FCC To Rule On "Paid Prioritization" Deals By Internet Service Providers
Remember when Gilmore said, 'the internet routes around damage'?
Remember when it was commonly accepted that censorship on an open network was virtually impossible?
All that idealism crushed with buyouts and consolidation, money thrown at the problem of uppity citizens using disruptive new technology to assert their pesky rights. And it worked. The Internet is nothing like what I remember twenty years ago. A free thought and open platform for exchange of ideas and technology. Now it's a marketing platform at best, global surveillance mechanism at worst.
My parents generation from the 60s had their idealism crushed too. What with the assassination of a president, a civil rights leader, and that president's brother murdered on the campaign trail while running for President. No wonder in the '70s people turned their backs on civics danced away their troubles.
And if you look back to the Wobblie generation - my great grandparents - at the beginning of the nineteenth century, so too did it happen then as well. Utterly crushed under the boot of money and violence. People danced during the roaring twenties too.
At least not too many 'net idealists have been killed this time 'round. Though it doesn't seem like it's time to dance either. The mood has gotten too ugly to party the bad news off.
Utilities Should Worry; Rooftop Solar Could Soon Cut Their Profit
If I understand your comment correctly, you argue that all renewable subsidies ought to end. And in particular, argue that Net Metering laws are an especially pernicious subsidy that forces utility companies to buy energy from homeowners at inflated rates. You use the common 'buggy whip' metaphor for disruptive economic shifts due to technological advancement to explain this rationale, presenting the hypothetical: what would happen if government had subsidized buggy whips?
So I'll counter, there are two kinds of renewable subsidies at play here.
The first are manufacturing subsidies. China subsidized manufacturing buildout of solar assembly lines with the hope they would take a dominant position in the world market. They're betting solar will be a high growth high-tech market and these subsidies will have long term benefit to the Chinese economy. This is no different from the US betting big by subsidizing pharmaceuticals through medical research grants. Or the initial funding of computer science and packet switched networking (ARPANET), what we now enjoy as the Internet. Those subsidies funneled wealth toward industries each nation expected would show long term economic benefit.
From that perspective, fossil fuels receive significant subsidies today, even as solar manufacturing subsidies decline. See this BBC article:
But there's a second kind of solar subsidy. The one you argue is especially pernicious. That of Net Metering, whereby utilities buy back electric generation by rooftop solar. This subsidizes not the manufacture of panels but their purchase, deployment, and use. As utility companies complain, Net Metering essentially is forcing those companies to diminish the value of their investments in gas and coal fired power plants. Since they've put billions - half a trillion wordlwide - into these investments, a general popular shift to rooftop solar means that as local solar ownership increases so too does the value of central production decrease.
Why should laws force them to buy the knife that's slitting their own throats?
I argue because increased energy production - in aggregate - is a net good across the board. The solution is not to limit deployment of renewables, particularly since they're already cost effective, but to find alternative use for those gas and coal burning plants during this transition period. You won't get buy-in from utility investors unless they see some kind of ROI on prior investment. Otherwise, they'll fight this to the bitter end, which would delay renewable deployment longer than planning to maximizing use of current fossil fuel infrastructure anyway.
But let's get to your buggy whip argument. Because I think this is particularly flawed. Here, you conflate a manufactured good - the buggy whip - with an energy resource. It takes net energy to make buggy whips. If they're useless, regardless of subsidy, that's a net loss to the economy and society in general. The whip will sit unused until it decays and is thrown away. Energy production is different. This can be stored for use another day. Whether that's direct use in smelting and manufacturing, as I proposed, or in storage - say mass hydro by pumping water uphill, hydrogen gas production and storage, whatever - energy production can be converted and saved in ways that a useless manufactured object cannot.
The analogy fails because the two (subsidized energy production vs subsidized manufacturing) are not comparable at fundamental levels.
At least, that's the perspective I take. I look forward to your counter-argument. Best. -M
Utilities Should Worry; Rooftop Solar Could Soon Cut Their Profit
For the most part, they already have.
US Solar subsidies in decline:
Australian subsidies in decline:
China cuts solar subsidies:
And yet it hasn't stopped solar deployments. Because even without subsidies, they're now cost competitive. Utility companies can't use the canard of government subsidized energy any longer. Yet they've invested - as the Economist notes - half a trillion in fossil fuel plants worldwide. I'm proposing a solution that at least prevents a utility meltdown during the transition period.
Utilities Should Worry; Rooftop Solar Could Soon Cut Their Profit
As the Economist notes, due to German and other European solar government incentives, European utilities face an existential threat to their investment future and business model. Utility giants the world over have seen this and decided to fight back against Net Metering and other means whereby homeowners can feed back into the electric grid excess energy production from rooftop solar. Barclays, the British multinational banking giant, agrees that rooftop solar and net metering represent a threat to centralized electric production utilities.
The problem utilities face is that solar tends to maximize output at mid-afternoon, exactly the same time spot prices have traditionally been at maximum. So their solution is to lobby government the world over to reverse net metering laws and end solar subsidies.
OK, time for me to get on a soapbox. I think this is shortsighted. The real problem here is that government and electric utilities have agreed on a price structure and investment plan to build out gas powered and coal powered plants that now appear to be unsustainable due to disruptive shifts in the market from technical innovation in the renewable field. As is noted in TFA, solar is - or will soon be - already cost competitive even without government subsidy.
Market fundamentalists would argue, 'let the utilities die. Their investors bought into a dying technology, the market will decide their fate.' Except that they have an endless stream of money to buy lobbyists and legislators to warp law in their favor. Further, they have a good argument that intermittent renewables will only meet partial demand. You still need baseline generation capacity from central utilities. So the problem - from their perspective - is excess production by renewables.
Except: when has excess energy production ever been a problem?
The real problem is twofold: We want to move off of fossil fuels due to global climate change and they want to maximize their vast infrastructure investments. A real policy solution would meet both needs.
Rooftop solar should be maximized. During periods of excess, gas powered plants should funnel their energy to local raw materials ore processing facilities and manufacturing. This has the benefit of distributing labor where it's needed near mining sites, rather than shipping raw materials where labor is cheapest for exploitation as well. And it keeps utilities running for the next thirty years to generate a viable expected ROI. And government policymakers could then plan a rational transition period away from fossil fuels without the economic dislocation of utility giants imploding worldwide.
Marc Merlin's 2014 Burning Man Report For Tech Geeks
Some guy posting pictures and commenting on an event
Nice pictures though. And a direct report from someone who attended rather than filtered news.
Works for me.
Fired NY Fed Regulator's Secret Audio Recordings Inside Goldman Sachs
FYI: I should have included this link to the print article about those audio recordings as well.
Online, You're Being Watched At All Times; Act Accordingly.
You don't need to punish every infraction - in fact doing so is counterproductive. Humans (and most other animals) respond far more strongly to semi-random reinforcement (negative or positive) than to consistent responses.
It's not possible to punish every infraction. A point I made in the previous comment. But let's be clear on what you mean by 'semi-random reinforcement)'. Because to punish without regard to infraction confirmation does not lead to compliance. It leads to psychosis. But to punish confirmed infractions publicly - to make an example - that's a different matter. Which leads us back to surveillance, the Panopticon, and Foucault's essay on the subject.
Wine On Android Starts Allowing Windows Binaries On Android/ARM
There is another fascinating benefit- if someone tries to sit in the middle of the photon stream and determine photon polarization, their eavesdropping will be evident- by checking the polarization of a photon in transit, they change the value of the polarization.
I think there's a problem with this. What you describe is similar to a BB84 quantum key distribution scheme. But I think you're missing a quantum no-cloning mechanism here.
In BB84 photon polarization is used to encode qubit data, much like what you propose. Here's Wiki:
According to quantum mechanics (particularly quantum indeterminacy), no possible measurement distinguishes between the 4 different polarization states, as they are not all orthogonal. The only possible measurement is between any two orthogonal states (an orthonormal basis). So, for example, measuring in the rectilinear basis gives a result of horizontal or vertical. If the photon was created as horizontal or vertical (as a rectilinear eigenstate) then this measures the correct state, but if it was created as 45 or 135 (diagonal eigenstates) then the rectilinear measurement instead returns either horizontal or vertical at random. Furthermore, after this measurement the photon is polarized in the state it was measured in (horizontal or vertical), with all information about its initial polarization lost.
But I think in your scheme the detector wouldn't know how many photons had been emitted or what polarization any arbitrary photon should be, therefore it couldn't determine if a photon had been emitted by your source of a man-in-the-middle device. And by transmitting that information from emitter to detector classically, you'd negate any security gained.
You'd need to establish a stream of entangled photon pairs:
By using quantum superpositions or quantum entanglement and transmitting information in quantum states, a communication system can be implemented which detects eavesdropping. If the level of eavesdropping is below a certain threshold, a key can be produced that is guaranteed to be secure (i.e. the eavesdropper has no information about it), otherwise no secure key is possible and communication is aborted.
Now: big caveat, this is not my field and I am no expert in qcomputing or qcryptography. Corrections are most welcome.
Online, You're Being Watched At All Times; Act Accordingly.
The prisoners are afraid of what the guards will do when caught, not the surveillance itself.
I think Foucault would have argued that your point conflates surveillance with punishment. But punishment is only a meaningful deterrent when accurately administered. Therefore, surveillance crucial to determining what violations of policy have occurred. Furthermore, you ignores a crucial aspect about punishment - it doesn't scale. That is, one cannot punish every violation for there are not enough guards nor enough whips to strike at every instance. The panopticon resolves this by inculcating self-discipline through constant fear by constant surveillance. Therefore, surveillance crucial to determining what violations of policy have occurred.
Never mind the underlying question of who determines policy.
What freedoms you have and are allowed to exercise is the central thing here, not surveillance.
If you want to talk about freedoms then do that instead of surveillance.
What a fascinating response. One built upon the notions of "allowed freedoms" combined with the directive to focus on these allowed freedoms rather than the mechanisms inherent in imposing order. It seems self-contradictory at its face.
