Big Picture

I've been meaning to mention this blog that I check out from time to time. It is the Boston Globe's photojournalism blog, and it is pretty awesome.

There's a lot of great photo series on there, but a couple of recent favorites:

War photos from Georgia.

China's Olympic preparations.

Spectacular photos of Jupiter.

pot, meet kettle

Because he has set such a sterling example by his leadership over the past 7.5 years, President Bush is able to weigh in on the events in Georgia:

Attending the Olympic Games in Beijing, President Bush directly called on Russia on Saturday to stop bombing Georgian territory, expressing strong support for Georgia in a direct challenge to Russia’s leaders.

“Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected,” Mr. Bush said in a hastily arranged appearance at his hotel in Beijing. “We have urged an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops. We call for the end of the Russian bombings.”

Quiet y'all, I think I can hear Vlad Putin laughing all the way on the other side of the world.

3+ hours of my life I'll never get back

To the question "David Lynch: genius or fraud?" I've always tended to come down on the genius side. I liked Twin Peaks, and Mulholland Drive is one of my favorite all-time movies.

But that was before I watched the steaming pile known as Inland Empire. Looking back on the experience, I find it hard to believe I stayed with it until the end. Utterly incomprehensible, and barely interesting even during brief highlights.

Hey, I know what: let's film a bunch of actors doing a bunch of dialog in a bunch of different languages in a bunch of different costumes in a bunch of different scenes in a bunch of different settings with a bunch of sucky lighting with a bunch of really crappy cameras that I just bought down at Fry's, and when we're done filming all this crap, we'll cut it up into 3 minute segments, mix the strips of film in a giant hopper, spin the thing around real good, pull the strips of film out at random, and splice them all together into 3 hours worth of craptastic crapola. Sound good? Ok, I'll bring the 'shrooms.

cui bono?

I'm a fan of conspiracy theories. It's not so much that I buy into them as being true so much as I like thinking about the implications if they were true.

But you don't have to be wearing a tinfoil hat to think there is something very fishy about the whole anthrax-scientist-suicide thing. Putting aside any crazy theories or conclusions, just the basic facts are striking:

Fact One: Back in 2001, shortly after 9/11, the fear factor in this country was ramped up from Shocked and Frightened to Uncontrolled Paranoia as a result of letters containing weaponized anthrax being received through the mail. This resulted in 5 deaths and 17 cases of serious illness. (Source: various contemporaneous media coverage; my own personal recollection)

Fact Two: The anthrax used in these attacks came from the government's own anthrax laboratory, which is under the direct control of the U.S. military. (Source: FBI)

Fact Three: The perpetrator of these attacks was an anthrax expert working for the U.S. federal government. (Source: FBI)

I don't think you have to be a shrill whacko conspiracy theorist to think that this is really an extraordinary set of facts. Think about it: the perpetrator of the first and only biological weapons attack in United States history was a government scientist working at a government biological weapons lab.

I'm not sure I even know what to say about that. But let's throw in a few more facts:

Fact Four: The perpetrator is now dead of an apparent suicide, leaving behind no suicide note or other explanation. (Source: Various recent media reports)

Fact Five: The letters accompanying the anthrax used jihadist rhetoric and were clearly intended to connect the anthrax attacks to 9/11 and to be the work of Arab terrorists (one read as follows: "9/11/01 -- This is next -- Take penicillin now -- D-e-a-t-h to America -- D-e-a-t-h to Israel -- A-l-l-a-h is great"). (Source)

Fact Six: The anthrax letters were primarily directed at members of the news media and Democratic congressional leaders. (Source: contemporaneous media reports and my own personal memory)

Fact Seven: Immediately following the anthrax attacks, many media outlets, led by ABC News, began reporting that numerous government sources were telling them that the particular kind of anthrax used in the attacks had been scientifically proven to be the same variety produced by Saddam Hussein's biological weapons facilities in Iraq (John McCain, appearing on Letterman, also identified Iraq as the culprit, without attributing any source). (Source)

Study those facts, and draw your own conclusions. A useful question to ask when trying to make sense of something like this is to ask: who benefits? Another: what goals or objectives might be advanced by this sequence of events?

