rianjs.net

It seems that Hillary Clinton wants to tax big oil, but only on their record profits. She would do this to make up the revenue lost while putting the federal gas tax on hold for a while. While I'm sure this is more of a ploy to pander to voters due to her faltering campaign, the whole thing is incredibly superficial for a couple of reasons.

The first is that taxing big oil is only going to shift the cost to consumers. While you might see a temporary drop in prices at the pump, businesses typically shift such burdens on to the consumers. Doing this only makes sense for their bottom line. Beyond this, it will cause an increase in demand, causing prices to rise naturally. But then, Hillary apparently doesn't care what economists think.

Secondly, there's the temporary nature of the repeal. Reinstating the tax after it's been rolled back for a while will be unpopular on an epic scale, but I suppose Hillary is mostly going for a short-term boost to get her through to the November elections. Naturally, I've heard nothing about rolling back the tax on big oil's profits once the federal gas tax would go back into effect. That means that the consumer is going to be doubly hurt in the end anyway.

This leaves big oil's profits right where they're at now. Taxing big oil's profits isn't the answer — and neither is breaking up the oil monopolies. (Though the latter might not be a bad first step.)

The real problem is that demand has exceeded supply. This is a result of the American way of life. We depend on oil for literally everything: we are a spread out nation of roads where a child's first thought of freedom = getting their drivers' license, and whose development has, for generations, been driven by cheap oil. Every aspect of our lives is controlled by the road: everything from our food to our consumer goods arrives via truck. Auto companies have been complicit as well, and in some cases actively undermined attempts to create efficient mass transit systems that were a direct threat to their business model.

This isn't a problem that can be fixed overnight, nor is it a problem that will be cheap or easy to fix. Comparisons to European nations and Japan with their comprehensive mass transit systems are inherently flawed because of the US's relatively low population density and sheer size of our country. While effective, efficient mass transit is certainly the answer in urban and larger suburban areas, those systems do not scale well in more rural areas.

In that respect, we will always be a nation of cars — or other personal transport devices[1]. The mantra that we need freedom from foreign oil is trite, and it misses part of the point: we need freedom from petroleum in general, inasmuch as that is economically and techonologically possible. We will always be somewhat dependent on combustible fuels so long as the internal combustion engine is our primary mode of getting from Point A to Point B. (And really, aside from bicycles and our feet, there's nothing out there that's as efficient from top to bottom as a modern internal combustion engine.)

So in that respect, even if Hillary's plan had a prayer of a chance of long-term success, and if she had any ability to get it passed — which she doesn't because it's an idea for this summer, not after January — it would be like prescribing a pain med instead of removing the thorn from one's foot.

The proposal is just astonishingly dumb on every conceivable level.

I do have some related thoughts about the next ten years…

1) We'll see a small resurgence of the railroad industry. Rail travel is more efficient than air travel, and solves some of the mass transport problems presented by our spread-out nation. This will resemble the current hub-and-spoke airline system in the short term. Business travelers won't mind taking the train as much due to the ubiquity of wireless internet access and the fact that you can use cellphones while on a train. Trains don't have to be slow, either. So while you won't be taking the train from NYC to LA for a one-day affair, you might well take it from Boston to Washington DC for the same.

2) More effective car-pooling systems. Thanks to the Internet, it's easier to more effectively carpool with folks headed in your direction. This could be supplemented by mass transit systems — buses in the beginning, and trains later on — where people gather at smaller, de-centralized staging areas for a trip into the city. Many suburban areas already have these systems, but there are many, many larger cities that don't.

3) More and better research into biofuels as a replacement for traditional petroleum. This goes beyond corn-based ethanol which was a failure of epic proportions, as it resulted in increased food prices and is energy-intensive to produce. The graphic below (click for larger) demonstrates some of the more promising alternatives, particularly algae and switch grass.

(Preserved against link-rot from this article.)

