of the lecture he gave and, really, is a gift to his kids (who are 6, 4, and 18 months) to try and teach them the things he would have tried to if he had lived another 20 years. He gave the lecture in September of 2007 and is, as of today, still alive. It is one thing to read about someone post-humously who exhibited tremendouns bravery when facing death. But there is something even more surreal to read about someone and to know that this person is still doing it right now. The book is all at once touching, wise, uplifting, sad, happy, and heartbreaking. You can read about his story at http://www.thelastlecture.com/; he also has a link to his blog and health report there too.
The book I have just begun now is The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria, who is one of my favorite political pundits. I highly recommend that you read the book if you have any interest at all in global politics and economics and the place the U.S. is likely to have in it in the 21st century. For a great summary of the main ideas in the book, though, head on over to http://www.charlierose.com/ and catch the interview with him from May 1st. Truly fascinating stuff (at least to me).
OK, I think that does it for me today. Should find out about the CPA in ~ 1 week. Have a good weekend everyone and Happy Mother's Day!
Monday, May 05, 2008
Drilling in Alaska
Since Weir brought it up in the comments I decided to post my thoughts on this rather than just commenting back to him.
I have long held the contrary opinion that gas in this country does not cost too much; it actually costs way too little. Honestly, $10 a gallon would make me pretty happy. And I'm not just saying that because we own a hybrid (even at 45 MPG, $10/gallon would put a real healthy dent in our pocketbook). The reason is that it will take that amount of hardship for this country to finally get itself off its oil addiction. By the way you may want to mark this date down because the term "oil addiction" was popularized by President Bush and this may be one of the only times you'll catch me agreeing with him. The bottom line is that whatever your feelings on global warming are, there is a finite amount of oil left in the world and thus it seems to make sense to realize sooner rather than later that we need to switch to some form of sustainable, renewable resource for our power needs. But people are creatures of habit, and our post-WWII suburban migration has left us particularly dependent on our gas guzzlers, so this is not a change that most people are willing to make easy.
So now, as gas prices have been rising to new highs, we have seen the predictable political football getting thrown around. It seems that everybody has a plan for "helping" middle america shrug off the increasing burden of high fuel costs. Whether it's grass roots e-mails calling for boycotts of certain companies or a convoluted nation-wide economic solution, they all have one thing in common: they are temporary (at best) and ultimately they are all bogus. That's because the oil situation we find ourselves in right now follows some of the simplest economics of all; aggregate supply is going down every day and demand is increasing every day. Hence, each barrell of oil should sell for slightly more than the previous barrell of oil did, and this should continue to be true all the way through the last barrell of oil that will ever be sold.
It therefore follows logically that the single best course of action that this or any country can take is to immediately begin to reduce their oil use immediately and do whatever necessary to develop sufficient alternative resources.
Now, with all that being said I am going to go contrarian again and say that I am 100% in favor of opening up Alaska for drilling.
OK, maybe that's not true. Let's say instead that I'm 90% in favor of opening up Alaska for drilling because there are some important caveats that I need to add. The first is that the purpose of Alaskan oil wouldn't be to supplement or replace our current oil supply. I don't know for sure the accuracy of the oil taking 15 years to be usable, but it certainly would take multiple years before we ever saw anything and by that point if we have not already significantly decreased our dependence on oil the little bit from Alaska is not going to do anything more than stop the bleeding for a couple months. So why am I saying we should drill for it? As I said before, the current economic situation is such that each barrell of oil should sell for progressively more and more. Hence, we have a veritable diamond mine underneath our feet and I believe that it would be foolish to waste it. However, this is where the second caveat comes in. Believe it or not, it is actually possible to extract oil from a wilderness area with very minimal disruption to the environment. It typically doesn't happen because it's obviously a lot more expensive and most oil companies are only interested in doing the bare minimum mandated by the margins of the law. In fact, I probably wouldn't have even believed the statement I just made before I read Collapse by Jared Diamond. He is the Pulitzer-Prize winning author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and is also a staunch conservationist. He visited the drilling sites of a major oil company (I am pretty sure it was either Chevron or Shell but I'm not positive) and said it was remarkable how little had been changed. You would never even know you were on a drilling site. And when they are done drilling, they will dismantle all the equipment and replant native vegetation over the area. Drilling oil is not like clear-cutting a forest. The ecosystem doesn't depend on the petroleum for anything and really could care less if it's there or not.
