New School Politics

“By now you may have heard of the economic questions regarding using corn for ethanol production, but less attention has been paid to the environmental impact of using ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. Is ethanol more of a pollutant than gasoline? Surprisingly, the science says yes.”

Here is the link to the article

Popularity: 22% [?]

In last night’s Democratic Presidential debate, Hillary provided one of those lines that’s enough to make any reasonable economist cringe:

CLINTON: … But this issue of energy and global warming has the promise of creating millions of new jobs in America … So it can be a win-win, if we do it right.

Things not seen:

1. The fact that there is only a limited amount of resources in an economy at any given point in time and these “new” jobs would only be coming at the expense of diverting economic resources from other industries to “alternative energies”. Hence these new jobs would be coming at the expense of (a) other jobs that would necessarily be lost in other sectors as well as (b) productivity–because this investment is not warranted by the incentives of the private market but rather from politically manufactured incentives.

2. Intelligent economic commentary from Sen. Clinton.

Popularity: 18% [?]

In the past, the Live ___ concerts have been hugely successful. Both, Live Aid and Live 8, have had a clear purpose in mind: raise money to either pay off debt or help to feed starving children. Al Gore, however, utilized his well-publicized Live Earth to “kick start a global movement” to react to global warming. Not everyone agrees with global warming, and there are certainly ways to persuade individuals to look at scientific backup in its favor.

Is a concert, however, the best way? After briefly attending the Washington, DC gathering at the National Museum of the American Indian and watching bits and pieces of the concert on TV, I can conclusively say that it’s most definitely not. Although it was the most watched webcast ever, it was not very well attended at the various locations throughout the world. Furthermore, would an anti-global warming activist attend or watch the concert? Short snippets between musical acts were dedicated to global warming lessons, most of which were ridiculously stupid.

The LA Times and several other sites point out some interesting facts about the concert, showcasing the hypocrisy of many of its participants. LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg sums up the concert perfectly:

considering the energy required to put on the show, the nine Live Earth concerts doubtlessly raised more CO2 than awareness. NBC’s three-hour televised version got trounced by “Cops” and “America’s Funniest Home Videos.” Moreover, surely most of the people who attended or tuned in already knew about global warming before they saw the video tutorial about Ed Begley Jr.’s eco-friendly home and sanctimony-powered go-cart.

While I appreciate Gore’s efforts in attempting to help to solve the global warming problem, it’s difficult not to view much of this global warming “awareness” as hypocrisy as well.  I’m not a staunch global-warming observer, but I don’t refuse to acknowledge that it exists either.  Gore’s excellent film “An Inconvenient Truth” provides some excellent facts and justification for his claims.  Regardless of global warming’s existence, Gore should have realized the impropriety his concert practiced.  Why hold a concert railing against a problem you’re claiming to solve?

Popularity: 25% [?]

1. Initiate a National Service
2. A single State Solution between Palestine and Israel
3. Ensuring an end to energy dependence in the Middle East
4. Increasing abilities of non-governmental organizations, and US government organizations to provide immediate and effective disaster relief around the world that promotes pro-American imagery.
5. Outlawing Shari Law in the United States
6. Forming a joint anti-terrorism act with China, Russia, Japan, and the EU to ensure a task force greater than Interpol with no objective but to prevent global terrorism and also to create a multinational counter-terrorism task force capable of responding to nuclear, biological, chemical, and hostage crisis’s in every corner of the globe within 24 hours.
7. Providing cold-war level funding to form and operate pro-American television, Internet, and print sources outside of the United States.
8. Using covert military action and government sponsored economic means to open up rogue terrorist states to capitalism and western values.
9. Securing major American sea and airports to scan one hundred percent of cargo, also ensuring that the southern boarder of the United States is secure.
10. Rebuilding the national intelligence, enforcement, and emergency response community from the ground up to increase response time, preparedness, and capabilities, while balancing cost.

In the coming days I will create an in dept explanation of how to accomplish the steps I have outlined.

Popularity: 36% [?]

On March 31, 1998, General Motors took a colossal step forward. Years of research had yielded a car capable of replacing petroleum powered vehicles. The EV1 proved to naysayers that electric cars were a feasible enterprise. A quick glance at statistics on the EV1 prove that the car provided affordable and efficient transportation to all drivers. The futuristic styling was intended to appeal to auto enthusiasts everywhere, as were the nimble 0-60 speed (8 seconds), and the higher than average range (60 miles on a single charge). The EV1 was “simply put…amazing,” claimed Generation 2 EV1 driver Kris Trexler. Trexler’s 3,275 mile voyage through the United States showed that the EV1 was a car that was, in fact, efficient and capable of replacing gasoline powered vehicles. GM pleased thousands with the EV1. One day in 2003, however, the American automaker announced they were recalling all EV1s. The death of the electric car was abrupt and swift. Who Killed the Electric Car?, a documentary by director Chris Paine, documents the rise and fall of the EV1. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 27% [?]