Divine Left

And while we're on the topic of outrageous power grabs: Here's an interesting political maneuver from the People's Republic of Cheap Christmas Ornaments; a law requiring a government permission for reincarnation.

Is this a new Chinese attempt at population control? I guess that if people are required to wait in a Government office before they can be reborn, it will discourage the practice of being reborn. It could even backfire, and cause mass conversions to Christianity. One might imagine that Hell and Purgatory are preferable alternatives, to waiting in line at the Reincarnation License Bureau.

Here in the US, the State avoids regulating supernatural phenomenon. Despite King County Washington adding Bigfoot to the endangered species list; and Florida requiring Telephone Psychics to sign a Vow of Clairvoyance; governments rarely regulate something so ridiculous. But in a Nation where Atheism and State Worship have been the common practice for the better part of the past century, who knows? This goes far beyond a merging of church and state; the state is actually superceding a chuch. Back when the Western world was ruled by the Vatican, the worst that could happen to a person is an excommunication, which would only affect a person in between lives.

Here in the US, we're just trying to make certain that everyone who comes here from another country has the right paperwork. At least it is possible to build a fence to keep illegals from entering this country; I don't know how you could guard against an infiltration of Illegal Reincarnates, though I imagine it would include garlic.

The truth behind their new law, is an attempt to stave a revolution in Tibet. By requiring a license be issued before reincarnation can be completed, the next incarnation of the Dali Lama will be cleared by the government. Therefore, he would be less able to organize a Tibetan Revolution. In other words, they know there's a new Ghandi on the horizon, they want to make certain it's going to be THEIR Ghandi.

I'm reminded of the ad campaigns of my youth where government sponsored ads would show government sancitoned Hippies warning about the dangers of drug use. The idea was that if some really cool hippies "laid down" the truth about drugs, kids would "dig the rap." But it never worked. Kids are fairly perceptive, and it was obvious these weren't REAL hippies. For one thing, they were over 35, and wearing bad wigs. I can't help but think the New People's Dali Lama of China will be met with the same cynicism.

If you can’t stand the heat...

While I was out of town for a week, on an un-deserved vacation, the Great Computer spoke again, about this little bug that keeps chaffing his silicon. In this post, he has decided to compare me to Creationists and Practitioners of Alternative medicine. The reference of course it that we’re all ignorant fanatics, who shun Science. In other words: Guilt by Asscociation. He was surprised to learn that some of our arguments are similar. It’s amazing to him, that people prefer, to live their own lives, make their own decisions, and not be dictated to by scientists.

There is a certain kind of person in this world. Most of us, when alerted by another driver, that we have a flat tire, will pull over and inspect it. There is that other type of person that will continue driving, and wonder why all these jerks on the road, keep telling him that his tire is flat. If I were told by several people, that I was being arrogant and controlling, I might take another look in the mirror, before I start accusing and generalizing.

Let me point out once again: I am not opposed to science. There is nothing wrong with information. A link between smoking and cancer? Great, let me know about that so I can alter my lifestyle. The earth is getting warmer, and the ocean might rise a few inches by the time I die? I’ll remember that when I buy my beach-front retirement home. (Make certain it’s in the North, and at least a block from the beach.)

What I oppose, is when Science is confused with legislation. Orac himself makes that error when he suggests:

"It's the personal against the cold, unfeeling scientific. In the case of global warming, it's portrayed as science saying that human industry and automobiles are causing a problem on a planetary scale; in other words, science versus free enterprise. In the case of secondhand smoke, it's scientists telling bar owners and smokers that their habit harms more than just the person puffing on the cigarette and that workers shouldn't have to subject themselves to that risk as a condition of employment; in other words, science versus freedom itself!"

It seems here that Orac is hiding behind Science as if it were Pontius Pilate’s fingerbowl. It’s not the scientists and politicians who are asking for smoking bans and restritive energy legislation, why it’s SCIENCE! You cannot oppose Science!

Science doesn’t legislate, people do. It is wrong headed to suggest that science ever supports any legislation. Science is actually pretty neutral on legislation; it doesn’t ever care whether something is good for society or bad for society. (Think “Manhattan Project.”) Data in data out.

Contrarily, it is how that science is used by legislators, that sets the moral tone. Or let me put it in a way Orac and his buddies might understand better: Science is like a Magic Wand, an Enchanted Sword, or a ring that makes you invisible. It is a power that can be used for good, or it can be used to sneak into the girl’s locker room.

The desire to legislate is the desire to control. The bottom line of all legislation is, that we’ve decided a certain behavior is so repugnant, we must send police to arrest whomever next engages in that activity. It is the consummate position of power. People don’t get into politics unless they have a desire to hold that power.

Where that desire comes from, I don’t really know. What is it that compels people to demand that bars they have no intention of entering, must be smoke free? Why should all light bulbs be replaced with CFLs, and everyone be required to drive a Prius? As someone who thinks people should be allowed to live their own lives as they see fit, I really don’t understand it. I originally speculated, that this need to manipulate fellow citizens was spawned on the dodgeball courts of a pre-Clinton America.

I still haven’t seen anything that would convince me otherwise. If that conclusion bothers some, hey it’s just politics. Ad Hominem attacks, and unsubstantiated arguments have always been the status quo of political debate. Once scientists have decided to commit their lives to politics, they have entered a forum where the rules of science no longer apply. It’s all fair game. So if you don’t like the rhetoric, get back into the laboratory.

And in the political realm, it seems science is used more often, to fog the debate, than to clarify it. Little scientific facts are used to support overwhelming suppositions. Advocates of legislation are allowed to make incredibly hyperbolic statements with little or no criticism from the scientific community.

Take for instance Global Warming: The famous claim by Al Gore that oceans could rise by as much as twenty feet. According to scientists, they could. It has happened before, and it might happen again. But there is no evidence that this is likely within any of our lifetimes. This dubious claim that we are facing a deluge is played out by politicians, and in the media, as if it is inevitable and impending. Al Gore even said we have less than ten years to act if we want to stop it. Carbon emission caps are proposed, and if anyone dares criticize those caps, they are accused of being ignorant, anti science, and will be held responsible for the great deluge.

The truth is, current estimates only attribute 30 - 40 percent of the observed warming to human CO2 emissions. Which means that if we stopped all CO2 production tomorrow, a majority of the warming, melting, and rising would still occur. Since there isn’t a chance we could stop burning carbon within the next ten, twenty, or (probably) even a hundred years, it seems that Global warming is inevitable; just something we should learn to live with. But that’s certainly not the direction the legislation is headed.

Same goes for the risk of second hand smoke. I brought up earlier that the risk of heart trouble from second hand smoke, is less than the risk of heart trouble from drinking a can of pop every day. Orac claims that is a silly argument, because nobody is forced to drink a can of pop every day.

Apparently, he completely missed my satirical point. Most Americans would be surprised to learn there is more risk of heart disease from can of pop, than from sitting in a smoky bar. Smoking has been so demonized, that people assume SHS is nearly as deadly as cyanide gas. In fact, much of the popular propaganda often repeats that there is cyanide in second hand smoke. Scientific fact perhaps, but is it ever mentioned that cyanide is also found in almonds, millet sprouts, lima beans, soy, spinach, bamboo shoots, and cassava roots?

And let me state here and now that I don’t think there is anything in a can of pop that could cause heart trouble. I believe that there is just a commonality between frequent pop drinkers, and those with heart trouble that the experimenters didn’t control out of the study (Lack of exercise? Dietary habits? Propensity to lie about smoking, diet and exercise when questioned by an Epidemiologist?). Which is the point I was trying to bring up. Yes, a risk of 1.2 from smoking Second Hand Smoke might be real, and statistically significant, but it is so small, that perhaps the scientists just aren’t looking at their control group close enough. (or more likely, they don’t want to). I don’t think any of the studies that Orac pointed out screened participants for daily pop consumption.

One of the things that irritated Orac in the beginning, that I made fun of Global Warming, by suggesting a cold February was evidence against it. He missed the satire that night as well. If a hot day in Nevada, is evidence of Global warming, the thirtieth coldest February must be evidence against. If a politician were to trumpet the lack of hurricanes for two seasons, as evidence against global warming, the scientists would come down on him in herds. However, there is very little opposition when politicians and media types use a particularly active hurricane season as evidence of the crisis. This despite the fact that most hurricane experts claim no link between Global Warming and hurricane frequency.

I can’t help but cite some scientists for complacency in the process. Perhaps it is not the motivation of all scientists to head this country in an anti-capitalist direction, but many of them seem to be quite silent. Perhaps don’t realize they are being quite useful to the cause.

And here is a truth that Orac refuses to acknowledge: There ARE socialists within the environmental movement, that want to use Global Warming as a starting point to control capitalism. Do you think it’s any coincidence that former Communist, and admitted Socialist, Mikhail Gorbachev is now the head of an environmental organization? I spent a weekend at a Green Party Convention, and there was a lot more focus on Socialism than Environmentalism. In fact, the delegates, weren’t even using the recycling bins the hotel provided.