Online, You're Being Watched At All Times; Act Accordingly.
Even knowing this is happening will change how many people behave. Warnings like this are part of the problem, real security experts will be working to block the watching, not adding to the chilling effects.
I'd like to quote from Michel Foucault's essay "Panopticon" from his book _Discipline and Punish_. Here's a link to the a pdf of the text:
But first an explanation of the term is in order. In the late 18th century Bentham designed a prison where all the cells pointed to a central guard station. Thus, inmates were always being watched. The guard house design incorporated venetian blinds and obtuse corners so that inmates would know that at any time they could be under the watchful eye of guards, but never know exactly _when_. The intent of this was to impose self-restraint upon the inmate community by fear of potential surveillance. That is, self-censorship imposed by an architectural design. Here's what wikipedia has to say on the matter:
Foucault took this idea and extended it to surveillance by authorities as a kind of 'social panopticon'.
[...] The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen.
It is an important mechanism, for it automatizes and disindividualizes power. Power has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caught up. The ceremonies, the rituals, the marks by which the sovereign's surplus power was manifested are useless. There is a machinery that assures dissymmetry, disequilibrium, difference. Consequently, it does not matter who exercises power. Any individual, taken almost at random, can operate the machine: in the absence of the director, his family, his friends, his visitors, even his servants (Bentham, 45). Similarly, it does not matter what motive animates him: the curiosity of the indiscreet, the malice of a child, the thirst for knowledge of a philosopher who wishes to visit this museum of human nature, or the perversity of those who take pleasure in spying and punishing. The more numerous those anonymous and temporary observers are, the greater the risk for the inmate of being surprised and the greater his anxious awareness of being observed.
[Panopticism] is regarded as not much more than a bizarre little utopia, a perverse dream - rather as though Bentham had been the Fourier of a police society, and the Phalanstery had taken on the form of the Panopticon. And yet this represented the abstract formula of a very real technology, that of individuals. There were many reasons why it received little praise; the most obvious is that the discourses to which it gave rise rarely acquired, except in the academic classifications, the status of sciences; but the real reason is no doubt that the power that it operates and which it augments is a direct, physical power that men exercise upon one another. An inglorious culmination had an origin that could be only grudgingly acknowledged. But it would be unjust to compare the disciplinary techniques with such inventions as the steam engine or Amici's microscope. They are much less; and yet, in a way, they are much more. If a historical equivalent or at least a point of comparison had to be found for them, it would be rather in the inquisitorial' technique.
Foucault extended the idea of the social panopticon throughout all institutions of society, drawing parallels between hierarchical structures in church, state, and corporate spheres where a authority used the possibility of surveillance and the treat of punishment to impose social dominion. Taken from this perspective, one can view the NSA's achievement of Poindexter's old Total Information Awareness project as a Panopticon built into the fabric of the Internet and its computing nodes. The purpose is not just to collect data, but to engender enough fear that an imposition of self-censorship becomes the norm. Thus, it is in the interest of intelligence agencies that the existence of pervasive surveillance is widely known. For the purpose is not simply to surveil the population, but to impose social controls on the Internet implemented by the users' themselves.
Leonard Nimoy: Smoking Is Illogical
You're right about my error with the definition and I'm no physician so I'll defer. But it was certainly a death sentence in my family. Still, if survival is possible I wouldn't wish death on anyone who suffers from it to prove my point.
It was bad. He became dependent on prednisone and inhalers to breath. And, well, if you've ever seen bloating and weight gain from prednisone you'd know what he went through. And the prednisone caused secondary infections from impaired immune function. He was dependent on an oxygen concentrator, which required bottled oxygen to be available in the event of a power failure. And a trip to the ER if the bottle emptied.
He described COPD as like downing in slow motion.
Any doc whose seen this before would know the story.
Anyway, of course, none of this I'd wish on Nimoy or anyone else.
AOL Reverses Course On 401K Match; CEO Apologizes
If you work for 50 years and receive the typical long-term return of 7 percent on your 401(k) plan and your fees are 2 percent, almost two-thirds of your account will go to Wall Street. This was the bombshell dropped by Frontline’s Martin Smith in this Tuesday evening’s PBS program, The Retirement Gamble.
This is not so much a gamble as a certainty: under a 2 percent 401(k) fee structure, almost two-thirds of your working life will go toward paying obscene compensation to Wall Street; a little over one-third will benefit your family – and that’s before paying taxes on withdrawals to Uncle Sam.
AOL Reverses Course On 401K Match; CEO Apologizes
Here's someone else who made many similar points to what I posted:
First, any employee who leaves IBM’s employment prior to December 15 for any reason other than a formal retirement will not receive any company match to his or her own 401(k) contributions for the entire year. Nada. IBM executives could fire someone on December 14 and the company would not have to pay out.
Second, all employees lose an entire year of the IBM match working for them in the investment sense. ...
As for 'harassment' I think you made the point for me:
In terms of dissuading potential employees, it's pretty clear at this point IBM has stopped caring about hiring *new* talent. In fact, their overall strategy could just as likely be about making people *want* to quit because that's cheaper than laying them off.
What conduct in the workplace constitutes 'making people want to quit'?
EA's Dungeon Keeper Ratings Below a 5 Go To Email Black Hole
Allow me to point you back to my comment here:
AOL Reverses Course On 401K Match; CEO Apologizes
There are some who argue that the 401k is a bad investment option.
But note that by only disbursing matching funds on December 15th, IBM twists the arms of its employees to plan separation from the company at the most difficult time of transition. Right during the holidays and then a dead point for hiring in mid winter. They also incentivize employee harassment and unfair terminations prior to Dec 15th in order to cut costs by keeping what would have been 401k disbursements. And of course the funds are kept in an interest bearing or investment account controlled by the firm for a year, meaning those gains are lost to the employee.
I'd call that a terrible policy and one that any potential employee should carefully consider. Not only does it represent lost potential 401K gains, but much worse, it's an indication of how poorly management at the firm views its employees. Real 'company store' type stuff.
EA's Dungeon Keeper Ratings Below a 5 Go To Email Black Hole
Yeah. OK. So what's wrong with what they want to do?
Leonard Nimoy: Smoking Is Illogical
TFA says he has COPD - Cardio Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder. This is essentially emphysema and congestive heart failure. The disease is terminal. My father died from this disorder, so I've seen it personally. Not a nice way to go (not that any of them are).
Still, Nimoy said that he'd quit smoking thirty years ago. While it's possible the smoking is a contributory factor, COPD is also commonly diagnosed in those who've never smoked. And Nimoy is an old man.
Of course I wish him well and hope he is cared for by the best doctors available.
EA's Dungeon Keeper Ratings Below a 5 Go To Email Black Hole
The new boss not same as the old boss then.
All I see is some buggy software and a few too many PR releases. From where I stand, things really aren't that bad.
EA's Dungeon Keeper Ratings Below a 5 Go To Email Black Hole
I have fond memories of Slashdot.
The new software is a little borked and needs some fixing. But this community outrage is a bit overblown. I mean, you'd think it's Paris and the French had just lost the World Cup or something. The Bastille opened and tourists imprisoned, cars burning everywhere, lithe blond queens frogmarched up to the guillotine, French men drinking Portuguese wine.
It's bad here. Real 'Reign of Terror' like.
EA's Dungeon Keeper Ratings Below a 5 Go To Email Black Hole
We aren't going to be here between the 10th and the 17th.
That's the Week of Slashcott.
We *are* the users, and we're fighting for ourselves (and, believe it or not, you, as well)
Hey, it's awesome and all that the two of yous has worked out who's doing the fight'n for who. And I respect the collegiality of this Slashcott effort. You know, posting informative manifestos in places likely to be seen, again and again and again. And that productive organizing of community labor, yous know - boycott and strike proposals that seem perfectly suited to fixing a borked software release and everything. It's like Tron went Bolshevik at the Main Bus so afterward we'd all be free to turn the Great System off and bask in collective darkness. Real inspiring.
But, uh, anyway. Could you do me a favor and not do that fighting for me? I'd rather you did it for someone else. I was thinking I'd skip the boycott for now. Because as much as I agree that the new beta needs some fix'n, I'm not ready to raise a pitchfork, raze the sandcastle, and laze'r up Alderaan down into bits over a few bugs and a bit of bad design. The tech world won't end if Dice rolls out a fucked up slashcode release.
Evil Somali warlards won't cry in their morning applejax.
Don Corleone won't make a bitcoin deal you can't refuse and build a toll booth across the Silk Road.
Dice employees won't twirl their greased up mustaches and laugh maniacally as slashdolts frankly press "preview" over and over again all for nothing.
Or maybe they will. Mwahahahahaaaaa!!!
In general support of /. editors
I've seen the comment forums filled with off-topic posts about a badly deployed beta upgrade. Community members are pissed and they're venting and they want site owners to not just listen but act on community concerns. And so we see a temper tantrum that likely has only alienated corporate owners and made life for editorial staff miserable.
I have sympathy for both perspectives. The upgrade really is a mess. Commenting doesn't work, layout wastes space, fonts are poorly chosen, etc. Yet I also recognize that software upgrades are necessary. Slashdot is looking pretty creaky. Another coat of whitewash over cracks in the woodwork won't do. Deciding to rewrite and build something new is a defendable choice. But owners should know that simply deploying something new is not the same as building something that works. As an old timer here, I'd like functionality considered above mere design. Ideally, a good new site would merge the two seamlessly.
Of course, no one screaming out there in the community cares what I have to say. I've been absent so long I'm barely a member these days. But I think the continued tantrum is going overboard and risks causing more damage than good. Destroying /. to save it is no solution. Make a stink, get your views known, but editors have posted a place for dialog and it's time to use it. Crapflooding every article with off-topic rants about the beta now diminishes community goals. It's counterproductive.
