Why Cities Are Greener

A lot of environmentalists have a very knee jerk objection to cities. They see that they are more distant from nature than rural communities and conclude from this that they must be unnatural and hence unhealthy for people and the environment. That cities keep people separate from nature, however, is precisely why they are good for the natural environment.

Here's a great article about cities and their environmental impact.

These are my favorite quotes:
"To most people, big, densely-populated cities look like ecological nightmares, wastelands of concrete and garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams. But, compared to other inhabited places, cities are models of environmental responsibility. By the most significant measures, the greenest community in the United States is New York City, the only American city that approaches environmental standards set elsewhere in the world."

"Moving people closer together reduces the distances between their daily destinations and limits their opportunities for reckless consumption, as well as forcing the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures in the world: apartment buildings."

"New York’s highly concentrated population and comprehensive public transit system enable the majority of residents to live without owning automobiles, an unthinkable deprivation almost anywhere else in the US. Some 82% of employed Manhattanites travel to work by public transit, bicycle, or on foot. That’s 10 times the rate for Americans in general, eight times the rate for workers in Los Angeles County, and 16 times the rate for residents of metropolitan Atlanta."

If you think it's easy to get around without a car in any other city, keep in mind that even David Suzuki owns a car.

"I spoke with one energy expert, who, when I asked him to explain why per-capita energy consumption was so much lower in Europe than in the US, said, 'It’s not a secret, and it’s not the result of some miraculous technological breakthrough. It’s because Europeans are more likely to live in dense cities and less likely to own cars.'"

"Urban families live more compactly, do less damage to fragile ecosystems, burn less fuel, enjoy stronger social ties to larger numbers of people, and, most significantly, produce fewer children, since large families have less economic utility in densely settled areas than they do in marginal agricultural areas."

A Word on Rationing

Here's a blog that thinks it has found proof that the House health care bill will end up rationing care. Here's the quote it cites:

"If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit including reducing benefits, increasing premiums or establishing wait lists. [emphasis added]"

Wow, so if the publicly run health insurance company can't collect enough in premiums to pay for its expenses, it will reduce benefits, increase premiums or establish wait lists. In other words, with the exception of wait lists, it will do exactly what every private insurance company does when dealing with the same problem. The horror.

No matter what system you have not everybody is going to get all the care that they need and you'll have to prioritize. You can do this by triaging people according to need and first come first serve or you can give the most and best care to those who have the most money. If prioritizing based on need is "rationing", than I would gladly have my health care rationed. The above quoted section, however, is not rationing. It's a way of handling costs that's pretty much identical to how private companies handle costs, yet you never hear anyone calling the HMO actuarial deliberations "death panels" do you?

The Power of Negative Thinking

Writing a self help book is an easy way of making a few bucks, especially if you're a charismatic writer. You don't really need to make sense. Just don't make things too complicated. Oh, and tell people they can use magic to get what they want. Chicks dig it when you tell them you can teach them how to do magic. And that's why The Secret is popular. But even before The Secret there was this law of attraction bullshit, and The Secret seems to be based largely on that.

The gist of the law of attraction is that when you think of shit, it happens. So if you think about bad things, you're making them happen and if you think happy thoughts they come true too. And in The Secret, they tried to say this is all about quantum physics, which of course is a convenient way of giving yourself credibility by referencing something scientific that people are too lazy to look into and too stupid to figure out if they ever try to look into it.

So, yeah, in a nutshell, the really hocus pocus self help stuff is pretty much garbage, but there are some psychological principles behind them that are worth understanding. While you don't "send out waves to the universe that make your thoughts into reality", pessimism does encourage procrastination and discourages effort. You don't need quantum physics to explain that. Every day experience makes that pretty clear. Positive thinking doesn't necessarily ensure that you'll get what you want out of life, but if you're more confident than your actual abilities warrant, and you're good at making others have the same irrational confidence in you, you're going to be more successful than someone who is more talented but less "unrealistic". It's a sad truth, and it's why Michael Bay gets to keep making movies. As long as you're not doing things that are obviously insane, foolish or dangerous, having a bit more confidence than your abilities than your abilities really warrant is an advantage more often than not.

The main thing to remember is that negative thinking will weigh you down more than positive thinking will help you out.

Palin and the Republican Nomination

I really, sincerely hope that Sarah Palin runs for president and gets the Republican nomination. Can you imagine Sarah Palin in a debate with Obama? Even she is coached enough to be able to give a bunch of canned answers, it's unlikely that she'll be able to spit those out without fucking them up, like she did in this interview with Sean Hannity.

Sadly, I don't think she'll hold her own in a debate with Mitt Romney either, and doubt she'll get the nomination unless a bunch of bible bangers who don't like Mormons come out in favor of her candidacy.

Popular Support for Gay Marriage

While the setbacks in Maine and California may be disheartening, and the conservatives believe that the 37 popular referenda that have all banned gay marriage are proof that people don't really want gay marriage, or that the trend is moving away from further gay rights in the United States. I feel confident, however, that there's really no reason to panic. If you look at the demographics of who votes for and against gay marriage, it's clear that the people pushing against it are old, decrepit and will all be dead soon. I would go so far as to say that there will be a popular referendum ratifying gay marriage in one or more states within the next ten years, perhaps even the next five.

Here's a chart outlining support for gay marriage broken down by state and age demographic:



Is it possible that all these misguided youngsters could grow up to hate fags just like their grandparents do? Sure, but how many people who grew up favoring civil rights for blacks in a climate that was largely against it eventually grew up to be bigots?

Fact Checkers

Some conservatives are all butt-hurt because the AP sent 11 people to fact check Sarah Palin's new book. Apparently a potential presidential candidate is not worthy being scrutinized. 'Cause it's not like conservative journalists went after everything that came out of Obama's mouth from the moment people started speculating that he would run for president, amirite?

Eric Holder's "Conflict of Interest"

Michelle Malkin says that Eric Holder is an example of the "culture of corruption" due to the fact that he's "senior partner with Covington & Burling — the prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo," and is therefore in a conflict of interest.

First of all, the very first sentence of her blog entry is a lie. He's not a partner C&B. He hasn't been since he became Attorney General. And if the fact that he used to work for C&B makes it a conflict of interest, than the fact that Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton makes his appointment of that company to run Iraq's oil industry is also a conflict of interest.