Earth Hour - I'm Glad I Missed It

I guess I unknowingly left my lights on for "Earth Hour". Not that I'd have shut them off if I'd known the time in advance.

It's so unbelievably stupid to think that silly little gestures like this make a difference to the environment - they might make a slight dent in your electric bill, which is a good enough reason to do them ALL the time rather than just for an hour, like it's a silly religious ritual.

Which it is, for its practitioners.

Anyway, I'll share a quick story and a link.

The story - this week I had a big smile on my face, upon discovering the office where I work does NOT recycle anything but paper.

The link - this great piece (PDF), by a Canadian professor of economics, on the wonderful benefits of cheap electricity.

Reason 1,345,247 why I read Sowell so much

His unhesitating willingness to slaughter sacred cows, as exemplified by this quote from page 136 of The Einstein Syndrome:

Too often the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is cited as if it represented scientific certainty, rather than a committee-written compendium with widely varying mixtures of hard facts and fashionable speculations.

Horrible Skittles commercial

Randomly stumbled across this. It's kind of making me hungry for some, just because I haven't had any in a while, but updating the tragic tale of Midas doesn't seem like a good way to sell anything, really:

Thoughts on Organ Sales

This article on a proposal by a lawmaker from New York caught my eye:

ALBANY, N.Y. - A New York assemblyman whose daughter is alive because of two kidney transplants wants his state to become the first in the nation to pass laws that would presume people want to donate their organs unless they specifically say otherwise.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky believes the "presumed consent" measures would help combat a rising demand for healthy organs by patients forced to wait a year or more for transplants. Twenty-four European countries already have such laws in place, he said.

It goes on:

Brodsky's interest in organ donation is personal; his 18-year-old daughter, Julianne "Willie" Brodsky, received a kidney four years ago from a donor who was struck by lightning and an earlier transplant from her mother.

"People's survival should not rest on acts of God alone," said the elder Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat.

Advocates say the availability of healthy donor organs is low just about everywhere nationwide, where 106,000 people are on a waiting list that averages three to four years for each type of organ. (emphasis added)

I'd add that in 2008, in the U.S. alone, 5000 people died waiting for a kidney transplant. This isn't a theoretical problem by any means, and it's personal to me because a friend of mine died 2 months ago as an indirect result of the faulty system for organ allocation that we have today.

I'm much more inclined to support allowing compensation for organ donors or their families, which has been against the law since the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. Though presumed consent could reduce the shortage of organs, it's got moral problems of its own - people are going to be offended that their relative's organs are taken without their consent.

I've discussed this issue with many people who tend to recoil at the idea, because it's viscerally repugnant to think about people buying and selling body parts. I've had one friend say it "incentivizes murder", and I can't recall a single instance where the reply was "yeah that's a great idea!".

Usually, though, people have found it persuasive that it's not wrong for families of the deceased to be able to better pay funeral expenses or medical bills, or for a living organ donor to receive compensation given the pain and risk of undergoing surgery. And the estimated costs of a donor organ are far less than the cost of continued dialysis, as Alex Tabarrok's op-ed linked above points out.

And as mentioned above, this issue is not abstract to me. My friend was on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. She also worked in a doctor's office, and was well aware of how donor organs are allocated, and that a cancer diagnosis would move her to the bottom of the waiting list. So she hid the lump on her shoulder as best she could, figuring that she'd get her transplant and then treat the cancer.

She was in one of the top 5 slots on the waiting list when she collapsed, had to be taken to the ER and couldn't hide the cancer any longer. 2 months later she was dead at 35. I can't help but wonder how many others have had their lives cut tragically short by the same misguided law.

Some links I like

I've been trying to blog more, and these recent sites have been open in Firefox for basically the whole weekend. I thought I was going to make an individual post on each but I don't have the time and other work and school requirements are beckoning, so I'll share quickly.

Walter Williams has a great syndicated column this week, "Parting Company". Worth reading in its entirety but this might be the key paragraph:

The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I'd add (and Dr. Williams seems to share the sentiment in the last sentence of his piece) that the best alternative of all is restoration, as hard as it might be.

Andrew McCarthy criticizes David Petraeus for statements he recently made about Israel.

A fascinating new phenomena: the "retrosexual." Apparently it's now cool for guys to dress so as to evoke the men their grandfathers were. (This link came via my friend Adrienne Royer who amusingly described this style as "Guys playing dress-up.")

Going through my bookmarks, I came across the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Bradshaw v. Unity Marine. No idea how I found this, but it's absolutely hilarious.

Last, a video from Caleb Brown, a George Mason University Econ student, describing the risks a couple in Alexandria, VA took to start a business. (HT Don Boudreaux)

BREAKING: Men eager to view topless women

No, this isn't from the Onion:

About two dozen women marched topless from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park this afternoon in an effort to erase what they see as a double standard on male and female nudity.