I think America is getting to the point where they're ready to think about letting go of their precious four-wheeled transportation. Drive by a used car dealership, and you're likely to see quite a few gas guzzlers sitting on the lot. This alone is anecdotal evidence that the PED of gasoline isn't zero. A more formal study finds that when the price of fuel goes up and stays up by 10%, the process of adjustment is dynamic and far reaching:

• The volume of traffic will go down by roundly 1% within about a year, building up to a reduction of about 3% in the longer run (about five years or so).
• The volume of fuel consumed will go down by about 2.5% within a year, building up to a reduction of over 6% in the longer run.

The reason why fuel consumed goes down by more than the volume of traffic, is probably because price increases trigger more efficient use of fuel (by a combination of technical improvements to vehicles, more fuel conserving driving styles, and driving in easier traffic conditions). So further consequences of the same price increase are:

• Efficiency of use of fuel goes up by about 1.5% within a year, and around 4% in the longer run.
• The total number of vehicles owned goes down by less than 1% in the short run, and 2.5% in the longer run.

Prices have certainly gone up by more than 10% in the last 12 months, and the snowballing effect of this phenomenon is that many people of my generation have gotten rid of their cars where and whenever possible, and instead opt for healthier, less expensive modes of transportation: walking or biking. When they need to travel a longer distance, they rent a Zipcar.

I certainly would if it were realistic.

[1] I could see motorbikes becoming more popular, as they are in the UK, as gasoline prices continue to rise. For Americans who have not been to the UK, it is not uncommon to see motorcycles and scooters out and about, even in the rain.

Today's Foxtrot is a commentary on how little people care about the security of the vote. It's great, really.

It's incredibly easy for someone to steal the vote when using electronic voting machines with little more than a basic knowledge of computing technology and an agenda.

As Jon points out, it's a bipartisan issue. There are ways of making your congressional people aware of it, too. It's certainly an article worth reading. Here's a PDF of it so you can print it for offline viewing (since it's pretty long).

My blog format is a bit too narrow for it, so click the image for the full view.

Voting, security, democracy, e-voting, foxtrot, comics

For a long time, I was of the mind that if someone was a problem for society, you should just throw them in jail and be done with it. Lots of people feel this way, and it is indeed a convenient solution: lock them up and the problem goes away.

But what happens when they get out of jail? Are they any better prepared to be a successful, productive member of society? Most of the time, no. All that prison does is postpone their lives by X amount of time: most prisoners are the same people they were when they got locked up. Just older, and perhaps more bitter. There is no "rehabilitation." I use that word with a great amount of consternation - I hate the 'R' word. It conjures up visions of bleeding-heart liberals crying about the plight of hardened criminals and overcrowded prisons. This is not what I'm talking about. Hear me out.

Some brief backstory… my brother is battling alcoholism. He's been in trouble with the law: DUIs, driving without a license, etc. He's been undergoing random drug testing for quite a few months now. After a weekend drinking binge he went to his drug court for help. They sent him to rehab where he was released to a halfway house after two weeks. As far as I know, this is the quickest release from that particular rehab program on record. This is good for him because if there's anything my brother hates, it's sitting still cooling his heels. He needs to be out working and being productive: not sitting around lifting weights and going to meetings all day.

But right now, my brother is between a rock and a hard place. He was kicked out of the halfway house he was in for having a "bad attitude." I don't know what this means, nor do I really care. What I do care about is what happens to him now. He has three options, and none of them are especially desirable. In the first two cases, he has to call drug court and tell them that he was booted out of the halfway house, leading to these first two scenarios. (He's been out of the halfway house for almost a week and has not had a drink in that time.)

Scenario 1:

Drug court tells him that he has to go back to rehab and then back to the halfway house. Essentially this is what he did back at the beginning of January, which means he wasted two months of his life.

Scenario 2:

They put him in jail for 18 months and he gets out is no better prepared for a sober, productive life than he was went he went into jail. And he gets to do the halfway house thing all over again.

