Arlington County's Misguided Kiddie Tax

One of the many hats the Curmudgeon wears these days is that of President of the Arlington Soccer Association. ASA serves more than 5000 kids in Arlington and Falls Church with various soccer programs and activities all year round, and is celebrating its 40th year of service to the community this year.

As President of ASA, the Curmudgeon has been spending quite a bit of time lately fighting against a youth sports player fee that is under consideration by the Arlington County Board. Bear with us here as we explain why this fee is unfair and bad policy. The County Board will decide the fate of the fee this Saturday. (If you want to reach them with your views, it's easy--you can email all five members at: countyboard@arlingtonva.us )

The fee under consideration would be $8 per player per season starting with Fall 2010 sports. The fee was put forward by the Parks Dept. as part of its budget for the 2011 fiscal year. The Acting County Manager, however, did not include the fee in her proposed budget; instead, it was included as an optional "tier II" revenue item that the Board could adopt to add more money to the budget.

The rationale of the Parks Dept. for the fee was that it is necessary to implement a "cost-recovery" policy adopted last year by the County Board. That policy was adopted without the County Board ever having a public hearing on it, which is pretty unusual in Arlington.

The cost recovery policy itself, however, is pretty reasonable on its face. It says that the Parks Dept. should recover 65% of the direct costs of youth sports programs in the County. In other words, as a matter of policy, Arlington thinks youth sports are of sufficient importance to the community to merit up to a 35% taxpayer subsidy. So far, so good.

The problem is with how the Parks Dept. has interpreted the policy. Some youth sports programs, such as basketball, are run "in-house" by the Parks Dept. For those problems, the policy is pretty simple--figure out the cost of the program and then set fees so they will recover roughly 65% of the costs. (In fact, the Parks Dept. has set fees at a level where they recover nearly 100% of the costs of basketball; they now say they'll just let the fee stay the same for a few years until it gets closer to the 65% target.)

Other youth sports programs, such as soccer and baseball, are run by private, non-profit groups who are "affiliated" with the Parks Dept. through formal agreements. In those sports, the non-profit organization pays most of the direct costs of the program--referees, equipment, uniforms, administrative personnel, etc.--while the Parks Dept. provides facilities (fields, mainly) and pays the costs of maintaining those facilities and administering them.

In determining the cost recovery target for those affiliate programs, however, the Parks Dept, has completely ignored the direct costs paid by those programs, treating them as if they don't exist. Instead, the Parks Dept. has demanded that the affiliate programs cover 65% of the portion of their costs that are covered by the Parks Dept., using that as an excuse to propose the new player fee--assessed only against players in affiliate programs.

The Parks Dept. interpretation turns the cost recovery policy on its head. If all the costs of ASA's youth soccer program are added together, then the fees parents already pay--to ASA--for their children to participate cover roughly 80% of those costs, well above the 65% cost recovery target. But the Parks Dept. claims it gets 0% cost recovery for these programs because parents don't pay a separate fee to the Parks Dept.

Thus, a policy that was supposed to embody a strong community commitment to youth sports is used to REDUCE support for such programs and serve as the basis for a new tax on soccer and baseball parents.

The County Board could easily put a stop to this charade by stepping in and telling the Parks Dept. that is has misinterpreted the County's policy. But, hungry for revenue, at least some Board members have seemed to signal support for the new fee.

Mind you, if the fee is adopted, the money won't be used to enhance youth sports programs. To the contrary, it will go to restore budget reductions in other areas, such as tennis court lighting. This is a sore subject, because adults who play tennis in Arlington really do pay 0% of their costs--and that's the County's policy. (Likewise, users of the County's 8 dog parks--or "community canine areas"--pay no fees to use them either.)

In fact, the Parks Dept. has been reducing its support for affiliated youth sports over the past two years. First, it shifted field lining responsibilities to soccer and baseball. ASA didn't object to this given budget realities, but it did result in an additional $25,000/year expense for us--that's $5 per player. Then, in the current budget cycle, the Parks Dept. eliminated a stipend that had been used to cover insurance and other costs. Eliminating the stipend will cost ASA another $22,000/year--almost another $5 per player. Again, we did not object to this reduction, which amounted to 14% of the Parks Dept's costs associated with the youth soccer program. That's a big cut on top of the similar cut a year before--clearly ASA is feeling it's share of the budget pain.

At the same time, field maintenance has been reduced; new fees imposed for use of lights in the winter; higher fees extracted for summer camps we run. We understand this--times are tight and we have to do our share.

But adding a new fee just for players in affiliated youth sports is not fair. That's just a tax on those parents, with the money being used to fund other programs. We're not against the other programs, but the money for them should come from the County's general taxes, not a perverse tax on children's sports.

Some people in the Parks Dept., and in groups grubbing for the money, have argued that "it's only $8" as if it couldn't be that big a deal. But it's not "only $8." If you have three children, and they play the fall and spring seasons of soccer, and maybe a couple also play baseball or softball, it's more than $60. That's more than the average homeowner's tax increase based on the proposed new property tax rate.

And while some soccer parents--such as the Curmudgeon--could easily afford it, there's a lot of working class families that will find it quite a burden. Those are the families we don't want to lose. (The Parks Dept. says it won't impose the fee on families that qualify for financial aid, but our data show that many who would qualify don't apply, and there's concern about the paperwork burden.)

We hope sanity will prevail in the County Board this coming Saturday when it votes on the fee. A couple of Board members have indicated their opposition to it. We hope the rest will pay attention to the couple hundred emails they have received from soccer parents on this issue--just the tip of the iceberg. Surely Arlington County can achieve its budget goals without disproportionately penalizing children who play organized soccer on the County's fields.

The Experts Are Forecasting An Actice Hurricane Season

Hurricane season officially begins on June 1, but now is the hurricane forecast season, when the so-called experts see if they can do better than a coin toss in predicting the severity (or lack thereof) of the coming season.

Historically, most of the April predictions are not much better than the flip of a coin, but there are reasons this year to worry about a severe season: in March, sea surface temperatures--one of the main ingredients of strong hurricanes--were at a record level for this time of year. Higher, indeed, than last June (the early part of last summer being quite calm in hurricane terms).

For the full scoop, check out Dr. Jeff Masters' summary HERE--if the experts are right, this could be a season like that of 2005!

Why Tiger's Doing Well At The Masters

As usual, the media had it all wrong, what with the conventional wisdom that Tiger would fare poorly at the Masters after his exile from golf and all the issues and emotions on his mind.

Yet, his first day was his best first day EVER at the Masters.

The reason is simple--think about it. This year, he doesn't have to worry about any girlfriends! One LESS thing on his mind. None of those intrusive thoughts--should I get her a gift? Should I text her (or sext her)? Should I try for a threesome? Will she still like me if I shoot a 74?

Nope, for once, Tiger's mind is clear and focused.

Disremembering History The McDonnell Way

So, this is Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's idea of inclusiveness: reviving Confederate memorial month?

A certain segment of white southerners are quite romantic about the Civil War. We wish we could send them back there--that's Richmond, above. The reality would not be quite so happy.

Let's review. A small, but vocal, powerful and wealthy group of Southerners--plantation owners--perpetuated an economic system that could succeed only through the barbaric practice of slavery.

As an increasing number of people in states not dependent on this doomed to fail economic system began to clamor for its end, and an end to slavery, this small group of Southern planters manipulated their neighbors into succession and, ultimately, a civil war. More than 90% of southerners stood nothing to gain from either slavery or war.

Despite bold predictions that the Confederacy would succeed, and would prevail in war, succession was an UNMITIGATED DISASTER for the South. Millions of men were killed or disfigured; huge swaths of the South were laid waste to; cities were in ruins; families were torn asunder.

