OMG I Pikd My VP LOL!

Since Obama announced last week that he would be broadcasting his VP choice first to his supporters via text message, that is how I have been imagining it coming across. And since anonymous "inside" sources have said that he is planning his first public appearance with his VP choice on Saturday in Springfield, it looks like we're down to the last 48-72 hours before we'll all know. So I thought I'd try to play a little Nostradamus and predict it. It is "widely believed" (whatever that means) that the choice is down to 4 candidates: Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. Biden has going for him the fact that he is a friend to both the Clintons, a lot of foreign policy experience (as well as experience in general), and is a good debater who will be able to go toe to toe with anyone McCain chooses. However, as one of the eldest serving Democratic Senators he would somewhat undercut Obama's message of change and by potentially drafting him into the White House you lose a powerful force in the Senate, where he may be more valuable. He's also from Delaware, which is going to go blue anyway so he lacks the power to "deliver a state". I don't take Sebelius seriously, not because she's not a viable choice (she is) but because in this current election if he's going to pick a woman it pretty much HAS to be Hillary. Anything other than that is likely to be seen as a slap in the face by her supporters. Evan Bayh seems to be a perenially popular VP finalist (Gore and Kerry also had them on their lists) and Indiana is seen as a swing state, so that goes in his favor. But recently there are concerns that Bayh's wife, who does work for 7 corporate boards and earned over $800k from them last year, could also undercut his message about breaking from corporate ties and being in the pockets of lobbyists. That leaves Gov. Tim Kaine. Virginia has been seen as a Republican stronghold in recent Presidential elections but with a now Democratic governor and the election of Democratic Senator Jim Webb in 2006 that could be poised to change. So, in that respect he certainly passes the "can he deliver a state?" criteria. But outside of Virginia he's not very well known and Obama already has a difficult enough time getting the rest of the nation's undecided voters comfortable with him let alone trying to introduce them to his VP as well. Speculation has really heated up over Kaine considering that he is set to campaign with him today and spend the night as his guest in Virginia tonight. But is it a visit to tell Kaine personally that he's his choice, or is it a consolation prize?

So what do I think (like you asked or care)? I think that as of 10 days ago Obama was leaning towards Kaine. However, I think the Russia-Georgia incident has underscored his need to get somebody with foreign policy experience to undercut the Republican's ability to say that the world is too dangerous to leave the country's security and diplomacy in the hands of someone so inexperienced. I also can't see why he would be publicly campaigning with Kaine the day or two before the announcement. To me it seems like since he knows he's not going to pick him he wants to still use the last day of speculation to draw more attention to them together then they otherwise would have received if the decision had already been made. So, in the end, I think it's going to be Biden and I can't say that I'm unhappy with that pick.

Of course, there's always the possibility that someone comes completely out of the blue and surprises everyone. And I was surprised that 3 names in particular were not among the finalists: Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. From what I've read, Richardson was never really considered and Strickland and Rendell said they didn't want it. Of course, there's the old political axiom that "the VP is the job that nobody wants but nobody turns down."

Guess I'll just have to keep a close eye on my cell phone for the next couple days . . .

I Got . . .Something

OK, still don't have much. Although I've been following politics very closely over the last couple weeks (I fell a little behind on my issues of The Economist but have caught up by reading 3 issues in the last 3 days). However, on the discussion side I've honestly been a little politic'd out. I think it's because I know that with the DNC convention coming at the end of the month and then the RNC one right after it's going to really move the campaigning into high gear and that's likely all we'll hear about for the two months after that till election day. Still, I do have a couple thoughts . . .

First, yesterday in the first Guantanamo war crimes trial the driver for Osama Bin Laden was given what most consider to be a pretty light sentence: 5 and a half years. Since he's already served 5 of those years, that means he is eligible to be released in 6 months. I actually have no interest in discussing whether or not his sentence was fair (because I know what that will quickly devolve into). However, this is the line from the story that really got to me: "U.S. authorities insist they could hold him indefinitely without charge as an 'enemy combatant'." So, that means that someone can be convicted of a crime, sentenced, serve their sentence, and then still not be released? If that's the case, then the trial is nothing but a farce and brings us one step closer to the type of governing you see in places like Zimbabwe, where the incumbent loses an election but still gets to stay in power. Now, the story does go on to say that "defense lawyers and human rights groups say the military will face pressure to release him at the end of his sentence", but the fact that it's even an option that he won't be is apalling. Again, as we should be asking with almost everything we do now, how do you think this appears to the rest of the world?

