Glenn-- Please consider developing what these two matters have in common: the government has a tremendous amount of information about all of us, and at present functionally few if any restraints on how they use it.

We are being told that a bank employee reported "suspicious activity" by Mr. Spitzer. Can we be so sure? Is it such a stretch to think that maybe big brother was keeping watch over Spitzer's every move just in case something politically useful popped up? Not hard to then have the bank in question file a report. And how many others might be under similar scrutiny?

The media is now making frequent reference to "illegal money transfers" in reporting the Spitzer story. Having been tangentially involved in this area from my years as a tax consultant, I can almost guarantee there was nothing illegal about how Spitzer moved around his money. For instance, cash transactions of more than $10,000 at a bank aren't illegal, they merely have to be reported to the treasury department by the bank. Reporting any amounts less than that is at the discretion of the bank, but it is still perfectly legal to withdraw or deposit cash. How Mr. Spitzer spent his money is where laws got broken, not how he accessed it.

From this you can see that banks have been deputized into a system of ongoing data mining not dissimilar to what the telecoms are doing. And we all are potentially under scrutiny here just as with our emails and phone calls.

"But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government" or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population"."

Under this definition of terrorism you could easily indict George Bush, Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo and a host of others involved in the Bush administration, for doing precisely what it says. And no need to be arguing over the veracity of informants to establish their participation--the public record has all you would need. Such laws are very dangerous, particularly when so much of our system of checks and balances has been subverted by those in power.

Walt Kelly was right.

In the initial question, there's no mention of what use the lighting is part of. Your calculations do assume 50,000 hours of continual usage, which if nothing else should be noted as thus presenting one endpoint in the range of usage situations. Now, if we're broadening out the discussion (as many of the letters have done), it is an easy extension to consider whether there are that many situations in which lighting must remain on continually, and indeed whether we can change our behavior (even in industrial and commercial applications) to reduce usage. The more we are able do that, the less relevant your actual calculations become in real world situations.

The annual salary for the governor of Alaska is $125,000. Per diem payments would have to be reported in whole or in part as taxable W-2 wages if they did not meet specific IRS requirements as reimbursements or eqivalent standardized amounts for travel expenses while away from home on business. It is hard to understand how going home from the state capitol would qualify as such, even if the State of Alaska allowed such payments.

Sarah Palin's W-2 form for 2007 shows actual income of $122,400, of which $108,000 is listed as taxable wages for IRS purposes. (Numbers are rounded slightly.) This implies that Governor Palin deferred some $14,500 of salary into a retirement account such as a 401(k) or 403(b), although the W-2 we are shown does not identify such a contribution; such tax-deferred contributions are usually identified and listed in box 12. (See Todd Palin's W-2, where it is shown.) But in any case, there appears to be no room in the numbers for per diem payments to be included, and no indication any has been.

If the per diems become an ongoing controversy, Alaska might have to change its method for calculating and reporting federal taxable income. But since this could affect many state employees (including the person responsible for making this decision in the first place), don't hold your breath. And don't look to the IRS to get on the case--not surprisingly they tend to give all politicians a wide berth in such matters.

In the disclosure form, Gov. Palin's salary from the beginning of 2007 through the date of filing is listed as some $196,500. The form does not list a date of filing, but it can't have been until after she was nominated at the convention, so it must include at least through all of August 2008, or a total of 20 months. At $125,000 per year that would be $208,300. But note (this is all found on page 6 of the disclosure form) a footnote that states the $196,500 figure is "as reported to filer by the State of Alaska." There would be no reason to have such a footnote unless the figure shown might otherwise be construed as incorrect, and thus represents a CYA disclaimer. But again, no evident room for per diems in the number, and no other mention of them on the form.

Finally, on the last page of the disclosure form, Palin is listed as having been governor since January 2006. Oops.