Mirthless

Representative Murtha, a veteran and Democratic hawk, has called for an orderly withdrawal of most US armed forces from Iraq because they have become the principle targets of violence. He proposed an “over the horizon” force that could return in force as necessary to help the Iraqi government. The White House turned like a rabid dog on Mr. Murtha. They snarled a mischaracterization of his proposal as “surrender” and “cut and run”. Even loyal Republicans are aghast at the stupidity of the White House. This administration is practically over – it has lost all credibility, it shows no sign of even trying to reform itself, and the events it set in motion show all signs of worsening in the future.

There should be no mirth even among the most staunch Democrats. If this were a game, we might enjoy the discomfort of the administration. But this administration is in power for another 3+ years. Although this administration has been a disaster for America and the world, leaderless drift benefits nobody.

Let’s hope the administration comes to its senses. Cheney must resign. Attribute it to his health, or use the excuse popular in business, “wanting to spent more time with his family”. Nobody will care why and everybody will applaud the most hopeful signal that the administration could send. Hell, if you need it to seal the deal, give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Carbon “Footprint” and the Human Energy Reference Day (HERD)

A new ad campaign by BP (British Petroleum, or, if they prefer, beyond petroleum) asks people whether they know their "carbon footprint". The first ad was all people saying, essentially,"huh?". The second has people guessing, correctly, that it refers to our individual use of fossil carbon fuels and contribution to greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2). This could be a wonderful example of corporate responsibility. At least it might get more of us thinking about our collective and individual impact on the earth.

How should we measure our impact? What's a meaningful measure? Tons of CO2? Barrels of oil? These measures are pretty abstract. Let's do some calculations and see if we can derive a more useful unit of measure.

We each use about 2,000 k calories each day just living and breathing. A serious athlete might use twice as many while a comatose patient might use half as many. These calories all come from carbon, which we consume as food and exhale as CO2. This is our absolute minimum "footprint". I propose we use this as our measuring unit, a human energy reference day (1 HERD).

Here are a couple examples. If you use a 2 kilowatt hours of electricity in a day, that's about the same as your body burns, so 1 HERD. If you use 10 gallons of gas per week, that amounts to 45,000 kcal per day, or 20 HERDs. Looks like carbon "tire tread" is more appropriate than carbon "footprint".

By the way, eating more food than you need produces fat but not CO2 as long as you're alive. America's epidemic of obesity is not all bad. Taken together, these unburned calories represent an enormous carbon sink that should help mitigate global warming! Can you say carbon credit?

Bush – guilty of lying?

Bush came out today, Veteran's day, accusing Americans against the war in Iraq of revisionist history. He wants you to think they are traitors for undermining the war on terror, but that dog won't hunt anymore so he's trying to be lawyerly. Let's examine his claims.

According to Bush, the administration didn't lie because everybody thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. It must cause heartburn to even the most loyal right wingers to cite their supposed agreement with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and worst of all, the French. Going to war should be akin to a criminal, not a civil suit: guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt and not just the preponderance of the evidence and certainly not simple opinion. Unlike similar historical situations, we had weapons inspectors in Iraq who could examine any site suspected of WMD. They could have provided definitive evidence. It always mystified me that the sites featured in Colin Powell's UN presentation weren't simply visited by the inspectors. The inspectors never found any, which would give pause to any reasonable person. But lying is worse than not knowing the truth. The evidence of lying comes from Richard Clarke and others, who consistently reported that Bush was committed to war against Iraq and built the case through any means available. You may remember that Rumsfeld thought Afghanistan didn't offer enough good targets - one more administration reason for going to war against Iraq.

The administration did not lie only about WMD. Cheney and others continued in public speeches to link Iraq to al Qaeda and 9/11 long after the connections were disproved. That's not just lying, that's shameless lying. And shame on us for not demanding Cheney admit or at least correct these lies.

The vote in Congress before the war was to authorize the use of force, NOT to go to war. Full disclosure: I attended a rally against the war and wrote my representatives to vote "no" on the authorization. I did not trust this administration. However, I am sympathetic to my opponents' views that voting against the authorization would have invalidated American threats against Saddam. In that respect, the vote was a no-win situation that more foresighted opponents of the war should have avoided. Indeed, the vote was superfluous because the President has a Constitutional right to send troops into battle. The war powers act only limited the time the President can wait before asking Congress for approval. I can only imagine that Democrats are not clarifying their votes were for authorization, not war, because they are afraid of being accused of duplicity. Is this really so difficult?

Rather than arguing with fellow Americans about what happened, this administration should be putting every effort into winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. But can these inveterate liars change their stripes? Maybe, if any of them were veterans of real combat instead of just political infighting, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Is America on (prescription) Drugs?

In the debate over the costs of prescription drugs, these points seem to have been neglected or misunderstood:

• Pharmaceutical companies sell drugs in Canada and elsewhere because they make a profit despite the lower price, not as a public service.
• New medications are generally invented in the basic science laboratories of academia, not in the laboratories of pharmaceuticals companies.

