Obama is Toast?

As I write, the polls are just beginning to close across the nation.  I'm reading an extremely interesting blog entry that has a unique take on politics that I've never really heard before.  The guy, Sean Malstrom, is some sort of part-time or former pollster, and he argues that McCain will win the election.  

I guess you can always find people carrying water for a candidate that will say that his candidate will absolutely win, but I don't get that feel here.  By the time you're reading this we'll know if he was right; even if he isn't correct I'll be really interested to find out if any of his points have some validity...

The Undecideds *have* decided: they have decided not to declare their choice to pollsters... days away from the election and there are like 11% undecideds? No! This is not normal...

Lying to pollsters is frequent and a necessity in Pennslyvania due to the unions. Many union bosses will call their members, posing as a ‘pollster’, and if the member gives the wrong [answer], a thug is sent to the house. The Teacher’s Union there has sent strict orders to vote for Obama “or else”.

Really? In America, today?  Wow...

With polling, the collective delusion is the belief that the product of polling is the data...The product of polls can [be] and often are the readers.

I'd never heard it put that way--readers are the product of polls; that is, the polls are designed specifically to deliver minds of voters.  Of course that's true, but I'd hadn't thought about it exactly that way.  To hear this guy tell it, the main thrust of Obama's campaign is to produce polls and news stories talking about the "inevitability" of his victory.  I don't know if he's right about that, but I have inarguably heard a lot of versions of that story...

Lots of other intriguing points; He thinks Palin has saved this ticket (which is the polar opposite of conventional wisdom at this point); that McCain will definitely win Pennsylvania, and that you can tell by the visits that the candidates are scheduling that their internal polling is completely at odds with the polls we all see.  He goes into great detail on that last point.

While the election was originally a referendum on Obama, it has now become a referendum on socialism. It won’t matter if a minority group (like african americans) turn out in record numbers because everyone else is turning out in record numbers as well. The youth vote is not turning out as it never does. As James Carville says, “You know what we call candidates who rely on the youth vote? We call them ‘losers’.”

Really, really interesting.  We'll see if he's right.

Why the Electoral College?

There seems to be growing sentiment out there to abandon the Electoral College as a anachronistic relic and ensure that the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the presidency.  Example: this article.  Also out to end the Electoral College: no lesser a luminary than rapper and apparent presidential candidate Mos Def (who also provides some interesting ideas that I think both FDR and Karl Marx could be proud of):

Actually, the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing.  The idea is to ensure that the candidates are responsible to the whole country, and that we don't elect a "regional" candidate with overwhelming support in only a few areas.

Consider this scenario: a new but very well funded party bursts on the national scene.  If there is no electoral college, they can focus all of their efforts on the top few urban centers in the country--they don't care about New Hampshire or Nebraska; they can get enough voters in just a few places to ignore most of the others.  All they really need in most of the country is a small minority, say 20%, and then coupled with their strong support in the top cities that would put them over the top.  With the electoral college, a candidate must work state-to-state to build broad support, and thus they are forced to be true national candidates.  Smaller states matter since they cast all of their Electoral votes together and a candidate knows that 20% of votes in a state means zero Electoral votes.  Candidates can't get by with only a small minority in all but a few states.

So, the Electoral College today forces viable candidates to be national candidates, and it also makes our elections far, far more difficult to buy.  More than enough reason to keep it around, I'd say.

Political Dirty Tricks: or, How To Become a Felon

This guy went to federal prison on charges of phone harrassment, and is living proof that it isn't just left-wingers who engage in election fraud.

...Although I think that dead people and cartoon characters can still be considered solid Democrat constituencies.

The former Republican political operative went to federal prison after he pleaded guilty to charges of phone harassment. He jammed the phone lines of New Hampshire's Democratic Party on Election Day six years ago.

"The concept was to disrupt lines of communication. That's a fancy way of saying, 'make it so the phones didn't work,' " Raymond said recently. "No calls going out. No calls going in."

Make Your Own X-Rays!

Yes, all you need is some regular Scotch tape and a vacuum chamber!

