As Swine Flu Moderates, Biden’s Foot-in-Mouth Problem Intensifies

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl349

Speaking recently on what would be done differently during the next hundred days of his administration, President Obama joked that he would try to get off the teleprompter more–and get Vice President Joe Biden on.

Well, there’s another promise broken.

Now, it seems, Mr. Biden has disclosed the location of the “undisclosed secret location” to which Vice Presidents flee in times of national emergency.

Or has he?  After a Newsweek reporter leaked the story ( http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/05/15/shining-light-on-cheney-s-hideaway.aspx), the Vice President’s office said that in fact Biden was talking about an entirely different location from the one reported, and no classified information had been revealed.

Hmmm.   Granted, Biden may have simply been trying to make a joke at former Vice President Cheney’s expense.  On the other hand, with Biden’s track record (and willingness to demonize Cheney at every opportunity), how do we know that he wasn’t telling the truth?  If it were just his own personal security that he (may have) compromised, there might be a touch of morbid humor to it; but this is, after all, the office of the Vice President. 

At any rate, the rebuttal would have been more convincing if the rebuttal had been:  “The Vice President was making a private joke; no such incident occurred” rather than to contradict an eyewitness account.

One is uncomfortably reminded of the early days of the Clinton administration, when so many of his political appointees kept running into problems with their security clearances.  It would be appalling to find out the hard way that sensitive information was being passed to someone who didn’t know when to shut up.

Of course, there’s also the press angle:  assuming the story as told is true, why did a member of the press think it advisable to reveal the “undisclosed location” to an interested world?  Did she think we wouldn’t be having any more security emergencies?  For that matter, why did Biden NOT think that something revealed to people whose job it is to blab wouldn’t get blabbed as well?

All of which goes to show how underappreciated plagiarism can be.  It was, after all, a bout with plagiarism that sank Biden’s presidential aspirations in 1988.  If not for that… well….

Kay Bailey Hutchison and The Donor-State Dilemma

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has introduced a bill to the U.S. Senate related to how federal gas taxes are doled back out to the states.  Specifically, her bill would allow states (or at least Texas) to opt out of the funding mechanism, such that gas taxes collected in the state, instead of being distributed by the usual formula, would all be returned to that state.  This would solve the problem of states that constantly received less money for their highways than what they collect in gas taxes–often called “donor states” since they essentially “donate” money to the road networks in other states.

This raises a couple of questions–first, whether Hutchison seriously expects this thing to pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress (never mind the Democrat-controlled White House) or whether it is just political posturing in preparation for her upcoming gubernatorial primary race against toll-road advocate Gov. Rick Perry. 

The second question is whether this is, in fact, a good idea.  It sounds like a really good idea–of course states should get back the money they send to Washington, right?

Well…we probably should ask why they don’t–in short, why we set up the current system.  The Highway Trust Fund, the repository for incoming gas taxes, was initially set up in order to build the Interstate system–that is, a national system of highways.  It was rather expected that the states with lots of area and smaller populations would not be able to cover construction costs.  It was also expected that the donor states–or at least the nation–would still benefit from the highways through the smaller states.  For example, Texans would benefit from roads in New Mexico due to trade with the West Coast, even if some Texans never traveled over them personally.

Of course in politics there’s usually a gap between the intent and the implementation.  As originally envisioned, the Interstates were supposed to provide national connectivity; in practice, where they impinged on cities, the Interstates developed into important (local) commuter routes.  Also, the role of the fund evolved from purely construction and maintenance of the Interstates to covering the larger federal highway network as well as (oddly) providing a certain amount of support for mass transit–again, a local concern.  

This leads to a reasonable question:  to what extent is the nation on the hook for local transportation needs?  Texans may benefit from a highway across Arizona, but should they pay to resolve local traffic jams in Tucson?  Should they be paying for Phoenix’s snazzy new mass transit system?  (I should note that the question of gas revenues paying for mass transit is a separate question that I may cover another time.  Meanwhile, I should also note that Arizona is in fact a donor state as well:  for a complete list of winners and losers as of FY2005, please see  http://www.heritage.org/research/smartGrowth/images/B2047_table_1-lg.gif)

So what would happen if the Hutchison bill passed?  Well, obviously:  all the donor states would opt out, leaving the recipient states dangling in the wind.  Now, this might not be quite as much of a disaster as it seems, depending on how much “pork” you assume to be in the lists of state transportation “needs.”  At the very least it would mean a great deal of prioritizing and soul-searching in the recipient states that may or may not be taking place now.

