And they won't work as well. I think it's nice that our new government wants to make the auto companies produce higher mileage vehicles. It seems that they also want US automakers to not die and be flushed into history's toilet. But they are not doing the one thing that would really bring those two ideas together: Tax Gasoline...heavily.
$2/gallon would be the minimum, and it should increase by 2% or so a year. The problem with just raising CAFE standards is that making vehicles get better mileage does not make people want to own them. Higher mileage vehicles are slower, smaller, and--thanks to the simple physics of mass--inherently less safe for the occupants.
The one thing that the 2008 spike in gas prices proved is that the only way to change the behavior of US consumers when it comes to choosing a car (and how much they drive) is for gas to go over $4/gallon. That's the only way to affect behavior. It would increase demand for low mileage vehicles and automakers could start to see the % profit on those that they had been enjoying on SUVs. It would drive innovation, shift production, and all without the nasty government forcing auto makers to do anything.
Of course it is also a tax hike, and people will go apoplectic over it, and politicians will have a hard time getting (re)elected, and it is middle class regressive (rich won't feel it much, and many poor don't have cars), so it won't happen, no matter how much of a good idea it is, no matter how much it may be needed to reduce our energy consumption.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Gitmo foibles
Another report on former Guantanamo detainees being released and going "back" to terrorism. It says in the CNN url "gitmo.recidivism," but if they were released (by Bush), that would imply that there was not real evidence that they were ever guilty in the first place which would mean that it isn't so much recidivism as it is that Bush policies created (and then released) terrorists. Why is that only pointed out by bloggers (and Keith Olbermann)?
I'm a pretty lazes faire type of fellow, but if some other nation came here, arrested me, sent me to some prison in a different nation than either, where I was accused of things I hadn't done (and maybe even some I would have), possibly tortured, not given access to lawyers, or allowed to see friends, family, etc for years, then released because it turns out they had arrested me wrongly, I'd probably be a little miffed. I can't now imagine wanting to come home and blow them up or kill anyone, but I can neither imagine the feeling of helplessness and insignificance that one would feel when wrongly and illegally captured and held.
I am aware that in seeing people from the Middle East as actual real human beings with feelings and shit the crazy wing of the GOP will consider me as one who sympathizes with terrorists, but that's the damn problem. They see anyone who was captured and held, regardless of reality, as a terrorist. And if those people, upon release happen to engage in terrorism, regardless of the reality (which we won't actually ever know), they see themselves as vindicated for acting illegally in the first place. It doesn't matter that the illegal activities of Bush, Cheney and Co. could very well have created more terrorism than it prevented.
Yes, this is why Obama should also have released those photos. Trying to hide our mistakes makes people distrust and dislike us. IT HELPS CREATE TERRORISTS. They can say "See, the evil USA is not changing their ways and coming clean and righting the wrongs of the previous administration, but they are continuing to cover them up and probably continuing those very wrongs themselves because why else would they cover up and not punish those who committed those evil acts?"
We cannot lead by example when our example is crap.
I'm a pretty lazes faire type of fellow, but if some other nation came here, arrested me, sent me to some prison in a different nation than either, where I was accused of things I hadn't done (and maybe even some I would have), possibly tortured, not given access to lawyers, or allowed to see friends, family, etc for years, then released because it turns out they had arrested me wrongly, I'd probably be a little miffed. I can't now imagine wanting to come home and blow them up or kill anyone, but I can neither imagine the feeling of helplessness and insignificance that one would feel when wrongly and illegally captured and held.
I am aware that in seeing people from the Middle East as actual real human beings with feelings and shit the crazy wing of the GOP will consider me as one who sympathizes with terrorists, but that's the damn problem. They see anyone who was captured and held, regardless of reality, as a terrorist. And if those people, upon release happen to engage in terrorism, regardless of the reality (which we won't actually ever know), they see themselves as vindicated for acting illegally in the first place. It doesn't matter that the illegal activities of Bush, Cheney and Co. could very well have created more terrorism than it prevented.
Yes, this is why Obama should also have released those photos. Trying to hide our mistakes makes people distrust and dislike us. IT HELPS CREATE TERRORISTS. They can say "See, the evil USA is not changing their ways and coming clean and righting the wrongs of the previous administration, but they are continuing to cover them up and probably continuing those very wrongs themselves because why else would they cover up and not punish those who committed those evil acts?"
We cannot lead by example when our example is crap.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Wherefore are the Engagement Ring
This is an interesting read.
Wedding bands make sense to me, and stylistically I like the elegant simplicity of matched, plain (gold, silver, platinum) bands. Engagement rings have always seemed odd to me. I am amused that it used to be a means of essentially buying a woman's virginity, and the diamond cartel history is fascinating, though it makes me have less desire to purchase those stones, never minding the whole conflict diamonds issue.
Ok, I'll admit, I'm a guy with respect to jewelry and I don't get much any of it, but the idea of wearing two months' salary (it used to be one) on one's finger seems overly silly. It's a means to brag about the wealth of a future husband, not of his love, or devotion. There is little sincerity to it either: figure out whether the monthly salary thing is before or after taxes and should factor in any bonuses, multiply by 2, go to jewelery store and look at rings that are in that price range, possibly with girlfriend (or one of her friends), identify appropriate ring at the correct price, and purchase (often on credit card to be paid off over next few years).
The real reason is the number of other things that one can do for the cost of two months' salary, and it doesn't even matter what one's salary is. For someone earning $24k/year that's $4000 that could be spent on a nice vacation, or new furnishings/appliances/renovation for their house. No matter how much one earns 2 months' salary is a lot.
It really may not be much different than a guy showing off his 52" LCD that is up in a smallish living room that could be fully and well served by a 32" model, or a $15k, 950cc motorcycle that is used for slow touring on nice weekends. Except that the tv can be used by many people and provides plenty of entertainment and the bike does still get one around (and in relatively fuel efficient fashion, though at 950cc, only ~45 mpg).
Rings can be beautiful works of art. They can have meaning and history (passed down, found second hand, designed by one of the couple). Most engagement rings, however, are the equivalent of gold plated spinners: too much money spent on an accessory meant for showing off that money, not love.