On the Road Meets the Web Generation

This one goes out to Official Friend of the Brink Ben; I'm a little afraid that he will actually follow the example of these folks and sell all that he has, buy an RV, have a kid named Tristan, and commence to drive around the continental US, stopping at campgrounds to be an occasional knowledge worker.

Tortured Genius: A Charlie Kaufman Profile

Here's an interesting, in-depth article on the mind that brought you feature films Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Adaptation--one of the oddest and most imaginative ouvres in Hollywood.

I'm always interested in the intersection of art and business, and I always wonder how in the world you can have a multi-million-dollar enterprise like a feature film production depend on the whims of an artist trying to give birth to his beloved story.  This article provides a window into the process.

Hitler, the KKK, and Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood has done a pretty good job distancing their organization from the philosophy of their founder Margaret Sanger, a supporter of eugenics and a proponent of the removal of "human weeds".  Perhaps history's most ardent eugenicists?  The Nazis.  In fact:

During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit", an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted one American eugenics advocate to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that "the Germans are beating us at our own game".

Apparently folks today prefer to remember her as a heroic supporter of the rights of the regular folks to obtain contraceptives, and prefer to forget that she was well received after speaking to the Ku Klux Klan:

"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

So, count me out when you're celebrating the 92nd anniversary of the Margaret Sanger's first clinic.

Media Coverage in the US Elections

OK, it's about time for a post, so here we go:

I stumbled onto a site called RussiaToday, which purports to be "a 24/7 English-language news channel" that brings "you the Russian view on the global news".  I don't know what political bias they espouse; judging by this article from the GOP convention (Sarah Palin lays into Russia; Thousands of opponents take the streets and set up vigils outside the jailhouses of their arrested compatriots) it isn't American-style conservative.  Anyway, they have a very interesting take on the role of satirists in American politics.  The article compares the influence Jon Stewart on that of Rush Limbaugh from yesteryear.  My opinion: Limbaugh has never been a balanced source of news, but at least there is discussion of the issues; Stewart's Daily Show and others of its ilk feature a shallow format more geared to a laugh every 7-10 seconds than any type of exchange of ideas.  The result is the host verbally piling on to whatever target he prefers; with left-wing hosts those targets are, of course, overwhelmingly Republican.  The fact that a substantial minority of the American electorate gets its political intelligence from "fake news" and late night shows is disturbing at best.

Speaking of late night shows, they seem to be making Republicans the butt of their jokes over Democrats by a ratio of 7-to-1; the article does bring up some interesting points besides bias as to why that gap exists, especially: Biden is way more boring than Palin.  Actually, I think unbiased observers could find some pretty embarrassing gaffes by Biden, but I guess it's fair to say that Palin is more interesting and thus a much better ratings bet.  And for a little more on late-night political coverage: here's a blow-by-blow of appearances by McCain and Biden on Letterman and Leno, respectively--note the very different tone.  Of course, McCain had blown off and thus personally insulted Letterman, which resulted in what this Huffington Post blogger called "the most scathing performances I have ever seen a late night comedy host give" leading up to McCain finally appearing on Letterman's show.

Finally, here are some interesting thoughts on reasons for unbalanced coverage: lazy reporting in a media echo chamber, and the fact that lots of media people have a crush on him and don't want to know the whole truth.

RPT Makes Nueces County "Problem" Go Away

As I mentioned in my last post, this year's Nueces County Convention was a flagrant abuse of rules and delegates, and the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) has supported the chairman who perpetrated it. The delegates who unsuccessfully opposed the chairman held their own convention, and it is the job of the RPT's Credentials Committee to review the evidence and decide which delegation to allow to participate in the State Convention.

Various committees have been meeting since Monday, but Credentials didn't meet until today at 11am, planning to spend only 2 hours reviewing 78 credentials challenges (the most since 1976, when Reagan conservatives new to the GOP scene were being accused of trying to "destroy the party"). Although each of Texas' Senatorial Districts sends a delegate to make up this committee, the chairman of the Credentials Committee (appointed by RPT State Chairman Tina Benkiser) didn't even bother to take votes from his committee; he simply pronounced his judgment on each case.