I'd like to see /. resurgent. I think Reddit has gotten too big and the Internet needs competitors in link aggregation and commenting as a checks and balancing mechanism. Slashdot still has popular heft and a functioning community. I'd encourage owners and editors to consider this community response as an encouraging sign. People care. And that means that with appropriate management-community dialog, the site remains viable going forward. The question is: after this period of decline, how do you retool to challenge competitors like Reddit and grow at their expense? Throwing away your community doesn't solve that problem.
2001 essay of mine front paged at Long Form
My essay 2001: A Space Odyssey - Discerning Themes Through Score and Imagery has been front paged at Long Form, a site sponsored by Pitt Writers of the University of Pittsburgh Creative Writing Department. I'm both flabbergasted and incredibly pleased.
2001: A Space Odyssey - Discerning Themes through Score and Imagery
2001: A Space Odyssey is one of my favorite films. Recently, I wrote a ~25,000 word analysis, with image stills and video clips, discussing Nietzsche's philosophical themes of Ascent of Man and Eternal Recurrence implied therein. Comparing HAL's murder of the Discovery One's crew in contrast to Moonwatcher's killing of a competing ape tribe leader over a water hole, I note that both gain sentience through violence. Another argument proposes that the apes are as maladapted to their savana environment as is modern man by his tools and socialization, leading to dehumanization by technology rather than triumph. I list several motifs in imagery, contrapuntal use of musical score that evokes emotion in opposition to visual narrative, analyze actor micro-expressions used to imply character intent, and end with subsequent impact of the film on depictions of artificial intelligence. There are numerous citations from Bizony, Freud, Kracaeur, Nietzsche, Zizek, and more. Perhaps some /. members who also love the film might be interested in the read.
WTF happened to you, Apple?
As a long time Apple customer (I still even own an original Apple II), I've come to rely on the firm to design high quality equipment and provide top tier support to sustain consistent workflow. I don't expect the firm to work miracles, but I do expect honest communication when problems arise.
I have a 2010 27" iMac. Recently, the firm has recalled 1TB drives shipped with units from this era. I had purchased Applecare, so the machine was still even under warranty. It had never been opened, it was - other than some minor cosmetic blemishes on the screen - as original as it had been sold. So, I contacted the nearest Apple Store and arranged to have the unit serviced.
On the 23rd I spoke with a Genius Bar (tm) representative who assured me it would almost certainly be same-day service. Though, it might - if there were problems - take up to three days. Regardless, he assured me, a representative from the firm would call me and give an update regarding the status of the repair. Since I've moved from the United States to Australia, he also offered a power cable with the new connector. Great! On the 24th at 9:45am, I brought the unit in for servicing in its original box and coating with its original foam cover.
I asked the representative to also check the superdrive, as I thought that it wasn't reading discs properly any longer. And, no that isn't because of region coding differences. It really did seem to be a head alignment problem in the drive.
'No worries, we'll fix it up for you! Expect a call late this afternoon.' Came the reply.
They conducted an analysis of the machine, we did some paperwork, and then I left with an empty box at a bit after 10am.
No call that afternoon was forthcoming. But, OK. Maybe they had a backlog. Whatever. Then no call came the next day. Fine. And then no call came the next day - three days in. However, it was the weekend and I thought, 'hey, I'll give them a break. Maybe they don't service machines on Saturday or Sunday, even though the store is open.'
Then no call came on Monday. By Tuesday morning I was angry. Not only were they five days into a repair that was - at most - supposed to take three (with a verbal promise of same day), but they hadn't even bothered to call or email me to give a status update on the repair. And I have a work backlog to deal with.
So I called and spoke with the manager. I told him that the issue wasn't that they were taking longer than expected to resolve the repair. The issue was a lack of communication with their customer. The firm wrote on my sheet that a staffer would call with an update within 48hrs and nobody did. Further, they made me wait thirty minutes on hold calling for a status update only to lose track of me and hang up.
A staffer called back and told me the machine was ready for pick up.
I get to the store and immediately I feel like I am not wanted by these staffers. They segregate me off to the side. Then they bring me to the back genius bar desk and bring out the machine and paperwork, but - unlike when they inventoried the machine during the initial sign in - they didn't turn the machine on to prove its functionality during check-out. The staffer clearly wanted me to sign the paper and leave as quickly as possible.
I asked about the power cord. She refused and suggested I speak with a staffer who would sell me one.
'OK, fine.' I thought, 'I don't need a power cord and I definitely don't want to be here any longer. These people are rude.'
I picked up the computer and left as fast as I could.
Only two years ago you offered best in service. While I don't expect freebies, I certainly do expect follow through on promises. Your store failed in every respect, from meeting policy obligations your company set for staffers in dealing with the customer to fulfilling verbal promises your staffers provided on the side.
Bad bad bad bad bad. Frankly, worse than Dell.
Apple, what the hell has happened to you? This professional customer who buys top of the line equipment to support his business workflow now wants to find an alternative. For Adobe is where I butter my bread, not Apple any longer. And its clear to me, Apple has determined that I'm not how they butter their bread either.
Alternate Bailout: Let us liquidate our 401Ks!
Underneath the all the conflicting rationales behind Paulson's bailout plan is a simple fact: US citizens, on average, owe more on their mortgages than property valuations justify. Giving Wall Street firms bunch of the Public's money to offset their losses won't change that underlying fact. Further, it will worsen the situation for homeowners given that the very same people who are unable to pay their mortgage loans will be required to pay off the bailout. Just who are they trying to save anyway?
Here's a Main Street solution: Why not change the rules for 401K retirement accounts to allow individuals to liquidate all or part of their retirement holdings without penalty, as long as the money is transferred to their mortgage holder to pay down principal on their home. The money should also be available to help individuals refinance out of dangerous variable interest rate HELoC (Home Equity Lines of Credit) and ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) loans.
In each case, if the homeowner has enough funds saved in his or her 401K to offset their negative equity stake and/or get out from under a risky loan, the homeowner wins and the mortgage banks win. Society wins. Also, no public funds would have been used. And US citizens wouldn't be held responsible for paying off a bunch of Wall Street parasites who lost everything due to their irresponsible profligacy. Thus, a moral hazard for the rich would not - this time, at least - have been promoted as U.S. fiscal policy. Just an idea.
Why I now refuse to moderate
Moderation Rated As Unfair
sent by Slashdot Message System on Tuesday April 08, @12:05AM
Some of your past moderations have been meta-moderated by other Slashdot readers. Here are the exciting results:
* Re:Moon landing 1969 from the discussion "Design of Next-Gen NASA Rocket Showing Flaws" which you moderated as Interesting was voted Unfair.
Summary of your recent moderation: 50% Fair
For your poor moderation, you have been assessed a karma penalty.
Thank you for moderating.
Not that I give a shit about karma, but go click that link I was m2'd as unfair for moderating as Interesting. That was an interesting comment. Which just shows that the social problem moderation was created to solve is not amenable to systemic solutions. Programs can't fix this brokenness. And yet more programs to re-massage the social milieu the previous programs had already failed at doing ... well they don't work either. And then it's turtles all the way down.
Not that I have a solution beyond giving up. So far, online society has been shown to ... not scale.
"$170.42" [SS; ~1400 words; mostly SFW]
As my date laughed, the crow's feet by her eyes widened from lines to full crevasses, like a river having carved out little ravines. Certainly, by the look of her forty-two years, she had been born in a prior geologic age. But then, so had I.
She had just uttered some quip about a college internship, which I missed because my attention had been diverted by a young waitress, with a very tight figure, performing the bee dance with her ass. The waitress waddled along provocatively to some other table holding several full plates in one hand, but my date's eyes had slow-blinked in laughter at just that moment. I don't think she noticed.
"He was so little, so precious, " she said, "I just knew right then that teaching was going to be my future." She lifted her glass of Chianti, rolled the red liquid seemingly entranced in thought, and then took a shallow sip.
I didn't have a good followthrough, but fortunately that waitress intervened to check on our dinner.
"Excellent. Thank you." I took a small bite of the creamed spinach with pine nuts to show my appreciation. My date ignored her.
"So, what do you do again?"
"I'm a chemist."
"Where did you go -"
"- Penn State for undergrad; UT for my Ph.D."
"Interesting." At that instant, her eyes appeared to fix upon the wine label, unwittingly expressing just how boring she felt my career path had been.
"So," she tried again, "why not the university life of a professor? Don't like teaching?"
"No, it's not that. My research didn't pan out like I expected. And it took a bit longer than most to earn the Ph.D. When it was over, I had a string of publications with obvious and predicted results. I took this big risk on radioactive solvents as catalysts, which went nowhere. And -"
Her face showed the confusion everyone outside my field does whenever I try to explain its more obvious details. I should have known better.
"It's just a job. Pays the bills."
"Hey, we all need a job." She smiled and our eyes touched for the first time that evening.
Hypnotized, I forgot to sneak a look at the waitress as she passed by toward another table. For just a second, imperceptible to others yet for us like a slow-blues riff ringing out a whole note in vibrato, we existed together not as one flesh but as one soul. And then it was over.
My date found a spot in the tablecloth to be distracted by. Her forefinger slid up the stem of her wineglass to the rim, whereupon she made circling motions along its lip. Her face pointed toward the table, but her eyes just then peaked back through strands of auburn hair and I felt the stirring of flesh deep inside.
"Hey," she said, "try a sip of this wine." Her hand pushed the glass across the table toward me. As I reached for it, I felt her finger ever so slightly press against mine as the glass passed into my hand. At that instant, I heard the slight whisper of a gasp uttered from her lips.
"Excuse me," she said, "I'll be right back." The mood vanished before the napkin was off her lap and on the table. She stood up and walked to the nearest waiter, who pointed to the restroom.