Next, while catching up on the afore-mentioned Economists I was reading one of their special reports on emerging technologies in energy. In particular, while reading an article on the re-emergence of nuclear reactors I was struck by the latest perversion of language being thrust upon us. As is common knowledge, all nuclear reactors have within them safety mechanisms that are automatically triggered without human intervention if certain conditions exist. These used to be referred to as "fail-safes". However, apparently we can't have any derivation of the word "failure" anywhere near a discussion about nuclear power; so now they're called "passive safety" mechanisms. This got me onto a line of thinking about all sorts of semantic changes we have to endure so that expressions that describe exactly what something is are replaced or softened because they are unpallatable for some reason. Speaking of failure, a few years ago a British Teacher's Union debated removing "failure" from all situations in school and replacing it instead with deferred success. Thankfully, that was voted down, but now we are treated to debates that aren't much less ridiculous. After Al-Maliki has started to come around on the idea of setting some goals for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, we now get to hear that the Bush administration, while still against "timetables" for withdrawal, are ok with having time horizons. The fact that we will really have to listen to our prospective future Presidents seriously debate the difference between the two makes me want to weep. My favorite quote about this was from The Daily Show the other night ("Isn't a horizon something that you keeping moving toward but never reach?"). George Carlin was someone who was greatly annoyed by euphemisms, and has a lot of classic bits about just this type of language softening. One of the best is on what we've done to the term describing when someone in combat has their nervous system stressed to beyond the breaking point. It used to be called shell shock in WWI; then it became battle fatigue in WWII; then Operational Exhaustion in Korea; and then finally we arrived at Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Vietnam. As he was so great at doing, he takes a somewhat goofy premise and lets us know why we should care about it: "I bet you if we'd still been calling it shell shock, some of those Vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time."

I Got Nothin' . . .

So, yeah this is more a blogging for the sake of blogging and so that I don't have to remind myself that it's been 10 days since I posted anything and over two weeks since I really posted anything. Well, not too much to report. The trip to Texas was good; the pizza place is starting to take off and get consistently busy. Got out to play golf twice, which is enjoyable even though I'm not very good. Saw a couple movies while we were there (The Dark Knight and Wall-E); both of which were excellent. Now this week I'm just trying to get back into the swing of things work-wise and starting to count down the days till my next vacation (a trip to Vegas in September for my friend Shoma's wedding).

This weekend we are going to yet another Cubs game; our 2nd and final trip of the year to the bleachers. Pending today's outcome, hopefully we will be seeing the Cubs go for 7 in a row with Zambrano on the mound. I am a bit leary because they are playing the Pirates. I have personally attended three Cubs/Pirates games where the Cubs blew the game in the 9th and lost. Of course, I also have seen the Cubs pummel the Pirates in Wrigley and I was there in 2003 the day they swept a double-header from them to clinch the division. Other than that, should be a pretty relaxing weekend, especially since I have Monday off.

On another note, next weekend is the half marathon and . . .well, I'm thinking I'm not running it. The two main motivations I had when I signed up were 1) getting Christy motivated to do it; and 2) giving myself a goal to train for rather than just running for the sake of running. Well, motivation #1 went out the window in early June, and motivation #2 went out the window 3 weeks ago when I stopped running. So now, considering I already ran the half last year, I can't really think of a good reason to try and squeeze a month's worth of training into a week just so I can have the pleasure of waking up at 4:00 in the morning next Sunday to run 13.1 miles on what will likely be a sweltering day. So, all in all, looks like that was $100 well spent for the both of us . . .

One brief foray into politics; I was happy to read this in this week's Economist: "A few year's ago, no politician would have been seen with a book called 'The Post-American World'. Mr. Obama has been conspicuously reading Fareed Zakaria's recent volume."

Franky Says Relax

Well, I guess you guys don't like economics talk that much. I swear, I think I could hear crickets chirping after that last post. Oh well, just further confirmation of what I've always thought (that I'm a huge nerd).

