Minor Thoughts from me to you

Recently, UCLA confirmed my belief that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of America's worst Presidents. He not only did more than any other politician to create interst group politics, he not only centralized and increased government power to an unprecedented degree, but he prolonged the Great Depression by at least 7 years. That was the conclusion recently reached by UCLA researchers.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

... In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted -- albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

I always like a story that points out how supposedly wise government employees manage to destroy the very thing they're trying to protect. Today, the Wall Street Journal fingered the Federal Reserve for much of the turmoil of the last year.

But the larger story is that the global economy is fast popping its latest monetary bubble, the one over the last 14 months in commodity prices and non-dollar currencies.

The original bubble was in housing prices and mortgage-related assets, which the Federal Reserve helped to create with its negative real interest rates from 2002 into 2005. This was Alan Greenspan's tragic mistake, not that the former Fed chief will acknowledge it.

As for the second bubble, this one began in August 2007 with the onset of the credit panic. This is Ben Bernanke's creation. The Fed chose to confront the credit crunch as if it were mainly a problem of too little liquidity, not fear of insolvency. To that end it flooded the economy with money, while taking short-term interest rates down to 2% from 5.25% in seven months. The panic only got worse, and this September's stampede finally led the Treasury and Fed to address the solvency problem by supplying public capital and numerous guarantees to the financial system.

The Fed's liquidity burst nonetheless sent markets for a 14-month loop, as the nearby charts indicate. The Fed created a commodity bubble of record proportions, with oil doing a round trip in a single year from $70 up to $147 and back down to $69 yesterday. The dollar also plunged along the way against most global currencies, notably the euro, as the bottom chart illustrates.

The dollar price of oil and the dollar-euro exchange rate are probably the two most important prices in the world. They represent a huge share of global commerce, sending signals that shape trade and capital flows. When those two prices move up and down so sharply in so short a time -- based more on fear and expectations than on economic realities -- they distort price signals and can lead to a misallocation of resources. Commodity prices have now fallen back to Earth, as the reality of global recession hits home and the Fed can't ease much further. Meanwhile, the euro has fallen from the stratosphere as Europe heads into recession and the dollar becomes a safer haven in a world of fear.

I said earlier today that I don't really trust McCain on economic issues. Slate quotes McCain's hero, Teddy Roosevelt, on taxes.

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. ... The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and ... a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

That's the same type of thing that McCain has been known to spout, when he forgets that he's running as a Republican. And it's another reminder of why I won't be voting Republican for President this year.

Fred Thompson gave a great speech this morning, exhorting Republicans to get out the vote. It's just unfortunate that his candidate is John McCain. While John McCain might be better than Barack Obama on economic issues, I'm not really convinced that he would be. McCain is a deficit hawk who would be comfortable raising taxes in order to pay for the recent bailouts and his proposed increases in defense spending. McCain is an economic populist who hates profits and "greedy" businessmen. McCain is an economic populist who believes the government needs to buy mortgages to bailout homeowners.

No thanks.

But this speech is great motivational material for anyone thinking of voting for Bob Barr. An excerpt:

All of this is important, because how we respond to our economic challenge is more important than the crisis itself. For the last 25 years the United States, and indeed the world, has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. You wouldn't know it from listening to Obama, but worldwide over 1 billion people have been able to lift themselves out of poverty. This is due to America's influence, from our defense of freedom in World War II to the Cold War, to the ascendency of our free-market capitalism, the adoption of open trade policies, and globalization. Yet some say our current financial difficulties are evidence that we should turn our back on our founding, free market principles ... that it's time for big changes.

But in a world that is increasingly inter-connected by jobs, trade and global finance, how our economy is viewed by the rest of the world is extremely important to America's economic well being. The worst thing in the world we could do is appear to be unfriendly to investment and trade with an economy constrained and made uncompetitive by layers upon layers of new regulations, and bogged down in the divisiveness of class warfare. Yet if you are to take them at their word this is precisely the direction that an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress would take us, turning a short term recession into a long term economic decline for the United States.

