I've written this in reference to Michael Collins's diary post One More Reason to Kill this Bill and some of the confusion over sections and what is in the bill as far as coverage requirements and penalties.

I'm looking here (.pdf file) for the new Health bill and somewhere around here for the IRS Tax Code. Will post more precise links (possibly to other sources) as needed.

1) HR3962 Sec. 501 (p. 297) If you fail to purchase insurance you will pay 2.5% of (modified adjusted gross income - gross income) but, if that value is higher than the “average premium for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange…” you will pay that average premium instead. So, there is a cap on the 2.5%, set at the average premium of a plan on the exchange. Not sure how high that average will be. HR3962 Sec. 501 (p.298) This amount is pro-rated based upon the fraction of the year that you go without coverage.

Note that a “basic plan” is outlined in HR3962 Section 303(c) on page 168.

Modified Adjusted Gross Income is defined as adjusted gross income increased by (A) any amount excluded from gross income under section 911 of IRS Code (see the link below) and (B) any amount of interest received or accrued by the taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax.

2) HR3962 Sec 501 (p.299). For Americans living overseas, you are exempt from paying this tax if you have been living abroad and are a resident of a foreign country for at least one taxable year. Relevant IRS code is here (scroll down a bit to sec. 911(d)(1)). I assume the prorating would apply if you’ve only been living overseas for less than a year.

3) You can apparently file an exemption from the requirement to purchase insurance based upon religious beliefs, though you must document your adherence to a faith that would want this. There’s a bit more in there, starting on HR3962 Sec. 501, pages 299-300.

4) HR3962 Sec 501, p. 304. Seems to state that small lapses in coverage are not going to result in taxes. I would assume this means a few days, but I don’t see any specific numbers. The bill just calls them “de minimis lapses of acceptable coverage.”

Now, if you don’t pay the tax in point (1) above then you will be subject to normal IRS rules and regulations. I would assume this is where IRS Code sections 7201 and 7203(see links below) come in. They feature up to $25,000 in fines and no more than 1 or 5 years in jail (depending on which is applicable). I’m not sure how these are applied in practice.

So, it looks like no specific penalties are outlined in the bill, but the 2.5% is designed as a tax and so would fall under IRS rules for non-compliance.

IRS Code Section 7201
IRS Code Section 7203

The newest and increasingly favored blogger on my RSS Feed is J.R. Boyd, posting at Lady Poverty. His take on the Tea Party rallies is refreshing:

...By and large, these are working people with grievances stemming from economic hardship, who feel that government is too large and unresponsive, and otherwise fails to represent them. They have been organized to confront Obama on behalf of the same corporate concerns that pay Glenn Beck's salary and own his network. They articulate a general dissatisfaction with government in addressing their needs, then carp about "socialism" -- perhaps the natural enemy of the pro-business entertainer; not so much the average American trying to find a job.

From a class perspective, the interests of working people deserve to be consolidated and advanced by working people as a class. This means that people without work or without health care, or anyone vulnerable in this regard, have more important things in common than who they vote for, what God they worship, or whether or not they would have an abortion. After all, one does not go bankrupt and lose their home owing to their party affiliation, but thanks to a different set of relations entirely...

Click here to read the rest. I'd also recommend scrolling through some of his older posts--they tend to be short and to the point, with longer entries only appearing in the last couple weeks.

I recall, sometime in the last year or two, that someone in the comments here at the Agonist stated their belief that the guitar is so popular because it sounds so much like the male voice. I'm probably misremembering the statement, but I think that's close to what was written.

Well, I've recently come across what you might call living proof of that assertion: Van Canto, an a capella metal group composed of 5 singers and 1 drummer. It's music that I simultaneously feel embarrassed and immensely happy listening to. I can't see myself listening to it in the presence of friends, but I also can't wipe a big smile off my face while listening to it alone. I have to marvel at the guts it takes to do what they do--and the skill with which they pull it off too!

Here is "Pathfinder," which starts right off with the vocal guitar:

Two more songs below the fold

Holy hell. I know news programs are pretty bad and tend to cover inane subjects--or, if covering something important, descend into inanity pretty quickly. That being said, I was just watching Rick Sanchez on CNN Newsroom while eating lunch when I saw the following.

