Did anyone see Sarah Palin’s interview this evening on The CBS Evening News? It was actually frightening thinking that this is someone who could soon be — as the saying goes — a “heartbeat away” from the presidency.

Here are a few highlights:

COURIC:  Do you consider yourself a feminist?

PALIN:  I do.  A feminist who believes in equal rights.

As opposed to…what? Are there feminists who don’t believe in equal rights?  I sort of thought that the feminist movement’s very purpose was to address gender inequality.  It was one of the few times Palin actually answered the question, even if the answer was a bit laughable.

COURIC:  It will take about ten years for domestic drilling to have an impact on consumers.  So isn’t the notion of “Drill, Baby, Drill” a bit misleading to people who think this will automatically lower their gas prices and quickly?

PALIN:  Well we shoulda started ten years ago, tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in.  Alaska has billions of gallons of oil, hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and offshore.  Shoulda started doing it ten years ago, but better late than never.  It’s got to be an “all of the above” approach to energy independence.

So if we had started ten years ago on a project that would take ten years’ time for consumers to start feeling the benefits, we’d be feeling the benefits.  I think that’s what she’s saying.  And I think we already could have figured that much out.

What many of us still can’t seem to figure out is what happens ten years after that, when we’re suddenly getting plenty of oil — assuming that works out — and we’re just as dependent as we ever were on a commodity that still has a limited supply.  Human nature would dictate that we’d just blindly go on enjoying the use of the newly-obtained oil, without regard for what happens next.  And that’s reckless.  Environmentally and economically.

Couric then asked about Palin’s swipe at Joe Biden, when, speaking at a political rally, she said, “I’ve been hearing about his senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade.”

COURIC:  When you have a 72-year-old running mate, is that a risky thing to say, insinuating that Joe Biden’s been around a while?

PALIN:  Oh, no, it wasn’t negative at all.

Stop the music.  That was a lie.  You can tell, from the way she said the remark, that it was not intended as a positive remark.  She continued:

PALIN:  He’s got a lot of experience, and just stating the fact there that we’ve been hearing his speeches for all these years.  He’s got a tremendous amount of experience, and you know, I’m the new energy, the new face, the new ideas.  And he’s got the experience.

Seriously.  She really said that.  This, coming from the woman whose running mate’s entire campaign is centered on the relative lack of experience of Barack Obama.  So if she’s now trying to portray experience as a bad thing, and the “fresh face/new idea” person as the good thing, what, exactly is she saying about that 72-year-old, experienced running mate of hers?

COURIC:  In establishing your world view, I was curious: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and understand the world?

PALIN:  I’ve read most of them, again, with a great appreciation of the press, of the media —

COURIC:  Which ones specifically?  I’m curious.

PALIN:  Um, all of ‘em.  Any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

COURIC:  Can you name a few?

PALIN:  I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.  Alaska isn’t a foreign country where it’s kind of suggested, it seems like, “Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, DC may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?”  Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

Wow.  Just wow.

Asked about whether she feels global warming is manmade, (and Katie had to ask more than once to get an answer), she eventually got around to saying this:

PALIN:  …There are man’s activities that can be contributed [sic] to the issues that we’re dealing with now with these impacts.  I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical and over history we have seen changes there.  But, um, kinda doesn’t matter at this point as we debate, “What caused it?”  The point is, it’s real, we need to do something about it.

It kinda doesn’t matter what caused it?  Can someone please explain to me how we can do something about it if we don’t get definitive answers about what caused it?  I agree that there are cyclical weather patterns that are in the mix; that, however, does not mean that we should not be working to identify the elements of global warming that are manmade and to deal with them immediately.

Then there was this, when asked about homosexuality:

PALIN:  I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions they make in their own personal relationships.  I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years who happens to be gay.  And I love her dearly.  She is not my “gay friend,” she is one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice that is a choice I haven’t made.

I’d like to be a fly on the wall the next time these two dear friends get together for coffee.  I’d love to know how her friend would react to the asinine notion that being gay is a choice.  Anyone who genuinely believes that homosexuality is merely a matter of choice must, by definition, believe that they themselves could just have easily “chosen” to be gay, too.  Could you have gone the “other way” — whichever that way is — on a whim?

The only “choice” when it comes to homosexuality is whether or not to act on the urges you feel.  But being gay or straight — being attracted to whomever you are attracted to — is not something that you just choose to do one morning like one chooses what color shirt to pull out of the closet.

