Does counting sheep really help you fall asleep?

According to a study conducted by scientists at Oxford University, counting sheep does not help you fall asleep faster.

In the study, the researchers split the subjects into several groups. The groups were instructed to try several techniques for falling asleep, and their sleep habits were observed over the course of the experiment. The researchers found that the subjects fell asleep an average of 20 minutes sooner when instructed to imagine a relaxing scene, like a beach for example. When the subjects were instructed to count sheep, they fell asleep in about the same time as when given no instruction whatsoever. While people have long assumed that the sheer boringness of counting sheep is enough to lull anyone to sleep, the researchers have concluded that because counting sheep is so boring, people are not willing to focus on it for very long. Imagining an image of a beach is engaging and soothing at the same time.

Stopping climate change might be cheaper than we think

A recent climate model, created by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, predicts that "the median forecast is for a climb of 9 degrees Fahrenheit by century’s end, in the absence of effective countermeasures." That is just the median. The model also predicts that there is a 10% chance the temperature will rise by more than 12.4 degrees by 2010. This information should have us quaking in fear. An increase of only a couple degrees would have deadly effects on our planet's wildlife.

Considering the consequences, we should have a greater fear of inaction than the potential costs of actually curbing global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that by simply putting a tax of about $80 on each metric ton of carbon dioxide, we could completely halt global warming by mid-century. More recent reports suggest that $80 might be a little low; a sum of about $300 would be more appropriate. This tax would make it such that prices would rise in accordance to a good's carbon footprint.

While this might mean pricier gas, and heaven forbid, ditching the car to take public transportation on occasion, the benefits far outweigh the costs. While it might seem "inconvenient," I would much rather have to pay $10 more for gas than live on a planet that is 10 degrees hotter than it should be. Passing legislation to allow this kind of tax would be next to impossible of course, especially considering certain conservative members of congress who still deny that humans are actually the cause of global warming. But, wouldn't it be nice if we actually took a proactive step to stop global warming? There isn't going to be an easy, cost free solution. And honestly, we are running out of time.

Ron Paul victor of CPAC presidential straw poll?

On Saturday, Ron Paul won the annual Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll with 31 percent of the vote. The closest runner up, Gov. Mitt Romney, garnered a mere 22 percent of the vote. Paul's victory came as a surprise to many; in fact, when he was announced as the winner, the crowd responded with boos. Some contribute Ron Paul's victory to the large amount of Tea Party activists in attendance. With many at the conference citing "reducing the size of federal government" as a top concern, I personally think that Paul's victory is not that surprising. As Katie mentioned earlier, many at CPAC were much younger than the typical attendees. "54 percent of participants were between the ages of 18 and 25," so the straw poll was probably reflective of the younger voting pool.

While the straw poll is often used as a way to scout out future presidential nominees, the article said that "the announcement of Paul's win [is] a surprise victory unlikely to have a major impact on the 2012 presidential contest." I have to agree. I feel that the nature of the straw poll is not very reliable. Only 2,400 people voted out of the 10,000 people in attendance. Many expressed dissatisfaction with the candidates. I think that the large amount of non-response is not insignificant. The results are not reflective of the sentiments of the Republican party as a whole. However, I think it is important to note that many are discontent with the traditional Republican party. The "tea party" activists are making their voices heard, which could be significant in the next election.

Obama Announces Funding For Housing Finance Agencies

Today, the President plans to announce a $1.5 billion funding plan for “states where the average prices for homes have fallen more than 20 percent from their peak.” It so happens to be that the two states that will be highly affected by this funding are two states that appear to have a close election coming up in November 2010. The President is attempting to demonstrate his emphasis on the current economy especially during a two-state Western state swing that comes as he’s trying to bolster the chances of Democrats in November’s elections” Colorado an Nevada’s employment rate is still far lower than the national average but it is clear that their housing foreclosures are running high. With the elections coming up soon, Obama wants to give hope to the individuals in the states and protect the congressional spots. Although it is important for him and his administration to help fundraise to keep democrats in Congress, I think it is important to focus on other issues that affect more than just a few states. The unemployment rate in those two states is far lower than the average, so why not work on those who have no source of funding?

Kamikaze-style attack on IRS building in Austin

In an act that has been called "an intentional assault on a U.S. government institution," Joseph Andrew Stack, age 53, intentionally crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas. The attack resulted in 13 injuries and 2 fatalities (including Stack). While the U.S. government has shied away from labeling the incident as an act of terror and has called it an "isolated incident," the tragedy and seriousness of the situation remains. While Stack's motives are, as of now, still unclear, he reportedly posted a "manifesto" on his website outlining his fury towards the IRS. On his website, he reportedly claimed that violence "is the only answer."