So, basically I am saying that within the confines of the scenario I have laid out (where we are drilling basically as speculation instead of consumption and that extreme care is taken to minimize environmental destruction) I submit that given that oil is only getting more and more valuable I don't see a compelling reason to not drill for it.
But I'm sure Weir will let me know . . .
I have long held the contrary opinion that gas in this country does not cost too much; it actually costs way too little. Honestly, $10 a gallon would make me pretty happy. And I'm not just saying that because we own a hybrid (even at 45 MPG, $10/gallon would put a real healthy dent in our pocketbook). The reason is that it will take that amount of hardship for this country to finally get itself off its oil addiction. By the way you may want to mark this date down because the term "oil addiction" was popularized by President Bush and this may be one of the only times you'll catch me agreeing with him. The bottom line is that whatever your feelings on global warming are, there is a finite amount of oil left in the world and thus it seems to make sense to realize sooner rather than later that we need to switch to some form of sustainable, renewable resource for our power needs. But people are creatures of habit, and our post-WWII suburban migration has left us particularly dependent on our gas guzzlers, so this is not a change that most people are willing to make easy.
So now, as gas prices have been rising to new highs, we have seen the predictable political football getting thrown around. It seems that everybody has a plan for "helping" middle america shrug off the increasing burden of high fuel costs. Whether it's grass roots e-mails calling for boycotts of certain companies or a convoluted nation-wide economic solution, they all have one thing in common: they are temporary (at best) and ultimately they are all bogus. That's because the oil situation we find ourselves in right now follows some of the simplest economics of all; aggregate supply is going down every day and demand is increasing every day. Hence, each barrell of oil should sell for slightly more than the previous barrell of oil did, and this should continue to be true all the way through the last barrell of oil that will ever be sold.
It therefore follows logically that the single best course of action that this or any country can take is to immediately begin to reduce their oil use immediately and do whatever necessary to develop sufficient alternative resources.
Now, with all that being said I am going to go contrarian again and say that I am 100% in favor of opening up Alaska for drilling.
OK, maybe that's not true. Let's say instead that I'm 90% in favor of opening up Alaska for drilling because there are some important caveats that I need to add. The first is that the purpose of Alaskan oil wouldn't be to supplement or replace our current oil supply. I don't know for sure the accuracy of the oil taking 15 years to be usable, but it certainly would take multiple years before we ever saw anything and by that point if we have not already significantly decreased our dependence on oil the little bit from Alaska is not going to do anything more than stop the bleeding for a couple months. So why am I saying we should drill for it? As I said before, the current economic situation is such that each barrell of oil should sell for progressively more and more. Hence, we have a veritable diamond mine underneath our feet and I believe that it would be foolish to waste it. However, this is where the second caveat comes in. Believe it or not, it is actually possible to extract oil from a wilderness area with very minimal disruption to the environment. It typically doesn't happen because it's obviously a lot more expensive and most oil companies are only interested in doing the bare minimum mandated by the margins of the law. In fact, I probably wouldn't have even believed the statement I just made before I read Collapse by Jared Diamond. He is the Pulitzer-Prize winning author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and is also a staunch conservationist. He visited the drilling sites of a major oil company (I am pretty sure it was either Chevron or Shell but I'm not positive) and said it was remarkable how little had been changed. You would never even know you were on a drilling site. And when they are done drilling, they will dismantle all the equipment and replant native vegetation over the area. Drilling oil is not like clear-cutting a forest. The ecosystem doesn't depend on the petroleum for anything and really could care less if it's there or not.
So, basically I am saying that within the confines of the scenario I have laid out (where we are drilling basically as speculation instead of consumption and that extreme care is taken to minimize environmental destruction) I submit that given that oil is only getting more and more valuable I don't see a compelling reason to not drill for it.
But I'm sure Weir will let me know . . .
