How did drinking lattes become this sign of elite out-of-touch-ness? Seriously. Starbucks are EVERYWHERE. All sorts of people to to Starbucks. It's the freaking McDonald's of coffee. So how's drinking coffee in milk make somebody an elitist? I don't get it.

Ever wondered why the salad at a fast food joint is more expensive than the giant size combo burger and fries with a soda?



Because the government pays farmer to grow corn for feed and high fructose corn syrup, soybeans that get reconstituted into stuff that barely qualifies as food, cotton, wheat, and tobacco (?!).

It's almost enough to make one think the libertarians might not be THAT scary crazy.

There's a lot of talk about how corn ethanol subsidies are "responsible" for part of the way food prices have run up lately. And there's some truth to that, and besides, corn ethanol is pretty much a boondoggle anyway. But it's hardly the end of the story, it's just an easy target, especially for politicians who're opposed to sustainability.

But you know what consumes a lot more grain than biofuels?

Growing corn and wheat and so on to feed concentrated grain to livestock which are grown for their meat. That's not touching on any of the other problems that come with modern factory farming methods, such as the waste, spread of diseases, breeding of antibiotic resistant bacteria, mad cow, and the ethical issues with the way many of the animals are raised.

Plus, if America cut back on meat by about 20%, it'd save as much CO2 as if we all drove cars that got 50+ miles to the gallon.

We have so many systems in our civilization that need complete overhauls, or just to be junked and replaced with something better.

Humans are odd.

I've never gone hunting, and not in favor of humans wiping out species. I mean, obviously. My entire career I'm working toward involves trying to rejigger science and technology to work in partnership, or at least not against, nature.

And yet, when I was involved in a discussion about the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions today, I wasn't really upset by the discussion.

For the uninitiated, by about 17,000 years ago, the large mammals on most continents had been wiped out. But only the largest, things over a hundred pounds. Cool things, like woolly mammoths, giant ground sloths, giant "birds from hell", etcetera. They were around, and then they weren't, and nothing else moved in to take over their ecological niches. Climactic change doesn't seem likely, because the extinctions were spread out over time and continents, and some survived in isolated areas after the rest were gone. And nothing else took their place.

The most likely reason the megafauna went extinct everywhere but Africa? Clever monkeys learned how to sharpen spears, and the megafauna were tasty. That's the likeliest reason. The times of the extinctions match the times when humans arrived on the continents, remains of the critters have been found with marks from weapons on the bones, and so on. So why are there elephants in Africa still? Because elephants evolved alongside us monkeys while we were learning to hunt, and so learned how to cope, while animals elsewhere just were surprised and eaten.

And for some reason, this thought makes me feel rather smug and self-satisfied. Humans probably killed off hundreds of species, because they were tasty.

But I suppose it's not so weird. Roving bands of hunter humans were in a completely different life than we're in now. And honestly? Dudes who could go up against mammoths and hellbirds with stone spears? That's hardcore. Hunting deer with a rifle's got nothing on that. What's the quote from Snow Crash? "Descended from a long line of the biggest badasses to walk the planet."

Still, intellectually, it feels weird to cheer this. But honestly? Great-great-great-great....great-grandparents, who went faced down the biggest things on the Earth with stone spears and fire, and won? They're why I'm here. And one of these days, I'll toast them for it, then get back to making sure we don't have to live like that again.

All those Republicans in Congress who tell you that government can't run health insurance?

Have health insurance provided by the government.

(Also, they're all rich)

One of the biggest problems with our ridiculous health care system in the US? Besides the fact we spend much more than any other country for the same results, besides the millions of uninsured, besides how much of that gets siphoned off as profits straight to CEO pockets.

The problem is health care is tied to your job. So people keep jobs they hate just because they can't afford to lose health care. Or they might not get it because of "pre-existing conditions". Or they'd have a three month gap before it kicks in at their new job. Or they can't go start their own business because the health insurance costs would kill them. And companies are spending lots of money insuring their employees, when companies in other countries don't have to spend as much, because they have better universal systems.

