If the rising price of oil continues, eventually it will drive the discovery or invention of a petroleum-gasoline substitute—one that is actually comparable to gasoline (as in, is as easily distributable, generates equivalent energy for about the same price, etc.). Although my value of "eventually" in this case is probably somewhere in the $8-$12 per gallon range; as much hand-wringing as we're seeing, I still don't see any real moves away from driving. And to switch over to a different fuel will mean that the energy companies will have to completely retool (a massive investment) and the car companies will have to completely redo their factories (a massive investment), so none of them will be terribly interested in moving away from gasoline-internal combustion engines anytime soon.

At any rate, the thought experiment/question is: If/when we have that substitute, say 25 or 50 years from now, will people look back on the George W. Bush administration as having caused this gas-substitute's discovery (much as the Watergate scandal seems to be the driving force behind campaign finance reform, or the Triangle Shirtwaist factor fire drove labor reform), or will they credit growing global demand and increasing commodities investing/speculation?

This brief New York Times article is about the new Prime Minister of Italy. Specifically, Silvio Berlusconi was sworn in on Thursday for his third non-consecutive term (he previously held the office from 1994 to 1995, and then from 2001 to 2006). Italy is remarkable for the speed with which it goes through prime ministers (Berlusconi's third go-round is the 38th since World War II. Before the war, Italy was a kingdom).

But this got me thinking about other national leaders who have had non-consecutive terms. In the United States, Grover Cleveland is unique in this respect. He's the only president to have served non-consecutive terms (1885-89 and 1893-97), and he was a candidate for the office in all three elections (he won in 1884, lost in 1888, and won in 1892).

Other western democracies, however, are far more comfortable with political retreads, and Berlusconi going three terms is not in any way unique. In Italy (again, noted for kicking out prime ministers so quickly), the leader is Amintore Fanfani (1908-99), who was PM a remarkable five times (18 January-8 February 1954, 1 July 1958-15 February 1959, 26 July 1960-21 June 1963, 1 December 1982-4 August 1983, and 17 April-28 July 1987). Seven others served more than one term, and only 15 PMs (out of the, remember, 38 terms) served only one term in office.

In England, Sir Robert Walpole is regarded as the first Prime Minister in the modern sense; he served from 1721 to 1742. Current PM Gordon Brown is the 76th. In between, there were several who served more than one term. The first was Thomas Pelham-Holles, the Duke of Newcastle, who served 1754-56 and then 1757-62. Sixteen more served multiple terms, the last being Harold Wilson (1964-70 and 1974-76). Several served three terms, and one, William Ewart Gladstone (1809-98), served four (1868-74, 1880-85, February-July 1886, and 1892-94).

In France, the President is the head of state, but the Prime Minister runs the government. Their first prime ministerial retread following the fall of Napoleon (1815) was Armand-Emmanuel du Plessis, Duc de Richelieu, who served from September 1815 to December 1818, and then again from February 1820 to December 1821. The current Prime Minister, François Fillon, is the 168th. More than 30 prime ministers have served more than one term, with the leader in this category being Aristide Briand (1863-1932). Briand served six separate terms as Prime Minister of France (1909-11, January-March 1913, 1915-17, 1921-22, 1925-26, and July-November 1929); he was the 73rd, 77th, 82nd, 88th, 93rd, and 96th prime ministers. In 1926, he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

For those of you outside New York City who may not have heard, a quick recap:

A year and a half ago, three policemen shot at and killed a man named Sean Bell, and injured his companions. The cops were indicted, tried, and recently acquitted of any wrongdoing in the death.

Now Bell's fiancee, friends, and relatives—all whipped into a frenzy by Al Sharpton—are protesting across the City. (Here's one article on the current events.)

When it all started, they were quite verbal, demanding an indictment against the cops ("justice"), and they got it. When the defense requested a change of venue to outside New York, the Sharpton & Co. were loud in their opposition to the motion, and they won ("justice"). Then the three were tried on various charges, in open court, accordingly to the law of the land… and they were acquitted.

Now the protestors are marching, demonstrating, blocking traffic, and chanting their favorite slogan: "No justice, no peace" (actually, I kind of liked Sharpton's comment when the verdict was announced: "This wasn't a miscarriage of justice. It was an abortion of justice." Gotta love that man).

