Google Earth is apparently now a political tool, as opposed to, you know, its intended purpose of providing accurate information about the geography of the world we live on.
A new plug-in for the mapping program allows you to "see" the destruction that Global Warming will wreck on our coastal cities and beach resorts. It's the perfect device if you really want to know what Greenland will look like without all that ice (I'm guessing it will be rocky and empty), or if you just can't wait to see Miami turn into America's Venice.
Or, if you're like Al Gore (who provides the narration), and spreading the fear of Global Warming is your only real purpose in life.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Why I Hate New York City: NYPD abuses power
It was recently brought to my attention that this blog is the number three response on Google blog search for the phrase "I Hate New York City", so here's to moving up towards number one.
This is actually pretty old news, but the problem remains the same, and that problem is that the NYPD has been using its "stop-and-frisk" program to stop and frisk thousands of innocent people in an obvious abuse of power. In a period of just three months (April through June, 2009) the NYPD stopped and interrogated more than 140,000 individuals on the streets of the city. According to police department statistics, more than nine out of ten of those incidents ended with no citations issued, and no arrests being made.
So what, you say, if the police want to stop some people in the name of security, that's fine. Well, besides infringing on the rights of those people (9 out of 10 who were doing nothing wrong), and disrupting their day with an unnecessary interrogation, the names and addresses of everyone who has been stopped by the NYPD in the last five years (since the stop-and-frisk program began) is permanently stored on the department's computer system. Having that information in the database can more easily make them the subject of future investigations.
But even if you don't care about personal liberty and the idea that an individual has a right to some modicum of privacy, this will surely concern you: the innocent people victimized by this program are almost always minorities. Of those 140,000 stops between April and June, more than half (74,283) were of blacks, and 44,296 were of Latinos. Less than 14,000 were of whites.
In essence, the NYPD is building a huge database of the minorities in the city, and the information in that database can be collected at will from anyone at anytime with no reason given by the officer conducting the stop. If you resist or refuse to cooperate with the "stop-and-frisk", I'm sure they can charge you just the same as if you were resisting arrest for actually doing something wrong.
But this is not a case of racial profiling, and it should not be mistaken as one. This is a case of civil liberties, and it just so happens that more minorities have had theirs abused.
Whats the difference? If it was a case of racial profiling, you correct it by balancing the number of people stopped. All that's going to do is give the police in New York City more of an excuse for stopping people; they will just have to make sure they stop more white people next time.
Stopping and interrogating any innocent person is wrong, regardless of the color of their skin, and storing their personal information on a police database (again, when they are completely innocent) is even worse. At their current pace, the NYCLU estimates that the NYPD will stop more than 600,000 innocent people during 2009.
I still don't understand why anyone would choose to live in New York City. The cops are after you, even if you're a model citizen.
This is actually pretty old news, but the problem remains the same, and that problem is that the NYPD has been using its "stop-and-frisk" program to stop and frisk thousands of innocent people in an obvious abuse of power. In a period of just three months (April through June, 2009) the NYPD stopped and interrogated more than 140,000 individuals on the streets of the city. According to police department statistics, more than nine out of ten of those incidents ended with no citations issued, and no arrests being made.
So what, you say, if the police want to stop some people in the name of security, that's fine. Well, besides infringing on the rights of those people (9 out of 10 who were doing nothing wrong), and disrupting their day with an unnecessary interrogation, the names and addresses of everyone who has been stopped by the NYPD in the last five years (since the stop-and-frisk program began) is permanently stored on the department's computer system. Having that information in the database can more easily make them the subject of future investigations.
But even if you don't care about personal liberty and the idea that an individual has a right to some modicum of privacy, this will surely concern you: the innocent people victimized by this program are almost always minorities. Of those 140,000 stops between April and June, more than half (74,283) were of blacks, and 44,296 were of Latinos. Less than 14,000 were of whites.
In essence, the NYPD is building a huge database of the minorities in the city, and the information in that database can be collected at will from anyone at anytime with no reason given by the officer conducting the stop. If you resist or refuse to cooperate with the "stop-and-frisk", I'm sure they can charge you just the same as if you were resisting arrest for actually doing something wrong.
But this is not a case of racial profiling, and it should not be mistaken as one. This is a case of civil liberties, and it just so happens that more minorities have had theirs abused.
Whats the difference? If it was a case of racial profiling, you correct it by balancing the number of people stopped. All that's going to do is give the police in New York City more of an excuse for stopping people; they will just have to make sure they stop more white people next time.
Stopping and interrogating any innocent person is wrong, regardless of the color of their skin, and storing their personal information on a police database (again, when they are completely innocent) is even worse. At their current pace, the NYCLU estimates that the NYPD will stop more than 600,000 innocent people during 2009.
I still don't understand why anyone would choose to live in New York City. The cops are after you, even if you're a model citizen.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A Communication Revolution
A really cool video on this "social media fad" that we seem to be experiencing right now. I'm not sure how accurate the statistics are (really, are we ever?), but I would assume they are only taking into account Americans, or maybe all Internet users, for their data rather than the entire population of the world.
Viva la Revolution.
Viva la Revolution.
The Good Old Days
Remember the 1990s? Things were pretty awesome back then, I think we all would agree.
The world just isn't the same anymore. Case in point:
"Boris Yeltsin got so drunk during a 1995 visit to Washington that Secret Service agents found him a few hundred feet from the White House clad only in his underwear and trying to hail a cab — because, he explained, he wanted a pizza."
Honestly, I'm tempted to buy Taylor Branch's new book on the Clinton years in the White House just to find out more about that particular incident. For now, I'll settle for these details:
"The Yeltsin incident came after one of the former Russian President’s late-night drinking sessions. On the night in question, he was staying at Blair House, the guest quarters for foreign leaders visiting Washington, which sits directly across from the White House in Pennsylvania Avenue.
He managed to give his Secret Service detail the slip. Frantically looking for him, they found him in his underwear on Pennsylvania Avenue trying to get a taxi. He explained in slurred words that he wanted a pizza."
Somehow, I just can't see a meeting between Obama and Medvedev (or Putin) ending like that.
The world just isn't the same anymore. Case in point:
"Boris Yeltsin got so drunk during a 1995 visit to Washington that Secret Service agents found him a few hundred feet from the White House clad only in his underwear and trying to hail a cab — because, he explained, he wanted a pizza."
Honestly, I'm tempted to buy Taylor Branch's new book on the Clinton years in the White House just to find out more about that particular incident. For now, I'll settle for these details:
"The Yeltsin incident came after one of the former Russian President’s late-night drinking sessions. On the night in question, he was staying at Blair House, the guest quarters for foreign leaders visiting Washington, which sits directly across from the White House in Pennsylvania Avenue.
He managed to give his Secret Service detail the slip. Frantically looking for him, they found him in his underwear on Pennsylvania Avenue trying to get a taxi. He explained in slurred words that he wanted a pizza."
Somehow, I just can't see a meeting between Obama and Medvedev (or Putin) ending like that.
Practice the Second Amendment
Since Obama became President, millions of Americans have decided to patriotically practice the Second Amendment by adding to their own personal supply of firearms. Unfortunately, all those new gun purchases has created a bit of a shortage when it comes to bullets. The AP reports:
"Gun sales spiked when it became clear Obama would be elected a year ago and purchases continued to rise in his first few months of office. The FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that 6.1 million background checks for gun sales were issued from January to May, an increase of 25.6 percent from the same period the year before.