The waitress stopped by to ask if we would like anything else. She had that perfect mix of professionalism to deter unwarranted advances by customers, yet while somehow also wearing unreasonably revealing attire. Nipples pierced back at me through her low cut white blouse like the eyes of a mountain lion. Her stomach flatter than Kansas, and think I noticed a belly button ring extruding out underneath black silk fabric. She wore some kind of rosemary light oil scent, but all I could smell was sex. Sex all over her. In that second I imaged that her boyfriend had just bent her over their kitchen table, lifted her miniskirt, and quick-fucked her silly on the spot only minutes before her shift had started. And I wanted to be him.
She stood there patiently waiting for my reply.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO FINISH STORY
Copyright ©2008, J. Maynard Gelinas.
This work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommerial NeDerivs 2.5 license.
The Occupation [ss, nsfw]
So that's how they got Litvinenko.
It was a bit thicker than a thread of hair; no longer than a BB pellet; dead black, with little spindly appendages wiggling and grasping about upwards. He rolled the device between his thumb and forefinger until it was but a thin reddish smear.
I survived! This time. Miniature bots. Nanobots. They can be bugs, parasites watching and listening to every second of your life. Or killers, filled with Polonium 239. Tiny things designed to attach and listen until they're told to exercise extreme prejudice. That's how they kill these days. Christ I need a cigarette.
Am I kidding? I can't smoke a cigarette. It takes just one drag off the wrong butt and you're dead. Within seconds. Not like in the old days, when they killed over decades. Cancer was no conspiracy.
Oh fuck. There's a pebble-cam. Time to move.
A blur of imagery and sensation follows. Warmth changes to cold. Sirens honk. Time drops not by drip but by staccato bursts. Then he finds himself standing outside a cafe door holding a warm cup of coffee. A thing flashing intense blue and wailing like a dying cat screams by across the road.
Fucking UFOs. They hide. Sometimes they're only whirling blobs of gas. Other times they're like that. Who do the aliens want today? When will they come for me? They take us one by one. Up those beams of blue into their big round floating space ships. Big eyes they have. That time I saw it. There's gonna come for me. I saw one of them. Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!
Only if I want to die. Where's my knife? I can feel the worms twisting inside my brain.
He saw a Pterodactyl fly overhead, lazily swooping in circles, floating up upon an atmospheric thermal. It was beautiful and so he felt compelled to stop and watch nature, basking in the glory of God's creation. As his head was turned upward and his eyes locked upon the sight, suddenly he lurched forward off balance as an alien, briskly walking, bumped into his back. He turned as the man past by and saw that the man's face was that of a pig.
They're on to me again! I have no time to spare.
Sharp ice crystals burned themselves into his forearms and he shivered. A mob of moving and intertwined figures spread out ahead, bobbing up and down out of time, as the aliens moved to and fro on the sidewalk. Golden rays beat down upon the afternoon asphalt and cement. Occasionally, a human being was spotted among the masses. He pressed his back against a great glass wall and slithered until he reached a corner, allowing passage into a small alley. An alien, somewhat resembling a female human mannequin, wore a heavy mink coat that could not hide the thing's ridiculously overlarge breasts nor its thread thin waist. Cherry colored cheeks and puffed out lips set the face. It floated along the sidewalk with the air of royalty - its legs never once shuffling to take a step; its perfume, smelling of rose colored shit, dissipating in slow motion like fog upon a coastline. He escaped in the other direction toward darkness in the alley beyond.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO FINISH STORY
REVISION 1 ROUGH DRAFT
Copyright ©2008, J. Maynard Gelinas.
This work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommerial NeDerivs 2.5 license.
Curl-Free Vector Potential Effects in a Simply Connected
Full paper in PDF form (warning: very large pdf!)
"Curl-Free Vector Potential Effects in a Simply Connected Space"
Raymond C. Gelinas
Scanned from the 1986 Tesla Symposium
A gauge invariant expression for the phase difference between two points of a wavefunction is derived using the Schrodinger equation for a charged particle in the presence of a vector potential. Such a phase difference is found to be the gauge invariant in a simply connected space in the quantum formalism. As applies to the Aharonov and Bohm effect, these findings therefore show that a multiply connected space is not an essential condition for establishing gauge invariance. That the Aharonov and Bohm experiements are constrained by a requirement for a multiply connected space, is a consequence of the properties of electron beams which cannot provide two separate sources of mutually phase coherent de Broglie waves. The macroscopic quantum interference properties of the superconducting Josephson junction are described. It is shown that a Josephson junction provides quantum interference between two mutually phase coherent souces of superconductive wavefunctions and therefore enables detection of curl-free vector potential effects in a simply connected space. An experiment is described to detect a change in phase difference of the superconductive wavefunction across a Josephson junction caused by a remote source of curl-free vector potential.
WANTED: experiences of censorship at Huffington Post
I recently had a comment censored and my account posting privileges revoked at Huffington Post after submitting a single comment. The article concerned Depression, not mainstream politics:
My comment questioned the author's use of a NY Times lay article to refute an assertion quoted by another author, a psychiatrist whose quoted work cited peer reviewed studies to support his assertion. For this my comment was not published and my posting privileges suspended.
I've send two emails to the editorial staff at Huffington Post, none of which have been returned. I must now assume this is policy at the site and not a rogue editor.
QUESTION: Has anyone else experienced this type of arbitrary and capricious censorship there? If so, may I quote you? Please reply here or contact me by email. I am working on an article about the issue.
How to Impeach and Remove the Bush gang with the GOP
If, like me, you believe Attorney General Gonzalez, Vice President Cheney, and President Bush have all committed high crimes and *cough!* felonies *cough!* but fear that removing these criminals from office would be a distraction at best and a nightmare for Democrats at worst, here I offer one possible way this could happen successfully. But you're going to have to stand with a few Republicans to make it work. Just like we did during Watergate when Nixon got the boot and Vice-President Ford was handed the Reigns.
Thus, it is Republicans who will decide the success of impeachment and removal. If you want to impeach, you're going to have to make a few friends with the GOP. One in particular, John McCain, would appear to have most reason for revenge against the Bushies. But feel free to imagine this scenario with any of your most palatable Republicans.
"But ... but ... but ... I want to support a Democrat for President!!!" I hear many scream.
Well, sorry. As much as it sucks, the Democrats lack a supermajority to force the issue. And further, doing so would only incite yet more partisanship warfare at a time when national unity is critical to success.
There is ample evidence to impeach on the grounds of Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to Commit Obstruction of Justice. These men are criminals. And if they are let off without sanction, we will set a precedent for lawlessness in the executive that threatens the very foundations of our republic. Thus, seeing Justice done is far more important than Democratic partisanship. Or Republican partisanship. Equal justice is mandatory for the functioning of our constitutional republic. Partisanship wins, less so.
Here is one possibility for how a successful change in leadership might occur. We need seventeen Republican senators and only a few (if any) congresspersons:
- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid arrange a little meeting with John McCain. They offer him an interim presidency to support impeachment and removal for Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush. McCain may be willing to do this because - I suspect - he is still a little pissed with the Bushies for insulting him, his wife, and his adopted children during the 2000 primaries.
- John McCain has a good deal of political clout with Republican Senators. He arranges a little backroom brokering behind closed doors with Republicans and gets the necessary seventeen.
- Nancy Pelosi places in three parallel articles of impeachment against Attorney General Gonzalez, Vice President Cheney, and President Bush. She next immediately steps down as Speaker of the House temporarily. John McCain is handed the Speakership duties pro-tempe. Note that the role of Speaker of the House can be assigned to any citizen, regardless of House membership.
- The new Speaker places articles of impeachment on the agenda and stifles all debate, instead forcing a voice vote to immediately Impeach all three. Without a roll call, votes are not recorded - so Republicans aren't on the record.
- Senate immediately takes up the trial and convicts on the same day.
- John McCain is sworn into office as President of the United States. He chooses a vice president of his liking.
- Nancy Pelosi returns as Speaker of the House.
- Bad news: John McCain - like Gerald Ford - will have the opportunity to pardon. \*shrug\* I'm not a vindictive prick, I just want these assholes out of office. Fine.
- '08: we fight it out on the election battlefield, just like every other presidential election year.
No debates. No bullshit. No media storm before it happens. Just walk in, do the deed, and get the fuck off the house and senate floor in one day flat. Don't let them prepare. Don't give the Bushies one inkling of the shitstorm coming their way. Do it all backroom and then stick the knife in once you've got the votes. Gonzales, Bush, and Cheney would be then out of office without recourse. Plus, the Democrats would have not used impeachment for partisan gain. So at least a minority of Republicans would have cause to support the action. Certainly McCain, who I think would consider this fair turnabout.
Everybody wins. Except for Gonzales, Cheney and Bush. Who get what they deserve.
[EDIT]: A hat tip to Bill White, who proposed much the same plan over in this discussion at theforvm.org. Original text maintained at daduh.org.
A letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
As a registered Democrat in the state of Massachusetts, I contact you not as a California 8th district constituent, but as a citizen of the United States first, and a party member second. I have already contacted my representative, congressman Capuano, with these concerns.
Our president and vice president have committed grave crimes against the republic and the office of the Presidency. The most obvious and recent was the commutation of Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's aide, after a jury convicted and a judge sentenced him to a standard 30 month jail sentence for his crime of perjury and obstruction of justice. These are felonies. But President Bush, while admitting that Mr. Libby broke the law, commuted his sentence anyway - even though he has never done so before for anyone else convicted of the same crime. Citizens must conclude then that rule of law is only for those without friends in the White House.
This is more than just the appearance of conflict of interest. It undermines the whole judicial system. Rule of law has been tarnished at the very top. One could detail any number of other examples where the president has flaunted law, but this is instance is so obvious, so contemptuous of our most basic and cherished principals as set forth by our founders, that there is no more rationale needed to impeach.
In fact, Ms. Pelosi, I argue that it is your RESPONSIBILITY to begin impeachment hearings immediately. If you do not remove those men from office, it will set a precedent that we - the citizens - may never undo by legal means. I fear that we are at the precipice of despotic tyranny. You swore an oath to defend the constitution. Not the Democratic party. Not your congressional seat. And most certainly not Mr. Bush, as his aide seemed to imply recently during senate testimony.
