Kravlor.com - Politics

A Simple Fact-Check Comparison

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:10:27 -0500

After watching the debate last night, I, like many others I'm sure, was a bit disappointed in McCain's demeanor and overall performance. It galled me that he had the nerve to repeat known, disproved lies from his campaign trail on national TV. I like what CNN has been doing with their 'fact check' work (partnering with FactCheck.org; what I don't like is that they don't summarize the fact check verdicts in the summary, forcing a click-through.

It seems like a pattern is emerging:

Summary of Fact-Check Verdicts for Campaigns
Issue	Campaign	Verdict
McCain health care plan; Business thinks bad idea	Obama	True
McCain: Misjudgment on Iraq ("greeted as liberators")	Obama	True
Obama: Never taken on party leadership	McCain	False
McCain: Not leader on Freddie-Fannie subprime lending warnings	Obama	True
Obama receiving record Fannie & Freddie campaign contributions	McCain	Misleading
McCain's involvement in Keating Scandal	Obama	True
Obama: 94 Tax-raising votes	McCain	Misleading; Misleading
Obama's comments re: Afghanistan	McCain	False
McCain health care plan; $5k credit insufficient for $12k cost	Obama	True

Wouldn't you think that the above presentation makes things a bit more clear?

I Wish I Could Say it Better...

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:18:25 -0500

Today's XKCD cross-post:

Seriously, though -- these machines should be taken away and dismantled. I may be a fervent fan of new technology, computers, and the like, but when it comes to the foundation of our democracy, I'm very happy with good old-fashioned paper. I'll happily wait *gasp* a day to find out the election results, as long as they're verifiable!

An interesting choice...

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:28:21 -0500

Turns out San Francisco is going to have a ballot initiative to rename a sewage plant after G.W. Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/presidential.putdown.ap/index.html

Here's hoping it succeeds! ;) (I especially like the predictable phrase "Local Republicans say the plan stinks and they will oppose it.")

A Dark Day for America

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:04:23 -0500

Well, I guess we're all going to never know the true extent of the illegal warrantless wiretapping program that has been spying on innocent American citizens with complicit assistance from the telecom companies.

And my current favorite for the Presidency voted for it. Along with 68 other un-American idiots.

Dammit.

I don't care if they're Democrat, Republican, or Whatever -- any politician voting in favor of this unconstitutional bill deserves to be thrown out of office -- immediately -- for directly violating their sworn oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. For me, this means getting Herb Kohl out of office, a longtime Dem whose time is now up in my eyes.

You can contribute your political dollars to this PAC which is dedicated to exactly that purpose. I have. Also you can support the ACLU and EFF. I also have -- and will continue to do so as they challenge this law from the moment President Bush will gleefully sign it into law.

My Letter to Obama

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:40:46 -0500

I am a scientist who is actively working on solving our Nation's (and world's) energy crisis, and hold an advanced degree in nuclear engineering and engineering physics. I respectfully urge Senator Obama to revise his policies towards nuclear energy.

As the Senator is well aware, nuclear power is a proven technology which has zero carbon emissions and is capable of providing base-load electrical power. Despite its wastes, nuclear power is currently the best of our available options when it comes to electric generation while satisfying carbon emission requirements to combat global warming.

I am a nuclear engineer -- and I fully support deploying a broad base of green electrical power generation technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro-power in order to help clean up our grid. However, eliminating nuclear power from serious, immediate consideration in the energy discussion effectively removes one of our most powerful weapons against combating global warming from the table.

Therefore, I again strongly urge Senator Obama, as a scientist, nuclear engineer, and an enthusiastic supporter of your campaign to reconsider his stance on nuclear power.

We'll need a lot more of it in the days to come if we mean to seriously combat global warming -- a worldwide crisis which needs to be attacked from every possible angle, sooner rather than later. I do not relish the prospect that my children, and their children's children, will be paying the price for our inaction today.

Arsenals of Folly

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:25:53 -0500

I think this post represents my first book review on my website, but hey -- you have to start somewhere!

I recently finished reading Richard Rhodes' Arsenals of Folly:The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race (2007, Knopf). (Amazon link) I have read with great interest his more mammoth tomes The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun; the latest book in the series was much slimmer (at a more modest 300-ish pages) and had a different focus.