This would, of course, mean the end of the Federal Highway Administration as we know it:  power of the purse is the ultimate power in Washington.  If the taxes are just being collected and then returned intact, why should they be sent to Washington at all?  Just let the states collect them, keep them, and spend them as they see fit.  Keep a bit of FHWA going in order to set road design standards and a few other functions, perhaps, but take away the spending authority.  At least states would no longer have to send potential projects to Washington, providing sufficient support documentation, so that they can be evaluated and ranked by bureaucrats who, at the end of the day, have no way of knowing for certain whether Project A is really beter than Project B, or if its documentation has been tinkered to make it look that way.

Or is getting rid of the FHWA such a good idea?  Before we get rid of one bureaucracy, it’s good to know what we’d get in return.  The landlocked states, in particular, might think twice before they entrusted their connectivity to other states.  Do Carson City, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix really want to trust Sacramento with their access to the West Coast?  The end result might be a series of interstate compacts between, say, Oklahoma and Texas, or Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, that address rights of passage, road design standards, and so forth.  It’s an interesting concept–but the possible permutations across 50 states (okay, make that 48) suggest it could mutate into the stuff that legal nightmares are made of. 

Would that be worth tossing the FHWA overboard for?  Perhaps not–but at least it’s nice to know that there are alternatives; that we could perhaps find a way to muddle through without bureaucracy–or at least without this one.  And it would be nice for the FHWA to know that there are, perhaps, other ways of doing transportation business.  It might start a conversation about what sorts of transportation benefits are the responsibility of the country to pay for, and which should be paid for locally.

Maybe that’s what the Hutchison bill is all about.

(Of course we already know of one other way of doing transportation business–unfortunately, it’s called “earmarks.”  More about that another time, perhaps.)

As Nation Sweats Swine Flu, Biden Develops Foot-In-Mouth Disease

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30497853/

Well, we all needed a laugh, and it was certainly amusing to watch the White House reaction to Vice President and ardent public transportation fan Joe Biden’s caution against using airplanes and subways until the swine flu “epidemic” has stabilized (which apparently it’s starting to do in Mexico:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30398682/ ).  I wonder if that includes the Amtrak train he says he regularly uses (or used, when he was only a Senator) to commute back to Delaware. 

It will be interesting to see if Biden’s remarks resurface when it comes time to debate the big transportation legislation coming up this year, which governs government spending on transportation…including airplanes and subways….

What’s strange about this is that Biden was supposed to be the “wisdom and experience” side of the Obama ticket (much like Cheney was the “gravitas” half of the Bush 43 ticket).  And now we see him make a rookie mistake like this–undercutting his President and contributing to the public panic?  Clearly, here’s yet another reason to pray for Obama’s continued health.

Another strange thing here is how quickly the gaffe fell off the headlines.  It’s still mentioned in articles, of course, but you have to look for it.  If Quayle (or Bush 43) had said this, it would have been in the headlines for days.

Swine Flu: Wake me when it’s a crisis…

In C.S. Lewis’ book The Silver Chair a small group of people are called upon to make a long journey into the north.  After a few days, one of them mentions that she’s finding she enjoys adventures–to which someone else replies, “But we haven’t had any yet.”

As I observe the frantic press response of the so-called swine flu pandemic, I find myself wondering if the problem quite warrants the volume (in terms of both quantity and loudness) of coverage.  Certainly the illness is uncomfortable and potentially deadly, and nobody is eager to see a new flu virus emerge and start mutating from animals to humans.  A superbug may yet emerge–but I’m not sure this is it. 

After all, tens of thousands of people die every year during normal flu outbreaks.   So far, we’ve had a couple hundred, world-wide.