Seek out responsible conservatives who realize the danger to our republic. They exist. As Bill Moyers has shown in his interview with Bruce Fein and John Nicols. It is clear that the Democrats do not have a supermajority to force the issue. But you could raise one with the help of responsible Republicans who would be willing to take the helm after Bush and Cheney's removal from office. All we need is another honest Republican, like Gerald Ford, at the ready.
If you fail to act, you and the 110th congress, may well be remembered in history as that feckless and cowardly legislature that handed a modern Caesar his dictatorship without even a whimper or a cry. Today, you needn't hide a knife under your senate robes, legal means exist to achieve the same result. Tomorrow, that may not be the case. Democrats are watching, Speaker Pelosi. Please act. I don't want to live under the thumb of a despotic state. I am a citizen, not a subject.
J. Maynard Gelinas
Applecare Support Nightmare
Apple is now [EDIT: OFF] my shit list. Not that I think Steve Jobs actually reads the email sent to his public address [EDIT: HE DID! AND HE HAD AN EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT COMPLETELY RESOLVE MY PROBLEM! SEE COMMENTS FOR DETAILS], but here's my letter in an electronic bottle meant for him:
[EDIT: to include email header info]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:33:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Apple Support Nightmare
My name is J. Maynard *******. I am a longtime Apple customer. In fact,
I have an original Apple II (not II+) still in my basement (and it still
works!). I am also an IT Manager for one of the labs at MIT.
So, I am most disappointed by this experience I will relate. In
September, '06 I bought a white 2Ghz Macbook to replace a four year old
15" TiBook G4. Immediately I had problems with the unit, which finally
went back for service under Applecare. The system was returned still
broken. So I sent it back again. This time the unit has been out in
service for nearly a month.
See Dispatch number: D11412***.
After three weeks of my laptop staying "On Hold" waiting for a part, a
CSR recommended I speak with "Customer Relations". I called and spoke with
"Tina", who offered to replace my laptop. And then the process just halted
as I tried calling to confirm and never received any callbacks. I have no
idea what happened.
See Case ID: 76882***
Further, Tina informed me that I would not get my boot disc back, even
though the boot disc had not failed. While I did back up my critical
documents, I have GBs of ripped music, application installs, etc which I
At this moment, I still do not have confirmation of a replacement unit,
I'm out a laptop for a solid month, and I will lose my data. Mr. Jobs, you
have a serious problem with your support process and procedures. If
someone at Apple does not resolve this pronto, your company will lose not
only my future purchases, but also my purchase recommendations to graduate
students, professors, and support staff at MIT.
That computer is a TOOL, not merely a product. So, to sell me a
nonfunctional computer, and then destroy the data it manipulates, is to
negate its very utility; the raison d'etre for my purchase.
I just want to make this one comparison: Apple II; 30 years old, still
works. Macbook; failed within months, could not be repaired even under
Applecare, customer waited a month for unresolved "service".
J. Maynard *******
24 ****** St.
Partial transcript of the ACLU Strossen / Scalia debate
About two weeks back, the ACLU hosted a one hour long televised debate between ACLU president Nadine Strossen and Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. C-SPAN has posted a podcast of the debate, however, unfortunately, no written transcript is available. I've hand transcribed about fifteen minutes of the program for my own project, and thought there might be some members who would appreciate the posting of it here. Transcript is below the fold:
Starting 14 minutes 13 seconds into recording:
Moderator: But Professor Strossen, there are these other cases --
Strossen: There certainly are, and here we get to the 'but Nino I don't want you to think you're too popular with this group' [referring to a prior discussion about a privacy rights decision in support of the banning of police infrared imaging by helicopter within homes unsuspected of any criminal activity] I think the -- uh -- and I do enormously respect your -- uh -- being here and thank you for the votes that happen to coincide with ACLU positions. Let me zero in on what I think is probably the single biggest difference, and that is although you have a great respect for privacy in the Kyllo case in enforcing the 4th amendment -- uh -- many people, and including those of us in the ACLU who are very distressed at your failure to find within the constitution protection for what we think is at least as important a type of privacy, namely the right of consenting individuals -- mature individuals in their own homes -- to decide what they are going to see, or read, to decide with whom they are going to live, what kind of sexual intimacies or relationships they are going to engage in. Isn't this, in fact, a confluence of the 1st amendment and the 4th amendment. That government should not have the right to criminalize -- uh -- certain materials that we read, and should not have the right to criminalize certain sexual intimacies.
15:37 Scalia: Well, that may well be so. I do not take -- I do not take any public view on whether it would be good or bad for government to allow that. That's not the business I'm in. My job is simply to say whether those things that you find desirable are contained in the constitution. Now your -- your -- Washington -- uh -- President said in his remarks before this session that -- uh -- what the ACLU is for is democracy. Right? --
Strossen: -- I thought you would like that. --
16:11 Scalia: -- You thought I would like that. -- I'm in the business of enforcing the laws. What democracy means is that on controversial issues -- even stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, whatever -- we debate with each other, and persuade each other, and vote on it. Either our representatives, or through a constitutional amendment in the states, we decide the question. Now, there are some exceptions to that. In any liberal democracy -- and in ours most of those exceptions are contained in the bill of rights. But that bill of rights was adopted by the majority. Which is why it is proper in a democracy to have a bill of rights, because the majority adopted it. Now when they adopted it, what did they take out of that general principle -- what did they take out of that general rule of democracy, that we allow open speech, we persuade each other, and we vote -- what did they take out of it? They never took out these issues! Abortion, homosexual conduct, what -- nobody ever thought that they had been included in the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, which is why -- uh -- abortion, and homosexual sodomy were criminal for two hundred years. Now whether that's a good idea or a bad is -- is -- not what I'm talking about. That's not my job to say that. It is my job to say whether the Bill of Rights has taken it out of the realm of democratic debate. Just because you feel strongly about it, it isn't necessarily in the Bill of Rights.
17:39 Strossen: As -- as -- you rightly say, the -- uh -- constitution included an amendment process, and the ACLU's defense of rights does not stop with the Bill of Rights, nor does the constitution. Fortunately, the constitution was amended after the Civil War, to create equality rights, and rights for African Americans, and others who had been excluded under the original constitution, and it is the 14th amendment -- as you know, Nino, we agreed we would be on a first name basis since we usually are -- uh, that you understand, Nino, that the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment has been interpreted by -- I think you are the sole exception in the modern court, to refuse to find that as a source of protection for implied fundamental rights. Going back to the nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices have recognized -- uh -- that that carved out an area free from government regulation, and that area has always included basic decisions about our own bodies, our own relationships, and what we do in our own homes.
18:47 Scalia: Well, whoever said that was wrong. Uh, (laughter) you have a text that says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. That's not a guarantee of any right, it's not a guarantee of life, of liberty, or of property -- you can be deprived of all three of them, but not without due process. And I will enforce the due process clause when what it is directed to are the procedures of trial -- procedures that are necessary to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. But to say that there is within that due process clause some substantive right to abortion -- or to anything else -- I mean, words have no meaning if you begin to talk like that. And when words have no meaning, a democracy cannot function -- because that is how we express the people's will, through words. So, -- now -- you may say -- and you may be right -- that -- I'm not the only one on the modern court, that at least Clarence Thomas is not a fan of so-called substantive due process, which is a contradiction, and, frankly, more and more law professors are abandoning substantive due process because it is such an obvious contradiction in terms.
20:00 Strossen: It's interesting that on the modern court, the very first justice to read the due process clause as protecting the right of individuals to choose to use contraception was a Republican justice, the very revered John Marshal Harlan, but let's come at it from another perspective Nino --
20:18 Moderator: -- Actually, before you do, may I ask you (Justice Scalia) to explain --
20:20 Scalia: to explain whether I would change my mind?
20:24: Strossen: (laughter) May I please make another point?
20:26 Moderator: I was just going to ask Justice Scalia to explain what "substantive due process" means.
20:29 Strossen: Oh. That there are -- um -- affirmative (laughter) He doesn't -- um -- he doesn't believe in it, how could he explain it! (laughter)
20:38 Moderator: He knows what it is! (laughter) Well, whoever would like to explain it.
20:41 Scalia: I don't believe in anarchy either, but I'm (laughter) -- go ahead!
20:49 Strossen: I wanted to start from the opposite perspective, that -- uh Nino, let's put aside what the Due Process clause does or doesn't say. We are a government of limited powers, and unless the framers gave a power to the government the presumption is that we as individuals have that freedom that government may not intrude upon. Where in the constitution does the government have the power to tell free individuals -- adults -- what we may or may not do in the privacy of our own homes with our own bodies, and with those we choose to live with?
21:28 Scalia: Nadine, you're appealing to some natural law --
21:31 Strossen: -- Yes! --
21:32 Scalia: I don't know that -- uh -- that I've been appointed to apply natural law, I apply the limitations upon democracy that the American people have adopted. And as long as those are not infringed, the constitution hasn't been violated. It's not up to me to decide -- you know -- what ought the equal protection of the laws to mean. There's a lot of things it could mean, it could mean that in all public buildings you need unisex toilets. Now, you know, does it mean that? No, it doesn't. Why doesn't it? Because nobody ever thought that's what it meant.
22:08 Strossen: Well, let say what that --
22:09 Scalia: -- And, in 1919, when, when, when women's right to vote -- uh -- came up, nobody thought the supreme court would suddenly say 'equal protection of the laws means women suddenly have the right to vote' that's not how it was done! We amended the constitution because it was very clear that when the equal protection clause was adopted nobody thought that it prohibited discrimination in the franchise on the basis of sex, on the basis of literacy, on the basis of property. So the American people did what you do in a democracy, they amended the constitution --
22:45 Strossen: -- Nino, in --
22:46 Scalia: -- and that's the way all this other stuff ought to be brought in.
