Kitty Says Moo

Your tax dollars at work (from Ars Technica):

(The) Camera Phone Predator Alert Act (H.R. 414), introduced into Congress this month by Representative Peter King, Republican of New York. The bill’s text says that Congress has found that “children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”

What’s King’s solution? One year after the passage of the Alert Act, all mobiles with cameras made in the United States must emit a “tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone.” And the legislation would forbid manufacturers to program an option that would allow consumers to disable the noise.

If King’s proposal was actually enacted into law and signed by the President, it would be enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, whose staff would have to figure out what kind of “tone or other sound” to force manufacturers to hotwire into their devices. The CPSC would also have to determine the aforementioned “reasonable radius.”

This isn’t a unique idea. There’s also been some discussion of requiring electric cars to produce a sound like an internal combustion engine in order to alert pedestrians- particularly blind pedestrians. The camera idea is, however, distinguished by being especially stupid.

You may recall that moment, twenty-some years ago, when Ronald Reagan made a joke before a press conference to the effect that “the bombing begins in five minutes.” He was poking fun at his supposed reputation as a warmonger, and it was a private joke shared with the Washington press corps. Or so he thought. By that night the remark was being carried by every newspaper and television network as though it were a serious declaration of war.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton made what sounds like a serious threat to “totally obliterate Iran” should they fire nuclear weapons at Israel. (Reaction so far from the major media: None.)

In related news, Barack Obama, asked for his reaction to Jimmy Carter’s attempt to play diplomat with Hamas, said- and this is a direct quote- “Can’t I just eat my waffles?”

I think the Democrats are really spoiled for choice this time around.

Hilary Clinton has been citing a trip she made to Bosnia as proof of her foreign affairs bona fides, noting that it was in a war zone, and they were warned that “there might be sniper fire.”

Perhaps. But if so, why was she bringing along Sinbad, Cheryl Crow, and daughter Chelsea? Personally, if I were a soldier or foreign service officer posted to, let us say, Bagdhad, I doubt my first instincts would be to take along a comic, a singer, and my teenage daughter.

I just learned that William F. Buckley died today. Although usually referred to as a conservative, many of his views would be more properly described as libertarian. He did not share many of the socially conservative views of a Mike Huckabee, or an Ann Coulter. He was greatly opposed to the bipartisan “War on drugs”, for example.

And that got me thinking- none of the candidates have said a word about the “war on drugs.” Between elections this used to be a real hot-button issue among activists on the left- how so many people are rotting in jail for the possession of something that hurt no one but themselves, and something that should be a personal choice. Moreover, the prohibition on drugs has created much of the criminal enterprise surrounding it, by raising the price of drugs as well as the desperation of those who distribute them.

So you’d think that liberals and conservatives alike would be looking for an alternative to draconian punishments for drug use and sale, and yet every four years the debate gets very, very, quiet. None of the major contenders for the presidency is saying anything about changing the severe penalties that were enacted under Bill Clinton. The only sane voice I’ve read this year on drug laws is that of Ron Paul- and when Ron Paul is the sole sane voice in a debate, well, that’s a pretty scary thought in and of itself.

They held Live Aid the other day, and literally hundreds of would-be greens watched B-list rock stars who jetted in from around the globe to endorse Al Gore’s vision:

“This is going to be the greenest event of its kind, ever,” former Vice President and Live Earth partner Al Gore told The Associated Press. “The carbon offsets and the innovative practices that are being used to make this a green event, I think, will set the standard for years to come.”

I.e., this could be the event that kills fashionable green politics. BTW, about those carbon offsets- they were purchased from Native Energy, a Native American (extra cultural points!) owned operation that… well, it’s unclear exactly what they do. They say they fund renewable energy projects, but that phrase covers a lot of ground. Their web site says:

…NativeEnergy is majority-owned by the non-profit Intertribal Council On Utility Policy, although we are organized and operate as a for-profit company….