And while our regulatory regime needs to be examined and improved, we should be clear: capitalism is not the cause of our nation's economic challenges. The subprime mortgage crisis was not rooted in lack of regulation, but in bad policies made by Democrats in Congress that forced banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford the houses they were buying. These are the same politicians who protected the excesses and fraudulent conduct of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are the same ones who now want to control the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars to solve the problem they helped create, and who tried to slip $200 billion into the first bailout bill for their political cronies in ACORN, the organization that is now systemically perpetrating voter registration fraud around the country. This record, Obama and the Democrats say, entitles them to total control of all of the levers of power in Washington.

Under an Obama-Reed-Pelosi scenario nothing will restrain them from making the secret ballot in union elections be a thing of the past. The so called "fairness doctrine" will likely be passed, restricting free speech on talk radio, possibly even the Internet.

For years I've repeated the following story about Thomas Jefferson. Now I've finally seen the source. I see that I had a few of the details wrong, but had the basic gist right.

"In a few moments after our arrival, a tall, high-boned man came into the room. He was dressed, or rather undressed, in an old brown coat, red waistcoat, old corduroy small-clothes [breeches] much soiled, woollen hose, and slippers without heels. I thought him a servant, when General Varnum surprised me by announcing that it was the President." --Thomas Jefferson receiving guests at the White House, from the Life of William Plumer.

One of the things that has continued to disturb me about Senator Obama is the gap between his rhetoric and his actions. He continually talks about changing politics for the better. But every time he has the ability to actually change things, he votes for keeping the status-quo. Earlier, I wrote about his endorsements of Chicago machine politicians. Yesterday I read that he's endorsed thuggish Kenyan politicians.

National Review's Andy McCarthy summarized a Washington Post story about Senator Obama's connections to unsavory Kenyan politicians.

Odinga evidently has a very close relationship with Obama. He is native of Kenya's Luo tribe, the same one to which Obama's father belonged. In fact, in early 2008, Odinga told the BBC he is Obama's cousin (i.e., that Obama's father was Odinga's "maternal uncle").

Like other Obama connections -- Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, and Mike Klonsky (about whom I have an article today) -- Odinga is a socialist. He was educated by Soviets in East Germany, he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro, and his father was the leader of Kenya's Socialist opposition.

The former Kenyan government of Daniel Arap Moi was pro-American. (ACM -- I can attest to this personally, having worked with Kenyan authorities extensively during the investigation of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, which was carried out by the jihadist cells al Qaeda established in Kenya in the early Nineties.) Odinga served eight years in jail because he was implicated in a violent coup attempt against Moi's government in 1982.

Odinga sought the presidency in Kenya's December 2007 election. In 2006, Obama came to Kenya and campaigned for him, simultaneously voicing sharp criticism of the pro-American government. His comments will sound familiar to Americans. As Hyman writes, Obama declared, "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials[.]... Kenyans are now yearning for change." Obama's visit, the culmination of consultations with Odinga that had gone on for years, vaulted Odinga's candidacy.

(ACM -- the outraged Kenyan government issued a rebuttal, greatly disturbed that Obama had represented that he was coming to Kenya to nurture Kenya/U.S. relations but, in fact, had used the trip as a platform to lecture to Kenya about social justice. Obama's interference in a foreign election, transparently designed to topple a government cooperative with the United States, comes close, to say the least, to violating the Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. 953.)

Are any of Obama's supporters the least bit concerned about this display of hypocrisy? Are any of them even aware of it?

Lately I've been thinking about how Christians should respond to political outcomes. I'm a Libertarian. I believe that government governs best which governs least. Liberty loses no matter who wins -- Senator Obama wins or Senator McCain. Both support a stronger, more assertive government that strips away liberty. How should I respond to that loss?

Well, ultimately God still rules over the world. Things are imperfect -- and will be getting less perfect -- but God never told me that I'd live in a perfect world. In fact, he promised the opposite. I should devote myself more fully to God, no matter who wins. This election is just one huge reminder to trust God, not man. For all men are fallible, weak, and imperfect. Only God is the perfect ruler of this world. One day, he'll rule openly. And that's the day I'm waiting for.

Until then, I'll follow Pastor Piper's advice and vote as though I was not voting.

Voting is like marrying and crying and laughing and buying. We should do it, but only as if we were not doing it. That's because "the present form of this world is passing away" and, in God's eyes, "the time has grown very short." Here's the way Paul puts it:

The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)

Let's take these one at a time and compare them to voting.

1. "Let those who have wives live as though they had none."