A group of women and men who had shed their tops march down a Congress Street sidewalk from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park. They were promoting the freedom of women to be topless in public. The group attracted many amateur and professional photographers.

The women, preceded and followed by several hundred boisterous and mostly male onlookers, many of them carrying cameras, stayed on the sidewalk because they hadn't obtained a demonstration permit to walk in the street. About a thousand people gathered as the march passed through Monument Square, a mix of demonstrators, supporters, onlookers and those just out enjoying a warm and sunny early-spring day.

I loved this reaction from one of the organizers, too:

Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on.

Right. Because there's no difference between male and female anatomy, is there? None that I can think of, at least. Theoretically.

Dr. Helen and Instapundit have commented on the same. (HT to The Other McCain for the links.)

The Wall - my memories and thoughts

This is a little more serious than I usually am when posting here, but I feel like it's appropriate today.

20 years ago, when the Berlin Wall ceased to imprison a nation, I was 8 years old. I didn't understand how the Cold War came to be, but the earliest times I remember hearing of the Cold War, Communism, and the wall itself they were facts of life to the adults who talked about them. There wasn't any sense that the situation would ever change, much less that it would do so imminently. Knowing what I do now I think that my family's attitude toward the Cold War was fairly typical.

I was probably aware of the existence of Communism and of the Berlin Wall at some point in 1986 and 1987. I was much too young at the time to understand the ideologies behind the conflict; however my parents vividly imparted to me that behind the Iron Curtain the people had a fundamental lack of the freedom that we Americans enjoyed. They also told me of the Wall, the most prominent symbol of the bondage of millions - and I was happy that I lived in a free country, though I didn't completely understand what made us free and the East Germans not so.

I remember when the Wall was breached, watching the jubilant German people on the evening news, and thinking that those people were now free too, just like me. I still didn't understand entirely what it meant to be free, but I knew that it was better than the alternative - and the people on the TV looked like they thought so too.

I'm asking myself now, what were those people on the TV 20 years ago seeking to be free from? What were they seeking to get away from, and why? What, ultimately, was so bad about Communism that millions would want to escape it, would embarrass its administrators in dozens of nations with this desire, would result in those governments constructing fortifications to keep people who shared their language and cultural heritage from fleeing?

As easy as it would be to think of it as a conflict between good and evil people, I've come to the conclusion that the real battle was, and is, between good and evil systems of government. Not that the systems of government "forced" people to do various good or bad deeds; but that on one side of the Wall 20 years ago was a system that resulted in behavior beneficial to others, and on the other side a system existed that promoted the more undesirable tendencies of humanity.

On one side of the Wall, the system effectively restrained the desire of the people to force their preferences onto others; on the other side the system enabled those harmful desires.

On one side of the Wall, loyalty to one's family was generally treated as a virtue; on the other side, it was more likely an impediment to career advancement.

On one side of the Wall, a candidate winning 60% of the votes in an election was an extraordinary success; on the other, "winning" 90% or more was routine.

On one side of the Wall, goods and services were sold for whatever the market would bear, and the people generally prospered; with time and money for leisure and less basic concerns, many took an interest in the environment and started one of the most prominent Green parties in the world. On the other side, government officials enforced "fair" prices on everyday staple items, which however were frequently unavailable. The environment wasn't nearly as much of a concern for the workers, and it deteriorated to a great extent.

The people on one side of the Wall could cross to the other side almost anytime they wished, unmolested. Relatively few stayed for long.

Those on the other side, until that day 20 years ago, risked being shot for trying to cross to the West, and could never return. Yet they continued to attempt to escape.


I think the Wall was so memorable because it illustrated, like no other barrier in existence, the differences between the Free World (markets, open elections, and relatively limited government) and the Communist world (lacking all of those). This was not a barrier between hostile ethnic groups or nations, imposed by both sides to keep peace. It was built by one side alone, and separated people who shared 1000 years of a common language and an illustrious history in commerce, the arts, and craftsmanship. It showed the failure of one system and the success of another.

We must be constantly vigilant not to forget that lesson.

Christopher Renner Is Presumptuous And Thinks He Can Explain Twitter To You, Assuming You're Unfamiliar

I like Twitter, which I think is pretty well evidenced by the Twitterfeed on the right side of the page here. I also think that it's highly polarizing - opinions I've heard can be neatly divided into "it's awesome!" and "it's the stupidest thing I've seen! You're on it too much". Additionally, the social networking benefits aren't as immediately visible as, for example, MySpace and Facebook with their many pronged user interface, and the fraction of new users who remain on Twitter is significantly lower.

So I've decided to share a few thoughts (and improve my screenshot skills) on what exactly Twitter is all about, and why I think it's useful.