…and perhaps someone could explain that to me. In their FAQ, they ask the question, “How much goes to the projects?” and they reply:

Our business model is really very simple: We make otherwise insufficiently profitable renewable energy projects profitable enough to get financed and built. We do it buying their long-term renewable energy credits (RECs) and/or CO2 offsets up front, and selling shares of those RECs and offsets up front, thus buying down their initial investment costs and increasing their investment return. So a partial answer to “how much goes to the projects” is “enough to get them financed and built.”

…which again I find a little confusing. I am also more than a little reminded of Milo Minderbinder, the character in Catch 22 who somehow sets up a huge for-profit organization inn the middle of a war zone, and whose sole justification seems to be “everyone gets a share!”, even as he contracts with the Germans to bomb his own base.

Back to NativeEnergy’s financial model:

When you offset with NativeEnergy, you are purchasing property (RECs and other CO2 offsets are property) and you are donating that property to Clean Air-Cool Planet for it to further its charitable purpose of reducing global warming by retiring the credits or offsets. Think of it like you are buying soup from a grocer (NativeEnergy) and donating it to the local food drive (CA-CP) for it to give to hungry people. The general rule under the Internal Revenue Code is that when you donate property to a qualified charitable organization (CA-CP is a qualified 501(c)(3)), you are entitled to deduct the fair market value of that property from your income…

So basically you’re donating money to this organization, who in turn invest some undisclosed fraction of it in for-profit alternative energy projects that otherwise wouldn’t be financially viable. In the business world this is called throwing money away. But in this case, the principles of NativeEnergy get their cut, and the donors, like their predecessors in the Middle Ages, are buying indulgences to pave their way to Green Heaven, even as they continue to drive SUVs, air condition their multiple homes, and charter private jets.

And everyone gets a share!

Apparently a number of terrorist attacks and attempted terrorist attacks have struck Great Britain in the last 24 hours, and more are “imminent”, according to a government spokesman. These all seem to be related to what some call the “situation” in the Mideast, yet the BBC seems remarkably reticent to discuss the ethnicity of the terrorists in question.

Now far be it from me to prejudge, or to engage in ethnic profiling, but when a caller to the media claims the attack in the name of Allah, I don’t think we’re dealing with a band of bloodthirsty Episcopalians from Connecticut. Still, perhaps the Beeb is correct in being cautious, which makes me wonder what it would have been like had US leaders been similarly cautious fifty years ago…

“Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of another power, possibly in Asia, but we’re not ruling out others.

The United States was at peace and, at the solicitation of- well, one of many Asian nations- was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after these air squadrons- some have suggested they came from Japan, or perhaps Ohio- had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, we don’t want to suggest that this in any way measn we’re saying that Japan attacked us- but we’re trying to cover all bases here.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, someone- again, possibly Japan, possibly someone else wearing Japanese uniforms- also launched an attack against Malaya, Hong Kong, Guam- well, a lot of places, and we understand this, and while we’re not saying it’s a good thing- what we’re saying is we understand that there are some issues- and , well, the people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

Hostilities exist. That’s a fact. We’re not going to play the blame game here- that would be counterproductive- but you know, we have to deal with things as they’re presented to us.

I ask that the Congress declare that we’re generally displeased with this state of affairs, and further, I promise that we will take all necessary means- well, all reasonable means- to find out who did this, even if it means questioning every citizen of this and every other country, regardless of ethnicity, race, or creed.

Thank you.

According to an article in the latest Economist, when Hillary Clinton was in college she gave a speech endorsing “freedom from the burden of an inauthentic reality” and “more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living.”

I don’t know about Biill, but it’s pretty clear that someone inhaled back then.

Pass the pork rinds.

I was discussing an interesting new book on Nazi Germany this morning with some friends over coffee- it was published in Germany in 2005, and caused a rather big stir. The book is “Hitler’s Beneficiaries”, by Gotz Aly, and it presents a very different view from that currently in vogue.