The end of the Civil War hardly brought an end to the ruin that had descended on the South. For another dozen years, federal troops occupied the South, much like American troops today occupy "liberated" Iraq. After the end of reconstruction, the South struggled economically for another 100 years.

It is true that ordinary Confederate troops--most with no stake in slavery--fought bravely against long odds in many battles. But the politicians who led them were fools, taking them down a disastrous path.

If you want to "commemorate" the civil war, do it with a burned out, falling down building occupied by scarred and disfigured people. That would be an appropriate memorial.

Bob McDonnell is the latest in a long line of Virginians who take foolish pride in the Commonwealth's most shameful period.

Did Tea Partiers Severe Gas Line At The Home of Congressman Tom Perriello's Brother?

See story HERE.

The Sociological Experiment

This weekend, the Curmudgeon will be off to South Carolina for a reunion of his junior high school class. Now, most junior high school classes don't have reunions, and this one will be the first for the Fairwold Junior High class of 1972.

It really all evolved from a series of Facebook friendings with classmates, followed by establishment of a Facebook class page--more on a lark than anything else--and then the half-serious suggestion: "hey, why don't we have a reunion?"

So, re-une we will.

But it's an auspicious time to get together. Forty years ago, in the fall of 1970, the kids attending Fairwold Jr. High were part of a large sociological experiment. That fall, in Columbia SC, where the Curmudgeon grew up, the public schools implemented a court ordered school busing plan to integrate schools that had largely been segregated for a hundred years. (The two prior years, the city schools had adopted a "free choice" plan that allowed black students to attend white schools, but few took up the "choice" in the face of considerable hostility.)

The way these plans usually worked in the South, mostly it would be black students taking the bus to a previously all-white school. The white schools were almost always better facilities, and black parents generally didn't object to their children being sent to such schools. In contrast, white parents were quite vocal when their kids were sent out on the buses.

Still, the busing plans required busing at least a few token whites to black schools to win court and Justice Dept. approval.

It just so happened that the Curmudgeon's white neighborhood got the designation to be bused to a formerly all black school--Fairwold. It was a bit of a shock, since the year before we thought we were going to walk a few blocks to our neighborhood Jr. High; but in the new plan, that school was turned into a high school.

Anyway, Fairwold wasn't bad at all. Built in the heart of one of Columbia's middle class black neighborhoods, it was a fairly new facility. So while the adults ranted and raved, us kids took the bus each day across town (and yes, across the train tracks) to Fairwold. That first year, Fairwold had an almost exactly 50-50 split between white and black students.

To make the whole thing more palatable to the white parents, the school district added a bunch of really good white teachers to the school, which already had a bunch of really good black teachers because it served the more elite black neighborhood.

As a result, we all got a good education at Fairwold. And kids like me met a bunch of very smart black kids for the first time in our lives.

Leave it to the adults, however, to mess things up. A lot of people, mostly white, resisted the plan. Each spring, riots would hit the high schools, and when they closed, the Jr. High's weren't far behind. (The Curmudgeon can remember sitting on a hill, in a mix of most of the white and black students at the school, watching a small handful redneck white kids battle a small handful of thuggish black kids. The rest of us were chatting together and wondering when they'd close the school and send us all home.) It wasn't long before parents (mostly white) were moving out of the city district to suburban districts, or putting their kids in private school, or parochial school, and over time, Fairwold essentially re-segregated.

But for the two years we were there (and for some time thereafter), it was a pretty good school. Today, the school is named for the then-principal of the school, W.G. Sanders, and it may well still be an excellent school, just with not very many white students.

Because so many students went so many different ways after Fairwold, the reunion is a chance to catch up with some people we haven't seen since the early '70's, and others we went to high school with (but still haven't seen in decades). Judging by what we've learned so far of what our former classmates are up to these days, the sociological experiment worked out just fine, with no lasting scars--lots of doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers (and professors), business people, artists.

We're looking forward to seeing everyone. Maybe we should take a ride together in a big yellow school bus!

Earthquake: Drop And Cover, Or Triangle of Life

Today, a friend sent us an email that is circulating on the internet concerning what to do if you're inside a building when an earthquake strikes. The advice in the email--which one is urged to forward to one's entire email distribution--is from a fellow named Doug Copp, who has done earthquake search and rescue around the world. He says that you'll get killed if you "duck and cover," i.e., get under some object, like a desk, table or bed, because the object will get crushed on top of you.

Instead, Copp advises that you get on the floor, in the fetal position, NEXT to such an object. When the building comes crashing down, the object will create a pocket--a "triangle of life"--around you. A few days later, Mr. Copp and his crew will presumably be there to rescue you!

It all sounds very persuasive. We were going to put Copps' warnings on our blog, but when we went to find a link to his article, we discovered that his advice is quite controversial.

The American Red Cross, for example, says Copp is full of it, at least when it come to quakes in America. You can find their retort here.

For more, including a fuller explication of Copp's advice, go here for the Snopes.com point/counterpoint.

We guess the best thing to do is simply stay out of an earthquake!

The Runaway Prius

As a fairly recent Prius owner, the Curmudgeon is understandably concerned about all these reports that his world-saving automobile may suddenly shoot down the highway without warning.

So far, no problems. In fact, we've found a benefit: we can careen down the interstate at 90 miles per hour (about as fast as you can get a Prius to go) and if we get pulled over we'll just thank the officer for helping us bring the car under control.

As for the now infamous runaway Prius in California, it will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up. The driver, who seems like a reasonably normal fellow, has his story. Toyota has questioned some particulars, and the forensic evidence does give some pause.

At this point, we do believe the driver that after he hit the gas to pass another car, the accelerator seemed to get stuck and send him down the highway at an uncomfortable speed. After all, Prius drivers don't go that fast on their own--it totally ruins the gas mileage!

We also think he probably didn't hit the brakes nearly as hard as he thought. Toyota says the evidence suggests that he just tapped the brakes. Probably so. It appears undisputed that when the driver called 9-1-1 he was instructed to put the car in neutral, but refused--he claims he was afraid it would accidentally slip into reverse and cause the car to flip.

Now that's plain stupid. It's easy to put a Prius into neutral, and it's impossible to slam any car from full throttle into reverse. You can severely damage your transmission, but you won't suddenly flip the car.

Just to be on the safe side, we practiced putting our Prius into neutral the other day. No problem--we easily coasted to a stop.

Still, we can sympathize with someone who's car has done something it shouldn't, and who fears that if he does something else, it'll also do something weird and wild.

In any event, someone too scared to take the simple step of putting the car in neutral--after the 9-1-1 operator advises it--is also going to be timid on the brakes. In this case, we think something went wrong with the accelerator, but also that the driver compounded the problem, which is how this became such a spectacular incident.

Sudden acceleration is a vexing issue for auto safety regulators. Over the years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received complaints of sudden or unintended acceleration for almost EVERY make and model of vehicle on the road. Some vehicles get more complaints than others, but MOST cases end up being driver error. Sometimes a floormat gets involved, and sometimes something gets stuck in the pedal. But usually the driver stomps on the gas thinking it's the brake. With millions of drivers driving billions of miles, it happens. (But we don't think that's what happened in the California incident.)

Furthermore, once you get publicity for a particular vehicle being associated with unintended acceleration, the number of complaints goes up dramatically. Believe us, pick any car, and if NHTSA reported tomorrow that it was having Toyota-like problems, you'd have drivers coming out of the woodwork saying "yeah, happened to me."

There's some speculation that Toyota's problems have to do with the electronics in their vehicles. Maybe, but we'd take that with a huge grain of salt absent solid evidence. If there is such a problem, it should be replicable, and so far no one has replicated any such defect.