... So it is with voting. We should do it. But only as if we were not doing it. Its outcomes do not give us the greatest joy when they go our way, and they do not demoralize us when they don't. Political life is for making much of Christ whether the world falls apart or holds together.

2. "Let those who mourn [do so] as though they were not mourning."

... So it is with voting. There are losses. We mourn. But not as those who have no hope. We vote and we lose, or we vote and we win. In either case, we win or lose as if we were not winning or losing. Our expectations and frustrations are modest. The best this world can offer is short and small. The worst it can offer has been predicted in the book of Revelation. And no vote will hold it back. In the short run, Christians lose (Revelation 13:7). In the long run, we win (21:4).

3. "Let those who rejoice [do so] as though they were not rejoicing."

... So it is with voting. There are joys. The very act of voting is a joyful statement that we are not under a tyrant. And there may be happy victories. But the best government we get is a foreshadowing. Peace and justice are approximated now. They will be perfect when Christ comes. So our joy is modest. Our triumphs are short-lived--and shot through with imperfection. So we vote as though not voting.

4. "Let those who buy [do so] as though they had no goods."

... So it is with voting. We do not withdraw. We are involved--but as if not involved. Politics does not have ultimate weight for us. It is one more stage for acting out the truth that Christ, and not politics, is supreme.

5. "Let those who deal with the world [do so] as though they had no dealings with it."

... So it is with voting. We deal with the system. We deal with the news. We deal with the candidates. We deal with the issues. But we deal with it all as if not dealing with it. It does not have our fullest attention. It is not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over his people with perfect supremacy no matter who is elected and no matter what government stands or falls. So we vote as though not voting.

I'd just like to point out that I advanced this idea during my sophomore or junior year of college (sometime between 2002 and 2004). My college friends can verify that -- I promoted the idea to pretty much everyone. But I never wrote it down, so I can't really prove it to the world. Oh, well.

With the exception of the iPhone, Apple's products largely lack technology to provide ubiquitous access to the outside world while on the go. However, a new proposal from the company would attempt to solve this problem, and provide ever-present access to the Internet, through a series of tiny RF modules that can be toted or place just about anywhere.

In a 36-page filing published for the first time Thursday and titled "Personal area network systems and devices and methods for use thereof," the electronics maker outlines a system for allowing products with only short-range communications circuitry, such as iPods and MacBooks, to connect to and leverage those equipped with long-range technology, such as the iPhone or specially designed RF modules.

AppleInsider | Apple proposes tiny RF modules for ever-present connectivity.

I agree with Congressman Jeff Flake.

Ethanol plants may be the next beneficiary of a federal bailout and Mesa congressman Jeff Flake is among those opposed to that idea.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said the federal government is considering outlays of as much as $25 million to help ethanol plants, which have been hit by volatile commodity prices.

Flake, a fiscal conservative, panned the plan Wednesday saying federal promotion of ethanol production is the problem. "The federal government's ethanol policies have driven up the price of corn," said Flake. "But rather than reforming the policies that have caused a spike in corn prices, the federal government wants to bail out ethanol producers who speculated on the price of corn. Only the U.S. Department of Agriculture could dream up a policy like this."

I didn't need any more reasons to dislike John McCain. But I have another one anyway. Continuing his general theme of believing that government employees are just plain better than regular folk, he wants copyright law to favor politicians over everyone else.

(Via McCain seeks special 'fair use' copyright rules for VIPs.)

John McCain's presidential campaign has discovered the remix-unfriendly aspects of American copyright law, after several of the candidate's campaign videos were pulled from YouTube.

McCain has now discovered the rights holder friendly nature of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which forces remixers to fight an uphill battle to prove that their work is a "fair use."

However, instead of calling for an overhaul of the much hated law, McCain is calling for VIP treatment for the remixes made by political campaigns.

McCain's proposal: complaints about videos uploaded by a political campaign would be manually reviewed by a human YouTube employee before any possible removal of the remix. The process for complaints against videos uploaded by millions of other Americans would stay the same: instant removal by a computer program, and then possible reinstatement a week or two later after the video sharing site has received and manually processed a formal counter-notice.

Just one more reason to vote for Bob Barr this year.