While the prior two books focused on WWII and the scientists who were crucial to the discovery of nuclear fission and fusion; its eventual application to atomic weaponry; Soviet espionage; and political ramifications of post-WWII following the dawn of the nuclear age, Arsenals focuses primarily on the interplay between Ronald Regan and Mikhail Gorbachev near the end of the Cold War.

A theme that continues to shine through the historical accounts is the paranoia, on both sides of the conflict, which led to the arms race. It's amazing to me how close we've come -- on many more occasions than you'd like to believe -- to full-scale nuclear war. Being a nuclear physicist myself, the prospect is terrifying. (The image below is of the crater generated by a preliminary-phase hydrogen bomb in 1954; modern weapons (and all H-bombs in general) can be scaled to much higher destructive yields.)

Although I lived through the end of the Cold War as a child, Arsenals helped me to put it in perspective. Until I read it, I don't think I truly appreciated the danger that we were all living under (myself included) of nuclear annihilation. And while the arms reduction goals achieved and documented in the book significantly reduce the threat, we still have so many nuclear weapons that it hardly seems justified.

Something else that I found particularly interesting: how people ended up rationalizing the truly awesome destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons. Presidential advisers and military brass of the 70's and 80's were arguing about "winnable" nuclear wars where we would only lose 150,000,000 American lives in the exchange. These people wanted to see such an exchange! I prefer the view of Fermi and Rabi, key contributors to the nuclear science and ultimately the weapons: "By [the H-bomb's] very nature it cannot be confined to a military objective but becomes a weapon which in practical effect is almost one of genocide...it is necessarily an evil thing considered in any light."

So, the interested reader will have lots to learn from Arsenals of Folly. While it is a sobering read, I highly recommend it to all -- and especially Rhodes' prior works on the history of atomic weaponry. They serve as powerful reminders of why we need to continue to strive towards elimination of nuclear weaponry (and more importantly, securing of nuclear materials) in order to ensure the continued survival of all humanity.

Another one bites the dust!

Tue, 20 May 2008 11:49:18 -0500

Looks like another republican congressman is resigning in shame -- this time around, it's a rather mudane sex scandal, albeit under circumstances I find a bit odd: fathering a child with your mistress after she bails you out of jail and a DUI charge after the Super Bowl!

Oops...

I feel for this guy's family, especially his poor wife and existing children. It really sucks when your husband/father turns out to be a total jerk. On the other hand, things keep looking better for the Dems in November!

Mainstream media coverage of the Pin Lapel "Controversy"

Tue, 20 May 2008 10:05:19 -0500

Well, it looks like finally some sense is coming to town regarding the flag lapel pin crap that's been continuing to float around the media and political coverage.

Even if it's coming as an editorial, it's good to hear it. And I wholeheartedly agree, both with Mr. Marten and Sen. Obama, who rightly calls the whole thing "... the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and ... distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander-in-chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people."

Grumble Grumble

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:31:29 -0500

Looks like the Pentagon now knows Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with each other prior to the invasion of Iraq.

So, now that this blatant lie that was shoved down our throats for years is officially recognized as a blatant lie, will we be ready to impeach the president for causing a war on false pretenses?

My Letter to Hillary

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:17:00 -0600

Now that the Dem's contest is down to two, it turns out Obama is cool to nuclear energy (but sees it as a necessary tool to practically reduce greenhouse emissions), while Hillary is blatantly against it.

So, I wrote her campaign the following. Feel free to write her something similar! While I doubt she'll actually change her mind (appealing to the strongly anti-nuclear Democrat cross-section) I feel they're clearly in the wrong on this one.

The letter follows:

I am a scientist who is working on solving our Nation's energy crisis, and hold an advanced degree in nuclear engineering. My aim in writing this message is to strongly urge Senator Clinton to reconsider her stated position regarding the (non-)use of nuclear power.

In order to practically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need a consistent supply of baseload power. Currently, nuclear power is our only meaningful candidate for this necessity. Certainly, renewables and conservation can and should be employed to their fullest.