Won't be a whole lot in the way of significant content this week (I can hear the disappointment now) as Christy and I are currently relaxing with the Ps down in Houston. Considering that our last "vacation" over Christmas was spent packing and moving to our new place, it has been over a year since our last real break and it feels great to be able to sit back and not even have marathon training or the CPA hanging over my head. So far we've attended a Cubs game (they lost), hit up a casino in Lake Charles, LA (I lost $150 because blackjack is an evil, evil game), and got a little golfing in, which we're also doing tomorrow morning. Also will be working at Windy City Pizza for a few hours tomorrow night before going to see The Dark Knight. Judging by the amount of money it made this past weekend, apparently Christy and I will be the last 2 people in America to see it. Then we're taking the nieces and nephews to see Wall-E on Wednesday. In between all of that I have also finally started reading War and Peace. It's very strange to be over 200 pages into a book and feel like I'm still at the very beginning. The goal will be to get through it by the end of the summer, though I have a feeling that as soon as I get over halfway I'll power my way through to the end. Believe it or not, it's actually a pretty easy book to read. It just takes a little while each time to get used to Tolstoy's rhythm but once you do the pages just fly by. He also writes very short chapters so even though it's so monstrously long you always feel like you're making progress on it.

For any fellow movie nerds like me, just wanted to take a moment to do some advertising for Deep Discount DVD. This week they are running a buy 1 get 1 free on all Criterion Collection DVDs. For those movies which have yet to come out on Blu-Ray, Criterion is the top of the line version you can get in terms of both transfer quality and special features. I already have a lot of my favorites, but I just picked up Dazed and Confused and Ran (the last of my favorite Kurosawa films that I didn't have). Some of the ones I would particularly recommend are Brazil (of course), Hoop Dreams, Harakiri, The Bicycle Thief and 8 and a half (two classic Italian masterpieces), any of the other Kurosawa films (Seven Samurai, Ikiru, Rashomon, Kagemusha, Throne of Blood, and the Hidden Fortress), as well as any of the Ingmar Bergman films (The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries are two of my favorites but you really can't go wrong). At an average of about $32 per film, that means you can get these for ~$16 each when bought in pairs. That's a steal. Here ends the advertisement.

OK, think that's about it for now and will probably be the last update of the week. I'll be spending the rest of the week relaxing, recharging, and undoubtedly coming up with more topics to either interest (hopefully) or bore (more likely) all of you.

Sometimes the Truth Makes for Bad Politics

So, Phil Gramm (and, by association, John McCain) caught some slack last week for saying "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession" and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners." Looking at this strictly from a political standpoint, these are incredibly stupid comments to make and constitutes a signifigant political gaffe for someone who, up until a few days ago at least, has been repeatedly referred to as "John McCain's top economic advisor." If there actually was a book titled "Campaigning 101", I'm pretty sure that somewhere near the top of the list of things not to do would be "Do not refer to the constituency as whiners, and do not tell them that their problems are imaginary." The response from both candidates was, of course, completely predictable. McCain leapt to the defensive, saying "Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me. I strongly disagree" while Obama came out with "When people are out there losing their homes and property values are declining, that's not a figment of your imagination." So, in the end we have a seeming non-starter where both candidates agree that Phil Gramm is wrong. Well, that's all well and good except for the tiny little problem that Phil Gramm's actually right.

Don't get me wrong. The economy is certainly not soaring right now. But neither is it as horrible as most people believe. On Friday, a poll was released which said that consumer confidence is currently hovering around a 28-year low. Really? Do people, as a whole, really think that our economy is in as bad a shape now as it was in 1980? In that year, consumer sentiment reached its low point in May at 51.7, but for the 1st half of the year it averaged 58.9. Right now we are at 56.6. Consumer's fears turned out to be pretty well-founded in 1980, as real GDP declined by a whopping 7.8% (the largest drop since 1958 and a drop that is over 2.5 times anything we've seen since). As it stands right now, we have had a pretty anemic 6 months (with real GDP increasing an average of .8%) compared with our 50-year average of 3.4%. The numbers for the 2Q2008 aren't out yet, but the number is expected to be small but positive or, at the worst, a slight negative. Certainly nothing on the order of even negative 2 or 3% (as what occurred during our last official recession in 90/91). On the unemployment side, statistics for June place it at 5.5%, which is higher than it's been for the last 4 years but about average for the last 50. In 1980, it was around 7.5%. On top of that, the upside to a weakening dollar has been a booming export business and a substantial increase to foreign tourists visting the U.S.