Also I think it's worth noting at this point - every service I mention here is FREE to the user.

Here we go:

What's in a Tweet?

The individual 140-characters-or-less Tweet is the basic element of Twitter. Below is a screenshot one of my recent Tweets; I'll talk more about the specific parts of it momentarily. You can click this image and any other for a full-screen view.

This looks pretty simple, but there are quite a few cool links within that tweet that aren't noticeable until you move the mouse over them. I'll start with the first, the "@reply" (spoken as "at-reply"), which I've highlighted here.

The "@ reply" magically transforms my tweet from a boring blurb about my breakfast to a delightful public conversation, welcoming all the world to join in. Well that's a slight exaggeration on my part. "@ replying" does, however, go a long way in making one's tweets less of an expression of vanity and more of a means of communication.

Here's how - when I include the @, followed in this case by "emdesign" (my friend Erin's Twitter username), anywhere at all in the Tweet - the Tweet becomes specifically addressed to her. It's still viewable by everyone else, but Erin can also view a list of @ replies addressed specifically to her, which will now contain my Tweet. (To see what this looks like in practice, here's a feed of Tweets that have mentioned me.(@chris_renner))

I think the @ reply is probably the best feature of Twitter - it easily enables you to communicate directly with other users in an amazingly simple fashion. And unlike Myspace, Facebook, and instant messaging, you can address more than one person simultaneously this way.

On to the other features of a Tweet:

In this photo I've highlighted the timestamp. This actually does more than simply illustrate the time that I sent it, it contains the permalink to the specific tweet.
I didn't notice this feature for the first several months of using Twitter, but it's useful to know if you want to share a specific tweet, particularly with someone who's not on Twitter yet. For example when a breaking news event happens. Or your favorite celebrity posts something even dumber than usual. Or in a much less inane use, you've got a cause to rally people for.

Next, the method of updating:

This shows how the Tweet was posted; at other times it might say "from web"(i.e. from Twitter.com), or "from txt"(i.e. sent via text message from a mobile phone).

2 important features of Twitter are shown here. First, there are multiple methods of posting a tweet. This is quite handy, since poor cellular coverage or an internet outage alone won't interfere with your communication - a fact which may have saved lives during the Iranian election protests earlier this year.

The second feature is the availability of separate applications for use with Twitter; in my case I've posted this tweet via TweetDeck. Twitter's API allows programs such as TweetDeck, developed by third parties, to download others' tweets, view Twitter profiles, and post new tweets.

This last link appears when you reply to a specific tweet, either from the web or from a third party app such as TweetDeck. Like the timestamp it links to one tweet - the tweet which I was replying to. This makes it easy to view complete Twitter conversations.

Another Tweet Examined

This tweet of mine illustrates a few more Twitter fundamentals: the Re-Tweet, the hashtag (#XXXXXX) and the shortened URL.

Here, the Re-Tweet is highlighted. The RT wasn't developed by Twitter but the community of users accepted the format long before I joined. It's a beautifully simple way of passing along someone else's tweet, when you want to share it with your followers (apologies if I'm insulting your intelligence here - the people who receive your tweets are called "followers" as opposed to "friends").

The Hashtag:

Putting the "#" before a string of characters in Twitter turns that into a link which will search for that character string. In this case, "thebcast" will probably bring up a feed related to their show, and tweets from fans. (If you're thinking, "wow, couldn't someone use a hashtag for spam or mild vandalism?" the answer is yes, and they were especially inclined to do that when the homepage of Skittles was displaying a Twitter search feed for the brand(Linked page contains foul language, etc.).)

Last, and certainly not least:

The shortened URL(as always, apologies if I seem to be condescending - the URL is what gets you to a particular place on the web. The long string of characters you might type at the top of your browser that include "http", ".com", and a bunch of slashes. The "web site number".)

Jokes aside, since tweets are limited to 140 characters, the URL shortener makes it possible to share a web link in a Tweet without using up those precious characters. More happily still, the shortening process is automated: Twitter's web site entry automatically shortens any URL longer than 26 characters with bit.ly, and TweetDeck now shortens any URL in the Tweet and allows you to choose between several URL shorteners.

That's really about all I can think of - Twitter, again, is a delightfully simple, and yet profound tool for communication and socializing. I hope I've been enlightening here, feel free to leave comments, and by all means please follow me if you join and/or start tweeting in earnest.

Hitler can be funny! (To normal people, not to those who think mass murder is funny.)

I never realized this until now, but there's a great meme that's been on YouTube for over a year now - clips from "Downfall", with the subtitles altered for humorous effect.

Here's one recent example:


And another(warning: Though the audio is entirely in German, the English subtitles on this are NSFW):

Thanks to Caleb at RedState for his effort to promote Hitler-parody awareness, and to the commenters as well.