Scenario 3:

This is simultaneously the best option, and ironically, it is the only illegal option of the 3. My brother skips out of town and goes to live somewhere else, working and getting his life back in order. The odds of the law coming after him are slim because he's not a danger to himself or anyone else.

This raises the question of whether or legality (or lack thereof) makes something right or wrong. In my opinion, the system is getting in the way of his digging himself out of the hole he's in socially, financially, and legally. It is not helping him succeed, and by holding him back, it's not doing him, or society any good. What he needs is a strong mentor with a heavy hand for a couple of years, not a system designed to inconvenience and waste his life and taxpayer money. Let us also not forget that drinking is not illegal for someone over the age of 21, which he is.

If I were in a position to offer my brother a place to live (paying rent, of course), I would offer it to him. If one toe goes wrong, he's out on his own. But I'd rather not even have to contemplate such a thing because the system should be built such that it encourages success by means other than threat of punishment should one slip up even once in cases like this. (And who decides what a "bad attitude" is? That's an awful lot of power over someone else's life in one person's hands: they are judge, jury, and in effect, executioner.)

I wish I had a solution, but I don't. I don't know how I could fix the system so that it is anything but what it is. Perhaps a two-strike rule: kick someone out of the halfway house for one night and let them back the next day if they've 1) remained sober and 2) improved their attitude.

What a conundrum.

legal system, alcoholism, rehab, prison reform

"To crush your enemies, to see them fall at your feet — to take their horses and goods and hear the lamentation of their women. That is best."

- Ghengis Khan

Yes.

Ghengis Khan, war, QOTD

If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.

- Nicolo Machiavelli

QOTD, Machiavelli, quote of the day

I went to see Syriana tonight with my dad, and I was blown away. It was probably one of the best and most interesting movies I've ever seen. As an American, I've been raised to think of the world as America. Sure, I know there are other countries outside this one, but when I write for Ars, for example, I always think I'm talking to Americans. I think of everything in terms of America.

This movie was rather eye-opening. Not that it was especially revealing — I wasn't shocked or blown away by anything specifically. Perhaps the thing that stuck out to me the most was Prince Nasir Al-Subaai who was supposed to become the Emir when his father died. He struck me as being a good man — something most Americans don't necessarily think of Arab oil barons. It actually rather made me sad that I was surprised to find out that I liked him. Obviously there are good and decent people in the Middle East — people who genuinely want to make their world better… yet I was surprised by this. And if I'm feeling that way, then it's a good bet that many Americans would be surprised to find themselves in the same boat.

One other half-surprise was the sympathy I felt for the suicide bomber. I wasn't completely shocked by this because I've done a fair amount of reading on the concept of fundamentalism, and I understand why the youth who are feeling angry and disenfranchised can be driven to things like suicide bombing. Naturally, I don't sympathize with their point of view, but I can certainly sympathize with feeling like the rest of the world has left you behind. There is certainly something compelling about a group of people who will accept you for who you are, no matter what the group is. Everyone wants to be accepted and loved for who they are, and fundamentalist groups offer that in spades, no matter their religious or political persuasions.

I think the over-arching theme that I liked the most was the idea of shades of gray. One of my favorite sayings since I was in Junior High has always been "it all depends on your perspective" — even before I really knew what it meant. Over the years this has been proven true time and again, which is why I always try to consider other people's points of view when making up my own mind. Everything is justifiable depending on your frame of reference, and this movie shows this more clearly than ever. I like to think I've got a broad frame of reference, but this movie pointed out that it really only extends to the borders of my own country. And compared to the rest of this globe, we're actually not as big as we think we are, though we certainly do wield an unbelievable amount of power on this Earth.

Syriana, politics, middle east, movie reviews

Today the Dover Intelligent Design case came to a close — Ars has some great coverage — but I wanted to explore the notion of why and how the Intelligent Design controversy ever took place to begin with.

Fundamentally, it all has to do with the way news works. The other day, boingboing.net had a great article which explained to the layperson how news is created. (Journalists and others who "create" news largely know how this operates already.) For the most part, the creation of news is done one of two ways. The first way is that a journalist goes out, cultivates, and then writes a story. The second way is via press releases. This is true for business news, science news, almost any kind of news you can think of.

