It is another interesting twist of history that fate, along with the media led by Tim Russert and Co., seems to have conspired to deprive Hillary Clinton of the Democratic nomination.
Consider this: in January 2008, long after Edwards' affair and long after he had lied repeatedly to deny it, Clinton came a humiliating 3rd in the Iowa caucuses. The final count was: Barack Obama with 940 delegates with Edwards at 744 and Clinton at 737. Based on the voter demographic for Clinton, if Edwards' delegates were divided 2-to-1 in her favor, we would end up with Clinton 1233 and Obama 1188 (51 to 49). This would have reinforced her image of invincibility and likely propelled her to the nomination.
All this tells us one thing: men really have done Hillary in: starting with her own husband first, then Russert and then Edwards. However, i still don't see Obama's hand anywhere in the mix.
Let me be clear: i do not like the way Clinton handled her loss. It had to be one of the most graceless ways to lose, from playing the race card against her own party rival to wishing for his assassination. Contrast this to McCain who promptly upbraided his own supporter (talk show host Bill Cunningham) when he called Obama by his middle name "Hussein".
All i am pointing out is that if Clinton had won in Iowa, the rest of the Obama magic may well have been history.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Better manage your gas dollars: start using GPM rather than MPG!
Professors Rick Larrick and Jack Soll, researchers at Duke University, have shown how a simple mathematical change in measuring gas mileage will help consumers: measuring usage in gallons per mile (gpm) rather than miles per gallon (MPG) as we do today. For further mathematical convenience, you can measure gallons per hundred miles.
Hence, if a car gives 20 miles/gallon, that would mean that one mile requires 0.05 gallons or that 100 miles requires 5 gallons. At today's rate of $4/gallon, that is about $ 20. Similarly, if a car gave 40 miles/gallon, then it would cost only $ 10 to cover 100 miles. If a typical driver drove 100 miles a week, their gas consumption would be $ 40 instead of $ 80, pointing to a clear saving of almost $ 500/year. For the mathematically inclined, more details of the non-linearity can be found at http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~larrick/bio/Reshighlights.htm.
To change this, however, we do not need a 100 million dollars and a federal mandate. To see your car's efficiency in miles/100 gallons, check this calculator.
Another elegant way to see this graphically is shown by AJ Design software:
I am getting the correct usage for my car anyway by either calculation. Why should i care?
True enough. When you compare two cars, the difference will not change. Based on this calculator, a Ford Explorer that gives 15 mpg will, over 50,000 miles, require 3333 gallons more oil, which at $ 4 per gallon, translates to a cool $ 13,000. A Ford Escort at 30 mpg on the other hand, will only cost $ 6600. This is certainly easier to calculate if we use gpm rather than mpg.
More interestingly, however, if we compare the savings in going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg as opposed to going from 30 mpg to 50 mpg, the Duke research shows that the move from 10 to 20 mpg will save a lot more than by going from 30 to 50 mpg.
Beyond the mathematical interest in how numbers are not necessarily what they may seem, this is a fascinating subject because it goes to the heart of capitalism: measuring value in dollars and cents. The next step: use this calculator from AJDesigner.com to get the cost of any form of energy over 50,000 miles. Take away the subsidies that Big Oil gets and we could have a fascinating insight into true costs of energy.
Hence, if a car gives 20 miles/gallon, that would mean that one mile requires 0.05 gallons or that 100 miles requires 5 gallons. At today's rate of $4/gallon, that is about $ 20. Similarly, if a car gave 40 miles/gallon, then it would cost only $ 10 to cover 100 miles. If a typical driver drove 100 miles a week, their gas consumption would be $ 40 instead of $ 80, pointing to a clear saving of almost $ 500/year. For the mathematically inclined, more details of the non-linearity can be found at http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~larrick/bio/Reshighlights.htm.
To change this, however, we do not need a 100 million dollars and a federal mandate. To see your car's efficiency in miles/100 gallons, check this calculator.
Another elegant way to see this graphically is shown by AJ Design software:
I am getting the correct usage for my car anyway by either calculation. Why should i care?
True enough. When you compare two cars, the difference will not change. Based on this calculator, a Ford Explorer that gives 15 mpg will, over 50,000 miles, require 3333 gallons more oil, which at $ 4 per gallon, translates to a cool $ 13,000. A Ford Escort at 30 mpg on the other hand, will only cost $ 6600. This is certainly easier to calculate if we use gpm rather than mpg.
More interestingly, however, if we compare the savings in going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg as opposed to going from 30 mpg to 50 mpg, the Duke research shows that the move from 10 to 20 mpg will save a lot more than by going from 30 to 50 mpg.
Beyond the mathematical interest in how numbers are not necessarily what they may seem, this is a fascinating subject because it goes to the heart of capitalism: measuring value in dollars and cents. The next step: use this calculator from AJDesigner.com to get the cost of any form of energy over 50,000 miles. Take away the subsidies that Big Oil gets and we could have a fascinating insight into true costs of energy.