The resentment Orac feels from me, is not based on ignorance or antipathy to science, it is antipathy to people who want to run my life. It is not his authority I reject, but his authoritarianism.

The success of this nation, is based on freedom. Freedom of citizens to make individual decisions that contribute to the wealth and prosperity of the entire society. And the freedom to make mistakes is just as important as the freedom to make good decisions. As a committed Darwinist, he should understand that. His latest post suggests that Scientists are jerks, because it takes a real jerk to survive the grant application process, (I probably agree with him there), and Darwinian Law, eliminates non-jerks from the grant industry.

But Darwinism goes beyond Nature and the Science Department. Cultures and ideas must be subjected to the same forces that encourage evolution. Businesses and traditions must have an opportunity to fail. Ideas that don’t stand up will be abandoned, but it is only by subjecting them to the process that we can ever know which decisions were correct. Anybody who claims they can predict the outcome, has let his own intellectal pride delude himself.

If a family wants to raise their child without Darwin, what business is it of Orac’s? I can’t imagine how an ignorance of Evolution will damage a child outside of him getting mocked at a lot of cocktail parties when he grows up. (But that’s probably going to happen to an admitted Christian anyway). And if vitamins, weeds and enemas won’t cure diseases, future generations will be absent of people with that tendency to believe in the healing powers of vitamins, weeds, and enemas. Those of us who discount Global Warming, will buy beach-front property, and those who believe in it, will not. (Check the Real Estate market thirty years from now, and see who was right.)

And finally: if a bar owner wants to let people smoke in his bar; he warns his employees it’s going to happen; he puts a big sign outside the door telling customers that the atmosphere inside is as risky as a can of pop; and warns everyone they will be exposed to the same toxins that exist in spinach; who (outside of a few shills on the Robert Wood Johnson Payroll) should be concerned?

We know we’re not as smart as you, just let us make our own mistakes.

I Give Up!

Just in case any of you missed it, I spent the better part of last week trying to teach some science geeks about how business works. Turns out they don’t care. Perhaps their youthful forays into Dungeons and Dragons have reinforced their confidence at role playing, and they now believe they can do anything. Whatever. Here’s my last post I left there before I trot off to the wilderness for a week:
Orac writes: " his lame comparisons to Hitler and Mao"
Perhaps I'm just not making myself clear on those comparisons. I never meant to compare the horrific actions of Hitler, Mao, (and Stalin) to the anti smokers. As I said before, it's silly to compare a smoking ban, to the horrors of those dictatorships. My comparison was meant to be a critique on the planned economies of the last century, which all failed miserably. And it wasn't just because they they lost the wars.
Planned economies always fail, because the intelligentsia of those nations, try to run things they know nothing about. They take over the factories, the farms and the mines, and assume that their advanced intellects and educations could run those things more efficiently than the original owners. It inevitably devolves into micromanagement, resulting in shortages, lines, and poverty.
The success of capitalism is based on letting individuals with experience, make the important decisions, free from a micro managing authoritarian bureaucracy. We suppose in this country, that a guy who has worked up enough scratch to open a business, knows how to run that business best.
I can tell that very few of my rivals here, have ever worked in a bar. LCR compared Q2 revenue to Q3 revenue, and claimed there was an indication of a downturn. Anybody who has ever worked in a Northern bar knows that April May and June are always going to be busier than July, August, and September. Comparing Q2 to Q3 is as specious as comparing November and December retail numbers to February and March.
And he continues to insist, that because other bars are still open, it proves that smoking isn't part of the bar business. I don't know if he's really that ignorant or just obstinate, but for the last time: all bars are not the same. Some offer food and drink, some offer entertainment, some have dancing, some have nekid girls, and some are just a place you can go to have a smoke with your beer, where your wife won't complain about the smell. (What's wrong with letting a few bars get smoking licenses?)

And Orac was right. Two years revenue is not a scientifically large enough data sample to establish a trend (I repeat here, he didn't seem to mind the limited data set, when he used the same numbers to support HIS argument). But in the Bar business, sometimes two years is all you've got. And I know the bar business in Minneapolis is hurting. I have enough friends in the industry there, and I trust their opinions. Perhaps I can't write a convincing enough report for the politburo, but it is real.
Here's a question: If there is no negative economic impact from a smoking ban, why would bar owners say there was? How does it serve bar owners to make up such a lie? I guarantee that a lot of owners would like it if they didn't have to come home smelling like stale smoke every morning. And the reductions on their fire insurance premiums should be more than enough incentive to go smoke free.
The reason is, they KNOW it's more profitable for a bar to be a smoking establishment. (And the way many of you are fighting it so fiercely, indicates that you probably know it as well.) But you don't care. You pretend to know more than the individual bar owners. How many times has someone here repeated, that there is absolutely no reason for people to smoke inside of a bar? Well maybe the people who invested their time and money, know just a little more about it than you. Customers don't want to go outside for a smoke. Once they're out there, a lot of times they just go home. I've SEEN it. People used to hang at the bar in Minnesota after a show. Now they all leave.
You might think my argument about power hungry science geeks is out of line, but I think most of the responses I've been getting more than proves my point. Look in the post above, how David G. feels he has a right to go into any bar without having to smell smoke. That somehow, every establishment should cater to HIS personal preferences. Would David be so quick to say, "I should be able to go into a Gay bar and enjoy a meal without having to worry about guys hitting on me?"
Look how he doesn't care about minor "economic fallout." (At least he admits there will be some.) And the remark, " They may lose some smoking patrons, but they surely stand to gain some nonsmoker patrons." presupposes that David knows more about the bottom line than the bar owner. (I defy him to back up that point with any hard evidence.)
I'm sorry, but this is the same kind of confidence that the dictators of the previous century had, when they nationalized the Auto plants.
Remember the Yugo?

Once More Round the Wheel

I crossed the line. My last shot, certainly got someone’s attention. What I thought was just a spirited debate, is starting to blow a few circuit breakers. My recent post about anti-smokers being power hungry control freaks hit a nerve over at Respectful Insolence, and the normally emotionless and rational Orac has actually gotten angry.

Let me note first, that I never said that proponents of the smoking bans are geeky kids trying to get even with the cool kids that smoke. That’s just reducing my original argument to the point of ridiculousness. What I’ve been saying, is that kids who grew up being bullied, sometimes grow into adulthood with a tendency to bully. The fabled Napoleon Complex is one example of this phenomenon. The way I got treated by scientists, for suggesting that a bicycle emits the same amount of CO2 per mile as a Moped was another. (I still have a few bruises, from what happened on THAT playground.)

I believe that people who were bullied, sometimes grow up to be bureaucrats who use the power of government to push others around, and lose sight of the human aspect. This example certainly fits the dictator I mentioned in my last post (He who Cannot be Named). I did not mean to associate the horrors of his regime with smoking bans. But when you start making the decision that public health is more important than the investments of small business owners, you are invoking tyranny. Sure it’s just a small step towards dictatorship, but it is the same concept.

I think some scientists might also harbor a version of the Bureaucrat Complex. I think when a person spends too much time in the laboratory, he starts looking at everything as a lab experiment. People become less like individuals, and more like figures on a report, that can emotionlessly be pushed around to achieve a favorable result. So what if a few people lose their livelihoods, if it will marginally increase public health? (Orac suggested as much when he inferred that he might have succumbed to the legendary surgeon’s “god complex.”)

I stated that a lot of people in the Minneapolis Food and Beverage Industry have suffered material hardship. (Others have suggested that the link I provided was biased, and without a proper control). In response, Orac pulled up a few “studies.” But before we move on to those, lets look at what the author of that “biased” link (a non-smoker) had to say about his motivations for jumping into the debate:

“My career of 15 years, selling Smokeeter air filtration equipment to bars and restaurants came to an abrupt end once the debate for smoking bans began ...

During that time period of being unemployed, without the ability to continue making car payments my vehicle quickly fell into repossession status, and eventually was surrendered. Without the ability to continue making child support payments a family court judge decided I was in contempt and ordered me to jail. Without the ability to continue making mortgage payments our home quickly fell into foreclosure status, the sheriff's sale ocurred on May 5, 2006, and as it currently stands we are to be evicted”

Ouch. That’s kind of hard to look at when you get real close isn’t it? This kind of suffering never shows up in “studies.” And his story is only one of hundreds. I’m telling you, the loss is real. I’ve talked to a lot of the people with stories similar to the ones on his list.

A friend of mine owns a restaurant connected to a small bar. Since he is a bit of a gourmand, he made the restaurant portion of his establishment non-smoking, long before the ban. The bar side of his restaurant, catered to an entirely different crowd. A factory down the street was a boon for his business, since workers could walk there for lunch, and after shift drinks. It also served as a place where diners could enjoy a cigarette with their aperitif, or a smoke after dinner.

