The WSJ reports on the unintended consequences of a government program (but is this in any way an appropriate job for the federal government?):

Congress created the national Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness program, or PAIMI, in 1986 to curb abuse and neglect of the mentally ill, primarily in institutions. In the 1960s and 1970s, many abuses were uncovered at hospitals, where patients were physically restrained, neglected or overmedicated. The PAIMI program, operated by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration with a 2008 budget of $34.8 million a year, funds protection-and-advocacy agencies in each state…

On June 20, 2006, William Bruce approached his mother as she worked at her desk at home and struck killing blows to her head with a hatchet. Two months earlier, William, a 24-year-old schizophrenic, had been released from Riverview Psychiatric Center in Augusta, Maine, against the recommendations of his doctors. “Very dangerous indeed for release to the community,” wrote one…

A few weeks after William Bruce’s admission, psychiatrist Jeffrey Fliesser wrote that William was hostile, paranoid and “dangerous to others without additional observation and active attempts to treat him,” an opinion he reiterated over the next five weeks. The doctor also wrote that he urged William, now diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, to take medication, but William refused…

the doctor’s notes also show that William’s release was backed by government-funded patient advocates. According to medical records, the advocates — none of them physicians — appear to have fought for his right to refuse treatment, to have coached him on how to answer doctors’ questions and to have resisted the medical staff’s efforts to contact his parents. As one doctor wrote, William told him his advocates believed he is “not a danger, and should be released.”…

Helen Bailey, one of William’s advocates, declined to discuss the details of his case but says the handling of it was consistent with her professional duties. “My job is to get the patient’s voice into the mix where decisions are made,” says Ms. Bailey, an attorney with Maine’s Disability Rights Center in Augusta. “No matter how psychotic, that voice is still worthy of being heard.”…

Ms. Bailey…doesn’t believe the advocates prevented William from getting medical care. “There is nothing in the William Bruce case that is contrary to the way we do business,” she says, adding that it is the hospital’s responsibility to try to have a patient committed or forcibly medicated. More generally, Ms. Bailey says it isn’t a given that families of the mentally ill should be involved in decisions involving their care. “There are some God damn nasty families out there,” she says…

There are, we suppose, always two sides to a story, but it’s hard to suspend judgment in this case. After William Bruce was arrested for killing his 47 year old mother, he “told a psychologist that the Pope told him to kill his mother because she was involved with al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”

An idiot makes an endorsement of a political candidate. If America has indeed become a TV show, it has become an awful TV show.

EJ Dionne says that youth just might be served this time around:

Since the late 1960s, the same chorus has been heard from election to election: The young don’t care. They’re disengaged. They’re too wrapped up in their music, their favorite sports and their parties to care about politics…the evidence is overwhelming that this year, the young really will vote in large numbers — and they just might tip the election.

The trend started four years ago. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, or CIRCLE, electoral participation among 18- to 24-year-olds rose from 36 percent in 2000 to 47 percent in 2004. For the larger 18 to 29 group, participation rose from 40 percent to 49 percent.

The 2006 midterm election saw a larger increase in off-year voting among the under-30s than any other age group. Then came this year’s primaries: According to CIRCLE, the turnout rate for the under-30s nearly doubled between 2000 and 2008, from 9 percent to 17 percent…

the young are more engaged in this campaign than are their elders. A Pew Research Center study released earlier this month asked voters whether they considered this year’s campaign “interesting” or “dull.” Among those 18 to 29, 67% called the campaign interesting, as did 66 percent of those 30 to 49. By contrast, 58 percent of those 50 to 64 and 52% of those over 65 saw the campaign as interesting…

Age is one of the most powerful lines of division in this election. In Pew’s survey, the under-30s gave Obama his largest lead, 56 percent to 36 percent. He also led among voters aged 30 to 49, but ran behind among voters 65 and over.

Imagine being governed by the media and the kids. They’ll take the car, spend all our money, and post the video of their party on YouTube.

Dr. David Evans in The Australian says there is no evidence that CO2 or other forms of increased atmospheric carbon cause whatever global warming (or recent global cooling) there might be:

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol…since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming…

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it…

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None…

3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980)…

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance…that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions…

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming.

Over the last century, CO2 has increased from 300 ppm to 380 ppm. That a minuscule increase of 80 parts per million (or a multiple of that) of a beneficial and common atmospheric gas could produce worldwide devastation is absurd on its face, though there are men in serious jobs who say so. (Question: if 80 ppm is such a big deal, why not look to substances with far greater concentrations in the atmosphere?) No doubt if the now-predicted Global Cooling takes place, carbon will be to blame for that too.