Thursday night’s vice presidential debate ought to be a hoot.

I found this meme on driving green and I thought I’d give it a shot. I’d love to be able to afford a Prius, but I’m stuck with what I have, so I do what I can:

You Are a Fairly Green Driver

You driving isn’t the greenest, but it’s greener than most people.Whether you have a fuel efficient car or try not to speed, you try not to use a lot of gas.You do your best to drive less. However, it’s not always possible. You may end up driving more than you’d like, but at least you’re doing what you can!

How did you do?

I had an interesting dinner conversation the other night with a co-worker. We were talking about the 40 anniversary of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination in California, and we realized that this November 22nd will be the 45th anniversary of John Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas.

We discussed all of the JFK conspiracy theories, and my co-worker asked me if I thought there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK or if I thought Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. I said that I believe a conspiracy was definitely possible, but that I didn’t think it was the level of conspiracy that movies like Oliver Stone’s JFK depicted.

I mentioned a quote from Walter Cronkite about Stone’s depiction of the events, which he had called a “bill of goods” that unsuspecting young people had fully bought into. Cronkite said, in effect, that if there had been that level of conspiracy from all angles of our government, organized crime and foreign powers, there is almost no way that by now, someone wouldn’t have come forward and spilled the beans, making every detail public.

Imagine the big book deal. Imagine sitting on that couch with a teary-eyed Oprah.

The co-worker then said something interesting: “I think bits and pieces of the truth have gotten out…they’re just small enough that they don’t get a lot of notice by themselves.”

That got me thinking about conspiracy theories in general. How can a piece of the puzzle about what some regard as one of the greatest murder mysteries of the 20th century go largely unnoticed? By making the murder itself the subject of so many conspiracy theories.

A conspiracy theory, in essence, makes even true facts easier to dismiss as fiction because it is assumed that what is really the truth is only part of the conspiracy theory itself. We see it every day.

So when some former gangster comes forward and says he was friends with Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald, and that he hosted a meeting of the two in his apartment in Dallas three days before the murder, it’s easier to write him off as being one of the “nutjob” conspiracy theorists than to take the time to try to verify his story. There have been plenty of nutjobs who have come up with their own reasons of why that shooting happened (as well as who pulled the trigger). (I made this scenario up, but I’m sure it has probably happened at some point.)

But what if his story is true? We could be missing a major piece of the puzzle, because we’ve been conditioned by the conspiracy theorists to believe nothing. So we don’t believe him, either.

Here’s another example, on a subject that’s everyone’s favorite: global warming.

I’ll start with a clip from January 2, 2007, of the Today show in which Willard Scott appeared on the set in New York with Meredith Viera:

Here, in case you miss something, is a transcript of what is said:

SCOTT: Well, listen are you a globing — a global-warming fan? Do you believe in global warming?

VIEIRA: I’m not a fan. No. No, sir.

SCOTT: Well –

VIEIRA: But I — something’s going on, ’cause it’s warm here.

SCOTT: Well, now, wait a minute — that’s it; it’s warm here. From Savannah [Georgia] all the way up to Boston, we’re having unheard-of warm weather, but ask the folks out in Denver and Colorado –

VIEIRA: That’s so.

SCOTT: — the coldest winter they’ve had in years. So it all depends on which side of the Mississippi you’re hanging your hat.

When Media Matters, a watchdog organization that describes its goal as “comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Yet when it posted the clip on YouTube, it gave it this headline:

“Willard Scott Denies Global Warming”

Trouble is, he didn’t deny that global warming exists. He merely pointed out that while it’s hot on one side of the country, it’s cold on the other; he suggested that it is easy to characterize hot weather as part of global warming, but that when you’re dealing with particularly cold weather, the concept of global warming isn’t necessarily rolling off your tongue.

Does Willard Scott personally believe in global warming? Maybe he does or maybe he doesn’t. The answer isn’t clear from that snippet. If anything, he believes that the hot weather Viera describes isn’t solely a result of global warming, particularly when it’s not being felt uniformly everywhere.

