There's an app for that...

Kahless says that Palm’s WebOS is the phone of choice for true Klingon Warriors.  This is evidenced by the recent homebrew app that provides your Palm Pre or Pixi with a true Klingon font as well as a translator to help you write Hab SoSlI’ Quch! in response to your friend calling you a petaQ over SMS.

I’d install this myself, but alas I have no friends both geeky enough and cool enough to have this app and a WebOS phone. I guess that will save Kim some eye rolling though.

Besides, it would cut into my time playing Angry Birds which is surprisingly life consuming—if only because I’m hoping if I ever get to the end of the game, maybe it will tell me what those poor little green pigs ever did to piss off those birds!  They are after all, very very angry, to the point of being suicidal.  Although I guess maybe it’s homicide as you have to launch the birds.  But they volunteer for the duty so there’s still a high level of dysfunctional bird behavior to explain here.

Photo by Andy Martin

Chemists are working on two different approaches to generate electricity from urine.  While your pee doesn’t have enormous amounts of pent up energy, you do have enormous amounts of it.  Collectively, humans excrete over 10 billion liters of the stuff every day.

Gerardine Botte, a chemical engineer at Ohio University, is working on using urine to generate hydrogen, which could then be used in conventional hydrogen fuel cells.  The advantage of urine over water is that it requires only 25% of the energy required to liberate the hydrogen from a water molecule as from a molecule of urea.  This makes the process much more energy efficient.

Even more interesting is the work of Shanwen Tao of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, UK.  Tao is developing an electrolytic cell that directly converts urea to electricity.  The power outputs are relatively low so you’re unlikely to power your home with the family toilet anytime soon.  But it is about the right level to power small electronic devices.

If this works out, you may never have to leave the couch again.  Rather than getting up for a potty break, you just whizz in the phone or the remote or the DVR, or whatever is looking low on juice.  Who says the future doesn’t sound exciting?

Photo by crystalina on Wikipedia

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida is planning “Burn a Quran” day to honor the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  There is a concern this will spark more than a little outrage from the Muslim community both here and abroad.

Recently I wrote about there seeming to be a general consensus that building the so-called ground zero mosque was legal, but many felt that even so, it was still insensitive of the Muslim community to not take into account the feelings of the 9/11 survivors.  Further, I asserted that the only way for the proposed mosque to be an insult was if someone was prejudiced against all Muslims and holding them accountable for the WTC attacks—a point reinforced by the planned book burning which clearly is blaming all of Islam for 9/11.  Further, are all Christians prepared to take responsibility for the Quran burnings?  If not, then why are all Muslims responsible for 9/11?  Still, several people wrote in response to that article that even if the emotional reaction to the planned construction was irrationally prejudiced, it was still appropriate to consider people’s feelings.

There are a couple of problems with that line of reasoning.  First and foremost is that if hurting the feelings of groups of Americans really mattered, then events like “Burn a Quran Day” would be generating outrage at the level similar to the Manhattan mosque.  But there is barely a peep in the media.  Is this simply too small an event to get noticed?  Gen. David Petraeus doesn’t think so, and has expressed concern that should this go forward it will place his troops in the Middle East at significant risk of reprisal.  Further, can you imagine the outrage from politicians and the media if an imam were planning a “Burn the Bible Day” in Kuwait?

Clearly the issue here is not about respecting the feelings of others in general.  But perhaps it’s not everyone’s feelings who count.  Perhaps the issue is that 9/11 was such a significant physical, emotional, and psychological scar that we owe special deference to the site and to the families and friends of those who died or were injured there.  How then do you reconcile that House Republicans overwhelmingly drove the defeat of the  9/11 health bill.  This fully paid for bill provided medical assistance to 9/11 survivors and their families now suffering aftereffects from the disaster.  Yet the same group that killed this bill is now crowing the loudest about the proposed Muslim Park51 Community Center.

It seems 9/11 is only sacred when it’s politically opportune.  And that perhaps is the key lesson in all this.  “9/11″ is politically powerful.  George Bush was reelected on it in 2004.  Rudy Giuliani’s entire 2008 Presidential bid was based on it.  It has been used as a basis for justifying the Patriot Act, rendition, torture, and other policies and programs that should make freedom loving Americans cringe.

