Not All Cultures Are Equal

She called someone else "absolutely stark raving mad." Awesome, right?

Paper Bottles

1.5 Terabytes, Stack the Memory to the Sky

I've been trying to tell ya...

My home state does it right, homeslice. Not always (see recently passed Proposition 102), but definitely on daylight savings time. We don't observe it because it doesn't reduce energy consumption. Turns out, it might actually do the opposite in Indiana (from WSJ):

Having the entire state switch to daylight-saving time each year, rather than stay on standard time, costs Indiana households an additional $8.6 million in electricity bills. They conclude that the reduced cost of lighting in afternoons during daylight-saving time is more than offset by the higher air-conditioning costs on hot afternoons and increased heating costs on cool mornings.

Those researchers, only days ago, said in a recent Times Op-ed, "Arizona, one of the hottest states, may have it right; it does not practice daylight time." Hottest, baby.

And BB says our new pres wants to axe it. Gobama!

100 Days

Good morning,

I have so far supported Senator Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. But I am still curious about how he prioritizes the challenges that confront all of us? (The Economist is curious about the specifics too.) What does he do in the first 100 days of his presidency?

PS: I also engage in a very lazy form of news distribution: my Google Reader shared items. At least one of you has found it interesting. Get an inside track on high level politics, technology trends, and capital markets. Here you are. At least you would have known that house prices were almost certainly poised to fall. If a year too early. Thanks!

Temporarily

I've re-registered temporarily as a Demoncrat to vote in the February 5th Arizona Primary.

The Green Demon

Money enters campaigns through a new avenue, the Times pointed out yesterday. Basically, non-profits will buy TV advertisements to promote their issue, all the while promoting a particular candidate's work thereof, even when the issue doesn't merit the airtime:

The so-called Wounded Warriors Act, legislation intended to improve health care for veterans, has attracted nearly unanimous, bipartisan support in Congress. So why would the newly formed Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America begin running a television commercial urging the citizens of South Carolina to tell Congress to pass it?

The answer lies in the commercial’s glowing images of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican banking on a South Carolina victory to jump-start his cash-poor Republican primary campaign. The group that paid for the advertisement operates independently of Mr. McCain’s campaign, but was set up and financed by his supporters seeking to help him as much as possible up to the limits of the law.

Highlight of the whole business:

Mr. McCain has crusaded for years against just this sort of unencumbered political spending and has publicly called upon the foundation to stop the advertisement, a request competitors say seems half-hearted and the group’s leader has ignored.

I don't think it was a planned venture, but I'm not sure it matters. After someone knows that a group backs her/him because a particular stance, will they be willing to to reconsider given new information? Won't the carrot of continued support hold them in place? That's the problem with money in politics. Any ideas on how we're going to solve that? I hate the idea of federal finds, but it seems like one of those lesser evil things now.