For instance, most of the news that a publication like New Scientist covers is actually rehashing of press releases that can be found on eurekalert.org. So when someone mentions that an "original article" can be found [insert New Scientist/BBC/news source link here] — this is actually not correct. The original link — unless it's a story a journalist went out and found on their own — can be found on eurekalert, or another, similar press release website.

In the realm of science, press releases serve two purposes. The inform the public (and publishers) of various scientific breakthroughs at academic institutions, or they can be the tool of a company like Sangamo BioSciences to let the world know about a scientific breakthrough that their company has created. I wrote about such a story yesterday in Nobel Intent — in general I don't care where breakthroughs come from, a breakthrough is a breakthrough regardless of whether it's accomplished by a non-profit university or a for-profit company. Motivations might be different for each, but a breakthrough is a breakthrough.

In any event, in a case like the Intelligent Design case in Dover, PA, their campaign was largely based on the idea of "teaching the controversy." The Controversy, of course, is an entirely fictitious creation: there is no controversy within the realm of science. There is, however, a controversy when it comes to melding science and faith, especially amongst Bible literalist circles. The Discovery Institute (and the Thomas Moore Law Center) successfully conflated this idea in the public eye. In fact, they created it specifically for this purpose. (Much the same way that "Cyber Monday" is a term fabricated by retail associations whose goal it is to drive holiday sales.) Made-up terms have quite a lot of influence on the public, particularly when they are picked up by the mainstream media and reported as Truth.

In the case of Intelligent Design, there is no controversy, except that which the Discovery Institute — a conservative Christian think-tank — created. And then released into the wild in the form of press releases which could then be picked up by the mainstream media and eventually make its way into the minds of mainstream America. The campaign was largely successful: reporters have been reporting the Intelligent Design case in Dover, PA by telling both sides of the story in an effort to appear fair and balanced, not taking into account that one side of the story (the alleged controversy) is completely made up to begin with. As a result, fringe beliefs are given the same equal time as real scientific theories in the eyes of the public, introducing fear, uncertainty, and doubt into mainstream thought. The responsible thing to do would is to call ID what it is: a creation by a fringe group for the express purpose of bringing creationism back into the classroom under the a-religious guise of "intelligent design."

Unfortunately by exploiting the convoluted way that "news" is created, ID proponents under the auspices of the Discovery Institute were able to shoehorn a non-existent controversy into the hearts and minds of the American public with the help of the mainstream press — who should largely know better. Unfortunately, political correctness and efforts to deliver "fair and balanced" reporting only exacerbated the (non-)situation in the first place.

The more I write about science and science matters, the more I become angry with the religious right. Well, perhaps not angry, but exasperated by their ass-backwardness about things. It seems like they're always about fifty years behind the rest of the world when it comes to science. And the current administration doesn't really help when it comes to public policy regarding scientific issues.

I tend to be more of a Republican on a great many things, but their ridiculous stances on things like evolutionary theory, gay rights, etc. preclude me from voting conservative. The current administration's attempt to stifle things like stem cell research and accurate science teaching frustrates me endlessly, and is only going to result in a nation that is behind the rest of the world which *does* have very real ramifications when it comes to market competition.

Anyway, I just felt like ranting a little bit. I started off writing for polyscience.org with complete indifference to politics, but the more I read and write, the more I see that science, particularly life science, does not exist in a religious and political vacuum, no matter how much I wish that they did. The more I write, the more I see how important it is to report the social and political impacts of scientific research, because avoiding it is to go through life with blinders on.

I almost feel guilty about writing this here, because my mom reads my blog, and she's fairly conservative. Our opinions on a great many matters when it comes to evolution and abortion and homosexuality and many other things, are nearly polar opposites of one another. I am fortunate in that she doesn't take my frustration personally or feel a need to try to convert me from my heretical opinions.