Sanchez wrapped up a news segment on a teenage fight club somewhere in the state of TN, then some images of a flood-devastated area in Istanbul, Turkey appeared on screen. He mentions that dozens have died and many more have lost everything, while pictures of survivors picking through mud-caked ruins are played on the screen. He then says that watching flood waters come on so suddenly and strongly is amazing, like nothing you'd expect, etc. Sanchez must have then looked up at the screen for the first time since starting the flood story and said (paraphrased) "sorry folks, I thought we had better footage... this isn't that interesting."

He made one more trite, half-hearted statement and then asked his producers to cut back to him (before the segment was supposed to end), whereupon he stated that they'd be going to commercials and, after the break, be discussing what some person or another said about President Obama. Stay tuned!

Well, let's see here--what's the bigger story? Dozens die in floods deemed "disaster of the century" by the Turkish prime minister? Or discuss the latest gossip about something someone said about President Obama? Well, clearly the first one is just boring, so Sanchez decided that gossip was better. Actually, I bet he has a better feel for his audience than I do. Covering foreign disasters without spectacular footage of explosions or destruction probably loses viewers.

I can't help thinking that much of the current debate in the US over health care, foreign wars, other domestic policies, climate change, etc. is not unlike a debate over the color of unicorns. That guy over there says they're yellow, that gal says they're green, and the talking head on TV says they're checkered pink and black. Almost no one takes a step back and asks why we're debating such a silly thing that is so disconnected from reality. Those who do step back to ponder are pretty well drowned out, their voices unheard. Meanwhile, our societal machine chugs onward, expending thousands of bullets and trillions of dollars on targets that don't deserve them.

My most recent favored quote to describe the situation in this country: This is what the ouroboros looks like when it's gotten all the way to the back of its own head. Yes, I had to look up just what an ouroborous was too.

Some other short, cutting observations on the situation:
Lady Poverty
Dennis Perrin

No one really knows, even those who study such things. Everyone has a different definition of the term "sustainability," leading everyone to pick and choose different criteria that must be satisfied for a system to be sustainable. For those of an engineering bent (such as myself), definitions tend to focus around energy and material flows: Clean, abundant, reliable energy and control of the supply of material goods around the globe--and minimization or elimination of environmentally harmful by-products. Those from a social sciences background focus on the communal, human dimensions: Safety, basic needs are met, people are happy and lead generally pleasant lives, institutions are open and transparent, etc. The business community tends to define sustainability as incorporating environmental and social externalities into traditional models--in other words, a sustainable society is one in which the effects of toxic products and the social disruption from industry are accounted for in valuation. Ecologists and environmentalists, who in my experience are near the epicenter of the movement, define a sustainable system as one in which natural systems, biodiversity, etc. are preserved and the irreplaceable functions of the biosphere are maintained. An individual's background very heavily weights his or her perception of what sustainability means and what a sustainable society will look like.

Sustainability is frequently associated with ideas such as organic farming, local production of goods, energy and material efficiency, waste reduction, clean technology, transparent government, growth of social capital, equality, and so on. All of these ideas sound great. Some of them actually are. Some may be disastrous in execution. They are part of an ideology that attempts to be all-inclusive and concerned with all dimensions of continued life on Earth. This makes them dangerous, as they are taken as inherently good ideas by many of the people in the movement and, because of its global scope, these same people may fall prey to thinking this is the only way to do things. Taking on faith that such ideas are good drastically narrows the scope of thought that we can bring to solving our problems, both now and in the future.

(The following is a short, informal, speculative essay that I've written for a class I'm currently taking)

Technology is often poorly understood and narrowly defined as the artifacts built by humans and used to serve their needs. But this definition does not address the widespread adoption of technology among non-human organisms, the subjectivity inherent in any such artifacts or systems, and the unique characteristics of human technology that appear to differentiate us from the Earth’s other inhabitants.

