Controversation.com

The Traffic Tax

2010-03-06T01:41:39Z

If you’ve received a parking or traffic citation lately, your bail may have come as a shock. Fines for vehicular violations have risen sharply in California over the last few years.

Some fines are largely unchanged; the penalties for not wearing a seat belt or throwing a lit cigarette out the window have risen a mere 10% since 2006. Speeding fines, however, have increased by up to 60%.

Moving violations are not the only increases we’ve seen. Last year, SB 1407 mandated a nominal state fee for parking tickets in all municipalities statewide. But the granddaddy of them all is AB 144(ma), which took effect on January 1st of this year, and increased fines on handicapped parking violations by up to one thousand dollars per incident.

The fines themselves are not your only cost. Your final disbursement will include a host of surcharges: a state fee of 10%, a county fee of 70%, a DNA Identification Fund fee of 20%, a Court Facility Construction penalty of 50%, and, if the county chooses, an Emergency Medical Services fee of 20%. Finally, Penal Code Section 1465.7(a) mandates an additional 20% fee just for the heck of it.

In a flash, $70 becomes $300, and that’s for a single infraction. Human fallibility being what it is, even the safest and most conscientious driver will occasionally receive a ticket of some kind, making this constant upward ratcheting of traffic fines a hidden tax on the motorist.

It is far more palatable for politicians to pass incremental increases on traffic violations than to raise property or sales tax, but the end result is the same; more money is removed from the public sector and lands in the coffers of government.

Big deal, you say. Perhaps this will compel people to drive safely, and we’ll all be better off. Normally, I might agree. But the financial crisis plaguing the Golden State presents a perturbing predicament.

As the cost of careless driving mounts, motorists in California may decide to keep their hands at 10 and 2 and peel the lead from their feet. But this spins us in a viscous circle. As citation income drops, pressure to generate revenue increases, leading to a further bloating of fees, more stringent rules of the road, or a wider margin of error in assessing guilt.

Traffic fines were originally intended to be punitive – a form of punishment that curbed unfavorable behavior. Now that California faces financial meltdown, the traffic courts are dangerously close to morphing into for-profit enterprises, endowed with the monopolistic and coercive powers of the state.

I am not suggesting that we march on Sacramento with muskets and bayonets, but we must consider the effects of these policies on the Everyman. For many Americans, a one thousand dollar parking ticket is life changing. It is the difference between paying the mortgage and not. In some cases, the difference between eating and going hungry.

With the bankruptcy of the state government now being translated into potential indigence for anyone who forgets to signal, what further fines and fees wait around the corner? How much more economic peril must we endure before we collectively call for an end to the capitol spending spree?

And what happens if Washington faces a cash crisis as dire as that of California? Have we reached that point already? If so, what federal speed traps are on the horizon?

Clearly, traffic fines are a necessity. Eliminating the penalties for driving dangerously works against the public good. But inflating the cost of driving in an attempt to balance the books is not only dishonest, it is nefarious. The arbitrary impoverishment of Joe Motorist at the whim of the state is the very definition of taxation without representation.

(For more information on traffic fine increases, I recommend www.courtinfo.ca.gov. Alternatively, you can visit the DMV website directly at www.dmv.ca.gov.)

Hold That Tiger

2010-02-20T01:35:54Z

Am I alone in my indifference to the fornicational propensities of professional golfers?

The misty-eyed confession of Mr. Woods aired coast to coast last Friday as he sought absolution for his over-reported dalliances. If only his speech had been coupled with a slideshow of his mistresses, and a close-up of a single tear running down his billion-dollar cheek, it would surely win an Emmy.

I for one am completely surprised to hear yet another apology from yet another pop icon embroiled in yet another torrid affair. Aren’t you? His apology was certainly sincere, but far more maudlin than any adult should be expected to endure. And with sponsors dropping faster the Congressional approval polls, one wonders who Tiger Woods was apologizing to.

Before you suggest that my denigration of Tiger’s heart-felt apology is callous, or that my aim is to kick a downed man, let’s consider why he was obligated to apologize.

We are a funny nation. No other people are so viciously protective of their personal liberties, yet so eager to leer into the bedroom of celebrity. Any suggestion that warrantless phone taps might save lives spawns a tsunami of protestors, but a webpage dedicated to Brittany Spears stepping out of a car, and her skirt, gets a million hits.

Why the double standard? If the paparazzi are free to pry open closets, should we not allow the government to tap our texts and tweets? Ah, money! Money is the answer, naturally. Famous people make loads of it, and in return are expected to prostate themselves at the beck of the public. The Olympian peak of Hollywood supports an entire industry of grocery store tattle magazines which we, as a nation, consume voraciously.

We pay vast sums to the effete elite in exchange for the right to openly discuss their most intimate of intimates. Conversations we would only have with our closest friends in hushed whispers are batted about in broad daylight, around the water cooler, over the counter, on the corner, so long as the subjects are famous.

So it is with Tiger – he must earn his pay. We dance on the fallen giant, hiding our mirth behind furrowed brows and clicking our teeth at his nefarious wrongdoings. Yet it is senseless to demand an apology from Tiger, because he should not be our moral model. Excellence in a physical activity has nothing to do with morality.

Further, if adultery is so immoral as to compel a superstar to flog himself on national television, why do we marinate ourselves in it? We are hard pressed to find a television show or movie that does not offer glimpses of, or even champion, infidelity.

Should we be surprised? Should Tiger’s wife be surprised? She married Tiger well after he was a superstar. Her $2 million wedding, honeymoon in Barbados, and $39 million matrimonial home were funded by Tiger’s dynasty. He was the Golden Boy, and she was a nanny. Exactly how much fidelity did she expect?

But I digress. As you see, even I am not immune to the sordid speculations of celebrity misadventure. I’ve devoted the entirety of my column to this nonsense, if only to disdain it, and therefore my hypocrisy matches that of Tiger’s wedding vows. Perhaps our national lust for a juicy scandal is as obligatory as our hunger for hamburgers.

Tiger has owned his “sexual addiction,” but the more damaging addiction is ours – to the private lives of people who have no interest or involvement in our own. Tiger heads off for “more treatment and more therapy,” but I wonder who is more neurotic: the one who makes a mistake, or the one who revels in the mistakes of others?

Lest anyone accuse me of simple jealousy, or a truculent attempt to impugn Tiger’s moral center, let it be known that Tiger Woods donated $3 million to the Haitian earthquake relief efforts. This represents the largest single Haiti donation made by any individual on Earth.

No, Tiger is not a bad person. He’s human, and he deserves his privacy. Let’s give it to him.

The Paradox of American Populism

2010-02-06T04:07:10Z

Those who listened to President Obama’s State of the Union Address last Wednesday were treated to numerous opportunities to lambast the rich. Evil bankers, greedy CEOs, and executives flitting around on private jets were blamed for the vast multitude of economic ills facing our nation today. Ladies and gentlemen, this is demagoguery of the worst variety.

