Eric's Occasional Outburst

Mocking the Stimulus

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:10:00 +0000

I was SO frustrated with a piece I heard on the radio this morning about Paul Ryan's (R-WI) speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday. Ryan, like many other Republicans these days, attacked the stimulus package and picked out some specific parts as examples to ridicule. Here's what he said:

"This budget buster did not have a single republican vote in the house, and do you want to know why? 600 million dollars to buy green cars for bureaucrats, 50 million dollars to subsidize more obscene art through the NEA. 400 million dillars to study sexually transmitted diseases.... "

I'm just not sure what Republicans are going for with these attacks... the idea of the stimulus is to stimulate the economy, right? And the way to stimulate the economy is to inject cash into it. That can be done one of two ways -- either the government gives the money directly to taxpayers, or the government spends money.

Non-partisan economic research has shown that the latter provides more stimulus to the economy than the former. (See Mark Zandi's 1/21/09 report here, specifically Table 2: Fiscal Bang for the Buck, which shows tax cuts providing "Bang for Buck" rates in the 0.25 - 1.28 range, and spending in the 1.38 to 1.73 range). Government spending also has the added benefit of getting things done for the country

Let's look at some of the projects that have been mocked...

"Buying green cars for bureaucrats..." I have the final text of the stimulus bill as passed by congress and signed by the president. I searched for this (contrary to what Rush Limbaugh told his listeners, a PDF file is searchable), and found $300, not $600, million in a section called "ENERGY-EFFICIENT FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE FLEET PROCUREMENT." The section provides money to the GSA to replace older vehicles in it's huge fleet with new, energy efficient (commercially available hybrid, electric, and plug-in hybrid) vehicles. That sounds like a good idea, right? Higher fuel economy, lower emissions, and lots of BUYING CARS which will stimulate the auto industry and the thousands of people it employs. I've driven and/or ridden in dozens of GSA vehicles due to my military travel... I wonder if that makes me a bureaucrat.

"More Obscene Art Through the NEA..." The National Endowment for the Arts makes grants to a wide range of programs, including after-school, summer, and in-classroom programs for schoolchildren, public gardens, art and music festivals, independent film festivals and theater groups, and the creation of various fellowships in the arts. Some of the works that have been funded (directly and indirectly) by the NEA have offended some people. A number of years ago, the late Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) attacked the National Endowment for the Arts over what he called obscene and anti-religious artwork. I remember the works in question, and agree that some were quite critical of religion, and others featured adult themes and even (GASP!) nudity. These projects made up a tiny fraction of the overall NEA budget, and many were presented by theatre and performance groups who got general startup or support money from the NEA, not specific grants for these projects. Do Republicans really think that because a few artistic works offended some people's religious sensibilities, we shouldn't spend money putting people to work in the arts, or teaching the arts to children?

"400 million dillars to study sexually transmitted diseases..." I actually couldn't find this in the final version of the bill that was signed by the President. I know that earlier versions did have $400 million "for the screening and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV." I've heard complaints about that amount on two different fronts: First, that "sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV," shouldn't get research funding because people who contract them are to blame, and don't deserve to be helped. This is obviously absurd... I work in pulmonary research, and don't see anyone trying to eliminate funding for the myriad other diseases that are (often but not always) preventable with changes in behavior. Lung cancer, COPD, type-II diabetes anyone? Should we cut out medical care for people who have accidents while being stupid, too? Also, there are quite a few people living with HIV today who contracted it without sexual contact. The second argument against this research funding is that it wouldn't create jobs. I'm not sure if that's based on any research, or if it just sounds good to angry mobs of conservatives. I sat in a research meeting this morning that proved it wrong, though. Our research is almost entirely NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded, and when we learned that there was money in the stimulus for our field, we realized that more grants on the edge of the funding threshold would be approved. People whose positions would have otherwise been eliminated are now more likely to have jobs in the future. Our director actually said, "Depending on how much comes down to us from the stim, we'll figure out how many new staff we'll be able to hire." Republicans like to yell and scream that government doesn't create jobs, but what do they call that?

Oh, and speaking of projects that Republicans are quick to mock, I was equally furious about Governor Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) comments earlier this week about "something called volcano monitoring." That something is exactly what it sounds like: monitoring deadly geological features of our planet to provide early warnings to populations of Americans at home and abroad, all the while, employing scientists and support staff at an agency that faced layoffs during the Bush administration. More jobs and increased homeland security... that, my friends, is what Bobby Jindal mocked on national TV this week.