One problem Toyota does have: in many vehicles, the manufacturer has programmed it so that if both the accelerator and brake are depressed at the same time, the brakes will override. Toyota evidently has not used that feature, although it says it will now. We suspect they'll wish they'd adopted brake override some time ago.

Anyway, if you see us whizzing by in our Prius, give us a wave--we may be able to cut a good 2 hours off our drive to the beach in SC this summer!

Daily Show: Gaywatch Virginia

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

The Church of Arlington County

Who would have thought that liberal Arlington County would end up with it's own state-sponsored church?

That's the conclusion of many of our neighbors in Lyon Village, where new signs are sprouting up like mushrooms after rain, asking:

SHOULD TAX DOLLARS BUILD CHURCHES?

It's a good question. The dispute centers around a plan to transform the First Baptist Church of Clarendon. The church, with a dwindling congregation and facilities falling into disrepair, came up with a plan a few years ago to take advantage of the prime land it's sitting on in the heart of the popular Clarendon neighborhood.

The idea was to demolish the existing church (most of it), add a high rise apartment tower, and use the financing to renovate and rebuild the church. This, of course, was in the hey-dey of the real estate boom, when anything was possible.

The only problem was that the land was zoned for a seven story building, but the church's consultants said they needed at least 10 stories to make the project economically feasible (i.e., to have enough money to rebuild the church).

So they approached Arlington County with a scheme to increase the allowed height of the project in exchange for including 70 "affordable" housing units. The County bought in, pledging $4.5 million and making the zoning change happen, despite universal objections from neighbors in two-story houses that would be dwarfed by the mammoth new building.

Since then, the original funding has fallen through, forcing the County to increase it's share to $13.1 million--more than the private investors in the project are putting up.

As the facts about this project get out, opposition is spreading. Here at the Curmudgeon we certainly think the economics are suspicious. We're not fans of the County building "affordable" housing in the first place. We'd much rather see the County negotiate with private developers to get affordable housing in exchange for zoning trade-offs, AND use rent vouchers to help lower income families afford apartments out of their range.

Needless to say, for $13 million Arlington could subsidize the rent for many families for many, many years.

In any event, it's clear that the Baptist Church project has become a classic boondoggle, regardless of however well-intentioned it might have been (although we're convinced the Church's main goal was it's own self-preservation, not affordable housing).

County Board members should drive through Lyon Village and take a look at the signs. They're going to keep spreading, and may become a true political liability as the extent of coming budget cuts become more widely known. It's not too late--the County can back out of this one.

For more information, put together by opponents of the project (who, to be fair, are primarily motivated because they don't want such a large project looming over them), go to askthecounty.com.

Virginia GOP Launches New Jihad Against Gays

If Virginia's new attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, had openly campaigned on an anti-gay platform, he would have lost the election. Now that he's in office, however, the Fairfax Republican has launched a jihad against gays in the state.

Recently, the AG sent a letter to universities in the Commonwealth, advising them to back off of campus policies designed to prohibit discrimination against gays. The Cooch could have chosen to do nothing on this, but he deliberately stuck his nose into it, as if there aren't more important law enforcement issues in the state.

Students are taking this lying down. The Washington Post reported today that student groups on many campuses are organizing rallies to protest Richmond's action.

This is where the Virginia GOP starts to get itself into big trouble. There are a lot of moderate and independent voters who would side with the Republicans on tax and fiscal issues, the types of issues Gov. McDonnell tried to focus on in his campaign.

For some reason, however, the right wing of the party, allied with so-called fundamentalist "Christian" groups, is at least as much interested in the politics of hate. Their forebears resisted the civil rights movement; they resisted the women's rights movement; and now they're gay-bashers.

Mind you, this isn't just people against gay marriage. Nope, the Cooch and his cronies, including quite a few GOP legislators, want to make it lawful to discriminate against gays across the board, soley for their sexual orientation.

We know a lot of real Christians, and they're not into hating anyone. Just like most real Muslims are peaceful. Frankly, the religious extremists in Virginia are no better than those in Iraq. They may not be using car bombs to get their point across, but the actions of people like Cuccinelli are equally terroristic, intended to intimidate another group on the basis of who they are.

If the AG keeps on with his jihad, we can look for Virginia Republicans to lose their recent gains quite quickly. Let's hope the state's students keep the issue alive.

The Pat Tillman Tragedy

We just finished a terrific book: "Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman" by Jon Krakauer.

Krakauer is a great writer, whose books include "Into Thin Air" and "Into The Wild." In "Where Men," he explores the tragic death of former NFL defensive back Pat Tillman, who left the NFL at the peak of his career to join the Army after the 9/11 attacks. As an Army Ranger, Tillman was sent to Afghanistan, where he was killed in a friendly fire incident, the details of which initially were covered up by the military.

Krakauer's book is a thorough examination of what happened, as well as of the intensely interesting life of Tillman.

The book is also a reminder of just how awful the Bush presidency was. Before serving in Afghanistan, Tillman did a tour in Iraq. There, he played a bit role in the Jessica Lynch "rescue" operation.

Krakauer reveals new details of the Lynch case--at least details we'd never heard before--that reveal the depths of cynicism of the Bush administration. You may recall that Lynch was the young woman wounded in a battle with Iraqi soldiers after her convoy was ambushed; she was captured and held in a hospital in the city of An Nasiryah until her dramatic rescue by U.S. special forces.

Or so that was the story we were told. In fact, Lynch's convoy got lost after a collossal set of blunders. It was eventually fired upon by Iraqi troops (who military intelligence had said weren't there). Contrary to stories that Lynch fought it out with Iraqi troops until she was wounded, she never fired her weapon; she was injured when her humvee collided with another American truck. The Iraqis took her to their best local hospital, where she was treated well and given excellent care.

Several of the doctors at the hospital contacted American forces to let them know where she was. At one point, they even tried to deliver her to an American base in an ambulance, but the ambulance was fired upon and had to turn back.

At the time, things weren't going too well for the Americans. There had been a number of friendly fire incidents, and a force of Marines in Nasiriyah had spent an entire day shooting at each other, with considerable fatalities. The Bushies needed some good news. A Bush PR operative on the ground in Iraq--Jim Wilkinson--seized on the Lynch situation as a means to manufacture that good news.

Instead of sending a unit in to pick Lynch up, he had the military commit nearly 1000 special forces troops (including Tillman in a supporting role), accompanied by a video crew, to storm the hospital and rescue Ms. Lynch. He then helped fabricate an entire story about her capture, which the media couldn't get enough of. Tillman saw through the whole thing at the time. Unlike many soldiers who served in Iraq, he never thought it was a legitimate war--he wanted to be in Afghanistan instead.

In any event, Krakauer has some other Wilkinson exploits that ought to nauseate you.

All of this is by way of prelude to what happened in Afghanistan after Tillman was killed. His own brother was in the same Ranger unit, but didn't witness what happened. The other men in the unit were instructed not to talk to him about it, and Tillman's family did not learn that he was killed by friendly fire for several weeks after his death. Meanwhile, Bush and the military (who were aware of the circumstances) made the most of Tillman's fame while they covered up the facts as long as they could.

It's a fascinating read, one that will make you SO glad that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and their merry band of lying incompetents are gone. It will also make you very sad for Tillman, his sweet wife and his family.

Key Vote In Virginia Senate On "One Gun A Month"

Less than three years after the Virginia Tech massacre, and just a few months after a man in southwest Virginia gunned down several relatives and caused a massive police manhunt (at large cost to local and state taxpayers), Virginia legislators are busily dismantling the woefully few restrictions on guns in the state.

You can bet that relatives of the Va. Tech victims, and survivors, are furious over this. But the gun nut lobby could give a damn. Those victims are just collateral damage of the "freedom" to own guns and take them wherever you damn well please (including, now, bars).