Not only is the idea that the wealthiest Americans are responsible for our economic woes completely false, I can prove to you that Obama himself does not believe it.

The class warfare bandwagon is overflowing; our media and popular culture are steeped in stereotypical visions of smoke filled board rooms populated with dollar-eyed executives pointing at pie charts outlining how best to oppress the poor.

But American financial machinations are not quite as Conservative as you might think. Welded to the mainspring of our economy is the core belief that the government can and should induce investment in the private sector.

In simple terms, it is widely believed that, during a recession, the government should 1) inject money into the private sector (see: stimulus), and 2) lower the Prime Interest Rate, coercing investors to pull capital out of banks and invest it in new ventures, thereby creating jobs.

Rather than devolving into an esoteric discussion of economics, and likely putting everyone within earshot to sleep, let’s assume this is true.

Obviously, the only reason investors invest is to turn a profit; no one wants in on a losing venture. When the government hands money to the private sector, or lowers the Prime Rate to encourage the expansion of business, the capitalists who put their money on the line are hoping to make a return. Nothing wrong with that.

However, this administration has decided that those who make too much money are opportunists. And therein lies the paradox. It is pure hypocrisy to urge investors to open new ventures, and then to malign them when they do so effectively.

This is not to say that we should regress to the 1950’s and assume all corporations are benign. Forever gone are the days of idolizing executives, of the term ‘captain of industry’, or of the belief that the finance barons have a moral stake in the well-being of the community. Fine. But if altruism is dead, and cynicism rules, then the narratives of the Left must be scrutinized as well.

The lure of anti-rich populism is strong. Our culture encourages us to dream of being rich, and simultaneously impugn those who have amassed fortunes as silver-spoonlings or backstabbing brigands. But the bedtime story of the nefarious corporatist and the wholesome politician is naïve. If money and power are analogous, then Washington is no more trustworthy than Wall Street.

To pierce the fog, you and I must inoculate ourselves against the viral outbreak of classism presently permeating our media and culture. It is a brute fact of American capitalism that the profit motive is what creates jobs. To vilify or punish the profit motive is to misunderstand the foundations of our economy.

Washington is actively promoting government policy that encourages investment, in the hopes that new investment will boost the economy. At the same time, Obama is spewing rhetoric intimating that those who profit from investing are evil. But if Obama really believes that investors are nefarious, why support policy that stimulates investment?

Our President is betting you won’t recognize this deception. I’m betting you will. The winner will be decided by this year’s congressional elections.

Turning Right

2010-01-23T04:09:36Z

Massachusetts, seat of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy for the last thirty years, has taken a hard right. On January 19th, Scott Brown, a relatively unknown Republican candidate, swept in to snatch a 52%-47% victory from Martha Coakley, the anointed inheritor of the Kennedy Senatorial estate.

What is astounding here is that MA has not elected a Republican Senator since 1972. 2006 voter registration data shows that Republicans claim 12.5% of voters in the state, while Democrats claim 34% - nearly three times as many. A scant two months ago, predictions across the board gave Coakley the election by as much as 30 points. What changed?

In a word, Obamacare. Brown styled himself a human referendum on nationalized health care, and ran a campaign centered on his opposition to corruption and waste in Washington. Exit polls showed 78% of MA voters listed healthcare as their primary concern, which is why Brown’s platform was a home run. His 35% reversal from previous estimates is a massive upset by any standard.

In the wake of Brown’s victory, an interesting dilemma is unfolding. Just as Democrats made the tragic supposition that Obama’s 2009 victory was a signed invoice from the American people for far-left policy, crowing Republicans are precipitously close to making the same mistake. Many are reading Brown’s victory, in conjunction with Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia, as proof of an unstoppable and inevitable Red Tide.

While this may or may not be true, ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ are not synonyms, and a vote against the Democratic agenda is not necessarily a vote in favor of Republicans. By assuming that America is now thirsty for red Kool-aid and scorns blue, the Right may find itself mired in the same swamp of hubris that has plagued Democrats for the last year.

Further, pundits on the Right are now pondering whether or not Brown will choose to take a shot at the Presidency. This is certainly an untimely question, but it shows the vacuum into which Brown has been elected: there are no noteworthy contenders for the Republican crown. McCain is too old, Palin is too polarizing, Steele is too wimpy.

Presently, the de facto leader of the Republican party is Rush Limbaugh, entertainer and provocateur. This paints a dubious portrait for a political party attempting to regain credibility: a jester on the throne.

For Brown’s victory to have any lasting merit, the Republican party must reincarnate. The corruption and waste in Washington has not been a single-sided endeavor – Republicans under Bush were more than happy to shoulder up to the trough and help themselves to our money. But, without a credible leader, how can the Right hope to make headway in the next Presidential election?

Mitt Romney finds himself in a perfect position to re-announce his Presidential candidacy. As a previous Governor of MA, the limelight is already on his doorstep, and Brown would certainly welcome the hand of such a highly-placed mentor.

Romney would be good for American consertvativism, in more ways than one. His fiscal choices have been responsible, and his minimalist approach to government is especially compelling in the bluest of states. Want health care? Here’s a man who has crafted and passed effective policy. And his dealings with a hostile State legislature show his willingness to work in a bipartisan environment.

Moreover, Romney is a member of the Mormon Church, which reveals a greater service he can perform. Just as JFK was hyper-scrutinized in 1960 for being a Catholic, so Romney can thank religious separatism, at least in part, for his loss to McCain during the 2008 primary. Those who purport to embrace Christian values should ask themselves if persecuting Romney for his faith was worth electing Obama.

Our national predilection for throwing mud at Mormons is puzzling. I, personally, have yet to meet anyone of the Mormon faith who I would not want as a friend, relative, or neighbor. Moreover, the complimentary values of Mormonism and conservatism must be acknowledged: God, family, country, charity. If the Jewish and Christian cultures can put aside differences, while disagreeing on foundational theology, Protestants and Mormons can do the same.

To American conservatives and/or Republicans, I say: if you truly believe this to be a nation of religious freedom and tolerance, then the choice is clear. Romney, 2012.

The Case of the Exploding Trousers

2010-01-09T02:18:57Z

On Christmas Day, Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23 year old Nigerian man, tried to destroy Northwest Airlines Flight 253 with explosives hidden in his pants. Thankfully, the attempt was unsuccessful and the bomb misfired. The 300 people on flight 253 were extremely lucky.

When apprehended, Farouk began babbling about his Al Qaeda ties. The immediate response from the Feds was to Mirandize him, lawyer him up, and lock him in a jail cell.

So, we have a foreign national, subdued while attempting a terror attack, who swore fealty to Al Qaeda, and who was ready to talk. The first act of law enforcement officials? To ensure that he has the right to remain silent. If pressed for information, Farouk might have given us names, addresses, or hints of future attacks. Instead, he gets a cot and a sandwich, and we get bupkis.

Never mind the fact that he is not an American, and therefore has zero Constitutional rights. Never mind his professed ties to terror. His lawyer has entered a not guilty plea on his behalf, and the circus tent is now under construction.