Wedding bands make sense to me, and stylistically I like the elegant simplicity of matched, plain (gold, silver, platinum) bands. Engagement rings have always seemed odd to me. I am amused that it used to be a means of essentially buying a woman's virginity, and the diamond cartel history is fascinating, though it makes me have less desire to purchase those stones, never minding the whole conflict diamonds issue.
Ok, I'll admit, I'm a guy with respect to jewelry and I don't get much any of it, but the idea of wearing two months' salary (it used to be one) on one's finger seems overly silly. It's a means to brag about the wealth of a future husband, not of his love, or devotion. There is little sincerity to it either: figure out whether the monthly salary thing is before or after taxes and should factor in any bonuses, multiply by 2, go to jewelery store and look at rings that are in that price range, possibly with girlfriend (or one of her friends), identify appropriate ring at the correct price, and purchase (often on credit card to be paid off over next few years).
The real reason is the number of other things that one can do for the cost of two months' salary, and it doesn't even matter what one's salary is. For someone earning $24k/year that's $4000 that could be spent on a nice vacation, or new furnishings/appliances/renovation for their house. No matter how much one earns 2 months' salary is a lot.
It really may not be much different than a guy showing off his 52" LCD that is up in a smallish living room that could be fully and well served by a 32" model, or a $15k, 950cc motorcycle that is used for slow touring on nice weekends. Except that the tv can be used by many people and provides plenty of entertainment and the bike does still get one around (and in relatively fuel efficient fashion, though at 950cc, only ~45 mpg).
Rings can be beautiful works of art. They can have meaning and history (passed down, found second hand, designed by one of the couple). Most engagement rings, however, are the equivalent of gold plated spinners: too much money spent on an accessory meant for showing off that money, not love.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Credit cards are NOT bad
There will always be people who consider the use and existence of credit and debt a bad thing. Credit is not bad, however. It lowers the entry cost for things like a house and a car allowing younger people to purchase. It allows business to get started and to absorb seasonal and annual fluctuations that may cause them to dip into the red at awkward times.
On a smaller scale, however, credit cards are also good. They simplify bill paying and money tracking. They provide a buffer for the unexpected. They allow people, particularly young people and immigrants who are high credit risks, to establish credit history so that they can, in the future, finance that purchase of a car or house.
If it were a perfect world they would also be an excellent source of credit for many people with little to no credit history and/or bad credit. The well heeled DC insiders are badmouthing the practices of credit card issuers (mostly banks), and I generally agree, but there are reasons to give pause. Actions that remove many of the more evil aspects of credit card agreements (1 day late? hello, 10% point increase in your rate, never to come down.) are good and fair, and some of them will make it so that credit card issuers will be sensible in how they hand out credit cards. Others will mean, as the industry is whining, that less credit will be available to people at the bottom who need it.
As an example of silly practices: while still in college and without a set job or any declared income I had a credit card with a limit of $9500! I got it my first year in college, did not have my parents sign on, and for those first few years, they would just randomly increase my limit (it went over $20k in grad school before I finally called them and asked them to knock it off).
The risk of giving credit (even as little as $100) to those who are high risk is supposedly mitigated by giving lots of credit to people who are low risk. The overall benefits everyone. I have my insanely high limit card that I can turn to in emergency, and the cash back one I can use for most purchases and pay off at the end of each month. Many people may finance a summer vacation or holiday spending on a card that they can pay off over the year, and those trying to get a leg up and a job can get cleaned up and ready for an interview.
The problem is really that this is not how people use credit. In practice, even the middle and upper middle class bought beyond their means to pay off, and they are now the ones (those with good incomes and credit scores) defaulting. This fouls up the risk side and
On the low end, despite the supposed overcompensation with low risk individuals, high risk are often not given access at all (and the current legislation may make that worse) which results in the proliferation of predatory lending practices like payday loans. The absence of credit to the poor contributes to making an impoverished lifestyle more expensive (lots of other things factor in and this is a good read).
On a smaller scale, however, credit cards are also good. They simplify bill paying and money tracking. They provide a buffer for the unexpected. They allow people, particularly young people and immigrants who are high credit risks, to establish credit history so that they can, in the future, finance that purchase of a car or house.
If it were a perfect world they would also be an excellent source of credit for many people with little to no credit history and/or bad credit. The well heeled DC insiders are badmouthing the practices of credit card issuers (mostly banks), and I generally agree, but there are reasons to give pause. Actions that remove many of the more evil aspects of credit card agreements (1 day late? hello, 10% point increase in your rate, never to come down.) are good and fair, and some of them will make it so that credit card issuers will be sensible in how they hand out credit cards. Others will mean, as the industry is whining, that less credit will be available to people at the bottom who need it.
As an example of silly practices: while still in college and without a set job or any declared income I had a credit card with a limit of $9500! I got it my first year in college, did not have my parents sign on, and for those first few years, they would just randomly increase my limit (it went over $20k in grad school before I finally called them and asked them to knock it off).
The risk of giving credit (even as little as $100) to those who are high risk is supposedly mitigated by giving lots of credit to people who are low risk. The overall benefits everyone. I have my insanely high limit card that I can turn to in emergency, and the cash back one I can use for most purchases and pay off at the end of each month. Many people may finance a summer vacation or holiday spending on a card that they can pay off over the year, and those trying to get a leg up and a job can get cleaned up and ready for an interview.
The problem is really that this is not how people use credit. In practice, even the middle and upper middle class bought beyond their means to pay off, and they are now the ones (those with good incomes and credit scores) defaulting. This fouls up the risk side and
On the low end, despite the supposed overcompensation with low risk individuals, high risk are often not given access at all (and the current legislation may make that worse) which results in the proliferation of predatory lending practices like payday loans. The absence of credit to the poor contributes to making an impoverished lifestyle more expensive (lots of other things factor in and this is a good read).
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Reasonably Emotional
All animals on the planet are entirely rational in their actions...except people...kind of...