This video has to do with that. I saw that a couple weeks ago but hadn't posted it. What set me off today was this report from the Kaiser Foundation about health care. Let me steal the section hilzoy quoted over on Obsidian Wings. I heard one piece of this, the 7% marriage part on the radio this morning.

"The poll also found that in the past year, 23% of U.S. residents said they or a member of their household had either decided to stay with a current employer, instead of accepting a new job, or had switched jobs because of health insurance coverage. In addition, 7% of respondents said that they, or someone in their household, had decided to get married to obtain health insurance through their spouse. (...)

According to the poll, 37% of U.S. residents reported at least one of six financial troubles over the past five years as a result of medical bills:

20% had difficulties paying other bills;

20% were contacted by a collection agency;

17% had used all or most of their savings;

12% were unable to pay for basic necessities, such as food, heat or housing;

10% had to borrow money; and

3% declared bankruptcy (Kaiser Family Foundation release, 4/29)."

But, y'know, universal health care will eat your babies and kicks puppies.

Which is scarier?

A) An angry retired black preacher

B) Rich old white guys who started a war that has killed more Americans than September 11th, along with probably a million Iraqis? And ran the economy into the ground, spied on Americans without warrants, let the city of New Orleans drown, let Osama bin Laden get away, and want to start a war with Iran?

Apparently, judging by the media, it's A.

So today there was a song with part of the chorus, "someday we'll find out why the sky is blue."

Totally threw me off. Because, dude, seriously? We KNOW why the sky is blue. We've known for years. It's one of the basic facts explained in kids encyclopedias. So why's it still getting thrown around like that?

Okay, since I'm not at my home computer too much any more, I've been running most of my stuff off a suite of Firefox, Thunderbird, etc on a thumb drive. I have GAIM, but I can't get it to copy my settings from my home version, and I'd like to be able to be on IM and see the people there. Anybody know how to do that?

Seriously, he's not even bothering to pretend he wasn't lying any more. Here, about how he kept insisting that everything was fine in Iraq while violence spiraled out of control:
"BUSH: Well, yes. I think we — and I wanted — that's as much trying to bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well as — look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale?"

via Kevin Drum.

Man, darn that liberal media, constantly attacking George W. Bush, Our Heroic Leader!

Oh, wait, what's that? Nobody mentioned the fact that the President was bullshitting us all along? Nevermind.

So, last Friday, George W. Bush admitted, on national TV, that he knew of and authorized torture. And not just him, but his whole "national security team". Seriously.

"At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft."

And the only one who spoke up at all? John Friggin Ashcroft. But he only thought that the top officials shouldn't be involved in it. "Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly." "

No Mr. Ashcroft, it won't. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft all were there and authorized torture. They all are guilty of war crimes. All of these people should have been removed from power long ago, and should be in prison for their crimes.

Now we know why the Bush administration was so against the International Criminal Court. Not just because of their generic hatred of any kind of international agreement. But because they were covering their own asses so they wouldn't end up in a prison cell in the Hague on trial for their crimes.

This is what the modern Republican party has come to. Even "respectable" Colin Powell was involved. These people cannot be allowed to lead our nation further into this kind of depravity. They should all be on trial for their crimes. Right now.

One of the most common complaints (I hesitate to call it a counter-argument, because it's not really an argument, just a reflexive cry) against any kind of environmental stuff is always "It's expensive and it will hurt businesses! It'll slow down economic growth!"

This argument basically relies on innumeracy. It depends confusing people with numbers that sound big, but aren't in their context. There's an excellent post over at Crooked Timber about sustainability and living standards, there's a lot of economist-speak in it, so let me highlight the key paragraph.