As for Nueces County, he rejected the rump convention and seated the County Chairman's delegation on a highly dubious technicality, claiming that the rump convention didn't officially notify the other delegation that they would be challenging them. However, it is clear that the RPT learned something from this situation: the Credentials Committee passed a rule for the meeting excluding all recording equipment.

In other news, the Nueces County rump convention delegates have finally been able to review the records from the convention they left (thanks to a court order), and they have more information about the delegates who outvoted them:

"We believe at least 36 delegates failed to vote in the Republican Primary, which would make them ineligible to serve in the capacity of delegate," said Vanessa Cahill. "Another 36 of the delegates appear to have been added at the Nueces County Convention, by members of the Credential Committee. The Credentials Committee Chairman actually appears to be among the names added."

There will probably be an effort tomorrow during the first general session to change the order of the convention from the floor and elect a convention chairman who would allow this issue to be revisited, but it has little chance of succeeding. I think it's fair to say that justice was not served here.

Texas GOP Convention: Republicans Mix It Up

The Republican Party of Texas holds its 2008 Convention this week. (If you're new to all of this, you may want to check out my posts on Republican party officials and on the Republican convention process.) In contrast to most State Conventions over the past 20 years or so, this one may feature some major battles. I'm sifting through email, websites and blogs to get to the bottom of it, and here's what I'm finding.

There are allegations of illegal actions in several counties around Texas, where County Chairmen attempted to pack their County/Senatorial District (SD) conventions with ineligible delegates or prevent duly elected delegates from attending, and several who were accused of wrongdoing indicated that they had the support of the State Chairman. The most egregious of the violations (Nueces County) was captured on audio:

(Speaking as a delegate to many conventions, that is by far the most flagrant abuse of rules that I have ever heard.) A rump convention was held, where the delegates who believed that the rules were not followed held their own convention and elected their own group of delegates to the State Convention. Because there were two conventions held in Nueces County, a committee of the State Convention must choose which convention to accept--especially, which group of delegates to State will be seated.

The Nueces County situation highlights a huge problem at the State Convention. Since 1998, the State Convention has not finished organizing the convention (electing the permanent officers of the convention and finalizing the delegates who will be seated) until later in the convention. This allows more time at the podium for the State Chairman (who, by law, serves as Temporary Chairman and is often running for reelection) while allowing the Chairman to have another person serve as Permanent Chairman of the Convention during the often contentious debate that occurs later in the convention. Unfortunately, according to the Texas Election Code (TEC), this is also illegal. It also disenfranchises all of the delegates of Nueces County, as former Texas RNC Committeeman Tim Lambert notes in this blog entry:

Why does it matter? RPT rules (27d) require that delegations that have been challenged are not seated until their challenge is resolved. When the Credentials Committee report is not presented until after the vote for SREC members and nominations of Chair and Vice Chair of the party, those delegates' right to vote will be violated, because by the time they are seated, their opportunity to vote for SREC, State Chair and Vice Chair will have already passed.

A restraining order has been granted, been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and is being refiled to force the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) to order its convention according to the TEC. Amazingly, the RPT under the direction of current Chairman Tina Benkiser, is vigorously fighting these legal challenges. The TEC is very clear that the convention must be organized before business is conducted. Even though each SD will have elected their SREC members and nominated a Chair and Vice Chair before the convention is officially organized, RPT lawyers are arguing, apparently with straight faces, that no convention business will have been conducted. The fact that the RPT's case is so weak, coupled with the fact that Chairman Benkiser is apparently dragging her feet, seems to indicate that the party is simply trying to delay the conclusion of the legal actions past Thursday, when the point becomes moot.

Perhaps even more disturbing than the situation with the order of the convention is the fact the the RPT is supporting the Nueces County Chairman, who refused to disclose the precinct convention minutes that would have made it clear that he added 100 unelected delegates. As Tim Lambert notes:

The RPT, under the direction of the current chairman, went to court to defend the illegal actions of the rogue county chairman and sought to punish the delegate seeking relief. The current state chair advised this county chairman and others that they were not required to release convention minutes, contrary to RPT rule 22b and the TEC.

