Voice of Freedom’s Weblog

Excellant article…

Energy Doesn’t Grow on Trees

How do we decide whether to walk or run?

Imagine yourself walking on a treadmill that starts at a reasonable pace: say, two and a half miles per hour. Every two minutes, the treadmill increases its speed by 0.2 mph: 2.7 mph, 2.9 mph, 3.1 mph, and so on. If you’re in good physical condition, at some point — usually between about 3.0 and 4.5 mph — you’ll find it more comfortable to start running instead of walking. Different individuals have different thresholds based on their fitness level and other factors, but even taking these things into account, it’s difficult to explain exactly why people start running when they do. Do different people have different thresholds for pain?

Gregory Daniels and Karl Newell paid 12 physically fit college students to walk on a treadmill as it gradually increased in speed. To disguise the real purpose of the study, the students were fitted with fake oxygen consumption meters and cardiographs. They were told to walk, but to begin running as soon as it felt more comfortable. They also rated their physical exertion every two minutes by pointing to a numeric chart on the wall (remember, their mouths were covered with the oxygen consumption meters so they couldn’t talk).

But most importantly, the walkers were also sometimes asked to complete simple addition and subtraction problems. Every 10 seconds, a new tape-recorded problem and answer was played, and the walkers had to raise their right hand to indicate a correct answer and raise their left hand for an incorrect answer. They repeated the experiment four times: two times with no math problems, and once each with easy (single-digit) and hard (double-digit) math problems. Here are the results:

Read the rest of this post…

The Center for Information Technology Policy is hosting what promises to be a provocative conference May 14-15 on the Future of News.

The conference features a distinguished roster of panelists who will be discussing the sweeping technologically-driven transformation of the news business. Of special interest is a panel on the new journalistic frontiers of data mining, interactivity, and visualization.

Among the panelists: Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal; author Eric Alterman; Kevin Anderson of the Guardian; Matthew Hurst of Microsoft Live Labs; technology writer Dan Gillmor; machine learning expert (Princeton’s own) David Blei; Mark Davis of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and Reihan Salam of The Atlantic.

The conference is free for those who can make it to Princeton; for those who can’t, plan on attending the live broadcast.

The director of CITP is maverick computer scientist and freedom-to-tinker blogger Ed Felten, whom you may have seen recently on Rocketboom being interviewed by WhyTuesday’s Jacob Soboroff about electronic voting machines. Also check out reports by Wired, Techdirt, and the Huffington Post.

For me, it all comes down to trust and credibility. And it would be a dangerous thing for the American people to lose trust in the Pentagon, in our retired officer corps, and in the press, each of which has a critical role to play in preserving our nation’s freedoms.

April 24th, 2008 by Jesse Lee

Rep. Ike Skelton, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaks on the House floor on recent revelations from the New York Times. The story, “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” explained how the Pentagon set up private briefings for a network of “military experts,” who often held financial stakes dependent on continued Pentagon access, in order to achieve “information dominance” in the American media.

Chairman Skelton: “Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the front page of the New York Times included a story about the efforts of the Pentagon’s public affairs operation to influence retired military officers now working as military analysts for some of our nation’s largest media organizations.

“I am very angry about the issues raised by the New York Times’ story, as are many of my colleagues who have called me aside to discuss it. The story does not reflect well on the Pentagon, on the military analysts in question, or on the media organizations that employ them.

“Mr. Speaker, maybe I am too idealistic, but this story is appalling to me on a number of levels. For me, it all comes down to trust and credibility. And it would be a dangerous thing for the American people to lose trust in the Pentagon, in our retired officer corps, and in the press, each of which has a critical role to play in preserving our nation’s freedoms.

“Through the years, I have frequently urged our military services to improve their efforts to tell America about the good work that is being done by our country’s sons and daughters in uniform. Our military services have an important story to tell, and public affairs offices are critical to that task. But credibility is paramount. Once lost, it is difficult or impossible to regain.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with providing information to the public and the press. But there is a problem if the Pentagon is providing special access to retired officers and then basically using them as pawns to spout the Administration’s talking points of the day. There are allegations that analysts who failed to deliver the message required by the Administration mysteriously lost access to future briefings and information. I find this deeply troubling. We deserve to be able to trust the actions of the Pentagon.

“We also deserve a retired officer corps that is worthy of the respect it receives from the American people, who place great faith in their judgment and loyalty to our nation. Americans trust our active duty and retired military, and rightly so.