There is one indisputable fact in this global warming and cooling scam. There’s big money in it. Dr. Evans says $50 billion has already been spent. That’s a lot of funding for research papers, a lot of consulting fees and Hollywood movies, and, of course, a lot of parties that government bureaucrats can throw for themselves at the expense of the taxpayers worldwide.

California now has a law “making it mandatory for cars to be labeled with global warming scores.” What a joke and waste of taxpayer money. The state government is also tackling the previously unknown but important problem of cement — it too causes global warming, you know. Sacramento Bee:

California’s historic attempt to put an entire state on a low-carbon diet as a way to stave off global warming is going to reach into every corner of the economy, changing the way we live, what we drive and many of the products we use…Californians will use more than 12 million metric tons of cement this year – nearly one-third of a ton for every man, woman and child in the state.

But there is a problem. The production of cement creates a lot of carbon dioxide, the gas scientists believe is causing the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere to rise. The 11 cement plants in California produce about the same amount of CO2 every year as 2 million passenger cars driven on the state’s roads…For every ton of lime produced for cement, nearly a ton of carbon dioxide is produced as a waste product…

The state could order the plants to use different fuels as a heat source, or to use more efficient equipment that creates less CO2 in that part of their process. But if those changes drive up the cost of making cement in California, cement from elsewhere – Nevada, Utah, even China – could become more competitive. And if imported cement replaces California cement, the result could be more greenhouse gases…

(Note that, as with oil, one proposed solution for the new “Can’t Do” America is to let some foreigner do the dirty work, and the prissy Americans with their exquisite consciences can just import the stuff.) Maybe California should get those fellows who were going to build the mud-hut village in Virginia and ask them for a solution to the awful problems that science and prosperity cause.

David Warren describes the strange jurisprudence of “thought crime” in “Kafkanada”, in the wake of Mark Steyn’s prevailing in his “show trial” put on by Canada’s Human Rights Tribunal:

you can be tried for the same imaginary “hate crimes” in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is.

Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence — due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any “judgement” they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim.

A Protestant minister in Alberta was, for instance, recently ordered to publicly renounce his Christian beliefs, as well as pay a big lump sum to the anti-Christian activist who had prosecuted him, in a case I mentioned in a previous column, and which I am pleased to see is getting wide publicity in the United States even if not up here. “Re-education” programmes are frequently assigned, for which the victim must also pay.

All of the complainant’s expenses are paid by the taxpayer, as well as all of the overheads and expenses of the jet-setting “human rights” bureaucrats, who do all the prosecutorial work, as well as providing both judge and jury. The system is, in principle, indistinguishable from that in place during the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China. It was perpetrated by leftwing activists on the Canadian people while they were sleeping. It is a system of the activists, by the activists, and for the activists.

When we read the dismissal of the complaint against Mark Steyn, we wonder how it is possible for such people as are on Canada’s HRC to get a paycheck, their logic and writing are so muddled and indecipherable. That they have the power to ruin the lives of others should be intolerable in a free society.

You realize that when Libya says it is thinking about cutting oil production, or when the OPEC president muses about $170 oil, they are in all likelihood multiplying their already huge profits by playing the long side of the futures market.

They know all too well just how the oil market will soar even higher when it hears such words, and they are happy to profit by the speculation as well as by their product. And why shouldn’t they? They play Americans for suckers, and Americans oblige them by taking no action to fend for ourselves. They’re laughing at us for the fools that we are. A serious country would not tolerate such a situation. We do. Yet another reason for them to laugh.

We once thought that the “new patriotism” was that pretentious emblem of Senator Obama’s. Before that we thought the “new patriotism” was the re-branding of America, starring the Senator and Messiah. Alas, we were wrong. The “new patriotism” will be on display in Denver at the Democrat National Convention, from its “first-ever Director of Greening, longtime environmental activist (and very blonde) Andrea Robinson.” WSJ:

To test whether celebratory balloons advertised as biodegradable actually will decompose, Ms. Robinson buried samples in a steaming compost heap. She hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed…

Ms. Robinson’s most audacious goal is to reuse, recycle or compost at least 85% of all waste generated during the convention…To police the four-day event Aug. 25-28, she’s assembling (via paperless online signup) a trash brigade. Decked out in green shirts, 900 volunteers will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin. Lest a fork slip into the wrong container unnoticed, volunteers will paw through every bag before it is hauled away. “That’s the only way to make sure it’s pure,” Ms. Robinson says…

Matt Burns, a spokesman for the Republican convention, looks on with undisguised glee at some of the Democrats’ efforts — such as the “lean ‘n’ green” catering guidelines. Among them: No fried food. And, on the theory that nutritious food is more vibrant, each meal should include “at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white.” (Garnishes don’t count.) At least 70% of ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel burned during transportation…

Democrats say the point is to build habits that will endure long after the convention. To that end, the city has staged “greening workshops” attended by hundreds of caterers, restaurant owners and hotel managers. “It’s the new patriotism,” Mayor Hickenlooper says.

