Q: How Do I Avoid Natural Disasters?

A: Don't be poor. Don't even live in a poor country.

The earthquake in Chile was a magnitude 8.8, as opposed to the 7.0 quake in Haiti. This means it was 500 times bigger. (The calculation, for those curious, is 10 to the (8.8 - 7.0) x 3/2 power, or 10 to the 2.7 power). But the death toll appears be 500 to 1000 times smaller. Something similar happens consistently in earthquakes, hurricanes, and other "natural" disasters-- the event is natural, the disaster is not.

Envying Canada

It's unseemly for an American to envy Canada. True, they have universal health care and a functioning national legislature, but someday we will too. And crime in our major cities is way, way down. Nothing against Neil Young or Alex Trebek, but, you know, it's Canada.

Yesterday, however, when Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir were getting their gold medals, and the loudspeakers were playing "O Canada," the camera showed the winners, and they were singing along. Not only that, but when the camera moved to their families, they were singing along too! Brian Williams reported that out on the streets of Vancouver, crowds spontaneously began singing the national anthem.

I was envious. How many Americans did you see at the Olympics singing along to "The Star Spangled Banner"? How about at a ball game? How about spontaneously?

We're just as patriotic as Canadians, and three times as jingoistic. The reason we don't sing along is because we can't. It's a really hard song to sing. In the United States, the accepted custom is to listen while a professional vocalist sings the national anthem. The melody was written for the Anacreontic Society, a club of amateur musicians. A good show-off piece.

The difficulties of changing the national anthem to something more singable are many. First, there are the people who will accuse you of being unpatriotic. Can you imagine a bill to change the national anthem making it through Congress? Then, there turn out to be problems with all the alternatives: hard to sing (America the Beautiful), melody already in use by someone else (America), pedestrian (God Bless America), no connection to America in the lyrics (Battle Hymn of the Republic).

The only workable option I can see is to keep the song and make marginal changes to the melody. For example, starting at "And the rockets' red glare" the tune can be shifted down nine half-steps, I think it is (really not my department), and sound very much the same. Still not easy, but a lot more achievable. And who ever said that patriotism was easy?

I just haven't figured out what would be required to make this happen. Who controls the organists at ballparks?

By the way, if you're thinking of making a melodrama with a heroine named Tessa Virtue, it would be hard to find a better name for the villain than Massimo Scali.

One more comment on the Olympics: The Russians (including Putin) get the gold medal in childishness and petulance. Believing you should win the gold because you did a quadruple toe loop and the other guy didn't reminds me, unfairly, of their old belief that the way to win the Cold War is by building a bigger H-bomb than anyone else. You're still not strong on finesse, druzja.

The Only Interesting Thing About Tiger Woods's Private Life

As always, the only interesting thing about Tiger Woods's private life is the reaction to it of the media and the public. It appears that Tiger did not meet the current standard for public apology, which requires crying as a mark of sincerity. Thus the criticism of him for being "affectless" and "robotic." He was also criticized because his speech was "scripted," which apparently means he didn't have it memorized and kept looking at the paper. (He's a golfer, for crying out loud.)

Maybe I'm biased in Tiger's favor because he said "between Elin and me" and not "between Elin and I." (Hooray for scripting.) But all this clucking about whether he was really sincere or not is just dumb. If someone gets in front of TV cameras and says, "I am a loathsome worm" (I'm paraphrasing), it seems beside the point to argue about whether he really, really means it or not.

The larger issue here is people's unshakable belief that they can judge other people's character by watching them on TV. I recall someone saying to me quite seriously that Gary Hart was not honest because he didn't look you in the eye, and people had trouble doing that when they were lying. It didn't occur to her that (a) what this really meant was that he didn't look directly at the TV camera, and it's hard to say what that signifies, (b) the better liars have no trouble at all looking you in the eye. (This is a somewhat touchy issue for me, because I have always had trouble looking people in the eye-- it feels aggressive to me-- and I consider myself more honest than average.) Conversely, someone I know watched the candidates debate and came away convinced of John Edwards's integrity and honesty, which turned out to be a less than accurate judgment.