Arbitrarily granting Farouk de-facto citizenship not only undermines the value of our rights, but places all of us in greater jeopardy. Without extracting information from Farouk – information that he seemed genuinely eager to share, by the way – we increase the likelihood and potential effectiveness of future attacks.

Consider this; if Farouk had approached our soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan with an explosive device, he would have been shot on the spot. No trial, no lawyer, and no one would have said a word. But, since he targeted innocent civilians on an airliner instead of trained troops in a combat zone, he is now worthy of full Constitutional rights. Insanity.

Michael Kinsley of the New York Times states that “We have nothing to be ashamed of, little to fear and much to be proud of treating captured foreign terrorists as we would treat any upstanding American who tried to blow up an airplane full of people.”

Sadly, this myopic outlook is par for the course. It is clear that the powers that be have decided to prosecute the war on terror as a police action.

First came the announcement that Khalid Sheik Mohammad, mastermind of 9-11, would face a civil trial in New York City. Then came the bumbling attempts to blame the Fort Hood shootings on post traumatic stress rather than a manifestation of islamofacism. Now Farouk gets his day in court. As if these men are all merely law breakers – petty thieves or thugs who steal purses – rather than fanatical soldiers in a hyper-religious movement aimed at world domination.

I understand the rationale, naïve as it is. The Left believes that if we magnanimously extend our hard-won rights to men who do not desire or deserve them, the rest of the world will see how serious we are in pursuing peace, and will therefore be less likely to attack us in the future.

But this contradicts everything we know about Muslim fanaticism. The central and consistently avowed aim of Al Qaeda and its ilk is the establishment of an ultra-repressive theocracy extending from Spain to Russia. Our beloved rights do not exist in this state – everything is subservient to a religious oligarchy that rules the rabble with medieval severity.

If the eradication of human rights is the aim of islamofacism, then how, pray tell, does granting those rights to would-be bombers compel them to be more peaceful? If anything, we incite anger and contempt from the promulgators of terror by insisting on clothing their captured brethren in Western garb and forcibly gifting them with due process.

In short, terror loathes human rights. By insisting that captured terrorists accept these rights, we are not quenching the fires of fanaticism, we are fanning them.

One last minor detail – cost. The cost of pursuing Farouk’s trial over the next several years, and then incarcerating Farouk for the rest of his life, is significant. Whisking him off to an interrogation room, milking him for information, kicking him through a military tribunal, and then standing him in front of a firing squad would be far cheaper.

A prolonged trial and thirty years of imprisonment runs about $3 million. Granted, with the billions flying out of Washington, this is a pittance; but it is another salient example of this administration valuing appearance over practicality.

A 20 round box of Springfield 30.06 ammunition goes for about $19. I bet we could create a couple dozen jobs with that $3 million. Maybe we could call it a ‘Bullet-Fed Stimulus Package’.

Metal Cowboys, Blue Indians, and the Redemption of Guy Ritchie

2010-01-04T04:28:15Z

I rarely go to the movies. Since I eventually see everything for free, it’s difficult to justify spending $10 on a movie ticket – and possibly another $50 on soda and popcorn – to view the Large version.

This week, I broke with tradition twice and forked over $20 for Avatar and Sherlock Holmes. Since this is a rare and momentous event, I would like to share with you my take on both movies.

- Avatar -

Do not go and see ‘Avatar’ in the theater for its trite and simplistic plot, for the banal and rehashed story, or for the C- performances phoned in by an overqualified cast.

Go and see it in the theater because it is the single most enthralling visual experience ever put on film.

James Cameron has come to deliver us to ocular Nirvana, and computer graphics light the way. But fear not! Gone are the days of Tron and The Last Startfighter, of clunky, blocky polygons with two-dimensional eye slits. Cameron’s world is every bit as volumetric and kinetic as ours; the motions, colors, sounds, and textures all seamless and polished, devoid of jagged edges or clumsy jerks that pull you out of the moment – and I was looking for them.

The story is nothing original: It is Dances With Aliens, Cowboys and Indians in Space, but in a way impossible to describe or imagine – with rendered models so fully realized that you’ll be wondering how they kept those flower-panther things from eating the camera crew.

In some movies, impressive special effects may give you pause as you think to yourself “boy, those are some impressive special effects.” In Avatar, the special effects are everything, everywhere, all the time. You will be unable to discern analog from digital, and you will not care. The experience is remarkable – your left brain is constantly reminding you that you are experiencing an illusion, but your right brain shamelessly runs off whooping, leaning into turns, and gnashing its teeth against the vertigo.

Ultimately, Avatar is a rousing success; so much so that I find it troubling. If Cameron can produce a movie this compelling, built around characters whose only human trait is vocal, the end of make-up and method acting is nigh.

- Sherlock Holmes -

In other news, Guy Ritchie – long thought dead – has been found alive and well in London.

Ritchie’s directing career has been a roller coaster, poor chap. His first two movies – ‘Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels’ and ‘Snatch’ – were arguably two of the greatest caper movies ever made, unique in style, theme, and character. Alas, Ritchie married Madonna and felt obliged to put her in a movie, ‘Swept Away’, which promptly stunk up the place. His next movie, ‘Revolver’, was just as bad, and was followed by ‘Rock N Rolla’, a scoop of vanilla at best.

I figured Ritchie for a one trick pony, an M Night Shyamalan, a director who was extremely talented but could only tell one story.

I was very wrong.

All of Ritchie’s tools and gadgets are used to full effect in his Holmesian interpretation: the frozen frames and feisty narration, the bleached colors and fidgeting cameras, and the Tarantinian abuse of linear time all converge to shove and yank you through the sights, sounds, and smells of an authentic and oddly modern late 1800’s London.

Ritchie’s characters are more edgy and dangerous than readers of Doyle will remember, but more from mischief than malfeasance. The immortal kinship of Watson and Holmes is animated to mirthful and touching success by Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr., and the contributions of Rachel McAdams are limited to the physical – although, I daresay, they are not unwelcome in a movie so full of grit, grime, and testosterone.

The story – a mystery, naturally – is engaging enough to mesmerize, and confounded enough to ignore, but the plot takes a back seat to the moment as the holy trifecta of Ritchie Downey and Law reach through the screen and drag you into their world.

All in all, both movies are worth your sawbuck. However, of the two, I would only consider a repeat performance of Holmes.

While Avatar was inarguably astounding, it will only astound once. Like stage magic, the second performance will leave you scanning for wires and secret panels.

Conversely, I get the feeling Sherlock and I will see each other again.

Unsettling Science, Part 2

2009-12-24T21:26:19Z

Two weeks ago we discussed the recently revealed emails from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia – one of the premiere climatology research centers in the world. The alarming content of these emails has eroded the credibility of theories that suggest global warming is man-made, and the climate research industry has yet to offer a satisfying explanation.

This taciturn posture is self-defeating. The deafening silence of the researchers in question will cool public opinion on global warming, leading to a decrease in federal funding for future climate research.