We are emotional creatures, and emotion plays and flirts with reason in such a fashion as to complicate the nature of every decision we make. Inherently there is some reason for any choice, yet that word "reason" implies rational, that there is a logical construct that will allow one to determine the result given all entry parameters. There is a reason for our choices, but it is not so simple as to be easily ascribed right or wrong, or good or bad. It can be beyond our abilities to understand. We may say that some decisions don't make sense, even to the one who makes them. That's not fair, though. Our own failings of comprehension should not be attributed to choices made, even if those choices prove at some point to have been less favorable.
The perception is that emotion conflates reason and we make choices that are not reasonable or logical. That perception, however is based on a post enlightenment western view that our capacity for reason is to our advantage over the lesser animals and that it allows for us to make choices that will be of greatest benefit.
We are emotional creatures, and emotion plays and flirts with reason in such a fashion as to complicate the nature of every decision we make. Inherently there is some reason for any choice, yet that word "reason" implies rational, that there is a logical construct that will allow one to determine the result given all entry parameters. There is a reason for our choices, but it is not so simple as to be easily ascribed right or wrong, or good or bad. It can be beyond our abilities to understand. We may say that some decisions don't make sense, even to the one who makes them. That's not fair, though. Our own failings of comprehension should not be attributed to choices made, even if those choices prove at some point to have been less favorable.
The perception is that emotion conflates reason and we make choices that are not reasonable or logical. That perception, however is based on a post enlightenment western view that our capacity for reason is to our advantage over the lesser animals and that it allows for us to make choices that will be of greatest benefit.
Animals lack this capacity for reason, yet we perceive that their behavior is entirely rational. They eat, sleep, mate, migrate, hibernate, defend, flee, and more all as is in their current best (perceived) interests. The “decisions” of such animals are instinct, seen by us as a logical response to stimulus. Within ourselves we have relabeled instinct as emotion and ascribed to it an anti-logical connotation.
Our emotion is our basest response to stimulus. When we feel comfort with (or fear of) another; when we unconditionally love our children, we are experiencing emotion, and we are also exhibiting our basest form of logic: our instinct.
That is not to say that our emotion will always produce a response that is within our best interest. Because we have grown up and developed—both in terms of long term evolution and in terms of a single life lived in modern society—we have come to appreciate that we are capable of overcoming base instinct to create to develop to explore to discover. Our instinct for curiosity has caused us to develop impartial reason as a means to examine the world around us, and to examine ourselves. The development of that part of our minds has become a part of us every bit as much as our instinctive, emotional, core. As such our decisions are a complex twinning of the two sides, two parts of reason that do not have each other’s best interest in mind.
The emotional side wants a companion with whom we feel a certain type of comfort, the logical side wants stability. The emotional side wants that one house, while the logical side studies the mortgage payments. The emotional side thinks a big slice of cheesecake would be the perfect finish to the already large meal, while the logical side says that it is unnecessary and unhealthy. (It is not our instinct to stop eating when full.)
Every decision has a reason behind it. Some of those reasons are impartial decisions, and others are emotional. Some we can step back and make sense of, others we cannot. Some are good for us and others are not.
I am personally driven to understand the reason behind things. I don’t care if that reason is the result primarily of logic or emotion, or a more equal interweaving of the two. I don’t care if the reason is complex or simple. I don’t care if the reason is faulty or sound. I am painfully curious, especially of things I do not understand and that affect me personally.
There are certainly times when that desire to understand can come off as argumentative, or that I am trying to influence or change someone else’s decision to be more favorable to me. I cannot deny that that is ever the case. In fact, it would be a wholly reasonable thing for me to attempt to create a decision that would be in my perceived best interest. Of course, what I perceive to be in my own best interest may not actually be in my best interest. I understand that, which complicates things horribly.
Decisions that are to have a long and lasting effect on my life are not ones I take lightly. To begin or end a relationship (or to accept such things), to buy a house, to get a dog, someday to get married, to have a child. Those are complex, long term decisions. They will affect me not only when I make them but for years to come. Years which are unknown and unknowable.
How do we make those decisions? How do I? It depends on the situation. Some decisions are best left to reason (when to get gas, whether to go to work). Others are better suited to emotion (what to have for dinner, whether to kiss one's partner). Big decisions should get input from both sides. Of course this is primarily a rational look at choice, reason and emotion, and it ignores the fact that people can misuse reason, or misinterpret emotion.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Notre Dame
Bad post below. I lack the will and time to polish and properify...
I've never been a Notre Dame fan despite being Catholic. I certainly don't see the point in making noise about Obama's talk there. He didn't say anything surprising or contrary to previous statements. The Pope has expressed optimism about Obama (the friggin Pope!).
To be sure, while recently abortion has been supplanted by gay marriage for the title of "wedge issue d'jour," it is still a major issue within the Catholic Church. It is actually pretty hard to get excommunicated, but abortion is one of the easiest paths to that, e.g.
On the one hand I sympathize with the moral difficulty surrounding the question. On the other, the only time we can legislate against a moral issue is if that issue goes against our rights as well (murder, robbery: illegal, cheating spouse: legal). The anti-abortion crowd rallies around the fetus as a separate human deserving equal protection. The pro-abortion crowd fights back that a pregnant woman is not two people--no matter her declarations--historically, under the law, or in practice. The privacy issue goes something like this: a woman does not need to declare herself pregnant, and so any actions that she takes while pregnant cannot be judged on the basis of that pregnancy. Abortive actions, while bizarre, would not be illegal actions if a woman were to chose to have them done while not pregnant. Elective surgery is not illegal. Since it is not legal to forcer her to declare her pregnancy, nothing she does while pregnant can be illegal if it is not illegal otherwise. ...or something.
My personal view on the legal front is that it cannot (and should not) be outlawed. On the other end any moral decision made in a vacuum (as mine must be made) is precludes a stark response, so I am limited to saying that I feel, in general, it tends toward the darker shades of gray. My biggest issue is that "pro-life" people in large numbers seem to have supported the pro-death Bush administration. I can say that on the moral gray scale, starting a war against a much smaller country that has done nothing to you is pretty damn black...and so is torture.
Of course I bring up the abortion and Notre Dame thing to point out bad and highly publicized statistics (the link goes to the reasons for the bad).
I've never been a Notre Dame fan despite being Catholic. I certainly don't see the point in making noise about Obama's talk there. He didn't say anything surprising or contrary to previous statements. The Pope has expressed optimism about Obama (the friggin Pope!).
