The Iron Yuppie

BBC News Electoral Map of Historical Elections

This is kind of cool... interesting to see how united our country used to be, either for one candidate or the other. Is this a cause or an effect of the way that we view politics today?

One thing that has always amazed me is how people discuss states like "Red state" and "Blue state" as though 100% of the people in that state felt a certain way. But that's proveably not the case! To go back to one of my favorite sites, electoral-vote.com, even in an unbelievably blue or red state (TX or MA as examples), the populous is not voting 100% blue or red! There are still 30-40% of the population in that state who supports the alternative candidate.

The interesting part about this is that when we look at talk shows or newspapers or blogs or whatever to evaluate the two positions, there is absolutely no room for subtley whatsoever. I realize that demonizing and skewing the opposing side is a wonderful motivator but the map shows... if you alienate the other side, you're alienating ~40-50% of the people. And if that other side loses, they're going to be pissed, because you've made it clear that they are the devil. And if you lose to them, you're going to be pissed, because you hate them and how could you lose to the devil.

I'm not saying we should all get together and hold hands, but there's got to be a better way for debate and discussion to happen in this country. If nothing else, PLEASE realize that the person on the other side is a rational human being who probably has done some thinking and believes what they believe for a fairly rational reason. PLEASE try and at least understand that reason without trying to convince them that they are wrong. Then when you don't agree with the reason (and you won't), say thank you very much and walk away. They are not the devil; they just do not see things the same way you do. There, isn't that better?

D

IFILM - Short Films: Jon Stewart's Brutal Exchange with CNN Host

I wish that everyone in the media could go watch this clip and realize that you just are not doing your jobs. This goes back to the game theory thing where you'd think if there was some advantage to the media doing their jobs right, they would be doing it. But they're not doing their jobs and I cannot figure out why. Maybe it's because you'd be cut off by the people you're trying to interview if you ask tough questions. Maybe the audience just likes to hear an answer from someone they believe who will tell them the truth and that's why the talking points are so valuable. But no matter what, politicians are not doing their jobs because our representatives (the media) are not doing their jobs. The media is the only method by which an average person ideas can be heard in today's environment. You can say I could write a letter or something, which I can, but it's just as lost as me showing up to a rally and holding up a banner (though not even this would be possible at some rallys). Being on the front cover of the Times or the Post is the only way to really scare politicians any more. Maybe blogging will reach that point some day, but it's not soon, I guarantee it.

For the news media, here are some questions you can ask either candidate that will greatly help the American people:

Bush:<o:p></o:p>

• Why did you decided to go into <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>? [pause for answer] If that is the reason you decided to go into <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region>, how did you distinguish that reason for going into <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> over all the other reasons to go into <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>? [pause for answer] Because you think that is the most important reason, why was it necessary to go into <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place> vs. all the other countries in the world that meet that criteria (depending on answer, this will be between 20-40 countries)?
• Why did the top 10% of earners in the country need a tax cut? Forget about the other 90%, why did the top 10% need a tax cut? (note, he say something about the 90% here) No, I said forget about the rest of the 90%, leave those tax cuts. Why did the top 10% need a tax cut? (note, he say something about small businesses) No forget S Corps and LLCs, why do individuals who earn in the top 10% of all people in the country need a tax cut?<o:p></o:p>
• Why won’t you denounce the Sinclair media group and/or the veterans for “truth”? (will say something about not supporting them) Ok, fine, glad you don’t support them. Why won’t you denounce them and demand they stop showing it?
• Why won’t you release all the information from the secret meetings about energy policy? (will mention something about national security) Come on, national energy policy is national security protected?
• What did you say you would do 4 years ago when you took office? What have you done? (will list a bunch of stuff, none of which will be matched by the things they said they would do) Why should we believe you that you will get those things done when you didn’t get them done then? (will mention something about 9-11 etc) No, you had an opportunity to act even before 9-11, and you didn’t; after 9-11 you acted to go into Iraq, but could have acted on anything you claimed you would do, but did not… why should we trust you now?