Technology is the means by which an organism or group of organisms enhance their control over the external environment and improve their perceived chance of survival. Some aspects of this broad and preliminary definition require further explanation. Improved control tends to happen by either internalizing what was once external or crafting tools to interface with external environments. More advanced tool users—such as humans—often do the former, while less advanced species tend toward the latter. The word “perceived” is used because the actual effects of any technology are not necessarily to prolong life or aid in survival. All that matters is that the adopting organism, culture, or species believe this to be true. An excellent example would be lead-lined cups adopted as part of a religious ritual and drunk from daily with the expectation that a god or gods would be pleased.

(The following is a short, informal, speculative essay that I've written for a class I'm currently taking. Note: ESEM = Earth Systems Engineering and Management).

Science and faith are not opposed to each other and conducting an analysis to highlight their differences is fruitless. They are not on the same philosophical footing, for faith is a very broad concept that encompasses the whole of human thinking and activity while science is a very specific mode of testing one’s faith. It is between the concepts of science and religion that there are significant differences that ESEM must explore.

First, a definition is in order. Faith is best defined as an individual or group belief in something that cannot be proven to be true or can only be proven in limited circumstances and must be assumed to apply universally. Provided with this definition, it is not a stretch to say that the whole of human existence can be defined as an exercise in faith—including even the most reductionist of sciences, for science requires faith to function. The modern theory of science is best exemplified by Karl Popper’s falsifibility criterion. This criterion holds that you can never prove a theory to be absolutely true but must instead assume it to be true until it is proven false. You cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but past observations indicate that it very likely will. Gravity may affect falling objects in the same manner today, but there is no absolute proof that it will be the same tomorrow or that it will behave according to current theory several million light years away. All of science requires at least a small bit of faith to operate—faith that scientific theories are true. No matter how often the same experiment produces the same results and confirms the same theory, you cannot absolutely prove truth.

(The following is a short, informal, speculative essay that I've written for a class I'm currently taking. I may post more of these, as the course content is very interesting and there are several more such essays due during the semester.)

The current climate change dialogue is entirely rooted in the language of mitigation and avoidance of carbon emissions when it should be thinking in terms of managing both carbon emission and capture. This limitation in perspective does great harm to strategic thinking on how to best manage the planet’s future climate and must be overcome.

The question currently being asked by the climate change dialogue is simply “How can we stop emitting carbon to reduce climate change?” There is an implicit assumption in this question that the human race plays a passive role—it stops emitting and lets natural processes take care of the excess carbon in the atmosphere. Reframing climate change as a question of carbon management shifts the central question of the debate to “How much carbon should we allow into the atmosphere and what kind of global climate do we desire?” This reformulation highlights an active human role in the management of global systems and is a better way to think of the problem given the very long history of human intervention in environmental systems. We are not going to stop emitting and just wait for the climate to stabilize but will instead actively intervene to create our desired environment for various economic, political, and spiritual reasons.

A bit of local news for me: The Arizona State Legislature is looking to cut ASU's budget by $243 million for the remainder of this fiscal year and by $388 million for 2010. I don't know the university's actual operating budget and it is a very large state school, but this seems like an awful lot of funding to have just pulled out beneath your feet. The university has already been scrambling to make cuts and merge departments where possible, but it looks like the pain is about to get worse.

This is one of the dumber things I can think of doing during a recession--the university is a major source of jobs and research for the state and making drastic cuts is going to really hurt the economy in the long term.

I've been popping in here and there with comments but haven't really posted a diary in many months. I don't really have a good reason--just entered a non-posting phase where I don't feel that I have much to contribute. I'm sure it'll pass eventually.

But I am going to contribute something small right now, spurred on by an email my grandfather just sent me. My grandfather is a very nice man who rarely if ever has raised his voice in my presence. He gets along quite well with everyone, his face always having a smile or amiable look about it. He particularly likes bad jokes, both the real bad groaners and the cute little puns that you can't help but laugh at. Not the belly jokes or the ones that leave you laughing so hard you're in tears. And not racist or hateful jokes either. Just the nice, safe, family-friendly plays on words.