"That is going to cause an upswing in ammunition sales," said Larry Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing about 5,000 members. "Without bullets a gun is just a paper weight."
Correction, Mr. Keane, without bullets a gun is just a really cool paperweight.
Or it could be that a gun without bullets is your new carry-on, at least on Amtrak. The Senate voted on Wednesday to allow travelers to carry handguns in their luggage while traveling on America's system of passenger trains. Perhaps the most amazing thing about this is that it passed by a vote of 68-32, meaning that while the two parties can't seem to agree on much, there is apparently bi-partisan support for bringing guns on trains. Go figure.
Maybe they were thinking this will finally be the right kind of incentive for Amtrak to run their trains on time.
"Gun sales spiked when it became clear Obama would be elected a year ago and purchases continued to rise in his first few months of office. The FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that 6.1 million background checks for gun sales were issued from January to May, an increase of 25.6 percent from the same period the year before.
"That is going to cause an upswing in ammunition sales," said Larry Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing about 5,000 members. "Without bullets a gun is just a paper weight."
Correction, Mr. Keane, without bullets a gun is just a really cool paperweight.
Or it could be that a gun without bullets is your new carry-on, at least on Amtrak. The Senate voted on Wednesday to allow travelers to carry handguns in their luggage while traveling on America's system of passenger trains. Perhaps the most amazing thing about this is that it passed by a vote of 68-32, meaning that while the two parties can't seem to agree on much, there is apparently bi-partisan support for bringing guns on trains. Go figure.
Maybe they were thinking this will finally be the right kind of incentive for Amtrak to run their trains on time.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
More Bad News
At least it's bad news presented in graph form (as we've been over before, I love graphs). But, as I continue to pursue a potential career in journalism, this certainly doesn't look good.
Michael Mandel, of BusinessWeek, just wrote a comprehensively negative report on the state of journalism in America. Derek Thompson of The Atlantic comments:
"this is, sadly, perhaps the 21st century equivalent of studying northern Atlantic nautical charts in your bedroom chamber on the Titanic. But these charts are still useful!"
So how fast is the ship sinking? If these are to be believed, what the industry is going through right now is simply the exaggeration of a trend that began in the early '90 and picked up speed around 2000 (which is just about the time a little thing called the Internet became more or less ubiquitous). In fact, Mandel makes the case that journalism's decline is worse than that of industry.
But its not limited to just newspapers. News periodicals seem to be on a similar path, though the decline is not as dramatic. Even television news is suffering through a downturn, but this seems to be more of a recent occurrence and not a long-term trend. At least not yet.
And then there's this, from Google Trends via Reason, that shows the online readership (in terms of Daily Unique Visitors) for the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Huffington Post. Two years ago, the WaPo was the clear leader, and they maintained a strong edge until the run-up to the election last year (that's the spike for all three). Since then, all three have been in a virtual dead-heat.
So, just to recap, in the past two years the HuffPo has doubled their online readership while the Washington Post has seen their readership more or less cut in half. The WSJ still gets about the same, (and lets be honest, that paper will always have a pretty stable readership because of the financial coverage) making it a good control for a study like this.
I doubt the Washington Post is the only paper to have seen such a dramatic slide in the past year. It's not good news for the news.
Michael Mandel, of BusinessWeek, just wrote a comprehensively negative report on the state of journalism in America. Derek Thompson of The Atlantic comments:
"this is, sadly, perhaps the 21st century equivalent of studying northern Atlantic nautical charts in your bedroom chamber on the Titanic. But these charts are still useful!"
So how fast is the ship sinking? If these are to be believed, what the industry is going through right now is simply the exaggeration of a trend that began in the early '90 and picked up speed around 2000 (which is just about the time a little thing called the Internet became more or less ubiquitous). In fact, Mandel makes the case that journalism's decline is worse than that of industry.
But its not limited to just newspapers. News periodicals seem to be on a similar path, though the decline is not as dramatic. Even television news is suffering through a downturn, but this seems to be more of a recent occurrence and not a long-term trend. At least not yet.
And then there's this, from Google Trends via Reason, that shows the online readership (in terms of Daily Unique Visitors) for the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Huffington Post. Two years ago, the WaPo was the clear leader, and they maintained a strong edge until the run-up to the election last year (that's the spike for all three). Since then, all three have been in a virtual dead-heat.
So, just to recap, in the past two years the HuffPo has doubled their online readership while the Washington Post has seen their readership more or less cut in half. The WSJ still gets about the same, (and lets be honest, that paper will always have a pretty stable readership because of the financial coverage) making it a good control for a study like this.
I doubt the Washington Post is the only paper to have seen such a dramatic slide in the past year. It's not good news for the news.
Football Season Begins
As a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, I always enjoy seeing Dallas get embarrassed.
The Dallas Cowboys opened their new, $1 billion stadium on Sunday night. In an attempt to set the NFL record for attendance (which they did by packing more than 105,000 people into the place), the Cowboys sold thousands of $29 "Party-pass" tickets for standing room only. Most of this standing room was located on decks behind the end zones, but apparently a good amount of fans were forced to watch the game from outside on giant TVs. Says the Dallas News:
"...many fans didn't realize that their tickets did not guarantee them space inside the stadium walls. Those Party Passes only assured them access to the 7 acres of plazas just outside the end zone doors. "
So rather than staying home, where they could have watched the games for free on television, those fans spent almost thirty bucks to watch the games at the stadium on television. Oh, and pay stadium prices for concessions (which, in Daalas, includes $90 pizza, and $66 12-packs of beer, as I wrote about before).
Understandably, some fans who bought the "party-passes" simply left and went home.
Adding insult to injury, Dallas lost the game to the rival New York Giants, 33-31.
The Dallas Cowboys opened their new, $1 billion stadium on Sunday night. In an attempt to set the NFL record for attendance (which they did by packing more than 105,000 people into the place), the Cowboys sold thousands of $29 "Party-pass" tickets for standing room only. Most of this standing room was located on decks behind the end zones, but apparently a good amount of fans were forced to watch the game from outside on giant TVs. Says the Dallas News:
"...many fans didn't realize that their tickets did not guarantee them space inside the stadium walls. Those Party Passes only assured them access to the 7 acres of plazas just outside the end zone doors. "
So rather than staying home, where they could have watched the games for free on television, those fans spent almost thirty bucks to watch the games at the stadium on television. Oh, and pay stadium prices for concessions (which, in Daalas, includes $90 pizza, and $66 12-packs of beer, as I wrote about before).
Understandably, some fans who bought the "party-passes" simply left and went home.
Adding insult to injury, Dallas lost the game to the rival New York Giants, 33-31.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sometimes the government is okay
I dislike having to admit that government regulation of business is ever a good thing, but in rare instances it does put a smile on my face.
One of those rare instances might be happening on Monday at the Brookings Institute, when FCC chairman Julius Genachowski might announce new rules that will guarantee net neutrality.
As a general consumer of the Internet, I'm very much in favor of net neutrality, which means that all content on the 'net has to be treated equally by ISPs. In other words, Internet Providers cannot make certain streams of information faster than others. Of course, I would rather see consumer choice and the free market force net neutrality to be a reality, but in case I'm going to be willing to accept the government's intrusion.
Generally, I strongly dislike the FCC, because they do a lot to restrict free speech and free business practices, but this is a perfect example of the right way for government to act in a limited way on a necessary issue. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.
