In which I agree with Mitt Romney

and disagree with liberal bloggers. There's been some fuss, like this post at TPM, that Mitt Romney said it probably wasn't worth it to expend a huge effort to capture Osama Bin Laden. Apparently, the responsible thing for the media to do would have been to flip a collective shit and destroy the man without ever analyzing the value of his statement. It's undoubtedly true, and unfair, that Nancy Pelosi would have gotten this treatment. But Romney happens to be right, so its a good thing it didn't happen. Capturing Osama Bin Laden would accomplish approximately nothing. People would feel slightly better about 9/11, perhaps. We might or might not embarrass ourselves by botching his trial, a la Hussein. The world and country would be not at all safer. I would rather, to use Romney's words, be "moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars" to do things that will actually protect America, as opposed to make good headlines. I'm all for criticizing the media when they obsess over offhand comments by Democrats that are poorly phrased but basically true, but that's because I want the media to be good, not because I want them to be equally bad to everybody.

Gravel for President

The first primary debate was tonight, and Mike Gravel stole the show. Tell your friends. Join the Facebook group. Volunteer. My guess is his performance in South Carolina tonight will catapult his name recognition into the high single digits.

His most memorable assertion was that, and I'm paraphrasing here, running for President is like being in the Senate. The first day you walk in and you think, "wow, how did I make it here?" The third day you ask yourself, "How did all of these guys!?"

Terrorist attack on US soil narrowly averted

Or at least, you'd expect the headlines to say that. In actuality, you can't find this story using Google News at all if you include variations on the word terrorism in your search.

One of the obvious problems with the media reporting on "Islamic terrorism" is that if you define everything bad Muslims do (buying cell phones) and nothing Christians do (murdering civilians with IEDs) as terrorism, it suddenly seems like Islamic terrorism is an awfully big problem.

Really?

Via John, an article on building giant skyscraper farms to feed the world's cities. This is exactly the kind of technology reporting that I can't stand. It's really common in magazines like Discover (which I love.) They uncritically report on cool ideas that range from totally impossible to very unlikely except under extraordinary conditions and claim that they'll... solve global warming!

The building/farm is supposed to do all sorts of fancy things. It'll generate energy through 1) a photo voltaic collector that will presumably turn the electricity into light. This is obviously less efficient than just letting the light hit the plants, and so will presumably not even power one story of this 50 story building. 2) The building will collect wind power, which is pretty sweet, but I can't imagine it will reliably generate power for light for all 50 stories of the building. 3) The non-edible plant waste will be used to generate power. That's awesome, but the energy in the plant waste had to come from light the plants absorbed, so that's only an efficiency improvement, and certainly isn't an energy source. Yet the article suggests that this building is going to produce more energy than it consumes. 4) Everything will be organic. How? Because it said so! 5) Even though all of the unused plant waste is being removed to make fuel, it won't need fertilizers. Why not? Because it said so! Right there in the first page of the article.

There's a lot of cool stuff in there with really interesting implications for urban design, but pardon me if I roll my eyes when I read the article. I'd love to see buildings using solar and wind power, purifying sewage, collecting rain water, and using energy and space efficient design, but I'll believe in the magical energy and water and food producing organic building when I see it in Manhattan.

Amnestwhat?

Kind of a weird Times article. It's all about how Giuliani has turned away from his pro-immigrant views now that he's running for president. That should surprise exactly no one, since, as far as I can tell, playing on fears of Blacks and Arabs is already shaping up to be a centerpiece of his electoral strategy. Why not the Mexicans too, right? On the other hand, when you read what he says by the end of the article, it just doesn't sound that bad.

pg. 1: "And while he once pushed policies like providing schooling for the children of illegal immigrants by saying, “The reality is that they are here, and they’re going to remain here,” now he emphasizes denying amnesty."

pg. 2: "These days, when he says he opposes amnesty, Mr. Giuliani says he does not mean that the millions of people here illegally should be deported, but rather, that they should have to earn their citizenship and that nothing should be accorded automatically."

I'm a big fan of the kind of not-amnesty that involves a path to citizenship without deportation or prosecution.

And you look like one, too

Hey, it turns out Chimpanzees are smarter than us, at least at some stuff. Which means when they decide to force billions of us into concentration camps where they sever our limbs without anesthetics, restrict our free movement, sensory stimuli and social interaction, leave us in piles of our own feces, give us feed that makes our stomachs swell and rupture and then kill and consume us, it'll be totally fine. You know, because you're allowed to do that to animals that aren't as good at arbitrary mental tasks. Right?

I'm a Republican

I wasn't old enough to vote against mayor Mike Bloomberg in '00 or '04, but after reading today's Times, I can say that I would happily support him in '08 if he could run again. The guy has always seemed competent, only about an eighth as obnoxious as Giuliani, and generally interested in doing well for the city. My three major complaints have been that he 1) has deeply flawed views on education, 2) wasn't willing to stick his neck out and turn NYC into a truly green city and 3) is a Republican.

Well, I still don't buy into the small school education philosophy, though that's a post for another day. But he has fought as hard as anyone to get the city our fair share of education funds, and for that I applaud him.

Today we learn that he's pushing for a massive environmental/developmental package that could reshape the city. NYC could and should be the most environmentally friendly city on the planet, and a model for living in the post-fossil fuel world. This (especially the congestion pricing!) is a great first step, and it will be illuminating to see who lines up in support. Were I registered to vote in NY, the position of the candidates for mayor and for local office on this issue in would probably determine my vote more than anything else.

On the other hand, he's still a Republican. I feel dirty complimenting him, so I'll have to go shower now.