However, it is a practical necessity at this point to enable a replacement of the current baseload power provided by fossil fuel (coal and oil) burning plants with a "greener" source: nuclear power.

Transitioning the US nuclear fuel cycle to one which involves reprocessing of current waste, which is more than 98% perfectly usable fuel, would dramatically reduce the amount of material required for long-term storage while ensuring a long-lived fuel supply for the US and the world.

Similarly, investment in longer-term energy options, such as nuclear fusion (via support of the domestic US fusion program and our international commitments to ITER) will contribute to solving the problem in the long term.

We simply cannot solve the problem through renewables alone -- especially if we do what needs to be done and supplant our existing fossil fueled baseload power with a CO2-friendly replacement.

Sincerely,
Michael Bongard
University of Wisconsin-Madison

FY08 Budget: a devastating impact for science

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:32:59 -0600

As a scientist working towards making nuclear fusion a reality, this year's budget (passed in a lump omnibus fashion in the wee hours before Christmas recess) contains a very bitter pill to swallow: a zeroing of the US ITER budget. (Nature PDF) This project is the future of the worldwide fusion research program -- and the US has already backed out of it once.

Unfortunately, this budget also carries a tremendous blow to science in general: the failure to come through with the bipartisan-supported authorized investments in American science and science education through the America COMPETES and the American Competitiveness Initiative earlier in 2007.

Both sides of the aisle are pointing fingers at each other. Both sides of the aisle are to blame. And right now, science doesn't deserve to be a political football. It should never be.

Below find a message on the FY08 from the American Physical Society, the world-respected association of American physicists. A second message from the ITER perspective is available here from the APS Division of Plasma Physics, representing the nation's plasma physicists and fusion researchers. I am a member of both societies.

I hope that they can help you write to your elected officials and help turn the situation around. As you can see by reading the APS messages, scientists are not identified as political enough to warrant their pleas to be acted upon.

Perhaps you can help turn the tide with your letter and phone call. Let me know what you think.

APS message:

Dear APS Members:
 
 Although several thousand APS members responded to the last alert on
 federal science funding, the communications failed to affect 
 positively what ultimately became a highly partisan appropriations 
 process.  To attempt to rectify the damage caused by the Fiscal Year 
 2008 (FY08) Omnibus Appropriations Bill, APS President Arthur 
 Bienenstock will soon be asking you to e-mail your Members of 
 Congress urging that they take emergency action early in the next 
 session.  But first, a summary of what is known and documented:
  
 Two weeks ago, almost three months into the new fiscal year, Congress 
 finally passed an FY08 budget - unfortunately, it is devastating to 
 significant programs in the physical sciences.  It represents a 
 dramatic turnabout in a time of unprecedented outspoken support for 
 science across party lines, legislative chambers and branches of 
 government.
 
 Science funding in FY08 was originally set to increase substantially.  
 Consistent with the America COMPETES Act, President Bush's American 
 Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and the Democratic Innovation Agenda, 
 the National Science Foundation would have received a 10 percent 
 increase; the National Institute of Standards and Technology Core 
 Programs, a 17 percent increase; and the Department of Energy's Office 
 of Science, an 18 percent increase.  The increases represented the 
 beginning of a 10-year plan to double federal investment in physical 
 science and engineering research.
 
 Early in the summer, the House passed all 12 appropriations bills that 
 cover discretionary spending, totaling $955 billion.  By early 
 October, the Senate Appropriations Committee had acted on many of 
 them, but the Senate leadership did not bring any of them to the floor 
 for a vote.  President Bush had already warned that he would veto 
 appropriations bills if, in the aggregate, they exceeded his $933 
 billion ceiling.  Two weeks ago, responding to the President's veto 
 threat, Congress, having already passed the Defense appropriations 
 bill, rewrote and passed the remaining FY08 budget bills as an omnibus 
 spending package.  
 
 The Omnibus Bill is a disaster for the very sciences that our 
 political leaders have repeatedly proclaimed essential for our 
 national security, economic vitality and environmental stewardship.  
 Several reports have suggested a picture less bleak, but they do not 
 take into account the effects of either earmarks or inflation.  In 
 fact, numerous programs will have to be trimmed or canceled.
 