When the ban passed, the bar went entirely empty. No more lunch crowd, no shift change, and the smokers all rush straight outside after dinner. He told me that the ban has cost him close to $125K per year in lost revenue. Fortunately, his restaurant is successful enough to keep him afloat, but as he told me, “If I had been just a mom and pop, beer and a shot bar (like most of the ones that closed are) the ban would have devastated me. None of those smaller operations could bear a loss like that.”

But if you want statics. Let’s take a look at some of the links Orac provided in his response:

This one was from a group headed by Dr. Stanton Glantz and “supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.” Pardon me, if I don’t take that one seriously. I would be laughed out of the room if I sent anyone to a link on the Phillip Morris website, for a study compiled by Richard Lindzen. I trust Orac will grant me the same courtesy here.

His second link, cites a New York Times article. It is a questionable study done by comparing tax revenue and employment in restaurants before and after the ban. I don’t really put a lot of credibility in this methodology. However the study concluded, that by those proxies, that New York Food and Beverage business is up. But deeper in the article is a suggestion why:

''The increase in tax payments and jobs must be weighed against the restaurant industry's emergence from the post-9/11 recession, said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association”

A perfectly reasonable criticism since the study compared tax revenues from 2003 to 2002; less than a year after 9/11. It seems to me that this would have set off a big red light for a scientist as skeptical as Orac. But what makes it even more questionable is the following statement:

“The report does not reflect the harsh realities faced by the city's bars, which catered to a smoking-heavy crowd before the ban, said bar merchants, who questioned why bar data was not separate in the report. The city's answer is that data that separates bars from restaurants is not reliable, said Sam Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Finance.”

Not reliable? Or maybe it didn’t fit well into their agenda. Such a possibility seems to be proven on the third link. I don’t even think Orac bothered reading the original report this article was based on. (Bad Orac!) If he had, he certainly would have had his interest piqued by the following:

“For the remaining two categories of businesses, revenues decreased from 2004 to 2005. The rate of decrease for neighborhood bars was 4.15 percent, and for downtown clubs, 0.09 percent. “

Furthermore, during that same time frame, bars and restaurants had raised their prices around 15% to pay for the Minnesota minimum wage hike. So actually, tax revenues should have been up 15% over that time frame. If statistics were compiled from bars and restaurants outside of the Twin Cities, it would have given a much better perspective on the true state of the Industry. Comparing revenue to the previous year is an inferior control.

It seems my claim of a recession in the Twin Cities Food and Beverage Industry isn’t specious. I ask again: Why must every bar be smoke free? There is obviously a market for smoking bars in America. Orac, as a non-smoker, might not understand the concept; but it is real. His insistence that all bars must become smoke free, (just because that is how He chooses to drink) is why I accused him of tyrannical behavior.

Here’s the Slagle Compromise: Currently 20% of the population in the United States are smokers. Why not allow States to allow 20% of all liquor licenses to be designated “Smoking Allowed.” They could originally take bids for the licenses, after which they become property of the establishments. Ultimately they could trade smoking exemptions amongst themselves. So a bar that relies on smokers for it’s business could buy an exemption from an establishment that wants to open a non-smoking restaurant. This way, 80% of the bars and restaurants would be smoke free, and smokers could still find a bar or two where they could light up. Non-smoking waitresses who didn’t want to expose themselves to the 1.2 risk of heath complications, would still be able to find work in the other 80% of the bars and restaurants. (I still think some non-smoking waitresses would rather work in the smoking bars, because it is my understanding that smokers are much better tippers).

I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution to the dilemma. However, it runs contrary to what I believe is the ultimate goal of the Anti-Smoking Lobby: Complete Tobacco Prohibition. Those who doubt me, need to reacquaint themselves, with the concept of incrementalism.

Correction: I originally misread the New York Times article. I thought the tax revenue was averaged over the amount of restaurants. Most certainly, a closed bar would be reflected in total tax receipts, which was how the study was conducted. I have applied changes to the article to reflect this realization.

Almost Had Me

After the incredibly fun week of back and forth over Global Warming, my arch nemesis Orac posted a follow-up, in regards to my question on Second Hand Smoke. He wrote:

“Certainly indoor smoking bans at workplaces and in restaurants and bars are defensible on a scientific and public health basis.”

In full disclosure, I’ve been opposed to smoking bans, since day one. I’ve got myself in trouble a couple times being civilly disobedient, and once I even made the 10:00 News in Minnesota, leading a smoking rally. (BTW: I will be back in Minneapolis October 2 - 6, the week after the Minnesota State ban goes in effect .,.. Stay Tuned!). I also tend to spend more time talking politics with right wing people (since all my leftist friends refuse to do it anymore). My slant is admittedly going to be on the side of the tobacco companies. At least,I admit my bias.

It always frustrates me when people only see that bias. Of course there is the corporate position. A company that has enriched itself providing a legal product that people enjoy, is going to take the side of themselves and their customers. And people DO want cigarettes. There is this peculiar notion, that every person who smokes is hopelessly addicted, and would quit tomorrow if it were possible. That is simply not true. Some people just like smoking. They know its unhealthy, but which of us non-smokers is completely guiltless when it comes to other self destructive behaviors, like drinking, overeating, and a negligent exercise schedule?

On the other side of the debate, is a motivation far more insidious. It is a desire for power. Many people who see the debate as manipulated solely by tobacco money, never look at that angle, nor recognize that for some, power is far more seductive than profit. There was a very power-hungry person, who once advocated smoke free workplaces. He is the one who cannot be named. (Not because there are dark powers associated with the name, it is because current protocol dictates that the first person to invoke his name, automatically loses the debate ... spend a little time playing with you Googler, and I’m sure you’ll figure it out.) But I think it’s no coincidence that one of the worlds’ most infamous megalomaniacs, didn’t want people smoking around him.

The reason why I am suspicious of things like Second Hand Smoke, and Global Warming is not because I am anti-science. I actually enjoy science. I spent some time in college studying it, (and if I hadn’t decided I like beer and girls better, I might be studying it still.) Actually, I am anti regulation, and anytime somebody tells me that science has proven a need to regulate my life, I get really suspicious. When I asked Orac if he could send me some links to prove the negative health consequences of smoking, I was genuinely curious. He wasn’t the first person I asked. However he was the first person who provided me with some.

I stayed in the background throughout the debate, because I didn’t want to embarrass myself again. I also didn’t have to join in. Somehow, from out of ether, came a swarm of angry bloggers, ready to call Orac on the carpet. He had to write two follow-ups, one on relative risk, and another on the famous Helena Study. He even did a fourth article on the effects of smoking on Parkinson’s Disease. I looked at what he had to say, and what his multitudinous opponents had to say in return. It was highly educational.

Here’s what I learned: There are studies that suggest a health risk from second hand smoke. The risk factor depends on whether you’re looking at lung or cardiovascular, and whether the person lived with a smoker, or worked around a lot smokers. It varies from 1.2 to 1.3. (Notice, that there is no study to indicate that standing next to someone smoking at a bus stop, or in the house next door, will have ANY impact on your health.)

I had known that somewhat. But from what I had been told, any risk under 2.0, is negligible. Orac corrected those who suggested such a thing. Apparently there is no practice within epidemiology (the study of stuff like this) to discount such statistics. According to him, there has been a propaganda campaign (most probably orchestrated from inside the tobacco companies) to discredit SHS studies, and a list of suspicious quotes discrediting epidemiological studies under 2.0, has been circulating the Internet. I had to throw in the towel at this point. I’ve never studied Epidemiology, and I have to take his word for it. If he says a risk below 2.0 is significant, it is significant. I guess I was wrong.

I was going to write him a note telling him so, until I ran across this. Apparently, a recent study found there is an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease for people who drink a can of pop every day. And look at that risk rate. Over 1.4. Now granted this is just one isolated study, and Orac stressed the need to look at isolated studies without a biologically plausible mechanism skeptically, but it really puts things in perspective. Apparently the risk of getting heart trouble from second hand smoke, is almost identical to drinking a can of pop every day. So working in a smoky bar, is as bad for you as a can of pop. In fact, since most people who work in bars have access to the soda gun, there is a good chance that every non-smoker in those SHS studies, drank a glass or two of pop every single day.

So have I changed my mind? Yes and no. I can no longer defend the statement; “There is no science finding adverse health consequences from second hand smoke.” But is there enough danger in second hand smoke, to pass sweeping legislation? Not really.

Especially since that legislation has resulted in the bankruptcy of hundreds of small business owners. I honestly don’t understand why every bar has to be non smoking. I think that owners, customers and employees are all capable of making such a decision on their own, whether they want to subject themselves to a slightly elevated risk of cancer and heart disease. Certainly when smokers were forced to decide between drinking at home, or going to a non-smoking bar, they just opted to stay home.