22:48 Strossen: But when the equal protection clause was adopted, nobody thought that it would outlaw racially segregated schools, nobody thought that it would outlaw interracial marriages. And fortunately, the United States Supreme Court did have an evolving interpretation of the equal protection clause that did read it as prohibiting those vile practices.
23:14 Scalia: Well, that's fine. The question is whether that's right. The question is whether, whether, you can live with an evolving constitution. Once you say it evolves, it doesn't depend what the people thought they were doing when they adopted it -- it evolves. Somebody is going to have to decide how it evolves. Why in the world would you want nine people from a very uncharacteristic class of society -- to whit, nine lawyers -- to decide how the constitution evolves? It means whatever they think it ought to mean!
23:44 Strossen: I would want it for the very same reason that I'm happy that we are not a pure democracy, that the framers of the original constitution -- and certainly of the 14th amendment recognized that there are some rights that are so fundamental that no majority can take them away from any minority; no matter how small and unpopular that minority might be. And who is better positioned to represent and defend and be the ultimate backstop for rights of individuals and minorities than those who are not directly accountable to the electoral process? Namely, federal judges.
24:21 Scalia: Well, you know, try putting that in the text. If that was the deal, it should have been in there. How many people would have voted for it? It would have read -- uh -- the phrases within the constitution that have generalized meaning, due process of law, equal protection under the law and so forth, do not mean what they mean today, but rather, they will mean whatever an unelected committee of nine lawyers, known as the Supreme Court, thinks they ought to mean from time to time. Who in the world would vote for government by such an aristocracy? I can't imagine.
25:00 Strossen: This is what the broad textured clauses of the constitution themselves say, Nino. By definition, the framers could have chosen very specific language, and they did, in certain clauses, so one has to assume that they deliberately chose capacious language -- to quote your colleague, or to paraphrase your colleague Justice Kennedy in Lawrence vs. Texas -- if they had intended to confine the meaning of the due process clause to very specific rights, they were capable of writing such specific language but they did not pretend to know what meaning would be appropriate as society evolved. And that was a clarion call for future generations to expand -- hopefully, we're coming closer and closer to what was the aspiration of the Declaration of Independence but far from the reality of equal rights for all under the law in this country.
26:05 Scalia: Nadine, language can be capacious without implying that its meaning changes in the future. When they said 'due process of law' they meant those rights of Englishmen in 1791. And the reason they didn't set them forth in detail is because it would have taken a casebook this fat! Of course they couldn't list them all. So they said 'due process of law' which meant something different in France in 1791, or in Hawaii in 1791, but they knew what it meant in America -- it meant, that process which was the right of Englishmen. There's no necessity to say, 'oh, and they invited the Supreme Court to give this thing new meaning' -- whatever new meaning this Supreme Court thinks is a good idea in the future. Someday, Nadine, you're going to get a very conservative Supreme Court --
26:57 Strossen: -- I think that day has come! (laughter) --
26:58 Scalia: And you're going to regret what you've done.
27:02 Strossen: I think that for those who would conserve the original meaning of the constitution, I think that would be fine. But Nino, do you think that the Supreme Court was wrong in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954? As the court itself has acknowledged, it clearly was not the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to outlaw racially segregated public schools.
27:23 Scalia: I don't know. It -- uh -- I think, Harlan, when he dissented in Plessy, had the better of the argument, as far as I'm concerned, and I think that would have led to the same result in Brown. But even if you assume that -- yes -- suppose, I have to say yes, Brown was wrong -- which I don't think I do -- but even if I did, what does that prove? I will stipulate that if you have an aristocratic supreme court, who changes the constitution whenever the Supreme Court thinks it's a good idea, you'll get some good stuff! I mean, a king would give you some good stuff. But -- you know -- the untidy process of democracy will not produce. But that doesn't prove it's a good system, just because now and then it gives you good results.
29 New US Nuclear Power Plant License Permits Sought
Dale Klein, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), was interviewed on C-SPAN's Newsmakers this last Sunday on October 22nd, 2006. Regarding twenty nine recent pending license requests for the construction of new nuclear power plants in the US, he stated that there will be a nuclear renaissance in the United States:
"I do believe that we will see license applications in 2007 and we are looking - we have expressions of intent from a lot of the utilities indicating up - as I said, up to about 29 new nuclear plants. So I believe that there will be a [nuclear] renaissance in the United States."
The interview covered a broad range of nuclear issues, such as: Licenses and permits for pending US nuclear power plant construction, nuclear waste reclamation and the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the threat of terrorism against nuclear electric generation facilities, as well as the scope of citizen involvement in the regulatory process. He was interviewed by Cox News reporter Jeff Nesmith and George Lobsenz of Energy Daily, with the event being hosted by C-SPAN's Susan Swain.
Pending Nuclear Power Plant Licenses
Both Lobsenz and Nesmith directly questioned Klein on the issue of new nuclear power plant construction within the United States. Citing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (full text of legislation), which provides billions of dollars in incentives for the construction of new nuclear power plants through tax credits and loan guarantees, Klein said that the NRC had received twenty-nine 'expressions of intent' from the nuclear industry to build new nuclear power plants throughout the country. Further, he stated that worldwide, there are "... 140 plants either under construction or being planned."
Klein referred to Department of Energy projections which indicate a 50% increase in electrical demand by 2025, along with environmental concerns over global climate change due to carbon emissions, as principal reasons for the reconsideration of nuclear power generation. Currently the United states generates about 20% of its electrical capacity from 104 nuclear power plants. However, private funding availability for nuclear power generation isn't certain, with Lobsenz noting that:
"There's a lot of questions on Wall Street about whether they want to invest in a nuclear plant. I think if you talk to the industry they'll tell you, well, we're going to iron out all the kinks in the regulatory process and building these plants with the first six plants and after that it will be more like a cookie cutter and these plants will be a lot cheaper to build and a lot quicker to build.
I think a lot of people need a lot of convincing on that, particular the money men."
Nuclear Waste Reclamation and Yucca Mountain
Speaking to the issue of the upcoming Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Facility and nuclear waste reclamation, Klein appeared to contradict long standing US policy against the use fast breeder reactors to reclaim and extend the life of nuclear fuel stock. Calling it "recycling," and noting the large number of nations that already reprocess spent nuclear fuel, Klein suggested it might be a wise policy decision:
"France currently recycles, Japan is recycling, Russia will recycle, United Kingdom recycles. And so there is a lot of experience in the recycling era. Whether that's a viable option for the United States will be a policy decision."
This is in contrast to longstanding US policy against the construction of fast breeder reactors, going back to former President Jimmy Carter's 1977 veto of the Department of Energy Authorization Bill on several grounds, one of which being that it funded the construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. Since then, no new fast breeder reactors have been proposed on US soil for commercial fuel reclamation.
One of the principal concerns over the use of breeder technology is that it converts non-weapons grade nuclear waste from uranium into highly radioactive plutonium, which can then be used in the construction of a nuclear weapon. However, reclamation would also stretch out the expected life of a limited nuclear resource, and in the process, reduce the amount of radioactive waste that would need to be stored at Yucca Mountain. As Mr. Nesmith noted, one of the primary arguments against construction of the Yucca Mountain facility is the problem of transporting large amount of nuclear waste cross country for storage.
Threat of Terrorism
Dr. Klein did not speak long on the threat of terrorism against nuclear electric generation facilities, such as crashing a jet airliner into a nuclear power plant (warning: PDF; google cache html version), however, he did address the subject after several direct questions were posed. Lobsenz asked, within the context of 9/11:
"However, the NRC has said that in doing environmental reviews of new plants it will not be looking at possible impacts from terrorism. And I think that there's been a contrary court decision questioning the NRC's position on this. And I guess the question I would have for you is, this is clearly an issue that's in the public's mind about nuclear plants. And if you don't have a public dialog in the course of doing an environmental review, how are you going to address this public concern? Shouldn't there be a public dialog in relation to the building of these new plants about what would happen if there is a terrorism attack and maybe you could even reassure the public somewhat that something is being done?"
Dr. Klein responded by pointing out that the specific issue being questioned had to do with a dry cast storage facility at Diablo Canyon. He then offered a to sooth concern about the potential threat, saying that "...nuclear power plants are examined for terrorist activities. We take that very seriously. We have a very robust program."
Nesmith, noting that the National Academy of Sciences report on nuclear power plant terrorism was less optimistic of US defenses, asked if a plant-by-plant review of safety procedures, as the report recommended, due to it's finding (his words): "that it's only a matter of time before a determined, well-equipped terrorist crashes an airliner into one of these plants and releases a large amount of radioactivity."
Dr. Klein assured Nesmith that such a review had been conducted, "Yes. We do have a very robust plant-by-plant analysis both for pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors. We have a very detailed assessment."
Scope of Public Participation
Lobsenz also discussed with Dr. Klein the scope of public participation, and limit thereof. Noting that the only means for public participation the review process was through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), he asked about security requirements in disclosing information to the public. Dr. Klein responded:
"In terms of the public's participation, because of the security requirements that are there, there are certain things that we don't go into a lot of detail on how we address security for obvious reasons. The terrorist get too many hints the way it is. So we don't want to provide a lot of information about how we address that, but I can assure you we do look at safety, security and reliability and we are addressing potential terrorist threats in a very robust and effective way."
How this addresses public concern for reactor safety, or what other venues might be opened for the public, was not addressed. However, it would appear that a good deal of thought has been put into place to prevent a new resurgence of the anti-nuclear movement so popular back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Based upon this interview one can reasonably assert several statements of fact:
- The Bush Administration is vigorously promoting a dramatic expansion of nuclear power generation throughout the United States. There are 29 pending 'expressions of interest' for licenses to construct new plants. And there are 140 plant facilities on the drawing board or currently in construction throughout the world.
- A policy review of fast breeder reclamation technology appears to be underway, with the likelihood of a transition away from opposition to new breeder facilities as set by former President Carter.