Being "new media" savvy: not a requirement for a Congressman

I recently received an e-mail from my Congressman, Mike Doyle(D, PA-14); like any good elected representative he updates his constituents on a regular basis. I found this a bit amusing, however(...


"One of these new Facebook pages", huh? Come on Congressman, you don't have to make it that obvious you've never used the site before! And telling the reader to search, using your full title? Nope, Facebook's search isn't as smart as Google, and won't get them any results if they do that.
Before you send the e-mail, it's really not too much to ask that you include a hyperlink to the page!

That's all. I wonder if any other local reps are any better with their interweb communication.

On the rule of law(and not of men)

Todd Zywicki, of the Hoover Institution and George Mason University, writes this excellent article on the ideal of the rule of law, and the economic and political dangers of its recent breach with the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement.

I'd only add a bit in one way. Zywicki states:

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power.

The ideal goes even further back than that, to the Mosaic Law. For example, Leviticus 19:15(New American Standard): You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.

Update: Richard Epstein(also of Hoover) also discusses the Chrysler bankruptcy here, with focus on bankruptcy procedures.

New blog

I've started another blog, located here.

The new blog will be primarily focused on transportation and emergency response issues. I'll be posting more regularly on this blog, and focusing on general political commentary, from a conservative/libertarian/classical liberal POV. (Not that I'll apply one of those labels categorically to myself anytime soon, though.)

Happy reading, feel free to e-mail me with questions, gripes, etc.

Some thoughts on this blog's purpose

I expect that I'll be posting various random things here - have a Twitter feed, but it's obviously not long enough to explore anything in depth. At this point in my life I don't have a particular focus or area of expertise apart from perhaps car electronic systems, and I can't see limiting this page to one subject.

Transportation has always fascinated me(as an example I think I had almost memorized the general routes of every Port Authority bus by age 11, along with the interstate highway system), and I expect it to be a subject of a number of my posts here.

Also economic and financial issues - economics is relevant to just about anything in life, and arises in a good number of conversations I have as of late.

Other than that, I'm open to write about just about anything.

Comments should be open to anyone. Feel free to offer your input.

What do you really know about the AIG bonuses?

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, since the country has an abundance of people who get angry in Pavlovian fashion at whatever the charlatan du jour tells them to, and who successfully evade actual thinking on any subject whatsoever(the real critical thinking that isn't taught in schools anymore - it's been replaced by endless blather about feelings and such nonsense).

I would really love to see people take the tiniest bit of interest in actually understanding the economic and political happenings of late. Granted, you've all got a finite number of hours in every day, but can you really say that you can't take a half hour away from your drinking schedule to actually understand what you think you should be mad about?

Getting to some specific questions I'd like to see everyone answer to themselves:

1. About the bonuses paid to AIG employees. Do you understand that a "bonus" is just another name for variable compensation as paid to some people in the financial industry? Surely most of you know someone (a salesperson, or a business manager, or a restaurant server perhaps) who is paid in some way other than hourly or salaried. So why get mad about a bonus, per se?

But, you say, "They're being paid with my tax dollars!", and you're right. The ordinary wages and salaries of the employees are being paid with your tax dollars as well, so why not be angry about those as well? What's the difference between hundreds of thousands of dollars in "salary" and the same amount as a "bonus"? Can you answer these questions to yourself?


2. As to compensation in general. If your taxes are paying for a restaurant which has just spent $1000 on spoiled food, why are you worried about the $1 that they paid to the cook who does oil changes on the side and doesn't wash his hands at either job?

But then that's not the same, you'll assert. Some people deserve $100,000 a year but no CEO or commodity trader deserves $10 million! How about Oprah, or your favorite movie star, or athlete? Can you describe the typical workweek of Tom Cruise, or Albert Pujols, or Tiger Woods? How about the CEO or trader I've just mentioned? I know that I don't have the foggiest idea what any of those people's work consists of. If you don't know either, on what basis do you say that they're overpaid?


3. Government deficits. If I drink 10 beers in an hour, I'll be quite drunk. Does that mean I can't tell you that it's not a good idea for you to drink 30?

Getting much more serious, where do you think $1 trillion is going to come from to finance the deficit of this year alone? And how can the deficit become smaller between now and 2026, when the last of the 1946-1964 Baby Boom begins collecting Social Security? And are those separate withdrawals on your paycheck "Fed Income Tax" and "FICA" really not paying for some of the same things?


4. Perquisites. What are these corporations thinking, giving their executives access to a private jet? What similarities can you think of(assuming a Pittsburgh perspective here) between the 911th Airlift Wing's location at the PIT Airport, which is used by the U.S. President during visits to the area, and the Allegheny County airport? (Hint: think about what you DON'T have at either.) Answer the second question, and you've answered the first.