If the issue is so pressing, one thinks they would be eager to clear the air. Instead, the Copenhagen crowd ignores the public calls for elucidation, and pretends that the CRU emails are merely a hiccup – an annoyance best ignored and soon to be forgotten. This is a grave mistake.

In 2001, a Gallop poll showed that 66% of Americans thought theories of man-made global warming were accurate or under-estimated, while 30% thought they were exaggerated. As of March of this year, the numbers have shifted to 57% for, 41% against.

Clearly, even before the CRU exposé, the credulity of the American people began to wane. This is understandable. For thirty years we have endured daily warnings that the ozone is being depleted, fossil fuels are poison, and we have only moments left before we turn the corner toward Armageddon. Americans are tiring of the game.

In a bit of slight of hand most people missed, the EPA ruled earlier this month that carbon dioxide is “endangering people’s health and must be regulated”. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson assured us that “The science has been thoroughly evaluated.”

Thoroughly? Then why the sudden onset of lockjaw in the climate research community? More importantly, how can we accept the claim that the by-product of human exhalation is a dangerous pollutant when the scientific foundations supporting it have been thrown into question?

It is widely agreed that regulating carbon output, the obvious goal of this maneuvering, would cost every American family thousands of dollars annually. Early last year, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, then-Senator Obama stated candidly: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The only question is whether or not such costs are warranted.

While most Americans simply do not have the time or inclination to comprehend all of the science behind global warming, we do know that there is wide disagreement across the industry, and there are credible voices on both sides. Until the debate is resolved, any efforts to regulate carbon emissions are premature.

Which begs the question – why the rush? If theories of global warming are still unconfirmed, why are there so many researchers, senators, and schoolteachers who embrace it as gospel?

In short, it fits. The belief that mankind (especially the West) faces demise from its own hand, that the oceans boil and mountains crumble due to our misdeeds, and that the only solution is to hand over the reigns of private industry to the federal government dovetails perfectly with the leftist agenda of centralization.

In a stroke, the Left can blame first-world imperialism, corporate greed, and Western decadence for the impending destruction of the entire planet. This narrative is too compelling, and the opportunity too great, to be unseated by mere facts.

During times of plenty, Americans generously lend Congress enough leash to amuse themselves with the disaster du jour. Now, as our nation faces double digit unemployment, mounting taxes, and a weakening dollar, our primary concern should not be the well being of polar bears or a .03 degree increase in mean temperatures over the next century. It should be paying our mortgages.

Adding layers of regulation to the private sector during the worst depression since Black Friday, based on scientific theories that are still being scrutinized, may be the greatest potential calamity since the reunification of Germany.

In the end, ignorance is our enemy. Ignorance breeds fear, and a fearful population will invest much treasure in building a fortress against the unknown. Conversely, the more we understand the limits of the global warming threat, and judge the merits of both sides of the argument, the more sensible will be our decisions, and the proxies we charge with their management.

Loosely translated: throw the bums out.

I issued a warning to the climate research industry in my previous column: ignoring sensible requests from the American people for an explanation of the CRU emails endangers future federal funding for climate research.

I now put forward a similar warning to our representatives in Congress: forcing through legislation founded on these unproven theories will be detrimental to your continued career as an elected official.

Unsettling Science, Part 1

2009-12-12T23:38:18Z

For several decades now, we have been informed that global warming is a clear and present danger to ourselves and our way of life, that the science behind it is sound, and that ignoring the warning signs will lead to a host of Hollywood-esque catastrophes.

Enter stage right: the CRU – Climate Research Unit – of East Anglia. East Anglia is a university in Britain, and CRU is one of the most influential climate research organizations in the world.

The CRU is the chief research organization feeding information to the International Panel on Climate Change, a committee within the UN, and the IPCC is the primary promulgator of the man-made global warming scenario.

In short, there is a direct line between CRU, the IPCC, and the economic initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions around the world – like the cap-and-trade bill Obama is presently trying to ramrod through Congress.

Late last month, a massive collection of classified internal emails from within CRU were posted online for the world to see. The contents of the emails were, in a word, incriminating.

This, from Prof Phil Jones, the head researcher at CRU: “I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline” [Emphasis added].

When speaking of global warming – which is an increase of global temperatures – hearing the lead researcher from the world’s most influential climate research lab refer to a ‘trick’ used to ‘hide the decline’ has ominous connotations.

Among other conversations in these emails, one finds collusion in manipulating data, attempts to delegitimize journals that print opposing viewpoints, and admissions that available climate data does not support the overarching global warming model. More disturbing is the apparent appeal from Jones to another noted climate researcher, Dr. Michael Mann, to delete correspondence that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act. If true, this deletion constitutes a felony.

Diversions on this issue include Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) statement earlier this month: “You call it ‘Climate-gate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate.’” She implies that the scandal is not the questionable CRU communiqués, but the theft of the emails themselves.

This is silly. Imagine that a burglar breaks into a home to steal a television, and finds four kidnapped children in the basement. He promptly releases them, and then steals the television on the way out. Which is the bigger story – the release of the victims, or the theft of the television?

It is possible that there are innocent explanations for these emails, but such explanations have yet to be provided. Dr. Jones has stepped down from his lead position at CRU, and the research community at large is in denial mode.

The challenge that you and I face is daunting. We are not scientists, researchers, or climate specialists. We are not familiar with the methods used to discern temperatures from thousands of years ago – or even last week – and we are surrounded by conflicting shouts of rage and indignation, too often couched in technical jargon.

We clearly cannot take statements from the climate research community at face value, but neither can we trust the veracity of the denunciations from the Right, since we cannot be sure whether they are rooted in earnest truth-seeking or political opportunism.

Fear not! As is usually the case, the issue will be resolved financially.

For decades, our tax dollars have funded the climate research leviathan. Whether voted, appropriated, or otherwise budgeted, you and I have been venture capitalists for a multi-billion dollar weather research machine.

This is not the time for faux-indignation or circled wagons. An innocuous explanation for these emails must be provided post haste. If the science is as settled as many claim, this should be an easy task. However, if satisfactory answers are not provided, and soon, public opinion will inevitably move us toward a reduction in federal funding for future climate research.

On this issue, regardless of the scientific debate, the climate industry would be wise to remember who fills their trough.

A Christmas Tale

2009-12-10T05:14:05Z

On this Wednesday, December 9th, I was in court.

Nothing serious; an arraignment for traffic court. Naturally, I planned on pleading not guilty and taking it to trial.

Now, I’m not one to complain about our courts – be it traffic court, small claims, or jury duty, we are fortunate that a morning is the only thing we have to worry about losing in our service of justice. But those folks at the Stockton traffic court are really testing me.

Traffic court starts at 1:30 pm – good. Great, actually. But before going to court at 1:30pm, you must sign in at 8:00am.

This is the kind of thing that irks me. Is it really necessary to have a 5 hour window between signing in and starting court? What, exactly, takes 5 hours to do? It’s not like they’re ordering hors’ devoirs or making up the master suite. It should be sign in, roll call, court starts. Bam-bam-bam. 15 minutes. But no, five hours.