USA Today, Civil Unions, Marraige, and Homosexuality

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:12:00 +0000

USA Today ran an interesting opinion piece today from Oliver Thomas entitled "Gay marraige: A way out." Thomas suggests something that I have long thought would be a good idea -- separating the civil and religious components of two people getting hitched.

Citing the religious history of marriage, the societal benefits of two people being legally attached, and the fact that our constitution separates church from state, Thomas advocates that every couple who ask the state for a joining be granted a civil union. Same sex or not. Those couples would then have the option to continue on to a religious ceremony (a wedding or marriage, if you will) depending on their beliefs and that of their church.

It seems to make such perfect sense to me, but judging from the comments on the piece as well as some hubbub around the web, it seems that it's meeting pretty strong opposition from both sides of the debate.

For the most part, it looks like the anti-gay-marriage camp is responding with a fairly predictable message: Thomas "doesn't get it" -- (our) god said same-sex marriage is wrong, so it must be illegal because the separation of church and state either (a) doesn't really exist or (b) doesn't apply to this.

Members of the pro-gay-marriage camp have also weighed in that "Thomas doesn't get it." Their argument, however, is that they don't want civil union. They want to get "married," without catches or limitations -- "equality," they cry. For some, equality is only achieved when churches to no longer disallow same sex marriage.

I don't think anyone making either of those arguments "gets it." We live in a society that permits religion, but must not legislate it. The legality of joining two people should only consider civil concerns, not theological ones. "Marriage" is a somewhat subjective (even arbitrary) term, invented by religion, the meaning of which varies from one faith to another. Legislating the definition of it may feel like equality, but it's actually limiting freedom of religion.

EDIT: This reminded me of a conversation I had a while back with someone who opposed same sex marriage (and civil unions) on religious grounds. She told me that in her mind, marriage was a contract with "God," and that was that. I asked her how she felt about heterosexual couples in the US getting married who weren't of a Judeo-Christian or Muslim faith, whether they be wiccan, hindu, atheist, or whatever. I also asked her how she felt about my grandparents, who were of two different faiths, and married years after each widowing their first spouse, by a judge, in a catering hall. Her response was that in all of these cases, since the couples weren't same sex, it wasn't really an abomination, but also contended that none of them were really married.

Wal-Mart's Fascinating Accounting

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:33:00 +0000

From Al Norman at Huffington Post, via Universal Hub and Blue Mass. Group:

Wal-Mart's financial self-dealing allows it to pay rent to itself through a maze of eight corporate subsidiaries created in November of 1996, including Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). The rent appears as an expense on state tax forms, and is thus deducted from its taxable revenues.

Under the agreement with itself, Wal-Mart pays 2.5% of gross sales monthly as rent to its own REIT, which then wires the money quarterly to Wal-Mart Property Company in the form of a dividend, which is then paid to Wal-Mart Stores as a tax-exempt "dividends received." All of these transactions are handled through a "cash management agreement" between all the parties. Neither the REIT nor the Property Company ever had any employees.

The REITs don't pay taxes, as long as they pay 90% of their income out in dividends to shareholders. In Wal-Mart's case, the REITs are owned by Wal-Mart subsidiaries which are registered in Delaware, a state that has no corporate income tax.

If I ever buy a home, someone remind me to create a subsidiary of myself in Delaware, and then rent my own home to myself from that subsidiary. It's actually a brilliant plan.

Governor Patrick tried to close the loophole that allows this in '07, so (according to Sprawl Busters - admittedly not a neutral party) Wal-Mart paid $208,678 to Beacon Hill lobbyists last year, "five times what the company spent the previous year.".

The Blue Mass. Group post also mentions that MA House Speaker Sal DiMasi "is not a big fan of combined reporting or of the other loophole-closures in the Gov's bill," apparently in fear that they will make for a less welcoming business climate.

Doctors "Firing" Parents for Not Vaccinating

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:57:00 +0000

Earlier today, I read a blog post by a mother whose son's pediatrician referred her elsewhere because of her decision to delay (and possibly forgo) vaccination. I remembered a recent article that discussed this very issue, and summarized it to leave as a comment. I think it's interesting enough to share here...