But one might hope that a “watchdog” group designed to weed out “misinformation” wouldn’t feel the need to resort to hyperbole to make its points. Even on its own website, the group posted a headline not quite on the mark:

“Willard Scott suggested weather ‘in Denver and Colorado’ casts doubt on global warming”

Again, it isn’t really what he said, but it’s possible to assume that he’s saying something along those lines. It’s also possible to assume that he’s saying that these two weather extremes aren’t necessarily clear examples, like, say, melting polar ice caps are. But we’re not in Willard’s head, and he doesn’t elaborate there, so the best we can do, one way or the other, is assume. And that shouldn’t be a valid base for criticism.

On the other hand, it’s easy for people like Scott to make a statement about global warming because there are so many global warming enthusiasts out there who tend to want to make everything about global warming. Here in Charleston, it’s 88 degrees outside as I type this post. The high today is 93. That’s hot. But we’re just days away from the start of summer, so it’s supposed to be hot.

But the environmental conspiracy theorists, those so quick to point to every little symptom as that pesky global warming again make easy for the rest of us to roll our eyes and dismiss what they’re saying.

In essence, conspiracy theorists who are a little “over the top” about making their case, tend to make the rest of us blind to the elements that may genuinely be true, just because we’re so tired of hearing about the constant “worst-case scenarios.”

Somehow, I don’t think that helps their argument.

Don’t get me wrong: I get that it’s important that we move toward being as “green” as possible. As a general rule, if I have two choices, one environmentally-friendly and the other not, if the prices and quality are comparable, I have no problem choosing the “greener” option.

But I think there’s a point at which you need to just chill out a little. The “Washup” is one of those cases.

It’s just a concept right now, but it combines a washing machine into a toilet, recycling wash water as toilet water and saving space by combining two pieces of basic household equipment that generally are never in the same place.

The thing is, there’s a reason they’re not in the same place.

What happens if you’re the poor sap who’s sitting there…uh, minding your own business…when the washer overflows?

How do you dry the clothes? There’s no mention of a dryer being incorporated in the mix, so that means you still have to take a pile of clean but now-damp laundry somewhere else to the dryer.

And can you imagine how much of a delight it’ll be when you’re in a hurry to get a load of laundry done when the “reading room” is…“otherwise occupied?” If you’re using the lower half of the contraption, you really aren’t in a position to help out with the top half.

Even worse, this could be the cause of World War III when it comes to whether or not we should leave the seat up. I wonder how many times an article of freshly-washed clothing falling right into the tank will make the rule for both sexes, “Seat and lid down.”

HT: BoingBoing

If the search engine Google happens to be your internet tool of choice, then you already know that the site often makes little adjustments to its logo to commemorate significant holidays and even a few obscure historic facts.

Google’s look du jour is to turn their page background pitch black, and they’re hoping you’ll do the same thing, in a manner of speaking, with your home tonight.

It’s a tip of the hat to Earth Hour, an event being marked at the 8pm hour today regardless of your time zone.

You’re being asked to turn out all of the lights in your home for a single hour to help reduce energy consumption.

Turning off the lights is one thing.  A little candlelight is nice every now and then.

But do they really expect people to turn off the…gasp…television, too?

The traditional incandescent light bulb, that nifty invention that Thomas Edison came up with 125 years ago, may finally be on its way out.

A report in today’s USA Today says a provision of the energy bill, one that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention so far, will phase out the old bulbs over the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of lights that are more energy-efficient.

By the year 2020, bulbs must be 70% more energy-efficient.

The downside is the cost: a pack of the old-fashioned light bulbs can be purchased for about a dollar. A pack of those spiral bulbs that look as much like modern art as lighting can cost $7 or so. However, their makers are quick to point out that the return of the buyer’s investment is realized in a few months between the lower amount of energy used and the longer life these bulbs supposedly have.

I’ve just replaced the round, clear bulbs in my bathroom with four of the smaller new-fangled bulbs. At just 10 watts each, they total the energy required for four of the old-style bulbs and put out the same amount of light. Sure, they look a little odd, but they light up the room, and that’s what a light bulb is supposed to do, isn’t it? And how can you argue when you’ve just cut your energy cost in one room by 75%?

There is also mention of a new style of LED lighting — the same technology that is making newer traffic lights and automobile brake lights brighter and easier to see — that will be available for use in the home that will cost much more but will last for 12 years.

That’s just enough time to allow me to forget where to find a replacement when the old one finally blows out.

“A threat to your children.”

Where did that quote come from? To what does it refer?

Was it spoken by George W. Bush on the subject of terrorists? Or was it how Al Gore described global warming?

“It is not a question of left vs. right; it is a question of right vs. wrong.”

