Cloned Cow Gives Birth

    In an interesting development in cloning, a cloned cow in Japan gave birth naturally to a healthy calf. The researchers responsible for Dolly the sheep managed to get her to give birth, but this appears to be the first confirmed incident of a cloned cow giving birth.

    “There have been arguments over the fertility of cloned cattle but the birth can be seen as a convincing answer,” Koichi Yamamoto, deputy director of the Ishikawa Prefectural Livestock Research Center where the cow gave birth, told the BBC. “Kaga No 2 is feeding its calf and it shows that cloned cows can recognise their own babies and may have maternal instincts.”

Source:

Cow clone gives birth. The BBC. July 11, 2000.

You Suck as a Writer

    Occasionally I get e-mails that don’t criticize the content of my web pages, but instead focus on my perceived failings as a writer. On the one hand, I’m never too sure how much credence to put into criticism that rarely goes deeper than “you suck,” but on the other hand I have spent a lot of time thinking about writing and the web, especially when it comes to issues of quantity vs. quality of writing.

    In that debate I definitely come down on the quantity side. I worry a lot about any possible errors in logic or facts, but typographical errors or sentences that could be constructed better don’t really worry me very much. For awhile, I sent freelance op-ed columns to the Detroit News. They published the columns, sent me a check, and the editor I dealt with said very kind things about the quality of my writing. But behind the scenes, each of the columns I submitted to him went through 8 to 9 drafts minimum before I dared send them to him. I’d easily spend 10 to 15 hours over a weekend on a single 500 word article, making sure each word did exactly what was needed — no more and no less.

    Eventually, if my sites continue to be successful, I’ll get to quit my day job and devote more time to quality control, but for the moment I’m more interested in getting my ideas out there rather than making sure everything is picture perfect. The one thing I do to compensate for this is on a monthly basis I go back and re-read what I’ve written that month, editing it for punctuation, grammar, spelling, and sentence construction. I think that’s a pretty good compromise.

High Gas Prices: Are Price Controls and Antitrust Lawsuits the Answer?

    Over the past 20 years, gasoline prices have tended to follow the typical pattern for a mature commodity — prices have tended to oscillate in a 3-4 year cycle between high and low prices. Every time gas prices hit their highest levels, people and politicians whine about price gouging and lack of competition in the oil industry, and those complaints are forgotten after gasoline prices inevitably start their downward movement.

    The July issue of Mother Jones includes an article by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman (The Solution to Rising Gas Prices: Antitrust Action)arguing that this latest spike in gasoline prices is due entirely to consolidation and mergers within the oil industry. According to Mokhiber and Weissman, such consolidation inevitably leads to higher prices and the only way to achieve lower gas prices over the long haul is for the government to initiate antitrust actions against oil companies. Unfortunately there view of increased gas prices is extremely superficial.

    As Mokhiber and Weissman point out, 18 months ago the two largest suppliers of gasoline, Mobil and Exxon merged. At that time industry analysts claimed that the merger would have no effect on gas prices. Now the duo say such consolidation is behind rising gas prices.

    If true, it’s kind of odd that Mobil and Exxon waited until now. After all prior to the recent dramatic increase of gas prices, U.S. consumers enjoyed gas prices that reach record low levels, which certainly didn’t help the profits of companies involved in the gasoline industry. Mokhiber and Weissman don’t use the figure, but others have went around claiming the oil industry must be price gouging because their profits jumped 500 percent in the first quarter of 2000, but that only looks astonishing precisely because first quarter 2000 profits are being compared to previous quarters when the price of gasoline was selling at record or near-record lows throughout most of the country.

    Like other observers, Mokhiber and Weissman are especially concerned about the sudden spike in costs in Midwest gasoline, dismissing the oil industry’s claim that the cleaner fuel mandated for cities such as Chicago is responsible for much of the increase. According to Mokhiber and Weissman, “That’s also true, but the Environmental Protection Agency — noting that the oil industry has had six years to prepare itself for the implementation of cleaner fuel standards that the industry helped negotiate — says the cleaner-burning gas should only cost 4 to 7 cents more per gallon.”

    First, the notion that bureaucrats are experts on just how much it costs to put their regulations in place is laughably absurd. The EPA and other agencies have a long history of telling the American people that this or that regulation or change will only cost a tiny amount of money, only to see the actual cost skyrocket.