Do the enormous profits protected by American politics help accelerate the development of new drugs? Sure, but most of the money goes toward marketing, advertising, sales representatives, and bribes (politely, physician 'education'). The huge profits can also motivate unethical behavior (e.g., Merck pushed Vioxx even after they knew it increased the risk of heart attack). Big pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) typically buys promising formulas that they hope will lead to drugs. Pharma is absolutely necessary in moving the drugs from the lab to the clinic. But don't swallow their nonsense about needing enormous profits in order to speed new drug discovery. Americans are already paying for drug discovery through basic biomedical science supported by government agencies, especially the National Institutes of Health. Venture (high risk) capital is also helpful in moving the drug to the clinic.

Since we're on the subject, Pharma shouldn't be criticized for failing to offer free drugs. Companies do not typically give away their product, yet Pharma is often pilloried for not giving away AIDS drugs to the poor, especially in Africa. If you think it's such a good idea, become a part owner! When it is some of your own money you're proposing to give away, you'll get more respect from your audience. Buy some stock and make your proposal at the next stockholders meeting.

We have ignition

Everybody knows that life is moving faster. What if this acceleration is simply the warming of the enzyme systems that constitute our bodies and the ecosystems of the earth? The earth has been warming since the last ice age, and more rapidly since the beginning of the industrial age. Enzymes are biomolecules, usually proteins, that accelerate chemical reactions. Simple chemical reactions accelerate 2-fold for every 10 degree increase. Unlike strictly chemical reactions, enzymes can accelerate reactions even more for each degree of heat. This is why reptiles can move much more quickly as they warm. "Warm blooded" animals, including humans, maintain a body temperature that insulates our metabolic changes from ambient temperature. But we still respond to heat, burning calories in cold climates just to keep warm.

Some smart people are predicting that human development is accelerating towards an event, a "singularity" that will change everything. This again has intriguing resemblance to enzymes. As temperature increases, enzymatic acceleration continues.... until with just a few degrees more heat, the enzyme is destroyed and the reaction stops completely.

Every Dollar is a Vote

Congress is again debating drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife "Reserve". Big Oil will not take "no" for an answer – and why should they? It only takes one “yes" and the subject will never be debated again. Eventually, even some rational people can convince themselves that drilling more domestic oil will increase national security, improve the economy, etc. They find it politically convenient to overlook the facts that: (1) even modest conservation would save more oil than drilling can provide, and (2) our long term security requires that we decrease carbon in the atmosphere, not make it cheaper to add more.

Criticizing the oil companies is pointless. These companies are doing what they are designed to do – make as much money as possible. What's an individual to do? Definitely, contact your congressional representatives! But political power is bought – and big companies can buy at a discount. How about doing what we can do and controlling what we can control?

Those who profess to be environmentalists and conservationists must "walk the talk". Walk, bike, and use public transportation when possible. Demand that your tax dollars go to sidewalks and bike paths, not just subsidize more roads. Buy a car that gets many miles per gallon and don't speed. Use as little air conditioning and heating as possible. Reduce, reuse, recycle must become part of our daily ethos. But we must do more than just car pool and monitor the thermostat.

We must act together to rescue the economic and political society from the growing tyranny of the transnational corporations. The principle function of the political state is patron of the corporation. We must use our personal and collective economic power against them. Spend wisely, buying from people you trust. Buy from your neighbors or from small regional companies when possible and from only the most ethical larger companies when necessary. Pay off your credit card debts. Save with credit unions and community banks that invest in local development. Small acts, when multiplied by millions, can change the world. Every dollar you spend is a vote. You can cast your vote thousands of times every year. Vote, and may we all win!

American Humor – Dead

Rumors of the death of American humor were confirmed when this year's Mark Twain Prize for American Humor was awarded to Steve Martin. Even 20+ years ago, when he could actually make you laugh, his humor was based on juxtaposing silly statements with his conservative appearance and demeanor, resembling an ingratiating shoe salesman. Oh yeah, with an arrow apparently through his head. Since then, his movies have been forgettable, if you try hard enough, when they weren't insultingly bad. Next stop on the slide the bottom: an award to Jim Carey? Sure, why not, swap mindless mania for silly somnambulism.

Twain is honored for his pithy, clever, insightful, and timeless comments on human nature. Such humorists are rare. Will Rodgers was another. But it's easy to criticize. If one were obliged to make an award, who would be a better choice? Woody Allen would have to be on any short list, though his personal life now complicates our appreciation of his humor. Maybe Jerry Seinfeld, though the requisite folksy he ain't. Political humor? Hmm, let's think 2 nanoseconds... Jon Stewart. Or pick one of the redneck humor guys – Jeff Foxworthy, for example, who are bringing appreciation to a new audience. Naw, we'll have to wait until their humor is moribund.

In interviews, Martin says he doesn't want to be labeled right or left, liberal or conservative. A great humorist elevates above partisan bickering, allowing both sides to laugh at their own foibles (see above: Stewart, Jon). I suspect Martin's real fear is insulting potential customers – his movies are marginal enough financial propositions now. No, it's better to keep them guessing: just look conservative and say wild and crazy (liberal?) things.

Martin seems like a nice guy and it's not his fault that some misguided institution felt obliged to celebrate itself by making this award. What's he supposed to do, say “no thanks”? But let's not fool ourselves, he's no Twain.