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Observations Over The Last Week
Couple of random thoughts I had while living my life this past week:
- Last Thursday night I went out to Borders looking for The Orphanage on Blu-ray (which they did not have by the way). While wandering around, I noticed that they still have an HD-DVD "section". It consists of exactly 8 titles, none of which were on clearance or even on sale. I submit to you that if you happen to be out looking for a particular HD-DVD and when you get to Borders the one you are looking for just happens to be one of the 8 they have you should proceed immediately to the nearest convenience store and buy a lottery ticket because you are obviously the luckiest person on Earth at that moment.
- Anyone who has purchased tickets through ticketmaster.com in the last 5 years knows that as part of their protection against server attacks they require you to type in a random security word which changes everytime you select a ticket. The other day, the security word that came up for me was "bitch". I certainly wasn't offended, but it led to the following thoughts: 1) do they have a filter on the list of possible words; 2) if so, did they intentionally decide to leave this word in or was it an oversight; and 3) I wonder what other kinds of interesting words are possible.
- I am officially sick of the presidential race and it's not even May yet. At the beginning of the race (which seems like about 6 years ago now) I tried to be fair and listen to everyone, including the candidates that I didn't like in an honest attempt to see if they could change my mind. About a month ago I arrived at the point where I physically can't listen to Hillary speak anymore; I have to change the channel. Now, in the last week I have gotten to the point where I can't even listen to the two candidate I DO like. I would like to make an earnest plea to Indiana to please, please, please give Obama a decisive victory next Tuesday and end this thing. Because if it doesn't end there it is going all the way to the convention, and I just can't take another 3 months of this. So come on, Indiana, be a pal. Remember how we started Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl against your Colts? Time to return the favor.
- I am in CPA limbo and it's a very weird feeling. With every passing day I can feel a little more of the knowledge that I crammed into my head over the last 6 weeks seeping out, and I don't know yet if it's a problem or not. This is going to be a very long 2-3 weeks till I find out. At least I have the Cubs now. But dear god, if I have to wait till mid-June to find out . . .
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
I Might Be a CPA . . .
. . .or maybe 3/4 done; or maybe still just halfway done. Just finished the 4th test literally less than an hour ago. I'm currently sitting in the beautiful Chicago Public Library writing this. Nothing like going straight from a CPA test to the library. Damn, do I know how to party or what!? Actually, because I'm such a nerd I have been fantasizing the last month about how nice it will be to be able to read again during the morning el ride instead of studying. I think people are used to guys staring at hot chicks on the el, but it's something different altogether to be leering seductively at someone's paperback. No one quite knows how to respond.
Anyway, now it's just a matter of waiting. The first round of scores are supposed to be released the week of May 16th, so I've got at least 3 more weeks ahead of me. But they are estimating that they will only have 70% of the scores from the two tests I'm waiting on so it's possible I won't find out one or even both of them till halfway through June. I suppose if I was motivated I would keep myself up to speed and keep studying so I don't forget everything, but frankly at this point if I even look at my review books again for a while I think I'm going to vomit.
Took tomorrow off to catch up on sleep and let my brain cool down and I'm looking forward to eating some horrible food (still debating between italian beef and chili-cheese fries or Taco Bell) and relaxing while watching the Cubs.
Anyway, now it's just a matter of waiting. The first round of scores are supposed to be released the week of May 16th, so I've got at least 3 more weeks ahead of me. But they are estimating that they will only have 70% of the scores from the two tests I'm waiting on so it's possible I won't find out one or even both of them till halfway through June. I suppose if I was motivated I would keep myself up to speed and keep studying so I don't forget everything, but frankly at this point if I even look at my review books again for a while I think I'm going to vomit.
Took tomorrow off to catch up on sleep and let my brain cool down and I'm looking forward to eating some horrible food (still debating between italian beef and chili-cheese fries or Taco Bell) and relaxing while watching the Cubs.
Friday, April 18, 2008
My Fellow Moronic, Ignorant Cubs Fans
In following with the spirit of stupid slogans from yesterday's post, I woke up to find an article in the Sun-Times about the new #1 selling shirt at non-Cub affiliated merchandise stands outside Wrigley. They feature this image:
Last weekend, my bro and I were discussing and wondering how Fukodome feels about all the headband wearing and bowing in the bleachers. Well, he doesn't need to worry about pondering the more subtle aspects of racism because he has a large shining beacon of ignorance to concentrate on now! I said before the season started that I knew the play on words with Fukodome's name was inevitable, but congratulations Cubs fans, you have once again managed to surprise me by sinking to an all-new lowest common denominator!