Last week, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke on the Constitution. Here are part of his remarks. How to Read the Constitution - WSJ.com

As I have traveled across the country, I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says. I am not suggesting that they become Constitutional scholars -- whatever that means. I am suggesting, however, that if one feels strongly about his or her rights, it does make sense to know generally what the Constitution says about them. It is at least as easy to understand as a cell phone contract -- and vastly more important.

The Declaration of Independence sets out the basic underlying principle of our Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

The framers structured the Constitution to assure that our national government be by the consent of the people. To do this, they limited its powers. The national government was to be strong enough to protect us from each other and from foreign enemies, but not so strong as to tyrannize us. So, the framers structured the Constitution to limit the powers of the national government. Its powers were specifically enumerated; it was divided into three co-equal branches; and the powers not given to the national government remained with the states and the people. The relationship between the two political branches (the executive and the legislative) was to be somewhat contentious providing checks and balances, while frequent elections would assure some measure of accountability. And, the often divergent interests of the states and the national government provided further protection of liberty behind the shield of federalism. The third branch, and least dangerous branch, was not similarly constrained or hobbled.

How many regular church members could explain the Gospel this clearly, succinctly, and correctly?

I went to Mars Hill for the first time that January. I sat near the door in case it was weird. It was not at all like I had feared it would be. Here were happy people full of hope and purpose in their lives. "You've got to be kidding me," I said to myself. I didn't know how to respond.

I met two guys who took me to lunch afterward. I explained to them that I couldn't understand why they were so full of joy. I explained that I was a pretty good person, had cleaned up my act somewhat, and still could not find God despite years of fruitless seeking and searching. I explained that everything and everybody had let me down, from my father onward, and that I had been defiled. I was jealous of them, for it was clear to me that day that they were loved of God and I was not.

They pointed out that my attempts at finding God were going nowhere because I had fashioned a god to suit myself and worshiped according to my own preference and superstition. A voice inside my head cried out your whole worldview is sin. God created you. You did not create him! I began to see that I had been wrong about life, God, and everything.

They told me they had some good news. "You have tried to worship what you do not know," they said. "Now you can worship the Living God in spirit and in truth. God became the man Jesus Christ to live a perfect life and then die on the cross to pay for your sins with his own blood. Jesus Christ did not just die. He rose again and is alive today and reigns as God at the right hand of the Father. In him we have reconciliation with God and forgiveness of our sins. If you will give your life to Jesus today and repent of your sins, God will adopt you into his family and you will have eternal life."

Changed by Jesus #16: Trust in the Truth

Right on. I Praise God for what he's doing at Mars Hill Seattle.

(Via The Mission & Vision.)

This is cool. It's amazing how far and fast medical technology is developing. I can't wait to see what will be available by the time I need serious medical help.

In 2001, the FDA approved the use of capsule endoscopy, which uses a capsule size camera [1.2 inches long by 0.4 inches in diameter]. These are passive systems. There is work to make smaller robotic systems and systems that can perform more of the capabilities of regular endoscopes. These capabilities include therapeutic and diagnostic operations such as ultrasound, electrocautery, biopsy, laser, and heat with a retractable arm.

Scientists at the Technion University, teamed with a researcher from the College of Judea and Samaria, have developed a miniature robot that can move within the bloodstream.

The miniature robot has been planned and constructed (2007), that has the unique ability to crawl within the human body's veins and arteries," said Dr. Nir Shvalb of the College of Judea and Samaria. The Israeli robot's diameter is one millimeter.

The researchers stress that the project is an "interesting development, but it has a long way to go before it is used in medicine." Solomon says that the tiny robot could be controlled for an unlimited amount of time to carry out any necessary medical procedure. The power source is an external magnetic field created near the patient that does not cause any harm to humans but supplies an endless supply of power for it to function. The robot's special structure enables it to move while being controlled by the operator using the magnetic field.

Next Big Future: Pill-size to bacteria sized robots for surgery and in-body therapies:

Georgia state officials have begun an investigation into Primus Industries and the alleged voter fraud committed by one or more of its employees. Jack Justice attends the adult day care provided by Primus for mentally-challenged individuals, and one or more Primus aides took them to an early voting event without permission from their families. Once in the booth, the aide cast the ballot for Barack Obama over Justice's protestation.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Obama supporter steals vote from disabled man.

If true, this is pretty horrifying.