But I wouldn’t expect Orac to understand. Some people just don’t care about the plight of the average Joe. To them it’s just about the numbers. It’s why I often find myself butting heads with Statists. I care more about the impact of Global Warming legislation on the economy today, than I worry about a projected 23 inches of ocean rise. I am more concerned about the real loss incurred by bar owners, than some mythological non-smoking waitress, who couldn’t find work anywhere else. But these people let their egos run out of control, and presuppose they know more than the individual business owners.

Orac wrote: “ There's nothing inherent in the work required in bars or restaurants that demands exposure to SHS, other than tradition.”

It’s beyond tradition, it’s why many people go into a bar in the first place. A place to smoke and drink. What he said is almost as ridiculous as as saying: “There is no reason to add Tequilla to a Margarita, other than tradition.” or “I just don’t see why exotic dancers need to take all their clothes off.”

This whole argument started over a bit I did, about how scientists probably got beat up on the dodgeball court when they were kids. I was trying to illustrate how some nerdy kids will grow up bitter with a disregard for humanity, and they disguise this disregard as logic. Orac started this thread disputing my allegation.

He might think that a bar should be able to survive, just by providing a place to drink, but statistics prove otherwise. At least a hundred families in Minnesota have lost their life investment, and at least a thousand more people are now out looking for work. Meanwhile there has been a recession in the various industries surrounding food and beverage in the Twin Cities.
How could anyone think that is, an acceptable sacrifice? Or maybe nobody really does. Maybe they are just getting even for Dodgeball.

Environmental Fashion Plates

I said it over a year ago. According to an article by Robert Samuelson yesterday, the popularity of the Toyota Prius has nothing to do with the environment:

“Prius so outsells the rival Honda Civic Hybrid. Both have similar base prices, about $22,000, and fuel economy (Prius, 60 miles per gallon city/51 highway; Civic, 49 mpg city/51 highway). But Prius sales in the first half of 2007 totaled 94,503, nearly equal to all of 2006. Civic sales were only 17,141, up 7.4 percent from 2006. “

Why the disappointing sales figures? Well, the Hybrid Civic, looks just like a regular Civic. What sense is there in paying all that extra money for the high tech, if nobody knows you have it? Saving the planet, is just a side benefit; impressing your friends and neighbors is Job One. Today the average Prius is only driven around 7000 miles per year. So it seems that they're not really being purchased for transportation. It reminds me of my college days, when you could tell how much a guy paid for his stereo, by the size of his speakers.
Samuelson apparently concurs with my speculation that Priuses (Prion? Prii?) are fashion statements. As I said in 2006: "If you want to sell a Hybrid, you need to make it look like a Hybrid, so it's easier to pick up the vegan chicks." Back then, it was Ford Motor that reported disappointing sales of Hybrid SUVs. Now it seems Honda is stricken with the same plight.
The photo above is an idea for a possible option that Honda should offer. An attached flashing neon sign, that telegraphs your environmental awareness to the world. They certainly need something, to spare the Hybrid Civic from the same fate as the Hybrid Accord, which was recently discontinued.

King of Comedy

Well it seems that the field of Presidential candidates, is getting more and more crowded every day. Right now there are at least 25 people seeking the position.

But I never thought, that I would have to issue a denial. But here goes:

No, I am not seeking the office of the President of the United States. Also I'm not Elvis, I've never been abducted by a UFO, nor have I opened for Bat Boy.


However, you CAN go here and vote for me, as you favorite talking head:

Thankyouverymuch.

TIM SLAGLE HAS LEFT THE PODIUM. I REPEAT, TIM SLAGLE HAS LEFT THE PODIUM.

Shut up Orac

During my recent week in Chicago, My show was attended by Orac, of the marginally famous blog Respectful Insolence. I recognized him right away, because he was the only guy in the room that night, wearing a cape and wrestling mask. (I found out later, that on the few occasions he leaves the house, he likes to remain incognito).
When the show ended, we went over to the bar. After he was done signing autographs, I made the mistake of asking him a couple questions. They were honest questions, because I respect his intelligence. I’ve never been able to get an answer from political opponents on two issues: Is there any scientific basis for Al Gore’s claim of the oceans rising 20 feet? And whether there were any conclusive studies on the dangers of second hand smoke. He told me to send him an eMail, and he would respond. I did not know that I was setting myself up to be trashed. You can read his snippy review of my show, and the flimsy reply to Al Gore’s claim of 20 feet here. My response follows:

I'll try and keep this as brief and readable as possible. Going point by point tends to bore.

1. Ad Hominem attacks: Remember this was a comedy show, and ad hominem is funny. (Perhaps not so much when you are a target, but laughing at oneself is a good measure of a sense of humor.) Comics like Don Rickles focus entirely on ad hominem attacks. The biggest attack on Gore was not that he was fat, but rather a hypocritical Televangelist, who uses fear of apocalypse to enrich himself, promote his agenda, and gain political points. We all distain Pat Robertson for similar behaviors, but Gore is awarded with Oscars and a Nobel Prize.


2. I never said Global Warming wasn’t true: I said that people (not scientists) tend to explain every extreme weather event as a result of Global Warming. Certainly, if a 116 degree day in Vegas, or a devastating hurricane is evidence of Global Warming (As proponents such as Laurie David and RFK jr. often suggest), then the 30th coldest February in recorded history, must be evidence to the contrary. By suggesting that February was proof that Global Warming isn't happening, I was using satire, to illustrate that those who cite anecdotal evidence, are off base.
And yes, I am aware that some climate models do predict areas of the earth to go colder, but that is only areas that require the gulfstream and the Thermohaline Conveyor for their temperate climates. That doesn’t include Chicago. Anyone who thinks this past cold winter in the Midwest was evidence of Global Warming is seriously misguided, and deserves any ad hominem I can toss their way.


3. Scientist Envy: This was another ad hominem attack, I used to generate a little levity. Just between you and me, it’s semi-autobiographical. I was that geeky kid with allergies and asthma, who got beat up for lunch money, and creamed on the dodgeball court. And I understand how such a childhood can translate into bitterness and envy. I also know, that outside of a few large profile celebrities, who have no intention of giving up their high end lifestyles (See: Live Earth), most of the people campaigning hard for things like legislative restrictions on consumption, tend to be on the lower end of the income brackets; and are usually Starbucks baristas, bicycle messengers, or government employees (more ad hominem levity).
My speculation is, that smart kids who are bullied in school, grow up to be bullies themselves. Only, they become intellectual bullies. My liberal use of insults on stage is one symptom of that syndrome. Your need to publish the response to my question on your blog, without even asking me if I would mind, is another. (I’d have given you permission, I just would have liked if you asked first, and given me fair warning that I needed to prepare a rebuttal). Such behavior is indicative of someone still hurting from those dodgeball welts. I think perhaps, the reason you didn’t find the bit funny. is because it made those welts sting again. Your remark about getting laid a lot, doesn’t do much to alleviate my suspicions either.


4. Scientists have been wrong before: They have. And they will be wrong again the future. They could be wrong right now. We just don’t know. What I do know, is that any legislation passed to “rectify” global warming will far outlive any consensus. It is not the science I oppose, it is the solutions.
Look at the Kyoto Accord. India and China were both exempted from any restrictions on burning carbon, because at the time they were considered “developing” nations. They are now home to two of the hottest economies in the world, and China is now the number one producer of CO2 in the world. So what would have Kyoto done to slow Global Warming? Nothing measurable. On the other hand, it would most probably have been devastating to the US economy, and put outsourcing into high gear. Cheap labor has already soaked up a lot of American manufacturing; cheap energy would have been a final nail in our economic coffin, Meanwhile, the Kyoto Accord is still alive, and there are people who insist that America needs to sign on.
Incidentally, it is not true that Scientific consensus “overwhelmingly favors the contention that global warming is indeed due to a significant degree to human activity.” The latest survey put that consensus at 55.8% of climate scientists. Your citation of the IPCC report as an indication of consensus is incredibly misleading, since some scientists who oppose the report, had their opinions dismissed. Richard Lindzen even claims he had to sue to get his name removed from it.
And even if the consensus were 99.9%, does that make it correct? Scientific consensus was vehemently opposed to Plate Tectonic theory, for forty years. Consensus is not science, it is politics.

5. 20 Feet: This was the only point I really wanted to discuss, before you decided to make me a lengthy blog entry. You write: if half of the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica melted, sea levels could rise 20 feet (6 metres).” (emphasis mine)
That’s a big “If." You know, If flying space monkeys lifted up Mt. Everest, and dropped it into Lake Michigan, the resulting tidal wave could destroy Chicago, Milwaukee, Benton Harbor and Green Bay. But is there any science suggesting either occurrence is likely?
Here is a great example of how scientists are occasionally wrong (even Orac). You write:

“The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.”

But according to an article released just last week in Science, DNA samples indicate that Greenland did not melt 125,000 years ago. In fact: “The new discoveries suggest that southern Greenland has been ice-covered for at least four times longer than previously thought.”
And what about Antarctica you say? It’s been getting colder. And the ice is getting thicker.