Again, I am not trying to say that people's struggles are not real. In fact, I know of 2 people that have been laid off in the last week. As I've indicated a number of times on this blog, I have not been a fan of this current administration's fiscal policies and I do not believe that it has served us well. However, I believe that it is still absolutely correct to say that the current sentiments about the economy are, at the very least, an overreaction. As case in point, just take a look at the different tone communicated between this article and this one. Even if you don't feel like reading the article (and I know you don't), just look at the difference in what the headlines imply. And the two articles share a common author! You might think that this is merely semantics, but it is much more than that. The economy sometimes really does function like The Matrix ("your mind makes it real"). If people believe that times are really tight and they need to save up every penny and stop consuming, all of their worst fears will come to fruition.

High gas prices, a horrible housing market, and the credit crisis are all very real and negative forces. I will use a hated term here, but in each of these situations the market is really and truly experiencing a correction. Gas prices are being driven up by increasing demand, both seasonally from the U.S., and internationally by permanent increased (and rising) use. It will not always be $4.00/gallon, but cheap gas (i.e. under $2.00) is gone for good. We will have to adjust (and if you look at plunging truck and SUV sales for the year, we are). As for the housing market, if you bought your home in 2004-2006, odds are that you're not very happy right now, and for good reason. But if you bought before then, unless you are in one of the couple areas hit unbelievably hard chances are good that your house is still worth more today than when you bought it, and it's a virtual certainty if you bought in 2000 or before. People are often victims of what I refer to as the "gambler's mentality", which means that whenever they get "up" money that amount instantly becomes the floor below which everything is considered a loss. As an example, imagine someone walking up to you and saying "I just lost $5000 at the blackjack table" and then you find out that what actually happened was that he started with $100, got up to $5000 and then proceeded to lose it all. The reality is that he actually lost $100, but it "feels" like he lost $5000. Similarly, people who bought their house in 2000 at $150,000 probably saw their value double in 5 years and now they've had it sink back to $175,000 (yes, I am making these numbers up). It "feels" like they've lost $125k, but in reality they've gained $25k. Of course, that leads right into the credit problem, because some of those in the last example took out $100k home equity loans, and now they really well and truly are in the hole. That's why it has also been a correction for credit to tighten up.

The key here is to understand that what's happening is not "the sky is falling." It takes a series of significant setbacks to derail the economy and when the stars align and they happen it can be devastating. The last time we experienced something similar was the simultaneous dot-com crash and Enron/Worldcom scandals, and a year plus of negative and then lackluster growth resulted. But the underlying institutions and "machinery" of the economy were sound then and we pulled through it and the same is true today. The key is that I believe that these current crises have largely played themselves out. By that I mean that at this point we have a good sense of how much damage has been done (something that could not be said immediately after the sub-prime failures and Bear Stearns debachle) and that the worst is behind us. It will still take a while, but housing prices will start to go back up again (though it's not likely to rise to the meteoric levels it was at for quite some time) and credit will be cheap again (though probably not as cheap as it was). If you want my prediction (and even if you don't) I think we're likely to pull out of this sooner than later. The end of summer will see demand-driven gas prices decline somewhat, which should help. And the excitement of the presidential race (and subsequent exit of a very unpopular president) should serve to raise the nation's spirits. And right on the heels of the election we will jump right into the holiday season which should prove to be a nice boon for businesses. GDP growth for the rest of the year is still likely to be relatively low (on the order of 1 - 1.5%) but it should boost consumer confidence, which should in turn boost growth in subsequent quarters.

So, yeah, if I had any money to invest I'd look to do it around late September/early October. Of course, another financial or international crisis between now and then and all bets are off.

Dead or Not Dead

OK, so I certainly am not intending to stymie any lingering thoughts on movies, but I've actually had another post written for a while that I was waiting for the Roundtable to be done with to post. In any case, feel free to keep commenting on movies. My Netflix queue has already gotten a few additions to it and I'd always like more.