“I know a number of the retired officers employed by the media as military analysts to be honorable people. But the special access they are alleged to have received and the circumstances of their employment, without proper disclosure of their outside interests or biases, raise a number of uncomfortable questions that deserve serious answers.

“Which master do these analysts serve?

“The United States Government, which supplies their retirement pay?

“The Pentagon, which may reduce the amount of analysis they actually need to do by providing detailed talking points promoting the current administration’s message agenda?

“The defense contractors, who pay them for serving on boards or for their defense expertise, and perhaps more to the point, for their Pentagon connections?

“Will their analysis, either by design or just by lucky coincidence, result in contracts or other advantages for the companies from which they take home a paycheck?

“It hurts me to my core to think that there are those from the ranks of our retired officers who have decided to cash in and essentially prostitute themselves on the basis of their previous positions within the Department of Defense. I would hate to think that because a few people have blurred ethical boundaries and cashed in on their former positions that we might tarnish the military’s hard won reputation for professionalism and objectivity and love of country first and foremost.

“Finally, I think our media have a serious responsibility to disclose potential conflicts of interest when they do their reporting. This applies to all of their stories, of course, and not just those that include retired officer military analysts. I understand that different organizations have different rules, but perhaps it would not be out of order for our journalism schools and professional journalism organizations to develop ethical guidelines for dealing with such issues.

“Mr. Speaker, our nation’s military exists to protect America’s freedoms for citizens today and for future generations. The First Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans, including retired service members and members of the press, to speak freely and without restraint. But with our rights come responsibilities to act honestly and ethically. I have no doubt we will continue to discuss these matters in the days ahead.

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

Gasoline prices

What impacts U.S. consumers and voters most directly is the price of gasoline and diesel fuel, not only because of what they pay at the pump but also because higher fuel costs raise the price of many consumer goods. Fuel price hikes can be a major drag on the whole economy.

Gas prices are most politically relevant because they are a sharp pain that voters will be feeling this summer and fall, before they vote. All three candidates (and even President Bush) seem to “get” this. But the summer holiday for the 18.4-cent federal excise tax on gasoline proposed by Clinton and McCain will not, in the view of the experts and the media, do much more than slightly numb the voters before their wallets are amputated. [For stories, here’s one from NPR; one from the New York Times, and one from Newsweek.]

With Democrats and Republicans both split on the gas tax holiday, the chances of it passing a narrowly-divided Congress in an election year seem close to nil. The biggest danger, from all three candidates’ perspective, is that the public may conclude that they have proposed nothing serious or substantial to address gas prices. During the time since McCain proposed the gas-tax holiday, the price of gasoline has actually risen more than the 18.4 cents worth of tax relief it would offer, according to the Energy Information Administration.

That it will do nothing to solve the problem is a given that even McCain admits. The danger to candidates is that it will do nothing to get them elected. If Congress passed a tax holiday and the price of gas stayed flat (because of a rise in the underlying commodity price) or went up, the tactic could boomerang.

The price of gasoline at the end of April 2008, averaged over the whole U.S., was about $3.60 — up about $0.63 from a year earlier. Even worse was the price of diesel, $4.17 — up $1.36 from a year earlier.

As for crude oil prices, experts estimate that the cost of crude oil accounts for anywhere from 46 percent of the retail price of refined gasoline to 72 percent. Obviously, the numbers are fuzzy. The looseness of the linkage between wholesale oil and retail gasoline prices raises questions. Journalists might well ask whether oil companies, refiners, distributors, and retailers are taking advantage of the situation. But they rarely do ask.

While crude prices are a factor, most experts would agree that tightly limited U.S. refinery capacity is also a big factor in pushing domestic gasoline prices higher.

Less easy to answer: why is refinery capacity limited and what can be done about it?

Environmentalists and consumer advocates tend to argue that companies are colluding and dragging their feet on purpose — since high gas and diesel prices help profits. Companies blame government regulations.

There are grounds for skepticism. Utility and gas transmission companies first blamed the California “energy crisis” of 2001 on clean air and market regulation, too. Few news media questioned this explanation. But it turned out to be totally untrue, and a cover for billions of dollars worth illegal market manipulation by companies like Enron.

The Nieman Watchdog has previously raised the question of whether there may be manipulation or collusion in the U.S. gasoline market. [Click here and here.]

Some numbers: In 1981, there were 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, according to the EIA. As of 2007, there were 149, with a capacity of 17.4 bpd.

