Recently I was looking up the EPA mileage figures for my 1992 Honda Accord 5-Speed and Abby’s 2003 Volkswagen Golf TDI 5-Speed. The fueleconomy.gov site is now listing the new revised MPG figures for new cars. But it looks like they have also adjusted older model years for effective comparison.

My Honda used to be listed as 22 MPG city, 29 MPG highway. My own driving has averaged around 27 MPG with around 25% city, 75% highway. On long trips, it has usually beaten the 29 MPG highway estimate with around 30 or even 31 MPG, despite highways speeds generally 70 and sometimes above. And that average of 27 MPG (since last October, most fill ups included) includes winter driving with shorter trips. And I usually accelerate swiftly frequently with high revs and full throttle (hey, full throttle in this vehicle isn’t that much power!). And, I have a toolbox in my trunk and radio gear, including an antenna which certainly creates drag. What am I doing right?

The EPA has revised the estimate for my Honda to 21 MPG city, 28 MPG highway. I don’t get this. I’m pushing the engine hard, with cold weather, high speeds, full throttle.. and I am rewarded by beating the EPA highway mileage by 2-3 MPG?! I can only imagine what kind of mileage I would be getting if I started driving like a grandma.

Abby’s Golf was originally listed as 44 MPG city, 49 MPG highway. The Golf has easily bested 50 MPG on our customary long trip from New Hampshire to Georgia. Last year the whole trip also included significant long distance commuting which pushed the total to near 4,000 miles. Despite winter tires, heavy loads, high speeds, air conditioning in the south, and cold temps up north. And that car doesn’t get driven gently either.

The EPA revised estimate for the Golf is… 35 MPG city, 44 MPG highway. This is around 6-8 MPG lower than what we typically get on the highway, even under demanding conditions. City is probably around 8-10 MPG lower than what we’ve observed. Is our experience unique? It boggles my mind that anyone could regularly drive the Golf in such a manner that it would get 44 MPG on the highway. I believe you could drive a long highway trip at 85-100 MPH and get 44 MPG.

I suppose I could see how someone could drive the Honda even harder than I do and get worse mileage. But that would certainly not be the way an average driver drives. I would say typically people are more gentle than I am. What is the point of these insanely low estimates released by the EPA?

I am curious about other people’s experiences, so please drop a comment if you keep track of mileage at all. It would be interesting to see how things compare.

I caught this short story today:

“We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice,’’ the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. “If they were to say leave, we would leave.”

Would somebody please remind the President and the Press that a little over two weeks ago the Iraqi Parliament called for a timetable for US withdrawal. If the President was being honest today about his support for the Iraqi government, he would be working with Congress to draw up a plan for a phased withdrawal. But instead he vetoed the spending bill which would have required timetables. Notably, that veto was only the second veto of his Presidency - the first being the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

At this point the reality is painfully clear. The war isn’t about democracy at this point, if it ever was. It is now about saving face and holding off the inevitable long enough to push the whole mess onto someone else.

Attorney General Gonzales was served a subpoena with a deadline of May 15th, 2PM, to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee with documents required by the subpoena. Well, he didn’t show up, and no documents have been surrendered. Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter, ranking Judiciary Committee members, responded with a letter stating an ultimatum of May 18th for the Attorney General to appear with the documents and a legal reason for missing the previous deadline.

Defying a Congressional Subpoena is called Contempt of Congress. It is a crime, punishable by up to a year in jail. If the Senate decides to pursue the charge of Contempt of Congress, they will ask the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring Gonzales before a Grand Jury. Of course, the Bush Administration has made it quite clear that they believe they can obstruct ongoing investigations by absolute control over the Justice Department. So what happens if the Attorney General orders the U.S. Attorney not to bring him before the Grand Jury?

Legal precedent is definitely in favor of Congress. During the Harding Administration, Congress investigated the failure of the A.G. to investigate the Teapot Dome Scandal. Several cases went to the Supreme Court, and in McGrain v. Daugherty the Court granted broad powers to Congress, ruling that they had the power to broadly compel testimony.