To be sure, while recently abortion has been supplanted by gay marriage for the title of "wedge issue d'jour," it is still a major issue within the Catholic Church. It is actually pretty hard to get excommunicated, but abortion is one of the easiest paths to that, e.g.
On the one hand I sympathize with the moral difficulty surrounding the question. On the other, the only time we can legislate against a moral issue is if that issue goes against our rights as well (murder, robbery: illegal, cheating spouse: legal). The anti-abortion crowd rallies around the fetus as a separate human deserving equal protection. The pro-abortion crowd fights back that a pregnant woman is not two people--no matter her declarations--historically, under the law, or in practice. The privacy issue goes something like this: a woman does not need to declare herself pregnant, and so any actions that she takes while pregnant cannot be judged on the basis of that pregnancy. Abortive actions, while bizarre, would not be illegal actions if a woman were to chose to have them done while not pregnant. Elective surgery is not illegal. Since it is not legal to forcer her to declare her pregnancy, nothing she does while pregnant can be illegal if it is not illegal otherwise. ...or something.
My personal view on the legal front is that it cannot (and should not) be outlawed. On the other end any moral decision made in a vacuum (as mine must be made) is precludes a stark response, so I am limited to saying that I feel, in general, it tends toward the darker shades of gray. My biggest issue is that "pro-life" people in large numbers seem to have supported the pro-death Bush administration. I can say that on the moral gray scale, starting a war against a much smaller country that has done nothing to you is pretty damn black...and so is torture.
Of course I bring up the abortion and Notre Dame thing to point out bad and highly publicized statistics (the link goes to the reasons for the bad).
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Torture, Obama, and Bush (Cheney)
I'm trying to figure out the proper comparison. Here's what I have for now: murder.
If someone commits murder, and someone else, sees it (maybe even screamed "don't") but then fails to notify authorities, and maybe even helps to hide the body, then we have two people who have both demonstrated a moral failing. Two who have broken the law. The order of magnitude is doubtless different, but neither is worthy of praise, and in fact both deserve condemnation.
We know we tortured, we know it was sanctioned, and that makes the Bush (Cheney) administration deplorable on a level that has certainly not existed in my lifetime, or my parents, and possibly my grandparents. If Obama does not pursue justice, if he continues to hide what happened, then he is no different than the witness in the murder scenario. We cannot know that we are progressing in the right direction if we hide all of our tracks. We could just as easily double back. Obama got my vote last year with a promise of change. If he fails in producing this particular change, then he will not get my vote in 2012, and he will get me to actively campaign against him.
If someone commits murder, and someone else, sees it (maybe even screamed "don't") but then fails to notify authorities, and maybe even helps to hide the body, then we have two people who have both demonstrated a moral failing. Two who have broken the law. The order of magnitude is doubtless different, but neither is worthy of praise, and in fact both deserve condemnation.
We know we tortured, we know it was sanctioned, and that makes the Bush (Cheney) administration deplorable on a level that has certainly not existed in my lifetime, or my parents, and possibly my grandparents. If Obama does not pursue justice, if he continues to hide what happened, then he is no different than the witness in the murder scenario. We cannot know that we are progressing in the right direction if we hide all of our tracks. We could just as easily double back. Obama got my vote last year with a promise of change. If he fails in producing this particular change, then he will not get my vote in 2012, and he will get me to actively campaign against him.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Online Dating
I'll admit some hesitancy in posting this. Not because anyone reads this blog, but because of the specific people who may encounter it (I am googled quite easily).
Online dating is great. Especially for people (like myself) who can't really get into the bar scene. I enjoy going to bars, but meeting someone there just doesn't seem fit my personality much. (It works great for some.) Online, however, is an excellent environment to encounter a large number and variety of people. As an added benefit, it is easy to fit into even very busy or chaotic lives.
Of course it is also troublesome: it makes people feel compelled to rush and so tends to favor those who can manage to be aggressive without seeming too intense/creepy/forward--a tricky balancing act I will never figure out--it encourages us to disregard people for often superficial reasons or to make snap judgments based on too little info, and the timing and nature of whether and when people respond mean that good opportunities could easily be missed and worse ones pursued. In the grand scheme it should most often work out in the end: missing out one or even several very good potential matches doesn't mean that another will not show.
Beyond the early rush intro, is the pressure to find meaning in with someone as quickly as possible. But everyone is different, and while those differences can make for good relationships, they may also make for one that would not be able to get off the ground in this environment.
In the end, I suppose that I (and others) can only be ourselves and hope that the other person knows what she/he wants and asks. Of course if the need is for another to meet expectations without having to make those known...
P.S. I am not referring to any one person in this, but everyone, myself included.
Online dating is great. Especially for people (like myself) who can't really get into the bar scene. I enjoy going to bars, but meeting someone there just doesn't seem fit my personality much. (It works great for some.) Online, however, is an excellent environment to encounter a large number and variety of people. As an added benefit, it is easy to fit into even very busy or chaotic lives.
Of course it is also troublesome: it makes people feel compelled to rush and so tends to favor those who can manage to be aggressive without seeming too intense/creepy/forward--a tricky balancing act I will never figure out--it encourages us to disregard people for often superficial reasons or to make snap judgments based on too little info, and the timing and nature of whether and when people respond mean that good opportunities could easily be missed and worse ones pursued. In the grand scheme it should most often work out in the end: missing out one or even several very good potential matches doesn't mean that another will not show.
Beyond the early rush intro, is the pressure to find meaning in with someone as quickly as possible. But everyone is different, and while those differences can make for good relationships, they may also make for one that would not be able to get off the ground in this environment.
In the end, I suppose that I (and others) can only be ourselves and hope that the other person knows what she/he wants and asks. Of course if the need is for another to meet expectations without having to make those known...