One of those rare instances might be happening on Monday at the Brookings Institute, when FCC chairman Julius Genachowski might announce new rules that will guarantee net neutrality.
As a general consumer of the Internet, I'm very much in favor of net neutrality, which means that all content on the 'net has to be treated equally by ISPs. In other words, Internet Providers cannot make certain streams of information faster than others. Of course, I would rather see consumer choice and the free market force net neutrality to be a reality, but in case I'm going to be willing to accept the government's intrusion.
Generally, I strongly dislike the FCC, because they do a lot to restrict free speech and free business practices, but this is a perfect example of the right way for government to act in a limited way on a necessary issue. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Michelle Obama goes shopping, shuts down city
For most of us, stopping at a local farmer's market or produce stand is nothing more than a quick errand. Not so for Michelle Obama. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank explains:
"The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens."
There's nothing like shutting down a few city blocks and a Metro station in the name of buying your groceries. And sure, maybe eating organic, locally grown produce is worth inconveniencing tons of other people in the city. Maybe. But wouldn't you think the Obamas would be a little more concerned about the impact this shopping trip had on the environment? As Milbank points out, each item purchased would have a carbon footprint of several tons when you consider all the vehicles that had to be dispatched to make the trip possible.
Part of the "shopping trip" involved a brief speech by the First Lady about the importance of eating healthy. According to Milbank:
"She spoke of her own culinary efforts: "There are times when putting together a healthy meal is harder than you might imagine."
Particularly when it involves a sound stage, an interpreter for the deaf, three TV satellite trucks and the closing of part of downtown Washington. "
"The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens."
There's nothing like shutting down a few city blocks and a Metro station in the name of buying your groceries. And sure, maybe eating organic, locally grown produce is worth inconveniencing tons of other people in the city. Maybe. But wouldn't you think the Obamas would be a little more concerned about the impact this shopping trip had on the environment? As Milbank points out, each item purchased would have a carbon footprint of several tons when you consider all the vehicles that had to be dispatched to make the trip possible.
Part of the "shopping trip" involved a brief speech by the First Lady about the importance of eating healthy. According to Milbank:
"She spoke of her own culinary efforts: "There are times when putting together a healthy meal is harder than you might imagine."
Particularly when it involves a sound stage, an interpreter for the deaf, three TV satellite trucks and the closing of part of downtown Washington. "
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) doesn't understand irony
At least Rep. Brady is trying to support the call for smaller government; though I'm not sure he really understands what that means.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Brady sent a letter to the Washington METRO on Wednesday demanding an explanation for the lack of increased service during the "tea-party protest" this weekend. The problem, of course, is that the protest was against taxpayer-funded big government spending, which would include things like, oh, public transportation.
As WSJ blogger Brody Mullins put it:
"Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services. "
But, you know what, I'm actually going to give Brady some credit for this. At least he's showing that he cares about the movement, even if he's got a funny way of trying to help out. It just goes to show that even the politicians who disagree with big government spending lack the ability to think of any other alternative. At least there is hope for people like Brady, he just needs a little help to see the light.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Brady sent a letter to the Washington METRO on Wednesday demanding an explanation for the lack of increased service during the "tea-party protest" this weekend. The problem, of course, is that the protest was against taxpayer-funded big government spending, which would include things like, oh, public transportation.
As WSJ blogger Brody Mullins put it:
"Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services. "
But, you know what, I'm actually going to give Brady some credit for this. At least he's showing that he cares about the movement, even if he's got a funny way of trying to help out. It just goes to show that even the politicians who disagree with big government spending lack the ability to think of any other alternative. At least there is hope for people like Brady, he just needs a little help to see the light.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Crazy New Jersey
Public Policy Polling made a bit of an unnerving discovery during recent polling in New Jersey. Of course, no matter how out of whack you might think New Jersey is, this kind of trend is probably not limited to one state.
"We've been uncovering a remarkable level of anger toward Barack Obama in a lot of our recent polling so for New Jersey we decided to go a step further in determining how extreme some people's feelings are about the President and asked respondents if they think he is the Anti-Christ.
8% said yes. 13% aren't sure. Among Republicans 14% said yes and 15% weren't sure."
Obviously, I'm not the biggest fan of Mr. Obama, but is he the Anti-Christ? Well, lets say I have my doubts about that. The fact that more than 20 percent of people in New Jersey (and keep in mind, that's a Blue State) think it's possible that he could be the Anti-Christ is another disturbing sign of the extreme radicalism that is sweeping the nation.
Then again, there's always the possibility that this kind of a result shows one of the weaknesses of public polling: you can't trust the responses people give. If I had the chance to compare a politician to the Anti-Christ in an anonymous phone survey, even if I didn't think it was true, I might answer yes. So maybe that accounts for a few percentage points in that one particular poll, but the larger trend remains a concern.
The cross-tabulation of the survey provides some interesting findings as well. The eight percent of people who said Obama was the Anti-Christ were evenly split between males and females (8 8% in each respective group), but young people (ages 18-29) overwhelmingly said yes (24%). Given young people's penchant for shenanigans, I'd say you can chalk a lot of that up to the issue I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Finally, Hispanic people (24%) apparently are much more afraid of Obama being the Anti-Christ than white people (7%) are.
PPP says they will be asking the same question in a nationwide poll this weekend. And in case you're wondering how they came up with such a crazy question in the first place, well, like all good things these days, it came from Twitter.
As for extremism in New Jersey, PPP's found some other scary facts too:
"The extremism in New Jersey isn't limited to the right though. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.
Beyond that 21% of respondents, including 33% of Republicans, express the belief that Obama was not born in the United States.
Combine the birthers and the truthers and you've got 37% of the electorate. And the 3% of voters who really need to get their heads checked are the ones who are both birthers and truthers."
So it doesn't seem to matter which side of the political spectrum you're on; there's a growing crowd of crazies. Rational debate over actual issues becomes increasingly impossible in such an environment, and with fewer reasonable people making reasonable arguments, the extreme voices get louder and garner more attention. This should be concerning for anyone who cares about liberty, because extremest positions (of both the right and the left) usually don't favor freedom.
"We've been uncovering a remarkable level of anger toward Barack Obama in a lot of our recent polling so for New Jersey we decided to go a step further in determining how extreme some people's feelings are about the President and asked respondents if they think he is the Anti-Christ.
8% said yes. 13% aren't sure. Among Republicans 14% said yes and 15% weren't sure."
Obviously, I'm not the biggest fan of Mr. Obama, but is he the Anti-Christ? Well, lets say I have my doubts about that. The fact that more than 20 percent of people in New Jersey (and keep in mind, that's a Blue State) think it's possible that he could be the Anti-Christ is another disturbing sign of the extreme radicalism that is sweeping the nation.
Then again, there's always the possibility that this kind of a result shows one of the weaknesses of public polling: you can't trust the responses people give. If I had the chance to compare a politician to the Anti-Christ in an anonymous phone survey, even if I didn't think it was true, I might answer yes. So maybe that accounts for a few percentage points in that one particular poll, but the larger trend remains a concern.
The cross-tabulation of the survey provides some interesting findings as well. The eight percent of people who said Obama was the Anti-Christ were evenly split between males and females (8 8% in each respective group), but young people (ages 18-29) overwhelmingly said yes (24%). Given young people's penchant for shenanigans, I'd say you can chalk a lot of that up to the issue I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Finally, Hispanic people (24%) apparently are much more afraid of Obama being the Anti-Christ than white people (7%) are.