Today, the Virginia senate holds a crucial vote on whether to repeal one of the remaining restrictions, the so-called "one gun a month" rule. That law was enacted a number of years ago--with support from then legislator Bob McDonnell--to stem Virginia's reputation as the supplier of choice for guns used in the murderous drug wars going on in cities up and down the east coast.

McDonnell nows supports repeal of the law, arguing it is "ineffectual." Bullshit. Cite some data. Guns used in murders in various large cities are no longer being routinely traced back to Virginia gun shops as they were in the past. The murder rate in big cities is way down.

What, exactly, is the need for repealing the law? The gun nuts don't have enough toys to play with already?

Let's hope Democrats in the Senate chamber have the balls to stand up to the gun lobby on this one.

What's next? The gun lobby will be taking aim at restrictions on automatic weapons, triggering a new nationwide arms race. Heck, why not let everyone carry around rocket-propelled grenade launchers while we're at it. Just what we want to see at our local Starbucks.

National Geographic and XM Radio Flunk Accountability Tests

Time for a bit of a curmudgeonly rant.

Yesterday, we received from National Geographic a video that was part of some promotional "trial" package they sold us over the phone. The phone call was a few weeks ago and we had forgotten the details of the promotion, but we knew it was a "free" trial.

Yet, when we opened the package, there was an invoice. Nothing about any free trial. So we called Nat'l Geo up and asked why we were being charged for a free trial. "Oh, you signed up for a 14-day free trial. After that, you pay the invoice amount, which is still HALF off," said the enthusiastic lady on the other end.

We're sorry, but the invoice should clearly state the terms of the offer and be explicit about what to do if we don't want the videos being offered. Since the invoice was misleading, we decided to cancel sight unseen. Not a good way to treat your customers, especially a reputable organization like National Geographic. (The lady graciously told us we could keep the video, or "donate it to your local library." If they keep selling stuff this way, our library will be awash in videos.)

On to XM Radio. A couple years ago, we purchased a home XM radio unit. Turns out it doesn't work too well--difficult reception from the satellite. We used it less and less and now, darned if we even know where the thing is.

We were then reminded that our subscription was about to renew automatically, so we went online to cancel it. Turns out you can do almost anything online with XM EXCEPT cancel your subscription. How nice. We had to call XM and navigate the automated phone system for several minutes to get to a live human who could actually cancel a subscription.

And they have the nerve to argue to the feds that they aren't a monopoly.

Here's a reminder to businesses: good, honest service will get you loyal customers for life. Difficult economic times only bring that fact home.

Vermont's Black Energy Decision

Gotta love the lefties in Vermont. They have a perfectly fine nuclear power plant, which provides 30% of the state's electricity without emitting any significant carbon emissions. In the grand scheme of things, nuclear power is actually pretty green.

But not green enough for Vermont, where nucular is a bad word. The Vermont state senate has voted overwhelmingly to deny the plant operator's application to renew its license, which expires in 2012.

We're betting that all that electricity is not going to be replaced--certainly by 2012--by solar and wind power. Instead, while a perfectly good nuclear plant lies in mothballs, Vermonters will have to get their electricity from some carbon-emitting source (not to mention the carbon emissions from simply building a replacement plant).

Great move Vermont!

Washington Post To Shut Down

Now that's an attention grabbing headline. And it's true: at some point, they'll shut down their printing press for maintenance.

Evidently, the Post is not above similar tactics to bring readers to its stories. Today's WAPO caught our attention with this story: "Empty Vehicle Left Near White House For Days." Well, it certainly looks from the headline like law enforcement is falling down on the job and endangering the life of the First Family in the process.

Only it turns out the vehicle in question was at 15th and M Streets. That's about a block from the Washington Post's headquarters, so maybe a danger to their intrepid reporters. But it's nowhere near the White House, at least in terms of some kind of car bomb danger.

Our guess is that "Empty Vehicle Left Near Washington Post For Days" just didn't have the same ring of a serious news story.

The story itself is not too interesting either, unless it's a really slow news day--the car was stolen and police ticketed it three times, instead of figuring out that it belonged to a military student. Indeed, it sounds more some of the satire we'd expect to see in the Onion.

Two Good Reasons To Avoid NBC After The Olympics

Other than that we aren't getting enough sleep, there's nothing like the two weeks of Olympic coverage to improve one's TV viewing. Quite a few programs are piling up on our DVR as we opt for ice and snow (away from here, thank goodness) over Bauer and Idol.

The Olympics are good for NBC, too. For the first time in six years, they were able to dethrone Idol as the ratings king, at least for one fine day last week.

Unfortunately, after the Olympics NBC is giving us two good reasons to turn the channel (actually, a lot more since most of their regular fare is pretty lackluster). The first is the return of Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice, which will feature disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojovich as a contestant. Revealing our trashy tastes in television, the Curmudgeon has enjoyed Apprentice in prior years. But we'll boycott this season. There's no reason for NBC to give this man--who is still facing serious criminal charges--a frivolous platform to repair his image. Being a famous criminal should not make one a "celebrity."

As nauseating as having Blago on NBC is, even worse is Jay Leno's selection of Sarah Palin to appear on his opening week of reclaiming The Tonight Show from Conan. We have no desire to see Palin--remember, she resigned as governor of Alaska before her job was done--ANYWHERE. (Our one caveat is that we'd like to see Palin on a segment of Leno's "Jaywalking" series, where clueless Americans show off their ignorance.)

We'd call for a boycott of Leno on this one, but we sense that a much wider boycott will already be underway in any event. We used to like Leno. Now we think his best act might be as an also-ran "celebrity" on Apprentice.

Just Because It's Cold In D.C. Doesn't Mean Global Warming Has Gone Away

It's been a cold and snowy winter in Washington, that's for sure. Record snow. And we haven't had a single day in February where the temperature has gotten above the average for that day (and not likely to get there anytime soon).

The cold winter has given global warming skeptics ammo for their relentless, well-financed (by the carbon industry) public relations campaign to turn public opinion their way.

It appears that the skeptics are winning, at least for now, as U.S. public opinion has shifted fairly sharply on the issue.

Part of the problem also has to do with the economy. With jobs still scarce and money tight, people aren't interested in fighting global warming if it means higher prices for energy, which is the only strategy likely to succeed.

While the skeptics are winning the battle--mainly a delaying action--they will lose the war, but unfortunately at great cost to the rest of us. While it's been cold here in Washington, the data continues to pile up, month after month, that the earth continues to heat up.

Global warming is not a linear phenomenon. We're not going to see it get warmer each month, each year. But the trend is unmistakable. Depending on who's keeping score, January was either the second or fourth warmest January on record at the surface; in the bottom 8 km of the atmosphere, it was the warmest. This, all in a year when we're at a solar minimum--i.e., the sun is at it's lowest output on a cycle that spans roughly a dozen years. (For more, go to Dr. Jeff Masters' Wunderblog at Weather Underground.)

The 1980's were warmer than the 1970's; the '90's were warmer yet, and the first decade of the new millenium was even warmer. The global warming skeptics have all kinds of darts they throw at the data, but most have been refuted. It's just that the scientists on the other side don't have the oil lobby, Faux "News" and the Wall Street Journal to publicize the real data.

Each year we go on without strong government action to slow carbon emissions just makes it that much more difficult down the road. Will it take another decade of overwhelming data before the public really gets it? Or will we just have to wait for an unusally warm winter, or massive summer heat wave, instead?

Robot Skies

A rather remarkable thing is happening in our skies without too much fuss or notice: robotic vehicles are multiplying like rabbits.