As it turns out, it isn't uncommon for physicians to drop patients whose parents delay/selectively/don't vaccinate.

A 2005 study found that "39% of pediatricians said they would dismiss families who refused all vaccines; 28% would dismiss families who refused select vaccines or delayed vaccine administration".

The study went on to ask those pediatricians their reasons for dismissing the families. Here's what they found:

82% - lack of shared goals
73% - lack of trust
27% - type of vaccine refused
15% - fear of litigation

Source: Flanagan-Klygis, et al. "Dismissing the Family Who Refuses Vaccines: A Study of Pediatrician Attitudes." Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2005;159:929-934.

The study didn't try to say whether it was right or wrong to dismiss patients, it just set out to describe the situation. However, the journal also published two letters written in response to the sudy, one supporting doctors who drop patients, and one admonishing them. Here are excerpts from each.

First, is Michael P. Elston, MD, MS, of Western Health, in Rapid City, SD:

Following the lead of a pediatrician mentor of mine, I would exhaust all efforts to provide cogent arguments to support the proven safety and effectiveness of these most successful preventive regimens. When these arguments failed, I advised these well-meaning but misguided parents that they were asking me to "voluntarily contribute to the death of their child from a disease we could prevent"; an ethical breach they could not ask of me.... [The authors of this study] bring voice to the ever-present need for physicians to advocate for the highest-quality care for their patients.

Next, Kathi J. Kemper, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, NC:

How can physicians dedicated to patient-centered care "fire" families who make independent health decisions? We are not generals demanding obedience; we are servants of life, of free human beings. They come to us for help, not demands to do it "our way or the highway."

What's next? Will we fire families who let their children watch more than the "maximum" of 2 hours of television daily? Fire parents who let their children ride in the back of pick-up trucks? Fire parents who do not feed their children at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily? Or just those who serve less than 3? Or those who overfeed their children and allow them to become obese? Or those who don't have sufficient funds to buy food or shelter and have hungry, homeless children? Or those of different religious or cultural or racial backgrounds?

On just what part of the Hippocratic oath or conventional medical ethics are we relying when we make such decisions or are they based purely on a sense of self-righteousness?

I don't agree with delayed/selective/non-vaccination, and can understand where the physicians who drop families are coming from. However, I agree with Dr. Kemper's analysis that doctors don't "fire" patients for any number of other activities that go against commonly accepted medical standards, and vaccination shouldn't be an exception. Doctors should try to explain their concerns and the current science, make sure that everyone's wishes are documented, and continue to treat the patient to the best of their ability.

Full disclosure: I am probably not the most unbiased observer on this issue, given just how many of my previous or current activities have been closely related to the vaccine debate:

I worked at a school for children with autism, where I interacted closely with the children and had regular contact with their parents, many of whom were active in the non-vaccination movement.
I have a "Little Brother" with a developmental disability on the autism spectrum
I once treated children exposed to whooping cough while working at a hospital.
I currently work at a medical research lab, at a school of medicine & public health, in a division that specializes in the transmission of disease
I am the NCOIC (Non-commissioned officer in charge) of the immunization clinic at my Air National Guard medical unit.

Mass Pike U-Turn Ramp

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:38:00 +0000

Did anyone catch the Globe's article about the new u-turn ramp on the pike? It cites an outrageous statistic:

"... the Turnpike Authority redesigned signs leading up to the ramp to more clearly spell out who could use the ramp. Police still wrote 986 citations there Oct. 16-26, when regular patrols on the ramp ceased."
[my emphasis added]

Seriously? That's an average of 90 citations per day.

I've been wondering about the project ever since construction started on it over a year and a half ago. When the Globe covered it back in February, it seemed like a pretty good idea, but there was no mention of restricted use.

Maybe I missed something in this week's article, but it seems that the only reason it's not open to all vehicles is that nobody at the Turnpike Authority ever had it reviewed for environmental impact.

He "probably didn't have a chance..."

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:19:00 +0000

I don't know what to make of the lead story on the front page of this morning's Boston Sunday Globe:

Crime consumed a family, and an 8-year-old is lost

It was so difficult to read, I had to stop to take a break several times. The very first sentence says it all: "Liquarry A. Jefferson probably didn't have a chance."