Hardly reason to sell the beach house.

Assault and Blathering

Al Gore's new book the Assault on Reason hit the shelves. Advance reviews and excerpts indicate more of his trademark condescending sighs. 308 pages of Al Gore shaking his head and telling us that we just don't get it. He believes Americans are so used to getting their information from emotional thirty second soundbites, that we don't have the attention span to appreciate his smoldering intellect. Next he plans to sell his Anthropogenic Global Warming Policy, with a big rock show. Well if you can't beat them, join them.

The whole global warming debate has been an Assault on Reason. Our exposure to the topic is from fearful sound bites: meteorologists speculating why Chicago would see a seventy degree day in the middle of January, a mudslide in California, or a tornado in Kansas. The people delivering the message, are more likely to Rock Stars and Politicians, rather than Climate Scientists or Tree Surgeons; the ones who have taken the easy courses in college. From what I've learned, Al Gore probably doesn't even understand basic geography.

Global warming is part of the American conscience now. People at the bank no longer ask if it’s hot enough for you, if you brought the cold weather along, or had mistakenly ordered all that rain. Today, when the temperature becomes unbearably hot, people blame Global Warming. In the winter it is used as an excuse for cold snap, sometimes without irony.

Americans have stubbornly resisted any Global Warming Legislation, but it's not because we're unaware. With gas approaching four bucks a gallon, who isn't cutting back on the unnecessary trips? Do we really need another round of "Turn down your thermostat, and inflate your tires? Most of the ideas proposed thus far are ridiculously impractical, like taking a bicycle to work. (Fine if your a twenty year old kid living in Southern California.)

The only real solution is increasing taxes on energy. This would effectively price all the things that make America so delightful out of the range of middle America. Air Conditioning, big cars and pleasure craft would only be accessible to people like Al Gore. The resistance the Global Warming proponents note, is a well reasoned refusal to accept a lower standard of life.

Nobody wants to sacrifice, including the Live Earth Rock Stars. I doubt any musicians will be using un-amplified instruments, lighting the stage with CFLs, or using low carbon smoke machines. Madonna will keep her microphone plugged in, even though she rarely uses it when she's "singing." Just the oil used for transportation will be staggering. But according to their Press release: "The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take action.. ... These actions are likely to include personal pledges to reduce emissions, for instance by using energy efficient equipment or flying less. "

This, despite their original plan to perform: "seven major concerts on seven continents. "That would require a flight into Antarctica. The only reason behind an Antarctic show, is to make it an even seven, to coincide with the concert date of 7/7/07. A seventh show would only be a necessary expense, for an obsessive compulsive. There is a good chance when they conceptualized these shows, they hoped to photograph drowning polar bears, and collapsing ice sheets for a dramatic example of the crisis we are facing. But they forgot that Antarctica is on the bottom of the earth, and July 7th is midwinter in Antarctica . It is dark 24 hours a day. So much for photographing those ice sheets. Temperatures can reach 130 degrees below zero. Oh yeah, and the polar bears don’t live there either. The Live Earth website lists no Antarctic shows.

The Live Earth press department confirmed that an Antarctic show is in the works, but refused to offer details. Ditto for Al Gore’s office. Perhaps they just are having a difficult time locating a stadium in Antarctica capable of hosting such a grand concert, that isn't already booked.

According to Linda Capper Press Representative for the British Antarctic Survey, back in February, Al Gore's office contacted the BAS requesting a flight into the Rothera Research station in Antarctica this July, to bring an "undisclosed artiste" to perform there. Rothera is under British jurisdiction and hosts an over-winter population of 22 residents. Al Gore was probably fairly certain they would get the plane in, too. Back in February, he was boasting that Live Earth would present the "first ever rock concert in Antarctica."

Unfortunately planes cannot land in July; the airports close for the season in March. Ships cannot get in after April. because of the sea ice (which, contrary to An Inconvenient Truth, has not all melted). We all remember the story of the Russian Scientist who performed an appendectomy on himself one winter, because the only help his nation could provide was air-dropping a mirror, some clean scalpels, and a bottle of vodka. If they want to have any bands there this July, they would need to be there already.

So what band is going to perform in Antarctica? Linda Capper informed me that the Live Earth Show will be held at the Rothera facility. According to Linda : “We have a house band - 5 of our science team. They are very good indie rock-folk fusion. The remaining 17 will be the audience on location.” Wow. I can’t wait for that show. Is this anyone's idea of a "major concert?" A bunch of cabin-fevered scientists, playing songs, around a kerosene lantern. I've been to pajama parties bigger than that. I wonder how long the Live Earth producers will let them play, (or if they’ll even get to finish a song).

Live Earth is now running away from their original claim. According to the current website there are now: "Nine concerts in nine cities ACROSS seven continents." [emphasis mine] (Perhaps they should change the date to September ninth.) Seems more like a last minute cover-up, for a really bad idea. It appears that Al Gore, leader of the Climate Change movement, and Champion of Reason, would flunk Earth Science 101. Yes there has been an assault. And Al Gore is still holding the weapon.

MORE: My article made it to The Weekly Standard
MORE 6/13/07: Now it's on The Examiner
MORE 6/14/07: After the article actually made it on to the Drudge Report® yesterday, I heard back from Linda Capper:

Hi Tim.... just saw all the comments on your website - a lot of negative feeling out there.... phew!

Linda,
I'm sorry that you see it that way. I was just having a little fun. Al Gore himself said, "the task of saving the global environment is a task we should all approach with a sense of joy." Well what is more joyful, than the sound of laughter? 
We all share the same planet, so each of us has to do what we think is necessary to save it. Al Gore thought  he could help, by flying a band into Antarctica in the middle of winter. I thought I could help, by pointing out that he tried it.

Every Breath You Take

Today is the big day. It's the Environmental Pessimists version of a Star Wars Premiere. If Global Warming were a video game, there would be lines outside all the Wal-Marts. Today is the day that the UN sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) releases it's Global Warming report. Gosh, I wonder what will be in it?

Despite the anticlimactic leaks that have been circulated for the past month or so, I'd like to wager a guess: The Earth is going to warm, the oceans are going to rise, and humanity will be destroyed as plague famine and pestilence sweeps around the globe. Chiefly responsible for this Apocalypse is the United States, and unless our wealth is shared with the rest of the world, this dire scenario is inevitable. Americans will hang their heads in shame and wish they didn't live in a nation that as no regard for the rest of the world, before they fire up the SUV and take the kids to soccer practice.

Is it really scientific? The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), one of the founding members of the IPCC actually disputes the report. The report claims that there will be an increase in hurricane activity, and the WMO states there is no science behind that claim. Who more than weathermen would know that you can't make an accurate 100 year weather forecast, like these IPCC eggheads claim to do. Heck, most forecasters couldn't give you an accurate 7 day outlook if their life depended on it. I'm certain that this little point of contention will be completely ignored, as journalists digest the report for us simple folk, and tell us that more storms like Katrina are inevitable.

In a classic empty gesture, the French dimmed the Eiffel Tower for five minutes. Network news will rave about what a dramatic measure this is. Forget that the Eiffel Tower consumes roughly 20 megawatt hours per year and five minutes of illumination is 0.00017% of that. (There is even speculation that the energy to restart the bulbs consumes more energy than it takes to keep them lit for five minutes.) It isn't really going to do anything, other than make a dramatic news item. A more positive statement would be made if they stuck a windmill on top of the thing, and make the tower useful.

Meanwhile, the proposed solutions to Global Warming will be completely ignored. The UN, a power hungry gaggle of tyrants and dictators, will ask for the ability to regulate all CO2 emissions. The IPCC is generating fear, hoping that we give up our right to electricity Which means that they would have the power to regulate anything that causes those emissions. Which is essentially everything that humans do. It is astounding to me, that people who accuse President Bush, of using fear to coax Americans into sacrificing their rights, do not recognize that this report, is doing the same thing.

What should be noticed, is that if the IPCC gets their way, the Eiffel Tower would probably have to remain dark round the clock. And shut off those elevators. Because the only real solution to CO2 emissions, is to stop burning carbon. Since Carbon is necessary for close to 66% of our current electricity requirements, we would have to cut our electric usage by two thirds. You can forget electric cars.

Actually, forget about going anywhere. Since cars, trucks planes trains and boats all produce CO2. transportation would probably be completely shut down, and any form of travel forbidden. Home-heating, streetlights, and everything that makes America safe and comfortable would come under their scrutiny. Anybody who disputes this, ignores the propensity towards evil, common in dictators and tyrants. Would a tyrant who ordered a segment of his population to be chopped apart with machetes, think twice about banning American clothes dryers?

