You can't kill art, but you can raffle it away...

Inspiration via Clayfin.

I liked Thread, by P.Trefz. I'm kind of tired of it. So leave me a comment on this post involving the phrase "getting rad" and I'll put your name into a raffle hat. In two weeks I'll pull a name. If I pull your name I'll send you the DVD. Fun!

If you live in Japan or Mozambique or Papua New Guinea we might have to talk about shipping. Pragmatism stinks.

Periodic Politics, part 4

Because I just received an email from a blog reader who wondered how the supply/demand economics policy of Obama might be evaluated. Not definitive, merely a snapshot of the thoughts of some people who know more than I do about economics.

From The Economist.

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

Periodic politics, part 3

From Babywit.

From Hugg.

Accurate? No. Humorous? Yes.

This site is pretty funny too.

I tend to base my votes on environmental issues, education issues, and equity issues. Though the current "e" word of the moment, "economic issues", is in the fore of many thoughts, I cannot ignore these three primary interests of mine. I also believe that careful, proactive engagement with these three issues will lead to more economic stability in the long term.

With these issues in mind, Born To Lose (remember, the title is ironic), officially endorses the Democratic ticket for the offices of President and Vice President. Other, less influential endorsers include The Sierra Club and The League of Conservation Voters.

Pieces of information the environmentally aware voter should know, taken from grist.org.
By no means do I think that all of the below will be accomplished. But I am allowed to have attainable hope for a (slightly) better environment to leave with my son.

Barack Obama...

• Calls for cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Would accomplish this through a cap-and-trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits, making polluters pay for the CO2 they emit.
  
  
• Would channel revenue raised from auctioning emissions permits -- between $30 billion and $50 billion a year -- toward developing and deploying clean energy technology, creating "green jobs," and helping low-income Americans afford higher energy bills.
  
  
• Calls for 25 percent of U.S. electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025, and for 30 percent of the federal government's electricity to come from renewables by 2020.
  
  
• Proposes investing $150 billion over 10 years in R&D for renewables, biofuels, efficiency, "clean coal," and other clean tech.
  
  
• Calls for improving energy efficiency in the U.S. 50 percent by 2030.
  
  
• Calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the U.S. each year by 2022 and 60 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the U.S. each year by 2030.
  
  
• Calls for all new buildings in the U.S. to be carbon neutral by 2030.
  
  
• Calls for reducing U.S. oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels a day, by 2030.
  
  
• Introduced the Health Care for Hybrids Act, which would have the federal government help cover health-care costs for retired U.S. autoworkers in exchange for domestic auto companies investing at least 50 percent of the savings into production of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
  
  
• Supports raising fuel-economy standards for automobiles to 40 miles per gallon and light trucks to 32 mpg by 2020.
  
  
• Supports a phaseout of incandescent light bulbs by 2014.
  
  
• Cosponsor of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act. After being badgered by MoveOn and other progressives over the issue, he "clarified" his position by saying he would support liquefied coal only if it emitted 20 percent less carbon over its lifecycle than conventional fuels.
  
  
• Has been endorsed by Friends of the Earth Action, in part for his opposition to a summer "gas-tax holiday" that McCain and Clinton support. (FoE Action had previously endorsed John Edwards.)