PPP says they will be asking the same question in a nationwide poll this weekend. And in case you're wondering how they came up with such a crazy question in the first place, well, like all good things these days, it came from Twitter.
As for extremism in New Jersey, PPP's found some other scary facts too:
"The extremism in New Jersey isn't limited to the right though. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.
Beyond that 21% of respondents, including 33% of Republicans, express the belief that Obama was not born in the United States.
Combine the birthers and the truthers and you've got 37% of the electorate. And the 3% of voters who really need to get their heads checked are the ones who are both birthers and truthers."
So it doesn't seem to matter which side of the political spectrum you're on; there's a growing crowd of crazies. Rational debate over actual issues becomes increasingly impossible in such an environment, and with fewer reasonable people making reasonable arguments, the extreme voices get louder and garner more attention. This should be concerning for anyone who cares about liberty, because extremest positions (of both the right and the left) usually don't favor freedom.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Technically, it's Change
But I think violating Habeas Corpus is pretty much the same no matter where you do it. Apparently, the Obama Administration does not agree.
During the campaign, Obama (and pretty much every other Democrat, Independent, and even some Republicans) regularly criticized Bush's policies in Guantanamo Bay. However, as the Washington Independent reports, the new policies being enacted at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan (one of the major detention centers in the nation) sound like "GTMO", Part II.
“They’re setting up what amounts to a CSRT,” said David Remes, the legal director of the non-profit Appeal for Justice law firm who represents 19 Guantanamo detainees. A CSRT is the acronym for a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the old mechanism at Guantanamo to adjudicate not a detainee’s guilt or innocence, but whether he constituted a threat to U.S. national security. Detainees were at the mercy of hearsay evidence and had the burden of proving that they weren’t a threat and the government’s case against them was erroneous. The Bush administration contended that CSRTs provided all the process rights to which Guantanamo detainees were entitled."
The Washington Post actually heralds this as a victory for the rights of prisoners, since the new policies mean that indefinite detentions can be challenged. But the truth is hidden a few paragraphs down the page:
"Under the new rules, each detainee will be assigned a U.S. military official, not a lawyer, to represent his interests and examine evidence against him. In proceedings before a board composed of military officers, detainees will have the right to call witnesses and present evidence when it is "reasonably available," the official said."
If you're going to have a "trial" where the prosecution and the judges work for the same organization (in this case, the U.S. military), I don't think that really counts as a fair trial. Not to mention the fact that you would be assigned another member of the military to act as your defense council. Surely, this is a huge step forward for the prisoners at Bagram. Now, instead of being held indefinitely without a trial, they will be given a sham trial that will "justify" holding them indefinitely.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that we should make it easier for terrorists to be released from prisons (least of all in Afghanistan). If we want to hold them indefinitely for being enemy combatants who are a security risk, then so be it. But let's stop pretending like we are giving them a fair shake.
During the campaign, Obama (and pretty much every other Democrat, Independent, and even some Republicans) regularly criticized Bush's policies in Guantanamo Bay. However, as the Washington Independent reports, the new policies being enacted at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan (one of the major detention centers in the nation) sound like "GTMO", Part II.
“They’re setting up what amounts to a CSRT,” said David Remes, the legal director of the non-profit Appeal for Justice law firm who represents 19 Guantanamo detainees. A CSRT is the acronym for a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the old mechanism at Guantanamo to adjudicate not a detainee’s guilt or innocence, but whether he constituted a threat to U.S. national security. Detainees were at the mercy of hearsay evidence and had the burden of proving that they weren’t a threat and the government’s case against them was erroneous. The Bush administration contended that CSRTs provided all the process rights to which Guantanamo detainees were entitled."
The Washington Post actually heralds this as a victory for the rights of prisoners, since the new policies mean that indefinite detentions can be challenged. But the truth is hidden a few paragraphs down the page:
"Under the new rules, each detainee will be assigned a U.S. military official, not a lawyer, to represent his interests and examine evidence against him. In proceedings before a board composed of military officers, detainees will have the right to call witnesses and present evidence when it is "reasonably available," the official said."
If you're going to have a "trial" where the prosecution and the judges work for the same organization (in this case, the U.S. military), I don't think that really counts as a fair trial. Not to mention the fact that you would be assigned another member of the military to act as your defense council. Surely, this is a huge step forward for the prisoners at Bagram. Now, instead of being held indefinitely without a trial, they will be given a sham trial that will "justify" holding them indefinitely.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that we should make it easier for terrorists to be released from prisons (least of all in Afghanistan). If we want to hold them indefinitely for being enemy combatants who are a security risk, then so be it. But let's stop pretending like we are giving them a fair shake.
Pigeon Beats Internet
I don't really know what to make of this.
It seems that the Internet in South Africa is so slow that a carrier pigeon with a flash drive strapped to its back can move data from place to place more quickly.
I'm a little worried about what this might mean for the World Cup (to be held in South Africa) next summer. Rather than getting real-time scoring updates over the Internet, are we all going to have to wait for the nation's fleet of pigeons to deliver the results?
It seems that the Internet in South Africa is so slow that a carrier pigeon with a flash drive strapped to its back can move data from place to place more quickly.
I'm a little worried about what this might mean for the World Cup (to be held in South Africa) next summer. Rather than getting real-time scoring updates over the Internet, are we all going to have to wait for the nation's fleet of pigeons to deliver the results?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Eight Years Later, Part II
I was actually thinking about this earlier today, and apparently I wasn't the only one. What would 9/11 have been like if it happened today. It's only been eight years, but the technological advances, at least as far as social media goes, have been pretty amazing. What if Facebook, Twitter, and iPhones had been around back then?
Alexia Tsotsis offers a few possibilities. Although his ideas are not as detailed or imaginative as they could have been, he does at least try to answer the question.
"This realtime 24-7 Internet did not exist in 2001. We had the earliest versions of social media, instant messaging and blogs. But we had nowhere near the household use of many-to-many communication channels like Twitter and text messages. For the most part we spent 9-11 watching CNN. The Web in '09 is more about doing rather than watching. Twitter asks, "What are you doing RIGHT NOW?""
When I was thinking about this earlier today, it struck me how totally different the day would be remembered if we had all these social media tools back then. Of course the events would be the same, but the record of the day would be much more personal, and probably more horrific.
On the more positive side, there would have been less confusion, at least at first, about what had happened.
On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, CNN ran a minute-by-minute replay of their coverage of that morning. What I was struck by was the complete confusion about what had happened to the first tower. Until they actually saw the second plane impact the South Tower, the officials seemed to have no idea what happened to the North Tower. Despite having plenty of people in the street saying a plane had hit the building, they seemed completely unwilling to believe that story. If it had been today, the anchors would have just sat in the newsroom and read aloud the various postings online that reported what had happened.
In many ways, I think 9/11 is responsible for the way news coverage of major events has changed. Even without the impact of social media, personal accounts and video recordings were the major sources for journalists, many of whom couldn't get as close to the action as the people who were living through it. Obviously, the most compelling footage came from in and around Ground Zero, so the news networks picked up on that model, and, voila, you have the roots of today's heavy influence of "citizen journalism" in cable news.
Alexia Tsotsis offers a few possibilities. Although his ideas are not as detailed or imaginative as they could have been, he does at least try to answer the question.