There is one thing that many of the delegates who have been excluded and mistreated have in common: they were supporters of Ron Paul's presidential bid. While I didn't vote for Paul, I find this behavior despicable. To attempt to illegally silence someone because of their support for a candidate is completely insupportable. Benkiser is now being opposed by Paul Perry in her reelection bid, and I will wholeheartedly support his bid.

Texas GOP Conventions: An Overview

The Republican Party holds its 2008 Convention this week, so it's a great time to give an overview of how the GOP works in Texas. I've already covered the Republican party officials who represent Republican voters in their areas. Now we'll look at the Republican conventions, where Republican voters attend conventions and represent themselves.

During even-numbered years, Texas Republicans hold a series of conventions at several levels: Precinct (neighborhoods), County/Senatorial District (depending on your area--some Counties are too big to hold a single convention), State, and finally the National Convention. The participants are always Republican voters who voted in the most recent GOP primary.

At each level, the convention is considered to be the Republican Party of the area (Precinct, County, etc.) they represent--their decisions establish the will and focus of Republican Party voters. Each convention does at least two things:

1. Elect delegates to represent the area at the next highest convention
2. Establish a "platform" that represents the views of the Party in that area

The larger the convention, the more work must be accomplished by committees before the majority of the delegates arrive. At Precinct Conventions, everything is handled at the convention, since there are usually just a handful of voters who show up, elect each other and a few neighbors to the County/Senatorial District Convention and sometimes present a resolution or two. By the State Convention, committees work up to 18 hours/day for 3 or 4 days before the majority of the delegates even arrive, sorting out the thousands of delegates to take part and reviewing hundreds of resolutions that will be whittled down to compose the Texas Republican Party Platform--among other things.

At the State Convention, an addition to electing delegates to the National Convention and adopting a platform, party officials on the Senatorial District, State, and National levels are elected as well--see this post for more on that.

At many State and National Conventions (as well as some County/Senatorial Conventions), there is a tension between two groups: Republican delegates and Republican officeholders. This is because the delegates often want to make their voices heard on a variety of subjects, some of which may be difficult or even embarrassing for officeholders from those districts. Conversely, State Representatives, Governors and Senators would all prefer that the coverage of this gathering of Republican activists from their districts be glowing in praise for those officeholders.

The focus of this tension is often on the Chairman. At State Conventions when a chairman is being elected, there will usually be a "grassroots" candidate who pledges allegiance to the average voter/delegates, running against an "establishment" candidate supported by the Governor or Presidential nominee, whose unspoken agenda will be to avoid embarrassment for those high elected officials from the State Conventions or SREC. For the past 15-20 years at the Texas State Convention, there have been very few differences of opinion between candidates on issues like fiscal conservatism, foreign policy or abortion--the choice is always about "management style".

Historically, there was a great amount of actual business transacted at party Conventions; party insiders at National Conventions actually chose nominees for President and Vice-President in "smoke-filled back rooms." In today's TV era, where sound bites reign supreme, parties want their conventions to be devoid of controversy and conflict, instead serving as rallies for the faithful and as a coronation for their nominees for high office. This also exacerbates the tension between the average delegates, who wish to speak their mind, and the Chairman, who would prefer a smooth, camera-friendly event without any infighting.

Next up: a preview of the 2008 Convention.

Texas Republican Party Officials: An Overview

In conjunction with this week's 2008 Republican Party Convention, I'm doing some overviews of how the GOP works in Texas.

