I was surprised that good-old-oil-boy George W. was promoting hybrid technology in the energy bill.  Has he greened up a bit?  Or is this simply a token gesture, meant to obscure the immense subsidies to oil business?

But perhaps W is even more devious than I had imagined.  Perhaps he knew that many new "hybrids" are not providing better gas mileage at all - just increased power.  GM’s hybrids are a sham.  Even Honda is a culprit.  The Union of Concerned Scientists has a whole Hybrid Center which details these problems.  The government incentives for buying hybrids still apply, whether you are trying to save the planet, or simply want to get from 0 to 60 quicker.

This is reminiscent of Bush’s 2003 push for a hydrogen economy, which sounds like a good way to go green until you realize hydrogen is currently manufactured mainly from - yep - natural gas.

Nobody should be fooled into thinking that George W. isn’t the least envrionmentally responsible President we’ve seen.

You knew I was bound to be predisposed towards a theory of creation named the Design By Committee Theory ;-).  But this lighthearted look at Intelligent Design points out the (to me) biggest self-inconsistency in that theory - that if you look at the wonders of material creation and infer there was a Divine Creator, you must also look at the evils of material creation and infer that the Creator is either evil or inept, to be fought against in the name of Good, or to be ignored as an inconsequential or random force in our lives.

As Jacob Weisburg of Slate points out, when you assume that matter and material phenomenon is all there is, you really have no rational choice but to find that the material evidence for evolution fundamentally opposes the very existence of a material God.

Thank goodness God is not material.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit [John 4:24]

I think it’s been common scientific knowledge for a while now that one way to conserve oil would be to stop ethanol production.  A recent study puts some numbers on it - that ethanol made from corn requires about 29% more fossil-fuel energy to make than it contains.  Clearly a bad investment.  Would you invest in something that had a huge investment and a guaranteed 29% loss?

Apparently that’s a good enough return for the Senate though, which proposes increasing ethanol subsidy in the new energy bill, to double the ethanol output by 2012.  Gee, I trust them to determine whether medical savings accounts are cost effective, don’t you?

If you’re looking for Political Correctness, don’t read this.  I apologize in advance if I offend anyone.

After 9/11, there was a considerable effort made to distance terrorism from mainstream Islam, and to combat the terrorists dramatic demonstration of their belief that Islam justifies such horrible violence.  After the London bombings, Blair took a bit different tack by asking for more responsibility from the Muslim community to moderate extremism.

I don’t know very much about Islam, especially the various sects that seem to be at war within it.  If Muslims can’t agree on a single interpretation of their religion, how can I hope to?  Which leads me to the question I’ve long been pondering: who speaks for what Islam really means - the moderates or the extremists?  I’d naturally prefer to listen to the moderates as they match my mental model better.  But does that best represent the unfiltered truth?

A recent Pew Global Attitudes Project poll helps put this in some kind of perspective.  It surveys the prevailing attitudes in middle eastern countries about whether suicide bombings of civilians and Osama Bin Laden’s agenda are justifiable interpretations of Islam or not.

The good news is that in most countries, many fewer people support civilian targets than just a few years ago.  Hurray!

The bad news is how many still believe that "violence against civilians is justified often or sometimes."  In Jordan, 57% of the people believe this and 60% have confidence in Osama Bin Laden.  In Pakistan, the numbers are 25% and 51% respectively.  In other less radicalized countries like Indonesia each number is still in double digits.

If one accepts that violence against civilians is inherently evil (including such violence when perpetrated by our own military in Iraq), one can interpret these results in two ways - that (let’s take the extreme case) most Jordanians are bad Muslims, or that the Jordanian brand of Islam harbors some evil.  Change "most" to "a significant proportion" for the other countries surveyed.

I suspect the truth is probably somewhere in between, requiring self-examination among Muslims to ensure they are striving to practice and spread enlightened Islam.  But it also seems a bit of a whitewash to say that Islam is completely pure and benign when it contains a term like jihad that can be so easily used to justify evil.

If you think my logic has gone off track, let me know.  I’m still searching for answers.