So I drove to Stockton, signed in while adorned in my pajamas, drove home, went back to sleep for a while, and then drove back this afternoon. Blah!

Traffic court is relegated to the basement, and reached by descending a very old and poorly lit stairwell. Torches would have been an improvement. The steps were worn precariously smooth, and the rubber toeholds commonly found on stairs in government buildings had long ago degenerated into barely noticeable stripes of brown discoloration. Two middle aged bailiffs spun keys around their fingers as we marched past, and I had a sudden urge to place my hands on the shoulders of the person in front of me.

We were funneled into the court room by a third bailiff – a portly Latina woman named ‘Rosaria’ (pronounced Roh-SAR-ee-uh, which, tell me if I’m wrong, clearly looks like Rose-uh-REE-uh). We were informed that no breaks were possible for the first half hour, which, of course, meant that my parking meter would expire before I could feed it.

As I wedged myself into the child-chair provided to me by an agency funded with my own dollars, the smell hit me. I wasn’t sure which direction it was coming from, so dodging and reeling weren’t an option. It was something like morning breath, with notes of old eggs and cabbage.

I wasn’t sure if The Smell was smuggled in by one of my courtroom companions, or if it was skulking under the seating, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting defendants. It’s possible that The Smell had been there a long time, maturing and gaining complexity by augmenting itself with bits of chewed gum and shoe scrapings. There was almost an intelligence to it, a wavering cadence wherein The Smell would be strong and then distant, as if it were swirling slowly around the room and plotting something nefarious.

While acclimating myself to my new and pungent friend, the room was filled with an ancient, crackling recording of Commissioner something-or-other informing us of our rights. What the tape did to my ears was eerily similar to what The Smell was doing to my nostrils – a sort of teasing, just at the edge of comprehension effect that was undeniably hypnotic – like a Pink Floyd light show.

The Tape told us we could plead Guilty, No Contest, Not Guilty, or, my favorite, Guilty With An Explanation. Many will note that there is absolutely no difference between Guilty, No Contest, or Guilty With An Explanation. I suppose it makes it easier to fess up to your crime when you’ve got a menu of guilty selections to choose from. “Hmm, I did it, and I know I did it, and the judge knows I did it… But I’ll plead ‘No Contest’ to make it look like I’m not really sure that I think I did it. That’ll fool ‘im, stupid judge!”

Of the 72 people in traffic court this morning (I counted twice), I was the only one to plead Not Guilty. This amazed me. The overwhelming majority opted for Guilty With An Explanation. Thing is, there were some excellent excuses out there. I think a good number of my fellow infractors could have gone with Not Guilty and gotten off clean.

I wanted to huddle the room together and start calling plays like a Quarterback. “Pedro – they say you were speeding. I say you were having a stroke, and you lost control of the right side of your body. If you speak with a slur, they can kiss their fine goodbye. Aaaand BREAK!”

Finally, the stenographer butchered my name and it was time to spring into action: “JewBull MacMillion?”

“Good afternoon your honor.”

Commissioner so-and-so inclined his head toward me and squinted over his bifocals. For some reason, his mannerisms, raspy voice, and busy fingers reminded me of Albus Dumbledore.

“Hmmm lesseehere… Mmm… Mmmhmmm… It sez here you weeeeeerrrree… Passing on the right?”

“Yes sir. Not Guilty, court trial, time waived.” A murmur rippled through the crowd behind me.

“Ah good, good. Very well, Mr. Mcmeellion. Date set forrrrr… Februarryyyyyy fourth. February fourth?”

“Very good, your honor. See you then.”

“Mmm… Mmmhmm.” He deftly ruffled a stack of papers and slapped them into the hand of the passing bailiff without looking. I suspected that this doddering-old-man shtick was merely stagecraft for the local rubes – the whizzing whirligigs in his head were surely sharper than most. I also got the feeling he was wearing sweatpants under his foreboding black robe.

My paperwork complete, I ascended from the dungeon and stepped out of the Courthouse. I was greeted by sunlight and odor-free air, and appreciated my freedom no less than any Shawshank escapee.

But I was hungry.

With a flat hand to my brow I scanned the local offerings – Subway, Quiznos, a shady taqueria, and a small cart with a massive red and yellow sign promising the availability of “Tast-E Dogs”. Uninspiring. My feet pointed toward a stoplight, so I ventured forth and crossed a street or two. Rounding a corner, I found myself faced with a bright placard over darkened windows that read “Spaghetteria”. Intriguing.

Upon entering the establishment known as “Café Amore”, I paused. There were no other customers. The tables were simple flat glass over red and white tablecloths, with paper napkins and plain wooden chairs. A single hostess wearing a Twilight t-shirt greeted me with a nervous smile, and invited me to find my own table. I chose one next to the window, hoping to get some reading done. Had I known what was to come, I would have left my book in my car.

The menu was threadbare – a soup, a salad, two appetizers, a handful of pasta dishes. My hostess suggested the lasagna special: includes soup or salad for only $9.75! What a bargain! As she retreated to the kitchen in search of coffee, the proprietor came forward with a basket of bread.

Javier was in his fifties, with a receding hairline and more than his share of smile lines. The basket contained squares of fresh focaccia, accompanied with balsamic vinegar and oil. He bid me “salud” with a curt nod and turned on his heel to the kitchen. Quite good, the bread. I congratulated myself on my culinary navigation.

Moments later, the salad I had ordered arrived, topped with the homemade cilantro dressing that I had been assured was very popular. As I took my first bite, the world shrank around me.

Amazing! Cilantro, certainly, but so much more! How could they pack this much punch into a simple puree? Unheard of! With my mouth agape and my pupils dilated, I noticed Javier grinning to himself from behind the open counter. Wry, spry old man! What clever sorcery is this? Undeniably the best salad I’ve ever had. I crunched through it in record time.

My lasagna arrived, and it was just as intoxicating as the salad. Not acidic at all, not too much meat or cheese, perfectly balanced, and scrumptious beyond all reason. If you’re ever in Stockton, anywhere near 40 N Sutter street, do yourself a favor. Café Amore.

The hostess, who I learned was Javier’s daughter, waved goodbye to her father and headed off, leaving the two of us alone in the cavernous dining room. Javier approached and inquired on his efforts. My response was most enthusiastic and, unfortunately, punctuated with a shower of unfinished morsels that landed on the table. I raised a napkin to my mouth in horror, but Javier laughed and began telling his story.

A corporate man for 26 years, he had been laid off a few years back and opened his Café. His daughter, clearly his muse, preferred his cooking to anything else, often driving clear over from the college she attended to wolf down a meal before rushing back to study.

Alas, times are hard, and the empty tables frowned at us as he shrugged and smirked. “What can you do? Business is business.” We nodded and commiserated over the remnants of my lasagna. I left him a generous tip, and formally introduced myself as I left. His handshake was firm, and I promised to return. To 40 N Sutter Street in Stockton, CA – just off the 4 freeway, take the Stanislaus exit.