Even a bicycle emits CO2. Gasoline is essentially a carbohydrate, and produces the same amount of CO2 per calorie burned as sugar. Since the laws of thermodynamics are inflexible, riding a bicycle ten miles will produce the same amount of CO2 as driving a light moped. Animals also emit CO2 even when they're stationary, so if we give the UN the authority to regulate CO2, they then have the authority to regulate our every breath; and eventually the UN will be given authority over population growth.

Remember, when you see those photos of the Eiffel Tower blackened, that the people who commissioned the report will refuse to rest easy, until the whole world looks like that. Already we have the choice of whether we want to cut back or not, and the fact that we haven't is enormously frustrating for them.

North Korea is a respected member of the UN and satellite night photos of that country are startling. South Korea looks like an island floating off the coast of China, because North Korea is completely dark. Every light in North Korea turns off at 9PM local time. Since the pygmy pot bellied dictator who leads that nation is incapable of creating more electricity, his solution to the inequitywould be to curtail the South. It's the same urge that compels ugly girls to scratch the eyes of the pretty ones

Don't be fooled. The UN contains remnants of civilizations that once told us the future of the world was Global Communism, and it would produce more wealth than the earth had ever known. Evil tyrants never go away, they just find new Manifestos.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere a Sign

"You people want to live in a world where there's no stop signs or traffic lights!" It's probably the most oft repeated argument I hear from critics of the Libertarian philosophy.

Actually, I don't. I understand the necessity of things like speed limits, and traffic lights to negotiate a safe and even traffic flow. I do realize that sometimes, those speed limits are set ridiculously low. For the twenty years between the Nixon Administration and the 94 Republican takeover of Congress, speed limits nationwide were held down to 55 miles per hour. Energy conservation was the initial excuse for this unnatural pace, but when gas prices were allowed to rise naturally, in the post Carter years, the shortages evaporated. At that point, safety was the selling point of the speed limits. I always speculated that the speed limits were kept low, so that people would naturally exceed them, giving authorities the cause to pull anyone over. The fines assessed on people driving a normal speed would also benefit regional governments.

I've also believed for some time, that when laws become too easy to break, they will be broken lasciviously. If everybody breaks the law, it erodes people's respect for it. Such is the case in the big cities of America, and most third world nations, where the amount of laws make it is almost impossible to abide by all of them; and unnecessary, as long as you can bribe the appropriate official.

An observation of this erosion is the recent lowering of the allowable blood alcohol level to .08% in 2000. There was a time when drunk driving was not taken seriously enough, and there were too many needless accidents, injuries and deaths caused by our apathy. Thanks to stricter enforcement, and an effective public awareness campaign, the amount of alcohol related auto accidents has dropped dramatically over the past couple decades. But .08% is probably too low. Most experienced drinkers can operate a vehicle quite well a that level. You can get a 0.08% blood alcohol level, from a generous shot of NyQuil®.

Hence a lot more people are getting arrested. Being arrested for a DUI was originally a stigma that would force a person into rehab, and make them re-evaluate their habits. Today, so many people are getting arrested for it, that everyone outside of Utah, probably knows a couple people who have received one. Hence, rather than being a life altering event, DUIs are nothing more than really bad traffic tickets. Today, people laugh about them, and at parties you'll often find groups of people comparing what percentage they blew, the night they got theirs.

And it is reflected in the statistics. Since the 08% was initiated, the amount of people who admit to driving when they shouldn't has increased for the first time since the clamp down began. According to the Department of Transportation, in 2003, alcohol related fatalities have increased in 17 states since 1995. A recent study indicates that alcohol related traffic incidents are up almost 50%. Strangely, it would seem that the solution to Drunk Driving is not more restrictions, but less. It would be a really bold legislator that would risk his career on supporting that move. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. suggested this back in 2000. Perhaps the zeitgeist is slowly correcting itself, but I don't expect to see it change in my lifetime.

Back to traffic signs. Conventional wisdom would say, that if you took down stop signs, that people would rush straight through intersections, and there would be a measurable amount of increased accidents. That's the reason why a kid with a stop sign decorating his wall, was always punished more severely than the kid who had one that said: Bong Recreation Area

But there is also the possibility, that if there were no stop signs, people would approach every intersection with caution. Rather than counting on the drivers in opposing traffic to stop at theirs, while you blow through yours, both cars are going to stop. There would be a disincentive to speeding, through several intersections at a time, because you never know if the other guys are going to stop. Self preservation and protection of personal property is more incentive than the risk of a hundred dollar fine.

There is also the factor, that for a certain percentage of humans, if you tell them to do something, they won't. Not only are rules meant to be broken, the very existence of a rule is a challenge. (I think I fall into that category.) It is quite possible that if you don't make it a law that you have to stop at every intersection, more people will.

Up until now, these ideas were nothing more than a very interesting thought experiment. Whenever I sugested it, I was usually made fun of. Today I ran into this item on the Drudge Report from Der Spiegel. It seems that some European towns are experimenting with this idea: "... in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. ...'More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed.'"

While I suggest that perhaps their ventures into these experiments are inspired by limited resources, rather than more loftier goals, like an advancement of Liberty, there is no mistaking the result: "...the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy."

From the Continent that gave the world Marxism, comes this fresh breeze of Liberty. It looks like I've just been given one more reason to applaud the Netherlands, and perhaps I should readjust my prejudice of Europe.

louder than words

Is the Earth over crowded? One of the most popular Leftist Mantras is that there are too many people on the Planet.

Alongside, " Why do I have to pay my student loan back?", "Too many people on the planet," is one of the top five things you are likely to hear a Leftist say. Even though global obesity rates, and increased life spans seem to contradict that idea of an overcrowded, unlivable planet, the Environmentalists continue to circulate the rumor.

Their evidence of overcrowding, is the rate of species extinction. Every modern extinction is automatically blamed on humans, even if the evidence is faint. Depending on who you believe, the earth is losing somewhere between 12 and 200 species every single day. The reality is much more modest. In truth, there have been roughly two extinctions per year in North America over the past 368 years. Only about a hundred of those were warm blooded animals. Another hundred are plants. The vast majority of those species were things like reptiles, insects, and snails, creatures most people don't like very much.

That's why the World Wildlife Fund uses a cuddly Panda for their mascot. Everybody loves the Panda, and if it were to become extinct, it would be greatly missed. (It would also increase the value of any Panda skin rugs you might have lying around the house.) Would anybody be concerned about extinctions, if the WWF used pictures of something like mud turtles? Outside of a handful of herpetologists I doubt that anybody really cares about mud turtles.

I always will choose people over reptiles, I hope that most people agree with me. What would you rather have: lots of people around the Thanksgiving table, or mud turtles? It is natural for any species to prefer the company of their own, versus some strange species they can't even play cards with. If the same decision were offered to the mud turtles, I guarantee that the choice would not be to save the humans. In fact I think that mud turtles wouldn't mind dining on a big pile of recently extincted humans.

Most radical ecologists believe in this weird form of environmental communism where every species works together in a harmony of sacrifice, like in the Lion King cartoon, where the zebras accepted they were put on the planet only to feed the lions. This is silly Marxist anthropomorphising. No other species has ever endeavored to live in harmony with their ecosystem. No animal, outside of Lemmings, ever said, "Gosh, maybe we're surviving just a little too well, we should stop that." Species are engaged a continual territorial battle with each other: the victors win survival, and the losers go extinct.

Extinction is perfectly natural. From the Dinosaurs to the Woolly Mammoths, the history of the earth has been, repeated species extinction. It's just Darwin, survival of the fittest, which at this point, happens to be us. Don't you think, it's good to be on the winning team? It's not Disney, it's war baby; and when it's over, I want to see the flag of the human genome flying over the earth.

Ecologists believe that the Earth has some preordained destiny that doesn't include very many humans. They feel that human population should be kept in check by disease and wild animals, as it was in primitive times. In fact a couple In radical professors have been suggesting that a massive plague would be beneficial to the Planet, and have been fantasizing about it too much for my comfort.

The problem is, many Environmentalists really don't like other people. Given the choice, they would be content living solitary lives, alone with their cats. Myself, I love people, and am always happier with lots of them around. I get lonely if I'm by myself too long; I think that's part of why I got into comedy, so I could meet with a couple hundred people every night.

While there is nothing that any decent individual can do. to alter the arrival of the billion new people, that are expected on the planet within the next decade and a half; there is an opportunity for every concerned citizen of the earth, to reduce the population by one. I really think that anybody who believes there are too many people on the earth has the duty to leave. That's why I'm considering opening a new environmental business dedicated to easing overpopulation called Louder Than Words.

Louder than Words will be a service that every good liberal of conscious can use, to alleviate the hypocrisy associated with overpopulation concerns. For a reasonable price, we will fly you first class to Amsterdam, for an appointment with a doctor who practices legally assisted suicide. For just a few thousand dollars, you can make a valuable contribution for those of us, who would like to stick around. We will even offer a placement service for all the cats you leave behind.