What if Russert had died 6 months earlier?
Now that some time has passed since Russert's passing, it is time for us to evaluate his true impact on this Presidential election. If Tim Russert had died six months earlier, Hillary might have been the Democratic candidate. Just a thought . . . in general, he was her toughest questioner for months, if not years.
He was the pundit who asked the first question on drivers licenses to illegal immigrants and he was the one who first indicated that the Democratic nominee was known and that the race was over.
The underlying Washington talk behind all this is that the media disliked Hillary Clintons because of her prima donna attitudes for several months when she was seen as the inevitable front-runner. The difference was that while others like Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh attacked her personally, Russert went after her while still retaining substantive policy issues on his agenda. This is a testament as much to his skills as a journalist as his overall lack of partisanship.
In the end, the nomination was Clinton's to lose and guess what? She did.
He was the pundit who asked the first question on drivers licenses to illegal immigrants and he was the one who first indicated that the Democratic nominee was known and that the race was over.
The underlying Washington talk behind all this is that the media disliked Hillary Clintons because of her prima donna attitudes for several months when she was seen as the inevitable front-runner. The difference was that while others like Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh attacked her personally, Russert went after her while still retaining substantive policy issues on his agenda. This is a testament as much to his skills as a journalist as his overall lack of partisanship.
In the end, the nomination was Clinton's to lose and guess what? She did.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
No limitation on trials but limitations on defense?
There has been a story on ABC News for a few days about Charles Hood, a Texas inmate who was found guilty of murder when the judge and prosecutor were dating. The reason: the matter of the affair was brought up too late in the appeals process.
In terms of going back to the principles of conservatism, this bothers me greatly: let us revisit the principles. Conservatives stand for a small government that guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As part of this effort, government will strive to make itself small, keep taxes low and maintain a strong homeland defense (for national security as well as law and order)
We cannot be focused on a strong national defense where a government can decide that murder has no statute of limitations--but the appeals do.
The only answer that critics will have is that from all available evidence, Charles Hood does appear to be indisputably guilty. If so, however, that should be still determined through a fair trial. Once we let journalists and the public make these "obvious" decisions, we start going down the slippery slope of rule and judgment by media and acclamation, not truth.
The real problem is not just that there is a statute of limitations on appeals but that the justice process was flawed in this case. Since the judge and prosecutor cannot be fired or impeached (they are retired) they should have their pensions revoked. They have corrupted our democracy and as such are a burden on their constituents. Since the affair was apparently "common knowledge" at that time, all their superiors should be severely reprimanded as well.
All this only goes to show that Texas continues to be a "bad" place for criminal justice. However, it is bad not because the people are bad; not because it is conservative; but because Texas is corrupt.
In terms of going back to the principles of conservatism, this bothers me greatly: let us revisit the principles. Conservatives stand for a small government that guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As part of this effort, government will strive to make itself small, keep taxes low and maintain a strong homeland defense (for national security as well as law and order)
We cannot be focused on a strong national defense where a government can decide that murder has no statute of limitations--but the appeals do.
The only answer that critics will have is that from all available evidence, Charles Hood does appear to be indisputably guilty. If so, however, that should be still determined through a fair trial. Once we let journalists and the public make these "obvious" decisions, we start going down the slippery slope of rule and judgment by media and acclamation, not truth.
The real problem is not just that there is a statute of limitations on appeals but that the justice process was flawed in this case. Since the judge and prosecutor cannot be fired or impeached (they are retired) they should have their pensions revoked. They have corrupted our democracy and as such are a burden on their constituents. Since the affair was apparently "common knowledge" at that time, all their superiors should be severely reprimanded as well.
All this only goes to show that Texas continues to be a "bad" place for criminal justice. However, it is bad not because the people are bad; not because it is conservative; but because Texas is corrupt.
Praise for Russert's objectivity only shows how pathetic most other journalists are
Tim Russert is being eulogized today as having been fair and objective and all things wonderful. The underlying truth behind this is not that Russert is a saint for having done his job. Objectivity is Journalism 101, but that we now have this multi-billion dollar industry called opinion journalism.
Russert's real impact was not that he was a good person or a fair journalist, both of which he undoubtedly was. His real impact on current history was that he was not objective enough.
On October 30, 2007, he asked Clinton the question that, in one instant, stripped her of her credibility, even her appearance of integrity: he asked her a direct question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, which she was unable to answer. That was the time when Clinton was getting all the difficult questions first while Obama received SNL's pillows. For many months after that, he was one of MSNBC's main cheerleaders for Obama. In early May, he went one step further and declared that Clinton was done.