________________

One more minor point: if I were a person who was about to be publicly accused and prosecuted as the perpetrator of a heinous act of terrorism, I might very well decide that my best option would be to kill myself. However, I would certainly not do so without first disseminating a document which stated one of the following: (1) I did not do what they say I did; I am being falsely accused, or (2) yes, I did what they say I did, and here's why it was perfectly justified. I don't think it is reasonable to believe that a person in such a position would not leave such a message behind. Which leaves two possibilities: (a) he left a note, but it is being kept secret by someone for some reason, or (b) he didn't kill himself.

drink up, Johnny

One thing you will always find in my freezer is a bottle of Stolichnaya. Currently there are three, but that's not usual. Usually there's only one. But if I ever notice I'm getting low, I'll get another bottle so as to not be without any. Thus, sometimes there are two. But usually one, only.

Why are there three? The third bottle was a gift. It is 100 proof, rather than the usual 80. It is not quite to my taste, but I won't pour it out.

When I drink vodka -- usually every couple of weeks or so -- I drink it in a glass (or, sometimes, a Solo cup) with ice. That is all. After the first drink (which is rarely 100% pleasant), I enjoy the taste. I also enjoy the near-immediate feeling of well-being that comes after only three or four sips.

This odd blog conducted a test to find out "which is the best vodka?" A very subjective question, to be sure; I prefer Stoli, so that would be my answer. But these nice folks (I won't criticize them, being fellow vodka-enjoyers) state that Stoli is a "sentimental favorite", with a "classic bottle", but that its continuing popularity could be attributed to "snob appeal". I don't know what that means.

One thing that I have noticed: when a bottle of Stoli is put into a freezer and kept there for some time, it develops a curious (and annoying) characteristic: if you touch the metal cap and/or the metal around the neck, your fingers will smell. They will have a metallic/chemical smell. I have observed that this phenomenon occurs every time, with every different bottle, in at least three different freezers with three different freezers-full of (other) contents. I can't explain this phenomenon, and 'the google' does not appear to contain an answer.

Knowing this, I just recently (yes, as recently as within this last half hour) developed a strategy for dealing with the bottleneck-metal-chemical-smell presentment: I get a paper towel, fold it half over and then into thirds, and use it to grip the bottle cap, making sure that my non-toweled hand does not touch the metal on the neck of the bottle. After the vodka is poured, the towel is discarded. I call this the Howard Hughes Strategy.

-Editor's Note: vodka was consumed by the author before and during this blog post.

Not quite as exciting as when the Aggies discovered cold fusion, but...

this looks like it could be big: "Major discovery" from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution.

Via The Agitator.

The discovery is a process that mimics photosynthesis by which solar energy can be stored using cheap, natural materials. Finding such a storage mechanism -- apparently -- was the last major barrier to "transform[ing] solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source." As the article states, "within 10 years... electricity-by-wire from a central source could be a thing of the past."

As alluded to in the headline, we've been disappointed by stuff like this before. However, in these types of announcements you usually see a lot of hedging by the scientists, who are eager to manage expectations and warn against over-excitement.

But this article is peppered with stuff like "revolutionary leap", "unprecedented", "giant leap", "enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind", "the importance of [this] discovery cannot be overstated", "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years", and etc.

The leading researcher is quoted as saying "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon... I know this is going to work." Not much hedging there.

***************

Meanwhile, I've been thinking a lot about energy issues lately, mostly from a standpoint of politics and public energy policy. And, somewhat relatedly, the other week I was watching a nature show (I hardly ever watched these before I got the HD Plasma TV setup) where some dirty hippie egghead scientist type (the kind of person John McCain and his supports just absolutely hate) was conducting experiments on giant redwoods (or sequoias or whatever). This guy said that one of these trees transports something like 2 TONS of water hundreds of feet vertically EACH DAY. The most basic knowledge of physics will tell you that that requires a heck of a lot of energy. Where does all this energy come from? About 1000 sqft of sunlight. The hippie scientist guy characterized this as "the most efficient hydraulic system known to man". Which at the time led me to the obvious idea that we ought to be able to figure out how this works, and start implementing it ourselves... and that -- maybe, just maybe -- this ought to be a pretty damn high priority for us, as, you know, a society, civilization, species, etc.

Of course, it isn't. These guys at MIT did what they did using a $10m donation from a private family trust. I hate to get too political here... but imagine what could be done with even a fraction of the $1+ Trillion we have committed to our failed adventure in appropriating cheap oil from Iraq.

I'd run your company into the ground for half that price

So, I guess the "doomsday scenario" for Fannie and Freddie has failed to materialize... yet. Instead of being on the hook for upwards of one trillion dollars, taxpayers will bail out the two GSEs -- for now -- at the low low price of $25 Billion. This "temporary lifeline" will enable Fannie and Freddie to continue to afford to pay their CEOs' yearly salaries of $12.2 Million and $19.8 Million, respectively.