Well, it turns out our Governator is deeply engaged in the standard conflicts of interest we’ve come to expect of our leaders.  On March 6th 2004, less than 4 months after his swearing in as Governor of one of the largest economies on the planet, Arnold signed a 5-year contract giving him a whopping 1% of ad sales (minimum $1 million) for a monthly column and a position as "Executive Editor" which I assume is double-speak for "allow his name to be used".

Maybe I’m backward, but I have an expectation that a $1,000,000/year job might take a bit of time to fulfill. But it turns out Arnold was so capable of saving the state, that he was able to do it with one hand while penning columns with the other.  Columns so brilliant each was worth more (possibly much more) than $80,000!  Who knew the man was such a brilliant writer?

Clearly the supplement industry understands the value of the written word, when he earned them millions of dollars of sales of probably unsafe supplements to high-schoolers by penning the lucrative word "veto" on the legislation designed to protect those kids.

I’m just amazed he didn’t see that this would be a problem.  Perhaps steroid use affects the brain more than we think.

Sigh.  At least California hasn’t invaded any foreign countries yet (Seattleites perceptions notwithstanding).  But Bush started out small too.

If you haven’t seen Paul’s post on Sending a Message, do so.  Bringing in news, history, and images in such a brilliantly concise way makes me think this blogging thing really has legs.

Surprise surprise, the leak that illegally exposed a CIA agent came from the top all along.  I’m shocked, shocked!  When a warped sense of loyalty has become more important than honor, safety of our operatives, and even the law, it calls into question the moral judgment of our leadership.  This is so revolting I’ll even put in a plug for the MoveOn PAC petition to fire Rove.

But the bigger picture is even more disturbing in the long run, it’s just a small piece of a pattern of punishment that makes the Conservative power structure so alarming.  Punishing Ambassador Wilson for having more loyalty to the truth than to Bush’s agenda, punishing schools for failing to live up to standards, punishing Iraq for the appearance of seeking WMD.  The preoccupation with punishment seems to have pushed aside essential qualities like fairness and mercy.  The act of punishment seems more important than making sure the punishment is well deserved.  Well, OK, we give up already!  Punish away!  Just please — start with Rove.

I was driving on Tuesday and thought I’d take a little side trip through the AM radio bands.  Naturally I came up against some of the most ludicrous right-wing shows imaginable.  Enter the twilight zone!

My favorite was the Lars Larson show, discussing whether states should regulate the sale of fireworks.  Living in an area of seasonally high fire risk, I personally get a lot of comfort from California’s firework ban.  Ridiculous! says Lars.  Citizens should be free to buy and ignite fireworks without government interference!  Hold individuals responsible for their actions if there are problems like injuries, fires, or deaths!  I think "holding responsible" means "punishing" rather than "forcing restitution", since the latter is impossible in many cases.

Lars says "if you can own a gun, why not a firework?"  Good point.  We should ban guns.

One caller agreed with Larsen that a law against fireworks was bad, as it could result in having more fodder for activist judges.  He pointed out as an example of this danger the case of an astrologer bringing a case against Nasa for cratering the comet (thereby affecting its orbit and any astrological predictions based on it, presumably).  Follow these leaps of logic (wormholes actually):  Too many laws cause activist judges to spring spontaneously into being.  Activist judges cause frivolous lawsuits.

Another caller from a no-firework state was angered that a cop had confiscated his fireworks, when all he was doing was driving around, lighting them off, and throwing them at other cars.  Gee, what could possibly be irresponsible about that?  Apparently Lars didn’t think of anything, at least he didn’t comment on that aspect.  I could think of no better example of why fireworks should be banned so such idiots can be legally apprehended before they cause irreversible damage for no benefit then their own perverse amusement.

It was also interesting to learn that an amazingly high percentage of callers that day are quite content, proud even, to break the law.  The Republicans count these listeners among their "base".  "Base" does seem to be an apt term.  It gives me hope that at least this small sample of the base seems to be on the verge of losing their voting privileges due to immanent felony convictions.