My ride home was uneventful, aside from the occasional belch and belly pat, until I reached the 120 interchange. After the shuffling of a lane merge, I found myself slotted behind a hearse. A glance into the rear-view showed a line of headlights behind me. I felt like an intruder. I did the only thing I could; I turned off my radio and flicked on my lights. Just after I did, the truck behind me flashed his high beams. I’m not sure if it was from appreciation or anger; if he was thanking me for my respect or if he was angry at what could be construed as mockery. I shall believe it was the former, since my intent was noble.

I found myself wondering about the person in front of me – was it a man or a woman? How old? What family did they leave behind? What mark did they make on the world? As my turn approached, a gentle tug of curiosity bade me continue on with the procession, but the feeling was fleeting, and I took my exit.

On the last leg of my journey, I reflected on something my grandmother used to tell me when I was in the throes of childhood boredom: “bored people are boring”. She was correct. On this day, faced with the most tedious of tasks – a traffic court arraignment – I had an adventure that challenged my senses. I found a world of sights, sounds, tastes, and smells the likes of which I’ve never seen before; some of which I hope to never experience again, but some that were most welcome.

She also used to tell me “life is what you make it.”

If I could offer one piece of wisdom this holiday season, it is a simple reminder that your happiness is not determined by what happens to you, but by how you choose to react. I think grandma would approve of my reiteration.

I miss my grandmother, her doting and cheek-pinching, her front porch swing and ice-cold root beer. But mostly I miss her Christmases. The candy-cane shaped boxes of M&Ms, the stale fruit cake, the stockings full of widgets.

The wisdom of her little sayings was lost on me as a child, and I was often vexed at how she insisted on repeating them. But now I know why – because I remember them.

Wherever she is, I hope she has a Merry Christmas.

And a Merry Christmas to all of you, as well.

Practical Stimulus: A Proposal

2009-11-21T02:09:27Z

In an effort to capture the spirit of our present administration, I am authoring and seeking signatures for a piece of legislation that will prepare the American people for the future. I call it the Practical Stimulus Package.

While the $20 billion price tag may give you pause, let me summarize the five central articles before you make any final decision on whether or not to lend your support.

The first portion of my bill addresses our present economic woes.

In the midst of a devastating recession, the Federal and numerous State Governments have decided that the best remedy is a tax increase. We know that recessions are caused by a lack of cash flow – but rather than decrease taxes, which would add money to the economy, higher taxes have removed money from the economy.

As any above-average high school student could tell you, addition and subtraction are different.

Article I of my bill sets aside $1.2 million to purchase pocket calculators for Congress, the State governments, the President’s advisors, and the White House staff. This will ensure that addition and subtraction will no longer be such formidable opponents in our ongoing struggle to reverse this recession.

Article II addresses a dire need that will soon emerge in our health care industry. With the much anticipated public health legislation rolling out of the Senate, government mandated health insurance looms on the horizon. Unfortunately, most hospital waiting rooms are populated with basic plastic chairs that lead to discomfort and decreased circulation in as little as four hours.

Since the wait time for health care services will soon be increasing exponentially, Article II of my bill will provide for the purchase of cozy padded chairs in all American hospitals. There are currently 5,815 hospitals nationwide. Estimating 120 chairs per hospital, $35 million will provide the American people with superior posterior comfort during their extended visits to medical institutions.

Unemployment has topped 10% nationally (16% in California), and with the increased financial burden on business (see Article I), new jobs are sparse.

With such a high number of unemployed Americans, no home should be without the use of a television remote control. Article III of my bill will provide two (2) double-A batteries to each household in America. With 129,065,264 households, $520 million should keep us clicking well into next year.

Article III, Subsection (a): vouchers for triple-A batteries will be made available to families that need them.

Article IV is perhaps the most exciting amendment, because it calls for the development of innovative technology: a new type of wallet.

This wallet will not have a pocket for cash, since Americans no longer have cash, and will instead have two sections for credit cards. These sections will be clearly marked ‘Maxed’ and ‘Almost Maxed’, improving our odds of guessing successfully during the cash register shuffle.

These new high-tech wallets will be provided to the 154 million Americans who are presently employed, with a total cost of roughly $3.9 billion.

Alternatively, we could delay passage of Article IV until early next year, with the hope that the White House maintains its present course. This will lead to significantly fewer working Americans in quarter one of 2010, thereby reducing the cost of this measure.

Lastly, Article V will provide for the construction and maintenance of airline sickness bag dispensaries throughout our nation. Any time a citizen feels nauseous at the thought of how much money our government is squandering, a jaunt to the local barf-bag outlet will provide the resources for a quick and thorough remedy.

Weighing in with a cost of $15 billion for 100,000 such stations throughout our nation, Article V is certainly the most expensive section of my bill, but I feel it is also the most necessary.

I’m confident that I can count on your support in passing this bill. I feel that this legislation is every bit as important as all the other spending bills Congress has passed in the last ten months.

I hope you feel the same.

Climate Change Jumps the Shark

2009-11-07T01:17:49Z

[column for 11-11-09]

If you’re reading this article, there’s a good chance you remember the television show Happy Days. My dearest after-school memories include Henry Winkler as the tough-but-affable Fonzi. With his leather jacket and motorcycle, Fonzi was the paragon of cool for an entire generation.

In 1977, three episodes aired in which the central drama revolved around Fonzi jumping a shark tank while on water skis. This is widely and appropriately remembered as a prelude to the long, painful decline of the Happy Days dynasty.

“Jumping the shark” has since become a colloquialism for the single point in time when something has reached its zenith and has nowhere to go but down.

In the July 23rd, 2009 edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research, three Australian scientists released a study showing that climate variations over the last 30 years are largely due to the “El Nino Southern Oscillations” – fancy talk for the clashing warm and cool weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel of 52 climate researchers who claim global warming is man-made, responded: “it is clear that future modeling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful.”

This is a crucial admission, because if this research is true, then the warming effects of carbon released into the atmosphere are either non-existent or infinitesimal. If El Nino is the culprit, as this study claims, then global temperatures have nothing to do with human activity.

But how can this be? We’ve been consistently informed by reliable journalists that global warming is our fault, and there is universal consensus in the scientific community that says the same.

There is indeed consensus that the Earth is roughly 1 degree warmer now that it was a hundred years ago, but this is where the agreement ends. Anyone who tells you differently is accepting donations. Contrary to what you might see on CNN, there are legions of scientists who disagree with the notion of man-made global warming:

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a petition signed by over 16,000 members of the climate industry, all asserting that global warming is not man-made. The US Senate committee on Environment and Public Works recently released a list of over 700 prominent scientists aligned against carbon-based climate change, including Dr. Steven M. Japar, a former member of the IPCC.

With so many reputable dissenters, why is man-made global warming accepted as gospel in both politics and pop culture? Perhaps history can grant perspective:

On April 28th, 1975 Newsweek printed an article on climate change. Here is the opening line: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

Sounds like a story on global warming, yes? Actually, no. In this article, increased snow cover and tornado activity were offered as evidence that the civilized world was facing destruction from an impending ice age.