At every level, from neighborhoods to the entire nation, Republicans elect individuals to represent their areas in the time between the elections which are held every two years. Those representatives then serve as part of a body headed by an elected chairman, in much the same way a company's board works with its CEO. The body represents Republican voters in various capacities, often including public relations, fundraising, lobbying of officials, and in some cases even filling Republican ballot vacancies left by death or withdrawal. While their functions differ, the bodies on various levels are very similar. Here is an overview, from the lowest level to the highest:

• Republican voters, in their biennial primaries, elect Precinct Chairmen from each neighborhood and a County Chairman for the entire county. The Precinct Chairs form a countywide Executive Committee headed by the County Chairman and together represent the Republicans of their County.
• Republican voters, in Senatorial District caucuses held at the biennial State Convention, elect a Committeeman and a Committeewoman to represent them on the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC).
• Republican voters, at the State Convention, elect a State Chairman to chair the SREC (and also run the state party, which has a staff and headquarters).
  
• Republican voters, at the State Convention, also elect a National Committeeman and Committeewoman to represent the state (along with the State Chairman) on the Republican National Committee (RNC)
• RNC members elect a Chairman to chair the RNC and lead the national party.

As you can see, the State Convention is a very important part of the process; many party officials are chosen there that will remain in office for at least two years (until the next State Convention), and in some cases for four-year terms. Next up: an overview of the GOP Convention process.

Stealth Bomber Crash

Earlier this year a US B-2 Spirit stealth bomber crashed on takeoff in Guam due to water damage on some of its sensors. This video shows a successful takeoff, followed by the doomed plane's liftoff, pilot ejections and crash/burn sequence. (More info here) These planes cost between 1.2 and 2.4 billion dollars each, and due to their range, size (their wingspan is longer than the first flight at Kitty Hawk) and stealth capabilities, they are to the US air fleet what the aircraft carrier is to American sea power--not only a dominant force capable of striking decisively almost anywhere on the planet, but a "big stick" in US diplomacy that affects the way our enemies deal with us politically. This plane was one of only 21, so now we're down to 20.

Bonus: Here's an interesting article on the people who fly this baby.

Wildlife Battle

You may have seen this, but if you haven't it's worth the time. It's a video shot by some tourists on a safari. It starts with some lions stalking some buffalo, and then they attack and catch a baby buffalo. But that's where things get interesting. Let's just say that by the time the video is over another predator makes an appearance, a lion flies through the air like a house cat, and we see some surprising herd behavior.

The Creation of Yao Ming

I've heard that Yao Ming's parents were forced to marry by the communist leaders of China in hopes of producing a basketball prodigy. I found an article (which is actually a book excerpt) from TimeAsia magazine that gives the whole story on that, as well as Yao's story starting with his mother's youth and going through to his playing days with the NBA's Houston Rockets--all in 8 interesting pages.

As to the forced marriage? According to the article, it was an "arranged" marriage that they were "encouraged" to enter. Perhaps "forced" is too strong, but maybe not...

The Metric Revolution

It seems that on this day in 1790, the French proletariat which had just taken over the country in the ongoing French Revolution decided to create what became the metric system. One thing I didn't know but that my nerdly mind finds very cool:

The system was elegant. All conversions were based on 10, with Greek prefixes (deka-, hecto-, kilo-) for multiples and Latin (deci-, centi-, milli-) for fractions.

I never realized that the multiple and fractional prefixes were from different languages. I guess kilo is Greek for 1000 and milli is the Latin word for the same number, and thus the etymology of the words explains the difference between kilometer and millimeter.

Among the changes that were made that didn't catch on: the 10-day week and the 10-hour day.

Be sure to check out the (short but great) article.

Obama vs. Wright on Race

Thomas Sowell has an interesting take on the differences between Barack Obama and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. Sowell believes that Wright whips up resentment while Obama sells a sense of entitlement, but both are telling basically the same story:

The difference between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright is that they are addressing different audiences, using different styles adapted to those audiences.

It is a difference between upscale demagoguery and ghetto demagoguery, playing the audience for suckers in both cases.

Sowell, who is a black man from Harlem, tells three random stories:

• South Korean schoolgirls studying 15 hours a day to get into top colleges;
  
• a Harvard classmate who refused to ask his parents for new shoes he needed but that they couldn't afford;
  
• a childhood friend who literally spit food out of his mouth when he realized it was given to him out of charity.