The last time I was around him (we meet infrequently because he lives far away), he had printed out a single-panel cartoon showing a fat giraffe that he found online and told me a funny joke that he had made up about it. He kept the piece of paper folded up in his pocket and, during the course of the day, would take it out and tell it to kids, adults, and other seniors. Everyone laughed and liked it--there weren't any "haha... get away from me" reactions. As I said, he's a genuinely kind and likable guy.

But when I'm back home, I get his emails. Forwarded messages, probably from some buddies of his that love to send chain letters. They're invariably political. And if you read what he sends, you'd come to discover that beneath the gentle exterior of this kind man who takes joy in making complete strangers laugh, there is a blood-thirsty reactionary who advocates the slaughter of millions and who subscribes to the most stereotypical, narrow view of politics in this country. We should close our borders and shoot anyone who tries to cross them. We should nuke the Middle East. You must either speak English or get out. The poor are lazy, drug using losers who should be left for dead. Eye for an eye should be our legal code. And why can't blacks just behave better and get jobs?

This is America.

I just ran across this article about a survey of oil futures experts (via Bernard Chazelle at A Tiny Revolution). Chazelle points out something interesting that I'm going to reproduce here because... it's just too funny.

The linked article discusses the results of a Bloomberg News survey of 28 oil industry analysts who predict oil futures. The final sentence is the killer:

The oil survey has correctly predicted the direction of futures 49 percent of the time since its start in April 2004.

(An ongoing review of Multitude, by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri.)

In the contemporary period of transition, the global interregnum, we can see emerging a new topography of exploitation and economic hierarchies the lines of which run above and below national boundaries. We are living in a system of global apartheid. We should be clear, however, that apartheid is not simply a system of exclusion, as if subordinated populations were simply cut off, worthless, and disposable. In the global Empire today, as it was before in South Africa, apartheid is a productive system of hierarchical inclusion that perpetuates the wealth of the few through the labor and poverty of the many. The global political body is in this way also an economic body defined by the global divisions of labor and power.

pp. 166-67

Before I get started explaining anything else about this book, there are two concepts that are critical to understand: Biopower and biopolitics. Both terms were originally coined by Michel Focault, though Hardt and Negri have their own interpretations of them that appear to be slightly different and a little narrowed for their own purposes.

Actually, before giving definitions of these two terms something else must be explained: The nature of social life. Every day, every moment, in every action we take, we build our collective social structure. Systems of kinship, friendship, production, and so on are all recreated every single day by every single one of us. We all agree to wake up every morning and generally carry on the reality of yesterday.

Via This Modern World:

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I wouldn’t go that far. I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings. And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president’s approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president. I think, over time…

COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?

YELLIN: Not in that exact — they wouldn’t say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.

That's how its done. Some guidance from above. Gentle nudges over time, small edits here and there. And, popular opinion to the contrary, journalists aren't stupid. Or they're at least rational and aware enough to know that if the bosses are clearly tacking one way, they better get on board. Otherwise their access and privileges will slowly start getting cut off. Then their careers and livelihoods and social status will disappear.

While I do believe that there is some direct, purposeful guidance from the top, I also think that this is largely an emergent phenomenon. You have a rich, executive media class in which fewer individuals control more of the national share of the media. Their interests are going to get expressed more strongly over time. A little comment here, a little edit there, a few suggestions to an editor--do that every so often, especially on important stories, and it all adds up over the years to visibly change the direction of an institution.

Add to this that the most prominent, influential, and highly-paid pundits likely share and actively promote their bosses' socioeconomic values (Russert, Matthews, Dowd, etc.) and that up-and-comers need to play the game regardless of where they come from... and, well, you get today's press corp.

This is the first installment in a series of posts on future energy sources. I make no claims on being an expert or knowing all the relevant issues. I’m just trying to get some information out there—enough to get people thinking and to help them weigh the options with some degree of informed opinion. I don’t know when future posts in the series will be put up, but I will try to get them done gradually over the summer.

The “Coal Conundrum” arises from the intersection of three simple facts:

1) Coal releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere when burned
2) Climate change exists and is being accelerated by human-made CO2 emissions
3) There are still enormous reserves of coal in many parts of the world.