    Second, both the EPA and Mother Jones article ignore the larger infrastructure issues facing the gasoline industry. Gasoline prices in the Midwest shot up, for example, after two breakdowns in the supply line occurred. First, problems emerged at one of the few refineries that produces the clean burning fuel, and then a major gas pipeline for the Midwest broke in Michigan. The result was that the amount of gasoline the industry could get into Midwest gas stations fell very quickly, and as a result gas prices shot up very quickly, especially for the clean fuel mandated by the EPA. Add rising oil prices to that mix and the result is very predictable — a temporary surge in gas prices.

    It is ironic that Mokhiber and Weissman call for further government regulation when existing regulation is largely responsible for the brief increase in prices. Regulations that require different formulations of gasoline to be sent to different parts of the country, along with regulations that have stopped construction of new refineries cold and diminished investment in pipeline capacity and other infrastructure (much the same thing has happened in a related industry, power generation, where the every changing regulatory landscape has diminished investments in adding power generating infrastructure).

    Mokhiber and Weissman’s “solutions” are downright bizarre. Basically they want a windfall profits tax “to put an end to the industry’s gain from consumer’s pain due to OPEC and other input costs increases.” This is an odd thing. One of the few valid insights of what I’ll loosely call the environmental left is that in many instances consumers don’t pay the real cost of the resources they use which tends to create wasteful use patterns. Mokhiber and Weissman, on the other hand, want consumers to be shielded from the costs of inputs such as oil.

    Furthermore, they advocate a return to price controls on gasoline which are even worse. First, they don’t work as anyone who remembers the huge gas lines of the 1970s knows. Second, they go even further toward shielding consumers from the real costs of the goods they consume. Mokhiber and Weissman ask, “why should industry regulate the market instead of democratic government authorities?” Precisely because democratic government authorities have every incentive to please one group of economic actors over the other (whether it is consumers or gasoline companies), and ignore the many varied problems of supplying gasoline. Across the board, government control of prices results in goods being priced either too expensively (for example, the price control-like power exercised over sugar) or too low (for example, government pricing of water far below market prices in the western United States).

    The reality is that basing regulations and price control schemes based on gasoline prices over the past 6 to 8 months is a ridiculous way to conduct business. If instead we look at the average price for gasoline in the United States over the past 5 or 10 years, the story is completely different — even with the regulations on oil and gas companies, a gallon of gasoline can be bought in the United States more cheaply than almost anywhere else in the world. The temporary pain caused by brief fluctuations in the market price of gasoline is more than offset by the long term trend of lower gas prices. Further regulation or price controls in the gasoline market would effectively end the cheap energy ride that Americans have been enjoying for almost two decades now.

Does Study Really Mean Women Approve of Domestic Violence?

A British study recently suggested that a rather large minority of women approve of domestic violence, but unfortunately it’s hard to tell exactly what the study means.

According to a report in the Sunday Times (UK) on the study,

…[500] women taking part were asked to comment on a situation where a man argued with his wife about her long working hours. At the end of the row he slapped her face and locked her in the bathroom.

About 25 percent of the women said they sympathized with the man, and 30 percent said they didn’t believe he should be arrested. Caroline Healy, who conducted the study, interpreted this result as evidence of the failure to communicate the anti-domestic violence message:

Although the Government is spending a lot on publicity to say that violence shouldn’t be dealt with in the home, that message isn’t always getting through. This research shows a clear need for more public awareness and public education work, particularly in primary schools. More needs to be spent on teaching people about it and more research needs to be done.

But the results are ambiguous at best even taking them at their face value. The first result is hardly even interesting — it is possible for men and women to feel sympathy for someone without approving of his or her actions.

Much the same problem occurs with whether or not the husband should be arrested for assaulting his wife. Some studies tend to show that legal intervention in low level acts of violence tends to worsen rather than improve the situation. Those who don’t think the husband should be arrested might think that some form of family counseling might be more likely to change his behavior than arrest.

It’s a shame that studies like this usually only ask the 500 women to react to scenarios where men assault women. It would be interesting to have asked the same people about a situation where a woman slaps her husband after a verbal argument. Would they have felt any sympathy for the woman? Would they have thought the woman should have been arrested?

I know personally my wife and I have never committed acts of violence against each other (and I really can’t imagine this happening), but if my wife should slap me after a heated argument calling the police as the first strategy would be counter-productive over the long term. Does it follow then that, as Healy puts it, I am “implicitly condon[ing] the use of force in intimate relationships”? No, of course not, but neither does every relationship fit into the same cookie cutter mode that requires legal intervention for resolving incidents of low level violence.

Source:

Not all women condemn wife beaters. Gillian Harris, The Sunday Times, July 11, 2000.