"This realtime 24-7 Internet did not exist in 2001. We had the earliest versions of social media, instant messaging and blogs. But we had nowhere near the household use of many-to-many communication channels like Twitter and text messages. For the most part we spent 9-11 watching CNN. The Web in '09 is more about doing rather than watching. Twitter asks, "What are you doing RIGHT NOW?""
When I was thinking about this earlier today, it struck me how totally different the day would be remembered if we had all these social media tools back then. Of course the events would be the same, but the record of the day would be much more personal, and probably more horrific.
On the more positive side, there would have been less confusion, at least at first, about what had happened.
On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, CNN ran a minute-by-minute replay of their coverage of that morning. What I was struck by was the complete confusion about what had happened to the first tower. Until they actually saw the second plane impact the South Tower, the officials seemed to have no idea what happened to the North Tower. Despite having plenty of people in the street saying a plane had hit the building, they seemed completely unwilling to believe that story. If it had been today, the anchors would have just sat in the newsroom and read aloud the various postings online that reported what had happened.
In many ways, I think 9/11 is responsible for the way news coverage of major events has changed. Even without the impact of social media, personal accounts and video recordings were the major sources for journalists, many of whom couldn't get as close to the action as the people who were living through it. Obviously, the most compelling footage came from in and around Ground Zero, so the news networks picked up on that model, and, voila, you have the roots of today's heavy influence of "citizen journalism" in cable news.
Eight Years Later
It is that moment that my generation will always remember.
On September 11, 2001, I was just entering my first full week of high school. I was in second period World History class with Ms. Croley when the announcement was made. I was sitting in the third seat of the second row on the left-hand side of classroom #100 at St. Pius X. She turned off the projector and told us to say a prayer. It was a few hours later (in Ms. Cebula's fifth period Physical Science class) that I saw the video for the first time. I'm not sure how much later it was before I believed it was real.
Eight years later, we still haven't caught Osama. We still haven't rebuilt much of anything on that block in lower Manhattan. But, we also haven't been attacked again. I don't know if that's a victory or not, but at least its not a loss. The important thing is to remember those who died, thank those who have kept us safe since then, and (most importantly) to resist the temptation to trade our rights in name of security, despite the fear that might encourage us to do so.
Andrew Sullivan offers four things we have learned from the war that began on 9/11:
"The first is that total security is impossible in a free society.
On September 11, 2001, I was just entering my first full week of high school. I was in second period World History class with Ms. Croley when the announcement was made. I was sitting in the third seat of the second row on the left-hand side of classroom #100 at St. Pius X. She turned off the projector and told us to say a prayer. It was a few hours later (in Ms. Cebula's fifth period Physical Science class) that I saw the video for the first time. I'm not sure how much later it was before I believed it was real.
Eight years later, we still haven't caught Osama. We still haven't rebuilt much of anything on that block in lower Manhattan. But, we also haven't been attacked again. I don't know if that's a victory or not, but at least its not a loss. The important thing is to remember those who died, thank those who have kept us safe since then, and (most importantly) to resist the temptation to trade our rights in name of security, despite the fear that might encourage us to do so.
Andrew Sullivan offers four things we have learned from the war that began on 9/11:
"The first is that total security is impossible in a free society.
I understand deeply the hankering for it in the ashes of the World Trade Center. But we should all acknowledge that a free society will never be able to have 100 percent level of success against those who are prepared to kill themselves in acts of terror. The Cheney promise is a mirage - and getting there could mean losing far more than we gain.
The second is that defeating this menace is not amenable to conventional military power; and that intervention in Muslim countries needs to be calibrated very, very carefully to avoid generating more terror than we manage to suppress.
The third is that nation-building and counter-insurgency in countries which are barely nations and failed states is a century-long enterprise. Occupations that long are imperial ventures. Imperial ventures can become self-sustaining. They are harder to end than government programs, because they are, in part, a government program. Unless they can be shown to drastically reduce the terror threat to the West, they can be ghastly errors. The war in Iraq remains such a ghastly error. The war in Afghanistan, alas, now another. A great power with the debt levels of the US right now is not Britain in the early 19th century; it's Britain in the early 20th century. Empire has to be paid for. And we have long since run out of money.
Fourth. We should not grant the enemy more allure than he deserves. Al Qaeda is now weaker than it once was - rejected by the people in Iraq and Jordan, decimated by the military and CIA under Bush and Obama. They did not have access to weapons of mass destruction, or they would have used them a long time ago. Smarter, more targeted detection, surveillance, skilled interrogation (not sadistic brutality), more skilled and culturally-attuned human intelligence: these are the skills we need."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tough Choices
I'm trying to stay out of the health insurance coverage as much as possible, but this is just too good to pass up.
Obama has talked a lot about the difficult choices that many Americans face. Choices between buying health insurance or paying rent or buying groceries. But this ignores the other group of uninsured who have an equally difficult choice. After all, no American should have to choose between health insurance and other cool stuff they could buy instead.
Obama has talked a lot about the difficult choices that many Americans face. Choices between buying health insurance or paying rent or buying groceries. But this ignores the other group of uninsured who have an equally difficult choice. After all, no American should have to choose between health insurance and other cool stuff they could buy instead.
More Good News
Maybe I should just accept the fact that I'm probably not going to be working for a newspaper and start thinking about other careers. If the fact that newspapers are dying wasn't going to make it tough enough for people like me to find a job, now it appears that younger journalists have even more odds stacked against them.
For an industry that is trying to become more relevant online and with younger readers, you might think that newspapers would want to keep their younger employees around, but it turns out that's not the case. As more newspapers are forced to layoff employees to cut costs, younger employees are usually the ones fired, mostly thanks to union rules.
Newspaper Death Watch summarizes the situation:
"The survey of 95 editors found that newsroom staffs have shrunk more than 10% in the last year and that workers between the ages of 18 and 35 were the most likely to be shown the door. This information comes at a time when newspapers are desperately struggling to become relevant to precisely that age group. It’s not that the editors want to lay off all the young staff, but union rules require them to preserve the jobs of older – and more change-averse – employees at the expense of younger and cheaper workers."
In terms of shear numbers, more than 10 percent of newsroom jobs across the country have been cut in the past year. That's a total of more than 5,900 jobs.
For an industry that is trying to become more relevant online and with younger readers, you might think that newspapers would want to keep their younger employees around, but it turns out that's not the case. As more newspapers are forced to layoff employees to cut costs, younger employees are usually the ones fired, mostly thanks to union rules.
Newspaper Death Watch summarizes the situation:
"The survey of 95 editors found that newsroom staffs have shrunk more than 10% in the last year and that workers between the ages of 18 and 35 were the most likely to be shown the door. This information comes at a time when newspapers are desperately struggling to become relevant to precisely that age group. It’s not that the editors want to lay off all the young staff, but union rules require them to preserve the jobs of older – and more change-averse – employees at the expense of younger and cheaper workers."
In terms of shear numbers, more than 10 percent of newsroom jobs across the country have been cut in the past year. That's a total of more than 5,900 jobs.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
In retrospect....it was still a bad idea
According to a new congressional oversight report, the federal government is unlikely to recover the billions of dollars invested in GM and Chrysler as part of the auto industry bailout.
The Washington Post reports:
"The report said that a $5.4 billion portion of the $10.5 billion owed by Chrysler is "highly unlikely" to be repaid, while full recovery of the $50 billion sunk into GM would require the company's stock to reach unprecedented heights.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Wouldn't it have been nice to have this report done BEFORE Congress had decided that all of us should invest in those failing companies?