I am so saddened... so angry... but I don't even know where to direct my anger. The article points out the fact that our Mayor Menino was quick to blame the gun lobby for the child's death (he was shot accidentally by his 7-year-old cousin)... but this article really exposed the insane world that Jefferson grew up in.

The child had four half-siblings, and all four fathers of the 5 children were in prison at the time of his death... two for drug charges, and two for armed robbery. The gun used in the killing belonged to a 15 year old half-brother, currently in juvenile custody. In 2003, city officials realized 36 individuals, all related to the family, had 200 arraignments between them.

Social services agents met with the children, trying to get them into summer camps, alternative schools, anything to keep them separated from the violence which permeated the family. All while, the father of the youngest child (now in prison for selling crack cocaine) lived in the home and worked to prevent social workers from seeing the children.

The Globe article figures that in the final year of 8-year-old Liquarry's life, various government agencies spent $314,000 on the family, almost half just on prison costs for the four fathers. The other half went mostly to social services, but also to what the Globe called "Administration of Justice." The figure includes an estimated $10,000 on a search for the two armed intruders who Liquarry's mother claimed had shot her child before admitting to officials that the death was an accident.

Anyway - like I said at the beginning of this entry - I just don't know what to make of it all. I'm saddened, angry, and frustrated. I feel lucky that I didn't ever have to experience a world like this... and I wonder if it will ever be possible to eliminate this sort of violence from our society. Is it just inevitable that there will always be violent crime in some segment of the population? Is this the result of someone not trying hard enough to stop it? What is the answer, then?

Menino and others talk about gun control. Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws in the union... but as many gun owners will point out, guns used in violent crime aren't usually procured through legal channels... so doubt that more gun control laws would have much impact.

Is more enforcement the answer? The fact that Liquarry's mother has had an extensive criminal record, and lied to the police about how her son died makes me doubt that an increased police presence would have reduced violence. Some of the arrests in the family were for attacks on police officers.

More social services? If $148,000 in social services per year couldn't save a child, what amount will?

I just don't know...

Water - Bottled vs. Tap

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:04:00 +0000

I've long been a proponent of the use of tap water over bottled whenever possible. This was based on financial and environmental factors, as well as common sense. It just seems silly to me how much of an industry has been built around bottling, marking up, and distributing something so freely available as water.

Yesterday's New York Times had an interesting Op-Ed piece echoing many of my concerns:

In Praise of Tap Water

Highlights include:

"This country has some of the best public water supplies in the world.... Almost all municipal water in America is so good that nobody needs to import a single bottle from Italy or France or the Fiji Islands."

"If you choose to get your recommended eight glasses a day from bottled water, you could spend up to $1,400 annually. The same amount of tap water would cost about 49 cents."

"The Earth Policy Institute in Washington has estimated that it takes about 1.5 million barrels of oil to make the water bottles Americans use each year. That could fuel 100,000 cars a year instead.... Add in the substantial amount of fuel used in transporting water, which is extremely heavy, and the impact on the environment is anything but refreshing."

"The more the wealthy opt out of drinking tap water, the less political support there will be for investing in maintaining America's public water supply."

I challenge those of you who only drink bottled water to a taste-test - your current brand vs. your tap water (try it before and after sending it through a filter like a Britta). I can't speak for other cities, but I think most people around here will be surprised. Boston's freshest isn't "Fiji™", but I don't think it'll let you down if you're drinking most other brands.

I admit, I drink bottled water at the office (we don't have a tap-based bubbler or a sink large enough to fit a bottle under) but at least it's locally-bottled in 5 gallon jugs that we re-use, so I feel like there's less negative environmental impact.

A 4th of July Message

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:29:00 +0000

I just got an e-mail from a close friend who is serving in Baghdad right now. I wanted to pass along some of her words, as well as a picture she included:

I am asking that you, today, take the time to reflect upon the accomplishments of our forefathers and the heroic achievements they accomplished 231 years ago. We're still here, wearing the uniform and serving our Nation in the time of its greatest need--war... Remember the solders today, that we love you and therefore are willing to give our time and some of us our lives to keep you safe and free as you are today. Keep us all in your prayers.

Kelly

I have mentioned many times before that members of our Armed Forces do not enlist for the duration of a given battle, for a given war, or even for a given administration. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are in for a set period of time... and during that time, they go where we, the American people and our elected leaders send them.