First, some quick information about coal and its usage:

Around 23% of our nation’s total energy consumption needs are met by coal. Most of it is used in power plants to generate electricity, supplying about 50% of our national grid’s power. Coal is not as easy to transport as oil and the lowest-grade coal (lignite) is almost not worth transporting.

There are, roughly, 4 main grades of coal:

Anthracite is the highest quality and releases the least carbon per unit mass burned. It’s Gross Heating Value (GHV, a measure of energy released per unit mass) is about 8.5 kcal/g.

Bituminous coal is next down on the list, with about 6.7 to 8.5 kcal/g burned. At best, it is pretty much equivalent to anthracite. At worst, you must burn 1.25 tons to equal the energy from 1 ton of anthracite.

Sub-bituminous coal’s GHV is about 5.5 kcal/g, so you must burn 1.5 tons for 1 ton of anthracite equivalent.

Lignite is the lowest quality coal, giving you about 3.9 to 5.4 kcal/g—or, between 1.5 and 2.1 tons of anthracite equivalent.

While the carbon emissions that result from burning 1 ton of each of the above types of coal are slightly different (due to different carbon concentrations within each), burning 2 tons of lignite will definitely give you more carbon than just 1 ton of anthracite. And the bad news here is that about half the proven coal reserves in the world are lignite.

For comparison, gasoline has a GHV of about 11 to 11.5 kcal/g and fuel oil is somewhere around 10 to 11 kcal/g. Another measure of the utility of an energy source is the ratio of input energy to output energy. Ratios for oil and coal vary greatly by source, but oil is generally at least 50% more efficient than coal.

Enough with the boring information! Let’s get to the meat of the problem:

I recently picked up a copy of “Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire” by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. I’m only through part one right now, but there are some pretty interesting insights in it I’d like to share here. I’m not fully convinced of the authors’ point of view yet, but it is certainly a different way of looking at the current state of affairs around the globe.

Hart and Negri assert that the globe is, at this moment, subject to Empire. This Empire is not characterized by the old imperialist ambitions of nation states but rather by a “network power” that includes nation states, corporations, supranational institutions, and others. It is a system of influence and patronage that sustains itself, with no single power being dominant (though some are much more powerful than others).

The network power we claim is “imperial” not “imperialist.” Not all the powers in Empire’s network, of course, are equal… but despite inequalities they must cooperate to create and maintain the current global order, with all of its internal divisions and hierarchies.

Wars and influence peddling around the world should not be looked upon as a rehash of the “Great Game” or as a quest for greater sovereignty by individual nation-states. Instead, all this is just the struggle for relative dominance of various actors within the overarching hierarchies of Empire.

There are innumerable armed conflicts waged across the globe today, some brief and limited to a specific place, others long lasting and expansive. These conflicts might be best conceived as instances not of war but rather civil war… This civil war should be understood now not within the national space, since that is no longer the effective unit of sovereignty, but across the global terrain… From this perspective all of the world’s current armed conflicts, hot and cold… should be considered imperial civil wars, even when states are involved. This does not mean that any of these conflicts mobilizes all of Empire… but rather that they exist within, are conditioned by, and in turn affect the global imperial system… [Combatants] are struggling rather for relative dominance within the hierarchies at the highest and lowest levels of the global system.

In recent years, no author of fiction has captured my imagination as thoroughly as Alastair Reynolds. He writes what is best described as “space opera noir” and could potentially be associated with the “New Weird” genre in horror that has very recently been making a name for itself. However, his writings are entirely science fiction—usually on the side of hard SF too, with light speed being an absolute barrier and most technologies/science being conceivably possible given current knowledge.

Most of his novels and many of his short stories take place in a single future universe (Revelation Space) that is a rough extrapolation from our own present one. Humans have left the Earth on large, slower-than-light ships and have spread throughout several dozen lightyears of space in all directions. Our expansion has been fractured and uneven, with no central coordination. The home system, Sol, seems to be a backwater that has little if any role to play in the larger stories of the human race.