Look, I am no prude and I'm not a radical leftist who's worried about offending everyone. In fact, I think that racial humor can be absolutely hilarious when done correctly (great examples are Chris Rock on blacks, Jon Stewart and Lewis Black on Jews, Stephen Colbert on Catholics, Dave Allen on the Irish) and I don't even necessarily subscribe to the belief that you have to be a member of a particular group in order to make fun of it. But it is really all about context. Most of the time, racist humor is derived from taking a stereotype of an existing group and either applying it to something unexpected or grossly exagerrating it for effect. But to be truly funny rather than offensive it relies on the understanding that the intended audience knows that you don't really believe that stereotype applies to every member of that group. And there is also the tacit approval granted from going to see a particular comedian live or choosing to watch them on TV. You can always walk out or you can always change the channel if it offends you. But when you decide to break away from that and make something public, you aren't giving the rest of us that choice and can put us in an uncomfortable position. I am going to Wrigley tomorrow, and I'm sure I'll see people wearing this shirt. Let's say that I'm next to someone who is and on the other side there is an asian. I now am in the position where I either have to get confrontational and tell this guy his shirt is offensive, or I say nothing and appear to approve of it by my silence.
Now I want to be crystal clear here that I am an absolutely adamant supporter of free speech and I don't believe that the shirt should be pulled off the market or even banned from Wrigley. However, that doesn't preclude me from thinking less of someone who chooses to wear it in public.
But why am I worked up about it? After all, I'm not asian. I am, however, a Cubs fan and I think that the jist of the problem is summarized nicely in the Sun-Times article: "The image feeds not only ugly, arrogant, and ignorant Japanese stereotypes, but also the stereotype of the obnoxious, profane, drunken, booing, garbage-throwing Cubs fan. How much truth is there in either image? How funny is either one?"
Fukodome, to his credit, is taking the high road so far. ''I knew I was coming to a different country, so I expected something like this. Maybe not necessarily racial, but that anybody could take any context of my words and degrade me if they wanted to. But if I make a big deal out of it, it's not going to benefit me, so I'm not going to make a big deal of it.''
I'm glad that Fukodome was prepared for this and seems relatively unfazed, but I'm just disappointed that we couldn't surprise him.
And by the way, the name of my fantasy baseball team is "My Fuk'n Sori Team" and I still think that's hilarious.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
If You Don't Read This Post Your Life May Be in Danger!
Not really, but that probably got your attention , right?
So I'm out for a run on Tuesday and I suddenly start seeing all these lawn signs opposing the proposed construction of a new condo tower in downtown Evanston. Apparently it's going to be 150 feet taller than the current tallest building in Evanston, will displace some 140 office professionals since the new building won't have any office space, and also use about $3 million in public funds for its construction. OK, fair enough. So how do they choose to get this point across on a lawn sign? "Save Evanston. Stop the Tower." To put it lightly, this seems like just a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe once the tower gets built I will walk out my front door and see the Four Horsemen riding across the sky, or there will just be a giant crater where Evanston used to be, or suddenly the entire city will be populated by drug dealers and gang members. If that happens, I'll apologize for not taking this dire emergency more seriously.
This is a perfect illustration of the kind of muckraking that I can't stand. It is most prevalent in politics, although it certainly is not limited to that arena. From one side we get to hear that "John McCain admitted he knows nothing about the economy" (he actually said "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues") and that he "speaks of a 100 years war in Iraq" (he actually said that he would be fine having a troop presence there for 100 years "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."). Then from the other side we get to hear that "al-Qaida would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11" if Obama gets elected, and that he is a Muslim who attended a Madrassa (a radical muslim school) as a young boy (he lived in Indonesia and briefly attended a Muslim school that was not a Madrassa and he has always been a Christian). Most people chalk up this kind of behavior to a necessary evil of politics, but it's only necessary because people don't reject it. I think Jon Stewart said it best when I saw him live about a year ago (and I'm paraphrasing here): the people that march and go to protests and get on the news are always the extremists, because normal people are too busy with their own lives to go around holding up signs that say "Be Reasonable". I think there's a lot of truth to that. Every issue seems to get radicalized and set up as a "you're either with us or against us" choice rather than the far more productive "you're over there and I'm over here so let's come up with something we can both live with." I mean, why sacrifice a good misleading sound bite just for the sake of reasonable debate?