Kerry:

• Why are you pushing off our negotiating with drug companies to <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region>? (note, will say something about enabling Medicare to negotiate) Fine, but before you try and implement nationalized health care or getting Medicare moving, why wouldn’t you try and negotiate down prescription drugs by doing volume purchasing? Why do you think the drug companies wouldn’t prevent you from getting drugs from <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region> en masse?
• When the U.N. passes 17 resolutions against <st1:country-region st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> or <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">North Korea</st1:place></st1:country-region>, when will you invade? (will mention something about when the coalition agrees, etc) Ok, but <st1:country-region st="on">Iran</st1:country-region> isn’t invading anyone, <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">North Korea</st1:place></st1:country-region> isn’t invading anyone, how are you going to get a coalition together? These are clear and present dangers against the safety of the world, what will be the line after which you will invade?
• Why won’t the health care plan increase the deficit and/or reduce money available for something else? (will answer something about the roll back of the top 2% etc) Fine, if that’s the case, then before the tax cut, you’re claiming we had that money, which we clearly did not. How are you going to fund it? (will continue to answer something about the top 2% tax cut) Ok, so you’re saying you can add a huge new expense (homeland security) and a huge new expense (war in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>) and a huge new expense (medical coverage for everyone) and increase revenues by an amount not enough to cover any of them (top 2% tax cut reversal) and not increase the deficit?
• The number 1 killer of Americans is not terrorism, it’s heart disease, then cancer, then stroke. Why would we spend so much on terrorism when we should be spending all our money on the above three?

<o:p> </o:p>I admit I believe that Kerry exaggerates less than Bush probably based on my personal politics, but this may be verified by the relative number of misleading items identified by factcheck.org. These seem like simple questions, why can’t we get straight answers? Why wouldn’t shows that claim to be straight forward with politicians ask these questions over and over again until they get answered? Note: these questions may also be asked of the commentators. In the mean time, here’s an interesting take from the guy who was actually asked these questions for six years… “Ask. But Don't Tell.” – Michael Kinsley

As an aside, I'm going to spend the next week getting all these political commentary points out of the way, since it'll be at least 3.5 years since I'll be able to do that again.

D

Check it out! A really neat how to vote tool!

http://www.undecidedvote.org/

Chance of the average person using this to decide how to vote... zero. But we can hope, can't we?

D

The American candidate ended on Sunday, and it was a pretty good run until the end where it kind of died off. The most interesting part for me was that the show started out with a wide range of political positions, though it was probably a little bit "progressive" heavy (read: liberal), but ended up with the exact same shlock that we see every day. The individual who won, Park, was a conservative and gave a closing speech which not only left me out (as a non-Christian) but could have been given by anyone in Congress or the Senate (note: this is not a good thing). This kind of goes back to game theory. If it was a successful strategy to really be different, people would be. The fact that they're not probably says something. I'm not saying that people shouldn't push the limits, but the reason these kind of people get elected is because they appeal to the broadest set of people.

D

<o:p></o:p>I heard an interesting point today about my recent use of hand-sanitizer. As we all know, flu season is nearly upon us and one of the best ways to avoid getting the flu is constantly washing your hands and face. I always find this amazing, because I never really think about touching my face that much (and certainly not enough to get flu bacteria into my mouth or eyes or whatever), but I am sure if you had a video camera on me, you’d see me touching my face about every 20 seconds.

<o:p></o:p>Right there! I just scratched my eyelid! What a coincidence!

Anyhow, the discussion was about using those disinfectant instant hand sanitizers on a more regular basis and thus selecting for mutant super strong bacteria which can beat you up and kick your dog and urinate on your car. Naturally, this gave me pause, but then I tried to do the logical extreme. If this stuff is bad, how does it differ from simply washing your hands? Do you simply wash the germs off, or are you killing them? Doesn’t soap kill germs at all? We’ve been using soap and water for 150 years, you’d think that would lead to some kind of soap resistant bacteria, no?