These guys make me proud to be part of the much defamed "elite", which is apparently anyone with a basic education and an even rudimentary grasp of logic.  Lars’ fans clearly aren’t there.  I think that even leaves Lars out, as I’m pretty sure he would engage in his own logical wormholes to disprove that his stated principle of individual responsibility supports flag-burning and the legalization of marijuana.

My conclusion: believing anything said on conservative radio is about as responsible as throwing lit firecrackers at passersby.  Next time, I’ll give Air America a try.

California has a new law in effect (starting yesterday) that requires drivers to turn headlights on whenever there is enough precipitation to require windshield wipers.

That sounds like "best practice" material to me, indeed many vendors (e.g. my Chevy truck) already enforce this best practice by turning the headlights on all the time.  What’s strange is that I haven’t heard this practice promoted anywhere (did I just take my drivers test too many years ago?)  I wonder why it was necessary to pass a law?  Is there no other way to promote good safety practices?  Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to our abnormally long wet season?

In any case, summer is here in force.  By the time it rains again (I’m guessing mid-October), some of us still will not have heard about this law, or forgotten it.  Hope the money goes to schools…

I have no clue whether Unocal should be sold to CNOOC, the 70%-government-owned Chinese petroleum company.  As a good globalist I don’t see many reasons the sale shouldn’t go through.  Remember a couple of decades ago when we sold all those golf courses and hotels to the Japanese?  And then bought many of them back at a steep discount later?

But what makes me insane is China’s presentation of the deal as "normal commercial activity" that should not become politicized.  I even heard a Chinese on the radio saying "if America is our friend they should let the deal go through."  Huhhh?!!

First of all, a 70%-government owned company cannot reasonably be called "normal commercial activity."  Neither is forcing a fixed exchange rate in order to dump cheap goods on the greedy American marketplace.  Neither is lax enforcement of intellectual property rights.  And so on…  [Update 30 June: Put another way, 70% of the decision of CNOOC is driven by the Chinese government, why shouldn't our government also have 70% of the say in the deal?]

Second, hate to break it to you China, but America is not your friend!  We put up with a lot on the theory that economic modernization leads to political reforms and is necessary to having a friendship sometime in the future, but so far the repression of human rights and tampering in the free market, and even the possibility that you’ve got thousands of spies operating within our borders, make our relationship strictly business.

I found this article in the Christian Science Monitor on Nixon’s legacy quite interesting.  The Schlesinger poll on rating the greatness of presidents has a few surprises (FDR and Washington rated similarly great?  What’s-his-first-name Polk and Teddy Roosevelt rated the same?) but unsurprisingly puts Lincoln alone at the summit.

That reminds me of a "chapel" session from my daughter’s school (non-religious ethical education shared by parents at a monthly get-together).  One week the subject was "moral courage" and of course Lincoln was the primary example of doing something bold and "right" and putting everything on the line for his conviction - the lives of many thousands of citizens, the unity of the nation, and even, as it tragically turned out, his own life.  The definition of moral courage as standing firmly by your convictions in the face of unpleasant consequences leaves it open to an interesting twist.  Jefferson Davis probably put as much on the line for his convictions as Lincoln, but we don’t regularly hail him as a paragon of moral courage.  Lincoln ended up with one big advantage in the history books - his side won.  If the Civil War had gone the other way, it’s unclear that Lincoln would still be topping the presidential top ten.  History is written by the victors.

This also has relevance to our times.  I was excited when I first read Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069 a decade ago with its predictions of momentous crises on the scale of World War II facing my children’s generation.  Not to say that there aren’t continual crises happening, just that once in a while the generational factors align to actually do something significant about those crises.  I was excited thinking of all the looming problems that are worthy of being recognized as crises (degradation of our planet, globalization of adequate living standards and human rights, etc.) and anticipated the consequent resolve to solve them.  Instead it appears that the crises of our time might turn out to be the clash of Western (I can’t bring myself to say Christian) and Islamic cultures, the "war on terror", and the globalization of extremism and exploitation by multinational corporations.