So, as everybody knows, a few weeks ago George Carlin died. I really have nothing to say in tribute to him that hasn't already been said, and better, by 1000 other people, namely all the comedians performing today that he influenced. Christy and I got a chance to see him last year on what turns out to be his final tour. I'd love to say that he was amazing, but honestly, he was just a shell of his former self. If I had to be even more honest, I'd have to say that he hadn't really been at the top of his game for about 15 years. Right after his death, HBO Comedy ran all of his stand-up specials back-to-back for a week straight. I'd seen them all before but it was great to get to see them in sequence. And it's absolutely amazing to see the transformation that occurs. Carlin always had a political bent to him, but in his younger days he also had a zaniness and such physical skill with his gestures, facial expressions, and above all his perfect timing that even if he said something politics-wise that you didn't agree with it was still hard to stop yourself from laughing. Gradually, though, you see the zany, goofy side of him give way to a more curmudgeony, bitter personality and, even though a lot of it was still funny, the balance that made him so much better than almost everybody else was forever gone. And you can almost pinpoint the exact moment it happens: in What Am I Doing in New Jersey (1988) and Doin' It Again (1990) he still has that balance - barely - but then by Jammin' In New York (1992) it's gone for good. Just looking at the titles of his last 4 specials tells you everything you need to know: You Are All Diseased, Complaints and Grievances, Life Is Worth Losing, and It's Bad For Ya!. The point here is that I think there's a lot of people my age and younger that are only familiar with the "lesser Carlin" and don't realize how unbelievably awesome and ground-breaking and, above all, downright hilarious he was for most of his career. If you fall into that category (or even if you don't) do yourself a favor and queue up some of his older specials in your Netflix account: I guarantee you won't regret it!(Note: guarantee void in Illinois)

In any case, I was trying to think about a way to pay tribute to him in a somewhat unique way. I think one of his hallmarks throughout his career was how he never shied away from taboo topics, including (and later, especially) death. So, in the name of morbid humor, I thought it'd be fun to play a round of everybody's favorite game: Dead or Not Dead? Below is a list of 15 actors (all of which were alive as of 1/1/2000); see how many you're correctly able to classify withtheir current breathing status:

1. Abe Vigoda
2. Conrad Bain (aka Mr. Drummond from Diff’rent Strokes)
3. Andy Griffith
4. Bob Hope
5. Roy Scheider
6. Richard Harris
7. Peter O’Toole
8. Alec Guiness
9. James Doohan (aka Scotty from Star Trek)
10. James Garner
11. Charles Bronson
12. Gene Wilder
13. Don Adams (aka the original Maxwell Smart)
14. Bob Newhart
15. John Astin (aka the original Gomez Adams)


OK, and just to break up the questions from the answers, here's this:




1. Not dead! This has been a running joke since People magazine erroneously reported him dead in 1982. The website abevigoda.com is a single page that only lists his current status.

2. Not dead! Given the fate of the rest of the cast of Diff’rent Strokes, I thought that for sure he didn’t have a chance. As a humorous tidbit, the last thing he has ever appeared in (to date) was the last episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air where he and Gary Coleman (as Mr. Drummond and Arnold Jackson) showed up to buy the Banks’ mansion. What I wouldn’t have given to have been in that writer’s room when that idea was pitched. “I have absolutely no idea how to end this show and, let’s face it, no one’s watching anyway. Do you remember that show from 10 years ago with that rich white guy and the really short black kid? Let’s just have them show up and buy the place . . .”

3. Not dead and still working! Although, he has started playing characters that die during the movie, and that’s gotta weigh on you after a while.

4. Dead (7/27/03), though not before making it past the century mark. Hey, give me 100 Bob Hope or George Burns years and I’ll die happy.

5. Dead (2/10/08); this was one of those where when I read that he died I thought “hasn’t he been dead for like 20 years.” I mean, does anybody remember him in any movie other than Jaws?

6. Dead (10/25/02); most younger people would only know him as Dumbledore in the first 2 Harry Potter movies, but this guy was legendary for his drunken debauchery in his early days and it’s a wonder that he made it to 72. As just one example, from a story reporting his death it was said that “film directors would add at least a week to their shooting schedules if Mr. Harris was a member of the cast, just to account for the days they assumed he would be drunk.”

7. Not dead and also still working! Although he looks like he’s about 95, he’s actually only 76. I assume that this is a direct result of hanging out with the afore mentioned Richard Harris so much in his early days.

8. Dead (8/5/00). Although rumor has it that when he was struck down he became more powerful than we can possibly imagine.

9. Beamed up on 7/20/05. I thought he was in his mid-70s when he died but discovered he was actually 85. Perhaps I thought that because I couldn’t possibly imagine that he was a 74-year-old still playing an engineer in Star Trek: Generations in 1994.