How about that one? Was it said in reference to doing anything necessary to win the war on terror or to save the planet?

“I worry about it, because I don’t want to die.”

Those words were attributed to a nine-year-old who had heard one of the two messages: was she terrified of al Qaeda or sweeping climate changes? Continue reading “The Outrage”

Al Gore, appearing Thursday on NBC’s Today show, refused to endorse any specific Democratic candidate for president.

The reason? Because none of them has placed the global warming crisis as his or her “top priority.”

“Some of them have made good, positive statements, but it’s still treated as a side issue. I will predict for you that within the next 500 days that this issue will be the Number One issue on the agenda,” he said.

Can Gore possibly be that out of touch? Continue reading “Top Priority”

In the old days, when a political debate began, there was at least the chance of discussion. Sometimes, it was close-minded discussion, in which both sides hurled some insults and learned nothing new. Nowadays, political debate has been replaced with the nearly-automated recitation of “talking points.” There is little discussion because no one’s listening to what’s being said; they’re just waiting for their cue to yell out the next item on their list.

Earlier, I reported on accusations that former Vice President Al Gore isn’t practicing what he’s been preaching about global warming.

Since then, Gore’s defenders have had quite a bit to say about those accusations, and, predictably, the accusers. It is, after all, more fun to attack the accusers rather than examine their points!

But first, I’ll point out Gore’s own responses to the original article. In response to the claim that his mansion uses twenty times the energy of the “normal” household, he says his family has taken numerous steps to reduce the “carbon footprint” for their private residence, including signing up for 100% green power through the Green Power Switch program. Further, he is installing solar panels in his home and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy-saving technology in his home. He has a “consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint.”

My response to this is that I’m glad he has taken the steps he is taking. That’s exactly what he should be doing, considering the fact that he has made himself such an outspoken leader of the environmental movement.

But as I pointed out earlier, the Green Power Switch program’s own website makes it clear that on days when “green” energy sources like sunshine or wind are not available, the demands for energy will be satisfied by “dirty” sources like coal. If Gore is using a lot more energy than the “average” home, and it happens to be during a time when the “green” energy sources are at a low point of availability, it’s quite possible that his home would then be consuming as much “dirty” energy as the average, non-environmentally-friendly home is consuming. This means that though he’s getting more “green” energy than the average home, his “carbon footprint” is still close to the average homeowner who is only using “dirty” energy and, thereby, contributing to the very problem he’s trying to solve.

I certainly can’t fault Gore for his efforts to go green, nor would I attempt to. On the contrary, I respect what he’s doing to encourage more people to reduce their negative impact on the environment.

The sad reality of the situation is that until such green energy programs are able to sustain themselves on 100% clean resources, we’re not reducing the problem as much as possible, which means that we should still be doing as much as is absolutely possible to reduce our energy consumption.

So much for Gore’s response. Then, over at the Huffington Post, there’s a list of talking points ready for anyone ready to defend Gore and what it calls the “Psuedo-Scandal” during “encounters with media or family and friends.” I’ll take them one by one.

1. It’s nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.

What a smokescreen! What a bunch of foolishness! It’s unfair to call Gore out on the subject, yet they “hope” that Republican leaders will be carefully scrutinized? This is an important topic of discussion and everyone should be held to the standards if the consensus is that the threat of global warming warrants that we should take such action.

There are many people who fervently believe that there’s no such thing as global warming. If you do, you should be encouraging as much discussion as possible, not trying to focus it solely on one side.

2. The Tennessee Tax Department does not consider the “Tennessee Center for Policy Research,” which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It’s run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore’s electricity use at face value?

This is almost laughable. I can’t count the number of times I’ve read on a left-wing website quote after quote from online groups lauded as credible sources — even “non-partisan” groups — who are as left-wing as they suggest the TCPR is right-wing. It may well be run by a “right-wing attack hack,” but if the data is correct, does that mean we shouldn’t at least question it within the main context?

If we’re in the habit of discrediting partisan attackers, I guess we’re just going to have to throw out most political blogs in existence, right?

3. Gore’s electric company has no record of being contacted about his bills.

So? If the Gores aren’t disputing the bills themselves, but rather the interpretation that they’re not taking steps to reduce their “dirty” energy consumption, the information presented could reasonably be considered accurate, whether Gore’s electric company remembers being contacted or not.

4. The “average” home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore’s climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore’s usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average.