P.S. I am not referring to any one person in this, but everyone, myself included.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Negative Calorie Foods
Time had an article on line about 10 dieting myths. One of them is "There are no negative calorie foods." On the one hand, this is true, on the other they are full of shit. There are lots of foods (mostly vegetables, but some fruit) that contain very little in calorie content, while they have lots of fiber, and are generally harder to digest. I have seen widely varied information on calorie content vs. available calorie content and different values for burned and "stolen" calories (fiber has a tendency to extract calories in the form of fat from our bodies, mostly in the digestive tract but soluble fiber can clean up some of the fat in our arteries, particularly those in LDLs.
In the end if you eat something that has nearly zero available calories (lettuce, celery), then even the very small amount of calories you must burn to consume them make them negative calories. Depending on the timing, the ability of fiber to bind fat in our digestive tract means that high fiber foods can remove calories contained in high fat foods by keeping them from ever being absorbed by the body.
Quantifying becomes very difficult. Even if you can do all the different equilibrium calculations necessary, the relative concentrations are dependent on what you eat, when you eat it, and your specific metabolism. The exact amount of "negative calorie" intake you can really get in a day is very difficult due to the fat robbing issue--maximized by eating too much fat anyway--but you can eat foods that will reduce your total calorie count for the day. Of course, you won't know by how much, and it isn't like a carrot is going to cancel that slice of pizza.
In the end it is a bad idea to depend on or try and count negative calories, but it is a very good idea to eat fruit and veggies. On their own is all good, but the complimentary benefits of filling your stomach and having some of that fiber peel off a bit of the other fat you've consumed, means that the best use of veggies is as a substantial (by volume or weight) fraction of a meal. You will eat less of the high calorie (meat and carb) portions as a result.
In the end if you eat something that has nearly zero available calories (lettuce, celery), then even the very small amount of calories you must burn to consume them make them negative calories. Depending on the timing, the ability of fiber to bind fat in our digestive tract means that high fiber foods can remove calories contained in high fat foods by keeping them from ever being absorbed by the body.
Quantifying becomes very difficult. Even if you can do all the different equilibrium calculations necessary, the relative concentrations are dependent on what you eat, when you eat it, and your specific metabolism. The exact amount of "negative calorie" intake you can really get in a day is very difficult due to the fat robbing issue--maximized by eating too much fat anyway--but you can eat foods that will reduce your total calorie count for the day. Of course, you won't know by how much, and it isn't like a carrot is going to cancel that slice of pizza.
In the end it is a bad idea to depend on or try and count negative calories, but it is a very good idea to eat fruit and veggies. On their own is all good, but the complimentary benefits of filling your stomach and having some of that fiber peel off a bit of the other fat you've consumed, means that the best use of veggies is as a substantial (by volume or weight) fraction of a meal. You will eat less of the high calorie (meat and carb) portions as a result.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
FDA Warns Cheerios
"Cheerios can lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks," is the claim. The commercial has been bugging me a bit, and now it seems the FDA is warning General Mills off of that particular line of advertising.
The statement and add are not false. The implication is really that Cheerios does something that other cereals won't. That bugs me. Soluble fiber can lower cholesterol. Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber. Cheerios contain oats, and that soluble fiber, and, therefore, lower cholesterol. Of course, so will granola, or oatmeal, or any other oat containing cereal.
I think the FDA warning is a bit iffy too, though it is most likely due to the specific 4% in 6 wks claim, which is troublesome, as someone switching from oatmeal to Cheerios would likely have higher cholesterol than if they stayed on oatmeal.
The statement and add are not false. The implication is really that Cheerios does something that other cereals won't. That bugs me. Soluble fiber can lower cholesterol. Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber. Cheerios contain oats, and that soluble fiber, and, therefore, lower cholesterol. Of course, so will granola, or oatmeal, or any other oat containing cereal.
I think the FDA warning is a bit iffy too, though it is most likely due to the specific 4% in 6 wks claim, which is troublesome, as someone switching from oatmeal to Cheerios would likely have higher cholesterol than if they stayed on oatmeal.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Eating Healthy
One of the biggest factors contributing to obesity is the ease by which unhealthy diet choices can be made compared with the relative difficulty of making healthy ones.
Healthy options tend to have at least one of two major drawbacks: they are expensive and/or they are time consuming. On the prepared meals front, the healthy ones (like kashi) are always more expensive. Even when they are affordable, there are still plenty of cheaper options. Organic complicates this further. Much of the organic labeling doesn't really matter, but in the places it matters most: meat and dairy, it is the largest price jump on the most expensive items.
It has come up here before, but eating healthy is not necessarily expensive, it can, in fact be quite cheap. Trouble is it takes time and effort. And I don't mean just the prep and cooking, as there are plenty of meals that are very fast on that front. What I really mean here is the planning and forethought. In order to get a meal together, you have to decide what you want to make, ensure that you have all the ingredients (or go to the store to get them), and then get them out and start the prep. If this is for dinner, then it could be after getting home from work, and when you are hungry and not really in the mood to think about cooking, but just wanting to eat.
There are all sorts of ways to get around that, but there are always trade-offs. You can make large meals on the weekend, then box up individual lunches/dinners throughout the week. But this means giving up weekend time for cooking, and not everyone wants to make that trade, and it also means not having day to day choice. Now having choice really is a luxury, but it is one we have become accustomed to. The ease with which we can order pizza, or grab a burger, or even pick up the frozen meals at the supermarket is remarkable by comparison.
Healthy options tend to have at least one of two major drawbacks: they are expensive and/or they are time consuming. On the prepared meals front, the healthy ones (like kashi) are always more expensive. Even when they are affordable, there are still plenty of cheaper options. Organic complicates this further. Much of the organic labeling doesn't really matter, but in the places it matters most: meat and dairy, it is the largest price jump on the most expensive items.
It has come up here before, but eating healthy is not necessarily expensive, it can, in fact be quite cheap. Trouble is it takes time and effort. And I don't mean just the prep and cooking, as there are plenty of meals that are very fast on that front. What I really mean here is the planning and forethought. In order to get a meal together, you have to decide what you want to make, ensure that you have all the ingredients (or go to the store to get them), and then get them out and start the prep. If this is for dinner, then it could be after getting home from work, and when you are hungry and not really in the mood to think about cooking, but just wanting to eat.