I fully support their right to protest, to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances, to march, to shout, whatever. They're not doing anything wrong. But where do they get off saying they haven't received justice? Justice is a fair trial according to the law. Their version of justice, apparently, was not a fair trial. Their version of justice is a conviction, and only a conviction. Well if they'd said that before the whole rigamarole started, we could have saved ourselves a lot of time and heartache. They don't want justice: they wanted vengeance. Why can't they just say so?

I'm a big fan of CNN's "Quick Vote"s. I know they're unscientific, using an entirely self-selected polling sample, but they still tend to give a feel for what the people who read the page care to express their opinions on (I still can't find the archive of these polls).

The current poll is "Democrats, what will you do if your candidate isn't the nominee?" The results as of right now (10:30AM EDT) are:
Not vote: 15% (7,390)
Vote for the nominee: 45% (22,888)
Vote for John McCain: 41% (20,686)
Total Votes: 50,964

It just bolsters the point I keep making: before they can seriously contend for the White House, the Democrats really need to figure out who they are and what they stand for (as opposed to against) as a Party.

Well, not in so many words. But in this article, he does confirm that the Democratic Party needs to know who their presidential nominee is by June… even though the convention at which they'll nominate that person is the last weekend in August. Why bother waiting so long?

Dean also says "We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3." There's nothing wrong with that statement, but I love the tone which I hear: "the voters have to vote, but after they're done voting, we'll make a decision anyway."

But all the to-do is because "We really can't have a divided convention. If we do it's going to be very hard to heal the party afterwards." No, please save us from letting a (theoretically) deliberative body actually debate and make a decision. Can't have any of that at a nominating convention. Dean continued, giving the true reason for the fear: "So we'll know who the nominee is and that'll give us an extra 2 1/2 months to get our party together, heal the wounds of having a very closely divided race and take on Senator McCain." If they need those extra ten weeks, again I ask, why not have the convention ten weeks earlier? On the other hand, the entire "we'll know who the nominee is in June" is based on either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama dropping out of the race, so it isn't really up to the voters (see above), but rather, it's a game of chicken: to see which of them flinches first.

It all just goes to confirming my distaste for taxpayer-funded primary elections in the first place. Either the party elders should choose their candidate, or they should let all the qualified candidates appear on the ballot. But to "give the people a say in the process," and then decide that their say didn't achieve an expedient result, smacks of a very expensive form of paternalism.

I've been talking politics a bunch recently, and with Nightline now on the air babbling about the Pennsylvania primary in the other room, I thought I'd commit my thoughts to photons, for the rest of the world to mock.

( What follows is a fairly long discourse on who I think will get the major party presidential and vice presidential nominations. Interesting (I hope) if you're into it; not so much if theorizing about such things doesn't interest you, or tends to raise your blood pressure. )

I know I've been too long silent; several comments I have to respond to, and I haven't even peeked at my friends list since last Thursday. I'm still swamped, but I had to post this little gem that just arrived in the form of an electronic newsletter from my Representative in Congress, Yvette Clarke. (You can actually read the whole thing on this page.)

The part I simply love is the first sentence:

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was signed into law by our Democratic led Congress on February 13, 2008.

Anyone else catch it? "Our Democratic led Congress" signed the Economic Stimulus Act into law. Gosh, and here I always thought Congress adopted bills which the president then signed into law. Silly me, I'll have to correct Schoolhouse Rock.

I can't decide if she screwed up all by herself, or if she's got a staffer writing these things with nobody bothering to check. Either way, I'd expect more from a Congressional representative, like, a knowledge of what Congress actually does.

My ego says "Wow. Glenn Beck read my post of two days ago, and went on to write this CNN opinion piece." The rational part of my brain says "It's an issue that affects us all, that is (or should be) a campaign issue, and that isn't discussed enough." Whichever part of the brain is right, Beck's piece talks about the impending financial obligations Social Security is bringing down on us all (well, we US citizens).

Thought experiment: how much more money would you have in your pocket, and how much more of what you want would the government be able to do if there was no Social Security? When it was started, it was a surplus the government could borrow against. Very soon now, it will become a liability. Remember, your social security taxes are not being held for when you retire; they're going out almost instantly to someone who is already retired (or otherwise receiving social security payments). By the time you get around to retiring, if the Social Security system still works, the money you paid in will have long gone back out, and circulated through the economy who knows how many times. That small monthly check you'll be getting will be the taxes paid by people working at that time.