After you pass on to the next world, we will freeze your remains, and fly them to the continent of your choice, where they will be thawed and fed to an endangered species you select; a creature that you think has more right to exist on this planet than yourself

Imagine the joy of an all expenses paid trip to liberal Amsterdam. Settle into the spacious leather seat, and enjoy a complimentary cocktail of your choice, knowing that in just a day or two, you might be pecked by a flock of condors, torn apart by a band of mountain gorillas, or dragged back to the den of a majestic polar bear. You might even make a nice meal for a bale of mud turtles.

In Amsterdam you can spend your final hours under the comforting touch of a fair labor prostitute, or have a couple hits of the bong at one of their world famous coffeehouses, before you sacrifice yourself to the Planet.

So what are you waiting for? Quit your bellyaching, and make a positive motion. It's one small step towards a brighter tomorrow. Actions speak...

Pluto Demoted

Seventy years after the discovery, of what everybody thought was a small planet on the outer edges of our solar system; scientists have decided to demote this thing we call Pluto, from planet, down to dwarf planet.

Just like that. After almost four generations of teaching elementary school students that our solar system has nine planets, teachers will begin teaching children there are only eight. As another comic once said, "You should go back to your grade school teacher, and demand that your test be re-scored, because you might have gotten an A." There isn't even enough time to get textbooks re-printed before the school year starts.

I didn't know that the International Astronomical Union had the authority to do this. I thought the Nine Planet Solar System was a hard rule -- more fact than theory. Nine planets are what I always imagined extra-terrestrial astronomers were observing, from their craggy faraway telescopes. In every science fiction movie I've ever seen, the aliens refer it as "A Nine Planet Solar System, full of creatures you call 'Humans'". Turns out, it was just a simple bureaucratic convention, subject to change without notice.

Astrologers are highly dismayed, since Pluto plays a very important part in Astrological charts for the Scorpios. Astrology supposedly dates back to the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia, but the practitioners ascribed great powers to this planet, that wasn't even as old as Laurel and Hardy films. How powerful can it be, when it is invisible to the naked eye? (I imagine the decision to downgrade Pluto would have been different if Astrologers had a seat or two on the IAU board.)

Science is obviously a highly flexible and constantly changing group of theories. Rather than being a hard discipline like Mathematics, it is based on continual questioning, discovery, and revision. In just the past 150 years we've learned that our ancestors were monkeys, there are particles smaller than atoms, and a huge explosion started it all.

Many things that were taught just a few generations ago, are now disputed. When Pluto was discovered in 1930, Geologists still believed that the Continents were fixed and immobile; today we know that they ride around the Earth on tectonic plates. Time was regarded as a constant, until Einstein suggested that it could actually be slowed down, by traveling very fast. (Standing in stark contrast to the adage: "Slow down, you'll live longer.") Dinosaurs, were once thought to be cold-blooded reptiles like Robert Blake, but are now considered the warm-blooded ancestors of birds.

So too, will our perceptions change about Global Warming. The modern theory is that CO2 has been warming up the atmosphere. Perhaps years from now, when the current upward temperature trend reverses, scientists will change their opinions. I suspect such is the motivation to replace the term "Global Warming," with "Climate Change." The Environmentalists are all repositioning themselves, in case they have to make an abrupt U-turn.

Scientific consensus may seem slow, but it reverses quite quickly relative to Government. In 1898, back when time and continents were fixed in an eight planet solar system, Congress came up with a novel idea to fund the Spanish American War. A penny tax, was placed on each American phone call. Since only the rich people had phones back then, it was never supposed to affect the Average American, and passed through Congress, quicker than a diseased hog through a Chicago slaughterhouse.

One hundred years after that Nine Month War was over, in a Nation under Pluto, the tax was still being collected. No longer just a luxury tax, since phone ownership is practically universal, it cost consumers over six billion dollars in 2005. The tax was not rescinded until June of this year, after decades of pressure and lawsuits, from public interest groups and phone companies.

Right now, there are some who claim that scientific consensus has determined that Climate Change is a hard fact, and the government must take immediate measures to avert catastrophe. Since those measures will likely last a Century or more, perhaps, we should exercise patience. There is a very good chance that any legislation passed today, will far outlive any scientific consensus. Hence, caution demands we move at the speed of the Continents.

As Teddy Roosevelt used to say, "Remember the Maine."

Send in the Hurricanes

Hurricane season? What Hurricane season? As we approach the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, something very interesting is missing from the Headlines: Hurricanes. So far this season (which is now almost two months old) there has not been a single hurricane in the Atlantic Basin. in fact, there have only been three tropical storms -- well below average.
Most disappointed by the lack of News is Presidential candidate Al Gore, who had spent a good portion of the Spring positioning himself as an expert on Global Warming and Hurricanes. The relatively thick former Vice President, who has been spending his days out of office trying to make everyone forget that he was part of the only modern administration to be impeached, has been jetting around the planet, telling everybody else that they're destroying it.
I imagine that his press agent, thought she would have phones ringing off the hook with interview requests by now. Most probably, she has become quite adept at sinking the paper wad into the wastebasket from across the room. As lonely, as generator salesmen on the morning of January 1, 2000. she is probably busy, drafting a plan B.
This season highlights a major flaw with media: A crisis always makes news, but the lack of crises, never gets mentioned. For instance gas prices have dropped close to thirty cents in the past week or so, but unless you pay cash for gas, you probably didn't even notice. There were no news reports on generous oil companies lowering their prices. A crime interrupted by a handgun owner rarely makes the news, but a handgun accident always will. It doesn't mean that gas prices only rise, and handguns only hurt people, but if you don't read between the lines, that's certainly what you would believe. Since good news, is not news, people who pay attention to it, get a very pessimistic bias.
If you remember from last year, the Left told us, Katrina was undeniable proof that Global Warming is a reality. If that was true, then what are we to make of this year's unremarkable season? Is it evidence that Global Warming is over?
It might be. According to WeatherStreet.com: "In a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years."
Kind of takes the wind out of the mills, of those who claim that the damage has already been done, and is irreversible. Turns out, the Environmental Prophets of Doom were just guessing, and for a couple years, they guessed right.
It's nice to know that the Democrats are very unreliable prophets. We can all take a sigh of relief knowing that their predictions of re-taking the House and Senate this Fall are probably just as specious.

More Equal Than Others

While I don't pretend that the Democrats have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it certainly seems that the Left has a more difficult time avoiding it. Some of the most vivid images of the former Soviet Union was Party leaders dining on fine caviar, while workers in the Ukraine were allowed to starve to death. Premiers toasting with fine wine, while citizens were being admitted to hospitals for drinking brake fluid. These pictures of Communism captured the unachievable nature of a classless society.

By their marriage to the ideal of a egalitarian Nation, " the Left is forced into the same corner. Especially now, that the environment is becoming the major issue for the Democrat Party. It seems that Global Warming is an issue that the Democrats think they can win on, and they have been pushing it pretty hard.

Unfortunately, their solution to Global Warming is conservation, and conservation requires sacrifice. Real environmental sacrifices are completely foreign to a group of politicians who have become accustomed to riding around in limousines and private jets. It's easy enough to wag their fingers at the soccer moms and NASCAR dads, who prefer larger vehicles to haul the kids and dry wall, but when it comes to getting themselves to a speaking engagement, they like the limo warmed up, and the A/C on high. In recent posts, I've illustrated this behavior coming from unlikely Movie Star, Al Gore, to the Quivering Heroin Addict, Robert Kennedy Junior. New to the lineup of environmental hypocrites is none other than the Halle Berry of the Senate, likely Presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

According to Matt Drudge, Barack appeared at a Town Hall meeting, where he stressed the importance of driving smaller cars. After applause and handshakes, he was escorted out to an idling GMC Envoy. Made aware of the apparent contradiction by local TV News, Obama's campaign advisor said that it was an E-85 Envoy that burned mostly Ethanol. Which sounds pretty good. Except, GMC doesn't make an E-85 Envoy.

Like George Orwell stated so brilliantly in Animal Farm: "Some .. are more equal than others."