He ties them together thusly:

People on the far left like to flatter themselves that they are for the poor and the downtrodden. But what is most likely to lift people out of poverty-- telling them that the world has done them wrong or promoting the work ethic of the Korean girls, the dogged determination of my Harvard classmate with the newspaper in his shoe, or the self-reliance of my fellow junior high school student in Harlem who had too much pride to take charity?

Be sure to check out the article.

Taxing the Rich

It's election season, so the various candidates pull out their go-to rhetoric and we hear vague truisms about very complex issues like taxations shouted at us a lot. I found a very interesting breakdown for 2005, the most recent year for which breakdowns are available.

Before you check it out, ask yourself if you can answer some basic questions about the current tax structure in the US:

1. What percentage does the average American pay in federal income tax?
2. What percentage of Americans filing income tax returns didn't end up paying any?
3. Are you rich?

This article hits those points, and plenty of others, and it's interesting stuff. The 2005 answers to the above questions are 13.6%, 32.6%, and you're rich if you made 61,055 or more (if you define rich as the top 25% of Americans).

I don't know about you but my target income is above 61K, so remember next time you vote to soak the rich that it could be you and me.

Medical Arrogance and Butterfly Collecting

Wired is a technology magazine, and this essay takes an interesting perspective on the need for the medical profession to use technology to enhance our knowledge of human wellness as opposed to human illness.

If you had died 50 years ago, your body would have stood a pretty good chance of serving science. In the 1960s, autopsy rates at US hospitals exceeded 50 percent. Pathologists weren't necessarily looking for what killed people — they were taking advantage of the fact that a body was available and ready for inspection. There was still much to learn about normal human biology, the thinking went, so every corpse was an educational opportunity.

It turns out that autopsies are now comparatively rare now as modern medicine is much more confident about its current body of knowledge. However, it seems that in medicine (as other fields such as in spying) our capacity to gather information has exceeded our capacity to understand it.

In heart disease, for example, CT screening tests can spot abnormalities in arterial plaque — but no research exists on whether that information is actually predictive of heart disease or stroke. "We need to know normal variation," says Pat Brown, a professor of biochemistry at Stanford University School of Medicine. "It's really underappreciated as a part of science." In too many areas, Brown argues, we're too quick to jump at any blip without understanding whether it's a true red alert or just normal background noise.

I believe that alternative medicine has something to offer in instances where conventional medicine doesn't have answers because conventional medicine tends to discount things in areas that are considered well-understood. Instead of ignoring apparent red herrings, the medical community should focus more on better understanding of normalcy (and thus a better understanding of abnormalcy).

It seems like it would be easy just to step back and survey the broad picture. But research costs money, and studying what's normal is generally considered trivial, dismissed as mere butterfly collecting. At the National Institutes for Health, for instance, all grants are given a "priority score," an indication of a project's novelty, originality, and "scientific merit." Normal need not apply.

Very interesting stuff.

OK, OK, More Posts!

Carlos, an Official Brother-In-Law of The Brink, took some of his valuable time to harangue me this morning about the age of the posts here at the Brink of Normal. He's right, new entries have been few and far between here. Unbeknownst to him, I have been considering channeling some of the results of my regular net-surfing into this space to ensure that we have at least five new posts per week. So, with his goading, we'll try that this week.
I'll try to make them short and sweet for ease of writing and ease of reading. Leave some comments when you visit to let me know what you think.

"Nice Stolen Car!"

An internet posse of Canadian gearheads used an online forum, Facebook and Google Maps to take down what might be the world's dumbest car thief -- and posted video of the arrest on YouTube.

The thief took a tricked-out Nissan Skyline GT-R for a test drive in Calgary and never came back. The owner, Shaun Ironside, 27, called the cops but figured the car was headed for a chop shop, never to be seen again.