If Social Security can't be saved—if there must come a time when we say "No more. I'm sorry. It doesn't work any more"—then there will be a generation of people who are rightfully pissed off for having paid so much into the system and gotten nothing out. And they'll also be upset for having planned on using that money as some of their living expenses during their retirement, only to have no money there. It's probably going to happen, unless we start working on it now. Start reducing payments and increasing taxes to cover what's needed today. Start educating people that their Social Security checks will be smaller, and that they need to save more for retirement on their own. Start at the very least discussing what is commonly known as the third rail of politics. Maybe what we need is a President who comes to office and says "I don't intend to run for another term. I want to do the best job I can today, and I want to work with a Congress that cares more about doing its job than keeping its job." With that group of people maybe, maybe, they can rationally discuss Social Security and implement the changes necessary to wean us from it. Anyone willing to try?

This New York Times photo of Iraqi Mahdi Army fighters is not, of course, definitive, but it prompted me to wonder:

Did you ever notice that, whenever we see pictures of "militants," "insurgents," "rebel groups"—heck, even "freedom fighters"—they're always wearing masks? It got me wondering if they wear the masks because they know they're going to lose. Or perhaps because they know that what they're doing is wrong. Or maybe, simply, because they're embarrassed by what they're doing.

Consider all the insurgents, rebels, and freedom fighters who came before, but who knew they were going to win (or who were willing to die trying): they didn't wear masks. Everyone knew who they were. It goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence (and possibly earlier), when John Hancock signed his name large "so King George won't need his glasses." But all the rebels involved in it signed that document, so that everyone would know who they were. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to the cause. And then they went out and won.

But today's insurgents and rebels wear masks. They make damn sure you don't know who they are, whether it's in the midst of a gun battle on the streets, or in a propaganda video released on the web. Even when they take responsibility for an act, they do it anonymously. It's almost like they're saying "Yeah, I want to do this, but I really don't think I can win, so I'm hedging my bets."

George Washington wasn't an anonymous American insurgent. Jefferson Davis didn't wear a mask. Robert E. Lee didn't cover his face when he turned down command of the Union armies. Fidel Castro didn't feel a need to hide his identity when he overthrew Batista or forced out Miro. Lech Walesa's identity was quite clear when he formed Solidarity. Pretty much all the successful insurgents were proud enough of their causes and themselves to take credit for their activities.

In this post, lonfiction talks about his desire for a politician (or an average person, for that matter) to "put your money where your mouth is." In other words, don't just tell the electorate you're for education: show it by increasing the budget for education. It's a good, passionate argument.

Unfortunately, it reminded me of this editorial from the March issue of Kiplinger's which my father pointed out a few weeks ago (and I inconveniently forgot to write about). In it, Knight Kiplinger starts off by saying "If you really want to know what people value most, look at how they spend their money." Basically, the same argument Lon is making. Kiplinger goes on to look at the various chunks of the federal budget*. Kiplinger talks about how little, as a percentage of total tax dollars, each field gets. After enumerating most everything the average person thinks about (including the Department of Defense, which has a whopping 21% of the budget), he notes that he still hasn't accounted for more than half of federal spending. "So where do the majority of your federal tax dollars go? To your fellow citizens, in direct payments and benefits." He explains how those payments and benefits make up 56% of annual federal spending. "[A]bout one-third of all federal spending goes out as Social Security benefits and Medicare payments."

His summation: "the vexing problem of reordering national priorities is that 65% of the current federal budget (56% in transfer payments and 9% in interest on debt) is virtually untouchable." Good and read the entire article: he spells it all out simply and clearly).

Finally, there's this AP article which talks about the nearing difficulties of continuing Social Security and Medicare as they have been. Quoting from it: "While the Social Security trust fund will have resources until 2041, the more critical date in terms of government revenues will occur in 2017. In that year, Social Security, which has been providing billions of dollars in surpluses to the government for over two decades, will start having to pay out more in benefits than it will receive that year in payroll taxes.

"At that point, the government will have to start replacing the money it has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. It can do that only by increasing borrowing from the public, raising taxes or cutting other government programs. The elimination of the Social Security surplus is a key reason that experts are projecting sizable budget deficits in future years."

Did you catch that? We've been borrowing from Social Security (yes, yes, I know that wasn't a secret, and it's been going on for many years), but that fund will soon be unable to loan the general budget any more money.

All in all, a sobering look at the finances dictating the federal budget. We can complain about insufficient funding for education, too much money being wasted on science, even overspending on needless wars; but all of those pale in comparison to the 56% gorilla sitting over there in the corner. We've got entitlements which were designed during the Great Depression as stopgaps and assistance programs for a populace living shorter lives, but those programs have become so institutionalized that politicians feel they can't even talk about them.