So, I say to my fellow citizens of Evanston "can't we do a little better than this?" I'm not asking for much. How about just "Save the Evanston Skyline" or "Say No to Taxpayer Funds for Private Construction"? Must we over exaggerate to the point of ridiculousness just to get people on our side? Can't we lead by example?
Oh well, it was worth a try . . .
Sources:
McCain quote on the economy: http://tinyurl.com/7pfca
McCain quote on the 100 years war: http://tinyurl.com/5qfkka
Accusation that al-Qaida wants Obama to win: http://tinyurl.com/2l4qmc
Article that Obama is a Muslim: http://tinyurl.com/yqat77
Debunking of the above article: http://tinyurl.com/2ktpjh
So I'm out for a run on Tuesday and I suddenly start seeing all these lawn signs opposing the proposed construction of a new condo tower in downtown Evanston. Apparently it's going to be 150 feet taller than the current tallest building in Evanston, will displace some 140 office professionals since the new building won't have any office space, and also use about $3 million in public funds for its construction. OK, fair enough. So how do they choose to get this point across on a lawn sign? "Save Evanston. Stop the Tower." To put it lightly, this seems like just a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe once the tower gets built I will walk out my front door and see the Four Horsemen riding across the sky, or there will just be a giant crater where Evanston used to be, or suddenly the entire city will be populated by drug dealers and gang members. If that happens, I'll apologize for not taking this dire emergency more seriously.
This is a perfect illustration of the kind of muckraking that I can't stand. It is most prevalent in politics, although it certainly is not limited to that arena. From one side we get to hear that "John McCain admitted he knows nothing about the economy" (he actually said "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues") and that he "speaks of a 100 years war in Iraq" (he actually said that he would be fine having a troop presence there for 100 years "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."). Then from the other side we get to hear that "al-Qaida would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11" if Obama gets elected, and that he is a Muslim who attended a Madrassa (a radical muslim school) as a young boy (he lived in Indonesia and briefly attended a Muslim school that was not a Madrassa and he has always been a Christian). Most people chalk up this kind of behavior to a necessary evil of politics, but it's only necessary because people don't reject it. I think Jon Stewart said it best when I saw him live about a year ago (and I'm paraphrasing here): the people that march and go to protests and get on the news are always the extremists, because normal people are too busy with their own lives to go around holding up signs that say "Be Reasonable". I think there's a lot of truth to that. Every issue seems to get radicalized and set up as a "you're either with us or against us" choice rather than the far more productive "you're over there and I'm over here so let's come up with something we can both live with." I mean, why sacrifice a good misleading sound bite just for the sake of reasonable debate?
So, I say to my fellow citizens of Evanston "can't we do a little better than this?" I'm not asking for much. How about just "Save the Evanston Skyline" or "Say No to Taxpayer Funds for Private Construction"? Must we over exaggerate to the point of ridiculousness just to get people on our side? Can't we lead by example?
Oh well, it was worth a try . . .
Sources:
McCain quote on the economy: http://tinyurl.com/7pfca
McCain quote on the 100 years war: http://tinyurl.com/5qfkka
Accusation that al-Qaida wants Obama to win: http://tinyurl.com/2l4qmc
Article that Obama is a Muslim: http://tinyurl.com/yqat77
Debunking of the above article: http://tinyurl.com/2ktpjh
Monday, April 14, 2008
Error: Cyclic Redundancy Check
If you are confused by the title you now have an idea of how I felt when my computer has repeatedly spit up this exact phrase to me over the course of the last several months. Honestly, how could an error message like this make it through the quality control process? At this point, I would much prefer the computer to simply shout "No!" at me or print a big red X across the screen rather than try to present the illusion that it's giving me helpful information that I can use to solve the problem.