On January 2nd, 1939 Time Magazine ran an article that stated “Weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

On October 12th, 1912, the Los Angeles Times warned us that a “Fifth ice age is on the way” and that the “Human race will have to fight for existence against cold.”

Warming today, cooling in 1975, warming in 1939, cooling again in 1912.

Since the emergence of this newest global warming scare, we have been told to trust the veracity of the popular media and the UN – arguably the two least trustworthy information gathering institutions in the known universe.

The media has changed its mind four times in the last hundred years about which type of catastrophe will destroy humanity, and the UN cannot pass out food to the hungry without a subsequent scandal. I think a little skepticism is warranted, don’t you?

In one last ironic twist of history, the Global Climate Change Digest published a story in 1989 that pointed to the potential cause of global warming as – wait for it – El Nino!

After twenty years of guilt, gloom, and Greenpeace, we’ve made no headway in discerning the cause of rising thermostats, and we are now revisiting theories from the late 80’s. The global warming alarmists have had a generation to make their case, and what have they produced? Cue the crickets.

Popular culture embracing the notion of man-made global warming should come as no surprise. Nothing sells like a good disaster, which explains the press, and politicians toe the warming line to gather votes. But on this issue, neither the press nor Washington has any incentive to be accurate. It’s much easier to ride the hype than fight it.

With the science still unsettled, Congressional Democrats are even now revving up their engines to ram an energy bill through Congress that will eviscerate our economy in an attempt to save us from the climate change boogeyman.

Before they do, they might want to glance down at the shark tank and wave for the camera.

Size Matters

2009-10-24T00:03:06Z

[Column for 10-28]

This week, we must put off discussions of Afghanistan, Iran, the growing deficit, and the general ruckus emanating from Washington to discuss something far more vital to our way of life. Our television sets.

On November 4th, the California Energy Commission will vote on a measure aimed at capping the allowable power consumption levels of new televisions purchased in our State. The measure will mandate a 30% reduction in the power needs of all televisions sold in California by 2011, and a 50% reduction by 2013.

PG&E estimates that our televisions account for 10% of our collective power bill, and with our newfound taste for all things wide-screen, televisions are the fastest growing segment of energy usage Statewide. This number may rise even further as fiscally-challenged Californians spend more leisure time in recline.

Naturally, the right-wing blogosphere is ablaze with melodramatic wrist-to-forehead accusations that the killjoys in Sacramento want to steal our flat-screened fun factories.

Max Shulz from Newsmax.com warns that “the sale of televisions with screens 40 inches or bigger would be banned,” and derides the measure as “nanny-state micro-regulation.”

Jon Fleischman, of Flashreport.org, takes it a step further. He claims that this mandate will “chip away at the liberties and freedoms that were won during the Revolutionary War.”

I know better than to stand in front of anyone’s television – such a precarious position makes one a tempting target for a salvo of edible missiles fired from the fingers of complaining couch potatoes. But, on this issue, I think the rank-and-file Right have it wrong.

Power-slim televisions reduce the average monthly power bill by roughly $25. If a television lasts ten years, then the savings have paid the entire cost of the appliance. Who wouldn’t want that? Further, a reduction in power demand negates the need for additional power plants, meaning our taxes and PG&E bills won’t climb quite so fast.

If your concern is that manufacturers will be forced to incorporate expensive technology that will inflate the price of new televisions, think again.

Vizio and 3M both wholeheartedly support the measure – no surprise, since they are industry pioneers in energy-saving technology. Right behind them are Sony, Samsung, Sharp, and a host of off-brand manufacturers. Presently, over 300 models of uber-televisions of all sizes that meet the proposed 2013 power cap are already in stores, with more on the way.

This regulation only causes hardship to manufacturers who insist on using older, energy-intensive technology that is more expensive for the consumer. Why should we pay more to support manufacturers who supply inferior products? Isn’t that the opposite of a free market?

If there were a benefit to the older technology, I could understand insisting that we keep it around. But the new technology is both power smart and less expensive – where is the argument?

Truly, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the needs of the people and of the government are so perfectly aligned.

Some on the right may accuse me of being too Pollyanna, and closing my eyes to the chipping away of our freedoms by the ever-extending awl of government. I reply that since we live by the rule of law, praising the good is every bit as crucial as denouncing the bad.

This is the first green regulation I’ve seen that simultaneously reduces energy output and provides consumers with a net savings. Conservatives should be hoisting this regulation onto their shoulders and carrying it across the field, not kicking it in the ribs with patently false accusations.

If legislation of this caliber were the norm rather than the exception, perhaps our great State wouldn’t be flat broke.

Ideological Arm-Wrestling in Oslo

2009-10-10T00:09:34Z

[Column for 10-14-09]

Last Friday, in Oslo, Norway, the Nobel Committee awarded this year’s coveted Nobel Peace Prize to President Barrack Obama.

There will undoubtedly be much ballyhoo from the right on this choice, and a chorus of claims that Obama has not yet ‘earned’ the Nobel. With a scant nine months under his belt, the offering of such a prestigious award seems ill-timed to many.

Hogwash. For the last thirty years, the Nobel has been a carrot more often than an acknowledgement, and Obama deserves the Nobel more than most nominees in recent memory. There can be no argument that our President has produced a sea-change in American diplomacy, for good or ill. That Oslo sees this change as positive is simply a matter of perspective.

Consider a few previous Laureates:

In 1994, Oslo audaciously allowed Yassir Arafat, the most pronounced promulgator of terrorism the world has ever seen, to share the Nobel stage with Shimon Perez and Yitzhak Rabin, the leaders of the country he was terrorizing. In 1993, Nelson Mandela basked in the Nobel glow along with Frederik William De Klerk, even though both men were at least partially culpable for the bloody war over Apartheid. Most notably, in 1990, Oslo credited Gorbechev with the ending of the cold war, not Reagan, the man who brought down The Wall.

Some might say that the Nobel committee lives in a dangerously naïve Wonderland. I disagree.

In all these instances, the Nobel Prize was intended to cajole a move toward peace. It was not offered as a reward for actions performed, but as a push in the right direction. Regardless of whether or not this tactic is effective, it is difficult to impugn the motives of an organization that is earnestly pursuing a more peaceful world.

Obama’s medallion is a down payment on the actions Oslo is convinced he will perform during his tenure, and he is presently provided with an opportunity to prove them correct.

On October first, General McChrystal, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, clearly stated that we need 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan or we risk losing the war. Administration officials responded by chastising him for stepping outside the chain of command.

Clearly, there is political pressure mounting in Washington to abort the war in Afghanistan, and the President is at a crossroads. In the face of a grumbling Congress and an anti-war movement that is hastily repainting placards, which path will Obama choose?