According to Popular Science, 44 countries now fly as many as 7000 aerial robots, or UAV's (for "unmanned aerial vehicle"). New models are being developed by dozens of companies. Last year, the U.S. Air Force trained more UAV operators than it did fighter and bomber pilots.

Is this a good trend? Whether it is or not, there's probably no stopping it.

On the good side, UAV's can inexpensively accomplish many missions that would be difficult, dangerous or too costly to do with human operated aircraft. Taking out the human means UAV's can be much smaller, and can assume odd shapes that wouldn't necessarily accommodate a person.

UAV's also don't need food, sleep and bathroom breaks. Some new designs are intended to stay aloft for days, weeks, months and even years (using solar power).

While initial designs were exclusively military, many newer models have civilian uses, such as traffic monitoring, weather, assisting farmers and fighting crime.

On the down side, UAV's can be quite dangerous. Their low expense and small size makes them a significant security risk. Even a small UAV can carry a quite deadly payload. While we think it's great that Predator drones are taking out Al Queda and Taliban leadership without risking our soldiers' lives, we won't be too happy when a terrorist uses a similar tactic to fire a missile at the White House or some other target. We're sure this has given security experts many a nightmare.

Furthermore, scientists and engineers are making great strides in developing insect sized robotic flyers, which could easily avoid detection and be used for all sorts of mischief (and good, too).

Just about any weekend hobbyist could put together a decent UAV for just a few thousand dollars, and right now it's not clear how well regulated they are.

One role for UAV's, apparently, will be scanning the skies for other UAV "bad guys."

The proliferation of UAV's is an extension of another phenomenon: as a practical matter, for most flying we don't even need pilots anymore. With modern computers and electronics, a jumbo jet can virtually fly itself, often better than a human pilot can. We're not likely to board a pilotless jumbo jet anytime soon--people just aren't ready for that.

But cargo planes may be a different matter. Our guess is that we could well see UPS, Fed-ex and other carriers moving to unmanned cargo planes by the end of this decade.

Mama's, don't let your babies grow up to be pilots--the job may be becoming extinct.

Arlington Could Do Better On Snow With A Couple Simple Measures

Yesterday, the Curmudgeon traipsed past the dirty mounds of ice and snow remnants to the Arlington County government complex to hear the Acting County Manager present a preliminary outline of the fiscal 2011 budget.

At the end of that presentation, the County Board and Manager spent a little time patting themselves on the back for a job well done in dealing with last week's twin blizzards.

Compared to other local jurisdictions, Arlington did, in fact, do pretty well. But it could do better if the County Board would adopt a couple of ordinances that apply in most communities that regularly deal with snow (as we do, despite pretenses to the contrary).

The first is a requirement, subject to fine, that property owners clear the public sidewalks abutting their property. While most Arlingtonians do this anyway, out of civic duty and common courtesy, a significant minority don't. The result is quite dangerous for pedestrians, and can slow the re-opening of schools.

For example, we noticed today a church on Arlington Ridge Rd. that had managed to clear its driveway and parking area, but not the sidewalks adjacent to its property, which happen to lead to Oak Ridge Elementary School and Gunston Middle School. In fact, whoever cleared the church's property dumped quite a bit of snow onto the sidewalk, which otherwise was clear for a couple blocks around.

Likewise, we encountered a couple sidewalks in Clarendon, abutting businesses, that were still not cleared (one was around a used car dealership, which, of course, had cleared its sales lot).

There's no excuse for letting these folks shirk their obligations. If you talk to a County Board member about the issue, they'll usually cite some bafflegab about old people who aren't able to shovel their walks. That's lame--old people can hire someone to do the job, or get a neighbor to do it for them (as happens on our street). Thousands of communities in the northeastern U.S. require property owners to clear their walks within 24 hours of a storm--somehow the old people have managed to survive (or is that why they move to Florida?).

The second measure that would help would be to designate certain streets as snow emergency streets, subject to parking restrictions when a snow emergency is declared. This would allow rapid clearance of parking lanes on those roads during the routine plowing that occurs while a storm is dumping snow on us.

Instead, the County had to go back, probably at a large cost in overtime, and clear those parking lanes well after the fact. The logical roads for these restrictions are Wilson Blvd., Clarendon Blvd., Washington Blvd., Columbia Pike and perhaps a few others.

Instead of enacting these logical--and time tested--measures, the County Board acts each year like snow is so unusual here that we don't need them. Now, with the recent storms still fresh in everyone's minds, would be a fine time to act.

Snowiest Winter Ever In D.C.

With a month of winter left to go (and another storm lurking early next week), it appears that the blizzard raging outside has put us over the top for snowiest winter ever in Washington, D.C., just barely (so far) surpassing the winter of 1898-99. At least we have indoor toilets now!

Snowmageddon Rescue!

C'mon, admit it--you're jealous!

Arlington Schools Need To Get Their Storm Priorities Straight

Memo to Dr. Patrick Murphy, Superintendent, Arlington Public Schools:

Today is the sixth day of school missed SO FAR due to this winter's storms. DC schools, in contrast, have missed only ONE full day of school (today).

We're not upset about today, but most of the rest of those missed days are inexcusable. Arlington in not Fairfax, where you came from. Arlington is a compact geographical area; the major roads in Arlington have been clear and passable on most of the days you closed our schools. The most inexcusable was last Wedesday (Feb. 3) when a short delay in school start times would've easily gotten everyone to school with little trouble (and you knew a big storm was headed here at the end of the week).

We could easily have had a half-day of school on Friday, too--which is what DC schools did.

You need to take a page from Michelle Rhee's book, and make it a PRIORITY to have kids in school, instead of making excuses to keep them out.

We fear that, with another storm headed this way, Arlington's schools will be closed all this week. There's simply no excuse. It's a lot of snow, but many parts of the world get far worse, yet still manage to get their kids to school.

Schools Need To Help Prevent Boys From Failing

Here's an interesting report, from today's Wash. Post, on a new book called "Why Boys Fail," which explores a theory on the growing achievement gap between boys and girls in school.

The stats are depressing--for boys. Women now account for 57% of bachelor's degrees in college (62% of two-year associate degrees). Among high school seniors, 23% of sons of white, college-educated parents scored "below basic" in reading skills (compared to 7% of daughters). The Curmudgeon sons appear headed to join this group.

Author Richard Whitmire argues that the problem is teaching of literacy skills in school, which have been pushed down to as early as kindergarten. Because boys develop literacy skills later than girls (a fact that has long been known), this push has put the boys at a disadvantage; whereas boys used to catch up by fourth or fifth grade, that is no longer the case.

Even classes such as math have shifted to more word-based problems, making literacy skills more important than ever.

We can attest to some of this. We've noted in our boys' math textbooks that the problems--and the ways of approaching them--are much more word oriented than when we were growing up.

We also face frustrations of teachers trying to impose girl-like organizational skills on boys. One of our younger son's 6th grade teachers--in history--has made 40% of his class's grade dependent on keeping a journal with all the papers handed out in class. Little guidance is provided on what the journal should look like. We have no doubt that the girls in class are much better able to master this skill than the boys--and we're not sure what it has to do with their learning (tests count for less than 40%).

Kids need some help with organizational skills, but there's no "one size fits all" approach, and it certainly shouldn't penalize a kid who otherwise learns the material.

In any event, we think it's high time that our leading educators get together and figure out what's going on with boys in our education system. It's not the boys who are failing--it's the system.

Storm Saver: Washington Post on Kindle

With Snowmageddon still crippling Washington and environs--and another storm on the way tomorrow night (!)--our trusty Washington Post delivery boy hasn't made it down the rutted single snow/ice lane of North Edgewood Street since Friday.

Fortunately, our Amazon Kindle (allegedly soon to be outmoded by the Apple Ipad) allows us to download the Post and keep up with the world in warm coziness.