A little background is perhaps in order here. Sometime last fall I came home from work one day to discover that i-Tunes had crashed and wouldn't reopen. After trying various quick fixes I came to the conclusion that I would have to uninstall and then reinstall i-Tunes. Seems easy enough right? Well, when I went to run the uninstall program about 2/3 of the way through I had my first experience with the above error. I eventually traced it to a problem with Quicktime (which is required to run i-Tunes) and I thought that my problems were over but they were really just beginning. The uninstall for Quicktime wouldn't work, nor could I manually delete the Quicktime files, nor could I install a new version of it. All three activities resulted in my friend the cryptically unhelpful error message. The upshot of it all has been that over the last 6 months or so I have been stuck without i-Tunes and thus have been forced to listen to the same songs on my iPod. And although I have often stated that if music had stopped being made in 1996 my music collection would be largely unaffected, I still do enjoy having the ability to add and remove songs (otherwise, all I really have is one really big MP3 CD). So it's been kind of an ongoing project of mine for about the past 6 months. Once a month or so my frustration meter fills up enough to the point that I resolve to fix the problem and then after a solid 3-4 hours of fruitless effort my frustration is eclipsed by my discouragement and I give up until the next month. Rinse and repeat.
For all intents and purposes, computers have come a long way in terms of ease of use and self-monitoring. However, all it takes is one little miscue for you to feel like you're back in the days of MSDOS, staring at a black screen with the computer saying "Invalid command" or just simply "Error" after pretty much everything you type and the only diagnosis available to you was "this doesn't work". It also led me to think more about the evolution of computer use over the last 50 years. Originally, computers were used to perform manual operations that took far longer to do by hand. The key being that here when the computers broke (which they frequently did), we were able to perform the same tasks in the coventional way; it was just a lot slower. Eventually though, once they got sophisticated enough we started using them for things and calculations that we were unable to do without them. We also started forgetting how to do things the manual way since it was no longer pertinent information. Finally, we've started replacing the existence of physical items for the sake of their digital representations (i.e. we get rid of the CD or DVD once we've ripped it onto our hard drive). Up until 3 or 4 years ago, if my MP3 player didn't work I could always just pop on my CD and hear whatever I wanted. Now, though, I got rid of all my CDs and thus if my computer crashes I am just SOL.
Obviously this kind of thing has been happening for quite some time and I am not trying to spout a "2001" type or warning that we shouldn't leave everything to computers, but I do find it interesting, particularly because this is a trend that is just going to keep growing. I mean, have you seen the CD section at Best Buy lately? Up until about 3 years ago, CDs took up about half the store; now it's 3 aisles in a corner. I don't even remember the last time I bought one. Is there really any reason to think that as the speed of information increases that we won't be doing exactly the same thing with all our movies and video games too? I don't know yet for sure if Blu-Ray will replace DVDs as the standard format, but I do know for sure that it will be the last physical media format we have. Similarly, I think the X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii will be the last of the next-gen systems where you will have to purchase physical video game discs to play.
By and large this is a good thing, if for no other reason than the fact that it should cut down on the amount of raw materials needed to produce these items as well as cutting down on the refuse when they get disposed of (obviously that's offset somewhat by more hard drives). But it just makes for some interesting potential problems. Right now when you lose something like music on your computer it's just gone from your machine. There are still physical copies somewhere in the world. But what if that is not always the case? We could be looking at the possibility sometime in the future that when something gets erased it is just expunged from the Earth permanently as if it never existed. Obviously, that is an extremely remote and far fetched scenario, but it conjures up thoughts of some super-coded virus that learns how to break security on its own and corrupts every computer it touches. And it is my firm belief that should that ever happen, when an alien civilization comes to visit us in some distant time and tries to figure out what went wrong with life on this planet, they will eventually dig deep enough to be greeted by this message:
"Error: Cyclic Redundancy Check"
P.S. I did FINALLY manage to fix my computer this past weekend through a combination of "chkdsk" commands that eventually quarantined the corrupt file and allowed me to delete it. So you will all be happy to know that I can replace all the bad 80s music on my iPod with entirely different bad 80s music.