From observing the foolishness that these worthies are consumed with, it becomes quite clear that Senator Obama perfectly captures the spirit of the time in his party. Not only does he spout environmental nonsense with the greatest of ease, but his bizarre and outsized sense of destiny is a perfect fit for the self-absorbed ninnies who are his disciples. If such people are a majority in this country, we are in very big trouble indeed.

Some Democrats are apparently proposing nationalization of at least part of the US oil industry, which seems to follow in the footsteps of British governments of the post-WWII era:

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)…We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

And Congresswoman Maxine Waters wants to nationalize the rest of the industry. Much mischief appears to lie ahead in 2009, if these worthies are serious about plans to make America look like the decaying, fraying Great Britain of the 1970’s.

About Rathergate (a subject we know way too much about — really), Tom Wolfe said this in indictment of the practices of Dan Rather and his associates in CBS news:

“Idiots. They should have looked at the piece of paper. Obviously not written by a typewriter.“

That statement applies to this obvious forgery as well. Doesn’t anyone remember what things that were typed in 1961 actually looked like? HT: Ace

Justice Scalia and then Chief Justice Roberts, via Powerline weigh in on a decision which seems to the layman as pretty much the opposite of the thinking that went into ex parte Quirin, though we are obviously not clever enough to understand the rarefied logic of the majority of today’s Supreme Court:

Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war…

Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people’s representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date. One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants.

And now the fine lawyers defending these men, who believe they have a religious duty to kill Americans, are preparing to ask that their clients be freed because they have been denied their constitutional right to a speedy trial. What a country.

UPDATE: Scott Johnson has some additional thoughts.

It’s hard to imagine that one of America’s great political parties is ready to nominate for President a candidate who apparently can spout nonsense such as this with a straight face:

We can’t afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires, and the periods of drought. By 2050, famine could force more than 250 million from their homes. And if we do nothing, sea levels will rise high enough to swallow large portions of every coastal city and town.

Famine, drought, fires, and storms — all at once? A presidential candidate says this and is not laughed off the stage? We said the other day that America had apparently turned into a TV show. Maybe things are even worse than that. Maybe Americans have been dumbed down to the level of a disaster movie for 12 year olds.

Robert Samuelson describes the idiocy that is the cap and trade concept now being debated on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately this foolishness has the support of the GOP candidate as well as the Democrats:

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade — a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases — is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it’s not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it’s promoted as a “free market” mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever the system’s abstract advantages.

The Senate is debating a cap-and-trade proposal, and although it’s unlikely to pass, it will return because all the major presidential candidates support the concept. Cap-and-trade extends the long government tradition of proclaiming lofty goals that are impossible to achieve. We’ve had “wars” against poverty, cancer and drugs; but poverty, cancer and drugs remain. President Bush called his landmark education law No Child Left Behind rather than the more plausible Few Children Left Behind.

Carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) provide about 85 percent of U.S. energy needs and generate most greenhouse gases. So, the simplest way to stop these emissions is to outlaw them. Naturally, that’s what cap-and-trade does. Companies could emit greenhouse gases only if they had annual “allowances” –quotas — issued by the government. The allowances would gradually decline. That’s the “cap.” Companies (utilities, oil refineries) that needed extra allowances could buy them from companies willing to sell. That’s the “trade.”

In one bill, the 2030 cap on greenhouse gases would be 35 percent below the 2005 level and 44 percent below the level projected without any restrictions. By 2050, U.S. greenhouse gases would be rapidly vanishing. Even better, their disappearance would be allegedly painless. Reviewing five economic models, the Environmental Defense Fund asserts that the cuts can be achieved “without significant adverse consequences to the economy.” Fuel prices would rise, but because people would use less energy, the impact on household budgets would be modest.