You want fiscal responsibility in our leaders? Make them talk about Social Security. Not "how do we keep funding it," but rather "does it make sense to keep looking for bandages to keep the system limping along."



* Something I've been talking about since I was actively involved with the Artemis Project: to wit, everyone complains about over-spending on space and science, but those expenditures are less than 1% of the federal budget.

One of my most loyal readers asked why I hadn't commented on Senator Obama's speech on race, which is seemingly the hot topic (or was yesterday) in the presidential campaign. I told her I didn't think it was terribly important.

But in fairness, I decided to take another look at the speech as a speech and as a news story. (For those who haven't read it, the full text is here, and there's a video of it [which I haven't seen] on the same page.)

( Cut for length. Read the rest by clicking here. )

Obama's speech, I think, boils down to "judge me as a person, not as a black person." That's what I hope everyone will do, not just to him, but to all the 10 or 20 candidates who'll be on the ballot in November.

Eliot Spitzer has called a press conference for 11:30 this morning (a little less than an hour from now), and is expected to announce his resignation at that time (although he may not actually leave office for a few days, depending on working out all the details for the transfer of power).

In a related story, this NYTimes article details Attorney General and then Governor Spitzer's efforts to increase the legal penalties for those who patronize prostitutes.

On the lighter side, a friend suggested yesterday that he could have avoided the trouble if he'd taken the young lady to dinner first: sex after a date is a far more palatable occurrence than simply paying a woman for sex. Me, I don't know if that would've made a difference, but it makes you look at things a little differently, nu?

Edited at 11:55AM: And he's outta there. Governor Spitzer just announced that he will resign on Monday. Lieutenant Governor David A. Paterson will then become New York's 55th governor, the state's first black governor, and the nation's first blind governor. We now return you to our regular, non-Spitzerized lj…

In my admittedly unscientific survey of the morning talk shows (what I saw while Kit was flipping the channels while I got ready to leave this morning), it seems they once again are taking something that is a news story, and turning it into entertainment and meaningless pap. Specifically, it seemed as if every single one of their "news" segments, as well as the talk segments, were focused on the fact the Governor Spitzer cheated on his wife, or had sex with another woman.

But if that were the entirety of the story (say, if he'd had an affair with his neighbor), it shouldn't be a public story at all. Then it truly would be simply an issue of marital infidelity.

What makes it news, and what makes it our business is that he was patronizing a prostitute, which is illegal nearly everywhere in the country. What makes it funny (in a dark way) is that he's the Governor—the guy charged with upholding the laws of the state—and that for the previous eight years he was the Attorney General—the guy who sued and attacked companies and organizations for breaking, or even appearing to break, the law. That's why I'm laughing.

In other Spitzer news, CNN's "Quick Vote" on "Should New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer Resign?" is running 3-to-1 for resignation (162,257 to 48,788 at 11:44AM) while 1010 WINS (New York City's all-news radio station)'s "1010 WINS Poll" on "Should Gov. Eliot Spitzer resign amid allegations of his involvement in a prostitution ring?" is running 17% Yes to 81% No (1% I'm not sure). WINS doesn't give vote totals. Neither poll has any scientific basis: they're both self-selecting. But the disparity of the current results is interesting and amusing.

Edited at 2:47PM: I guess WINS had just posted the poll earlier, resulting in small numbers of votes skewing the result. Looking at it now, the vote is 80% to resign, 14% to stay, and 6% not sure. CNN is still about the same: 78% resign, 22% stay (220,789 to 63,294).

This is almost too funny. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (yep, my governor; I didn't vote for him, but enough of my fellow New Yorkers did) has been… wait for it… linked to a prostitution ring (according to the New York Times). MSNBC has it, too.

And what makes it a little funnier is that, just like all the cases he prosecuted as Attorney General ("big business is guilty; I'll show you later"), which didn't ever seem to have the flavor of "innocent until proven guilty," Spitzer has given us pretty much all we need to assume he's guilty without need for a trial. His apology does not say "the information is wrong," or "I didn't do anything wrong;" he's admitted guilt and apologized for it.

I didn't think much of him as Attorney General, I urged people to vote for the other guy because I didn't like the paternalism and "I know better" attitude I thought he'd present as Governor (fortunately, he's been at odds with the Legislature so much that he hasn't been able to do much), but for such a law-and-order guy to be brought down by this, well, I'm chuckling.