The Washington Post reports:
"The report said that a $5.4 billion portion of the $10.5 billion owed by Chrysler is "highly unlikely" to be repaid, while full recovery of the $50 billion sunk into GM would require the company's stock to reach unprecedented heights.
"Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount," according to the report, which is scheduled to be released Wednesday.
The report also recommended that the Treasury Department act with more transparency and provide a legal analysis justifying the use of financial rescue funds for the automakers. The report was prepared by the Congressional Oversight Panel, which is overseeing the federal bailout programs."
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Wouldn't it have been nice to have this report done BEFORE Congress had decided that all of us should invest in those failing companies?
Collectivism is bad
After all the controversy leading up to Mr. President's back-to-school address to the nation's children, it seems to have gone off without too much in the way of government indoctrination. That's good.
Whats not as good is the subtle tones that were running through the entire thing, which someone like you, or me, or Jacob Sullum might pick-up on, but I'm guessing the majority of third graders probably didn't realize they were hearing. Sullum says:
"...the worst thing about President's Obama's speech...is the creepy collectivism implied by sentences like these:
If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country....
Don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America [is] about people...who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best...
What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?...
Whats not as good is the subtle tones that were running through the entire thing, which someone like you, or me, or Jacob Sullum might pick-up on, but I'm guessing the majority of third graders probably didn't realize they were hearing. Sullum says:
"...the worst thing about President's Obama's speech...is the creepy collectivism implied by sentences like these:
If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country....
Don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America [is] about people...who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best...
What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?...
I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down. Don't let your family down or your country down."
By now it should be pretty apparent that the President (or, more accurately, his speech-writers, publicists, and all the rest of those in charge of grooming his public appearance) sees himself as the new JFK. It's even more obvious when he makes statements like these, an attempt to echo the celebrated collectivist slogan of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
As a side note, how about me and my country don't ask each other those questions at all. The country should go on doing the things it must do (and only those things), like protecting my rights from foreign attackers and keeping a basic rule-of-law, and it should do those things with as little interference in my life as possible. In return, I will go about my daily life without disrupting the state's work, and I won't ask it to help me out with anything I should be able to take care of personally. Deal?
The whole idea of these collectivist statements is to get people to put something else ahead of their own lives. Such statements become even more dangerous when the "collective" includes not only everyone who is here today, but everyone who might be here in the future too.
When Obama asks what Presidents in the future will say about what this generation did for its country, what he is really saying is that we should subjugate our own lives in the name of making the future a better place. Never mind the fact that this idea, wonderful, peaceful, and successful future is hardly a guarantee (and never mind the fact that you'll be dead before you get to enjoy it, even if it were to happen someday).
Of course, the bigger irony is that Obama, like most politicians, wants people to do only what they are told. So the answer Obama is looking for to that question is that Presidents in the future will say this generation did exactly as they were instructed to do by their wise governmental masters.
Living your life in the name of some unknown future seems foolish at best and downright dangerous at worst. It gets closer to being dangerous when the government is the one inventing the imagined future state, and telling you what you can do to make it possible.
Apologies
It's been five days since my last post on here, thanks to a weekend trip that took me from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, to Pennsylvania, to Maryland, and back to PA once again. Things had to be taken care of on a bunch of different levels and I had very limited time (and even more limited Internet access) to write on here.
At least the experience was humbling in some ways. I learned that my cousin graduated from Georgetown Medical School when I always thought she had gone somewhere else, and I found out that another (more distant) cousin graduated from Princeton in the same class as George C. Will. So I guess when (and if) I get around to looking for grad schools, I need to set my aim pretty high.
As for that, and that being my future plans, I have to say something. I think it is more annoying to be questioned about my plans now than it was when I was a senior in high school or just starting college. Everyone has gone through it; your relatives all want to know what schools you're considering and what major you have and if your classes are good and where you're living and what the food is like. You answer those same questions ad nauseum, and somewhere inside you start to dislike your family a little bit.
But at least then there were answers to be given, they were just repetitive and kind of boring. Now, I'm facing the task of making a directionless approach seem like some kind of a plan, and that is certainly more difficult.
At least the experience was humbling in some ways. I learned that my cousin graduated from Georgetown Medical School when I always thought she had gone somewhere else, and I found out that another (more distant) cousin graduated from Princeton in the same class as George C. Will. So I guess when (and if) I get around to looking for grad schools, I need to set my aim pretty high.
As for that, and that being my future plans, I have to say something. I think it is more annoying to be questioned about my plans now than it was when I was a senior in high school or just starting college. Everyone has gone through it; your relatives all want to know what schools you're considering and what major you have and if your classes are good and where you're living and what the food is like. You answer those same questions ad nauseum, and somewhere inside you start to dislike your family a little bit.
But at least then there were answers to be given, they were just repetitive and kind of boring. Now, I'm facing the task of making a directionless approach seem like some kind of a plan, and that is certainly more difficult.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The best argument against putting government in control of Health Care...
...is the history of other government programs.
Reason TV's Ted Balaker takes a brief look at the history of some government-run operations to see what the real cost of health care reform might be.
Here's a hint: $1 trillion dollars (the amount Obama says it will cost) is probably just the beginning.
Reason TV's Ted Balaker takes a brief look at the history of some government-run operations to see what the real cost of health care reform might be.
Here's a hint: $1 trillion dollars (the amount Obama says it will cost) is probably just the beginning.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
100th Post!
There were really two reasons why I started this blog. Despite what you may think, neither was because I just needed to make myself feel more important by putting my opinions on the Internet.
The first reason was as an experiment to see if I could actually discipline myself to writing a blog on a regular basis (after two previous failures). The second reason was a part of my plan to become filthy rich in ten months or less after graduating from college.
I think I've done pretty well with reason number one, and there's still more than seven months left for me to meet the other goal. At the same time, my hit counter keeps going up (luckily I don't think it can go down) and I'm up past 200 now, so that means each post on here has been viewed by an average of two people.
I think it's obvious that a celebration is in order. So, bust out the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and let's have a party!
Since Pseudepigraphic Episemology made its debut on June 16, 2009, (Trivia - for the first week, this blog existed under a different name. What was it?) there have been three distinct stages that this project has gone through. First, there was a complete lack of identity, as I was simply grasping for any story or tidbit that sounded amusing or interesting. In the second stage, the blog became a little too political, as I was trying to dive into serious issues that either everyone else was covering or I didn't know enough about. Now, in the third stage, I am more comfortable with where I'm at. The combination of political and personal anecdotes is more balanced and I think I've found a good mix of longer, analytical posts, and briefs.
Of course, my opinion is likely skewed a bit, so I'm always curious what the readers think as well.
And speaking of the readers, whoever you are, thanks for doing what you do. A particularly big THANK YOU to my two official "followers" (Megan and Allison). Now, get out there, spread the word, and make me famous. I have seven months to be filthy rich, and it's not going to happen on its own.
Finally, in celebration of making it all the way to big number 100, I'm going to make a few changes to the format and color scheme on here. Don't panic, it's still the same great blog that you know and love.
By the way, it was originally called "Kill the Messenger" (as a reference to me working at a newspaper), but I decided that was too angsty/cliche. This name is so much better, even if it might be a little pretentious, but that's how blogs are supposed to be.
The first reason was as an experiment to see if I could actually discipline myself to writing a blog on a regular basis (after two previous failures). The second reason was a part of my plan to become filthy rich in ten months or less after graduating from college.