This is mostly make-believe. If we suppress emissions, we also suppress today’s energy sources, and because the economy needs energy, we suppress the economy. The models magically assume smooth transitions. If coal is reduced, then conservation or non-fossil-fuel sources will take its place. But in the real world, if coal-fired power plants are canceled (as many were last year), wind or nuclear won’t automatically substitute. If the supply of electricity doesn’t keep pace with demand, brownouts or blackouts will result. The models don’t predict real-world consequences…

As emission cuts deepened, the danger of disruptions would mount. Population increases alone raise energy demand. From 2006 to 2030, the U.S. population will grow by 22 percent (to 366 million) and the number of housing units by 25 percent (to 141 million), projects the Energy Information Administration. The idea that higher fuel prices will be offset mostly by lower consumption is, at best, optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 15 percent cut of emissions would raise average household energy costs by almost $1,300. That’s how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As “allowances” became scarcer, their price would rise…

We thought it could never get this bad, politicians willing to hurt the economy, and thus the average citizen, to the tune of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to solve a problem that may well not even exist. We were wrong.

The UN is coming to investigate elections in the US — apparently (and appallingly) at the request of the United States government. It’s quite a boondoggle; we wonder who’s paying the bill. Reuters:

A special U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism, an issue that has forced its way into the race to secure the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. The United Nations said Doudou Diene would meet federal and local officials, as well as lawmakers and judicial authorities during the May 19-June 6 visit.

“The special rapporteur will…gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” a U.N. statement said on Friday. His three-week visit, at U.S. government invitation, will cover eight cities — Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, Omaha, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Race has become a central issue in the U.S. election cycle because Sen. Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination battle, stands to become the country’s first African American president. His campaign has increased turnout among black voters but has also turned off some white voters in a country with a history of slavery and racial segregation.

Diene, a Senegalese lawyer who has served in the independent post since 2002, will report his findings to the U.N. Human Rights Council next year.

So the investigator is from Senegal, eh? That’s poetic justice. Senegal is, after all, the sort of country that dictators flee to, after being run out of their own countries. And perhaps Mr. Doudou Diene would care to discuss Senegal’s own rather dodgy current practices when it comes to slavery, while he and Reuters are busy passing judgment on Americans. This whole thing is shameful, not least because the US is aiding and abetting the ridiculous UN Human Rights Council and its perverse and highly selective moralizing.

The world has gotten so strange that even as GDP growth tumbles around the world, OPEC is saying that oil prices could rise another 50% or so. In this tortured logic, we might then see $500 oil if we were to experience another Great Depression.

On the one hand the FT says that growth is going to be terrible in the US and Europe, and that governments have little flexibility in adding fiscal stimulus to stem the decline:

Europe’s outlook for economic growth and inflation deteriorated sharply on Monday as official forecasts showed the US downturn and the turmoil in world financial markets damping prospects. In its latest six-monthly forecast, the European Commission said economic growth in the 27-nation European Union would slow to 1.8 per cent in 2009…“The financial turmoil is proving deeper, wider and longer-lasting while the downturn in the US looks set to be more pronounced and protracted than assumed in the autumn forecast,” the Commission said…

The Commission’s forecasts suggest the slowdown is taking its toll on the budget balances of certain countries, notably France and the UK. France is forecast to have a budget deficit of 2.9 per cent of gross domestic product this year and 3 per cent in 2009 while the UK deficit is projected to be 3.3 per cent in both years.

Of course a recession correlates historically with a decline in oil demand and often a decline in oil prices. But not today. Today the laws of supply and demand are irrelevant, according to OPEC, as quoted in the same FT:

Opec’s president on Monday warned oil prices could hit $200 a barrel and there would be little the cartel could do to help. The comments made by Chakib Khelil, Algeria’s energy minister, came as oil prices hit a historic peak close to $120…

He told El Moudjahid, Algeria’s government newspaper: “I don’t think that an increase in production would help lower prices, because there is a balance between supply and demand and the stocks of gasoline in the United States have recorded a surplus and are at their highest level for five years.” He added: “The prices are high due to the recession in the United States and the economic crisis, which has touched several countries”…

This situation has entered cloud cuckoo land, as we and some industry veterans continue to say. Observing a mania from outside the bubble, this tulip bulb foolishness and NASDAQ 5000 moment on steroids, is perhaps good for the psyche, but it still hurts the pocketbook. This foolishness is likely to end very badly for the worthies who are betting on $10 a gallon gas — but when?

It used to be that the rain in Spain stayed mainly in the plain. But that’s all different now thanks to America’s favorite wacky reverend. Gerard Van der Leun explains the enigmatic title above. Also, Michelle Malkin asks a variant of the question: what is the sound of one hand clapping? Ace has more.

For an academic deconstruction of the rantings of Jeremiah Wright, see this article by Heather MacDonald.