- Dr. Klein acted to assure the public that the threat against nuclear power plants from terrorism is being handled with all due diligence. Even as the two reporters directly questioned him about a NAS report that suggests the threat is real and highly dangerous.
- The limits to public participation in regulating the nuclear industry are in the form of EPA procedures, thereby forcing all concerns to fit within the framework of environmental concerns. Terrorism, and other issues, are apparently not relevant issues for public participation.
Based upon this interview one might reasonably ask: is the threat from global warming due to human carbon emissions greater than the threat of radioactive contamination due to a nuclear accident or terrorist attack? Is the transition to promoting nuclear fuel reclamation through a new class of fast breeder reactors a wise policy move, or a dangerous one considering its nuclear proliferation potential? And what should the scope of public involvement be for future nuclear regulation?
All worthy questions. The answers, however, are far more difficult to discern.
Updates and archive available at Daduh.org
Text Copyright ©2006 J. Maynard Gelinas.
Images Copyright respective owners under a creative commons license and taken from Wikipedia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Antarctic Ozone Hole Largest Ever Recorded
In a joint announcement, both NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) have released findings from the Aura satellite which shows that from September 21st through the 30th of 2006, the Antarctic ozone hole was the largest ever recorded.
"From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles," said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. If the stratospheric weather conditions had been normal, the ozone hole would be expected to reach a size of about 8.9 to 9.3 million square miles, about the surface area of North America.
Ozone, or O3, is simply three oxygen atoms formed into a single triatomic molecule. It is far less stable than O2, and as such is present in fairly low concentrations throughout the atmosphere. However, in the stratosphere, ozone concentrations act to filter out high energy ultraviolet light from the sun. Known as the ozone layer, without this filtering mechanism, sufficient quantities of ultraviolet light will damage skin by sunburn, and can even lead to a variety of skin cancers. A complete destruction of the earth's ozone layer would be an environmental disaster, likely leaving the planet uninhabitable for most plant and animal life.
The story of ozone begins in the 1930s, when English physicist Sidney Chapman first formulated a theory of atmospheric ozone creation and destruction known as the Ozone Cycle. However, instrument measurements of the actual atmospheric ozone content showed a significant discrepancy between the ozone density as recorded compared to calculations done using his theory. Atmospheric physicists were perplexed until the early 1970s when three atmospheric physicists, Professors Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland, each began to explore this discrepancy from different angles.
Professor Crutzen, in 1970, untangled a link between certain soil microorganisms and ozone destruction, determining that these bacteria release nitrogen oxides which react as a catalytist to destroy ozone. In 1974 professors Molina and Sherwood then published a study in Nature showing a connection between chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals in widespread use throughout industry as a refrigerant, in plastics and insulation production, and -- most well known -- as a supposedly inert gas to pressurize spray cans, could break down and destroy ozone in the stratosphere.
Their work showed that CFCs, while inert in the lower atmosphere, could float up to the stratosphere, then react strongly with ambient ultraviolet light to break down into chlorine, which would then act to break down ozone. Newly created instruments then detected measurable global atmospheric CFC content throughout the world. While industry leaders downplayed the situation, by the late 1970s near worldwide concern of the use of CFCs led some to suggest a worldwide ban on CFC production. In 1996 the three won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work.
By 1983 the predictions of declining atmospheric ozone were alarmingly confirmed when Joseph Farman (Dr. BBC interview of Dr. Farman on the discovery), a British Antarctic survey scientist, discovered a curious ozone hole in the stratosphere while collecting atmospheric data in the Antarctic. At first he and his colleges "... doubted the validity of their own measurements ..." however their work was "... was quickly confirmed by measurements from satellites and from other Antarctic research stations." (7th paragraph) Due to graphic imagery from NASA and NOAA weather satellites, the story soon made its way to the popular press -- as shown by this old 1987 Time Magazine article. By 1985 the ozone hole was widely understood to be growing in size for reasons unknown, and was considered a serious environmental threat worth serious inquiry.
In 1986, Susan Soloman, a senior scientist with NOAA, along with several others, proposed the first model to explain why ozone above Antarctica might decline to nearly nothing in a yearly cycle of ozone accumulation and destruction, while remaining of fairly consistent (if declining) density in the stratosphere throughout the rest of the world. She suggested it was the extreme cold of Antarctic atmospheric conditions, due to higher than normal sulfuric acid concentrations in stratospheric clouds, that reacted with CFCs to increase ozone destruction beyond the already understood destructive component of ultraviolet light. (11th paragraph)
Due to longstanding concerns about CFCs, and the severity of the data collected, action was swift. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty banning CFC production, was opened for signature and finally ratified by the United States in 1989. Since then most nations worldwide have followed suit, due to the alarming dangers of continued ozone depletion.
Weather satellites of varying capacity have been tracking the situation ever since, the latest of which is known as Aura. It creates daily maps of ozone density, providing a nice detailed image of ozone density over time. It is this satellite, and it's Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), which collected the data from September 21st to the 30th. What it found is alarming. According to the press release, the instrument recorded that the hole itself comprised 10.6 million square miles, compared to an expected 8.9 - 9.3 million miles. Further, on October 9th, balloon and satellite had "...plunged to 93 DU (Dobson Units) from approximately 300 DU in mid-July..." (5th paragraph). The Dobson Unit is a measure of atmospheric ozone concentration.
David Hoffman was quoted in the press release:
"These numbers mean the ozone is virtually gone in this layer of the atmosphere," said David Hofmann, director of the Global Monitoring Division at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. "The depleted layer has an unusual vertical extent this year, so it appears that the 2006 ozone hole will go down as a record-setter."
Fortunately, scientists do believe the ozone hole is nearing the apex of its increasing size. Due to reductions in worldwide CFC gas production, scientists believe it "...is estimated to annually very slowly decrease in area by about 0.1 to 0.2 percent for the next five to 10 years." (11th paragraph) But the long half-life of ozone depleting chemicals can last for as many as 40 years. Meaning constant satellite vigilence of the ozone hole may be necessary for decades, perhaps even centuries, to come.
Text Copyright ©2006 J. Maynard Gelinas.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Omega 3 fatty acid deficiency linked to violence
The Guardian reports on a series of recent studies showing that feeding vitamin and Omega 3 fatty acid supplements may decrease violence among repeat offenders by as much as 37%. These results are leading researchers, and some psychiatrists, to conclude that at least some violent outbursts and other mental disorders are the result of vitamin and essential fatty acid deficiency.
For decades nutritionists discounted the notion that the type of oil one consumes has any impact on health. That is, until cardiologists discovered a strong causative link between high cholesterol blood serum levels and heart disease. For years heart patients were encouraged to reduce fat intake in order lower cholesterol levels, until further research untangled the distinction between High Density Lipoprotein and Low Density Lipoprotein, showing that not all cholesterol acts alike in affecting human health.
Cholesterol is just one of many lipids (fats) that act as an essential cellular building block. Like a brick forming only part of a wall, these fats form portions of the cell membrane - that division between the inside and outside of a cell that must both allow essential nutrients in, while blocking dangerous particles out. Thus, the story between cholesterol and heart disease is not one of a dangerous oil invading our bodies to make us sick, but instead one of a critical life-sustaining cellular building-block, that, in some circumstances, can lead to a blood serum lipid imbalance that then, over the long term, is believed to cause atherosclerosis and finally general cardiovascular disease (heart disease).
So what does this have to do with Omega 3 fatty acids? Well, one might reasonably argue that the state of research into Omega 3s is at about where the research into cholesterol was in the 1970s: Like the discovery that rickets is caused by either a vitamin D or a calcium deficiency, so researchers are discovering tantalizing links between Omega 3 dietary consumption and mental health. For example, results from the Oxford-Durham study indicate that Omega 3 supplementation helps young children with dyslexia and attention-deficit disorder:
Conclusions: Fatty acid supplementation may offer a safe efficacious treatment option for educational and behavioral problems among children with DCD. Additional work is needed to investigate whether our inability to detect any improvement in motor skills reflects the measures used and to assess the durability of treatment effects on behavior and academic progress.
Further, in a recent randomized trial of severely uni-polar depressed patients that supplementing with Omega 3 fatty acids generated "... significant benefits ..." for those who received the supplement and not a placebo.
RESULTS: Highly significant benefits of the addition of the omega-3 fatty acid compared with placebo were found by week 3 of treatment.
Though they do note that since the patients were also taking Lithium, it is impossible to determine whether the benefit from supplementing Omega 3 fatty acids acted alone, or in conjunction, with the drug.
Pubmed has an abstract of the study referred to in the Guardian article, which says:
Mechanisms by which aggressive and depressive disorders may be exacerbated by nutritional deficiencies in omega-3 fatty acids are considered. Early developmental deficiencies in docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) may lower serotonin levels at critical periods of neurodevelopment and may result in a cascade of suboptimal development of neurotransmitter systems limiting regulation of the limbic system by the frontal cortex. Residual developmental deficits may be manifest as dysregulation of sympathetic responses to stress including decreased heart rate variability and hypertension, which in turn have been linked to behavioral dysregulation. Little direct data are available to disentangle residual neurodevelopmental effects from reversible adult pathologies. Ensuring optimal intakes of omega-3 fatty acids during early development and adulthood shows considerable promise in preventing aggression and hostility.
So, given recent recent findings of a psychiatric benefit for some in consuming Omega 3s, it should not come as a surprise that there may also be a link to other, more violent, behavior disorders. And this is exactly what this recent research would appear to indicate.
The Guardian article describes a study conducted at UK prison trial at Aylesbury jail showing that violent offenders "...fed multivitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids, the number of violent offences they committed in the prison fell by 37%." This is an astonishing number. As the article states that these findings:
... [call] into question the very basis of criminal justice and the notion of culpability. It suggests that individuals may not always be responsible for their aggression. Taken together with [this] study in a high-security prison for young offenders in the UK, it shows that violent behaviour may be attributable at least in part to nutritional deficiencies.