Stack was clearly very desperate and not in his right mind. It is truly saddening that he resorted to violence. My heart goes out to the people who were injured and the family of the IRS employee that was killed.

New system of "board exams" allows students to graduate 2 years early

Starting next fall, dozens of public schools in eight different states will be pioneering a new program that involves “board exams” taken at the end of 10^th grade. If students pass their tests, they can receive their high school diploma 2 years early and proceed to enroll in community college. Students interested in enrolling in a more selective college can choose to continue their high school coursework. The program, which was designed by the National Center on Education and the Economy, is based off similar systems seen in nations such as Denmark, England, Finland, France and Singapore. The program was introduced as a means to combat the fact that a staggering amount of students have to take remedial courses upon entering college. It aims to prepare students more effectively for college work and provide a kind of “goal” for high school coursework. The exams will hopefully provide a source of motivation for students to master their course material.

In many ways, this new program is similar to already existing early college programs, such as Middle College (at CSM). However, the significant difference is that this new program allows students to actually graduate a full two years early. Students who pass the board exams will not need to continue with any high school classes during what would have been their junior and senior years.

I have mixed feelings about this program. On the one hand, I feel like it is a proactive way to cutback on the number of students who require remedial courses. The fact that over a million college freshman take remedial courses each year is absolutely ridiculous! But, I feel that there are some definite flaws with the idea of the board exams. I think that one of the benefits of a typical high school education is that it forces you to take a well-rounded (in terms of subjects) course load all four years. High school is important for establishing proficiency in a variety of subject areas. With this new program, students will not have to take all the traditional classes. I think that students might actually end up having more trouble in college than before because they missed out their final two years of high school.

Conservatives rally together at CPAC in preparation for midterms

Today was the first day of the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). It's main drive was support for the upcoming November midterm, where Republicans hope to take back many seats in Congress, and make it clear that they are determined to make Obama a one-term president. The conference featured prominent members of the Republican party, lame jokes about Obama, and reminders to stay, well, conservative.

The Republicans are on the upswing now as Obama's approval has been rating dropping, several veteran congressional Democrats have announced they will retire at the end of the year and Brown took a historically liberal seat in Massachusetts. They are certainly embracing their new "underdog" status as it seems to have ignited a fiery opposition and fervor to end up on top. But many of their speeches contained relatively no new information, just reiterations of their classic platform: lowering taxes, no mercy towards terrorism, and small business interests.

However, I think something interesting to note was that of the 10,000 attendees somewhere from 60-80 percent were under 30. I think this should definitely be a wake up call for Democrats. Perhaps the conference was purposefully skewed (likely) in order to seem appealing to younger voters, but the Democrats should definitely fight for the younger crowd. The sign that younger voters might be heading towards the right is rather surprising, but then again, I'm not sure if this conference is very accurate.

Another point of interest was the Republican's response to the Tea Party movement, or the "grassroots" conservatism that sprung out of certain policy issues and gridlock in Washington last year. The party does not associate itself with the Republican party, but followers overwhelmingly vote right. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, warned against aligning their party with the Tea Party. "The Republican Party should not attempt to co-opt the tea parties," Boehner said. "I think that's the dumbest thing in the world. What we will do, as long as I'm the leader, is respect them, listen to them, and walk amongst them. The other party will never, ever do that." However, Marco Rubio, a challenger for the Florida Senate seat, encouraged Republicans to "embrace" the Tea Party.

On a side note,

"The CPAC conference wraps up Saturday with the much-anticipated straw poll, seen as an indicator of the top GOP contenders for the 2012 presidential election.

The choices on the ballot this year are Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, Pence, Romney, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, and a slot for "Other.""

So what do you think? Are Republicans really on the rise, or just trying to pump up their supporters? Should the Democrats be scared of the under-30 percentage? Should the GOP embrace the Tea Party? What do you think of the top GOP contenders?

More on the Toyota Recall...

It seems like everyday, a new beloved Toyota model is being recalled. Their highly hyped new Prius with seemingly spaceship qualities (keeps you in your lane while drifting?!? what....!!) has been recalled, along with favorites such as Corollas and Highlanders.

It's a huge shame for the company, and I'm glad that Akio Toyoda, president of Toyota, has decided to appear in front of Congress (see link in title for more details). Apparently, he tried to first send the North American cheif in place of himself (which I think is ridiculous). After all, the US is probably Toyota's biggest market, and are most affected by these recalls. After talking about government's role in the economy in Econ this week, I think the House oversight committee's request for Toyada is a good example of positive government oversight. I'm glad they're stepping in on behalf of the people. Especially since it's been speculated that much of the evidence of the malfunctioning cars was covered up. On the local news about a week ago, they had a person go undercover to the Toyota dealsership. Even two days after the recall, Toyota was still trying to sell the cars that were defected! Toyota has always been known as a very reliable car company, and have been tremendously failing at dealing with this crisis.