Get over it, people. Actions speak louder, or at least truer, than a good drama coach. In fact, words speak louder than a good drama coach. If you're not careful, you'll end up with an actor as President.

(Oh, and two btws: Why did the Fox News clip on the Internet cut out Tiger's reference to Buddhism, after Fox broadcast Brit Hume's slighting reference? And what's with pronouncing "Elin" with a long E? That's so unScandinavian.)

Hypocrisy Watch Update

If J.D. Hayworth, "the consistent conservative," is successful in his primary challenge to John McCain, then (if nothing else changes) it will leave the Senate with six combat veterans, all of whom are Democrats. Two senators were fortunate enough to get into the National Guard during Vietnam and so saw no combat. Guess which party they belong to.

Hey! Watch it!

It's happened again; the New York Times columnists are stealing ideas from my postings. This time it's Paul Krugman. (I did like the line about going straight for the capillaries, though.)

The Stench of Hypocrisy (Armed Services Division)

You think it's easy being a lone crusader for truth? Sometimes the miasma of hypocrisy gets so thick you need a gas mask to breathe.

In the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Sen. Saxby Chambliss really did ask, if we allow gays in the military, won't we then have to allow adultery and body art? Saxby Chambliss! What is he even doing on the Armed Services Committee (besides steering defense contracts to Georgia)? Apparently he's got more of an interest in the military than he did during Vietnam, when he had five student deferments, plus one medical deferment for a football injury.

None of this abashed him at all when he first ran for the Senate. He defeated the incumbent, Max Cleland, who got a Bronze Star and a Silver Star and lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, by showing pictures of Cleland with pictures of Osama Bin Laden. Hmmm... someone with endless student deferments beating someone with a Bronze Star and a Silver Star from Vietnam, by claiming to be tough on terrorism. Why does that sound familiar?

Oh gee, that's just like Mr. Tough Guy himself, Dick Cheney, the leader of the pack, or rather flock, of Republican chickenhawks. Why does no one ever call the Republicans on their pieties about the military?

John McCain, of course, does have military experience, could even be called a war hero. But his highly developed sense of honor apparently is losing out to his desire for survival in the Republican Party. Yes, he did say this about Don't Ask Don't Tell in 2006: "... the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."  But it appears he was bluffing; how could anyone know they'd really do it? He was hiding behind the uniforms, just like his chickenhawk friends. Hand me my gas mask.

Strange Bedfellows

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that Osama bin Laden has denounced the U.S., and urged a boycott of American goods, over global warming. Things I am wondering:

• Is there a big group of young Muslim environmentalists who are the intended target for this message?
• If we pass cap-and-trade legislation, is that a surrender to terrorism? Will Republicans say that it is?
• Will he go after China next? (Hard to see how that could be a good idea for him--he's already tapped into the Uighur market.)
• What's with this boycott business? Has he decided to emulate Gandhi?

Bet you didn't know this: the AP story on this reports that he also mentioned global warming in a tape released in 2007. My mind is pretty boggled.

My State-of-the-Union Edit: The 90-Second Game Changer

It's now the day after the State-of-the-Union address, and everyone with an opinion about politics or public policy is offering a list of things Obama should have said. I'll limit myself to one, with the note that I was surprised by how many of the right things he said:

"Most people have part of the cost of their health insurance paid by their employer or by the Social Security trust fund, so it's hard to get a sense of how much it actually costs. But make no mistake: we're all paying those costs, whether we can see them or not, in lower wages, higher prices, reduced employment, and reduced international competitiveness.

"Here's a startling fact. Look at the other advanced industrialized countries, and take the most expensive health-care system among them. This is a system that, like most of them, has universal coverage, in a country that, like most of them, has better statistics on life expectancy and infant mortality than we do. And by the way, it has private-sector provision.

"If our costs were proportional to theirs, we would be paying roughly $8,000 per household less than we pay for our current system that leaves tens of millions uncovered and doesn't provide very good health. That's a very rough estimate of the waste in our system: $8,000 per household . That's how much better off we could be, without sacrificing health, with a country where no one goes bankrupt from health costs or loses their coverage when they need it most, if we had a more efficient system."