Curious that the Gore’s themselves didn’t come up with their own comparative energy consumption, but let’s say that the Huffington Post is correct. That’s good news. But refer to my earlier point about the amount of energy consumed versus the amount of potentially-dirty energy being provided when there’s a lack of environmentally-friendly resources immediately available. It’s an improvement, but no complete solution just yet.

5. The Gores are not an average family. He’s an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.

No one can reasonably expect the Gores to live in a grass shack. No one can reasonably expect them to live even in an “average-size” house. It’s not about the size of the house as much as the usage of energy within it.

There are plenty of people who live in smaller homes, who have reduced their energy consumption already. Are we ready to label all of these people who have taken steps to cut their carbon footprint as having done all they can do?

Is there not always room for improvement?

6. Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.

Beating the dead horse again.

7. Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn’t generate all that much CO2 anyway.

This sounds like a fairly blatant excuse to me. There are plenty of people who wouldn’t consider dropping their thermostats a few degrees or replacing light bulbs with more efficient models or even taking the time to figure up their “carbon footprint” because they’d figure their energy consumption couldn’t “generate all that much CO2, anyway.”

Before my new diet began, I had cut back on some of the bad foods I ate. I’d even gotten a vegetable steamer and switched to brown rice instead of white rice. So it wasn’t all of the food I was eating that was causing my waistline to expand. It was only some, like the occasional Monster Burger from Hardee’s. But those calories still added up to the bigger (pun intended) problem.

We’re talking about eliminating as much CO2-producing energy use as possible. If “most” of the electricity in Tennessee comes from hyrdo and nuclear, that means that “some” still comes from the CO2-producing sources. Let’s not hide behind semantics: if we need to cut that, let’s cut it.

In the earlier post, I did not set out to make Gore look like a bad guy, but rather to point out that because energy conservation requires a change of behavior, it will be a hard thing to sell the average person on. People get into routines and if those routines work for them, then they’re not as likely to change those routines just because someone else tells them that they should.

It takes time. It takes encouragement. And, it takes someone to demonstrate that it’s possible, practical, and painless.

Gore has to expect to face questions about his own energy expenditures. That’s not unreasonable, in this day and age of hypocritical politicians, to question everything we’re told. (Isn’t that what liberals have been screaming since the War in Iraq began?)

Gore — and others who preach the message of going green — have to lead by example. Gore’s doing so, but it’s more than a little unreasonable to send a message that Gore’s actions shouldn’t be questioned at all. He’s doing well…apparently far better than the initial reports indicated. Be he can still do a better job. We all can.

Funny, but I thought that was the whole point of Gore’s position to start with.

You’ve probably heard about this elsewhere, but I thought I’d weigh in on the matter.

Al Gore, probably one of the most outspoken proponents of “going green” to reduce the effects of global warming, may have some explaining to do. According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the former vice president is gobbling up whopping amounts of electricity while urging the rest of us to do our part — and if possible, more than our part — to cut electricity consumption at home:

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

It goes on to report that though the average American home consumes more than 10,600 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, Gore’s home used nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. His average monthly electric bill is around $1300.

What’s most ironic, it seems, is that since the release of his environmental documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has increased by more than 2,000 kWh per month.

Over at the blog One Voice Out of Millions, a commenter suggests that it might be more fair to compare the energy consumption of Gore’s mansion to other homes of similar size rather than to the national average. But according to the National Association of Homebuilders, the average American home is 2,330 square feet. If Gore’s home is consuming more than 20 times the national average of energy, his home would have to be more than 46,000 square feet in size (larger than Bill Gates’s home!) for his energy consumption to be considered an “average” for his home’s size. I seriously doubt that Gore is living in a home that large.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, the argument is being made by Gore’s defenders that the main thing he’s trying to encourage people to do is go “carbon-free.” It’s entirely possible that Gore is participating in the Nashville Electric Service’s “Green Power Switch” program, which costs more, but uses energy generated through “clean” methods like solar and wind power. We can hope that he is. Still, even “all-green” isn’t always green:

“When the green power resources aren’t operating — for instance, when wind speeds are too low to generate energy — TVA’s other resources will continue to supply reliable electricity.”

Those “other resources,” of course, are the environmentally-unfriendly, non-carbon-free resources Gore is so strenuously urging us all to avoid.