9/11 was the most significant American tragedy of our time.  We should never forget that.  We should honor it, and the men and women who suffered because of it, and continue to suffer.  But there is no honor in using it as a political lever as is being done with the mosque controversy.  And there is no honor in Terry Jones’ plans to burn Qurans.  We’re better than that—at least we profess to be.  It’s time to start acting that way.

Photo by Steve Evans

The ongoing debate over the Islamic Community Center to be built over two blocks from the WTC site in New York City continues to spiral out of control.

While many loud voices are out there claiming such, there can be little defense for opposing the construction of this building in a land whose Constitution guarantees religious freedom, and whose laws support the right of citizens or groups to own property and build on that site within legal building codes and regulations.

What’s more concerning is the number of people who accept that this effort should not be illegal, but are expecting sympathy on the statement that for a Muslim group to construct the center so close to “ground zero” this soon is at least insensitive and in poor taste.  That it is somehow disrespectful to those who died there.

It’s tempting to ask when such a structure wouldn’t be too soon given that 9/11 happened a decade ago.  For perspective, that’s like opposing any notion of Japanese heritage or culture in Hawaii in the mid-1950s.  Or maybe the question is, how close is too close?  There is already a prayer room four blocks away, so it seems that must be okay.  But who decided anything less than four blocks is an insult?  And an insult to whom?  There were Muslims who died in that tragedy as well.  And many 9/11 families have come out in support of the project.  Do we take a vote?  Who gets to vote?  Or is it just that as long as anyone is offended, then this isn’t okay?

Yet putting all those questions aside, the very essence of the notion that anything about this project is remotely insensitive is predicated on equating Islam with terrorism.  Think about that.  There is zero evidence this Muslim group is in any way tied to any terrorist organization.  The imam leading this group, Feisal Abdul Rauf, was vetted and deployed by George Bush to promote America to the Muslim world after 9/11.  Unless you hold that all Muslims are at some level responsible for terrorism, then there is no way for this group or their plans to build a gym, pool, culinary school, prayer room, and meeting center to be a threat or an insult to anyone.

Finding this project insensitive requires that you hold over a billion people responsible for the acts of dozens.  Even if you allow for one million Muslims worldwide to be terrorists, a number that seems pretty darn large, you are holding all of them accountable for the acts of less than 0.1%.

If your child were killed by a person who looked like you, and was part of your culture and religion.  One who claimed he was on a mission from God.  You would hate him and want justice and maybe revenge.  But you wouldn’t then hate the others in his church or in his community because that’s your group too.  You’d have to blame yourself.  Yet when someone different commits an atrocity, it’s all to easy to conflate your hatred for the individual with a hatred for, or fear of, the group as a whole.

Consider that when you talk about this project showing Muslim insensitivity, perhaps what you really mean is that you find them being insensitive to your bigotry.  Then ask yourself if that’s really the position you want to lead with.

Photo by Parachutegurl, cropped by Gridge

Mitt Romney, 2008 and likely 2012 GOP Presidential contender, went a little out on a limb and proposed some substantive and realistic economic policy initiatives.

This is huge in a climate where others in his party have just talked in broad sweeping plans like cutting taxes and spending, or have opted for pushing for dismantling Medicare and significantly altering Social Security benefits in ways that would be politically dead on arrival.

Among his proposals is a plan to permit businesses to write off in 2010 and 2011 the capital investments made in those years rather than over time.  This might well go a long way toward liberating some of the cash corporations are currently hoarding, and could amount to a potent stimulus to the economy.

He also wants to align corporate taxes with those of other developed economies, eliminating special corporate tax breaks that lobbyists have inserted over the years.  That could be a big rise in tax revenue by just plugging holes through intelligent tax reform rather than raising rates.

Further, he’s advocating for adopting an energy policy that will actually eliminate our dependence on OPEC and hostile states.  This is good for jobs, good for the climate, and good for national security.