The rest of this essay is an exploration of some of the common themes that run throughout his writings—both the Revelation Space universe and others. While perhaps not unique, many of them deviate from mainstream science fiction in delightful ways:

I've made a few comments here and there recently about my worry that Obama may end up being more of the same. If you accept Constitutional Cycles as a valid analytical tool, then the question becomes "Will Obama preside over and help guide us toward the next Constitutional Order, or will he resist change and end up being the last of the old Order?" Well, this essay is certainly an argument for the latter:

It should be more than clear by now that Barack Obama will not save us. But neither is the point to expose the man as an individual, or even as a hypocrite, betrayer or oppressor. The point is to see him in context, within the limits of the system, the matrix, the cultural and political environment in which he arose and in which he operates. It’s not that Barack Obama, per se, is worthless, it’s that none of the dreams in us that he speaks to so deeply in us can be fulfilled under the system of oppression he is an expression of and that his candidacy concentrates in visible form.

An excerpt from a piece by John Hockenberry, published in the January/February 2008 edition of MIT's Technology Review. Click here for the full article. It gets much more interesting.

The falling confetti transported me back three years to the early days of the war in Iraq, when the bombs intended to evoke "shock and awe" were descending on Baghdad. Most of the Western press had evacuated, but a small contingent remained to report on the crumbling Iraqi regime. In the New York offices of NBC News, one of my video stories was being screened. If it made it through the screening, it would be available for broadcast later that evening. Producer Geoff Stephens and I had done a phone interview with a reporter in Baghdad who was experiencing the bombing firsthand. We also had a series of still photos of life in the city. The only communication with Baghdad in those early days was by satellite phone. Still pictures were sent back over the few operating data links.

Our story arranged pictures of people coping with the bombing into a slide show, accompanied by the voice of Melinda Liu, a Newsweek reporter describing, over the phone, the harrowing experience of remaining in Baghdad. The outcome of the invasion was still in doubt. There was fear in the reporter's voice and on the faces of the people in the pictures. The four-minute piece was meant to be the kind of package that would run at the end of an hour of war coverage. Such montages were often used as "enders," to break up the segments of anchors talking live to field reporters at the White House or the Pentagon, or retired generals who were paid to stand on in-studio maps and provide analysis of what was happening. It was also understood that without commercials there would need to be taped pieces on standby in case an anchor needed to use the bathroom. Four minutes was just about right.

At the conclusion of the screening, there were a few suggestions for tightening here and clarification there. Finally, an NBC/GE executive responsible for "standards" shook his head and wondered about the tone in the reporter's voice. "Doesn't it seem like she has a point of view here?" he asked.

There was silence in the screening room. It made me want to twitch, until I spoke up. I was on to something but uncertain I wasn't about to be handed my own head. "Point of view? What exactly do you mean by point of view?" I asked. "That war is bad? Is that the point of view that you are detecting here?"

The story never aired. Maybe it was overtaken by breaking news, or maybe some pundit-general went long, or maybe an anchor was able to control his or her bladder. On the other hand, perhaps it was never aired because it contradicted the story NBC was telling. At NBC that night, war was, in fact, not bad. My remark actually seemed to have made the point for the "standards" person. Empathy for the civilians did not fit into the narrative of shock and awe.

I need to take a break from the world during the holidays. I’ve been getting pretty agitated lately and I think that a good chunk of that is from reading blogs. I’m usually able to handle pretty much anything I read or discover online, but last night I ran across a bunch of posts on some other blogs that shot my stress levels through the roof. I had trouble sleeping last night and was generally feeling pretty bad.

So I’m taking a month off, starting this weekend. I’m not going to read any blogs, with the possible exception of The Daily Howler—-it’s become a sort of daily ritual for me and, for some reason, reading about the stupidity of the press doesn’t seem to bother me. However, while I might not be reading I will be writing a few posts that I’ve been meaning to write for a while. The first one will probably be a short series explaining my personal views on collectives, individuals, and the interactions between them-—including the sharing of responsibility, power, and guilt. It will also focus a little bit on memetics and describe an interesting way of viewing collectives. I’ve had these ideas percolating in my head for about a year now and I think it’s about time I poured them out.