In our reading, we saw that Sarah Palin (the lady who prematurely quit as Governor of Alaska for reasons that were incoherent) addressed the Tea Baggers (for $100 Grand) and said she's not ruling our running for President. Our only thought: why couldn't Snowmageddon have obliterated the Tea Party idiots who think this woman has anything worthwhile to offer to our country.

Blame It On El Nino!

Early Spring?

If robins are a sign of spring, then it must be near! Notwithstanding our 4 inches of additional, very wet, snow last night, today felt more like spring than most days the past few weeks. Punctuating that feeling, our neighborhood was visited by several hundred robins this morning, all feasting on the berries on our across-the-street neighbor's tree (which they stripped clean). (You can see a few of them in these photos.)

Once again, the school system got it wrong. Last night, when Alexandria schools announced they would open two hours late, we figured Arlington would follow suit. But then both decided to close today, even though it was a relatively warm morning and the snow quickly melted from roadways. If they're going to make bad decisions, we wish they'd make them the night before--what's the point of waking up at 6:00 a.m. to find out school is closed!

Even more bizarre, our religious school cancelled classes tonight--their policy is to follow whatever Fairfax schools do, but sometimes that policy makes no sense, as in when EVERYTHING HAS MELTED. (Not that we're unhappy about religious school--no one likes Wed. night classes.)

The weather prognosticators tell us that more snow--quite possibly a LOT of snow--is on the way this weekend. All the more reason to keep things open when possible. Our northern neighbors would--and do--laugh at us for our penchant to shut down everything the moment it starts to snow.

In any event, as our photos attest, it was a beautiful morning!

Snow Panic In Arlington!

It's 4:30 pm, 40 degrees and still not a drop of precipitation, but Arlington County has already shut down everything in anticipation of a snowstorm not likely to get underway (at least in frozen form) until late tonight.

Why do they do these things? Is it all the hype the weather forecasters are giving the storm?

If anyone had consulted an expert (or even the weather radar and a thermometer) they would know that (1) it's way too warm for snow right now; (2) the roads are quite warm; and (3) the roads are all already covered with salt from the last storm. Therefore, it's quite unlikely that there will be any accumulation on road surfaces before much later tonight--probably after 10 p.m., or more likely, midnight.

Why not go ahead with scheduled INDOOR activities? Too cautious.

Miss Arlington is New Miss USA!

Congrats to Caressa Cameron (great name!), who went from Miss Arlington to Miss Virginia to Miss USA!

McDonnell Takes The No Road

Gov. McDonnell is playing cutesy with the General Assembly, refusing to provide his own plan for cutting $4 billion from the budget over two years (without raising taxes), but hinting that he may yet have some "suggestions."

In other words, the Governor is counting on the legislature to reach a deadlock on budget issues. For now, he's washing his hands of the issue.

For those who (justly) criticized Tim Kaine for fiddling away on national political issues (as DNC chair) while Richmond burned, McDonnell is more of the same. We've got serious work to do in the Commonwealth, but there was McDonnell giving the GOP response to President Obama's state of the union address.

Sorry Guv, but that's not what the voters elected you for. Before trying out for a run at national politics, how about doing something here at home first.

What little McDonnell has said so far isn't too encouraging. He's given a lot of rhetoric to placing the bulk of state revenues from offshore drilling into a transportation fund, but we won't see that revenue anytime soon. Great for our grandkids--IF there is such revenue, which we won't know for quite a few more years.

Apart from that, he's proposed a mish-mash of minor bills that are part of a jobs stimulus program, but in reality are political payback to some key supporters. Just how many Virginia jobs are in the wine and filmmaking industries? This is more about rewarding millionaires.

He's also proposed adding the Lt. Governor to some commissions that oversee investment in economic development programs, which is just another way of politicizing those commissions and using them to build the Lt. Governor's "base."

Perhaps a new name is in order for Mr. McDonnell: Governor Empty Suit.

Southeast Drought: All Gone

Regular Curmudgeon readers will recall that we focused on the severe drought affecting much of the Southeast the past couple of years.

Well, the drought has been banished entirely from the Southeast--for the first time in several years, the U.S. Drought Monitor reports the region as 100% free of drought or abnormal dryness, as attested to by our boring map here (which would be various shades of yellow and red if there was any dryness persisting).

Two years ago, it was quite a different story--we had a very colorful map, as shown below.

Not only has the drought abated in the Southeast, but the recent El Nino storms battering the west coast and southwestern states has significantly eased severe drought conditions there as well.

El Nino--what's not to like?

The Roberts Supreme Court--Bring On The Corporate Political Influence!

Hat tip to JK for this one.

A Great Idea To Reign In Corporate Political Activity

Here's a great idea, from today's Washington Post op-ed page, for putting constitutional limits on corporate political action: "Despite Court Ruling, Congress Can Still Limit Campaign Finance."

McDonnell Proposes $50 Million In Corporate Welfare

GOP Governor Bob McDonnell is off to a fabulous start! For his first major act as governor, he's proposed $50 million in NEW spending that can only be characterized as corporate welfare.

McDonnell wants you, the taxpayer, to pony up so Virginia can support it's wine and filmmaking industries--both playgrounds to the rich (and deadbeats like the Salahi's)--and to put "development offices" in China and India. (In case you're wondering, states use these offices to provide junkets to favored lawmakers and contributors.)

Well, we were certainly wondering. We didn't realize that Virginia's economic troubles centered around wine, filmmaking and lack of interest in China and India. We thought it had to do with housing and declines in domestic demand for products and services due to the recession!

To pay for these perks, the Governor wants to reduce the state's contribution to its pension fund, use up $25 million in revenue from a recent tax amnesty, and postpone equipment spending. That still leaves him with a $2 BILLION budget hole to fill.

Get serious governor--do state employees need to face reduced pension contributions so your buddies in the wine and film "industries" in the state can further line their silken pockets!

Voters--wake up!!

"Fees" Versus Taxes

With the Virginia General Assembly struggling, under the leadership of our new Republican governor, to close a $2 billion budget gap, it's worth considering what constitutes a tax.

Gov. McDonnell has signalled a willingness to raise "fees" to meet the budget gap, but not to raise "taxes." That raises the question of what is a fee and what is a tax.

If the governor proposes putting toll booths on highways to collect revenue, that's not a "fee." It's a tax. A very inefficient and expensive tax, since it requires building toll booths, staffing them, and impeding traffic to collect the tax. A much more efficient--and fairer--way to collect the same revenue would be to raise the gasoline tax. Hey, just call it a gasoline fee!!

Typically, a "fee" is a charge levied by a government for a particular good or service that is unique to the person being charged the fee. Parsing this out is not as easy as it sounds, however.

In Arlington, we pay a fee for water, based on the amount we use; we pay a trash collection fee if we live in a single family home, but it is not based on how much trash we put out. If you take a class at a County facility, you pay a fee for the class; but the County might still subsidize some portion of the class, for example the upkeep of the facility.

A "fee" clearly is not a fee when it is used for some purpose unrelated to how the fee is collected. For example, Gov. Kaine had proposed raising the state's telephone fee, but the money raised would not be used to enhance telephone service in the state--it would go into the general fund. That's a tax.

Republicans like to rail against "taxes," but their arguments are often semantic. Our new governor argues that a down economy is not a good time to raise taxes. That's a good point. But it's also a good point that a down economy is not a good time to reduce services, especially those that assist the victims of a down economy. Nor is it a good time to raise fees.

Furthermore, the largest cost in providing government services is that of personnel. There simply is no way to reduce services in Virginia by $2 billion without firing a LOT of people. Is it a good idea to let a lot of people go when unemployment is so high? Probably not.