Desperate, Ironside posted a thread at Beyond.ca, an automotive discussion forum with 46,000 members... The thief would be easy to spot, Ironside wrote in the post, because he's missing the middle and right fingers of his left hand. The car was pretty unique too -- a right-hand-drive model imported from Japan. The thread languished until the following afternoon when forum moderator James Lynch happened to spot the stolen Skyline and snapped a picture of the suspect behind the wheel -- waving his disfigured hand.

"I pulled out my camera, but I wanted to see his hand, so I did the rock out sign," Lynch, 22, told Wired.com, referring to the splayed finger gesture that's ubiquitous at heavy metal concerts. "He did it back and I saw his hand. I rolled down my window and yelled, 'Nice stolen car!'..."

Read the full story for more...

Flying Penguins

This amazing BBC video shows penguins that fly.




Unbelievable? Yes. But it's on the internet, so it must be true.

Anti-Emo Riots Break Out Across Mexico

I can't exactly explain why I found this headline so funny. I think it's the idea of a riot breaking out over something like the style of music the kids are into today. Plus it features quotes like these:

"They're organizing to defend their right to be emo," wrote Daniel Hernandez of LA Weekly on his personal blog, which has provided stellar coverage of the whole affair.

But sadly there's actual violence with punks and metalheads beating the emo kids, targeting them as homosexuals due to the culture of their music:

Gustavo Arellano, the author of Ask a Mexican and an editor at OC Weekly, said that the sexual ambiguities cultivated by emo fashion helped set the group up for targeting by more macho groups.

Anyway, it's actually pretty sad. I'm always surprised at what people will riot over, so I guess we can add emo to that list now...

The Truth about NAFTA

I've linked to an interesting (and short) article in the Wall Street Journal that compares the two big states that had primaries yesterday, Texas and Ohio. Democrats have been decrying NAFTA and promising manufacturing jobs in Ohio, but that hasn't come up in Texas because it has greatly benefited from that trade agreement. This article makes it clear that NAFTA isn't the culprit behind Ohio's problems--it's more about high income taxes and very pro-union laws. Apparently, the manufacturing jobs leaving Ohio aren't all heading overseas, but to pro-business states like...Texas!

By the way, the practice of blatantly lying to voters and telling them what they want to hear in order to get their votes is one of the main reasons people hate politicians. There has been talk that Obama and Clinton will try to "renegotiate" NAFTA, but it's obvious given the facts in this article that that will never happen. It was all theater to make it seem like the Democratic Presidential candidates could fix a problem that is actually caused by Ohio corporate tax laws designed to "soak rich corporations" and by other Ohio laws designed to protect unions (which are of course themselves supposed to protect their members).

Ah, politics.

Liberals and Self-Loathing

Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, made some waves a couple of weeks ago when she said "...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..." It wasn't an accidental slip of the tongue; she said the same thing in two different speeches, so it seems to have been part of her prepared remarks.

This fits with a theory I've been developing: it seems that self-loathing is an important part of the liberal mindset. The above statement implies that Mrs. Obama, an American, has spent her entire adult life ashamed of America. In fact, today's liberal is ashamed and outraged about America's treatment of countless groups, including: Native Americans, African-Americans, women, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, suspected terrorists, and blue-collar workers.

But America isn't the only target of liberal loathing. Radical environmentalist rhetoric expresses shame on the part of the entire human race (of which radical environmentalists, of course, are part) for our treatment of the planet; rich liberals decry "big business" while at the same time profiting from it; and incredibly, liberal thinking is even ashamed of Western distrust of "conservative" Islamic political organizations (like Hamas) and governments (e.g. Iran), in spite of the fact that those groups' attitudes on points like women's issues, homosexuality, and free speech (to name just a few) could not be more disgusting to the liberal mind.

Now let me be clear: as a conservative American, I do not believe that our country has done right by all of the groups mentioned above. There are plenty of shameful decisions, policies and incidents in our past and present. However, I believe in my country, and I love it in spite of it's flaws. I believe that we should work to change those things that are wrong, but I also believe that we should celebrate the great good that is also part of our heritage.

So I'll say it this way: I'm proud to be an American, and that is regardless of whether my candidate is winning or not.