The new HD camcorders are different from traditional camcorders in several ways. The most obvious is the stunning picture quality. Never have your most banal home videos looked so good! But I'm most concerned about the technical differences. Here are a few of my notes.

Tape or Tapeless?

Many of the newest HD camcorders leave out the DV tapes in favor of flash memory. Most record to either Secure Digital or Secure Digital High Capacity memory cards. SD cards range 8MiB to 4GiB and SDHC cards range from 1GiB to 32GiB. 4GiB SDHC cards are currently selling for $15-20 and 16GiB SDHC cards are currently selling for $50-60.

How much recording time is that? Well, it depends on the exact resolution of the camera and the exact format being used to store the video. Depending on the exact quality of the video, AVCHD can store 60 minutes of video in about 4-8GiB of memory.

Some HD camcorders still use reliable old DV tapes and the HDV format. With HDV, each tape can store 80 minutes of video. Once downloaded, HDV will require about 8-12GiB of storage per hour of video.

Formats

AVCHD is a popular format for tapeless camcorders.

AVCHD (AVC-HD, AVC HD) video is recorded using the MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 video compression codec. Audio is stored in either compressed form (Dolby AC-3), or uncompressed form (multichannel PCM). Aside from recorded audio and video, AVCHD includes features to improve media presentation: menu navigation, slide shows and subtitles. The menu navigation system is similar to DVD-video, allowing access to individual videos from a common intro screen. Slide shows are prepared from a sequence of AVC still frames, and can be accompanied by a background audio track. Subtitles are used in some camcorders to timestamp the recordings.

Just as HDV-editing once demanded an expensive high-end PC, the system requirements for AVCHD editing software currently limits it to powerful desktops. Compared to HDV, AVCHD video compression requires 2-4x the processing power, placing a greater burden on the computer memory and CPU. Older computers, even those that are capable of handling HDV, are often unacceptably slow for editing AVCHD, and can even struggle with smooth playback of AVCHD recordings. Improvements in multi-core computing and graphics processor acceleration is bringing AVCHD playback to mainstream desktops and laptops.

The implementation of H.264/AVC codec varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Canon and Panasonic camcorders use High-Profile@Level-4.1, up to the AVCHD format's maximum bitrate of 24 Mbit/s. To date, Sony camcorders have only used Main-Profile@Level-4.0, at a maximum bitrate of 17 Mbit/s. The High-Profile mode of H264 is more difficult to create and playback than main-profile. Consequently, recordings made by one vendor's camcorder or editing software may be unplayable on another vendor's equipment, leading to a frustrating user experience.

HDV is the preferred format for tape-based camcorders.

HDV was designed to offer a cost-conscious upgrade path from standard-definition (SD) to high-definition (HD) video. As such, HDV uses the same DVC cassette as MiniDV. Recording time for HDV is identical to MiniDV SP. As of yet, no HDV cameras can record HDV at LP speed, so the maximum record time on one tape is 80 minutes, as opposed to 120 with an 80 minute tape at LP. Although wanted by the consumer market, it is not likely that there will be an HDV camcorder that records HDV in LP mode because of the higher risk of video drop-outs at faster transport speeds.

HDV cameras are offered in both consumer and professional designs. Consumer models are sold to the mass consumer market, competing with other camcorders used for home, travel and vacation video. Professional models have better lenses and other advanced features for those doing paid video production, and are used for a wide variety of projects including some popular TV shows (e.g. "Deadliest Catch"). HDV can be captured and edited in most modern NLEs on personal computers, then output to either Blu-ray or computer delivery formats.

Compatibility

Since I'm a Mac user, I'm mostly concerned about Mac compatibility. Apple's various video editing software do not directly support AVCHD video. Instead, they automatically convert the video into the Apple Intermediate Codec format. This conversion dramatically slows down the import process.

HDV is supported by all of Apple's video editing software. Because it is read directly from the tape, it will import in real-time. Of course, before buying any video camera it would be a good idea to check the iMovie 08 Camcorder Support page.

Bottom Line

It looks like shooting video in a tapeless camcorder with AVCHD would be significantly more expensive than shooting with a more traditional tape-based camcorder. With MiniDV tapes selling for about $3 each, I can cheaply shoot hours of video on vacation without needing to download everything to my computer. Assuming the highest quality video, AVCHD would cost me about $25 in flash memory for every hour I tape. If I waited until I got home to download my video, I'd need to take a lot of expensive memory on my trips.