When some of our "conservative" friends get going on their anti-tax speeches, we like to ask a simple question: what service of government do you want to reduce or eliminate?

We rarely get an answer, other than some vague claim that the government wastes a lot of money through inefficiency. We've got news for you: the private sector wastes a lot of money through inefficiency, too. We can certainly agree that everyone on both sides of the aisle would like to eliminate fraud, waste and inefficiency, but there isn't as much of that as you think.

People do want most of the services provided by government, and for many services there is a unique constituency that will argue hard for its position. Do you want police protection? Certainly. Fire protection? Yes. Parks? Sure. Garbage collection? Absolutely. Roads? Sewers? Schools? Prisons? Libraries? Courts? We think so.

Lean budget times are useful, because they do force close examination of the various services offered, and offer opportunities to trim fat our of programs and assess priorities. In such times, however, uniform opposition to "raising taxes" is not very useful. Taxes need to reflect the level of services provided, which in turn should reflect a community consensus on those services we want from our government.

If Republicans want to do away with taxes, they can. Just charge a fee for each government service, including an "income fee" for such general services as providing a paid governor.

Is The Singularity Near?

In our last post, we explored projections by futurist Raymond Kurzweil that advances in computer technology, genetics, nanotechnology and robotics will, by 2050, enable humans to essentially become superintelligent human/machine entities capable of immortality.

Now we're going to posit some questions about those projections.

First, there are plenty of other "futurists" who dispute Kurzweil's vision. He takes them on, often convincingly, but there's still clearly plenty of room for debate. In 1950 there were highly intelligent visionaries who thought we'd be a lot more advanced by 2000 than we are, with flying cars, Martian colonies, robotic helpers and so forth.

We, of course, have made huge scientific and technological strides since 1900 and 1950. We've practically doubled human life expectancy since 1900. Imagine if we doubled it again by 2100--humans would regularly live to 150, with many approaching 200. The Curmudgeon would have a good chance of still being around in 2100. Will we have great, great, great, great grandchildren? Will Mrs. Curmudgeon still love us?

Other scientists believe it would be difficult to extend human life spans beyond those of today's oldest human, but that we could see a much larger percentage of people live to those extended lifespans. That would mean large numbers of people living to 110-115 years old, and the Curmudgeon perhaps making it to 2070 or so, to see how well Kurzweil's predictions fare.

On the other hand, we can't get anywhere any faster today than we could in 1950. Back then, you could drive a car at 70 mph--with a lot less congestion--and by 1960 you could take a jet plane at 600 mph. Both were a lot more expensive back then, however--now just about anyone in the western world can own an automobile or afford to take a jet plane flight. But we don't have supersonic flight (although we did for awhile), and the plain fact is that you can't physically get anywhere today faster than you could 50 years ago. (In Europe in Asia you can go a lot faster by train than in 1950; alas, not here in the U.S.)

But then maybe we don't need to go so far anymore, as communications technology has made huge strides, connecting the world like never before. By 2020 we should be able to have easy, affordable video communications worldwide. Maybe even in 3-D.

In any event, we can easily envision a future in which the things that are familiar to us now are better: robotic cars that zip around computer controlled highways at 150 mph; medical treatments that banish most diseases and postpone aging; nanobots that clean up pollution; household robots that do all the things we don't want to do.

But what happens when we reach two milestones that Kurzweil reasonably projects: (1) the ability, through nanotechnology, to create self-assembling nanobots capable of creating anything we can imagine by assembling atoms and molecules from scratch; and (2) artificial intelligence that is more intelligent than human intelligence?

Both pose grave risks. As Kurzweil discusses in chilling detail, it would be possible to create a nanobot capable of replicating itself, that could, in a matter of hours, consume all the organic matter on earth, turning everything into a "grey goo." (We won't go into the details, but if you want to know more, click here.) Kurzweil believes we'll be able to create defenses against this doomsday scenario. Let's assume we can. Will this really be great for everybody? We'll discuss that in a minute, but first let's look at the artificial intelligence angle.

The danger with artificial intelligence that is smarter than us (what Kurzweil calls "strong AI") is that it, too, could self-replicate and ultimately decide it has no use for humans. Kurzweil thinks we'll work that out, too, fusing them with human and machine qualities.

Our problem is this: if we succeed in creating nanobots and robots capable of solving all our problems and doing everything for us, what are humans going to do? Kurzweil never addresses this. His answer appears to be that humans will fuse with machine intelligence, live forever, create virtual worlds and enjoy virtual life while pondering ever bigger thoughts.

(Just an aside, but when we're 1000 years old, are we still going to be nagging our 970 year old children about their life choices? "What are doing with that cyborg, you know she's just taking advantage of you!")

Again, our problem is this: which humans? The way things work on our current earth is that some humans--the rich ones--acquire technology first, while others lag way behind. Are the superintelligent, immortal machinohumans going to have a use for the rest of the humans? Will android robots take humans as pets, or keep them in zoos? After all, that's what WE do with the lesser animals.

The world will certainly look different. If nanobots can manufacture food, we won't need farmers. If robots can perform all the services humans now perform--only better--we won't need humans for too many jobs. Maybe not for any. So, how does our economy work at that point?

Another problem, of course, is the way humans like to use technology against each other. Will those disaffected humans use older generation--but still lethal--robots and nanobots against the wealthier ones? Will religious zealots--ever more threatened by the advances of technology--unleash a doomsday to fulfill their own sick prophecies?

When we make advances in technology, they bring on new dangers. Sure, we think it's great when we can take out a "terrorist" in Pakistan with a remotely fired missile on a drone aircraft. But we won't think it's such a great technology when some terrorist uses a drone to fire a missile--or drop a crude bomb--into the White House or some other important institution. Yet, having invented that technology, we'll have to defend against it.

Kurzweil's view, ultimately, is utopian. The question is whether humans really want a utopia. There is some truth to the scene in the movie "The Matrix" where the "Smith" android describes what happened when they tried to program a perfect virtual reality world for humans: no one liked it; so they had to go back and create a world with conflict, despair, depression and so forth.

And while kids can be a pain in the butt (we have one doing his best right now), who wants a world without kids?

Maybe it's just because 2010 Curmudgeon can't understand what 2030 Curmudgeon, and 2050 Curmudgeon, will have come to accept as the norm--looking back on 2010 as a still primitive era. We hope we're still around to post our thoughts then--or beam them into your machine enhanced heads.

Will We Be Immortal In The Future?

We're nearing the end of our intermittent series on what the future will be like, with a two part post on the "near-distant" future, i.e., the period ending around 2050.

Obviously, looking that far ahead is perilous. To assist, we turned to Raymond Kurzweil, a "futurist" who has written a number of books about what the future may hold. His 2005 book, "The Singularity is Near," is a comprehensive look at the technological trends likely to dominate discovery over the next few decades.

Kurzweil is an optimist. We'll take the optimistic view as well. Over the long term of human history, the optimists have prevailed, albeit with some dark periods. Kurzweil might also be a utopian; many utopians have preceded him, and their visions have generally failed, so he, too, may have gone too far.

Let's start with the easier stuff. Kurzweil identifies three technologically driven trends that will dominate the first half of this century: genetics, nanotechnology, and robots, or GNR. All three are, in turn, driven by one primary factor--the exponential increase in computing power that has been going on now for several decades.

He starts by taking us on a tour of the theoretical limits of computing power, and the current state of computing technology and research. The inescapable conclusion is that we have plenty of room to push the envelope of computing power over the next few decades. He concludes that by roughly 2030 we will have computers that are capable--for the current price $1000--of equaling or exceeding the intelligence of the human brain.

It's hard to argue with Kurzweil on this one. Maybe it won't be 2030, but certainly by 2050, and maybe as early as 2025, we'll get there. At each step along the way, we're aided by the current increases in computing power, which help us figure out the next step.