Of course he still wants to maintain the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the capital gains tax, both of which are party staples.  And he opens with the requisite accusation that almost every action the President has taken has deepened and lengthened the economic downturn.  But that’s pretty tame stuff compared to what other Republican hopefuls are saying.

The key point being there are some actionable ideas here that Obama and the Democrats might be willing to work with the GOP on.  This is a constructive offering, and exactly the sort of thing that politicians should be putting on the table.  However, Romney’s not currently in a position to drive those proposed policies.  So it will come down to others in the GOP side of Congress to pick up on these ideas and push them forward.

Let’s see if anyone wants to play ball…

As reported to police, the suspect “was described as a Caucasian male weighing about 230 pounds. He was wearing a straw hat, white T-shirt, grey jogging pants and dark glasses — and he was using a walker that many rely on for mobility.”

Amazingly, the laid back Canadian Mounties took 45 minutes to capture the man, who had failed to yet make it out of the strip mall in which the bank was located.  Apparently they heard the call come in and finished their donut and coffee before walking from Tim Hortons to the other side of the lot where ther man was toddling along.

They say seniors should stay active…

Photo by Phil Hollman

Monroe County, NY is one of several locations identified by NYPA, through its Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project, to potentially host an offshore wind farm.  Yet the reception by local communities has been less than welcoming.

In recent weeks the town boards in Greece and Webster have voted unanimously to oppose the authority’s project, and Monroe County legislators have been entertaining their own ban.

While any significant development project has its pros and cons, the ire against offshore wind farms in Lake Ontario seems mostly driven by NIMBY (not in my backyard).  There’s little opposition to wind power in general.  75% of respondents to a Rochester Business Journal poll said they supported it at least somewhat, and a majority strongly supported it.  And why not?  It’s clean, renewable, and cost effective. Further, a $1B project is bound to be a boon to the local economy.

Perhaps most importantly, it lessens our dependence on coal for electricity production.  While coal has a reputation as “cheap fuel”, there are many hidden costs in terms of government subsidies, pollution, and environmental impacts, not to mention the glut of health and safety issues plaguing coal miners.

However, Rochester is a long way from West Virginia.  We don’t see the strip mined hillsides here.  Sure, we still suffer from acid rain, but it’s way better than it was in the 1970′s, and we’re used to it.  Wind turbines are new, potentially local, and might be seen from your house.  This has fostered an understandable sense of fear in lakeside towns, but has also ushered in a groundswell of misinformation.

Conservative Examiner Willard Fox recently wrote about wind power and published “some of the negatives you may not have read about.”  Although in reality, you may not have heard about these “facts” because many of them are untrue or misleading.

For example, while wind power will not eliminate the need for conventional energy sources like coal and nuclear, it does lessen the demand on them.  This means the existing plants burn less non-renewable fuel, and fewer new plants need to be built to meet the ever increasing American appetite for power.  A concern is also levied against the need to build massive electrical storage facilities, which would be nice except that we don’t yet know how to store electricity on an industrial scale.  If we did, wind and solar power would be even more attractive options than they are now.  And concerns about power transmission and its impact on the county’s grid are the same issues that would arise if any power generation facility was built using any technology.  The value of cheap power to the community far outweighs the investment in the power grid.

The more valid concerns are when Fox cites the issues of noise, property values, and simply having to look at the wind farm looming on the lake’s horizon.   He says, “They [the turbines] produce a noise level of a car that is doing over 60 miles per hour.”   This is a good point, but keep in mind the proposal is to build the turbines over two miles offshore.  Would you worry about buying a house two miles from a major highway?  Probably not.  Further, studies have shown wind farms have no long term impact on property values.  Are they an eyesore?  Maybe, but you do get used to things.  Remember when cell towers were going to destroy the landscape?  Now you don’t even notice them.

The bottom line is that the country needs wind power and other forms of green energy.  It has to be located somewhere.  Perhaps it would be better to ask yourself if you’d rather live in the same town as a wind farm or a strip mine, a coal fired power plant, or another nuclear reactor?  Sure, it would be great if we could just make our energy needs some other community’s problem.  But if we’re going to step up to the plate, then a few windmills aren’t looking so bad now are they?