Right now, it's also easier for me to edit MiniDV on my computers. iMovie HD and iMovie 08 support MiniDV natively, but I'd only be able to edit AVCHD after a lengthy conversion process.

If I had to buy an HD camcorder today, I'd buy a MiniDV HDV camcorder.

(UPDATE: camcorderinfo.com has a nice overview of HD camcorders and popular models.)

I was initially excited about the new MacBook and MacBook Pro models from Apple. Then I noticed that the new MacBook doesn't include a Firewire port. This is a bit of a big deal for me. My Panasonic video camera requires Firewire to download videos to the computer. I like using my MacBook to download and edit videos while on vacation. If I decide to buy one of the new MacBooks, I'll no longer be able to do that.

Now AppleInsider is reporting that Steve Jobs himself has replied to an irked Apple customer. Says Uncle Steve:

Actually, all of the new HD camcorders of the past few years use USB 2.

The new HD camcorders start around $500.

He has a bit of a point. I would like an HD camcorder. But my wife needs a new laptop now and I'd prefer that it be compatible not just with our future camcorder but also with our existing camcorder. Was now really the right time for Apple to remove a port that many of its users still need?

(Yes, I'm whining a bit. Sales of the new MacBook will probably be spectacularly good anyway. It's a good machine. But I wanted to have both my bread and my cake.)

This is good news:

The price of crude oil has hit an 8 month low, dipping to just under $90 a barrel. The decrease in price is being attributed to the global financial slowdown, which analysts believe will lead to a reduction in the consumption of gas. The decline in price should come as some relief to the average American and the numerous industries that are struggling to cope with the ripple effects of high energy costs.

Iranian leadership, however, view the decline in the price of oil with great concern. Speaking at the Second International Gas Conference in Tehran, a gathering that includes leading oil and gas producers, Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari called on OPEC members to stabilize prices at over $100 a barrel. "A price of US$100 and below is not suitable for anybody, neither oil producers nor oil consumers... OPEC members need to respect their output quota to avoid a worsening of the oversupply."

At this point, Iran stands alone in its concern over the current price level for oil. But what is there motive? Is it simple greed - the higher the price of oil, the greater the revenues? To an extent, greed does play a role. However, there seems to be real fiscal concerns at hand for the Islamic Republic. Mohsin Khan, Director of Middle East and Central Asia at the International Monetary Fund, argues,

Iran's break-even price is $90 a barrel, and that is a big issue in Iran right now. ... If prices dip below $90 a barrel, and we have seen it touch $89 earlier this week, then they would have to tighten their public expenditure policy, and probably cut subsidies, which would be an issue for the government there – the public would not be content.

From ThreatsWatch.Org: RapidRecon: Iran's Fear of Low Oil Prices.

Another reader of The Corner sent an interesting email.

... This is not 1932. Despite having Sarbanes Oxley, the SEC, the FDIC, CRA, TVA, Social Security, Progressive Taxation, Medicare, Medicaid, a high Corporate Tax, the EEOC, tens of thousands of pages of federal regulations, and a $3 trillion plus federal budget, we find ourselves in a severe banking/credit crisis. For almost 3 weeks Paulson and Bernecke have pulled every financial rabbit out of their hats but they still cannot stop the panic on Wall St or the liquidity crisis. Despite having a federal regulatory apparatus that would have been unimaginable in 1929, this nation experienced 2 rather huge market bubbles (Tech stocks 1995-2000, and Real Estate 2003-2007), and all of the greed those kind of bubbles produce.

... The Fed cannot keep pouring cash into the markets; nor can it continue to spend taxpayers money like a teen with his/hers father’s Visa Card on a shopping mall bender. The federal deficit is already at a level no one can begin to imagine. The market has already punished some of the worst offenders, with probably a few more banks waiting in the wings. Who will be left to regulate? Will higher taxes, stiffer government regulations and intrusions work? Will resurrecting Glass/Stengall restore market and credit confidence? This is not 1932. The government is now the prime source of insurance and mortgages. Could it be that both the financial sectors and public sectors got too large to manage? Could it be that the new robber barons are not sitting in boardrooms, but on Capital Hill and in K-Street offices? Perhaps the panic’s root cause is that no investors can trust a financial system that is filled with so many conflicts of interests?