Meanwhile, the expansion of computing power will drive the Big 3--GNR--to fabulous new discoveries. In genetics, we will have a complete understanding of the human genome and that of every living thing on the planet. We will master proteomics--the science of proteins, which are the building blocks of life. We will make tremendous advances in disease treatment through genetic and stem cell advances.

Those advances are significant, because, in Kurzweil's view, they will allow us older fogeys to live long enough, and healthy enough, to take advantage of additional advances in other fields, that could essentially result in immortality.

In nanotechnology, we will get to a point where we can assemble just about anything at the molecular level. Nanotechnology is a much younger field, and still a mystery to most of us. At bottom, however, it has the potential to develp technologies at the molecular level that would make most things practically "free," while providing means to maintain our bodies, eliminate pollution, etc. Nanotechnology also presents certain doomsday scenarios, which we'll discuss in the next post.

In robotics, we will achieve artificial intelligence that rivals human intelligence. Kurzweil expects this to happen by 2030. Achieving this will be helped by the ability to "reverse-engineer" the human brain, a process on which we are making great strides.

Of course, we'll all be happy to have affordable, intelligent robots that can do all kinds of things for us. Whether we'll be happy to have robots smarter than us is a different matter--again, a subject for our next post.

Ultimately, Kurzweil projects that we will--in our lifetimes--have the ability to "upload" the contents of our brains into a machine entity, and that we will have the ability to live for hundreds of years, if not forever, but in a form that fuses human with machine until we become more machine than human.

This is what Kurzweil calls "the singularity"--the point at which humans possess a super-intelligence and live forever. And this will occur in our (now extended) lifetimes (certainly in those of our children).

That's pretty heavy duty stuff. It's one thing to think about lounging around (in say 2030) at the beach, in a body that is like that of a 40 year old (or younger!), enjoying life's pleasures (much of it in virtual reality) while robots and nanobots take care of everything for us. We can kind of get a grasp on that, and it doesn't sound too bad.

But being an immortal machine vastly more intelligent than today's brightest humans? Guess we'd have to be a lot more intelligent to grasp that one. Doesn't sound like heaven on earth, but maybe it will be.

It's hard to argue with Kurzweil's basic premise however: we have, today, a vast, decentralized, scientific and technological enterprise that is moving forward with astounding speed--when compared to prior centuries or even prior decades. It is unlikely that anything is going to stop those advances, or even slow them down very much. True, there are Luddite factions (like those that opposed embryonic stem cell research in the U.S.) in various places, but all they can do is slow progress in a small part of the world, not everywhere. The competition is just too great.

So, will that technology take us to some kind of utopia? We'll discuss that in a further post (this one already being rather long).

Deficit Hypocrisy

All of a sudden, the right is all abother about deficits, making symbolic gestures of opposing an increase in the federal debt ceiling.

Where were these deficit hawks during the Bush administration, when W pushed through a massive tax cut and paid for two wars and a huge Medicare drug plan with Uncle Sam's credit card?

What we have now is vintage "conservatism". When George W. Bush took office, the federal government was running a surplus, projected to total $5.6 trillion dollars over the span of what would become his administration.

Yet Bush didn't run a single year of surplus. When he handed over the reigns of government to his successor, the government was running deficits over $500 billion per year. Under the most optimistic of scenarios, there was no possible way to balance the budget over the succeeding eight years.

During the Bush years, the federal deficit expanded by $2.5 trillion--that's an $8 trillion swing from what he inherited.

We're now facing even bigger deficits, and the Obama administration, along with Congress, will have to figure out how to deal with it. But make no mistake: the problem was caused by W. Bush and his Congress. The deficit hawks squawking on Faux News didn't seem too bothered then.

Corporations Don't Vote And They Aren't People

Our Founding Fathers--of whom Sarah Palin is so fond--would be pretty surprised by yesterday's Supreme Court decision unfettering corporations (and unions) from restrictions on their political activities.

In our democracy, people vote. Corporations do not vote; indeed, they are creatures of the state. Under our constitution, corporations do have some rights, but they are not the same as those of citizens. There is no reason whatsoever why Congress cannot limit the political "rights" of corporations and unions.

Perhaps between depressing Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts and this abomination of a Supreme Court decision, folks on the left will wake up and get more active. Tea parties be damned!

(Our Constitution also doesn't provide that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation.)

100,000!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you dear readers! Just a couple hours ago we hit the 100,000 mark in "hits" at XCurmudgeon! Couldn't do it without you--hope we'll be able to continue providing content that keep you coming back.

Back To The Future

We wanted to get back to our little series on what the future will be like.

Today: what we want in a household robot.

In another 10 years or so, we should begin seeing some true household robots of the multi-tasking variety that crudely imitate humans. Current advances in computing power, artificial intelligence, minitiaration and robotics should make it possible for us to have robots capable of doing at least some household chores.

So, what do we want in such a robot? A robot that could clean up after a meal--now that would be worth paying for. Of course, that would require a robot that could clean dishes, throw away trash, put leftovers away, and wipe up after everyone's done. A robot that could do that could probably do just about everything in the house.

Doing laundry would be another nice function to have (including folding and putting away the clothes). (And finding all those missing socks!)

Vacuuming. Mowing the lawn. (Yes, there are currently robots that sort of do both; but we want a robot that will get those robots out and put them away when they're done.) Cleaning the bathroom.

A really useful function would be for our household robot to scan every item in the house, remember where it is, and retrieve it when needed. ("Robot, can you get me the plyers and find the TV remote?")

Maybe the robot could do some rudimentary cooking as well. And be a handyman. Rake leaves. Feed the cat! Trim hedges.

And do paperwork--keep track of bills and all that!

In other words, our robot is going to function like an entire staff in a mansion. (Hey, why not--it can work 24/7.)

We imagine that robots in this class are going to be expensive. But that's ok. We'd certainly pay the equivalent of what a luxury car costs today for a truly versatile robot of the future. And, like a car, we'd probably get an upgrade every few years.

Who knows, in 10 years we may be Facebook friends with our robots!

Next up (when we get time), we'll explore the more distant future--around 2040 or so, when things may get really interesting.

Did I Say I Was Going To Fix Virginia's Roads? What I Meant Was "Later"

We could've sworn that Bob McDonnell campaigned for governor on a platform that included fixing Virginia's roads a number one priority. He certainly savaged his opponent, Creigh Deeds, for not having a specific plan on transportation.

Well, surprise, surprise. Now McDonnell says the doesn't plan on addressing roads in the 2010 legislative session that is just getting underway. "There are only so many things the General Assembly and I can do well in a short period of time," the new Governor announced yesterday.

And transportation ain't one of 'em.

So much for that "plan" of his. So much for making transportation a priority. So much for you sucka's from Northern Virginia who bought his line of crap.

We're sure NEXT year the general assembly will have nothing better to do. Surely the Guv will get it done then, right.

Oh, and by the way Mr. McD.--tolls are taxes. If you impose tolls on I-95 and I-81, you're raising taxes. Only you're doing it in an expensive and inefficient way that will further slow down everyone in the state.

Rush Limbaugh Is A Jackass

But then, you already knew that, didn't you.

In case you missed it, Rush told his listeners that they needn't bother with appeals for aid to Haiti because "we've already donated to Haiti--it's called the U.S. income tax."

Pat Robertson also had some nice words of encouragement for Haitians, basically saying they deserved what they got because they made "a pact with the devil" 200 years ago when the island became independent.

Somehow, we don't think Rush and Pat would be talking this way if Haiti were a white country.

Just so we're clear, Limbaugh and Robertson should be called Hateians, not to be confused with those who deserve and sympathy and support.