Interesting trivia, as noted by mabfan in this post, New York's Lieutenant Governor, who would succeed to the office if Spitzer resigns, would be both the first black governor of New York, and the first blind governor of New York. (Now I have to do some digging to see if any other state has had a blind governor.)

I know, it's wrong to laugh at others' misfortune; and we know that screwing around isn't strictly a Democratic trait, but why is it that only the Democrats seem to get caught and explode so spectacularly from this assignations? It's not like having sex should theoretically interfere with carrying out one's duties as an elected official, but the Democrats seem to be making an art form out of it.

Ah well, guess we'll see what happens in the next few hours and days.

Edited three hours after posting:

I posted the above on the fly, so I wanted to clarify what I said, but since there are already two comments, I'll let it stand, and merely add to it:

My problem isn't that Eliot Spitzer had sex: the problem is, he's been Governor of New York for a year, and was the state's Attorney General for eight years before that. He came to office on his "I know better," law-and-order, morally superior platform, and now we discover that he was patronizing a prostitute. If he really needed to pay a woman for sex, he could have gone to northern Nevada.

...and its name might be Florida Senator Bill Nelson.

This article on CNN.com talks about the looming fight within the Democratic Party over the fact that, before there were primaries this go-round, the party told the states that if they moved their primaries into January, those results wouldn't count. Florida and Michigan said "Ah, the hell with it. Let's do it anyway," and held primaries in January. The (Democratic National Committee (DNC) said "Okay, your votes don't count." Well, it matters now, because it's looking more and more like 1) neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough delegates to claim the nomination before the convention, and 2) the people who did bother to vote in those states seemed to show a preference for Clinton, who is currently trailing Obama.

Now the governors of those states (one Democrat, one Republican) are whining to the DNC that their voters have been "disenfranchised". Florida Governor Charlie Crist has the money quote: "People should be heard and not party bosses in Washington," he said. "This is about common sense and people having the right to vote. It is unconscionable that people's votes will not count. They should count." Guess what, Governor? Their voters will count… in November.

But that's not the rationality. This is:

Crist said he wants to have another primary, so his voters can have their say (even though he's the one who signed the bill moving the primary date in the first place), but that he doesn't want Florida to pay for it. The state's Democratic Party is estimating the cost of another primary at $18 million.

Senator Nelson said: "There's no way the state legislature is going to fund another election when they are in economic cardiac arrest right now… There's no way that they're going find an additional $18 million to fund another election, nor should they. This shouldn't be the burden of the taxpayers of Florida—this should be the burden of the Democratic National Committee."

A voice of reason! Someone recognizing that the primary doesn't serve any real purpose for the average tax-paying citizen, that it's entirely about the Democratic Party's own decision-making process, and that therefore, the Demorcatic Party ought to pay for it.

CNN goes on to say "[Democratic] Party officials have said they will not pay for Florida to hold a new primary because they warned the state not to move up its primary."

Oh, and the Republicans don't really care because McCain has the nomination locked up, so adding two more primaries, they feel, won't change anything (and they only took away half of Florida's and Michigan's convention delegates, rather than all of them, as the Democrats did).

By the way, Crist is a Republican, Nelson is a Democrat. Nelson also had the good fortune to be chairman of the Space Subcommittee of the Science, Space and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives in the 1980s, when NASA thought the way to line up support was to send the people responsible for their funding into space. Senator Jake Garn and then-Representative Nelson got to fly on Space Shuttle missions (Nelson was on Columbia in January 1986, the last flight before Challenger exploded) [I know the space stuff has nothing to do with the story, but allow me to get my space-geek on when I can].

John McCain has amassed enough delegates to guarantee himself the Republican nomination for President in September.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are running so close that it's probably neither one will have enough delegates to guarantee the Democratic nomination for President in August.

These two facts provide some interesting possibilities for both political parties, if they have the wit to use them. I fear, however, it will be politics as usual, with the loser being the interested voter, who won't get nearly all the information or the entertainment available.

( Cut for length. Click here to read. )

No matter which of the three wins (I'm assuming, somewhat dejectedly, that our next President will be other the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee), there's going to be a great need for a second edition of my The Presidential Book of Lists (which isn't out yet), as all three of them are outlyers. McCain, if he wins, will be the oldest person ever elected President. Clinton, if she wins, will be the first former First Lady elected President and the first female President. Obama, if he wins, will be the first President of acknowledged African descent. Lots of changes afoot. I hope there's enough interest (and enough demand) for that second edition.