Pull out of Afghanistan completely? Surely not. Allowing the resurgence of the Taliban would unleash a flood of death reminiscent of the killing fields in Cambodia, and embolden islamofascist organizations across the globe. Moreover, it would move Obama further to the left, a risky maneuver when his approval numbers are see-sawing at 50%.

Second-guess General McChrystal? Possible, but unlikely. Obama reiterated the importance of a win in Afghanistan back in March, and offered McChrystal as the chosen avatar of his “comprehensive new strategy” drafted from “a careful policy review”. To bench McChrystal now would be blatantly political, and a vacillation on his promise not only to America, but to the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and NATO.

Which leaves only one real option: decisive victory.

If this award rejuvenates Obama’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, then it may be the most effective award Oslo has ever handed out. The fate of many nations, including ours, hangs in the balance of eradicating global terror – and with the continuing stabilization of Iraq, Afghanistan is the new flashpoint.

The bitter irony should not be lost on us that the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to a man who must now, to earn it, send more American boys to war.

The Surge worked quickly in Iraq. Let’s hope it’s as effective in Afghanistan. Perhaps next year, we can look forward to a Nobel Prize shared between a retired McChrystal and a posthumous bin Laden.

An Important Tissue

2009-09-25T22:20:28Z

[Column for 9-30-09]

What with all the serious matters we’ve been discussing lately, it might be appropriate to unwind a bit and have a softer discussion. And what could be softer than bathroom tissue? In fact, it is this very softness that has environmentalists nationwide all wound up.

Five year ago, Greenpeace initiated a campaign against Kimberly-Clark, the manufacturers of Kleenex and Cottonelle, for making bathroom tissue that is unconscionably supple. Apparently, high quality bathroom tissue is made from virgin wood; recycled versions lack the velourian qualities Americans have come to expect from our most intimate of paper goods.

“This is a product that we use for less than three seconds and the ecological consequences of manufacturing it from trees is enormous,” states Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Future generations are going to look at the way we make toilet paper as one of the greatest excesses of our age.”

I think Dr. Hershkowitz might be taking this flap a bit too seriously. While our American hunger for opulence is legendary, I’m sure future generations will have better things to do than peep through the bathroom window of history.

Still, Dr. H is not alone in his condemnation. A blogger from Debatebothsides.com opines that “We're wiping our butts with the best defense against climate change!” Even our allies across the Atlantic are on the offensive. A British correspondent from The Guardian writes: “The delicate American buttock is causing environmental devastation.”

Irregular as this argument may appear, the question is a fair one: do our ends justify the means? Let’s have a look at the facts.

The average American flushes away 23 rolls per year, and the average tree yields 1,000 rolls. As a nation, we grind up 7 million trees per year to pamper our backsides.

However, the US Forest Service plants just over 1.5 billion trees per year, meaning that our lascivious lavatories consume less than one half of one percent of the trees we plant. While the environmental movement has declared war against the bowel movement, their efforts might be more effective if they chose a more appropriate target.

Cardboard and paper packaging consume over 350 million trees per year, fifty times that of the two-ply menace. In fact, copy paper, magazines, and newspapers all command a larger share of the paper market than our quilted friend, and these industries have an average recycle rate of 35%.

Naturally, the assault on bathroom tissue is more about public relations than effective policy. Super-spongy toilet paper makes for an entertaining target – who could resist unrolling an editorial on this subject? But the numbers show that bathroom tissue has gotten a bum rap. If this debate is about the bottom line, toilet paper is a lousy place to start.

The simple truth is that Americans do not buy recycled toilet paper. We’ve all tried it – the waxy, single-sheet atrocities provided in a restaurant, on a plane, or in the home of a liberal friend – but when we push our carts down the white aisle, we unashamedly choose the package adorned with the most synonyms for squashy.

If Greenpeace wants to change American behavior, they should be protesting in front of our homes. We’re the ones who buy the softest possible paper – the companies that produce extra-cushy goodness do so at our request. Even if environmentalists succeed in reinventing the Cottonelle product line, Americans won’t take it sitting down. There are dozens more tissue manufacturers ready and waiting to wipe away our worries, and the market shares discarded by Kimberly-Clark will be reclaimed by a competing company.

All things considered, I don’t think half a percent is out of line for a little luxury in a place we can all appreciate it. Feel free to recycle my printer paper, my greeting cards, and my phone books – but please allow me the peace of a little plushy pampering in my private place.

With that, I suggest that we put the seat down on this entire affair and retire to more dignified surroundings.

It's Only a Couple Trillion

2009-09-06T21:20:24Z

[Column for 9-9-9]

On Friday, August 21st, late in the day and while no one was watching, the Obama administration updated the national deficit forecast. As it turns out, they were off by over $2 trillion dollars. Instead of a $7 trillion deficit, as previously predicted, grinning and shrugging administration officials said “Golly, we missed a little bit over here. Let’s just call it an even $9 trillion.”

It wasn’t that long ago when an expanding deficit was a source of shame. Politicians would point to mounting debt as a reason to oust the current candidate from office. Today, we have been guaranteed a doubling of the national debt over the next ten years, and there’s nary a furrowed brow in sight.

A $2 trillion dollar error and no one is blushing. I realize that eyes tend to glaze over when anyone starts discussing dollar figures larger than the grand prize from Deal or No Deal, but I feel compelled to illustrate how much money this is in an effort to show you the bigger picture.

With two trillion dollars, you could buy every family in America a Toyota Prius.

With two trillion dollars, you could cover the payments of all home mortgages in America for the next 5 years.

With two trillion dollars, you could buy a lollipop for every toddler in America, every day, for the next thousand years.

With two trillion dollars, you could pay off the credit card debt of everyone in America who makes less than $150,000 per year.

With two trillion dollars, you could build two Gallo Art Center coliseums in every city, town, and village in America.

With two trillion dollars, you could give every child in America aged 18 and under a $27,000 college bond.

With two trillion dollars, you could buy a brand new Ferrari F430 every 3 seconds for the next year.

With two trillion dollars, you could write a $50,000 check to everyone in America living under the poverty line, and buy everyone else a new television.

Last but not least, two trillion dollars is more than the entire cost of the health care bill presently being debated in Congress.

Ladies and gentlemen, two trillion dollars is an unimaginable amount of money. Further, massive as it is, $2 trillion does not represent the total planned budget of our government, it is merely the latest deficit increase. Mind boggling.

If government bureaucrats can undershoot a figure as important as the national deficit by such a gigantic margin, how on Earth can we trust any subsequent projections from the same body? In short, we cannot. Any pronouncement that President Obama’s ambitious social experiments will pay for themselves should be greeted with a raucous round of guffaws.

This is not to say that the Obama administration is uniquely wasteful, or that forecasting an economy is an easy task. I am merely reminding you that the syrupy promises of the men with red ties are loaded with empty calories, and should be ingested responsibly. Ultimately, we must remember that it is our money being spent, and as such, we are the only trustworthy stewards.

If $2 trillion dollars can vanish in a puff of smoke, and the only consequence is a Friday afternoon footnote, I wonder how much money Team Obama could blow if we gave them everything they wanted?