The WSJ has a strange piece by Brett Arends that counsels Americans to hoard food to avoid the coming crisis and make a better return on their money than is available in the market:

it’s time for Americans to start stockpiling food. No, this is not a drill…Food prices are already rising here much faster than the returns you are likely to get from keeping your money in a bank or money-market fund. And there are very good reasons to believe prices on the shelves are about to start rising a lot faster.

“Load up the pantry,” says Manu Daftary, one of Wall Street’s top investors and the manager of the Quaker Strategic Growth mutual fund. “I think prices are going higher. People are too complacent. They think it isn’t going to happen here. But I don’t know how the food companies can absorb higher costs.” (Full disclosure: I am an investor in Quaker Strategic)

Stocking up on food may not replace your long-term investments, but it may make a sensible home for some of your shorter-term cash. Do the math. If you keep your standby cash in a money-market fund you’ll be lucky to get a 2.5% interest rate. Even the best one-year certificate of deposit you can find is only going to pay you about 4.1%, according to Bankrate.com…

You can’t easily stock up on perishables like eggs or milk. But other products will keep. Among them: Dried pasta, rice, cereals, and cans of everything from tuna fish to fruit and vegetables. The kicker: You should also save money by buying them in bulk.

American households spend less than 10% of their disposable income on food, and apparently half that is food not consumed at home. Perhaps the WSJ piece was meant to be satirical, but it wasn’t very funny.

Veteran oil trader Daniel Dicker takes a look at the price of crude oil and draws some conclusions in Real Money:

The bottom line has been clear to me — speculation has been the key driver of the oil market for the past two years and will continue to be the single most important factor going forward. As crude makes new highs seemingly every day, figuring out why this destructive rally inexorably continues becomes almost more important than the rally itself. As a floor trader of oil for 25 years, I have, I believe, a unique perspective on this rally — after all, I was immersed in this market, almost exclusively, every day of my trading life…

the growth of commodities as an asset class is unprecedented…At the end of 2007, Nymex reported average daily volumes of 1.485 contracts per day, an increase of 25% over 2006. So far in 2008, growth has continued at an astronomical pace: January volumes increased 6% over the same period in 2007, February was up 28% and March increased an astounding 62%…it all represents an enormous increase in flow of speculative trade…

speculative action in crude is swamping out other fundamental factors, while gasoline prices are being arrived at still using fundamental measurements…In previous years, refiners would depend upon the summer driving season to return margins to profitable levels. This year, however, it hasn’t happened yet, and it’s unsure if it will. This is in spite of shutdowns, lower utilization and bullish weekly EIA reports for gasoline in the last several months — no matter what fundamentals are applied, it can’t seem to catch up. Gasoline is trading fundamentally, while crude is trading speculatively…

the speed of global growth, as compelling as it is, is just not sufficient to explain the 60% rise in price last year and the more than 20% rise we’ve seen so far this year. As my old trading mentor used to tell me, “In an up market, all news is bullish.” He’s right…

take a look at the crude curve — the representation of how the market feels crude will be trading one, two and three years from now…what do we see? In the midst of global recession, when oil consumption and demand should be decreasing (this year), crude is at its highest price, while further back in the curve, when demand should ramp significantly and inexorably, you can purchase the crude barrel today for future delivery for far less. In fact, the crude barrel gets cheaper the further out on the curve you go. How is this possible? This condition, called “contango,” where prices run in reverse further out in the curve, as opposed to run in premium, has always been an indicator of speculative action.

“At the end of 2007, Nymex reported average daily volumes of 1.485 contracts per day, an increase of 25% over 2006. So far in 2008, growth has continued at an astronomical pace: January volumes increased 6% over the same period in 2007, February was up 28% and March increased an astounding 62%.” So there is a frenzy in volume to complement the frenzy in price. We hope the speculators get the ending they deserve.

Co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore has a few things to say. WSJ:

Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride. Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children’s toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure. It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has.

Of course phthalates are much more commonly used than alar was, so they will not likely disappear. However, there would seem to be profit opportunities for the Greenpeace crowd in a scare of that magnitude.

Nora Ephron comments on the contest between Senators Clinton and Obama in Pennsylvania:

it’s suddenly horribly absolutely crystal-clear that this is an election about gender and race. This may have always been true, but weeks ago it wasn’t so obvious — once upon a time there were eight candidates, and although six of them withered away, their presence in the campaign managed to obscure things. Even around the time of Ohio, when there were primarily three candidates, the outlines were murky, because Edwards was still in there, picking up votes from all sectors. But now there are two and we’re facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women.

Ms. Ephron also has some deep thoughts on presumptive Republican nominee Senator McCain and something she refers to as the “Torture Thing”. Charming.