The effort to reduce the human impact on global warming — and I do believe that there is a human impact on the environment — represents an inconvenience for the average person. It requires us to actively change the behaviors most of us have grown accustomed to without thinking twice: if it’s too hot, we turn on the air conditioning. If it’s cold, we turn on the heater. When we’re done with the newspaper or when we empty the 2-liter soda bottle, we throw them away in the nearest trash can.

Going to the closet to get a blanket, or turning on a fan, or placing plastics and newspapers in the recycle bin is a different kind of behavior. Thankfully, more and more people are learning that kind of behavior. But there are a lot more who aren’t, and who don’t really see the need to start because they think there’s nothing they can do.

If you’re going to expect others to change the way they live, unfortunately, you have to have a tough and compelling sales pitch, and part of that pitch is by walking the walk and showing how easily the consumption of energy can be reduced.

That’s certainly not the message that seems to have been delivered, and I have to wonder if it’s making more of those people on the fence think that it must not be that much of a problem if the “man” himself isn’t cutting his own electricity consumption!

Last night was the night to “Fall Back,” by setting your clock back one hour. Officially, the time change occurred at what would have been 2:00am. Just after 1:59am, the clock switched to 1:00am again, with a “second chance” at that overnight hour.

This marked the end of Daylight Saving Time. (Note that it’s “Saving,” not “Savings.”) We are now back to Eastern Standard Time (EST), having just left Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

In 2007, the dates for the start and end of Daylight Saving Time will change, since President Bush signed a law adjusting them. We’ll “Spring Forward,” adjusting the clock ahead one hour (and, unfortunately, losing an hour of sleep) a month earlier. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that 2007’s Daylight Saving Time will begin on March 11th. We’ll get the extra hour of sleep when we “Fall Back” on November 4th. That could make Halloween a little safer in 2007, giving the trick-or-treaters a little more light late into the evening.

I took advantage of that extra hour. I think it would be nice to find a way to make for an extra hour of sleep at least once a month.

If you come up with any ideas, let me know.

I watched the 300 Millionth American being born this morning.

That is to say, I watched the nation’s population clock, which estimates the number of people in the country based on birth and death records, flip to 300,000,000 on NBC’s Today. The real 300 millionth may or may not have been born at that moment, but by now, he or she is here.

This milestone comes with mixed emotions. It’s certainly good news that part of the reason we’ve reached this number of people is that we’re living longer. But it’s a little scary to think that we’ve got that many more people in a world where there seems to be more and more threats to peace by the hour. I suppose one could consider the rate of growth alarming as well. The nation hit 100 Million in 1915. Back then, the median age was just 24.1 and the life expectancy was 54.5 years.

It took 52 years for us to reach the 200 Million mark in 1967. By then, the median age was 29.5, but the life expectancy had jumped to 70.5 years.

Today, just 39 years later, the national median age is 36.2, just slightly below my current age, the life expectancy is edging up to 77.8.

Some statistician will be able to easily compute how soon we’ll be looking at the 400 Million mark. We can only hope the world is in better shape by then.

If rumors are true, we could see something dramatic on the issue of global warming coming from the president nicknamed, “The Toxic Texan.”

The Independant is reporting that an “astonishing U-turn” could come as early as January’s State of the Union address. Its “senior Washington sources” suggest that Bush is preparing to propose controls on carbon dioxide emissions and plans to rapidly boost renewable energy sources.

Of course, environmentalists aren’t willing to show much excitement, although I have to agree with the notion that any change in favor of easing global warming by the administration might tend to “liberate” more Republicans to vote yes on similar measures in the future: they’ll no longer be going against “their man” in the White House.

While we’re on the subject of global warming, there was that Patrick’s Place Poll I ran a short time ago. I asked readers to select the statements that best describe their own views on global warming.

I tried to create several different takes on several different positions.

The first one was the “dire hopeless” scenario. One such statement read, “It’s a dire situation and we’ve done so much damage already that we’re powerless to stop it.” Another read, “O’m not going to change anything I do because I know no one else is willing.” And another read, “We shouldn’t worry about global warming, because the planet will wipe us out when we’ve done enough damage and a better species will emerge.” (Happy thought, isn’t it?) A total of 20% of voters took this position through the various statements they chose.

At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe it’s a real crisis requiring immediate action. For them, there were statements like, “I’m already changing my habits because I think that one person can make a difference.” I also include in this side the questions about legislation needed to reduce global warming: one statement called for strict legislation for businesses and consumers, and the other called for business-only restrictions. A total of 42% of voters selected one or more of these statements.