Congress can also hold individuals for “inherent contempt.” In this case, the Sergeant-at-arms would actually go out and arrest Gonzales, bringing him to the committee chamber. The committee then has the power to compel testimony and imprison him for an indefinite period in the capitol jail. Of course, Congress hasn’t used this power in over 70 years, instead electing to use the Statutory process described above. But, they do in fact have the power to arrest an individual for Contempt and hold them.

Here is a hypothetical scenario discussed shortly after the 2006 Elections regarding the possibility of a investigative showdown. Seems like it is coming true, so far. The Bush Administrations defiance for Congressional Authority is a serious issue, undermining the very fabric of our Government.

Update: Looks like the hypothetical scenario linked above requires subscription unless you are coming from Google. Try this Google Search and look for “Will Nancy Pelosi put Alberto Gonzales behind bars?”

Here is an underreported story: A majority of the Iraqi Parliament have signed a legislative petition calling for a timetable for US withdrawal. Originally we went to war to get rid of the WMDs Saddam didn’t have. But after no WMDs were found the war’s supporters claimed we were bring democracy to the Middle East. Well, they have democracy, and the democratic decision is that the US should leave.

I haven’t seen this story widely reported at all. It puts pressure on both Congress and the Bush Administration to reconsider the war and plans for its end. It certainly isn’t good news for the US. Nobody can claim the Iraqi Parliament doesn’t have the support of the people, either. Apparently polls have regularly shown that the public in Iraq opposes the continuation of the US occupation.

The article also contains a simple indication of just how bad things are buried in parenthesis as a side note:

There are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country’s civil conflict, and at times it’s been difficult to arrive at a quorum.

The goal of spreading democracy in Iraq has ultimately been a failure as well. You can’t have a democratic process when the legislators fear for their lives. We’ve made a terrible mess. Around a year ago, I thought while things were bad in Iraq, they would get much worse if the US military left. I no longer think that. The US occupation has been so unhealthy for the country that it is imperative we leave, or at least begin the process. Iraq might benefit from western military assistance. But I think it needs to come from somewhere other than the US.

If members of Congress voted according to public opinion in their districts, there would be a a veto proof majority supporting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This is yet another reason I think if things don’t turn around soon members of Congress will see the writing on the wall and try to rescue themselves before the next election.

Of course, this is based on an estimate and if you look into the calculations it isn’t a foolproof estimate. But support for the President is so low at this point, even amongst Republicans, that if Congress really wanted to they could send another timetable bill to the President and force him to veto it again. But what would that accomplish? The President has shown that he doesn’t believe in public opinion and he doesn’t care what Congress thinks about the war (never mind that the Constitution gives Congress the power both to declare war and to control the money spent on warfare). Unless a veto proof majority can actually be obtained, sending further bills to the President is just going to lead to bad blood. And if Bush’s veto is overturned, who knows what will happen? The Bush administration has shown so much contempt for Congressional Authority I almost wonder if you would see a constitutional crisis. Already the Bush administration has claimed “executive privilege” far broader than the US has ever experienced before. So much for checks and balances.

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Condoleeza Rice said that “Iraqis need to know that we are not looking to leave Iraq.” What a telling statement. I think I know what the Whitehouse’s Iraq War strategy is at this point. Basically, they’re going to wait until 2009 when the next President is inaugurated… and then exit the White House smiling and leave the mess for someone else.

Political Blogger Kevin Drum has hypothesized that September will be judgment day for the Iraq War. With the 2008 elections approaching fast, congressional Republicans are unlikely to retain support for the increasingly unpopular war. Nationwide, support for the war and the President is very low. Yet, the Bush administration perseveres, seemingly oblivious to the slowly sinking approval rating.

ROSE: But nobody can answer the question: If it doesn’t happen, what?
RICE: Charlie, because as the President said to you, we’re focused on having it happen.

The administration is honestly not even considering the possibility that the war could be lost. And ultimately, we haven’t even defined what success or failure in Iraq even means. We went in with vague goals of nation building, which clearly weren’t even understood by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and we still don’t know how we define winning. I do think the war has made one thing clear — while we never took the time to plan what “success” means the current status of the war has done a wonderful job of indicating exactly what “failure” means. No matter what the future outcome of the war is, what has happened until now has been a failure, and I hope history won’t forget it.

