The challenge is picking just one per day.

In an effort to “go green,” Mr. Howell is paying a $2 per month fee per employee for a software program that allows his employees to submit ideas to reduce the business’ ecological footprint.  What was the best idea they could come up with?  Why, to limit everybody to only one ream of paper per year.
According to the Wall Street Journal article, Mr. Howell is proud of his environmental crusading:

“They’ll have to petition the entire agency for another ream,” he says.

No doubt this petition process will include a number of (paper) forms, and plenty of wasted time and effort, not to mention the $2 per month software fee that could have simply been spent on buying paper for those who need it.

Word of advice to this guy’s employees:  Get out now, before the real hard-core idiocy starts.  Also, stop printing stuff you don’t really need to print:  You’re making your boss crazy.

Finally! Somebody who has it all figured out!  All those extreme right wingers (59% of the country must be extreme right, according to some polls) oppose health care reform because they don’t like women, gays, Jews, and black people.

Well, Charles Blow, you can add name-calling to your sham list intended to distract people from the real issues* that have 59% of Americans opposed to health care reform as passed by Washington.  You are today’s Idiot of the Day.

*Real issues included below as a footnote, to keep the Chuck Blow’s of the world from losing focus on the bigotry, racism, and misogyny that they would prefer to debate, since most Americans (of all political parties) can agree with them that these things are wrong.

1. Our broken national budget, which this reform will only serve to further impair
2. The law forces all Americans to purchase a product, which is a chilling precedent.  Maybe the government won’t require everyone to buy GM cars at some point, but what’s to say they couldn’t, if this bill is legitimate?
3. The back room deals and partisanship required to make this happen.  There’s a reason the bill is 2000+ pages long, and it’s not because health care reform is a complex issue.  It’s because when you are picking winners and losers, it takes a lot of paper to make clear exactly who you are going to screw, and who you will give their money to.
4. Why did we have to “pass the bill so that [we] can find out what is in it“?  Congressional roulette?  Was the bill so long and difficult to read that even the members of Congress couldn’t make sense of it, so they decided to let everyone else sort it out?
5. The inevitable government imposed limitations on who and what will be covered in order to control costs and benefit political agendas.  Abortion coverage – out; tanning taxes – in.  Smoking?  Give it some time.  Maybe once our President isn’t a smoker, we can ban that too.  It’s got to be at least as bad for you as tanning.

U.S. Census Bureau director Robert Groves wants you to return your census form as soon as you can.  ABC News says the Bureau saves $80 million for every 1% increase in people who return the forms via mail.  Saving the government money is a good thing, because it saves you (assuming you are a U.S. taxpayer) money.

Of course, Rebecca Blank seems to have a different perspective.  She is under the impression that Census spending is good for the economy.

“The census has a very positive effect on the economy.” Rebecca Blank, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs at the U.S. Dept. of Commerce

This is of course, according to the very same ABC News article previously mentioned.  Now I’m not sure who to believe.  Do I believe Mr. Groves, who wants me to do my patriotic duty and return my census forms quickly, thus saving the government money?  Or do I believe Ms. Blank, and chuck the form in the bin, thus stimulating the economy by causing the government to employ more people to collect the data?

Of course, the only sensible explanation is that Census spending is really a drag on the economy, just as is replacing broken windows.  And that’s why Ms. Blank merits today’s award.

A cynic might agree wholeheartedly with Stewart Brand’s assessment that slums can provide a glimpse into the future of city life.  Although there is likely some truth to the fact that as you pack people tighter and give them less of everything they will have a smaller environmental footprint, it seems quite ridiculous to believe that there is a significant portion of the population in developed cities that would accept such living conditions.

Although economic realities force many people in places such as NYC to live in smaller spaces than they might otherwise wish (excluding the small portion who seem to love tiny apartments), the universal goal seems to be saving up to be able to afford larger, more luxurious surroundings.  Brand’s article even points out that to make city living possible, “subsidised housing could bring down the high cost of city centre living” enough to prevent families from fleeing to more realistically priced suburbs.  Why are subsidies required to make this reality possible, if city living is so efficient?  Because people desire space, and most don’t want to live in a space equivalent to a typical suburban walk in closet.  When you pack people into less space than they really want to have, space becomes a valuable commodity, and the price skyrockets.