There are all sorts of ways to get around that, but there are always trade-offs. You can make large meals on the weekend, then box up individual lunches/dinners throughout the week. But this means giving up weekend time for cooking, and not everyone wants to make that trade, and it also means not having day to day choice. Now having choice really is a luxury, but it is one we have become accustomed to. The ease with which we can order pizza, or grab a burger, or even pick up the frozen meals at the supermarket is remarkable by comparison.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Torture: It's Illegal
I really don't understand all the back and forth about whether or not torture works. That is not a defense, that is not an excuse, that cannot offset that it is morally reprehensible and, oh yea, illegal!
Ignoring that torture generally does not work, efficacy is not an effective argument. If it were, then the genocide in Rawanda could be easily defended as a very effective method of population control to deal with the overcrowding in that country. Physical castration could be an effective way to prevent rapists from repeat offense. In fact, giving people life sentences for any crime would be an effective way to guarantee no recidivism. On the less criminal front, I could build a speed bump on the road outside my house to slow down the drivers who go by too fast, as that would be quite effective.
We have laws for a reason. No one gets to shirk them at their will because something that is illegal happens to be effective. Of course, in the case of torture, it isn't effective either.
Ignoring that torture generally does not work, efficacy is not an effective argument. If it were, then the genocide in Rawanda could be easily defended as a very effective method of population control to deal with the overcrowding in that country. Physical castration could be an effective way to prevent rapists from repeat offense. In fact, giving people life sentences for any crime would be an effective way to guarantee no recidivism. On the less criminal front, I could build a speed bump on the road outside my house to slow down the drivers who go by too fast, as that would be quite effective.
We have laws for a reason. No one gets to shirk them at their will because something that is illegal happens to be effective. Of course, in the case of torture, it isn't effective either.
Friday, May 08, 2009
GOP Has Zero Respect for Science
None. I'll not believe otherwise until some major national representative of that party states very publicly that intelligent design is NOT SCIENCE and as such should never, ever, be taught in science classrooms in the United States, while also saying that evolution is science, and should be universally taught. Moreover, that representative can't take everything back as being "misunderstood" two days later when Rush or some other Neanderthal GOP talking head slams them for disrespecting some element of their base.
This was brought about by Tancredo's horrid interview on Hardball, which I had heard about in advance and was kind of interested in. As an aside, Chris Matthews should have had an actual scientist there to scream bloody murder at Tancredo's utter lack of scientific awareness on the subject.
The GOP has no respect for science because a tiny group of people (who all happen to be Republican voters) doesn't like science because it messes with their world view.
This was brought about by Tancredo's horrid interview on Hardball, which I had heard about in advance and was kind of interested in. As an aside, Chris Matthews should have had an actual scientist there to scream bloody murder at Tancredo's utter lack of scientific awareness on the subject.
The GOP has no respect for science because a tiny group of people (who all happen to be Republican voters) doesn't like science because it messes with their world view.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Robotic Warfare
They were talking about drones on NPR today. I was once again struck by a problem that sounds at first blush to be insensitive and harsh and that you will seldom hear voiced:
Soldiers dying in combat is a good thing.
One of the reasons that war is so universally held to be bad and evil is because of the human cost of life. The key component to a war is people dying...on both sides. When one side can remove the human life element, when one side has sufficient might and muscle that it no longer needs to sacrifice its own citizenry to engage in armed conflict, then it loses the necessary and appropriate specter of that conflict: its dead citizens.
While we do have soldiers fighting and dying for us, more and more we are relying on combat techniques designed to minimize casualties while inflicting maximum loss on an enemy. This is perceived and trumpeted as the good of saving lives. It is in fact bad. It distances us from the effects of warfare. For the cost of a handful of American lives, we can kill hundreds of thousands. The disgust of that statement, both in terms of the death represented and the casual dismissal of the loss of some Americans as trivial is palpable.
War is bad. If we get to the point that we risk nothing in a war, will we perceive it as good?
Soldiers dying in combat is a good thing.
One of the reasons that war is so universally held to be bad and evil is because of the human cost of life. The key component to a war is people dying...on both sides. When one side can remove the human life element, when one side has sufficient might and muscle that it no longer needs to sacrifice its own citizenry to engage in armed conflict, then it loses the necessary and appropriate specter of that conflict: its dead citizens.
While we do have soldiers fighting and dying for us, more and more we are relying on combat techniques designed to minimize casualties while inflicting maximum loss on an enemy. This is perceived and trumpeted as the good of saving lives. It is in fact bad. It distances us from the effects of warfare. For the cost of a handful of American lives, we can kill hundreds of thousands. The disgust of that statement, both in terms of the death represented and the casual dismissal of the loss of some Americans as trivial is palpable.
War is bad. If we get to the point that we risk nothing in a war, will we perceive it as good?
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Affirmative Action
Time for a new supreme court justice, and out come the knives. Mostly the preemptive arguments against potential Obama nominees are full of the usual stupid about no activist judges or that Republicans won't fight someone who is "qualified" which they define as: agreeing with us on everything, especially women's reproductive rights.
The new justice will not change the court much in terms of how it votes, but it almost certainly will change one thing: it's makeup. This is good. The much ballyhooed headline "White Men Need Not Apply" and the sniping about Obama's SCOTUS nominee needing to be anti-affirmative action are destructive to gender and racial equity advancement in this country.
Yes, we have a black president. We also have 1 black senator (out of 100) who is not particularly respected what with the whole Blago thing and all; there are 40 non-delegate black members in the House along with 72 women, 23 Hispanics, 5 Asians, and one native American (out of 435). Less than 50% of this country is male, and less than 75% is white, meaning something like 36-37% of the US population is white male, but white males make up more than 70% of those two bodies and are 78% (7 of 9) of the current supreme court.
The notion than affirmative action is unnecessary because we have a black president is ludicrous. Our nation is NOT well represented in congress or on the supreme court. White men are over represented too as heads of corporations, in corporate boardrooms, as faculty on university campuses throughout this country. Top level positions are dominated by white men. Having a black president is a major step forward for racial equality, but the notion that everything is equal now is horse shit.
The new justice will not change the court much in terms of how it votes, but it almost certainly will change one thing: it's makeup. This is good. The much ballyhooed headline "White Men Need Not Apply" and the sniping about Obama's SCOTUS nominee needing to be anti-affirmative action are destructive to gender and racial equity advancement in this country.