A little background is perhaps in order here. Sometime last fall I came home from work one day to discover that i-Tunes had crashed and wouldn't reopen. After trying various quick fixes I came to the conclusion that I would have to uninstall and then reinstall i-Tunes. Seems easy enough right? Well, when I went to run the uninstall program about 2/3 of the way through I had my first experience with the above error. I eventually traced it to a problem with Quicktime (which is required to run i-Tunes) and I thought that my problems were over but they were really just beginning. The uninstall for Quicktime wouldn't work, nor could I manually delete the Quicktime files, nor could I install a new version of it. All three activities resulted in my friend the cryptically unhelpful error message. The upshot of it all has been that over the last 6 months or so I have been stuck without i-Tunes and thus have been forced to listen to the same songs on my iPod. And although I have often stated that if music had stopped being made in 1996 my music collection would be largely unaffected, I still do enjoy having the ability to add and remove songs (otherwise, all I really have is one really big MP3 CD). So it's been kind of an ongoing project of mine for about the past 6 months. Once a month or so my frustration meter fills up enough to the point that I resolve to fix the problem and then after a solid 3-4 hours of fruitless effort my frustration is eclipsed by my discouragement and I give up until the next month. Rinse and repeat.
For all intents and purposes, computers have come a long way in terms of ease of use and self-monitoring. However, all it takes is one little miscue for you to feel like you're back in the days of MSDOS, staring at a black screen with the computer saying "Invalid command" or just simply "Error" after pretty much everything you type and the only diagnosis available to you was "this doesn't work". It also led me to think more about the evolution of computer use over the last 50 years. Originally, computers were used to perform manual operations that took far longer to do by hand. The key being that here when the computers broke (which they frequently did), we were able to perform the same tasks in the coventional way; it was just a lot slower. Eventually though, once they got sophisticated enough we started using them for things and calculations that we were unable to do without them. We also started forgetting how to do things the manual way since it was no longer pertinent information. Finally, we've started replacing the existence of physical items for the sake of their digital representations (i.e. we get rid of the CD or DVD once we've ripped it onto our hard drive). Up until 3 or 4 years ago, if my MP3 player didn't work I could always just pop on my CD and hear whatever I wanted. Now, though, I got rid of all my CDs and thus if my computer crashes I am just SOL.
Obviously this kind of thing has been happening for quite some time and I am not trying to spout a "2001" type or warning that we shouldn't leave everything to computers, but I do find it interesting, particularly because this is a trend that is just going to keep growing. I mean, have you seen the CD section at Best Buy lately? Up until about 3 years ago, CDs took up about half the store; now it's 3 aisles in a corner. I don't even remember the last time I bought one. Is there really any reason to think that as the speed of information increases that we won't be doing exactly the same thing with all our movies and video games too? I don't know yet for sure if Blu-Ray will replace DVDs as the standard format, but I do know for sure that it will be the last physical media format we have. Similarly, I think the X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii will be the last of the next-gen systems where you will have to purchase physical video game discs to play.
By and large this is a good thing, if for no other reason than the fact that it should cut down on the amount of raw materials needed to produce these items as well as cutting down on the refuse when they get disposed of (obviously that's offset somewhat by more hard drives). But it just makes for some interesting potential problems. Right now when you lose something like music on your computer it's just gone from your machine. There are still physical copies somewhere in the world. But what if that is not always the case? We could be looking at the possibility sometime in the future that when something gets erased it is just expunged from the Earth permanently as if it never existed. Obviously, that is an extremely remote and far fetched scenario, but it conjures up thoughts of some super-coded virus that learns how to break security on its own and corrupts every computer it touches. And it is my firm belief that should that ever happen, when an alien civilization comes to visit us in some distant time and tries to figure out what went wrong with life on this planet, they will eventually dig deep enough to be greeted by this message:
"Error: Cyclic Redundancy Check"
P.S. I did FINALLY manage to fix my computer this past weekend through a combination of "chkdsk" commands that eventually quarantined the corrupt file and allowed me to delete it. So you will all be happy to know that I can replace all the bad 80s music on my iPod with entirely different bad 80s music.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
You're More Right Than You Realize
Busy prepping for the CPA exam tomorrow, but just saw something I felt compelled to comment on. In a speech yesterday, Hillary Clinton compared herself to "Rocky", indicating that she never gives up. In talking about ending her presidential campaign, she alluded to the famous training scene in the original film and said it would be as if "Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough.'" Well, I imagine it's been a while since she's seen the film so I guess it escaped her attention that Rocky in fact LOSES to Apollo Creed at the end. He does come back to beat Apollo in the sequel, so maybe she's just trying to set up her 2012 campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