10. The original Maverick is still alive and kicking! According to imdb he’s been in over 90 tvs and movies, yet I can’t think of a single other thing he’s been in besides that.

11. Dead (8/30/03). Insert your own Death Wish joke here.

12. Not dead but retired. How do you survive See No Evil, Hear No Evil without tarnishing your legacy? You make The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory before that. His auto-biography Kiss Me Like a Stranger is a really good, generally light-hearted read.

13. Would you believe not dead? If not, you’d be right, cause he is (9/25/05)

14. Not dead, though by looking at his imdb page picture you wouldn’t know it.

15. Not dead! Noteworthy because, besides the kids, he’s the only original Addams Family member still alive. He even outlived his Gomez Addams successor (Raul Julia). That’s creepy (as well as kooky, mysterious, and ooky). Actually, what the hell does ooky mean? That’s a filler “we’ll put this in here till we think of the real line” line if I’ve ever heard one!

Roundtable - Part V

Before we (at long last) reach the conclusion in this wonderful roundtable experiment, just want to point out a couple changes I made yesterday, just in case you missed them. I now have a "recent comments" list which seems to work, but with a delay. Unlikely my minimal coding skills will be able to approve its functionality much, but it should serve the purpose of at least allowing people to see comments that may have been made to the not-most-recent topic (so Weir and Mike, feel free to continue to argue about FISA). Also, below that I've added some lists of the last 5 movies and the last 5 books I've read, along with a star rating for each of them. I plan to keep this updated, but no promises. Unfortunately, the main content of the blog (i.e. my long-winded ramblings) remains unchanged.

OK, onward to question 5, which is a fun one that I think pretty much everyone can contribute to:

What is your favorite movie of all time? Why? Note that this isn’t necessarily the movie you consider to be the “best”, just your personal favorite. Feel free to go ahead and list some of your other favorites, but keep the discussion centered on just the one.

John
Brazil. This is a film that changes dramatically depending on how you view it. If you view it as a quirky sci-fi story with a confusing plot it is an average movie. However, when you realize that it was intended to be a modern-day satire and commentary on how bureaucracy has infiltrated every facet of our lives it becomes brilliant. Apart from the dream sequences, no more than 2 minutes ever goes by without a joke, but they are almost always subtle and are very easy to miss. Truly a film that gets better with each viewing. Honorable mentions to Trainspotting, The Shining, Mulholland Drive, Hoosiers, Diggstown, and pretty much the entire Kurosawa library (Ikiru, Seven Samurai, and Ran in particular).

Mike
My favorite movie, the one that I can watch just about any time, and I always love like the first time I watched it, is Ferris Bueller’s Day off. I love the entire concept of the film and the fact that, for the most part, anyone can watch it. Its humor is both smart and sophomoric, and the comedic timing of the actors is absolutely perfect. The casting was perfection, with even small parts like the parking garage attendant seeming to get the full attention of the producers and director. And the best part… this movie reminds me to take a day off once in awhile.

Eric
My favorite movie of all time is Casablanca. I can watch this movie over and over without getting bored. I remember seeing it for the first time and saying to myself “Oh, that is where the line comes from” over and over again. It has elements from a variety of different genres including mystery, intrigue, politics, and romance. Naturally at its core it is a love story, but more than that it is about a man struggling to justify his activist past with his non-interference present. It is about a man who must sacrifice for others at the expense of himself. And it is about a man who must voluntarily give up the woman he loves because he knows she will be better off without him. And cmon, its freaking Bogart.

Becky
My favorite movie these days is Life as a House. It takes energy to watch it, but if you’re in the right mood, it’s just the thing. It’s about this guy who finds out he’s dying and so decides to finally tear down the shack he lives in and the build the house he’s been planning in his head his whole adult life. During the course of it, as the blurb says, “he ends up rebuilding the life around him.” He reconnects to his (totally f-ed up, BTW) teenaged son, his ex-wife, even his uppity neighbors. This cinematography is beautiful, the characters interesting, the relationships real, and the plot enjoyable. More importantly, though, is that it manages to ask questions about the nature of human life and love without ever becoming preachy. It feels like more of a meditation on those ideas instead of a definitive thesis. Which I like. And despite the sad subject matter, it’s undeniably, and (this is key) non-cheesily, optimistic.

Roundtable - Part IV

And on we merrily stumble to question 4, and this time it is Becky who has decided to take a question off.