Obviously Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, believes that the only plan you need to have is to be “focused on having it happen.” Rice and the rest of the administration are living in a fantasy. I remember when people talked about Rice as being a viable Presidential candidate for 2008. Funny that nobody is talking about that now. Anyone with a hope of succeeding in 2008 needs to distance themselves as much as possible from the administration.

In 1999 the US Food and Drug Administration changed the rules regulating “Direct to Consumer” or DTC advertising of prescription drugs. You are almost certainly familiar with these ads. It is almost possible to read a magazine or watch commercial TV without encountering them. There are still sizable restrictions on the content of these ads, including the mandatory description of side effects.

The United States has some of the most lax regulations on direct to consumer pharmaceutical marketing. In fact, most countries simply do not permit mass market advertising of prescription drugs. The reasoning for restricting direct to consumer advertising is clear from the ads we view today. They market prescription drugs as a panacea for life’s problems. By encouraging potential patients to “ask their doctor” about a particular medication they introduce bias and prejudice into medical diagnosis. Furthermore, frequently people end up taking medications they don’t really need, which drives up the cost of health care and medical insurance.

Between 1989 and 1999 spending on DTC pharmaceutical advertising increased from $12 million to $1.58 billion (source). By 2005, DTC spending increased to $4.2 billion. But you don’t even need to look at the dollar expenditures to know that prescription drug advertising is out of control - just flip on prime time TV. Complicating matters, many of the drugs advertised are psychiatric drugs, arguably some of the least well understood pharmaceuticals.

There is also a secondary affect from the direct to consumer advertising binge. It has driven which areas of health care drug companies are willing to pursue. Instead of targeting the most life threatening or dangerous diseases there is instead a huge interest in developing drugs which will be easy to market to consumers. This has also driven development of new derived from older drugs but with marginal improvement. Many people have questioned the need for Esomeprazole, extremely heavily marketed as Nexium. Esomeprazole is an updated version of Omeprazole (Prilosec). Both drugs were created by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, but Omeprazole is now available in generic form. Despite the controversy surrounding its efficacy, in 2005 Nexium was the third best selling drug in the world.

There are many solutions to this. Generally I tend to prefer avoiding government regulation when possible. But this is an example where it is very important to restrict commercial activity in order to ensure it doesn’t affect the safety of health care. I think at this point there is at least a need to return to the more restrictive rules in place before 1999. Going further, the US could also choose to align themselves with the EU and ban direct to consumer advertising. A good compromise solution might be to restrict television advertising but allow print advertising, which currently provides significantly more information about the side effects and mechanism of the drug.

A senior Justice Department Official, Robert E. Coughlin II, has resigned over involvement in the Abramoff lobbying scandal. This alone would hardly be newsworthy. But Coughlin was deputy chief of staff for the division of the Justice Department that was investigating Abramoff.

“Making the situation more awkward for the embattled Department, the official, Robert E. Coughlin II, was deputy chief of staff for the criminal division, which is overseeing the Department’s probe of Abramoff.

“He stepped down effective April 6 as investigators in Coughlin’s own division ratcheted up their investigation of lobbyist Kevin Ring, Coughlin’s long-time friend and a key associate of Abramoff.”

It is now painfully apparent that the Bush Administration Department of Justice was so corrupt they actually put people in charge of their own investigations. And even if you have enough confidence left in the Administration to believe these are innocent mistakes, they still point to a massive level of incompetence at the Justice Department. And the Abramoff investigation keeps getting bigger — Ex-Representative J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) is under renewed investigation over ties to Abramoff. He joins several prominent Republican congressman who are now under investigation over ties to the Abramoff scheme.

Bruce Schneier says that expertise makes the difference between the scared citizen reports and the useful reports. I agree. We need to weigh the response accordingly when receiving responses. And, instead of deploying security personnel who confiscate harmless materials based on stupid standards, we need to employ fewer people with more training.

Earlier, I discussed the Hatch Act and the potential ramifications for the White House. During the congressional investigation into the US Attorney firings, General Services Administration Administrator Lurita Doan revealed that the GSA had held “team building” meetings on government property in which a Power Point presentation was shown giving the Republican Party’s plans for defeating democrats in 2008. This is prohibited by the Hatch Act.