The original explanation for the Nazi state, found in books like A. J. Ayer’s “The Course of German History”, was that it was a natural outgrowth of German militarism and obedience to authority. The modern interpretation , much preferred as it absolves the Germans of moral responsibility, is that the Germans were victims, too, of a fascistic elite; this can be found in the writings of Gunter Grass (who only recently discovered that he was a Nazi).

Aly’s book presents a very different view: That the Germans were very willing participants, because they profited financially from the Nazi war machine. Hitler set up what many today would consider an idea welfare state- free education through university, free medical care, child care, guaranteed jobs, and so forth. In fact, the average German saw little of the sacrifice and privation that most Brits and Americans suffered through WWII.

The problem was that the state couldn’t afford this without plundering and enslaving as many non-Aryans as possible to pay for their largess. The average German was more than happy to see Jewish owned businesses liquidated (along with their owners) and Poles and Russians put in slave labor camps if it meant a subsidized vacation.

After this discussion, a young guy who works at the coffeehouse said to me, “You seem to know a lot of stuff. How can I educate myself about politics and current events?”

That struck me as a very good question, and I thought about it a while before answering. I think my answer could be distilled down to the following:

1. Read history, and lots of it. There really is nothing new under the sun when it comes to politics. The same battles being fought today in Congress were being argued by the ancient Greeks.
2. Read arguments for positions you disagree with. Don’t just listen to people who reinforce your own beliefs.
3. Constantly challenge your own opinions, and ask yourself if they really reflect your core beliefs. Ask yourself if you can apply the underlying principles implied by your belief in another context, and still agree with the outcome.
4. Don’t adopt a set of beliefs just because your social group holds them. I think that’s probably the most common justification for most peoples’ political opinions.
5. Don’t view the world in simple terms, where everything and everyone is either all good or all evil. Realize that your opponent may have values you agree with. And accept that someone who holds views diametrically opposed to yours may be just as moral as you- or more so- and simply has a different opinion of the best solution to a problem. And even someone you believe has reprehensible ideas in one area may say something worthwhile in another.
6. Live long enough to see real change in the world, and to see whether your expectations were actually born out by history.

There’s a lot of buzz at web sites like http://www.vermontrepublic.org/ that are pushing for Vermont to secede from the Union. The general idea is that the organizers don’t like the current administration, and so the entire state should secede. That may seem short sighted, but I’m strongly encouraging them. (I’ve signed two petitions.)

First off, the rest of us would immediately save by writing off the future social security and Medicaid payments for 623,908 Vermont residents. The immediate savings would be $95,000,000 per month- I’m sure we could put that to good use. Then the Vermonters could all apply for Canadian citizenship, and see how much Maple Syrup they can sell up North.

I was reading a press release from something called the “Institute of Medicine” today, which immediately had me suspicious, of course, and rightly so; this institute is actually part of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia School of Law. And whenever lawyers start preaching on public policy, I instinctively check to see if my wallet is still there.

The press release was in the form of a demand that the FDA immediately regulate the nicotine content of cigarettes, calling it an “aggressive step” that would “end the use of tobacco.” Of course, countless medical studies have shown that when smokers switch to cigarettes with less nicotine, they simply adjust their smoking frequency to maintain the same level of blood nicotine. And in so doing they increase their intake of PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), which are far more carcinogenic than nicotine.

Now if I was a good deal more cynical than I am I’d say these lawyers actually want people to smoke more, thereby giving more money to tobacco companies, which in turn would make more money available to the lawyers who continue to sue tobacco companies even after the great multi-state tobacco settlement of 1998. (Indeed, the ‘98 settlement was instrumental in forcing tobacco companies to increase the price of cigarettes to raise the finds needed to pay off the states and the lawyers following the ‘98 settlement.)

But I’m not a cynic, so I’ll just assume the lawyers in question are idiots.