This is not to take anything away from the fact that Obama was clearly the better campaigner than Clinton. (If you click on the pillow URL above, you will see how she made her complaint and then promptly shot herself in the foot by saying that she had criticized NAFTA "from the very beginning".) This is also not to take away anything from the fact that the longer this race continues, the worse McCain looks, at least as of this writing.
The point is that if Russert and other journalists were not so subjective, perhaps the American people would have more of an opportunity to choose their own leaders. In this day of the Internet, we certainly have the potential to approach the ideal of direct democracy.
Russert's real impact was not that he was a good person or a fair journalist, both of which he undoubtedly was. His real impact on current history was that he was not objective enough.
On October 30, 2007, he asked Clinton the question that, in one instant, stripped her of her credibility, even her appearance of integrity: he asked her a direct question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, which she was unable to answer. That was the time when Clinton was getting all the difficult questions first while Obama received SNL's pillows. For many months after that, he was one of MSNBC's main cheerleaders for Obama. In early May, he went one step further and declared that Clinton was done.
This is not to take anything away from the fact that Obama was clearly the better campaigner than Clinton. (If you click on the pillow URL above, you will see how she made her complaint and then promptly shot herself in the foot by saying that she had criticized NAFTA "from the very beginning".) This is also not to take away anything from the fact that the longer this race continues, the worse McCain looks, at least as of this writing.
The point is that if Russert and other journalists were not so subjective, perhaps the American people would have more of an opportunity to choose their own leaders. In this day of the Internet, we certainly have the potential to approach the ideal of direct democracy.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Safe nuclear power is critical for America's independence
Not just Energy independence but economic independence.
Monday, June 2, 2008
A Confederate Flag in Tampa should be permitted
But, just as reasonably, as we defend freedom of expression, so should an African flag right next to the Confederate one. As we celebrate Southern heritage, so should we pay homage to our African ancestors from whom a fifth of our population is descended today.
We get offended too quickly when provoked and do not respond quickly enough from our core principles: freedom of expression cannot be denied. However, speech that may be seen to be offensive can be responded to in kind: with a display of one of several African or Pan-African flags.
How can a good conservative get away from the bigotry that has hobbled the Republican party over the last few decades and Democrats and the nation as a whole for several centuries before then? Through our principles:
1. Small government: by vigorously defending the right of racists, however offensive, to offend
2. Freedom of expression: Supporting the right of the African American community to host equally large flags, not just in Tampa but all of over the country
3. Tax-neutrality: All funds for the flags would, of course, be raised privately
I bet you that good Americans and good Republicans and Democrats will quickly overwhelm the country with their choice of freedom of expression ad using it to unite us all as one nation under God, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see that right.
We get offended too quickly when provoked and do not respond quickly enough from our core principles: freedom of expression cannot be denied. However, speech that may be seen to be offensive can be responded to in kind: with a display of one of several African or Pan-African flags.
How can a good conservative get away from the bigotry that has hobbled the Republican party over the last few decades and Democrats and the nation as a whole for several centuries before then? Through our principles:
1. Small government: by vigorously defending the right of racists, however offensive, to offend
2. Freedom of expression: Supporting the right of the African American community to host equally large flags, not just in Tampa but all of over the country
3. Tax-neutrality: All funds for the flags would, of course, be raised privately
I bet you that good Americans and good Republicans and Democrats will quickly overwhelm the country with their choice of freedom of expression ad using it to unite us all as one nation under God, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see that right.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Definition of Conservatism
The above link, the Mission Statement from William F Buckley, is a little dated but an excellent starting point.
What is a conservative? A conservative is one who interprets the Constitution to enjoin individual freedom, small government and a strong homeland defense. However, a good conservative must also ask where we failed in the past: by denying that same liberty to people who were dragged in as slaves, for example, and how we can ensure that we live up to our own highest standards.
What is a conservative? A conservative is one who interprets the Constitution to enjoin individual freedom, small government and a strong homeland defense. However, a good conservative must also ask where we failed in the past: by denying that same liberty to people who were dragged in as slaves, for example, and how we can ensure that we live up to our own highest standards.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Anyone could be assassinated tomorrow--even Hillary
I could die tomorrow.
Any particular individual could die today or tomorrow or some time in the future.
Presidential candidates are not immune to this but for Hillary to make the possibility of another human being's death--Barack Obama's, in this case--a reason for her to stay on in the campaign makes her even more despicable than she was before. Here is what she said to the Argus Leader, a newspaper in South Dakota:
In what is an even more calculated statement, she apologizes, rightly, to the Kennedy family but not to Senator Obama--can we go lower in class here?
“Earlier today, I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968. And I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination, primary contests that go into June. That’s an historic fact."
“The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Senator Kennedy, and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. i certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.”
“My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to. And I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York, And have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family. Thanks.”