It is no secret that the industry deliberately shut refineries to improve profits in recent decades. Industry says it is now building new capacity at existing plants – but despite rising prices and growing demand, refineries are again cutting back their capacity-building plans.

Joseph A. Davis has been writing about the environment, energy, and natural resources for 30 years. READ THE WHOLE DOWN AND DIRTY HERE.

I stumbled over this not so amusing blog article today. I was astounded that the Hiroshima bombing is used as a reason “IRAN” should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I mean really, the US is the country that actually has used nuclear weapons….not once, but twice. No other country in the world has. We are the ones more likely to use these weapons in the future, since we showed no remorse the “second” time around, killing thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

Here is the blog post:

Atomic Devastation in Hiroshima

These never before published photos of the aftermath of the Hiroshima bomb are a stark reminder of why the civilized world MUST keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran and other terrorist nations.

Many will say that it shortened the war, that using the bombs saved lives. In a twisted way, sure it did. But, the killing of “innocent” lives should not be the “goal” of any war. Innocents have no say in what a government does, wars should be fought by military leaving the civilians out of it.

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Atomic Tragedy summary says:

The ultimate aim of Atomic Tragedy is not only to contribute to a greater historical understanding of the first use of nuclear weapons but also to offer lessons from the decision-making process during the years 1940-1945 that are applicable to the current world environment. As the United States mobilizes scientists and engineers to build new and supposedly more “usable” nuclear weapons and as nations in Asia and the Middle East are replicating the feat of the Manhattan Project physicists at Los Alamos, it is more important than ever that policymakers and analysts recognize the chain of failures surrounding the first use of those weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Novel way of attacking the problem of organ donations.  I can see poor people falling for this, “hey whats one kidney, I need $50,000 dollars now!”  Once again, the poor of the world will be the true victims.  What price will other organs bring?  Got an extra eye ya’ want to sell?  How about that second lung, you might not need that too much, just don’t do too much labor and you should be able to breath fine with just one.

As an aside, maybe the medical profession should be looking into why 40 Aussies a day are dying of “kidney failure” rather than applying a fix at the expense of people motivated by the gain of $50,000 per organ.

By medical reporter Sophie Scott

Posted Mon May 5, 2008 6:43pm AEST

A leading medical specialist says young healthy people should be allowed to sell their kidneys to help reduce the transplant waiting list.

More than 40 Australians die from kidney failure every day, and many are waiting for a new organ.

It is a radical idea but some health experts say the situation with organ donation is so desperate it is warranted.

Canberra doctor Gavin Carney believes healthy young people should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys for up to $50,000.

“Patients need a kidney and the Government will recruit those kidneys in an ethical and proper good fashion, pay and compensate young Australians to donate their kidneys to other Australians,” he said.

Despite countless public awareness campaigns Australia still has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world.

“If one compensated healthy Australians to donate their kidneys then you would have a ready pool of kidneys for kidney patients, you would get the best possible matches, it’s a win-win situation for everyone concerned,” he said.

One person dies every week because they can not get a kidney transplant.

Patients like Matthew Fitzsimmons can wait four years for an an organ to become available.

Despite that, he is opposed to people selling their organs, saying such a system is open to abuse.

Last week the (meat) industry agreed to a downer ban, pointing to
concerns over consumer confidence and strained international trade
relations. The American Meat Institute, The National Meat Association
and The National Milk Producers Federation, which together represent
most of the nation’s meat producers, filed a petition seeking an
absolute ban prohibiting any downers from entering the food supply.

Animal-rights groups, lawmakers and California meat producers all
hailed the move.

Wonder why it took the “rocket scientists” so long to figure out that people absolutely should NOT be eating sick and downed cows?

Oh Yeah! Their “concerns” over consumer confidence and their bottom line…may have fuddled the thinking on that issue in the past. Perhaps even they have seen now that this issue regarding downed cattle is one that can affect even themselves and their bottom line when it makes people sick!

“One in 4 Americans are sickened by food-borne illness each year;
that’s 76 million people,” Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust
for America’s Health, said during a morning teleconference Wednesday
[30 Apr 2008].

…the federal government has devoted very limited
resources to the problem, despite a presidential directive and recent
serious outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. Not enough money is spent
on fighting bacterial threats such as salmonella and _E. coli_. About
85 percent of food-borne illness outbreaks occur among foods
regulated by the FDA.

See our previous articles on this issue here:

Clinton and 2007 Food Safety Plan

Warning, You WILL think about this next time you eat Beef!

How safe is our food supply? Things you need to know!