I think I've done pretty well with reason number one, and there's still more than seven months left for me to meet the other goal. At the same time, my hit counter keeps going up (luckily I don't think it can go down) and I'm up past 200 now, so that means each post on here has been viewed by an average of two people.
I think it's obvious that a celebration is in order. So, bust out the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and let's have a party!
Since Pseudepigraphic Episemology made its debut on June 16, 2009, (Trivia - for the first week, this blog existed under a different name. What was it?) there have been three distinct stages that this project has gone through. First, there was a complete lack of identity, as I was simply grasping for any story or tidbit that sounded amusing or interesting. In the second stage, the blog became a little too political, as I was trying to dive into serious issues that either everyone else was covering or I didn't know enough about. Now, in the third stage, I am more comfortable with where I'm at. The combination of political and personal anecdotes is more balanced and I think I've found a good mix of longer, analytical posts, and briefs.
Of course, my opinion is likely skewed a bit, so I'm always curious what the readers think as well.
And speaking of the readers, whoever you are, thanks for doing what you do. A particularly big THANK YOU to my two official "followers" (Megan and Allison). Now, get out there, spread the word, and make me famous. I have seven months to be filthy rich, and it's not going to happen on its own.
Finally, in celebration of making it all the way to big number 100, I'm going to make a few changes to the format and color scheme on here. Don't panic, it's still the same great blog that you know and love.
By the way, it was originally called "Kill the Messenger" (as a reference to me working at a newspaper), but I decided that was too angsty/cliche. This name is so much better, even if it might be a little pretentious, but that's how blogs are supposed to be.
Why I reluctantly dislike the plan for high-speed rail
First of all, I love trains. At the very least, I love the IDEA of trains. They are both romantic and powerful, representing the glory of an earlier time and the power of industry. Unfortunately, the reality of train travel in America is nothing like that, at least not in the age of Amtrak.
So I'm a bit torn on the idea of High-Speed Rail in this country. As a train-lover, I enjoy the idea that investing in faster, better trains could make transcontinental rail travel competitive with airlines. But, at the same time, I'm forced to admit that it's a wasteful dream that will never be fulfilled, for a number of reasons.
The most important reason is simple geography.
We frequently hear that building High-Speed Rail in this country will give us a system that is similar to what they have in Europe. Having ridden trains in Europe (at least in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, and Germany), I must say they have a pretty good thing going (with Italy being the exception, but even that wasn't all bad). However, as much as I would love a European-style train network in this country, the lack of dense population centers anywhere between the coasts makes it virtually impossible.
Megan McArdle explains it well:
"They [the liberals] also underestimate the role of geography. It is true that most Americans live near relatively dense cities. But that is still very different from the European situation, where virtually every town is basically a suburb of one of a handful of major national cities. (Before the various regionalists start stoning me, I mean this geographically; almost every town in Europe is close enough to a major city that in America, it would be considered to be a suburb.) This enables them to build rail networks on a scale that I just don't see us being able to match here."
In the Kato Daily Podcast back on June 19, Kato Senior Fellow Randal O'Toole pointed out that the proposed "High-Speed Rail network" will connect about 60 cities in 33 states, but it doesn't actually connect them at all, because there will be six separate high-speed rail lines that don't link up with one another.
"For example, the Obama plan includes a line from San Antonio to Dallas, and from Houston to New Orleans, but no line between Houston and any other city in Texas....People in Texas are going to say, we want a line from Dallas to Houston. People in Florida are going to say, 'why are we building a line from Atlanta to Jacksonville, and from Orlando to Miami, but not from Jacksonville to Orlando?' People in Colorado are going to say, 'why did you skip the Rocky Mountains altogether?'"
So the geography of America makes transcontinental high-speed rail an economic impossibility. We just have too many big parts of the country where there are so few people that we would never be able to justify the cost of building a line (through Wyoming, for example) there. The only chance high-speed rail has is in regional sections where it might be an attractive alternative to flying or driving.
However, that doesn't get around the second big problem: money. More specifically, it's all the money that has to go be spent to cut through all the red-tape that is sure to be created anytime you want to build something that is massive and will certainly disrupt the lives of people and/or possibly endangered plants and animals. The irony, of course, is that it's usually left wing groups who create those headaches that stall other left-wing groups plans.
McArdle give a great example:
"The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, established in 1992, is expected to finish its final environmental impact statement sometime in 2011. Some unspecified time after that, it will begin building out the links between Washington DC and Charlotte, North Carolina. For somewhere between 2-5 billion dollars, and three or more decades, we will finally be able to travel from Washington to Charlotte in 6 hours and 50 minutes--just 30 minutes more than it takes to drive the same route. On the plus side, you can read while you travel. On the minus side, it will cost at least three times as much, and you'll still have to rent a car when you get there."
Given those options, most people will choose to either fly (they'll still have to rent a car, but the trip is faster and not much more expensive), or drive (which will take the same amount of time, but it will be a lot cheaper, and you have your own car when you get there). Sadly, even for regional trips it will be impossible for high-speed trains to compete well enough with airlines to ever be financially workable.
So I'm a bit torn on the idea of High-Speed Rail in this country. As a train-lover, I enjoy the idea that investing in faster, better trains could make transcontinental rail travel competitive with airlines. But, at the same time, I'm forced to admit that it's a wasteful dream that will never be fulfilled, for a number of reasons.
The most important reason is simple geography.
We frequently hear that building High-Speed Rail in this country will give us a system that is similar to what they have in Europe. Having ridden trains in Europe (at least in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, and Germany), I must say they have a pretty good thing going (with Italy being the exception, but even that wasn't all bad). However, as much as I would love a European-style train network in this country, the lack of dense population centers anywhere between the coasts makes it virtually impossible.
Megan McArdle explains it well:
"They [the liberals] also underestimate the role of geography. It is true that most Americans live near relatively dense cities. But that is still very different from the European situation, where virtually every town is basically a suburb of one of a handful of major national cities. (Before the various regionalists start stoning me, I mean this geographically; almost every town in Europe is close enough to a major city that in America, it would be considered to be a suburb.) This enables them to build rail networks on a scale that I just don't see us being able to match here."
In the Kato Daily Podcast back on June 19, Kato Senior Fellow Randal O'Toole pointed out that the proposed "High-Speed Rail network" will connect about 60 cities in 33 states, but it doesn't actually connect them at all, because there will be six separate high-speed rail lines that don't link up with one another.
"For example, the Obama plan includes a line from San Antonio to Dallas, and from Houston to New Orleans, but no line between Houston and any other city in Texas....People in Texas are going to say, we want a line from Dallas to Houston. People in Florida are going to say, 'why are we building a line from Atlanta to Jacksonville, and from Orlando to Miami, but not from Jacksonville to Orlando?' People in Colorado are going to say, 'why did you skip the Rocky Mountains altogether?'"
So the geography of America makes transcontinental high-speed rail an economic impossibility. We just have too many big parts of the country where there are so few people that we would never be able to justify the cost of building a line (through Wyoming, for example) there. The only chance high-speed rail has is in regional sections where it might be an attractive alternative to flying or driving.
However, that doesn't get around the second big problem: money. More specifically, it's all the money that has to go be spent to cut through all the red-tape that is sure to be created anytime you want to build something that is massive and will certainly disrupt the lives of people and/or possibly endangered plants and animals. The irony, of course, is that it's usually left wing groups who create those headaches that stall other left-wing groups plans.