Yes, we have a black president. We also have 1 black senator (out of 100) who is not particularly respected what with the whole Blago thing and all; there are 40 non-delegate black members in the House along with 72 women, 23 Hispanics, 5 Asians, and one native American (out of 435). Less than 50% of this country is male, and less than 75% is white, meaning something like 36-37% of the US population is white male, but white males make up more than 70% of those two bodies and are 78% (7 of 9) of the current supreme court.
The notion than affirmative action is unnecessary because we have a black president is ludicrous. Our nation is NOT well represented in congress or on the supreme court. White men are over represented too as heads of corporations, in corporate boardrooms, as faculty on university campuses throughout this country. Top level positions are dominated by white men. Having a black president is a major step forward for racial equality, but the notion that everything is equal now is horse shit.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter the Democrat?
I don't really believe it. If he supports card check, votes for cloture on a very regular basis (no matter his actual vote on whatever bill), and publicly supports Obama and his policies (for the most part) then I'll believe. Unless and until, it is just a ploy to get reelected.
From a bigger picture perspective, I'm not so cynical about this as others. Matthews was saying he's an opportunist, lots of blog comments about him not actually standing for anything but getting elected. I don't see how that's a bad thing though. Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents. Reps their district, Senators their state, and the President his (or her...someday) country. Rep terms are short enough that there are plenty of referendums on their record by their constituents. In the time since Specter was last elected, however, the state of Pennsylvania has changed quite a bit, really to the point that, primary challenge aside, as a Republican it is not possible to represent PA well.
If the GOP did not require the ultimate fealty to party above all that they do, the point would be moot, but Republicans seem to consider disagreeing with the party line on something tantamount to treason. Despite being their nominee for president, McCain is still railed against by much of the right because he thinks torture is bad (Rush had a comment about Specter taking him with to the Dem side). Despite the fact that she is a bigger national punchline than W ever was (you know, before his being president became so tragic), they love Palin.
Flexibility in a politician is often seen as bad (waffling, not having principals, et cetera), but it really isn't, to the extent that a politician changes her views and votes to get reelected, she must be changing them to reflect the changing views of her constituents meaning that she is better representing those who elected her. Having a principled ideology is a fine thing, but not if you are claiming to represent a varied and changing populace, unless you don't mind finding yourself on the outs from them. Principled stands do have a place, and politicians who truly take them are quite courageous. They are also seldom reelected. If one's convictions align with the voters it doesn't take strong principals or courage to state them. If they don't align, he doesn't get elected.
I do not like closed primaries (as exist in PA) because they throw a wrench in the works. In the general election, the voters may not have their choice of politicians, because one party or the other may decide to nominate the more polarizing, divisive candidate. Primaries should be about each party sending the candidate that has the best chance to win the general. But to really do that, primaries should all be caucus type. Short of that, I like the notion of a general election as a choice between all candidates of any party. If someone gets 50%, they win, if not, top 2 go to a run-off. This gives everyone a say on every candidate. The big parties would fight like hell to keep this from happening expressly because 3 Dems, 4 Repubs could all split the vote so that the 1 Liberatarian and 1 Green candidate go to the runoff. Of course, that result is another reason I would like this.
From a bigger picture perspective, I'm not so cynical about this as others. Matthews was saying he's an opportunist, lots of blog comments about him not actually standing for anything but getting elected. I don't see how that's a bad thing though. Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents. Reps their district, Senators their state, and the President his (or her...someday) country. Rep terms are short enough that there are plenty of referendums on their record by their constituents. In the time since Specter was last elected, however, the state of Pennsylvania has changed quite a bit, really to the point that, primary challenge aside, as a Republican it is not possible to represent PA well.
If the GOP did not require the ultimate fealty to party above all that they do, the point would be moot, but Republicans seem to consider disagreeing with the party line on something tantamount to treason. Despite being their nominee for president, McCain is still railed against by much of the right because he thinks torture is bad (Rush had a comment about Specter taking him with to the Dem side). Despite the fact that she is a bigger national punchline than W ever was (you know, before his being president became so tragic), they love Palin.
Flexibility in a politician is often seen as bad (waffling, not having principals, et cetera), but it really isn't, to the extent that a politician changes her views and votes to get reelected, she must be changing them to reflect the changing views of her constituents meaning that she is better representing those who elected her. Having a principled ideology is a fine thing, but not if you are claiming to represent a varied and changing populace, unless you don't mind finding yourself on the outs from them. Principled stands do have a place, and politicians who truly take them are quite courageous. They are also seldom reelected. If one's convictions align with the voters it doesn't take strong principals or courage to state them. If they don't align, he doesn't get elected.
I do not like closed primaries (as exist in PA) because they throw a wrench in the works. In the general election, the voters may not have their choice of politicians, because one party or the other may decide to nominate the more polarizing, divisive candidate. Primaries should be about each party sending the candidate that has the best chance to win the general. But to really do that, primaries should all be caucus type. Short of that, I like the notion of a general election as a choice between all candidates of any party. If someone gets 50%, they win, if not, top 2 go to a run-off. This gives everyone a say on every candidate. The big parties would fight like hell to keep this from happening expressly because 3 Dems, 4 Repubs could all split the vote so that the 1 Liberatarian and 1 Green candidate go to the runoff. Of course, that result is another reason I would like this.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
No more Pontiac?
I'm not sure I understand why, of all the GM brands in existence, they decide to kill off the one with the most youth appeal. The Vibe (which is a Matrix), G#, and Solstice are good cars. The real problem seems to be that the division is less profitable because it is SUV and truck light, but once the economy recovers, gas prices are going to jump again, and those SUVs and trucks will once again see plummeting sales. GM's new motto should be: "Still as short sighted as ever."
Friday, April 24, 2009
Family Responsibilities Discrimination
Think Progress's Matthew Yglesias has this post about, well, the title. There are a whole host of issues I have on the subject, which boils down to: women are paid less than men. So long as the phrase goes: "equal pay for equal work" I have no problem with it. In fact I am a huge fan of that notion. People who take more time off work for family issues (children, ailing parents, spouse, whatever) are NOT DOING EQUAL WORK. Now, that sounds mean, but to ask a company to pay two people the same amount when one is doing less work, is not payment equality, and it does not matter the gender, or age, or anything else that may be different between the two.