But every cloud does have it's silver lining, for lack of a better cliche. After years of being in the shadows of Japanese automakers (Honda, Toyota...), I think this whole recall business is going to finally open up the doors for American automakers in our market again. They should be doing everything possible to capitalize on this huge gaff.

In Need of a Vacation?

Bill Clinton returned home last Thursday after having two stents placed in a clogged heart artery. This is his second time having heart surgery in the past four year; in 2004 Clinton had a quadruple heart bypass operation. While many are excited for his return to his Haiti relief, many question his health and ability to continue his work. The doctors claim that the recent surgery have nothing to do with his lifestyles, it seems as if Clinton should possibly take a break eventually. His work and travel is effecting the hours of sleep he gets which clearly makes a difference. It may not directly correlate to the heart surgeries, but it has to be having an effect on him. He is a very busy man and has been working endlessly for the benefit of other, but he needs to worry about his personal health before the health of others. As Molly Ferree said in the Whitworthian, "f you are determined to continue making the lives of people around the world better, which we all greatly appreciate it, please take the time to make sure you see the end results. Give yourself a little grace, make sure you are healthy, and then go out there and get ‘em"

Economic Theory in Rap

A comparison of two giants in the history of economics, Keynes, the classic government should spur demand liberal, vs. Hayek, the godfather of libertarian (let's ride it out) economics. Click here for the lyrics. I make no claim about the quality of the rap, but according to their website, Ke$ha said "It's like... legit."



It is sort of sad that rational people assume that students need to be hooked like this, but heck, whatever works. The ends justify the means, no? Better than Sammy Hagar, anyway.

h/t: self-evident (which is way over my head most of the time)

Do you recall the last recall?

With Toyota’s reputation at hand, thousands of 2009-2010 cars are being recalled due to a variety of errors. The most recent of issues involves one of the top selling cars in the U.S., the Corolla. “A Corolla recall would add to a repair list of more than 8 million vehicles on five continents.” The Toyota recall is due to issues involving power steering; where as other cars are being recalled for brake and accelerating problems. The Prius recalls should be about 80% complete by the end of February. Although it is frustrating to find out that a previously reliable car brand has lowered their manufacturing standards, causing a recall, there is a positive to the issue. At least Toyota is taking responsibility for their errors, and is doing everything possible to fix the issue. It is possible that Toyota’s recall will leave them a better company because they have the ability to learn from their errors. Although they lost the trust of many individuals, they can make positive changes to reverse the bad reputation.

Really, another security breach?

link in title

For those of you that watched the Olympic opening ceremonies, I'm sure you recognized Joe Biden in attendance. The Vancouver police have just reported that there was a security breach that allowed an man with false credentials (i.e. a fake pass created from the internet) to be within a few yards of Vice President Joe Biden. Although the event resulted in no harm to Biden and the man was unarmed, it signals yet another failure of security. The man was able to get through several airport security-esque checkpoints with completely fabricated identification.

Considering the state dinner crashers and now this, is there something wrong with the way Obama and Biden are being protected? I mean, people are making it look pretty easy to get close to them. It certainly makes me wonder if there have been other breaches that have gone unnoticed. Does this happen with many administrations but it's just more publicized now? What are your thoughts?

Did "Family Guy" go too far?

link in title.

I'm a little confused about why America keeps listening to what Sarah Palin has to say, but I found this tidbit interesting. Apparently the popular cartoon show "Family Guy" featured a character with down syndrome in their latest episode. Palin found it especially offensive, as it was an obvious dig towards herself and her family when the character proclaimed that her mother was the "former governor of Alaska."

At first, I saw why Palin would find this offensive. Mental and physical disabilities are extremely touchy. However, after watching the clip of the show and the AP video, I'm starting feel like Palin is overreacting. She isn't the only one to be made fun of by the often borderline-inappropriate show. And the "joke" was literally two seconds of the entire show. I didn't find it particularly funny or necessary, but I also don't think Palin should really be focusing her attention on fighting this. Is she just looking for things to criticize these days? What do you think? (p.s. it makes a lot more sense if you watch the short video in the link)

Did the Court go too far?