They may have all ended up wearing the uniform for different reasons... some we agree with, some we don't. They may be sent to different battles... some we agree with, some we don't. They make take different personal actions... some we agree with, some we don't. As Kelly points out, however, they all serve the same nation. They serve the nation that was born 231 years ago, the nation whose independence we celebrate today.

It would be wonderful if there was no war in our world. I would love to see the day where the military was not a requirement to ensure our long-term independence. For the time being, though... it is a requirement. And that requirement can only be filled thanks to the time, energy, sweat, tears, and even blood that is given by those who serve.

Maybe you know someone who is currently serving in the Armed Forces. Maybe you know someone who served in the past. Maybe you know someone who is waiting for their loved one to come home from war right now. Maybe you know someone who's loved one didn't come home. I hope that you will keep these people in your thoughts and/or prayers (whatever may apply) today as you enjoy the holiday.

The flag in the image above is at half-mast, in memory of all who have given their lives serving the nation it represents. The servicemen and women in the picture are standing at attention, saluting the flag. When you see a US flag today, as you more than likely will, please think of everything it stands for. It represents all that's right, and all that's wrong with our nation. It is a reminder to celebrate what's right and work to correct what's wrong.

Today, I salute all who have been a part of the ongoing project that is the United States of America.

What Sam Brownback Thinks of Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:32:00 +0000

I just had to comment about an Op-Ed piece Sam Brownback wrote in today's New York Times, called "What I Think About Evolution"

Brownback starts out by referencing the debate in which the Republican presidential candidates were asked who among them did not believe in evolution. He writes that "as one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands."

He talks about how science and faith shouldn't be used to drive a wedge between people, and how they don't answer the same questions. He says "people of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us." He also makes like he's open to the idea of evolution, and gives an example of the definition of evolution that he's comfortable with. If you read it too quickly, it almost sounds like open mindedness. It could be accepted by some as a willingness to accept science, so long as it doesn't go to extremes to fight off faith. Well, Mr. Brownback's version of evolution is this: "Small changes over time within a species." Last time I checked, that's NOT what people talk about when they use the term evolution in this context.

By the end of his essay, Brownback is still trying to give the illusion of open mindedness. He starts his concluding paragraph with the advice that "no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins."

Of course, he then goes on to list exactly which stones are off limits:

"We can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."

Did everyone catch that? He basically says that he'll start with creation, and accept any scientific theories compatible with it. On the other hand, any theories that don't agree with it are to be rejected as athiestic theology posing as science.

How do you like that? It's only science if it confirms his faith. Otherwise, it's theology posing as science.

Dizzying, huh?

President Accepts Purple Heart for Verbal Attacks

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:09:00 +0000

When I first read this story about a Texas Vietnam veteran who gave his Purple Heart to George W Bush, I thought it must be a joke. After all, how could anyone equate the wounds sustained by military members while at war to "the verbal attacks, both foreign and domestic, the commander in chief has withstood during his time in office?" Best I can tell, however, the story is legit:

Thomas said he drew up a citation and he and his wife signed it before dropping it and the medal off with Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, to forward to President Bush.

"Congressman Carter called me last week and said the President was very moved by it, and would like us to present it in person," Thomas said.

It doesn't bother me that Mr. Thomas decided to give the President the Purple Heart. As he points out in the article, he earned the award, and it's nobody's business but his what he decides to do with it. What does bother me is the fact that Bush not only accepted it... but invited Thomas and his wife to present it to him in the Oval Office.

The fact that the President accepted the Purple Heart for the emotional wounds he sustained from verbal attacks on him in office is disgusting. It is an insult to the tens of thousands of men and women who have been killed or injured while serving in Iraq.

This is all around the same time of Laura Bush's comments on the Today Show about the Iraq war. When asked about Americans who are suffering as a result of the war, the First lady responded, "Believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do."

Bush Losing Support for War - Troops to Pay Price

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:47:00 +0000

President Bush's press conference yesterday was troubling - more so than just about any other that I've seen in quite a while. He basically said that if he doesn't get what he wants from Congress, he will take it out on the troops:

"Congress's most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation," Bush told reporters in the Rose Garden yesterday. "They're now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones."