Holy Windmills

You shouldn't drive an SUV. It would be better if you took a train. A Bicycle would be even better. Of course, not everyone can ride a Bicycle to work, Some people need private jets. That's because, they are more important than you.
Whereas you should feel guilty for driving a safe comfortable SUV, Barbra Streisand is going to maneuver an entire regiment of planes trucks and busses around the country for her recently announced national tour. It should be called her "Irony" tour, since one purpose of the show, will be contributing to the dialog on Global Warming:
Ms. Streisand notes, “The increasingly urgent need for private citizen support to combat dangerous climate change, along with education and health issues was the prime reason I decided to tour again. This will allow me to direct funds and awareness to causes that I care deeply about.”
There is much pressure on environmental celebrities like Barbra to explain their lavish use of private jets. But she is not alone. As I noted in my previous post, Laurie David, Robert Kennedy Junior, and Arianna Huffington, all use their private jets, to help them tell the common people, how we burn too much petroleum. Recently, suspected presidential candidate, Al Gore flew all the way to France, to promote his new movie, about the earth being destroyed, by people traveling so much.
Someone should tell Al that he doesn't need to fly around the world anymore. We have this great invention, called the Internet. (I wonder if he's heard about it?) For about fifty bucks, you can buy a camera, that you just plug in, and then make virtual appearances anywhere, using only a fraction of the energy it takes to warm up a jet.
And I don't know how his trips are considered promotional. So far the film has only grossed around six and a half million dollars. A friend in the private jet industry, tells me that a trip to France costs around $150,000. Just a dozen "promotional" flights would eat up more than 25% of the gross. It should be obvious that Gore is actually campaigning, and has found a way to do it, far away from FEC oversight.
Even though he seems to be ignoring the criticism, recent developments would indicate that the message is coming through loud and clear. According to Variety, Paramount Classics, distributor of his film "An Inconvenient Truth," recently announced that Al only flies commercial on all promotional trips. (I doubt this is true; will any traveler out there who actually sees Al get on their plane drop me an eMail?) Furthermore, Gore is getting an estimate on the film's carbon footprint, so he can offset the energy he's been squandering, and can claim his "promotional" tours are Carbon-Neutral.
He plans to buy the energy offsets from Native Energy. This is an organization of Amercan Indians that plans to build renewable energy facilities someday. They have estimated the cost of those projects, and the amount of energy the projects should produce, and they are pre-selling that energy. Since the renewable energy, could offset future need for carbon dependent energy, Native Energy claims that any money sent to them, is keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. If you pre-purchase as much energy as you are using, you too can claim to be Carbon Neutral, despite the fact that you are belching tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on your way to France.
What exactly is Native energy selling? They've only put up two small windmills so far, so they're not really providing much carbon substitution. Essentially, they are selling forgiveness for using energy. Environmentalists believe that Indians are closer to the earth, so in a way, Al Gore is asking a shaman to talk to the Great Spirit, find out how much he has damaged the Earth, and invoice him.
The Catholics have a word for this, it's called a "Plenary Indulgence." Back in the Middle Ages, there was great concern about the sins being committed by the Crusaders, trying to win back the Holy Land for Christendom. People questioned whether the Crusaders could still get into Heaven, despite the very un-Christian activities required for such a war. In 1099, Pope Urban II came up with a neat idea, the Plenary Indulgence.
The Plenary Indulgence was essentially a "Get-Out-of-Hell-Free Card. An eternal Pardon. No matter what an evil person you were here on earth, the Pope was able to put in a good word for you with Saint Peter. After the noble crusader met his demise, the velvet rope would be pulled back, and he would walk straight through the gates.
Sinners everywhere became interested in getting into Heaven from the back door. Not only was the Indulgence great for soldiers sinning on the battlefield, it was also used as a recruiting tool. Much like the college tuition benefits enjoyed by military personnel today, are enticement to enlist; evil people could get their slates wiped clean, by doing a tour in the Middle East. Eventually the popularity of Indulgences far outstripped the Pope's ability to grant them, so laws of supply and demand came into effect. Indulgences were later only granted to those who contributed to the church. The word, Charlatan, originally referred to a vendor of Indulgences.
By the time of the Protestant Reformation, the selling of Indulgences had become common, and was seen by some of the Reformers as one of the worst abuses of Catholicism. The practice was suspended, but not before the Church was able to amass great fortunes from the faithful.
As more and more "important" people Like Barbra Streisand crusade against Global Warming, the demand for Carbon-Neutralization Indulgences should take off like a well fueled Gulfstream jet. If the gilded palaces of the Vatican are any indication, the selling of indulgences by Native Energy should be quite a lucrative business.

Mixed Messages

Is environmentalism a fad? If recent sales reports from Ford Motor Company are any indication, the answer is resoundingly affirmative.
I've long suspected that most environmentalists are just in it for the fashion. Advocates like Al Gore and Arianna Huffington talk about the need for Americans to stop burning petroleum, but personally prefer to travel in limousines and private jets. Although they claim to support renewable energy, residents of Martha's Vineyard (including environmentalists Walter Cronkite and Robert Kennedy Junior) are currently fighting a proposal to put a windmill farm smack dab in the middle of their unobstructed ocean view.
The latest fad to captivate the rich and hypocritical is the hybrid car. Environmentalist Larry David, actually made his Hybrid Toyota Prius famous by featuring it as a reoccurring character in the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Leftists treat these cars as if they ran on water, and weren't manufactured by huge multinational corporations. They repeat the unsubstantiated claim that hybrids get seventy miles per gallon. They talk about the glorious utopian future, when everybody drives one, and the planet starts cooling off. This despite the fact, that few even understand the technology involved.
What makes the hybrid unique, is two different engines under the hood: one electric, the other gasoline. By recycling the energy, normally burned off at the brakes, back into a battery; and using the electricity stored there to accelerate; the hybrid cars get a little better mileage than their all-gasoline counterparts (about 25% or 8 MPG).
But is the zeal for these vehicles fueled by a sincere concern for the planet? The Prius has been adopted by the left as the "it" car; as much a political statement as transportation. Nothing says, "I Vote Democrat!" more than having a Prius parked in your driveway. I think that Toyota could have sold their 2004 Prius with the Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker permanently affixed under the lacquer, and nobody would have noticed.
Perhaps, people drive hybrids not for their nominal efficiency but for the image. Cars, are traditionally status symbols, and the Prius might be no different. Especially since the car is highly popular in Los Angeles where the vehicle you drive often says more about you, than your resume and headshot.
Evidence of the Prius as a status car, is a recent report that Ford Dealers are overstocked with hybrid vehicles. Ford, which makes a Hybrid version of their popular Escape SUV, has only sold half of it's total manufacturing capacity. Ten percent of all the hybrid SUV vehicles built by Ford, are still sitting on the lots, and some of them have been there for over a year. These sales figures are absolutely lethargic compared to the Prius, which has an average turnaround of nine days (some dealers even have month long waiting lists). Strange that Ford cannot sell Escapes, but Toyota cannot keep Priuses in stock. (Stranger still, that environmentalists would prefer a car built by people who still eat whale-meat, rather than by people who love apple pie.)
I suspect the problem Ford is facing, is that the Hybrid Escape looks exactly like the regular gas guzzling Escape. Conversely the Toyota Prius, looks like nothing else on the road. When you drive a Prius, everybody knows you are driving a hybrid. In a Prius, you look like a caring, compassionate, intelligent, and concerned, citizen of the Earth. When you drive a Hybrid Escape, you still look just like every other red state, gun toting, knuckle dragging, flat earth, ditto-head, SUV driver. This is further evidenced by sluggish sales of Toyota's Hybrid Highlander SUVs, which look exactly like the standard Highlander SUVs.
You wouldn't think that Democrats would fall prey to the sin of vanity. Normally people on the left side of the aisle claim to be above materialist desires, and ascribe that activity to the Republicans. They often make jokes about how Republicans need cars that compensate for some Freudian inadequacy. Perhaps the hybrid is also a compensation for a deficiency, but a deficiency of conscience.
The popularity of the Prius obviously has more to do with keeping up appearances, than saving the environment. What better vehicle is there for Larry David to drive Laurie to the airport, while the private jet is getting fueled up for the trip to Martha's Vineyard?
Truthfully, it's impossible to live a modern lifestyle without impacting the environment. You can't have cars, computers, and air conditioned vegetarian restaurants, without putting CO2 into the atmosphere. I believe that every environmentalist, outside of Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski, has some element of hypocrite in their blood.
Being a good Capitalist American, I do not care that environmentalists have found a car they really like. I do not begrudge anyone their right to a Prius any more than I would object to a middle aged man buying a red two-seat convertible. These are the kinds of choices that make America a great place to live. But I refuse to take any environmentalist seriously, who claims that their choice of vehicle puts them on the moral high ground.

Since appearing to be an environmentalist is more important than being one, I suggest a couple of inventions that are certain to be big money makers:

-A service that delivers a bin of clean recyclable bottles to your driveway every trash day. For just a couple bucks a month, you will get to throw all your recyclables into the trash, without having to endure the sorting or the shame. These recyclables will have all the labels removed and the bottles steam cleaned in an industrial facility. You will have cleanest recyclable bin on the block! Make your neighbors green with envy, by looking greener. Let them all think that you care about the earth more than they do!

-Shingles that look just like solar panels. These shingles look totally off-the-grid, and only cost a fraction of the price. Whereas a real solar roof can cost $50,000 or more, imitation solar shingles would sell for just a fraction more then their asphalt counterparts. An added benefit is that the imitation shingles would be made of organic materials, rather than toxic chemicals like arsenic and silicon that are required for real solar shingles, This will save you from the high toxic waste disposal fees required for real solar cells. So when the fad inevitably dies off, you can just toss them away.