"Even the sharpest critics among economists only suggested that Stern’s estimates were at the optimistic end of a plausible range, the upper end of which might be 5 per cent of national income, or around two years of economic growth. That is, by 2050, a low-carbon economy might have the material living standards that would otherwise have been reached by 2048."

That's the thing about economic growth. If we grow more slowly than we might have, we're not poorer, we're just less richer than we theoretically might have been. But we're still richer!

This has been tonight's installment of explanations.

One of the manifestations of my revolutionary instincts is I think everything in society should be able to be questioned, looked at and examined at a fundamental level. If it's not working right, then it should be changed, or gotten rid of even.

But the thing I expect many conservatives miss about this idea, when they're complaining about people questioning "traditions" is if something's truly useful, it's perfectly possible for people to look at it, examine it thoroughly, and decide it's fine the way it is.

John McCain, April 3, 2008: "I know economics very well, certainly better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. So let's clear that up,"

January 21, 2008: "At a recent meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Republican presidential candidate John McCain admitted he "doesn't really understand economics" and then pointed to his adviser and former Senate colleague, Phil Gramm - whom he had brought with him to the meeting - as the expert he turns to on the subject, The Huffington Post has learned.

The incident was confirmed by a source familiar with the proceedings of the meeting."

Now, part of "Maverick" John "Straight Talk" McCain's recent comment could be true. The part about "knowing economics very well" directly contradicts himself from a couple months ago. But the part about knowing economics better than Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama could be true.

Somehow though, I doubt it. Especially when McCain's citing Phil Gramm as an economic advisor, and from listening to his recent speeches about economics.

Funny how reporters can't remember things that happened a couple months ago, though.

theferrett makes a very good point about confidence and things, in a metaphor involving D&D.

A point I can empathize with quite well, and I know many other people I know can too. Except probably the part about having a ridiculous number of sex partners. I dunno, some of y'all are pretty freaky.

I'm so proud of our President, in no more than five minutes, he gave me the need to find the proper word.

Actually, there were two things President Bush said that struck me. The first I know the words for, it was outright lies and bullshit. NPR had a soundbite of him trying to calm Russia's fears about the push for "missile defense" by saying it was aimed at "rogue regimes" in "areas such as the Middle East" who could "hold us all hostage".

In other words, we need missile defense to protect us from Iranian nuclear missiles (not North Korean ones any more, even though North Korea actually HAS nukes, and was what we were supposed to be making missile defense for before). Except of course Iran doesn't have nukes, nor do they have missiles that could reach the US, he's just bullshitting and lying and waving around the "IRAN SCARY NUKES NUKES SCARY!" flag. The reason he's pushing "missile defense" doesn't have anything to do with Iran, or North Korea, or even Russia, really, it's just one of those absurd things that the Republicans have been in love with since forever, even though it's not really likely to work like at all.

But back to the original thing. What do you call it when somebody says something that's true, but their actions show they obviously don't believe it or just don't give a damn if it's true or not? I suppose that could fall under the realm of bullshit as well, because that's when somebody says something without caring about its truth.

Maybe I should give the example. But, I can't find the quote online. So, from memory and notes, "I we let up the pressure, terrorists will establish camps across the country (Afghanistan) and threaten us all." There is some truth to this, though like every single thing George W. Bush says about terrorism, it's exaggerated and presented as if terrorists in caves are more of a threat than the Soviet Union with nukes was. The bit of truth is that if we do cut down on troops in Afghanistan, and divert our resources and attention, there's a good chance the Taliban will come back, or at worst, it'll turn to a completely chaotic state.

How do I know that's true? Because that's exactly what HAS happened since we diverted our resources and attention from Afghanistan to the fiasco in Iraq, years ago. Which we did at the bidding of the exact same man who was just now saying how important Afghanistan is.

So, what do you call it when somebody says something that's technically true, but show they don't actually care about it, and it's actually largely their fault, too? Is that just bullshit, or is there a better word?

Why does the Science Channel have so many commercials full of dubious science like "detoxifying" footpads?