<o:p></o:p>A quick browse around the web led to the following:

• School website saying it’s bad. Interestingly, they also comment on the killing of germs and say that the soap and water simply causes the germs to lose their grip. If so, after 150 years, wouldn’t we have super sticky germs that DIDN’T lose their grip? The other thing this site says is that they’re no ties to anti-bacterial washes and cold/flu. Now that is interesting; I’d love to see the study on that.
• <o:p></o:p>Purell’s website (which of course will be unbiased) claims that the scientist who raised this point was not talking about alcohol-based hand sanitizers (Dr. Stuart Levy if you’re curious)
• <o:p></o:p>Infection Control Today which says that alcohol sanitizers are not encouraging resistance. Just as an aside, this last reference has a footnote, which means that they know what they’re talking about! (Footnotes are a clear indication of quality, as is high quality paper and/or a clear plastic binder)
• <o:p></o:p>CDC Search on the subject seems to indicate they’re using it all over the place. Not that that indicates ultimate credibility, but they’re probably on the right track. (Also in that search, you’ll find "Where to hide during a radiation attack", which I find pretty funny since you’re basically either dead, alive with cancer or not close enough. There’s really not too much in-between.)

<o:p>M</o:p>y thoughts on it: I think the alcohol basically completely denatures the bacteria without using antibiotics and, though you could generate alcohol resistant germs, you’re probably just as likely to evolve humans with fire-resistant skin. Of course, humans do not really go through millions of generations of evolution in the same time period that bacteria do but I'd like to think the analogy holds.

D

Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004

Neat map and I'm watching it every day. Sometimes I look at some of those states and simply try and WILL them my way. This has not worked to date. Still, i'll probably watch it until the date comes around.

One interesting bit for me is that this is just one more level of my abstraction from the actual data. This site is reporting on the reports of the polls. If anyone in that chain of information lied in any way, I'd really have no way of knowing.

Updated: I actually linked to the August 11th edition... corrected.

As a bit of a follow up to the last oil post...

Turning the Tide: Peak Oil Theory

This is always one of the "theories" that works extremely well as a thought exercise, but terribly in practice. Like "Communism". Or "Geometry". Seriously though... this again seems like something that is pretty straight forward:<o:p></o:p>

1. Limited amount of oil in the world<o:p></o:p>
2. At some point 1, the amount we can get at easily will begin to decrease <o:p></o:p>
3. At some point 2, the amount we can get at with some work will begin to decrease <o:p></o:p>
4. At some point 3, the amount we can get at when we recycle french fries and clean off of pimply-kid's foreheads will begin to decrease<o:p></o:p>

• Out of oil<o:p></o:p>

Far be it from me to have a different opinion than someone who has actually researched, well, everything, but I definitely do not feel like it’s a binary thing. At some point (we may have already reached this), we’ll move from 2 to 3 and new technology for getting oil and/or other ways of powering life will begin to emerge. At the time when a gallon of gas is cheaper than a gallon of bottled water (I believe it still is in most places), those other options were simply not cost effective. Soon, they will be, and we’ll begin to move over. I don’t think it’s the end of the world since it will be such a gradual change for the economy, it’ll just seem natural, like horses to cars or kerosene to electricity.

<o:p></o:p>An interesting point Chomsky brings up, however, is the thought of what it will do to the environment with all those hydrocarbons expelled and floating around. Let’s have some fun with math and let’s see if I can remember my old chemistry:

• <o:p></o:p>The world oil reserves are 1 trillion barrels, which is generally reported as half of what are actually discovered, so call it 2 trillion barrels.
• A barrel is 42 gallons, so you’ve got 3.18 × 10^14 liters of oil.
• 3.18 x 10^14 liters of oil * 873 kg / liter (assuming all the oil comes from TX) * 85% carbon gives you 2.35E+13 metric tons (tonnes?) of carbon.
• Assuming 100% of the carbon is converted into carbon dioxide that gives you 2.35 * 10^13 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which given the density of carbon dioxide (1.977 g/L), gives us 1.2 * 10^20 L or 1.2 * 10^17 m^3 of CO2.