LINK IN TITLE

In the recent case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided that, because of the first amendment, corporations and individuals hold the same rights to free political speech and can use this right to financially support political campaigns without being limited. While corporations have been limited in their campaign finance spending for a long time, this decision makes it easy to run a campaign solely (or at least mostly) on unlimited support from big business. It also leaves the door open for campaigns to be influenced much more greatly by foreign parties, an objection Obama mentioned in his State of the Union address.

In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, "Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending." Eight in ten respondents said that they oppose the Court's ruling, and there was very little difference in the results between different parties, for once showing bipartisan unity. " 'If there's one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it's that they don't want more special interests in our politics,' " said Senator Charles Schumer. Legislation is currently being drafted to limit the possibilities opened up by the Court's ruling, but some legislators still support the Court's decision.

Many people immediately questioned the repercussions of this decision, and the results of this poll are quite indicative of that. If businesses can support candidates without limitation, does that mean that the candidate who gets the support from the biggest and most financially capable businesses will win? Was the Court even justified in their ruling (just because we don't like it doesn't always mean it isn't constitutional), or did they go too far?

A Common Theme: Competition

Reading over the Adam Smith piece, I noticed a similar theme between Smith's theories, the theories of the Federalist Papers, and the foundation of our government: competition.

In the Federalist Papers, it is argued that the wills of the factions are kept in check by those of other factions. In other words, competing interests will stop any one group from getting too much power. Examples of this are seen throughout society (the most obvious being the conflicting interests of the Democratic and Republican parties). For every group with a strong opinion and set agenda, there is another group to oppose it. Therefore, somewhat ironically, it is only by the abundance of factions can each individual faction be controlled and stopped from obtaining too much power.

In our entire society, competition is a driving force. Competition between the branches of government has been persistent throughout history as attempts for one branch to gain significantly more power have been thwarted by the other branches (FDR's court packing scheme, Clinton's line-item veto, etc.)

Concerning the economy, Smith argues that competition is one of the crucial elements to safeguarding against uncontrolled self-interest. The article , "The Wonderful World of Adam Smith," states, "A man who permits his self-interest to run away with him will find that competitors have slipped in to take his trade away..." It seems that Smith's "forces" which "bring [output or prices] back [from their socially ordained levels]" are largely dependent on the factor of competition.

Competition in our economy is highly prevalent, whether it be Orbit gum versus Trident, or Macs versus PCs. Competition in the economy seems to be necessary for economic growth, not only by acting as a safeguard to unregulated self-interest, but also by forcing continuous improvement of products, regulating quantity of goods produced, and regulating incomes.

For all of these reasons: governmental checks on powers, safeguards against factions, protection against too much self-interest in the economy, I believe competition to be a crucial aspect of society.

Facebook Group Free Speech?

In this blog post, a Florida case in which a student created a Facebook group criticizing a teacher is discussed. The court ruled that the groups was protected by the 1st amendment and the group did not cause disruption on-campus.

This case is relevant not just because most of us use Facebook, but also because it brings up a relatively new question about protected speech on the internet. How much should online speech be protected? Should there be a different standard for students, even if it the speech is not committed on campus? The blog discusses the precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines, but also notes that there has been no Supreme Court precedent for online, off-campus student speech.

It would be interesting to see an online student speech case reach the Supreme Court. On one side, freedom of speech is considered one of the fundamental freedoms that is observed with the strictest level of scrutiny. Students using online methods to post speech off-campus should have the rights to speech given to citizens in the cases we've studied. On the other hand, student speech has been more limited by the possibility of starting a disruption. In a similar case discussed in the blog the opposite outcome was reached. The punishment of a student who created a fake Myspace page for the principal was upheld since the profile caused students to focus on the profile rather than learning thus classifying the student's actions as a disruption to the classroom. How the Supreme Court would balance those conflicting values in an off-campus, online setting, and whether a new test would be created to judge the constitutionality of student speech online would be .

How do you think a Supreme Court case involving online student speech would play out? Should online speech be protected for students?

Same Sex Marriage Isn't Gaining Support, but Civil Unions Are

LINK IN TITLE

A recent Post-ABC News poll found that American support for gay marriage is unchanging, and fairly split. The study found that 47% of people think that gay marriage should be legal, whereas 50% of people think it should be illegal. However two thirds of people said they supported civil unions. Quite interestingly, 65% of people under the age of 30 said they supported gay marriage as a legal institution.

So what really is holding us back from legalizing gay marriage. Is the difference between a civil union and a marriage a crucial one? Should the government declare gay marriage legal when marriage is, in fact, a traditionally religious institution? We do, after all, live in a country that has an established "separation of church and state" policy. Does the government even have the right to legalize gay marriage? Is a Civil Union satisfactory, or does everyone deserve the right to a marriage?