I mentioned the term "GSEs". This stands for "Government Sponsored Entities". Which means our government is spending $25 Billion (at least) to sponsor:

1. profligate, out of control executive salaries;

2. being paid to managers who are utterly incompetent;

3. so that the companies they run can enable and encourage other companies (banks, mortgage brokers, and Wall Street firms) to loan money to people who they (banks, etc) are reasonably sure cannot repay it;

4. so that while they (banks, etc) are reaping huge profits from making these loans;

5. they (the GSEs) and their shareholders may reap huge profits in return for enabling them;

6. and then when it becomes obvious to everyone else (besides the lenders, who knew it all along) that the borrowers can't pay;

7. then they (the banks and the GSEs and their shareholders) can get huge infusions of taxpayer money in order to avoid any downside to their risky (and probably fraudulent) behavior.

So that's pretty much it. Lenders, GSEs, and their shareholders engage in highly risky financial behavior (i.e., speculation; i.e., gambling). To the extent that their bets pay off, they enjoy all the upside, and to the extent that their bets are raked off the table into that neat round hole, they don't suffer any of the downside. Said downside, magically, becoming the responsibility of you, the taxpayer.

And congress wonders why its approval rating hovers in the single digits.

not sure how I missed this...

(6 seconds)

truly bizarre.

I think my favorite part is the last split-second where he jerks his head around to the side, like "wtf did I just say?"

can you arrange such story toward the [international community]?

Imagine that you're part of a greedy, bellicose, hostile, unhinged, borderline insane group of people who have a great deal of shady, hidden business and political interests and goals, and that your group has somehow gotten near-complete control over the most powerful military in the history of the world. Imagine further that -- for reasons known only to you and your cohorts -- you've decided you want to use this power to attack a certain country.

The target country is (ostensibly) led by a dude who is somewhat of a jackass who says things in public that are at various times ignorant, stupid, offensive, or wacky, and through the use of credulous reporters, inaccurate translations, mischaracterizations, and just sheer force of public relations wizardry, you've been able to convince a lot of people that the dude is not just some backwards jerk, but is actually an extremely dangerous genocidal maniac -- a Hitler-like character -- whose goal is to wreak destruction upon neighboring countries and -- quite possibly -- upon your own country.

Which is a hard sell, given that the target country is on the other side of the globe from your own, and the target country is relatively small, and poor, and has a relatively small military, no ICBM capabilities, and is generally just very very weak compared to your own country. BUT, thankfully for you and your little group, the target country has been defiantly pursuing a program of uranium enrichment which they maintain is being done for purposes of generating nuclear power but which you say is to build nuclear weapons to be used to advance their irrational genocidal goals.

So far, so good. You've been able to build a plausible case that the target is dangerous, and is pursuing a course which will make them even more dangerous if nothing is done to stop them. But you can't attack yet, because there are other problems. First and foremost, you -- being a part of an extremely bellicose group, as noted above -- have already made such a case before, which resulted in an attack and a disastrous, prolonged military engagement against a country which you alleged to be similarly dangerous, only later to have it revealed to the world that this previous target was, if anything, only dangerous to its own citizens. So you have some credibility issues.

The second problem is that there has been a substantial ongoing international diplomatic effort aimed at ensuring that the target uses its nuclear research only for generating electricity. The target has been generally cooperative with this effort and has been fully engaged in meetings, negotiations, and the like, and has even allowed ongoing international inspections of its facilities. This type of cooperation makes it difficult to use this issue as a plausible pretext for a military attack, especially given: (1) your group's credibility problem as noted above, and (2) the fact that your own country, at your direction, has refused to directly engage in any of the above-noted diplomatic efforts and has stated that it will not enter into negotiations on the matter until the target country first meets your demands (and, indeed, has gone so far as to suggest that to engage in such discussions would constitute "appeasement"). And, in fact, being a bellicose and warlike junta, your group's primary tactic has been to loudly (and credibly) threaten that the target will be attacked if it does not comply with your demands.

Therefore, in order to guard against your group being prematurely removed from power by your country's own citizens -- and also to avoid possibly severe recriminations against your own country by other, less bellicose nations -- an additional step must be taken so that, when the inevitable attack occurs, you can plausibly proclaim to the world that you took every reasonable step necessary to avoid it, but that in the end the target -- now officially the enemy -- gave you no choice but to confront it head-on, with military force, this option being, of course, your last resort in the face of such a serious and dangerous threat.