It certainly didn’t help the press’s credibility on this story when they tracked down the first known person to be struck down by the swine flu–and found him recovering at home and feeling much better, thank you very much.

The course of this disease could still take a nasty turn; but meanwhile, scientists are working to develop a vaccine and incorporate it into the standard flu shot.  Governments are deploying their Tamiflu stocks–just in case–which they might as well do, as the stuff would otherwise decay in storage. 

It’s all very well to throw around words like “pandemic,” but doing so isn’t especially helpful (except to the ratings-dependent).  It says nothing about the severity of the illness.  A pandemic just means it’s all over the place.  The common cold is “pandemic,” but it’s not a big deal.  An ebola pandemic would truly be a nightmare. 

The swine flu could still theoretically mutate and start doing serious damage to untold numbers of people.  It hasn’t yet.  Does the subject need to be covered in the news?  It’s just as well to mention it, yes, to keep people informed that it’s out there.   Do we need blow-by-blow accounts (or nose-blow by nose-blow accounts) of the crisis? 

Maybe–if we actually had a crisis.

And for all those who were so happy to see Musharraf ousted….

When President Musharraf of Pakistan was pushed out of office in favor of a “democratic” government, there was much rejoicing in certain quarters.

Certainly Musharraf was a corrupt autocrat who deserved to be booted; but he was also a corrupt autocrat who was able to keep a lid, more or less, on the Taliban.

Now that he’s gone…well…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30361451/

How will we get out of this one?  Maybe President Obama will arrange multilateral discussions with the Taliban regarding their intentions toward Pakistan’s nukes.

And I was worried about Clinton ticking off our allies

I’m no Gordon Brown fan, but…ouch!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4953523/Barack-Obama-too-tired-to-give-proper-welcome-to-Gordon-Brown.html

Granted, it’s never easy to be president, especially now–but other presidents have managed to maintain the “auld alliance” in difficult times….

Harry Reid, states’ rights, and alternative energy

At a high profile (or at least well-attended) energy conference in Denver this week, leaders, former leaders, would-be leaders, and possibly a misleader or two have been mulling over how to connect potential new sources of clean energy (for example, solar power in Arizona and Nevada) to customers in California and elsewhere.  There was much fretting over the state of the national grid, and further angst over the possibility that local politicians pursuing their own interests might wish to block or reroute the development of new transmission lines across their states.  There was a general feeling that the federal government needed the authority to overrule local governments on this.

With dignitaries including former President Clinton, former Veep Al Gore, and Conference participant and so many other luminaries in attendence at the so-called National Clean Energy Project, the competition to provide memorable sound bites was undoubtedly stiff.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), offering to introduce legislation to advance federal authority on this subject,  provided this little gem:

We cannot let 231 state regulators [on public utility commissions]hold up progress….  there may come a time when the federal government will have to step in.

 So…if Reid is now in favor of trumping state wishes when it comes to important energy projects,  can it be that he’s going to start supporting (or at least stop blocking) the important but locally unpopular Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in his home state?

Stay tuned…

…and for the full story, please see the following:

http://www.star-telegram.com/190/story/1219541.html

News Flash: Hercules Cited for Environmental Infractions

Athens—The Ancient Greek Environmental Defense Administration (AGEnDA) today reported that it had levied a fine against Hercules for environmental violations related to his attempts to clean the stables of Augeas, the king of Elis and former Argonaut. Hercules had taken on this job as part of a twelve-step program to reclaim his honor.

In order to clean the stables, AGEnDA claims Hercules diverted two rivers to flow through the stables, thereby removing several years’ worth of agricultural waste.

“We’re talking about major environmental impacts here,” said an AGEnDA representative who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution. “Even if such waterway diversions were permissible, we have found no evidence that Hercules even attempted to consult with us, or with the Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over inland waterways. And don’t even get me started on the issue of degradation of downstream water quality.”

When asked to comment on his failure to obtain the appropriate environmental clearances, Hercules said, “Now that would have been a Herculean effort.”

In a related action, Augeas himself was cited for inhumane treatment of animals for keeping his livestock in unsanitary conditions. Augeas was unavailable for comment, having been murdered by Hercules in a quarrel over payment for services rendered.