I think it is now dawning on some that there will be no government "solution" to this mess. The continued panic and credit crunch illustrates this. FDR came in to a federal government with a budget just a tad larger than PBS's budget today. Seventy six years and trillions of dollars later, we have come to the end of the FDR model.

That sounds about right. It would be hard for government to spend more than it already does (or is planning to). Somehow I don't think that even more spending will rescue us.

The Corner on National Review Online.

Alan Kazdin recently discussed corporal punishment. He's against it.

Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment in the schools. But so far, we have shown ourselves unwilling to extend that debate beyond the schools and into the ideologically sacred circle of the family. Where the argument against corporal punishment in the schools has prevailed, in fact, it has often cited parents' individual right to punish their own children as they, and not educators acting for the state, see fit. The situation is different in other countries. You may not be surprised to hear that 91 countries have banned corporal punishment in the schools, but you may be surprised to hear that 23 countries have banned corporal punishment everywhere within their borders, including in the home.

... Practically nobody in America knows or cares that the United Nations has set a target date of 2009 for a universal prohibition of violence against children that would include a ban on corporal punishment in the home. Americans no doubt have many reasons—some of them quite good—to ignore or laugh off instructions from the United Nations on how to raise their kids. And it's naive to think that comprehensive bans are comprehensively effective. Kids still get hit in every country on earth. But especially because such bans are usually promoted with large public campaigns of education and opinion-shaping (similar to successful efforts in this country to change attitudes toward littering and smoking), they do have measurable good effects. So far, the results suggest that after the ban is passed, parents hit less and are less favorably inclined toward physical discipline, and the country is not overwhelmed by a wave of brattiness and delinquency.

... We have so far limited our national debate on corporal punishment by focusing it on the schools and conducting it at the local and state level. We have shied away from even theoretically questioning the primacy of rights that parents exercise in the home, where most of the hitting takes place. Whatever one's position on corporal punishment, we ought to be able to at least discuss it with each other like grownups.

I find this very interesting. He thinks we should ban completely ban spanking. He thinks we should punish parents who spank their children. Maybe he thinks that we should take the children away if the parents continually defy the law.

I'm sure many prominent lefties would support his argument. And, yet, how many of those same people would support an effort to criminalize abortion and punish parents who seek abortions? Isn't this a double standard? How can you be willing to outlaw spanking -- to punish parents who hit their children -- but not be willing to outlaw abortions -- punish parents who kill their children?

How is that a just standard?

Last Sunday, Tim Mackie preached about "our circle". Who are the people that we love? Who are the people that we care for? Who are the people that we would go out of our way to help? Who's "in the circle" and who's out?

Tim challenged us to expand our circles. To realize the hardships that others are facing. To move beyond our own selfishness and to demonstrate the love of God. As he taught, I thought of C. S. Lewis's sermon on "The Weight of Glory". I was planning on requoting it here, but I hadn't yet gotten to it.

Earlier today, I watched these clips of Bill Maher on the Daily Show. In it, he roundly mocks Christians, Christianity, and the entire idea of believing in God.

My first, immediate, reaction was "what a loathsome man". He and and Jon Stewart took great delight in mocking everyone who did not live up to the ideals of their towering intellects. It was a disgusting performance.

My second reaction -- very close behind the first -- was "what a great illustration of what Paul was talking about".

[esvbible reference="1 Corinthians 1:18-31" header="on" format="block"]1 Corinthians 1:18-31[/esvbible]

Bill Maher is right: Christianity is foolish. But I'm glad that God demonstrated His love the way that He did.

My third -- and final! -- reaction was to think back to "The Weight of Glory". Once again, it seemed to dovetail perfectly with the challenge in Tim's sermon and my own reactions to Bill Maher. Here's the end:

Meanwhile the cross comes before the crown and tomorrow is a Monday morning. A cleft has opened in the pitiless walls of the world, and we are invited to follow our great Captain inside. The following Him is, of course, the essential point. That being so, it may be asked what practical use there is in the speculations which I have been indulging. I can think of at least one such use. It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour.

The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour's glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare.

All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics.

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously -- no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption.

And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner -- no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat -- the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.

I need to remember that Bill Maher is an eternal being. Maybe instead of thinking of him as a loathsome man, I should add him to "my circle".