In his State of the Union address, Obama swore he would put an end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Do the results of this poll reflect an increase in the chances of that happening? Or does the fact that support from gay marriage is unchanging signify that people will also have unchanging and inflexible attitudes toward the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

And what about the obvious differing in support for gay marriage among age groups. Once the population has aged some, and new thinkers have replaced those currently in the "18-30" age group, will support for gay marriage become undeniable? Will legislation supporting gay marriage get passed? Or is the difference of opinions due to age, and not generation? Will those currently in the "18-30" age group that so clearly supports gay marriage get older and change their minds?

Census Miscellany

The decennial census is coming up; forms will be delivered in March 2010. If you do a Google News search for "census," you come across coverage by various newspapers, television stations, and radio stations urging citizens in their areas to fill out and return the census forms for their own benefit. The reason for this is clear; the more people reported to live in a certain area means more federal funding for local infrastructure. Politically, depending on the results of the census, congressional seats may be reapportioned in order to account for population shifts and congressional districts redrawn to reflect these changes. Article I Section 2 of the Constitution calls for a census every ten years and gives Congress the power to carry out the census in "such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

In a push for widespread participation, advertising for the 2010 census was produced in more languages than ever: 28. The budget for the 2010 census was larger than previous census budgets, allowing for high-profile advertising opportunities like the Superbowl. Read more here.

There have also been efforts to include illegal immigrants in the 2010 census. Says this article, "In October, census officials said they would not ask the Department of Homeland Security to suspend immigration raids during the census period, reversing a policy from 2000, when an immigration moratorium was observed. But census officials say there is no change in a longstanding policy that they do not share identity data with the Department of Homeland Security or any other agency." Essentially, and rightly so, everyone should feel that they can safely respond to the census.

Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio has taken an odd approach to the issue of illegal immigrants and the census. His staunch support of excluding undocumented immigrants from the census could hurt the state in which he is currently seeking office; Florida could stand to gain a Congressional seat by including more of its inhabitants in the census. According to this post at the Huffington Post, "Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that representatives should be apportioned according to a count of 'the whole number of persons in each state.' This includes non-voters, non-citizens and yes, undocumented immigrants." Aside from potentially hurting his state (loss of federal funding and a potential Congressional seat), Rubio's "voter's rights" argument for excluding undocumented immigrants is pretty much crushed by the text of the Constitution.

One final bit of census drama here. Basically, there's controversy as to whether prison inmates count as residents of the place where they are in prison (the status quo) or as residents of where they lived prior to imprisonment. Counting prisoners in the former way "inflates the population of the mostly white, rural towns that have the prisons." Prisoners are generally not representative of the population of the communities in which they are held; does this unfairly take away potential federal funding from prisoners' former neighborhoods? Keep in mind that "the places prisoners come from and the places where they are bunked share a lot in common, such as poverty and unemployment. They also share a hunger for the good schools and jobs that political power brings." Do prisoners count as residents of the city in which they physically reside, albeit unwillingly?

Any thoughts on the census in general?

Sweet Sweet Revenge... or not

I am sure those of you who watched the woman's snowboard cross the last Winter Olympics recall an incident in the final round. Lindsey Jacobellis, representing the U.S. team, was approaching the finish line with a clear lead, and rather than playing it safe, she attempted a move. Later she stated “Snowboarding is fun, I was having fun.” Unfortunately, she could not handle the fun of snowboarding and missed the landing. As Frieden passed her, she saw her gold metal slip away. Lindsey had to settle for silver.

This year, Lindsey came out ready for revenge. And once again she failed to win gold, let alone make it to the metal round. She lost control and hit a gate off of a jump and was automatically disqualified. Similar to many other Olympians, Jacobellis just did not have luck on her side. Do the Olympics really demonstrate who the greatest winter athletes are in the world? Do not get me wrong, everyone at the Olympics is very talented, but could the medalist just be the ones with the lucky run?

A Quick Link - Politics and Physiology

The title links to an interesting article from last week on a recent study that "hints that the roots of political judgments may lie partly in fundamental personality types and even in the hard-wiring of our brains." The research found that people who demonstrate heightened alertness to threats and danger are more likely to be conservatives (who may be "more aggressive in arming [themselves] and more wary of foreigners"). In the study, conservatives demonstrated stronger reactions to images meant to trigger disgust than did liberals. Though the research has not been confirmed (the information quoted above might just be a way to reinforce stereotypes about conservatives and liberals?), other researchers have also attributed differences in political identification to fundamental differences in cognition. Whether or not you buy that argument, the link is an amusing read.