The Octuplets Case Gets Creepier

The supporters of embryonic stem cell research are usually quick to point out that the embryos being destroyed are generally the “leftovers” from in vitro fertilization, in which multiple embryos are created in a dish but relatively few are used.  For those who believe that embryos are unique humans and deserve protection, this approach is monstrous.

At the other extreme, we have Nadya Suleman, recently famous for having octuplets, in addition to her six other children.  The eight embryos were apparently leftover from previous in vitro treatments.  Reluctant to have them destroyed, Ms. Suleman decided to have them implanted; she also refused medical advice to abort one or more.   The result:  Ms. Suleman, a single mother, has 14 children (the oldest is 7), and no visible means of support, except from her parents in whose house she lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28948599/

Further inspection suggests that this was not done out of a heartfelt conviction for the Right to Life, but rather a long-lived obsession with having kids.  Something is definitely wrong with this picture.  One is reminded of the well-meaning people who end up with houses full of cats which they have no possible means of taking care of properly.

There are thorny ethical issues aplenty here.  Why did the doctors involved allow her to be impregnated with these eight embryos?  But if she hadn’t had the babies, would it have been ethical to abort them or let the embryos be destroyed outside the womb?  Should the government step in to determine how many children people should have?  (In this case, it appears that some sort of government intervention is inevitable anyway–through financial assistance, if not state placement.)  And should the media have been glamorizing multiple births all this time?  (Sure, we’ve set records–but like the dog chasing the car, what do we do with it when we’ve got it?)

The key seems to be the in vitro fertilization.  First of all, without that the chance of even having octuplets would have been negligible.  There would have been no problem of what to do with the spare embryos, and there would not have been the question of whether to abort one or more of the babies.  There would not have been the question of whether doctors had broken the Hippocratic rule of “First, do no harm.”

This is not meant as a wholesale condemnation of in vitro fertilization as such.  It’s certainly not meant as an attack on the children produced by it–who, after all, had no say in the matter.  (As far as that goes, the embryos that routinely get destroyed don’t have much say in the matter either.)  However, this situation should act as a wake-up call that perhaps we need to come to terms with the implications of our technology and accept that there are limits on what we ought to be doing with it.  It is perhaps possible to reconcile in vitro fertilization with pro-life philosophy, if the fertilization is attempted with only one or two eggs at a time–in short, no more than what the lady involved would be willing to carry full term.  No leftover embryos, no abortions, no litters.

Yes, it’s more cumbersome that way; yes, it might be more expensive and less reliable.  But wouldn’t it be more responsible?  Yes, it might mean some parents don’t get children of their own–and I know this sounds cruel to would-be parents, but I can’t help that–but where is it written that we are guaranteed to get everything we want?  Where is the person who says we can have it all (who isn’t trying to sell you something)?  Isn’t that the philosophy that got us into this financial crisis, and produced the bizarre case of Nadya Suleman?

The epitaph of our era could yet turn out to be that line from Jurassic Park?  “Your scientists were so concerned with whether they could, they never stopped to think whether they should“… or something like that.

Caution: This evening’s sound and fury signifying nothing may have been prerecorded….

By now, most people have probably heard the news that the music provided by the famous quartet at the inauguration was in fact dubbed.  The pianist of the group, though, has stirred the controversy afresh by refusing to apologize for the event.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28878872/

The pianist, Gabriela Montero, cited technical difficulties with the piano due to the cold weather.   The solution, it seems, was to let the quartet play–but quietly, while the recording was played over the PA system.  The explanation was as follows:

We decided that it would have been a disaster if we went out there with that cold, with the wind, and played our instruments out of tune.  Can you imagine what kind of tone it would have set? … It would absolutely have been a pathetic way to lead a president into his oath and the moment that this country was waiting for so eagerly.

So…instead of owning up to the difficulty of the situation and asking the public’s patience and understanding (an easy thing to ask, as everyone was there for the inauguration, and not the quartet), the decision was made to pretend everything was normal, and let the public believe something that was not true.

What kind of tone does that set?

And do we need to issue an apology to the Chinese Olympic Committee?