<o:p></o:p>Ok, that’s a big number. How big? If a very rough approximation of the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> is 6000 KM wide and 2000 KM (and apparently looked a lot like a rectangular Jello mold), this would make a cube reaching ~100 KM into space. Ok, that’s not good. How about the world? The surface of the earth is about 10^15 m^2, so it’d cover the entire earth to a depth of about 11 m. Wow, that still sounds like a lot.

Now let’s compare. Assume that we have significant and constant atmosphere to about 200 KM (which is a bit of a stretch, to be sure). Take that same surface of the earth and multiply it times the height and the amount of CO^2 in the air (0.03%) and you get a depth of about 60 m of CO2 around the entire earth.

So the net is you’d increase the amount of CO2 in the air by about 15%, and increase the percentage of CO2 in the air to about 0.04%. How big a deal that is, I could not tell you. Please do not hesitate to jump on in and tell me where I’m wrong… it’s probably in all that conversion crap.

Tim Worstall: Oil Price Disaster? Why doesn't this slow the economy? I don't get it. I realize you can take the entire extent of my knowledge of economy and put it in a closet and still have plenty of room for all your extra books, winter clothes and the Michigan State Marching Band, but this seems to be a pretty straight forward thing to me, and I just cannot figure it out.

1. People/corporations use gas/oil
2. Gas/oil goes up in price
3. People/corporations have less money to spend on non-gas/oil

• Economy suffers

No? Enlightenment welcome.

With the Paul Hamm discussion still underway about whether or not he actually won the gold medal, I thought I might comment on it:

Hamm upset by tape review

I'm somewhat surprised there are still so many people out there who reject instant replay as a part of sports. Are humans perfect? Of course not! Why would you not want instant replay to be part of EVERY sport? At least then you can make accurate a decision as possible. However, to this specific point, I think it's ridiculous that the Koreans are raising this point and thinking they are correct. If you have a replay, then you replay the entire routine, and he apparently had four holds instead of three which would cause further deductions (what that means exactly is beyond my gymnastic comprehending mind).

I see this sort of behavior repeat itself all over the place. Why do people feel like they can use something in one way and not expect the exact same object/event/whatever to be turned around on them? I was going to reference any number of political gaffes at this point, but I’ll save myself the embarrassment of quoting them incorrectly and just point you at the Daily Show which does a much better job of covering them.

I thought this was a bit of an interesting page:

Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)?

So as I mentioned before, the web offers unprecedented opportunity for people to have a soapbox as well as for visibility into conversations that would normally take place in private. The above fascinates me because it highlights one more thing the web is particularly good at: making your case on a controversial (or not) subject.

Above you have someone listing a number of points for why you should use Linux or open source software. While I have my own opinions on this subject (independent from my employer’s opinion), the more interesting point of discussion is the one way nature of the publication. Unlike broad communication mechanisms today, such as newspapers or TV, the web has no editors and has no real incentives for encouraging accurate reporting. This is exacerbated by the number of web pages out there; people end up getting in their loop of checking and all the sources have the same opinion. Picking a selection from the article,

Sites using Microsoft’s IIS web serving software have over double the time offline (on average) than sites using the Apache software, according to a 3-month Swiss evaluation.

Well, that’s nice, but that’s 4 years ago and measured before Windows 2000 even came out (I will assume it was Windows NT 4 running on those machines, but the article did not say). But if I’m the average reader of the article I’m not necessarily going to know that. The web presents it all equally. I do not need a license or millions of dollars to get my opinion out there and state it as fact. The web inherits the same sense of permanence and quality that all these other sources we’ve become accustomed to, yet it is dramatically less reliable for the exact same reasons that it is so accessible. I guess that’s what makes things like this Onion article so funny.

D