Identify yourself as either a Republican or a Democrat (for this exercise, no one is allowed to be an independent). If you really can’t decide, the tiebreaker is the party of the person you’re supporting for president in 2008 as of today. Now, name someone from the other side that you admire and describe what you like about them. No cheating (i.e. “I admire X’s naivety and the way he’s able to delude himself that he has the best interest of the country in mind”). For some of you, this one may require substantial research. They don’t have to be currently in office; just someone who is clearly identified with that party. Oh, and they have to still be alive (as of today).

John
By virtue of my own tiebreaker I am a Democrat. As such, I’m going to go with Newt Gingrich. I read his first book in 1996 and he is one of the main reasons I was a Republican for so long. Even now when I hear him speak, I recognize and identify with the logic that brought me to the party (and which, sadly, now seems to have left it). Low taxes, small government, balanced budgets, sign me up! What I respect most about him is that when he gives his view on an issue, it is always consistent and logical with his underlying philosophies. That’s a refreshing change of pace from other politicians who repeat the party line and try to act like it’s consistent with everything else they’ve said, even when it clearly isn’t.

Mike
Republican.
There are quite a few Democrats that have qualities that I admire, and they tend be older democrats that were around before socialism started to creep its way into the party line. Democrat principles of equality, fair treatment of all peoples, individual rights, a strong military, and defense of the liberty for everyone, are values of true patriots in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson… the founder of the Democrat Party, which was formed to fight for the Bill of Rights.
Jimmy Carter is one democrat whom I admire for his distinguished Naval career and his support and work with Habitat for Humanity.

Eric
I am a Democrat. I admire Governor Arnold Shwartzanagger. This is a guy who grew up from nothing. His father was a Police Chief in Austria, and he worked in a health club and attended business school while working out 4-6 hours daily to win his 5 Mr. Universe titles. The guy moved to the US speaking poor English and with a strange and thick accent which has been mocked since he hit the public stage. He won the Governorship by well over 1 million votes each time, and is an insanely popular Governor in one of the most liberal states in the union.

Roundtable - Part 3

OK, well we've been holding up the show waiting for Mr. Weir but considering that I was planning to do this entire roundtable in a week and it's already been 2 weeks and we aren't even halfway done yet we're just going to carry on with only 3 responses this time.


Our parents probably can’t imagine working in an office without computers. We probably can’t imagine working today without the internet. The younger generation probably can’t imagine growing up without cell phones. Speculate on what the next technological break-through might be that we won’t be able to imagine ever having done without it once we have it. This doesn’t have to be something with business application. It could relate to medicine, the military, astrophysics, or anything else you can think of that relates to a technological breakthrough.

John
It may be a little further down the road, but I think it will be the growing of replacement organs through stem cells. I think the days of needing to wait to be matched up with a donor are limited. If this does come to fruition, the implications are huge. We may very well reach the point in the next 50 years where we are able to service our bodies like we service our cars. “I see you’re here for your 50-year service. The manufacturer recommends changing the heart and kidneys every 25 years.”

Mike
I expect the next big technology breakthrough to come along will have to do with transportation. The movement of man from one location to another is as primal an urge as reproduction, and I think with the planet reaching its limit for sustaining life we are in for a mass exodus soon. With current methods of propulsion, we won’t make it far enough fast enough for humans to survive the journey to our nearest neighboring stars, so someone is going to have to develop a breakthrough propulsion technique. Since this probably won’t happen for quite awhile, the next big breakthrough in my lifetime will hopefully be a way to make Hot-Pockets that don’t give you the runs.

Becky
In 50 years of tinkering, no one has yet been able to get a computer to translate nearly as well as an actual human being. Programs exist that attempt this (such as Babelfish), but the resulting translations generally make little sense and need to be corrected by humans. However, I think we may be at a point now where accurate machine translation becomes a reality. Picking up lessons from Google, Wikipedia, and others, we can theorize how a successful program might be designed (for example, it would utilize a strong human component to populate the database and rate accuracy, and it would continuously learn from its mistakes). We can even theorize about things like how it would be financed and maintained. If there is one piece of the puzzle missing as we try to increasingly flatten the Earth, it’s the language barrier; I think this is motivation enough that researchers in the near future will redouble their efforts toward this technology and finally nail this thing down.

Roundtable - Part 2

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.