Then there were the fringe statements that were somewhere in between the “global warming crisis” and “global warming problem” mentalities, with statements like, “Global warming is real, but not the only reason that we’ve been having weather extremes the past few years: some of it is normal climate change.” This statement got the highest number of votes, coming in at 28% by itself. (Because voters could choose more than one statement, this concept could have been shared by those on either side.)

The naysayers — those who either refuse to admit the possibility that global warming exists, or those who refuse to take any action because they’re convinced no one else is, total only 12%.

So more people than I might have expected feel that global warming is real, and more people than I expected are willing to change or already have done so. That can’t be bad news for the environment.

The new poll on the sidebar, by the way, will pinpoint your feeling of safety since 9/11.

There’s an old saying that all good things are fattening. Apparently, many of them are also taxable.

A new plan on the table would make owners of hybrid vehicles pay an additional tax to help the government afford to maintain our Interstate Highway system, which is on the eve of its 50th birthday. The Boston Globe reports that the country’s Highway Trust Fund is likely to reach a zero balance by 2008, and that by 2015, it will have fallen hundreds of billions short of what it would take just to maintain the current roadways.

The argument for requiring a hybrid vehicle owner to pay a higher tax is based on the presumption that their cars won’t use as much gasoline, and currently, it’s the Federal Gas Tax that raises revenue for the fund.

Another solution, one that no one will like, is that the gas tax, which has remained at just under twenty cents per gallon for more than a decade, be indexed to keep up with inflation.

I certainly don’t want to see gas prices go up again, now that there are a few stations around town that have finally dropped back down below the $2.00 mark. Still, there is something wrong with making hybrid vehicle owners pay a special tax: it’s like punishing them for doing their part to ease the energy crisis.

But perhaps there’s a compromise possible: in 2006, hybrid vehicle owners will receive new tax incentives for buying fuel efficient cars. A tax credit of between $400 to $3400 might be enough to entice some people to buy hybrids before that plan expires in 2009. If we’re in such bad need of money for our roads, why not take a percentage of the tax credit and roll it over into the fund? That way, the hybrid vehicle owners aren’t having to pay a new tax, and are still getting some reward for less dependance on gasoline. It won’t solve the problem…the tax credit isn’t big enough to do that…but every little bit helps.

Personally, I’d like to see the major oil companies be forced to contribute to the fund. They have a vested interest in keeping the roads driveable because that’s one of the things that keeps motorists buying their products. And considering their record profits since Katrina, I’d guess that they can afford to help out!

Every time there is a busy hurricane season, the non-scientists among us begin begin to put on their Mr. Wizard caps and suggest ideas to wipe the monster storms off the map before they reach land.

The latest plan, according to an article from AOL News, (which the rest of the world knows as the Associated Press), is to have a Boeing 747 fly into the storm to dump tons of super absorbent powder into the clouds, thereby drying up the storm from the inside.

There are many obvious questions here for anyone with half a brain:

• Who’s going to fly a 747 into a hurricane?
• How much of the “absorbent powder” would you need?
• What happens when the absorbent powder does its job? Where does it go then?
• Could we kill ecosystems in the oceans if sea life ingests the powder?
• Could we screw up ecosystems on land if the powder makes it that far?
• Who’s going to pay for all of this?

The really obvious question for me is one that most of these amateur storm busters aren’t asking: Why do hurricanes form to begin with?

A meteorologist friend of mine explained this to me over dinner a few weeks ago. I found it so interesting I thought I’d share it with the rest of you. It turns out that a hurricane isn’t merely a case of God looking for a way to liven up the Atlantic in the late summer; the storms actually serve a purpose for planet Earth.

“A hurricane is a giant heat regulator,” my friend explains. “It’s nature’s way of redistributing the heat in the warmer waters of the Atlantic more evenly to the northern waters.” After a hurricane has started spinning, the temperature of the water in that area drops.

I found it fascinating to think of these storms actually having a purpose beyond destruction. They’re not random acts of nature; they’re nature’s air conditioning for the ocean.

Given that fact, I think we’re better off letting Mother Nature decide what’s best. I’d be terrified of what she might come up with to say, “Oh yeah? Well, I’ll show you,” if one of these storm busters was actually turned loose on a hurricane. Somehow, I think Mother Nature is always going to win…one way or the other.