One thing that really struck me about the time we live in is how disturbingly close to the dystopia (I was going to give a shout out to the dictionary for making me sound smart, but I remembered this word on my own!) of Orwell's 1984. I mean just look at what the ministry of truth says…

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I do not mean to sound so alarmist. Things will swing back and things will get better. I just feel very uncomfortable looking at the way things are today.

I’d like to take this opportunity to be totally self-righteous. Feel free to tune out here.

I cannot tell you how frustrated I am with conservatives and liberals. Do you guys have any idea what your parties used to stand for? Conservative = conservative use of government. Liberal = liberal use of government. Let’s play a little question and answer:

Should the federal government stop gay marriage?

• Yes = you are a LIBERAL; you believe that government has a responsibility to protect the institution of marriage
• No = you are a CONSERVATIVE; you believe that the government does not have the right to dictate how people live

Should the federal government support faith based institutions?

• Yes = you are a LIBERAL; you believe that the government has a responsibility to encourage a system of beliefs
• No = you are a CONSERVATIVE; you believe that church and state should be separate

Should the government spend more than it takes in?

• Yes = you are a LIBERAL; you believe that the government can take on debt to provide more services for its citizens
• No = you are a CONSERVATIVE; you believe that the government should not burden the future with liabilities for benefits in the present

Should the government restrict drugs, gambling and prostitution?

• Yes = you are a LIBERAL; you believe that the government has a responsibility to enforce a set of moral standards
• No = you are a CONSERVATIVE; you believe that the government should not legislate self-affecting behavior

I could go on. In the interest of full disclosure, according to this, I’m a conservative. Interestingly, I suppose this is just my definition, since the dictionary says that conservative is “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions” and liberalism is “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties” (Fascinating how different those are! Would anyone not consider themselves a liberal according to that definition? They’re not even really antithetical! (Let’s hear it for the dictionary/thesaurus and making me sound smart(-ish)))

Anyhow, doesn’t it seem like that should be how parties divide? Today it is caught up in such a mish-mosh. Conservatives today believe in maintaining their values but then go about pushing those values on everyone else. Liberals … well I don’t know what Liberals do today. They are kind of all around but they seem to be so much less vocal than their conservative counterparts.

One of the most interesting exercises I did during the debates was reading up on all the live blogging taking place on the right wing or right wing leaning blogs (http://www.hughhewitt.com/, http://www.rightwingnews.com/, http://polipundit.com/, http://www.instapundit.com/, etc) . Though I do not espouse many of their beliefs (either about their politics or who won the debates), it gave me a great sense for how people who do not share my beliefs look at the problem. I just think it’s a shame that both of us do not have parties which represent the two sides of our issues in a consistent way.

In truth, if I could ask for one thing from our elected officials, it would be to get out of the way of my life and what I want to do (legally). Guns? Sure. Drugs? Bring them on. Religion? I have one, but lots of other people don’t, and I don’t care. Etc. I think that's probably why I'm not a Republican... I just feel like they have their set of beliefs and they push them in a way that affects me either directly or indirectly (abortion/stem cell; drugs; faith based institutions; etc). I suppose my wish for the government to do what it does (defend us, defend the planet and keep the law) is more libertarian than anything else. Of course, in the thousand shades of gray that is the experience of being in politics, I do not think that anyone would be against these. It is just that when the 10th bill comes up for the refunding of the NEA (which I think is an extension of defend us because it reduces crime by making people more learned), it is tough to call it quite as black and white as I have just laid out.

D

• Search as I type
• Unlimited listing of all items I search for
• Better and deeper previews of what I'm searching for
• Directly open the documents (rather than opening another browser window)
• Highlight search terms

1. Google is going after MS hard core. We knew this was true, but this is the first salvo.
2. Google has made bad product (and non-customer centric) decisions in favor of increasing their revenue stream.

This latter point is the most dramatic. A company that was trying to simply solve the search problem with no assumptions about the right or wrong way to do it would have built a small app that integrated into the shell and opened a custom window on its own (much like X1). But Google did not do any of that:

• They hacked together a solution that uses a browser window instead of making it separate to reuse the engine they already have instead of one designed for the desktop;
• They only have one blank, with limited ability for the average person to figure out how to prune down the findings;
• They display a limited amount per screen to increase their ad revenue (yes I know that ads aren't there, but how long do you think that will last);
• They optimized for something users do not care about any more (400k app size) - actually, I don't know why they did this other than they're good engineers :)

I don't think this is the end of Google being cool; it's just kind of unfortunate that the realities of business are now affecting their behavior.

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:

• Why did you decided to go into Iraq? [pause for answer] If that is the reason you decided to go into Iraq, how did you distinguish that reason for going into Iraq over all the other reasons to go into Iraq? [pause for answer] Because you think that is the most important reason, why was it necessary to go into Iraq 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?
• 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 Canada? (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 Canada en masse?
• When the U.N. passes 17 resolutions against Iran or North Korea, when will you invade? (will mention something about when the coalition agrees, etc) Ok, but Iran isn’t invading anyone, North Korea 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 Iraq) 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?

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

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?

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.
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.)

My 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.

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:

1. Limited amount of oil in the world
2. At some point 1, the amount we can get at easily will begin to decrease
3. At some point 2, the amount we can get at with some work will begin to decrease
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

• Out of oil

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.

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:

• 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.

Ok, that’s a big number. How big? If a very rough approximation of the US 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.

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