That's exactly what I thought.

Interesting, but useless, thought experiment: what would the earth be like without humans.

"The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better," says John Orrock.

Of course it looks better -- because environmentalists define "better" as "no humans."

Would the footprint of humanity ever fade away completely? ... Lack of maintenance [would] spell an early demise for buildings, roads, bridges and other structures. Though modern buildings are typically engineered to last 60 years, bridges 120 years and dams 250, these lifespans assume someone will keep them clean, fix minor leaks and correct problems with foundations. Without people to do these seemingly minor chores, things go downhill quickly.

Yeah, but without people using them, they don't go downhill all that quickly.

The best illustration of this is the city of Pripyat near Chernobyl in Ukraine, which was abandoned after the nuclear disaster 20 years ago and remains deserted. "From a distance, you would still believe that Pripyat is a living city, but the buildings are slowly decaying," ... "The most pervasive thing you see are plants whose root systems ... and are rapidly breaking up the structure. You wouldn't think ... that we have a big impact on keeping that from happening, but clearly we do."

Which just goes to show you how an environmentalist defines "better."

The lack of maintenance [would] have especially dramatic effects at the 430 or so nuclear power plants now operating worldwide. ... As cooling water evaporates or leaks away, reactor cores [would] likely ... catch fire or melt down, releasing large amounts of radiation. The effects of such releases, however, may be less dire than most people suppose.

But the money quote:

The area around Chernobyl has revealed just how fast nature can bounce back. "I really expected to see a nuclear desert there," says Chesser. "I was quite surprised.

Have environmentalists recalculated the "damage" humans do to the environment, given that their previous estimates of Chernobyl were wildly off? Or have they just added "acceleration factors"?

This is a good recipe, even if you use a North Carolina beverage, like Pepsi (check 1965 milestones).

Chow chow's good, although I haven't tried this particular recipe. In fact, I haven't tried any recipe; I've simpy used what Paige's family hands us.

What biased media?

Well, one of my personal mysteries is solved.

Two long, but interesting, posts on groupthink.

Hey, I read this book. It's called The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells.

We have an effective government, but not an efficient one, or even one that moves very fast.

Some legal questions are answered only by the courts, and some legal questions are answered by various government departments. The Recording Industry Association of America collects certain royalties for sound recordings, and ASCAP collects other royalties, and BMI collects others, ...

Recently, the RIAA asked the Copyright Office to rule on whether the RIAA or another group should be collecting royalites for ringtones. The question was phrased as to which aspect of Copyright law the royalties for ringtones fell under. Yesterday, the Copyright Office declared (and courts are supposed to treat this as a settled legal question) that the RIAA collects those royalties under a section of Copyright law that limits how much those royalties can be. The good news is that ringtones may come down in cost. The bad news is that the RIAA got a little stronger.

UPDATE Oops. That second link was supposed to be different from the first. It's fixed now.

And finally, two quotes about Iraq (both through TJIC):

Until I can find a way to get a copy of the video and put it up I will try to share with you a description of what I saw ...

It’s about a police station somewhere in Iraq, the place was about to be hit by a suicide bomber riding a vehicle laden with explosives. The driver approaches the entrance to the station which is surrounded by concrete walls. Several police officers open fire from their ak-47’s on the incoming suicide bomber but he keeps closing in.

As the vehicle passes through the gate and past the last barricade all of the officers run away seeking shelter ... except for one extraordinary man. One police officer held his position and was still standing in the way of the terrorist and kept on firing his rifle at the windshield until the vehicle was just meters from the officer, then ... BOOM. End of video ...

I watched the video over and over again and my amazement grew with every time I watched it…this is incredible…this is heroic…this is happening.

And:

Several argue for a pull-out from Iraq. Discussions of time tables and phases are mere spin for withdrawal. It’s too easy to forget or ignore the human costs of such a decision, or the sense of betrayal which we telegraph around the world. In his history of the 1970s, my colleague David Frum relates the story of Sirik Matak, whom the US embassy in Phnom Penh offered to evacuate as the Khmer Rouge closed in on the city. Matak refused, writing this letter to the US ambassador. It should be a must read for the “abandon Iraq” crowd:

Dear Excellency and Friend,

I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on this spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die. I have only committed the mistake of believing you.

For the record, I still think Reid's original land deal was a non-issue. But other disclosures from yesterday look a little fishy. Good thing for Reid that the Congressional Ethics Committees don't take their jobs seriously.

I like a field of economics called "behavioral economics." Of course, behavioral economics isn't the correct answer to every problem, but it's an interesting way to look at things.

Anyhow, behavioral economics is based on the idea that people like to slack off. Many companies deal with this by firing the employees; and employees deal with that by doing just enough to not get fired (behavioral economics studies other ways to encourage employees to do things).

I've watched North Korea believing (1) China will do just enough to prevent the US from throwing its hands up in the air and giving nuclear weapons to Japan, India, South Korea and any other US allies in the region, and (2) North Korea will do just enough to keep Kim Jong-Il from disappearing one night through a Chinese special forces operation. It looks like the second scenario may play out.

We can't re-sentence Lynn Stewart, but we can keep bad judges off the courts.

Lynn Stewart, for those who don't recognize the name, was a lawyer for the sheik who masterminded the original World Trade Center bombing, and had planned several other attacks in New York. After going through trial, and after seeing him convicted of those charges, Stewart didn't see anything wrong in passing letters between the "Blind Sheik" and people outside the prison, and she didn't see anything wrong with trying to hide the letters in the attorney-client privilege.

The judge understood the seriousness of the charge -- he sentenced someone else in the case to 24 years in prison -- but decided that Stewart should serve just over two years for being a patsy.

President Bush did well in 2000 by pointing out that Clinton had promised a prescription drug benefit in '92, and again in '96, and Gore was running on that in 2000. The best part was that Gore's drug benefit wasn't scheduled to take effect until 2010. Bush promised to get a drug benefit right away, and the rest is history.

Then again, Bush also promised to "take care of the border." He made that same promise in '04, and made a half-hearted effort recently. With the potential to lose big in the upcoming elections, Congress finally decided to authorize building a fence/wall (although that's only the beginning; no plans are drawn up, no money's been spent). For the last several months we've heard how it's only knuckle-dragging conservatives who would want a fence/wall, and that all right-thinking Americans think it's a terrible idea.

Based on recent Democratic activity and political positions, it looks like a fence/wall is actually a middle-ground position.

Seth Godin has interesting travel tips.

I'm tired of hearing how the US ought to be more like Europe.

Just for the record: (1) I still believe that "likely voters" are not being correctly counted in polls showing a "tide of blue" this November; and (2) I think the basics of Reid's land deal are a non-event (he made money by selling land in Las Vegas, wow; the issue is only that he claimed to own the land by himself, and in reality he owned it with three other people). On the other hand, Reid apparently plays the crony game too well for my tastes, but that's a different issue.

Just ran across this angry judge's ruling today. OK, I didn't read the ruling, just the comments about it.