The article is careful to note that not all violence is caused by nutritional deficiencies; this is not a panacea that will rid the world of violence. But in understanding how nutritional deficiencies can cause certain mental disorders, the psychiatric community may soon be better able to tailor combinations of drug and nutritional supplements to better treat patients.
But what is the underlying causative action? That is, why do Omega 3s impact mental health just as other forms of cholesterol affect heart health? Scientists are currently only able to offer an educated guess. However, there are some facts that lead these guesses to be considered good speculation.
To understand their thinking, one must also understand the differences between various lipids and their relationship to how the body processes them. Omega 3 is a polyunsaturated fat, or a fat with two or more structural points able to support hydrogen bonds that are currently unconnected. This leaves the carbon bond chains weak with respect to trans-saturated fats like animal fat, and is one reason why monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats tend to remain liquid at lower temperatures than trans-saturated fats. Thus, Omega 3 is one of many polyunsaturated fat (the type of fats most physicians recommend patients consume for heart health).
However, Omega 3 is not the whole story. Like how cholesterol lipids are separated into High Density and Low Density Lipoproteins, so are the essential Omega 3 fatty acids broken down into three sets called: alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). As the Wikipedia article states, what makes these lipids Omega 3, as opposed to Omega 6 or Omega 9 fatty acids is that:
... omega-3 (aka "n-3", "-3") signifies that the first double bond exists as the third carbon-carbon bond from the terminal methyl end () of the carbon chain.
And speculates that the carbon ordering may explain certain relationships to cell membrane health:
Structurally, omega-3 fatty acids are helically twisted, because every cis- double bond, separated by a methylene group, changes the carbon chain's direction. This configuration may explain a host of biological phenomena observed in structures that are rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially the lipid bilayer of the cell membrane.
It is without a doubt that these lipids are essential to proper metabolic functioning. But that doesn't explain why these studies are showing nutritional deficiencies in the industrialized world. Rickets is rarely found outside of the poorest of the developing nations, so why are researchers finding that Omega 3 deficiencies are a common occurrence even in the western world? Current speculation revolves around the radical change in human diet throughout the western world over the last one hundred years.
The three Omega 3 fatty acids (ALA, EPA, and DHA) are called essential because the human liver cannot synthesize these lipids on its own, they must be consumed directly. Currently, the best source of Omega 3s comes from certain types of cold water fish, such as salmon, herring, or mackerel. Oil from some plant seeds, such as flax, chia, and hemp offer ALA, one of the three Omega 3s. It is believed that ALA may then be processed by the liver into EPA and DHA, however, this assertion is debated by others. For example, some claim that the conversion rate efficiency is so poor as to make consumption of only flax seed unable to meet the body's need for the two other essential lipids. Which leaves fish as the only other primary source of Omega 3s.
Yet, according to the United Nations, worldwide fish stocks are at an all time low due to rampant overfishing.
According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks.
So, assuming that these studies are correct, just as we discover a serious mental health impact due to a widespread dietary deficiency, the very fish species needed to treat this nutritional deficiency are also depleted throughout oceans worldwide. Which brings up the question: If there are not enough fish to supply a proper nutritional balance of Omega 3 throughout the world, who will be the ones to receive the benefit of this research? While one can't say for sure, it is reasonable to conclude: it won't be the poor:
The consequences [of current trends] could be dire, depending on whether supply gains are feasible," says Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, a co-author of the study, which was done by the Penang-based WorldFish Center and the Washington, D.C.-based International Food Policy Research Institute. But a continuation of those gains--which have produced a sixfold rise in total fish catch since the 1950s--is doubtful, says his boss, center director Meryl Williams, because three-quarters of the current catch comes from fish stocks that are already overfished, if not depleted. "Those [who study] the population dynamics of fisheries would probably be pessimistic" about supplies, she says.
As one of the researchers quoted in the Guardian article concludes:
Gesch believes we should be rethinking the whole notion of culpability. The overall rate of violent crime in the UK has risen since the 1950s, with huge rises since the 1970s. "Such large changes are hard to explain in terms of genetics or simply changes of reporting or recording crime. One plausible candidate to explain some of the rapid rise in crime could be changes in the brain's environment. What would the future have held for those 231 young men if they had grown up with better nourishment?" Gesch says.
If the poor can't afford the necessary nutrition to stave off certain mental health problems that can lead to violent outbursts, are these criminals due for a proper prison sentencing or patients in need of a proper diet?
Text Copyright ©2006 J. Maynard Gelinas.
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Article and updates archived at daduh.org.
Governor Vilsack (D-IA) discusses energy security at CFR sym
Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack was invited to speak at a Council on Foreign Relations symposium on energy security. Vijay Vaitheeswaran, of The Economist, presided over the speech and question and answer session. An audio podcast of the event is available, as well as a rush transcript.
Governor Vilsack has a history of supporting alternative energy proposals, particularly those that benefit his home state of Iowa. In his official bio, published at the state sponsored Iowa governor's website, it says:
Governor Vilsack has worked to build a sustainable energy infrastructure within the state. During his two terms, energy generation capacity has increased 20% including the development of the country's largest wind farm. Iowa now leads the nation in producing ethanol, with total production increasing by almost 300% in the past five years. Due to the governor's initiatives, Iowa not only feeds, it also fuels the nation.
But such a statement doesn't offer the nitty gritty details. At the CFR event, however, he does make several specific proposals worth considering.
Given recent high gas prices, interest in alternatives is at an all time high. Thus, it should be no surprise given that "... agriculture accounts for 10 percent of all Iowa jobs and 10.2 percent of the state's gross product ..." (Iowa State University, College of Agriculture), that Governor Vilsack would propose a drastic increase in ethanol production. It benefits a large and important constituency in his home state. Yet beyond the self-serving nature of his proposals, are some fascinating claims and proposals to bolster his argument. In detail, he argues for a multipoint program of scientific R&D, rethinking tariffs and subsidies, increased alternative energy production, and renewed conservation - all toward the goal of energy independence.
- Transition to switchgrass and waste cellulose from corn, with a more than six-fold increase in per-acre productivity:
"Today, an acre of corn produces roughly 400 gallons of ethanol. Tomorrow, an acre of switch grass can produce 2,700 gallons of ethanol."
- Increase CAFE standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy):
"The reality is that the national government needs to sit down with the auto industry, and the unions need to sit in a room and suggest and indicate that the CAFE standards of today are not adequate for the challenges of tomorrow."
- A carbon emissions trading policy, as well as carbon sequestration, to promote coal use while meeting the needs to thwart the threat of global climate change:
"... we should embrace what California's doing and what Colorado is considering--establishing a national carbon-trading system and sequestration program--so that we can embrace and utilize coal in a more reasonable fashion ..."
- Governor Vilsack argues that by promoting a wide-ranging set of energy generation and conservation alternatives we could generate a unity of purpose among the American people that does not exist today by:
"... ask[ing] every single American to participate in this--everyone can have a role, everyone can play a significant part. We can establish a sense of community and unity in this country that does not exist today. We can provide common purpose."
E85 Transition Investment:
- Encourage fast transition to E85 (85% ethanol fuel mix) through the use of car conversion kits, rather than waiting out the 14 year life-cycle of most cars:
"We also have to recognize that our fleet is roughly 14 years old. In other words, cars basically cycle through the process about every 14 years. And so that's going to be important for us if we're going to embrace renewables and if we're going to embrace conservation, to encourage folks to convert their engines to engines that can use E85. A small kit, a small amount of labor, could really accelerate our embracing of this opportunity."
Tariffs and Subsidies:
- Rethinking our sugar tariffs with Brazil in order to import ethanol:
"...we should rethink our tariffs in connection with Brazilian ethanol."
- And that, along with that rethinking our agriculture and gasoline subsidies. First, he argues that gasoline is already heavily subsidized, thus to claim excess agriculture subsidies for ethanol production ignores gasoline subsidies already in place. He argues that to solve this the subsidy for both ethanol and gasoline should be given to retailers and not producers:
"I would suggest that we take a look at changing the subsidy on ethanol and renewable fuel production to a subsidy that goes to the retailers."
- Further, to solve the agriculture subsidy problem, he argues for an inverse ethanol subsidy pegged to the price of gasoline - the higher the price of gas the less the subsidy:
"I would suggest that this subsidy be a floating subsidy that would be tied to the value of the price of oil. As the price of oil goes up, there is really no need to subsidize ethanol production. As the price of oil goes down, there may very well be a need in order to maintain and retain this industry as a viable option for energy security."
Research and Development of new technologies:
- Research and development of new super-light and superstrong building materials (for example, new materials based on Metallic Glass or Carbon Nanotubes - though he did not cite these as specific examples):
"We also need to challenge our universities and our companies to embrace and renew and extend research and development on new materials. The fact is that we ought to be doing more in trying to figure out precisely what kind of materials can be created that are lighter, stronger, better, using less energy to transport and propel people. Sixty-eight percent of our energy costs are about transportation. If we can figure out more efficient, better materials for transportation, we can obviously become more energy secure."
- Researching new, safer, nuclear technologies that could be used both here and abroad:
"We should also challenge this country to come up with strategies and technologies that allow us to produce nuclear energy without necessarily producing a byproduct that can be converted to something far more dangerous. I believe that can be done. It may not be done tomorrow, but it clearly needs to be worked on."
A few points to consider:
- Governor Vilsack did not mention several other promising alternative energy technologies such as geothermal; solar tower; ocean wave power; etc. I'm sure these omissions were unintended.
- The claim of a more than sixfold per-acre ethanol productivity increase from corn to switchgrass is unreferenced. It may be true, but I have been unable to verify it.
- Governor Vilsack has an obvious self-interest in promoting ethanol consumption, since his state benefits as an ethanol producer. However, his inverse subsidy proposal would act to reduce overall agricultural subsidies in the long term.
The podcast is well worth a listen, both for the speech and the question and answer session afterward. Give it a whirl!