Now, the White House has admitted that similar activity has occurred 20 times in at least 15 government agencies leading up to the 2006 elections. Is anyone surprised? The Bush Administration has long been seen to inject politics at the level of micromanagement. So far we have seen this at the Department of Justice, and the partisan activity at the GSA. While these agencies are under executive control, partisan politics is not supposed to affect the actions of these agencies. When you talk about the DoJ you need to realize that those fired attorneys are the people responsible for enforcing and prosecuting our federal laws. And, of course, we’ve only heard about the attorneys who didn’t bow to the Administration’s wishes.

Earlier I wrote about a new investigation being launched against Karl Rove by the Office of Special Counsel, an arm of the executive branch. Today some new news has been revealed regarding this investigation. Fired US Attorney David Inglesias filed a complaint against Rove on April 3, alleging violations of the Federal Hatch Act. Specifically, Inglesias alleged that firing him for not engaging in political prosecutions was a violation of the act on the part of Rove and others.

But it looks like the OSC may not be entirely neutral in this manner. several people have pointed out that the OSC under the Bush Administration has proven to be highly political. In fact, Scott Bloch, the head of the OSC, is himself under investigation for politicizing the office.

The Office of Special Counsel investigation might be a smokescreen designed to shield Rove from testimony before congress or in court. On the other hand, the current investigation into the OSC is coming to a close and the office may be desiring to distance itself from the White House and eliminate criticism by investigating the Bush Administration. The Office of Special Counsel is chiefly designated with the task of enforcing three laws, one of which is the Hatch Act. It seems that the Hatch act is the law that has been violated most plainly and clearly by the Bush Administration at this point. David Inglesias did express confidence in the OSC’s ability to conduct an independent investigation.

Either way, things do not look good for certain administration officials. With multiple investigations coming from Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, the administration is feeling legal pressure from all sides. I think if you see anybody attempt a sham investigation as a cover up it will most likely be discovered in the course of the other investigations. My hope is that at that point people would not be shy about pursuing impeachment and legal action for obstruction of justice.

From the LA Times, Karl Rove is under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel:

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part.

Once again, the Bush Administration has systematically politicized the entire executive branch, from investigations to justice to improper funds allocation. During Lurita Doan’s testimony before congress it was revealed that Rove had held powerpoint presentations detailing Republican political plans in GSA buildings during normal work hours. Once again, a clear violation of the Hatch Act.

Some officials have said they understood that they were expected to seek opportunities to help Republicans in these races, through federal grants, policy decisions or in other ways.

Even scarier, apparently portions of our tax dollars are basically going into the elect-a-Republican fund. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of this. On the one hand, this investigation will force things out into the open. On the other hand, the investigation is being performed by an arm of the executive branch itself. This worries me in this Administration has seen incredible increases in executive power. However, combined with Congressional investigations and public inquiry, we may see the downfall of Bush Administration officials as high as Rove.

Update: The Moderate Voice has some more information on the ramifications of this investigation

I haven’t written much about politics here since the 2004 election. However, I’ve been following along with the Fired US Attorney scandal since Talking Points Memo first broke the story in late 2006. The saga has continued, and on April 19 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary committee.

The Attorney General’s testimony was not pretty. I watched several video clips of the testimony and Gonzales was definitely in the hot seat. He explained over 60 times that he “could not recall” what his actions or decisions had been within the last three months. Other members of his staff have taken a similar line, including DoJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson. The way I see it there are two possible explanations:

1. The DoJ is completely incompetent and mismanaged. AG Gonzales admitted during testimony that he simply didn’t know the reasons for firing two of the eight attorneys when he approved their firing. In other cases he stated that he no longer recalled the reasons for firing attorneys. From this we must draw the conclusion that Gonzales is so mentally faded that he is incapable of running the DoJ, and clearly the management of the DoJ has suffered.
2. The DoJ has been operating as a partisan political wing of the White House, in violation of the Hatch Act. Gonzales was competent in his management, but unethical in policy. We now understand that several of the attorneys were fired for giving up on “voter fraud” allegations against democrats (the cases were not prosecuted due to lack of evidence). Gonzales lied about his involvement before congress, committing perjury.