The most glaring fallacy in those remarks is that Congress has passed military funding legislation. The bill includes a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq - something that a growing majority of American support. In fact, a March 28, 2007 Newsweek Poll showed that 56% of respondents (81% of Democrats, 28% of Republicans, and 58% of Independents) "support the legislation passed this week." The same poll showed that 65% of respondents "disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq." Furthermore, another (CBS News) poll conducted last week asked, "Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?" 59% said yes (77% of Democrats, 36% of Republicans, and 59% of Independents).

Despite the 2/3rds disapproval of Bush's handling of the war, and the majority support for a withdrawal timetable, the president has vowed to veto any bill which includes "timetable language." He has also vowed to continue with his Iraq war plans whether or not they are funded by Congress.

Simply put, if the American People (and by extension, their representatives in Congress) don't support the war with their votes (and by extension, tax dollars), President Bush will respond by ignoring their wishes and making things worse for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

I'm not going to propagate the political rhetoric suggesting that funding cuts will leave troops in battle without ammunition in their weapons, fuel in their vehicles, etc. Even the President didn't suggest that. What he did say, though, was that he would have to extend tours of duty in Iraq, send units back to war with less time in between tours, and cut back on "quality-of-life initiatives for our Guard and reserve forces."

In case there was any doubt before, it's clear now that what started with "You're either with us or you're against us" has become "You're either with me or you're against the troops."

O'Reilly, Libby, and Fitzgerald

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:08:00 +0000

I really liked the way Bill O'Reilly handled the Libby verdict on his show last night. He started with Talking Points Memo, in which he said:

Mr. Libby told a grand jury he did not provide info about Ms. Plame. But today a jury decided that he lied. Thus Scooter Libby was convicted of four felonies — basically obstruction of justice and lying under oath.... Now all Americans should demand those holding political power tell the truth about everything. The jury says Scooter Libby lied under oath — that's unacceptable.

He then has two legal analysts on, who both talk about how lying to a grand jury denigrates the legal system, so perjury is a significant offense. O'Reilly goes on the attack, claiming that since nobody has been convicted of leaking Plame's identity, no crime was been committed. Further, he states that if the leak wasn't a crime, there's no reason to charge Libby, even if he did lie to the grand jury. Finally, he brings out the ol' "Fox News Special Weapon." He insists that prosecutor Fitzgerald clearly HATES George W. Bush, and that's the only reason Libby was charged.

Starbucks and Ethiopia

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:35:00 +0000

So, I've been hearing a lot lately about Oxfam International's campaign against Starbucks (including the video they put on YouTube). Last month, Oxfam staged a demonstration outside Starbucks stores all around the world. At these demonstrations, activists announced that Ethiopian farmers who grow coffee for Starbucks only get 3 cents per cup of coffee. This certainly sounds like a disturbing figure, given that patrons pay anywhere from $2 to $6 for their cup of coffee in the store... and many patrons were up in arms over the number.

Without evaluating the very complicated issue of whether or not growers should be able to trademark a geographic region, I wanted to take a closer look at the "3 cents per cup" figure. Sure, it sounds awful, and it brought about a very emotional response in would-be Starbucks customers... but is it really that bad? I decided to see how much of my money goes to the merchant (not the grower) when I make a cup of coffee:

Step 1 - how many cups you can make with a pound of coffee?
A quick Google search yielded several anecdotal answers. The web site for Smith Farms says 32 cups. The web site for Quarter Maine Coffee Roasters says 40 cups.

Step 2 - how much for a pound of coffee beans?
At Green Mountain Coffee's web site I can buy a 12 oz bag of Ethiopian coffee beans for $8.69 (retail price). That comes out to $11.59/pound.

A web site called Coffee & Tea Warehouse sells Ethiopian coffee for $5.18/pound if you buy in bulk (25 lbs at a time).

Step 3 - do the math
Using the most expensive combination of numbers above, 36 cents of my money would go to the retailer per cup of coffee. The cheapest combination yields 13 cents per cup. I am sure the farmer gets far less than that (retailer and wholesaler each take their cut, import tariffs, distribution costs, etc). I couldn't find figures on what percent of retail prices go to farmers... but I did find a report stating that US Dairy farmers get about 40% of the retail cost of milk. For this argument, let's say 50% goes to the coffee bean farmer: 6.5 cents.

If a regular guy like me can get coffee beans for 13 cents/cup, with an estimated 6.5 cents going to the farmer, is it surprising that the one of the largest coffee house chains in the world should be able to get it for half that?