The quoted claims from Science that a future “farm on one city block [that] could feed 50,000 people with vegetables, fruit, eggs, and meat” seem likely to be greatly exaggerated.  With the size of a standard city block between 5-10 acres, and the ability to feed 10 people from 1 acre based on the amount of energy falling from the sun, this translates to food for 100 people.  With a greenhouse that is 20 times more efficient than growing in open air (the maximum gain cited in the Science article), make that 2000 people.  Hoping for a build out of new hydro, solar, or geothermal plants to power this hydroponic and artificial light energy sink seems like wishful thinking.  The cost and energy used in building such a 30 story farm will have a very hard time beating (not-quite-as) local produce farmed in natural sunlight and trucked in from the surrounding countryside.  Even assuming that the 50,000 people fed per block number is correct, feeding its 1.7 million residents would require 32 blocks of Manhattan to be converted to farming.  A more realistic number of 10,000 requires 160 blocks, or nearly 2.5% of the land in the borough.

In short, although it may be desirable to try to convince people to emulate some of the qualities of slum life (recycling, reusing) it seems unlikely that most will be willing to give up much of the convenience and luxury that sap the efficiency that comes from living in cities.  Environmental planning that relies on subsistence and sacrifice (the main virtues of the slum living held up as a teaching model) as its main method of energy efficiency seems like a dark plan for the future.

Obviously, Gerard Alexander just doesn’t get it.  Rather than focusing on the fact that there might be actual reasons underlying opposition to a whole host of issues that the government claims to be able to solve, he should should start with the premise that people are dumb and accept that they are intent on voting against their own interests.  Of course, this is because they are prone to being lulled by good stories and bored by “the facts”.

Only the densest of people could possibly still believe that when a politician offers to give you something, they will inevitably be back to seek repayment for their gift.  Rather than focusing on the gifts that they bring, perhaps our benevolent liberal friends should examine the things their opposition believes they may be forced to give up in return.  It, admittedly, requires an almost unthinkable benightedness to wish to give up such benefits for the mere accommodation of being allowed to keep the majority of a hard-earned paycheck, or to maintain the ability to visit a doctor without asking the local politician for permission (or worse yet, the bureaucracy appointed by the politician).  But it is possible that the answer to the liberals nagging suspicion that the common-folk just don’t get it may lie in just such an unlikely, unexamined corner of the conservative mind.  Of course, it may simply be a matter of these schmucks realizing that when their neighbor is helping to foot the bill, the neighbor may also demand a say in what gets paid for.  So free gifts for all, except the fatties, and the smokers, and the drinkers, and, well, you get the idea.  Of course, it is almost certain that the fatties, and the smokers, and the drinkers will all still be expected to pay into the system.  For the good of society; no less.

If only these dimwits would realize that we’ve no shortage of rich uncles to pay the way, perhaps we could convince them that they won’t eventually be forced to pay their own way or suffer the consequences.  Never-mind that rich uncles (and aunts, for surely there are many of those too) often come round less and less once it becomes obvious that their only usefulness is contained within their pockets.

The blue states may claim to want nothing in return for their benevolence, but the red states realize that eventually, “federal fairness” is likely to come round, asking for its money back.  And the red states, with all their conservative mumbo jumbo, have no interest in accepting gifts for which they know they cannot pay.  These same foolish red states may also believe in figuring out how to pay for their shiny new trinkets before they enact them, lest they be required to cut them at an inopportune time.  The fools may even believe that the word “permanent” still means “existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change.”

Rather than scratching their heads once again, and asking “What’s wrong with those conservative simpletons?”, perhaps the liberals should examine the possibility that there may exist rational reasons for the opposition to their presents.  Until this happens, those crazy conservatives will most likely continue to cling to their guns and religion, forsaking the gifts of liberal progress that the politicians try to sell them.