 Hundreds of layoffs, furloughs and project shutdowns at Fermilab, 
 SLAC, LBNL and other national laboratories and research universities 
 seem unavoidable.  U.S. funding for the International Linear Collider 
 project will be curtailed for the balance of the fiscal year, placing 
 extraordinary stress on the high-energy physics program.  FY08 funding 
 for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) will 
 be zeroed out, abrogating our agreement with our European and Asian 
 partners.  User facilities will see reductions in operating time and 
 staff, and university research will contract.  The list is long and 
 the damage significant.
 
 How could this happen, given the strong bipartisan support for science 
 research and education?  There is much speculation that with 
 negotiations having broken down and the President adamant on the total 
 spending, Democratic leaders made the following assessment:  First, 
 that there were insufficient votes to override a presidential veto of 
 their spending plans.  Second, since the Senate had failed to act on 
 the appropriations in a timely fashion, Democrats would be blamed for 
 any government shutdown that might result from a spending stalemate. 
 Their strategy was to accede to the President's $933 billion bottom 
 line, but, to get there, "by whacking GOP priorities" as the 
 Associated Press reported on December 10.  So, with ACI carrying a 
 presidential label, much of the increases for NSF, DOE Science and 
 the NIST labs were erased to meet the budget restrictions. Since ITER 
 was seen as one of the top Administration's priorities, its entire 
 funding was zeroed with strong language to prevent reprogramming of 
 funds to save the project. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey 
 (D-WI) suggested that the $9.7 billion in earmarks be removed to allow 
 funding for other priorities, but his colleagues refused to go along.
 
 Added to this calculus is a well-known fact: Science has rarely, if 
 ever, been a factor in determining the outcome of an election.  Even 
 for scientists, funding for research and education most often is not a 
 major determinant in whom they support -- unlike members of other 
 interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association or the 
 American Medical Association, who frequently vote based on their 
 "special" interests.  Given such a history and the hard-ball politics 
 that played out this month, letters from scientists to their Members 
 of Congress, unfortunately, did not rule the day.
 
 When Congress returns later this month, Members may be more receptive 
 to listening to their science constituents.  We will be sending you 
 another alert next week, after we have determined that the landscape 
 is more favorable.  Please respond when we contact you.  Your voice 
 may well make the difference at that time.  
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Michael S. Lubell
 Director of Public Affairs
 The American Physical Society

A Personal Reason to Dislike George Bush

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:22:46 -0500

... among many others.

Thanks to his cavorting around the southeast seaboard today in Air Force One, my wife's inbound and connecting flight schedules were completely, utterly disrupted. Now I don't get a chance to see her tonight, she misses medical appointments, and no one is happy.

Grr.

Mmm... Hypocricy...

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:45:38 -0500

Turns our Senator Craig is changing his firm, principled stand to resign from the Senate after voluntarily pleading guilty to lewd conduct (i.e. soliciting gay sex) in the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport mens' rooms.

First, it was a resignation by September 30; then, until a judge ruled on letting him attempt to withdraw his informed, voluntary guilty plea. Now, a Minnesota judge kindly reminded him that "The defendant, a career politician with a college education, is of at least above-average intelligence ... [h]e knew what he was saying, reading and signing."

Motion denied. :)

Well, at least he's consistent now. He's been lying to himself this far; lying to the public isn't that much of a stretch. I can't say I'm surprised for a typical member of his party.

Grr. Just had to get that off my chest.

Looks like this Senator got a little more than he bargained for!

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:46:36 -0500

ID Senator arrested in Mpls/St. Paul International, pleads guilty to illicit, lewd behavior

Go undercover cops, go!

Grr

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:45:02 -0600

I'm not surprised -- rather, disgusted:

Iraq planning 'delusional' (BBC -- why isn't the American press digging into this?)

With such unrealistic assumptions in military planning used for justifying the war, why didn't Congress -- who authorized the use of force in Iraq, and is responsible for oversight of the funds used for its execution -- question these plans?

Oh, that's right -- the balance of power shifted only in January 2007.

Let's hope that Congress actually flexes its oversight authority and deeply investigates all aspects of the war, from the faulty intelligence to the despicable underfunding of the troops.