McArdle give a great example:
"The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, established in 1992, is expected to finish its final environmental impact statement sometime in 2011. Some unspecified time after that, it will begin building out the links between Washington DC and Charlotte, North Carolina. For somewhere between 2-5 billion dollars, and three or more decades, we will finally be able to travel from Washington to Charlotte in 6 hours and 50 minutes--just 30 minutes more than it takes to drive the same route. On the plus side, you can read while you travel. On the minus side, it will cost at least three times as much, and you'll still have to rent a car when you get there."
Given those options, most people will choose to either fly (they'll still have to rent a car, but the trip is faster and not much more expensive), or drive (which will take the same amount of time, but it will be a lot cheaper, and you have your own car when you get there). Sadly, even for regional trips it will be impossible for high-speed trains to compete well enough with airlines to ever be financially workable.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Know Your History
I'm a few minutes too late with this, but just go with it. Today (by which I mean yesterday) marked the 70th anniversary of Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland that began World War II.
This must be one of the most important, but least commemorated, days in history. The 20th Century was truly defined by the war that began on this day. While the attack was the first "official" military action of WWII, it was merely one part in a much larger aggressive plan by Hitler that had begun several years earlier.
The re-militarization of the Rhine region (along the border with France and Belgium) in 1936, in direct violation of the terms of the Treaty of Versailes, was the true first step. Britain actually supported that move, and though France strongly disapproved, Hitler knew the French would not want to start another war less than two decades after the slaughter that was World War I.
Following that, Hitler moved to annex Austria in 1938, correcting what he believed was a mistake made by Bismarck in the 1870s when the former German leader had cast Austria out of the unifying German state.
Later in 1938, Hitler was prepared to go to war with the Western Powers over the the "Sudetenland", a portion of Czechoslovakia on the German border. He announced that he was going to militarily occupy the territory, but Britain and France decided it was easier to appease Hitler's demands than to fight for the Czechs. British prime minister Neville Chamberlain said the agreement would bring "peace in our time". That peace lasted about a year.
Andrew Sullivan links to a couple of interesting blogs that memorialize the occasion. David Silbey does a great job of summing up the importance of the day:
"The invasion represented two experiments on the part of the Nazis. First, Hitler (as he had been for so long) continued pushing the western powers to see how much he could expand in Central Europe without them pushing back. He had taken Austria and Czechoslovakia with either little protest or active cooperation. Poland was obviously a much larger gamble as a full-scale military invasion.
The second experiment was with something of a new form of warfare. The German Army had spent much of the interwar years arguing furiously about how to deal with the static mess that had been the Western Front. Unlike the French, who essentially decided on the pre-built trench system of the Maginot line, the Germans looked to mobility to break the stalemate. This was not universally loved within the German high command, but there was enough support that the Germans began creating divisions of tanks and mechanized infantry, supported by mobile artillery and ground attack aircraft. When the war started in September 1939, the number of those divisions was still relatively low but they served as the spearheads as the German Army launched itself into the Polish defenses."
Also, here's what George Orwell's blog would have looked like on that day, you know, if blogs existed in 1939.
This must be one of the most important, but least commemorated, days in history. The 20th Century was truly defined by the war that began on this day. While the attack was the first "official" military action of WWII, it was merely one part in a much larger aggressive plan by Hitler that had begun several years earlier.
The re-militarization of the Rhine region (along the border with France and Belgium) in 1936, in direct violation of the terms of the Treaty of Versailes, was the true first step. Britain actually supported that move, and though France strongly disapproved, Hitler knew the French would not want to start another war less than two decades after the slaughter that was World War I.
Following that, Hitler moved to annex Austria in 1938, correcting what he believed was a mistake made by Bismarck in the 1870s when the former German leader had cast Austria out of the unifying German state.
Later in 1938, Hitler was prepared to go to war with the Western Powers over the the "Sudetenland", a portion of Czechoslovakia on the German border. He announced that he was going to militarily occupy the territory, but Britain and France decided it was easier to appease Hitler's demands than to fight for the Czechs. British prime minister Neville Chamberlain said the agreement would bring "peace in our time". That peace lasted about a year.
Andrew Sullivan links to a couple of interesting blogs that memorialize the occasion. David Silbey does a great job of summing up the importance of the day:
"The invasion represented two experiments on the part of the Nazis. First, Hitler (as he had been for so long) continued pushing the western powers to see how much he could expand in Central Europe without them pushing back. He had taken Austria and Czechoslovakia with either little protest or active cooperation. Poland was obviously a much larger gamble as a full-scale military invasion.
The second experiment was with something of a new form of warfare. The German Army had spent much of the interwar years arguing furiously about how to deal with the static mess that had been the Western Front. Unlike the French, who essentially decided on the pre-built trench system of the Maginot line, the Germans looked to mobility to break the stalemate. This was not universally loved within the German high command, but there was enough support that the Germans began creating divisions of tanks and mechanized infantry, supported by mobile artillery and ground attack aircraft. When the war started in September 1939, the number of those divisions was still relatively low but they served as the spearheads as the German Army launched itself into the Polish defenses."
Also, here's what George Orwell's blog would have looked like on that day, you know, if blogs existed in 1939.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Why I Hate New York: Coffee and Cigarettes
Want to hear a good story about what too much government can do?
Barclay Rex, a popular Wall Street smoking establishment, has been threatened with a fine (which could be as high as $2000) because the owner recently installed a coffee machine that he allows customers to use for free. In June, a Health department inspector noticed the machine and issued a citation because Barclay Rex does not have a permit to operate as a food-service establishment.
The kicker? If he obtains such a permit, his customers won't be allowed to smoke there anymore, because New York City does not allow smoking anywhere that serves food or beverages.
The owner, Vince Nastri III, makes a good point: "My gripe is that you can walk into a bank and get a free coffee. You can walk into a high-end jeweler and get a free coffee. You can even get one at the car wash, but you can't get one here"
Despite removing the machine on July 30th, he is still likely to be fined after his hearing next month.
I'm not a smoker, but I definitely feel for the way they have been abused by government on all levels (particularly in New York, where a pack of cigarettes now costs more than eight bucks) and for all different reasons. There's just something universally right about the pairing of coffee and cigarettes, but apparently that doesn't matter in New York City. Just one more reason it's the greatest city in the world (or maybe not).
Barclay Rex, a popular Wall Street smoking establishment, has been threatened with a fine (which could be as high as $2000) because the owner recently installed a coffee machine that he allows customers to use for free. In June, a Health department inspector noticed the machine and issued a citation because Barclay Rex does not have a permit to operate as a food-service establishment.
The kicker? If he obtains such a permit, his customers won't be allowed to smoke there anymore, because New York City does not allow smoking anywhere that serves food or beverages.
The owner, Vince Nastri III, makes a good point: "My gripe is that you can walk into a bank and get a free coffee. You can walk into a high-end jeweler and get a free coffee. You can even get one at the car wash, but you can't get one here"
Despite removing the machine on July 30th, he is still likely to be fined after his hearing next month.
I'm not a smoker, but I definitely feel for the way they have been abused by government on all levels (particularly in New York, where a pack of cigarettes now costs more than eight bucks) and for all different reasons. There's just something universally right about the pairing of coffee and cigarettes, but apparently that doesn't matter in New York City. Just one more reason it's the greatest city in the world (or maybe not).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