Which brings us to this:

UPDATE: Apparently some Harvard egghead has been reading this here blog. From AFP:

Meanwhile, Graham Allison, a security expert who teaches at Harvard University, suggested that the administration's recent readiness to talk could be a prelude to a return to a reliance on military solution to some of Washington's intractable foreign policy problems.

"The hard-liners in the Bush administration, for example, will do their best to insist on unachievable objectives that will ensure failure of negotiation," he said.

"If talks collapse, they will be able to argue that the US went the extra mile and exhausted all reasonable alternatives" leaving the military option squarely on the table, he said.

Having never set foot in Garland...

I can't personally attest to this, but I'm told it is somewhat of an armpit (to be generous with the use of my body-part-epithets). On the other hand, having spent rather a lot of time in Denton, and actually lived there for a time, I can say that that city, while not without its charms, isn't a particularly great place to live. Euless, I've been to. Blech. Hurst is much nicer, though definitely not what I'd call top quality.

Which is by way of saying: imagine my surprise in seeing this article, which tells me that Garland, Denton, and Euless are among the top 100 "Best places to live -- 2008", according to Money magazine. The DFW suburbaplex did astoundingly well, garnering no less than 10% of the spots on the list. Which means exactly nothing, because any such list which includes Carrollton and Lewisville but not Southlake or Colleyville is entirely, completely, 100% bogus and was self-evidently compiled in no part by anyone who has ever visited this little corner of the world.

But they do have a neat little interactive googlemap which I have excerpted in non-interactive form below:

Are you ready for $12 gasoline?

That may be among the least of our worries if this scenario plays out.

The lede from the article in The Times of London: "President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official."

The "senior Pentagon official" goes on to say that Bush's "own generals" oppose such an action, but that the administration's green light is mainly dependent upon the Israelis coming up with an acceptable plan of attack. Oh, and naturally, it would also be conditioned on the breakdown of the aforementioned "negotiations with Tehran." (You can be sure that the administration is diligently, constantly, negotiating their little hearts out trying to solve this diplomatically.)

The article then turns to the likely consequences of such a development: "The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq."

I think "catastrophic" is about right, given that Iran's primary strategy for self defense is geared toward shutting down oil shipments moving through the Straits of Hormuz. (OPEC leaders are on record as stating that any conflict involving Iran would result in "unlimited" increases in the price of crude on world markets, and any price increase of that magnitude would, in addition to its serious microeconomic effects, trigger an immediate global recession.) And given that the Israelis -- not a calm, measured bunch, to be sure -- have 200-300 nuclear warheads and a proven capability to deliver them.

So... whom, you may ask, is responsible for bringing us to this precipice of disaster? Well, I'm glad you asked me that. Because at the linked site you will find helpful commenters, one of which opines:

This dangerous dilema is a direct result of the Democrat Party in the US and anti-war zealotry in Europe. Not the fact they are antiwar, but the fact that they have been so reckless with their condemnation of the War in Iraq .This has emboldened the enemies of freedom and rendered talk useless.

I think I'll just go ahead and let the wisdom of that comment speak for itself (though I do feel compelled to add that the "Democrat Party in the US" certainly has a funny way of showing its "anti-war zealotry" in light of the fact that it has continued to appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars every few months in order to keep Bush's Iraqi Adventure rollicking along and has otherwise done exactly nothing (not one single thing) to deter or thwart it in any way whatsoever.)

Creditworthy

Phil Gramm -- erstwhile Enron crook, who was last seen taking huge checks from UBS as its Vice Chairman, the giant bank writing off billions lost in the subprime mortgage shitpile and being pursued by federal investigators for criminal violations in that connection -- is John McCain's top economic adviser, as well as the campaign's national co-chair.

Good ol' Phil was caught expressing his true feelings the other day in an interview, when he opined that the country's economic problems are in our imaginations and that we are a nation of whiners. I don't think he actually said "let them eat cake", but this was certainly his intended message.

McCain's response: Phil Gramm "doesn't speak for me. I speak for me." Inconveniently however, at the exact moment that McCain said this, Phil Gramm was in New York explaining John McCain's economic plan to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board. On behalf of John McCain.

Most of the coverage I've seen of this story focuses on how this incident damages McCain in the "horserace" sense. No major newspapers appear to be pointing out that Gramm -- as the top economics adviser for a candidate that, by his own admission, knows next to nothing about economics -- has had, and will have, a key role in forming McCain's actual economic policies. And since Gramm believes there are no problems with the economy, it seems very likely that he also believes that nothing need be done to address these (nonexistent) problems.