At least we all know one thing: if and when Hillary finally gets out, she will have a career arguing with Ann Coulter one-on-one!
Any particular individual could die today or tomorrow or some time in the future.
Presidential candidates are not immune to this but for Hillary to make the possibility of another human being's death--Barack Obama's, in this case--a reason for her to stay on in the campaign makes her even more despicable than she was before. Here is what she said to the Argus Leader, a newspaper in South Dakota:
In what is an even more calculated statement, she apologizes, rightly, to the Kennedy family but not to Senator Obama--can we go lower in class here?
“Earlier today, I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968. And I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination, primary contests that go into June. That’s an historic fact."
“The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Senator Kennedy, and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. i certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.”
“My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to. And I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York, And have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family. Thanks.”
At least we all know one thing: if and when Hillary finally gets out, she will have a career arguing with Ann Coulter one-on-one!
Friday, May 16, 2008
How McCain can be the best conservative candidate
John McCain is being hammered from all sides: from Democrats, of course; from conservatives who do not believe that he is right-wing enough; from independents who are dazzled by Obama. Given these problems, it is not easy to see how he can win the next election. However, there are some ways and that is by showing how he is already a good conservative (which he is):
McCain is a Reagan Republican:
McCain is a Reagan Republican:
- He has stood for a strong defense by not making any knee-jerk promises to leave Iraq. (Given that the surge is working, how do the Democrats make this argument now?)
- He stands for small government: allow market forces to take over, even in contentious cases like Global Warming. Market forces, like democracies, are slow but when they act, they are sure. Let GM (or Toyota) decide whether or not whether they want to make more fuel-efficient cars but if they do not, some smart entrepreneur will build something better, faster and cheaper. Let us not be hypocrites, however: market forces may also cause that entrepreneur to be from China or India. We cannot whine then but we can rely on our superior financial system to buy the technologies once they mature.
- He stands for individual freedom, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
The Republican leadership has changed, however, and McCain needs to almost disavow its current philosophy, which is the real challenge:
- We need to stay in Iraq, not because it was right to go there (it was NOT) but because we need to clean up our mess. McCain's surrogates need to make this crystal clear.
- We cannot reject Global Warming as a pseudo-science because Exxon-Mobil doesn't like it. That's just corporate interests bullying their way in to demand corporate welfare. We ask Exxon to fight in the markets like everyone else.
- We cannot allow anti-Latino hate to spread through the immigration debate. Remember: Reagan did not just encourage immigration, he gave a full-scale amnesty. By alienating Hispanic-Americans, we can say good-bye to winning power for the next 20 years. Hate has no place in America and McCain is the best conservative to communicate it.
What does this all mean?
McCain, standing on his own as a true conservative, constructionist Republican, is easily the best Presidential individual candidate in sight. McCain, pulled down by the Bush-Cheney Republicans, will never get to be the leader of the Republican party. Barack Obama has consolidated his leadership of the Democratic party in six short months with barely 50.1% of the delegate vote (so far). It will be a shame if McCain cannot get there with a three-month headstart, he does not deserve the Presidency.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
We need another war--in Myanmar
The US is now pleading with the tyrants in Myanmar to accept our help for their cyclone victims. Methinks we need to land our troops there and take over. Such countries need to be ruled by colonial powers. Somehow, I doubt that there will be too much resistance at home or abroad this time around.
Polygamy through the eyes of the Constitution
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States permit polygamy.
No two ways about it: if freedom of religion is granted, so is the freedom to a polygamous marriage, if that is part of that religion.
What is truly forbidden by rule of law, is an abusive marriage of any kind and marriage involving minors. These are the only kinds of marriages (monogamous or polygamous) where the law should intervene. The mechanism to resolve domestic violence and abuse is already in place for polygamists, as it is for everyone.
Moreover, we have polygamous relationships everywhere around that are permitted: consenting adults committing adultery, having many children by many women. At best, these are prosecuted in civil court through divorce. Why then would the United States victimize entire communities of peaceful citizens who take care of their children and live their lives and practice their faith?
The authorities are wasting their resources and breaking up entire families instead of dealing with the economy and crime and other serious matters.
No two ways about it: if freedom of religion is granted, so is the freedom to a polygamous marriage, if that is part of that religion.
What is truly forbidden by rule of law, is an abusive marriage of any kind and marriage involving minors. These are the only kinds of marriages (monogamous or polygamous) where the law should intervene. The mechanism to resolve domestic violence and abuse is already in place for polygamists, as it is for everyone.
Moreover, we have polygamous relationships everywhere around that are permitted: consenting adults committing adultery, having many children by many women. At best, these are prosecuted in civil court through divorce. Why then would the United States victimize entire communities of peaceful citizens who take care of their children and live their lives and practice their faith?
The authorities are wasting their resources and breaking up entire families instead of dealing with the economy and crime and other serious matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)