Until 9/11 I hadn’t considered that the momentous work predicted during our lifetime might be something less than inspiring to me.  But now I realize I’ve looked at the historical crises through the lens of history written by the victors, a lens that doesn’t apply to the present.  I hope I’m wrong and we unite to solve problems more worthy of history.

Tim Bray, for whom I generally have great respect, is pretty forceful in condemning MSN Spaces’ policy to conform to government censorship in China.  I think everyone (even the Chinese) recognize that limiting fr33dom of expression in this way stifles |)em0cracy.  Some people feel that neither the US, companies based here, nor any other multi-national corporation should be doing any business with China whatsoever until their record on human rights including fr3ed0m of expression matches or exceeds that of western democrassees.  Others think that active engagement is the best way to effect change.  China is not an easy problem, is all I’m saying.  Tim seems to imply it is.

It’s also not clear what Tim proposes as an alternative.  I assume the policy is not one of Microsoft’s own invention, but is driven by the Chinese government.  Should MSN pull out of the joint venture and cease supporting the creation of an active blogging culture in China?  I think that would have a much more chilling effect on fr_e_dom and demokrasi over the long term than restricting a few phrases.

If I were in China I would not be at all worried about carefully crafting my post to work around banned words (you can see I’ve tried it - doesn’t seem too hard), but very worried about the government’s reaction to the substance of my post regardless of how well I spell.  I don’t imagine bloggers will self-limit their expression solely because of MSN’s policy.  Spammers certainly have shown a limitless capacity to keep ahead of spam filters which trap mail containing certain unpleasant words.

It may be simpler to succumb to a knee-jerk predilection to use Microsoft as a whipping post for the Chinese government’s policies, but it clouds the true (and very challenging) questions about where the boundaries are between cultural biases (individualism vs. collectivism) and fundamental rights, and the optimum mechanisms and timetables for strengthening those rights.

Note: We should also be doing more to eliminate censorship (including intimidation resulting in self-censorship as in this story) in our own country.  Very few cultural questions there about what is right and what’s wrong, and as citizens we are empowered to do something about it!

I think Paul and I occupy similar social levels and political niches in our respective countries, which makes the difference in our results from the Political Gauge intriguing.  This brought to mind the differences between the European Dream and the American Dream Rifkin writes about.  Is government spending on social services a means toward greater personal freedom, or an indication of excessive government intrusion into peoples lives (and pocketbooks)?  Anyway, on to my results:

On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (12).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Centrist (41).

The fact that I’m regarded as a fiscal centrist yet a pretty staunch Democrat seemed to me to illustrate shifts in the traditional Republican/Democratic fiscal values equation.  Clearly the Republicans aren’t all about fiscal discipline as we were led to believe (Reagan was not just an outlier).  And the Democrats are surely concerned about inappropriate spending levels.  It will be interesting to see if Democrats can capitalize on the decades of Republican "fiscal responsibility" propaganda to gain a more level playing field with the Republicans on fiscal matters.

I am very interested in the influences of globalization today (outsourcing rocks - more on that later).  Over lunch I read a great commentary (even though it’s from a graduation speech) by Stephen T. Gray called Where the media end and you begin from the Christian Science Monitor [I think at some point soon the full text for this article will no longer be free].  It ties the pace of change in our world to the availability of information (media of all kinds).  Some nuggets that attempt to distill the gist of the article:

"People will go right on doing what they’re doing - until they get new information."

"New information drives choices, and choices drive change."

"With so much more information - so many more choices - change will come faster.  Add the rest of the world and it’s even more dramatic.  Half of humanity lives in information conditions like those of [America] 100 years ago.  Roughly a quarter lives in information conditions like those of [America] in the ’50s or ’60s.  All of these people are trying desperately to catch up, realizing that better information is the path to better lives.  As they do, change will accelerate in their world - and ours."

I’d add to the last bit that the three quarters of the world mentioned above doesn’t need to desparately seek better information conditions to make them available - those conditions will find them soon enough.

"Billions of people can’t get enough information to develop their native abilities.  In this century, those reserves of ability will be tapped as never before. … This will spur the fastest advance in human freedoms and quality of life in history."

Awesome.