Oh, and also, Phil Gramm is a complete moron. In addition to the rather salient facts that fuel costs have doubled within the last several months, the devaluation of the dollar continues, the Dow is below 11,000 for the first time in 2 years, homeowners have lost about $1 trillion dollars in equity over the last two years, unemployment numbers are the highest in years (and rising), and the federal deficit is huge and getting more monstrously huge with no end in sight -- I say, in addition to all of these facts which the expert economist Phil Gramm appears to not be aware -- just yesterday, I see this story in Fortune.

The article is entitled "The Fannie and Freddie doomsday scenario". It begins with this: "Here's a scary, and relevant, question to ponder as the housing market continues to slide: What would it take for the government to step in and help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and how would a rescue affect you, the taxpayer?" (and today I see that these stocks have lost have their value in like 2 days.) Apparently they are already "insolvent" (i.e., cannot make payments as they fall due).

Fortune goes on to detail how these two companies are so crucial to the mortgage industry (and the credit market in general) that they cannot be allowed to fail.

The last paragraph of the article is as follows (Phil Gramm, are you paying attention?):

The doomsday scenario could cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion, says the S&P report. The report [by Standard & Poor's] went so far as to say that a government bailout of Fannie or Freddie could force the agency to lower its rating on the creditworthiness of the United States. [!!!]

Yet more evidence that life isn't fair

On my way home from the office I was driving beside a guy in a brand-spanking-new M3 that still had dealer plates on it. The dude couldn't have been more than 22 yrs old. I wonder whether he will in any way be damaged by never having had to drive a beater with squealing brakes, a semi-operable water pump, non-functioning A/C, windows that don't roll up, door handles that don't open the doors, etc.

Damn kids, get off my lawn!

Where do I get a shirt like that?

Darcy Burner, former Microsoft exec and current congressional candidate, pictured shortly after her house was destroyed by fire. Via Atrios and others.

Incarceration: the key to a safe and healthy society

We put a lot of people in prison in this country. More than any other country, in fact. We incarcerate more total people. We incarcerate a higher ratio of people. We are the undisputed winners when it comes to locking people up.

Currently, we have 2.3 million people behind bars. Almost 1% of the total population. A ratio five times greater than the next highest ratio of any western democracy.

Putting someone in prison is very nearly the worst thing you can do to a person. Taking a person's personal liberty is no small matter. Merely restricting a person's ability to move about freely is a serious punishment. Confining a person to an 80sqft cage is a very severe punishment. But then consider that if you're in prison you can expect:

1. to have your privacy reduced to zero;
2. to be forced to comply with hundreds of detailed rules and regulations regarding your daily activities;
3. to be systematically dehumanized by guards who are no better than common thugs;
4. to be beaten by guards, for which you as a practical matter have no legal recourse;
5. to be beaten by inmates, for which you actually have no legal recourse;
6. to be raped or otherwise molested by inmates;
7. to have your toilet facilities be in the same room you spend the rest of your day in;
8. to have your cellmate's toilet facilities be in the same room you spend the rest of your day in;
9. to never get another decent job during the rest of your entire life; and
10. etc.

And yet most judges in this country hand out prison sentences like handing out candy at Halloween. Especially if you happen to be a brown person, or someone who cannot afford competent legal representation.

But that's ok. Because as long as you mind your own business and don't do anything wrong, you'll never be sent to prison, right? That is, unless you happen to somehow get on the wrong side of a dishonest policeman or an overzealous prosecutor.

Or unless you commit one of the literally thousands of offenses for which you can be sent to prison in modern America. Some of these include:

1. growing a certain kind of plant in your backyard;
2. attempting to possess a certain kind of plant;
3. offering to accept money for a handjob;
4. offering to pay money for a handjob;
5. offering to find someone who will accept money for a handjob;
6. offering to find someone who will pay money for a handjob;
7. hosting a poker game where a collection is taken up to cover refreshments;
8. playing poker online;
9. making a statement in the course of a police investigation that turns out to be untrue (unless you are the police, in which case it is explicitly NOT a crime but rather an essential part of your training);
10. downloading certain kinds of pictures onto your computer;
11. sending certain types of emails;
12. publishing certain types of software;
13. appointing a campaign contributor to a hospital board;
14. sending insulting text messages; and
15. etc.

HipHopLawyer believes there should be a very high bar for things that will get you sent to prison. A near-comprehensive list off of the top of my head might be: murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, major theft and fraud, along with variations on these and possibly a few more. Other crimes should be punishable by less drastic penalties, such as fines, loss of privileges, home confinement, and the like.