Not to me... in fact, Trans Fair USA (a Fair Trade certification agency) seems to agree. Their web site states that to be certified as Fair Trade, growers must get $1.26 per pound of coffee beans. At 32 cups per pound, that comes out to just under 4 cents per cup. Okay, so 3 cents is definitely less than 4 cents. But not enough less to generate the sort of responses Oxfam got to their claims.

Senator Kerry and the Botched Joke

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 05:33:00 +0000

So, I'm more annoyed by John Kerry's follow up to his "botched joke" than I am with the botched joke itself. I know that what he SAID wasn't what he MEANT TO SAY... and I know that the Republicans are going out of there way to exploit that and convince people that what he MEANT was what he SAID... but when I say something that's not what I mean to say, and it offends people... I apologize.

Anyway, I wrote a letter to Kerry as one of his constituents... still needs some edits, but I'll be sure to post it when it's done. In the meanwhile, this piece from the Chicago Tribune seems to capture my feelings. Specifically:

It probably wasn’t a good idea to accuse everyone who saw the video of his campaign appearance and thought he was disparaging the IQ of U.S. troops of being “crazy.”... Let’s give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and stipulate he muffed his line. Wouldn’t it still have been wiser for him to humbly apologize to the troops directly for the misunderstanding that he, after all, caused?"

The People vs. Science

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:08:00 +0000

I just read this opinion piece in the times by a Case Western Reserve physics professor about the struggle between science and faith in education. Even though I shouldn't have been so surprised by it, one quote from a member of the Kansas School Board really hit me. During a 1999 debate over the removal of the Big Bang theory and evolution from science standards, Mr. John Bacon had this to say about the scientific community:

"I can't understand what they're squealing about. I wasn’t here, and neither were they."

Nucular?

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:58:00 +0000

Nucular? Seriously? What is that?

"Of, relating to, or constituting a nuculus?"

I must have missed the day in Bio when we learned about that part of the atom. Is that where the potrons and nruons are?

The FBI's Priorities Re: Domestic Terrorism

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:51:00 +0000

Director Robert S. Mueller III of the FBI... said one of the bureau's "highest domestic terrorism priorities" is catching and prosecuting "those who commit crime and terrorism in the name of animal rights or environmental issues."

This is from an article in the NY Times today about 11 defendants who were indicted on domestic terrorism charges. They allegedly "caused millions of dollars in damage to public and private facilities" on behalf of the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.

I agree that arson isn't the right way to get your point across... but given the full spectrum of "bad guys" that I need to be protected from, these groups ain't causing me to lose much sleep. Hey, Mr. Mueller! Grab a pencil and pull out that list of priorities... see if you can make room for "those who kill to spread a message of hate" somewhere above "those who burn stuff to spread a message of saving the earth and its creatures."

It's No Wonder People Think the IRS is Evil

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:19:00 +0000

This just in... the New York Times reported today that "tax refunds sought by hundreds of thousands of poor Americans have been frozen and their returns labeled fraudulent, blocking refunds for years to come." The article focuses on a report by the IRS's taxpayer advocate, Nina Olson:

"The taxpayers, whose average income was $13,000, were not told that they were suspected of fraud, the advocate said in her annual report to Congress... her staff sampled suspected returns and found that, at most, one in five was questionable.

A computer program selected the returns as part of the questionable refund program run by the criminal investigation division of the Internal Revenue Service. In some cases, the criminal division ordered that taxpayers be given no hint that they were suspected of fraud, the report said."

On a happier note, it's good to know that my tax return has less of a chance of being held up, what with the IRS spending so much of its resources freezing legitimate payments to low-income single parents.

It's Illegal to Annoy

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:55:00 +0000

Wow, this should make life different in a lot of online communities - it's now illegal for someone to use the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." There's that sticky problem of how do you prove intent to annoy... and really, what is the standard for annoying, anyway? Anybody want to start trolling some communities to test this new legislation out?

HR 3402 - Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 has the following language in the section entitled Preventing Cyberstalking:

"Whoever... utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person... who receives the communications... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

New Year's Resoution: More Blogging

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Jay) — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:05:00 +0000

Happy New Year. Among other resolutions, I have decided to start using this blog. Unfortunately, it's 5am - way too early to start spewing my ideas and opinons. Instead, I need to get ready for my flight to NYC in 2 hours. Stay tuned...