I happened to be scanning the site On the Issues today and checking up on the positions of several Presidential candidates. I first went through Kucinich's information, but stopped halfway through and switched over to Ron Paul. It was here that I noticed a few things that make me uncomfortable with that site.

See, I've used On the Issues before to get a good idea of what candidates are saying and what they have voted on or done in their careers. I use it as a "first cut," something that lets me see what they're saying without having to search through speeches, interviews, and debates. I eventually search for those, but this site is a good, quick reference. However, I can't help but think that the site is too unreliable now.

I just ran across this amazing video on YouTube. It's from the semi-regular "Saturday TV Funhouse" segment on Saturday Night Live.

God that's awesome.

We live among cycles. Economies boom and bust, populations expand and contract, the sun rises and sets, and empires grow and decline. All of these, and the countless others I haven’t mentioned, have distinct periods of motion. Some are more predictable and regular than others—you can predict the sunrise down to the second every day with only some knowledge of the sun-Earth system and your geographic location. But the fall of an empire can last anywhere from a few decades to a few centuries and the causes of imperial growth and decline are the subject of endless debate.

There is one particular cycle that should be of great interest to us right now: The Constitutional cycle of the United States of America.

I recently remembered reading what appears to be a draft of Stirling Newberry’s “The Fourth Republic.” In this work he goes into great detail about the intertwining of economic and political orders in the US and categorizes our history into three distinct periods, each with its own unique interpretation of the constitution. The dates and names given for these periods are as follows:

The Federalist Republic (1787 – 1860)
The Union (1861 – 1932)
The Liberal Democracy (1933 – 2000).

So, I'm reading this article from the London Review of Books titled "Depicting Europe". I was wondering what people here think about it. It's quite long and I'm only halfway through, but this passage caught my eye:

In the last days of the campaign, as polls showed increasing rejection of the Constitution among voters, panic gripped the French media. But no local hysterics, though there were many, rivalled those in Germany. ‘Europe Demands Courage,’ admonished Günter Grass, Jürgen Habermas and a cohort of like-minded German intellectuals, in an open letter dispatched to Le Monde. Warning their neighbours that ‘France . . . would isolate itself fatally if it were to vote “No”,’ they went on: ‘The consequences of a rejection would be catastrophic,’ indeed ‘an invitation to suicide’, for ‘without courage there is no survival.’ In member states new and old ‘the Constitution fulfils a dream of centuries,’ and to vote for it was not just a duty to the living, but to the dead: ‘we owe this to the millions upon millions of victims of our lunatic wars and criminal dictatorships.’ This from a country where no risk was taken of any democratic consultation of the elector -ate, and pro forma ratification of the Constitution was stage-managed in the Bundesrat to impress French voters a few days before their referendum, with Giscard as guest of honour at the podium. As for French isolation, three days later the Dutch – told, still more bluntly, that Auschwitz awaited Europe if they failed to vote yes – threw out the Constitution by an even wider margin.

Such popular repudiation of the charter for a new Europe, not because it was too federalist, but because it seemed to be little more than an impenetrable scheme for the redistribution of oligarchic power, embodying everything most distrusted in the arrogant, opaque system the EU appeared to have become, was not in reality a bolt from the blue. Virtually every time – there have not been many – that voters have been allowed to express an opinion about the direction the Union was taking, they have rejected it. The Norwegians refused the EC tout court; the Danes declined Maastricht; the Irish, the Treaty of Nice; the Swedes, the euro. Each time, the political class promptly sent them back to the polls to correct their mistake, or waited for the occasion to reverse the verdict. The operative maxim of the EU has become Brecht’s dictum: in case of setback, the government should dissolve the people and elect a new one.

I think most regular readers here are already familiar with this theme, so I'll get right to the good stuff. A small startup ISP in Toronto is offering very different, very open web access. Read below to see (LINK):

Nomad does things a little differently. The company is subscriber-owned, volunteer-run, and open-source friendly. It offers a neutral Internet connection with no bandwidth caps or throttling, and it makes a point of creating wireless access points at the end of each DSL connection that can be used, for free, by the public.