Either way, it doesn’t look good for the Bush White House and the Department of Justice. Furthermore, additional attorneys which were fired during the purge were actively involved in lengthy federal investigations against Republican politicians and corrupts lobbyists. But the White House doesn’t seem to realize just how serious this is. President Bush released a statement saying that he was “pleased” with Gonzales’s testimony. Of course, perhaps the goal is to have Gonzales go down in flames as a sacrificial lamb, in which case I’m sure the President was pleased. Senator Leahy responded to the White House statement by saying that the “the president has set a very low bar, indeed.” Later, the White House released an additional statement:

“The Attorney General went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job….[A]s the investigation, the hearings went forward, it was clear that the Attorney General broke no law, did no wrongdoing. And some senators didn’t like his explanation, but he answered as honestly as he could. This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence.” — White House Press Release

This further suggests that either President Bush is lying to cover up what has really been going on at the DoJ or he himself is so out of touch with reality to think that Gonzales’s testimony was a confidence boost. Quite the contrary, many prominent Republicans have called for the AG’s resignation.

Ultimately I think the Bush Administration has created one of the most political Justice Departments in the history of the department. It is important to realize that the Justice Department and the AG are charged with prosecuting and upholding the law. Instead, they appear to have made a habit of breaking laws, including the Hatch Act, the Presidential Records Act, potential charges of perjury relating to testimony under oath, and the strong possibility that some attorney firings were conducted in order to interfere with existing investigations for political reasons. I would call that Obstruction of Justice, and it is a very serious crime. I expect that the very branch of government sworn to uphold our laws takes them seriously. But I have found that the Bush Administration has once again shattered this expectation.

Can you image what this would be like?

Detective: Well, we went over to the serial murder suspect’s house and he told us we couldn’t investigate him anymore. What do we do next?

Police Chief: I guess we’ll just have to drop the case. Oh well. The next time he brutally murders hundreds of people we can ask him again.

Oh, and it isn’t even just that. We also found out today that the NSA domestic spying has been even more extensive. But heaven forbid we investigate this! It is completely crazy that these government agencies are currently being operating under the assumption that they are above the law and not subject to any sort of checks and balances.

So, while do I think the Bush administration has mishandled Cheney’s hunting accident, why is it that people (and the media, especially) seem to care more about this than the ethics scandals, the fabricated evidence leading to the Iraq war, the mismanagement of hurricane relief, the “fiscally conservative” budget management, etc? I don’t get it.

Recently, at&t, Verizon, and other original-generation telcos have begun to talk about their desire to charge Google for internet access as well, because Google is sending data to their customers. Lets analyze how the internet works.

Network service providers are connected in one of two different ways. In peering, network providers of approximately equal stature agree to exchange traffic without charging each other. Alternatively, networks can purchase internet transit from other companies. When two networks peer, they only exchange routing information for each other’s customers. With paid transit, the customer network gets access to the full routing table. This means they can reach every network participating in the global internet.

Some network providers do not purchase transit from anyone. A provider which can reach the whole internet without using paid transit is generally classified as “Tier One.” This means that all networks on the internet either peer with that provider or are a customer of network they peer with. Peering agreements are generally very secretive and the exact terms are not known. However, providers such as at&t, MCI/UUNET, NTT/Verio, Qwest, and Level3 are generally understood to be “settlement free” tier one providers.

Some backbone networks peer with many other networks, but still do not quite fit the definition of tier one. The carriers must then purchase selective transit for the routes they cannot get by peering. For example, this traceroute shows traffic going from Cogent to Sprintlink via Verio in Washington, DC:

p14-0.core01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com
verio.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com
p16-0.sprint.asbnva01.us.bb.verio.net
sl-bb26-rly-6-0.sprintlink.net

Now, remember the list of Tier One providers? On that list were MCI (which Verizon just bought) and AT&T (now the new at&t after merging with SBC). So, wait a minute, this means that Verizon doesn’t have to pay anyone for access to any other network. Everybody either pays them or pays one of their peers. As of right now, it appears Verizon and MCI routes are still being operated completely separately, but you can bet that will change in the future.