The trouble with family responsibilities discrimination is that it is a perfectly legitimate form of discrimination: paying someone who works less, less. Now, this does not mean that it is employed in a fair manner, but that is a much more complex issue as year over year percent increases compound, and many industries/companies don't use a linear scale anyway.
I appreciate that men can't get pregnant and so this is inherently unfair. But neither is it fair to compensate two people the same when one does more work. I am genuinely torn by the whole thing. Unlike some of my peers, I have no problem with, a university hiring a woman over an equally qualified man because of her gender. I don't really even have a problem if she is less quantitatively qualified, as measurable differences (# papers, impact factor of the journals, etc.) between two applicants for tenure-track positions are generally a crap method for hiring anyway, and basing it on gender is at least non-random. On the other hand, if it is a known policy to hire women over men (who are least equally qualified) then that places an excessive burden on those women to produce, and getting pregnant does have a tendency to be viewed as counter productive.
Again, the issue is very complicated.
The trouble with family responsibilities discrimination is that it is a perfectly legitimate form of discrimination: paying someone who works less, less. Now, this does not mean that it is employed in a fair manner, but that is a much more complex issue as year over year percent increases compound, and many industries/companies don't use a linear scale anyway.
I appreciate that men can't get pregnant and so this is inherently unfair. But neither is it fair to compensate two people the same when one does more work. I am genuinely torn by the whole thing. Unlike some of my peers, I have no problem with, a university hiring a woman over an equally qualified man because of her gender. I don't really even have a problem if she is less quantitatively qualified, as measurable differences (# papers, impact factor of the journals, etc.) between two applicants for tenure-track positions are generally a crap method for hiring anyway, and basing it on gender is at least non-random. On the other hand, if it is a known policy to hire women over men (who are least equally qualified) then that places an excessive burden on those women to produce, and getting pregnant does have a tendency to be viewed as counter productive.
Again, the issue is very complicated.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Grouchy Old Men Are Hilarious
There is a conservative op-ed columnist at the Wash Post named George Will who has a severe case of grumpy old man syndrome. He spends the whole of this column complaining about people wearing jeans. Seriously. Laugh-out-loud funny waste of newspaper space.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Problem with Tax Polls
A great example of a meaningless poll is presented by Gallup and it regards the views of Americans regarding income taxes (link). The phenomenal amount of complexity associated with the issue combined with the simplicity of the given question means the results are completely without value.
The first, and most obvious problem, is that people don't generally like being taxed. So there is an inherent predisposition to say that any taxes are too high, that people can appreciate taxes as necessary means that some fraction will overcome that impulse and say that they are appropriate or even low. Now we get to venture into guessing territory: I would guess that those who say their tax levels are appropriate or low do not have serious money problems. I would guess further that individuals who are more giving would similarly say that their taxes are appropriate or low.
The second problem, I see as much bigger: taxes affect people in different income brackets differently. We have a somewhat progressive tax scheme (on the federal level--state level goes from progressive to flat to regressive). This means people who make more are taxed higher. They are also less likely to get some of the more obvious benefits of taxes (like welfare) and so they may be more inclined to see their taxes as too high. Lower income individuals and families pay a smaller percentage in taxes but it is a much larger fraction of what would be their "disposable" income. They may or may not see the things that result from taxes as benefiting them directly, but either way, taking $1000 from someone making $20k is a much more significant tax than is $20k from someone making $100k, so they may be inclined to say that their taxes are too high.
Moreover, what I feel about my personal taxes may be much different than how I feel about taxes as a whole. The wealthy or the poor may think their taxes are too high, but that overall taxes are too low. This brings about another possibility: do people base how they feel about their own taxes on how they view the tax code as a whole? Would a system that a large majority felt was fair result in a large majority feeling that they were taxed fairly, or would the personal outweigh the group and result in people saying their own taxes were too high even though they thought the system was fair?
Now I'm only scratching the surface here, but suffice to say: The poll linked above is absolutely without any real value.
On a personal note: I don't have any problem with my federal taxes (now that I bought a house they may even be too low), but I will make sure to get the full refund next year as I did this year. Also, I do not like the flat tax used by either the state of PA or the townships.
The first, and most obvious problem, is that people don't generally like being taxed. So there is an inherent predisposition to say that any taxes are too high, that people can appreciate taxes as necessary means that some fraction will overcome that impulse and say that they are appropriate or even low. Now we get to venture into guessing territory: I would guess that those who say their tax levels are appropriate or low do not have serious money problems. I would guess further that individuals who are more giving would similarly say that their taxes are appropriate or low.
The second problem, I see as much bigger: taxes affect people in different income brackets differently. We have a somewhat progressive tax scheme (on the federal level--state level goes from progressive to flat to regressive). This means people who make more are taxed higher. They are also less likely to get some of the more obvious benefits of taxes (like welfare) and so they may be more inclined to see their taxes as too high. Lower income individuals and families pay a smaller percentage in taxes but it is a much larger fraction of what would be their "disposable" income. They may or may not see the things that result from taxes as benefiting them directly, but either way, taking $1000 from someone making $20k is a much more significant tax than is $20k from someone making $100k, so they may be inclined to say that their taxes are too high.
Moreover, what I feel about my personal taxes may be much different than how I feel about taxes as a whole. The wealthy or the poor may think their taxes are too high, but that overall taxes are too low. This brings about another possibility: do people base how they feel about their own taxes on how they view the tax code as a whole? Would a system that a large majority felt was fair result in a large majority feeling that they were taxed fairly, or would the personal outweigh the group and result in people saying their own taxes were too high even though they thought the system was fair?
Now I'm only scratching the surface here, but suffice to say: The poll linked above is absolutely without any real value.
On a personal note: I don't have any problem with my federal taxes (now that I bought a house they may even be too low), but I will make sure to get the full refund next year as I did this year. Also, I do not like the flat tax used by either the state of PA or the townships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)