Note: This is a quickie back-of-the-envelope calculation, based on Switzerland's per-capita health-care costs being two-thirds of ours, and our total being $2.4 trillion.

Like it? I call it a "ninety-second game-changer." Instead of the discussion being about whether we can afford a new system, it's about whether we can afford the present one.

The Conspiracy Conspiracy

Bear with me while I struggle with some cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, the Internet is awash in conspiracy theories--about the real culprits of 9/11, the truth about the Federal Reserve, Obama's socialist agenda, and on and on. It would be fair, I think, to characterize these theories as completely wacko, although I suppose if you weren't familiar with the subject they could seem plausible. As usual, Hollywood both caters to and reinforces our fantasies; an action movie or TV show that doesn't at least hint darkly at a trail that leads all the way to the top (of something) is pretty weak beer these days.

But the other day (Thursday) in an hour or two on the Internet, I came up with some results that startled me: that the top one percent of households get almost one-quarter of national income, and that with a modest increase in the tax of the top 15,000 households you could pay more or less the entire cost of the House or Senate health reform plan. These results are not original, aside from some long division. But have you heard anyone talk about them on either the msm (Internet-speak for mainstream media) or the conspiracy blogs and websites?

Or take the Tea Party people. (Someone should tell them, by the way, that the motto of the Boston Tea Party of 1773 was not "No taxation.") They're indignant about the deficit, intrusive government and the bank bailout. Yet who are they lining up with? The Republicans, the very people that created all those things. The Democrats represent "government."

I don't believe in conspiracies. But suppose, hypothetically, that there were a conspiracy by the rich and powerful to hold onto their wealth and power. You could do a lot worse than channeling disgruntled people into worrying about how the Twin Towers fell and what happened at Roswell.

First, it distracts people from the huge inequalities of income in this country. Whoever that shadowy cabal was who brought down the World Trade Center, it's unlikely that the super-rich will be accused of being  members, unless at some point they spent time in the CIA. Second, it undercuts people's faith in government, and indeed increases their fear and suspicion of government, making it easier for you to defeat any attempts at burdensome taxation or regulation. All in all, a nice deal. Hypothetically.

The next time someone tries to convince you of one of these cockamamie theories, just smile and say, "That's what they want you to think."

The truth is out there.

The Ad Martha Coakley Should Be Doing

I don't view myself as having any extraordinary political savvy, so when I see professional politicians screwing up, there's always the possibility that I'm wrong. But sometimes I'm right. One general mistake I see politicians, or their campaign experts, make a lot is thinking that TV commercials have to have great visuals, and therefore must be at least a week behind the curve and miss the hot issue.

I, on the other hand, think that if John Kerry had done an ad of himself sitting behind a desk refuting the Swift Boat allegations, instead of pictures of adorable children, he would have been elected. (Which probably would have meant that the Democrats wouldn't have taken back Congress two years later, but that's another issue.) So here's what I think is the winning Martha Coakley ad, with her sitting behind a desk,or standing in her backyard, or wherever:

"Our country is going through some difficult times right now. We face a lot of problems coming at once, most as a result of their having been ignored for a long time: the banking crisis, failing schools, Afghanistan, our overpriced health care system.

"Solving those problems will take action, not more twiddling our thumbs. But instead of coming up with constructive plans, the Republicans are content to do their best to obstruct, delay or kill whatever the Democrats come up with. They've made the calculation that that's their best shot at getting back into power. Can you think of anything constructive that Republicans have done in the last year? I can't.

"Now they're running Scott Brown for Ted Kennedy's old seat. They're looking for him to join their disciplined army in filibustering any effort to deal with our country's problems. And if he's elected, he will.

"We can't afford more years of delay. Our problems won't wait. We can solve them, but not by ignoring them. If I'm elected Senator, I will go to Washington and fight for you, just as I did as Attorney General.

"Let's get this country moving again. My name is Martha Coakley, and I approved this ad."