On Tuesday’s episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann offered a special comment on a different topic which contained an interesting insight.  President Bush had great success at proving the negative case that his policies prevented another terrorist attack (clip showing this point below).  Now Olbermann went on to blame others for this (full video available here), but there is a more interesting point to be gleaned.

This is the reason Obama fails to prove his negative on the economy.  Had we bounced in 3 months back to 2007 levels of unemployment and the Dow hit 14,000 again, then he could sell his success story.  But while he may well have prevented devastation, he did not keep us from suffering.  And as long as the pain continues,the public will not accept his proof.

However, the apparent difference in the paths to get to this end state are misleading.  Stereotypes say Democrats are for big government, social safety nets, and wealth redistribution.  They are pro-union and anti-business.  They are for protecting the environment and personal freedoms.  Meanwhile, the Republicans are all about small government, fiscal austerity, and low taxes.  They are defenders of capitalism and building businesses.  They stand for freedom, morality, and clean living.

Those are the stereotypes.  Yet the data doesn’t bear that out.  Republicans have grown government and deficits.  They created the Medicare Part D social safety net, and allowed passage of the Patriot Act restricting many freedoms.  Meanwhile, Democrats have cut taxes, stood against teacher’s unions, and pushed agendas like offshore drilling with dire environmental consequences.

It would seem the ideologies are not as rigid as we might imagine.  Rather, the distinction lies in how the two sides view rules.  For Conservatives, rules are all about absolutes.  Something is right or it’s wrong, good or evil, black or white.  All the while Progressives are lost in the gray.  Everything is conditional.

For Conservatives, business regulation is bad, raising taxes are bad, guns are good.  For Progressives, it’s not so much that those values are flipped, but rather there is a level at which they are appropriate.  Business should not be allowed to exploit citizens, taxes should be collected to cover expenses, and guns should be regulated to contain violence.  Yet here is where it gets tricky.

Progressives can’t even agree among themselves where these lines should be, and because of that are unable to walk in lock-step like their counterparts.  Further, the notion that these lines should be left open to future interpretation by activist judges makes Conservatives very nervous.  The result being that Progressives find Conservatives to be overly rigid and dogmatic, while Conservatives find Progressives to be wishy-washy and disorganized.

This dichotomy of worldview is the bright line distinguishing the camps.  It is why the right is so often accused of hypocrisy as it’s hard not to occasionally color outside the bold black lines.  And it’s why the left is so often accused of flip-flopping or compromising as the world they see is so highly conditional.

The ideological divide is not what keeps us apart.  It’s all about how we view the rules.

More importantly, this gives me a paid writing gig to put on my resume.  Not that I expect to make much money, just that I want to be able to claim I’m being paid.  Which brings me to another important point.  The pay and the rankings of the articles I write are heavily influenced by reader traffic and subscriptions.  So it would really help prime the pump if my readers here went and clicked around a bit there.

“But,” I can hear you asking, “where is there?”  Well, this is a link to my page at Examiner.  There is an RSS feed and lots of sharing options so if you’re of a mind to share article links or subscribe, all the better.  Fair warning though, I seeded the site with some of the posts already shared on this blog, so anything dated Aug 10th should be old news for you.

For your convenience going forward, links to my new Examiner posts will be pushed to my Twitter and Facebook feeds.  So if you’re following either of those now, you’ll be aware of new articles.  As for this blog, while most of the “Politics” category will now be published on Examiner, I will continue to post other content here that isn’t appropriate for that venue.

Finally, a plea about comments.  Facebook often generates the most comments on my posts.  I don’t want to discourage that, especially for comments with a personal slant.  But for topical comments, it would be great if you posted them directly to the Examiner articles.  I’m hopeful we’ll generate some good discussion over there, and I’d love you all to be a part of that.

I do want to thank those of you who have provided support and encouragement for my writing.  I’m not sure where this is going yet, and it’s just a baby step.  But it’s a start.

Stay tuned…