Electric Car, by Teenager

My last post was about the bazillion-dollar efforts of a multinational corporation to build a new kind of hydrogen-electric car; this one is about a sixteen-year-old who built a plug-in electric pickup using 20 regular car batteries, an '88 Mazda, and $6K from his part-time job.

Taken together, I think that this is just another thing that's great about America. You've got a backyard do-gooder kid contributing to this effort (to create cleaner cars) because he believes it's the right thing to do, and a giant company doing the same thing--not because some government bureaucrat came up with an appropriate incentive to induce them to do so, but because it will be good for their bottom line. That's the kind of green innovation I like to see.

(thanks for the link goes to Carlos, the Official Brother-in-Law of the Brink)

GM's Hydrogen Car

Today's automaker produces tons of models, and each model may be available with several combinations of transmissions and engines; plus there are countless electrical, mechanical, and computer systems, each with thousands of parts; making each different model means combining tens of thousands of components together; each model then has to be tested, etc. This is all very difficult and expensive.

GM is trying to revolutionize the auto industry with their hydrogen projects, and I've been keeping my eye on them for several years now because the whole concept is so cool. The idea is this: instead of the situation above, you can produce a single chassis that looks like a giant foot-thick skateboard and contains the motors (small electric motors near the wheels), the fuel storage (it runs on hydrogen), and the fuel cell (to convert the hydrogen to electricity). The steering will be electronic so there's no need for a steering column connecting to the wheels, so pretty much all of the working parts are in the chassis--to choose between a sedan, a pickup or a minivan you simply bolt the body you want on top. Since it's electric there's no transmission, so there are extremely few moving parts (which means very few possible things to break down). Theoretically, the cost and time required to develop new models could be a fraction of what it is currently; cars might eventually begin to last much, much longer as airplanes do (small planes routinely last for decades--they have very few moving parts outside of the engine).

Of course, there have been huge obstacles to overcome, some major ones being the safe storage of notoriously unstable hydrogen (remember the Hindenberg?), the efficient operation of the fuel cell (especially in cold weather), and fueling issues (consumers expect to be able to fuel quickly and to be able to carry enough to drive 300 miles on a fill-up).

Anyway, it seems that things are getting fairly close to production now, as apparently GM is still planning to have production models on the road by 2010. Below is a video of a British show driving GM's second-generation hydrogen vehicle the Hy-Wire.



And here's a link to photos and info on the third-gen vehicle, the Sequel, which is pretty obviously less futuristic and more acceptable to today's consumers than the Hy-Wire, which incorporated more futuristic ideas like controlling the acceleration and braking on the steering wheel instead of via pedals.

If you'd like to geek out about this stuff like some people, check out these links: Here's a blow-by-blow of the engineering and politics behind the beginning of GM's hydrogen projects between 2000 and 2003; here's a 2004 road test review of the Hy-Wire; and finally here is a science/engineering-heavy look at the Hy-Wire from HowStuffWorks.

Other auto companies, notably Honda and Toyota, seem to be advancing rapidly with similar technology, but info on them seems much harder to come by. I don't know if they're behind or if they are way ahead and are just waiting to spring their cool new stuff all at once. Honda's new FCX, which is supposed to enter limited circulation this summer (to the rich and famous?), seems to focus more on the hydrogen but still uses a more conventional setup with a large single motor and a transmission; still cool, but not the quantum leap in manufacturing simplicity and flexibility that GM's initiative promises.

Sleep in a Bottle

As I attempt to return from some months of overwork and undersleep, this article is of particular interest. It seems that DARPA (the Department of Defense's Research and Development arm) might have found a drug that will eliminate sleepiness. The military has long been interested in technology to help keep humans awake, for obvious reasons--they gave pilots amphetamines as early as WWII.

This new stuff, still in early testing, is a nasal spray and seems to pretty well mimic natural sleep. Of course science doesn't seem to understand sleep very well at all, so who knows how this will turn out. These kind of things never seem to work quite as well as you'd think, and I speak as someone who has ingested way more caffeine than is really healthy of late.