Why did Verizon buy MCI? For MCI’s peering agreements. For settlement free interconnection. So why are they complaining about not getting paid for the business Google does? Their peers are effectively their business partners, because without an equal trade of traffic they can’t justify not charging. Therefore somebody is getting paid in any case, from both ends of the pipe.

But this isn’t enough for the telcos! They want more! They want a meaty chunk of Google’s profits. But, that idea goes against the very spirit of the internet - peer to peer connectivity. Unlike telephone calls, which are circuit switched, packet switched IP traffic is aggregate and providers negotiate rates based on the balance of traffic flowing between them. This is simply how the internet works, and it is vital to the general peer to peer structure of the internet. Hopefully somebody at these companies will realize this before it hurts them in the long run. If Google starts building a network and courting customers, they could cause a big disturbance in the business and eventually push Verizon out of the business.

You know the sign: “Fines doubled in work zones.” But everytime I drive down to Boston I encounter an abandoned work zone on I-95. Twelve miles of “Work zone speed limit 45″ (instead of 65) and fines doubled. Yet during the day I rarely see any roadwork, roadworkers, or even machinery. People drive 65 or above. Does this mean they can be pulled over for driving 20 miles per hour over the limit and then receive a doubled fine? Yes.

In New Hampshire, the work zone speed limit law explicitly states the work zone must be manned in order to take affect. But the Massachusetts law doesn’t. Why not? The cynic in me says it is all about the money. While police on that section of I-95 do not typically ticket people going 65 (because everybody is) they do ticket people travelling faster, assigning a huge ticket that is then doubled. Does this help ensure the safety of workers? No. The DOT has cried wolf. Drivers see the work zone sign and assume it is just another section of road. If there actually are workers present they’re now put in danger.

Some searching dug up this list of work zone speed limit laws and which states require workers to be present. Since the states rarely put this info on their work zone rule signs, you can familiarize yourself with it so you know the law. States can gain respect for their laws by making sure they only take affect when workers are present and making this clear on signs. Furthermore, some states use work zone signs that flash when workers are present. Provided the information is up to date and correct, this helps motorist know when they should be looking out for construction workers. For the states that already do this, thank you.

Update: The list of work zone laws mysteriously disappeared. They seem to be having server issues. I’ve made a mirror from the google cached copy and updated the link above.

The House has approved a bill altering homeland security priorities for next year. Amongst the many changes, the bill would scale back the color coded terror alert system that has been thoroughly mocked since its debut after September 11th.

It is about time. The color coded alert was the most useless piece of information ever dispensed by our government. The terror alert has been raised several times, without an inkling of information about why or what the public should do about it. The House bill would require DHS to tailor warnings to specific locations and events. This is a step in the right direction. One of the biggest problems about the previous alert system was it did a good job of instilling panic and fear without ever dispensing useful information. The problem was so bad that the terror alert scheme turned into a big joke. To add insult to injury, DHS director Tom Ridge admitted the warnings often had little basis in reality.

I hope that the new system will work better. Getting the general public to raise awareness during times of potential attack is probably one of the most valuable resources the United States has. However, any sort of “terror alert” is very prone to suffer from “crying wolf” issues if misused.

The New York Times has another one of their excellent interactive graphics about class and class mobility. Fascinating data, thought provoking, and arranged in a very unique way. I think the most interesting part is how different income classes responded to questions about what it takes to get ahead in life. The richest demographics thought that natural ability and a good education were more important. The poorest demographic considered “coming from a wealthy family” to be more important than any other demographic.

Via Kevin Drum, who has made his own observations.

The UK Guardian has an article about some of the horendous working conditions at Nike’s factories:

In more than half of Nike’s factories, the report said, employees worked more than 60 hours a day.

Somebody call the NGOs!@ Screw it, somebody call Stephen Hawking! They must have some sort of time portal there! Thus, this weblog entry is unique in receiving the humour, scitech, and politics categories. (If they’ve corrected the error, view a screen shot.)

All joking aside, this is probably one of the best examples of what can go wrong with globalization. Nike has been known as a sweatshop company for years, yet they never seem to care. Why? Because customers continue to purchase Nike’s products, even when they know the truth about factory conditions.