In an election year, this is kind of legislative measure is usually a no-brainer: every politician wants to be seen as compassionate and understanding fo the plight of the little guy. Bunning is retiring after this year, so he’s free from any pressure to back down. And you know what? I think he’s got a point.

His objection stems from a [very] common practice in Washington: passing spending bills with nary a mention of how they will be funded. In this case, it’s a $10 billion package of unemployment benefits and highway spending (and probably a few ear marks). Before consenting to unanimous passage, Bunning wants the Senate to decide how to pay for it.

Ironically, his position is precisely that which has been taken up by the Democratic leadership as of late. Lamenting over the reckless spending binge of the Bush era, the Democrats have recently passed rules in the Senate to restore the pay-as-you-go system that was so effective under President Clinton. Their rationale for excluding this specific package fro those rules is that it’s an emergency measure. (A rather liberal use of the term, to be sure)

So where could we find $10 billion?
We could shave the Military budget by 1%
We could raise taxes by 1%
Or, we could do nothing and just pass the buck along to the next generation like we do every year.

Sen. Bunning may not be the most popular member of the Senate, but he’s not a crack-pot. Even if the spending is going to really needy people who really deserve it, someone’s got to pay.

It will take me 17 years to pay off my balance if I make only the minimum payment. 17 years!

Increasing the payment by a modest $20/month (by, say, skipping a fancy coffee one a week) would bring that payoff period down to 3 years and save me almost $1400 in interest charges.

Behold, the power of compound interest.

(Don’t worry, I pay off my full balance every month. They probably hate me as a customer.)

Once the seed of doubt is placed, the critics then scare us with dire predictions of a possible future. Dealing with climate change would require significant changes to the way we live, it would require significant investment in new infrastructure and technologies, and would alter the institutions we’ve been familiar with for the past century. Therefore, the theory goes, we should do nothing.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a legitimate debate within the scientific community (remember, there’s not). I’ll even be so generous as to assume a 50/50 split. If that were the case, how should we respond?

The costs of unmitigated climate change are immense. The path we are on leads to massive population displacement, food shortages caused by flooding and draughts, accelerated species extinction, and (eventually) economic and civilization collapse. Yes, collapse.

What about the costs of attempting to stem the tide of climate change? These, too, would be large. The standard of living for developed nations would be altered forever. Air travel would no longer be available to the public. Nor would personal automobiles. Meat would be a luxury instead of a staple. Our cities and towns would contract and the massive suburban developments would transition back to agricultural land. The number of farmers would increase 10-fold (at least). Many industries would cease to exist and those that remained would look completely different. Our national wealth would have to go into buying things like wind turbines and solar panels instead of HDTVs and fancy cars. Make no mistake, life would be very very different. But we would have a real fighting chance at staving off the total collapse of our civilization.

When presented in these terms, is there really any question of which path to take? I’m so tired of hearing about the “energy tax” and the costs of transitioning to a carbon neutral energy mix. Money won’t buy you much if the global economy fractures under the strain of climate change.

[ . . . ]

Easter Island (the place with the giant stone heads) was once covered in thick forrest. Poor resource management and fanatical obsession with erecting the giant stone heads lead to 100% deforestation of the island. At some point, some one cut down the very last tree left standing. What do you suppose that felt like?

Soon, we all will know.

Looking at the Cash Flow graph in particular, I noticed a striking decline in Revenue from 2000 to 2004 (i.e. G.W. Bush’s first term). When Bill Clinton left office, we had a healthy budget surplus. A trillion dollars later, we were back in the red.

I wanted to try something, so I adjusted the graph to erase the Bush tax cuts (shifting the revenue line up, represented in green below). Imagine my shock and surprise when I discovered that this adjusted revenue line coincided with spending estimates in 2015.

Now, I realize there are about a hundred holes in my logic here. I can’t move lines around on a graph and pretend that it represents an alternative history. Moreover, it’s a useless argument since we are where we are and we can’t go back in time. Even so, I think it’s important for us to realize the future costs of policy choices.

That said, the iPad is a pretty neat device. It didn’t fulfill the pie-in-the-sky fantasies of the Mac fanboys (but nothing ever does) but I think it’s more useful than we realize. It may take a year to fully hit its stride (as did the iPhone) but it definitely represents a step in the evolution of computing devices.

The real value of the iPad rests on the application developers. It’s a beautiful platform to start with–large, sharp display, multi touch interface, 10 hrs battery life–but we don’t yet know where it leads. The few teaser applications they showed us were just that. Software always lags behind hardware as computers evolve, so we don’t yet know what the iPad will become.

Here’s a few of my ideas:

• Doctors & Nurses – This seems like the perfect computer to view and manage electronic medical records. I would be shocked if we don’t see some aggressive iPad development from EMR software vendors.
• Warehouse Managers – With the infinitely configurable interface (via custom application development) each company can give their warehouse managers the ideal device to carry. Throw in a RFID/Barcode reader and you’ve got it made.
• Performers – I could imagine some very cool applications to mix and control an audio/visual show using the touch interface. For $1000 you could lay down two of the 10″ screens, network them via bluetooth, and go nuts.
• Military – I’m sure they would require some extra beefy cases, but I could see this as an ideal information tablet for soldiers in the field. Pilots could strap one to their leg and have dynamic maps and status feed. Drones could send a video feed back to ground units. With the accelerometers, you could even fly the drone remotely.

The key point here is that the iPad is still a blank slate. As application developers start to dream and experiment, we’re going to see some really neat apps coming our way.

Probably.

Today, we know about the dangers of DDT to all living things and we wouldn’t dream of exposing our children to the chemical.

But have we really learned? Now we use BPA in food packaging and containers (like baby bottles). BPA is a hormone disrupter and is not safe for human exposure (especially in babies and growing children). Yet,

A study by the Environmental Working Group tested commonly eaten canned foods from grocery stores in three US cities, including Oakland. Out of 97 cans, 57 percent contained detectable and often high levels of BPA. Pastas, soups, and infant formula accounted for some of the highest levels. The group estimates that BPA exposure is unsafe in 10 percent of all canned food and a staggering one-third of infant formula.
[Source]

In another 10 years will we look back on BPA the same way we think about DDT now? What have we learned?

1. McCain vs McCain

tadfad » Blog Archive » McCain vs McCain

2. Volvo Radio Hack

tadfad » Blog Archive » Volvo radio hack

3. GTD Zen – Rollabind Edition

tadfad » Blog Archive » GTD Zen, rollabind edition [Updated!]

4. The Opportunity Cost of Corporate Bureaucracy

tadfad » Blog Archive » The opportunity cost of corporate bureaucracy

5. Data Back-up

tadfad » Blog Archive » Data back up