Month: May 2009

Peter Suderman returns to Nick Carr's article on how the internet is changing the way we read:

Today on the Dish we learned that Libi – the tortured detainee whose false confessions helped sell the Iraq War – was just found dead in a Libyan cell from an apparent "suicide." John Yoo, was just given a newspaper column. And Obama covered for the Cheney torture program by threatening the British judicial system. In the MSM, one of the few people speaking the truth on torture was Jesse Ventura. Digby despaired.

We also learned that the Obama administration has failed to educate the public on its main energy plank, that Wisconsin is becoming a surveillance state, and that Limbaugh is the racist we all thought he was. Elsewhere in the blogosphere, Ledeen made the case that Saberi was ransomed, Totten reported from Baghdad, Joe Klein and Andrew Exum added their thoughts on the McChrystal move, Kmiec revealed the disregard Bush had for HIV discrimination, and Conor and I shared our political pipe dreams.

Also, we unveiled another six photos within our Window View book. I spent part of the day on the phone and on emails trying to find out if and when the Obama administration will do anything to advance gay equality. The results tomorrow. But it isn't looking good.

A reader writes:

Please don't tell me you're that vain!  Wear a helmet. Seriously. Anything is better than nothing. I am a Speech-Language Pathologist in an outpatient clinic and treat people who sustain head injuries.  I've had a good number of patients who were in a semi-serious accident on a bike, without a helmet, and got their clock cleaned, so to speak.  Several of them were in the hospital for a short time, some were treated in the ER and sent home. A common result among the majority of them is slowed mental processing. 

They just aren't as quick anymore.  One guy described it as constantly living in the fog of weed without the euphoria.  They can figure things out, solve problems, make plans, follow through on those plans, and adapt when plans go awry; it just takes them a much longer than before.  Many of them hold down jobs in the same field as before, but in a somewhat reduced capacity.  One guy is an engineer but can't handle his previous work load in the center of the company's projects.  So he transfered to a smaller department in a part of the building that isn't as distracting.

Look, I ride bikes myself.  I too am bald.  I can tell you there's plenty of wind in a nice helmet.  Don't jeapordize your livelihood by a refusal to be safe.  How could you possibly keep writing 900+ posts a day after even a slight bobble of your noodle?

Cap that thing.  Enough said.

A.L. advocates for a public health care option by comparing it to the postal service. AAAAaaaarrrgggghhhh! Give me Fedex!

A reader writes:

Small changes in MPG in cars that get poor gas mileage actually have much larger effects than you would think  In the example given going from 18 MPG to 20 MPG would be a reduction of 56 gallons of fuel each year if you assume 10,000 miles will be driven.  To save the equivalent amount of fuel I'd have to replace my 30 MPG car with one that gets 36 MPG.

The worse the fuel economy of your current car, the more a small improvement actually helps.  For example, replacing a 14 MPG with one that gets 18 MPG (something that is very plausible when trading in an old truck or SUV) would be the equivalent of me trading in my 30 MPG car for one that gets just over 57 MPG.  This doesn't even factor in the fact that the newer cars are safer and put out less other pollutants as well.  This is a case where the low lying fruit is the best stuff to pick, because you get much more bang for your buck.

I wish cars sold labeled the fuel consumption in gallons/10,000 miles. That would make this thing much more visible to the average person. I guarantee that if you asked 100 people which was the better deal going from a car that got 14 MPG to 18 MPG versus one that got 30 MPG to 40 MPG, 90% would pick wrong.  But if you said 714 Gallons/10k miles to 556 Gallons/10k miles versus 333 Gallons/10k miles to 250 Gallons/10k miles it's much easier to see.

Yes, we've been over this territory before.

Digby thinks we are losing the torture debate:

I'm not giving up yet. But one has to understand that the Beltway media have no way of dealing with profound moral issues outside daily, partisan, Washington talking points. They long ago abandoned any real independence or moral judgment – and are wedded to Politico-style surface-maneuvering.

No one knows the answer to the question – what happens when we pull out? Except the Obama administration that seems to be basing its fiscal and foreign policy on an assumption that would have been regarded as a pipe-dream only a year ago. Michael Totten is trying to find an answer in the mysterious and always evolving morass that is Mesopotamia. His first of four inquiries is here. Hit the tip jar. This strikes me as a perfectly feasible option if and when the country that isn't a country resumes its naturally centrfugal, violent state:

“If you pull out of here and leave us,” General Nasser said, “we know the remedy for Iraqi people. We will use force.”

Just like we did. There's also an interesting discussion of the possible effect in Iraq of an Israeli attack on Iran:

“Do you think,” I said, “the Iranian government can dial up the violence here whenever it wants to?” Iran might very well wish to ramp up attacks against American soldiers in Iraq if Israel strikes Iranian nuclear facilities later this year or next. But Iran can't retaliate significantly in Iraq if the Shia militias are a spent force.

“The Iranians,” he said, “have already used all the violent force in Iraq that they were able to use. Iraq was caught in the middle between Iran and America. This war has been a proxy war fought inside Iraq. Iraqi Shias could only get support from Iran, but Sunnis have all the Arab countries to help them. If Sunni countries stop supporting Sunnis militias, Shias will stop seeking support from Iran. You know what Al Qaeda did to the markets here. We were forced to seek support from Iran.”

Maybe General Nasser is right, and maybe he isn't. I heard a different answer earlier from an American military officer who asked not to be quoted by name. “Iran has been restrained,” he said. “Tehran doesn't want to trigger an open war with the United States. They can turn up the violence if they want to, but if they do, we might be forced to do something about it. So they don't want to.”

“If the U.S. solves three problems,” the general said, “American-Arab relations will be very good. First, resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Second, promote democracy in the Arab world. Third, destroy the Wahhabis. If you solve these problems, all will be well.”

To which a hollow, somewhat desperate laugh might be the only appropriate response.

Phil Zabriskie profiles a young Afghan with big dreams: