I can't quantify it, but there's something repulsive about the J.Crew ad that everybody's talking about.
I think because of its subtlety.
If you question the appropriateness of the ad, you're a bigot.
We hear all these stories from other "men" about how their little boys' favorite color is pink, or they played with dolls, or they've worn eyeliner, dresses, nail polish, etc.
It all comes back to acknowledging something that once was universally accepted to be a mark of masculinity: The fine line between being civilized and being a wild animal.
Animals are driven on instinct, they don't adorn themselves with anything.
Historically, men have been conquerors. They don't care about looking good. They care about looking like conquerors.
Pink nail polish doesn't cut it. After all, it's nail polish.
Polish: (n) a substance used to give smoothness or gloss.
As a verb, it means to render refined, elegant, or finished.
Was looking refined paramount to King Leonidas? Caear? Attila? Genghis Khan?
No, refinement didn't strike fear into the hearts of their enemies. A willingness to at least appear savage and willing to go to any lengths for victory is what did it.
25 April 2011
24 April 2011
Objectivity is hard to come by these days...
Retired WDFL-- er WCCO anchor Don Shelby recently apologized for presenting balanced coverage on anthropogenic climate change:
The reality is that when it comes to ACC, the facts are not known. There's a "consensus" among a group of scientists that continues to fluctuate in size. There's volumes of data that are incongruous with intricate data models fully understood only by the researchers whom promote them. ACC is far from being accepted as scientific fact. It's theory. If a scientist has a competing theory that also fits some or all of the data, shouldn't that be given due consideration by a true journalist (You know, the near-mythical kind interested in telling the reader/viewer/listener the Who-What-Where-When-Why-How?)
Then there's this commentary gem from the Minneapolis Star & Sickle:
The title of the opinion piece by the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt?
Well, Fred, if you were interested in a discourse, I'd recommend not calling us "deniers". We're skeptics. We're not disregarding facts (as some on your side are apt to do), but you haven't sold us on the conclusions drawn from the available data.
First off, the Birther movement draws the most attention because that's the way the media wants it. It's easier to portray conservatives as a bunch of loons rather than engage them in debate. Methinks an insecurity is betrayed by such an action.
Second, Fred, Republican lawmakers have to routinely adjust taxes down because Democrat lawmakers like to adjust them up. I wonder if Democrats think the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is a straight line, versus the more nuanced view the Republicans have with regard to the Laffer Curve. Also, population increases allow tax revenues to be collected from a more diverse base. If government can live within its means, it can raise plenty of revenue by focusing on volume. Keep taxes low, and middle-class people can afford to have more kids, meaning additional revenue 18 years down the road. Keep taxes low, and upper-class people can put more of their money at risk in ventures that result in more jobs.
Wait a minute, that's too forward-thinking for the party of instant-gratification! Why am I bothering to explain macro-economics to people who've formed a preconceived notion that the very engine of their existing wealth and the wealth of their nation, capitalism, is evil?
The TV newsman’s mea culpa about having misreported climate change came after of years of treating the story the same as he would any other, requiring the views of two opposing parties, Shelby told the packed lecture hall of the chemistry building.
But, he said, climate change is not a pro or con issue; it’s a scientific fact. And journalists who work to “balance” a story present an inaccurate picture when they give equal weight to sources promulgating inaccurate facts.I see. Inaccurate? Or did he mean inconvenient?
The reality is that when it comes to ACC, the facts are not known. There's a "consensus" among a group of scientists that continues to fluctuate in size. There's volumes of data that are incongruous with intricate data models fully understood only by the researchers whom promote them. ACC is far from being accepted as scientific fact. It's theory. If a scientist has a competing theory that also fits some or all of the data, shouldn't that be given due consideration by a true journalist (You know, the near-mythical kind interested in telling the reader/viewer/listener the Who-What-Where-When-Why-How?)
Then there's this commentary gem from the Minneapolis Star & Sickle:
The Republican self-deception that draws the most attention is the refusal to believe that President Obama is American-born.
But there are Republican doctrinal fantasies that may be more dangerous: the conviction that taxes can always go down but never up, for example, and the gathering consensus among Republican leaders that human-caused climate change does not exist.
The title of the opinion piece by the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt?
How does one have discourse with deniers?
Well, Fred, if you were interested in a discourse, I'd recommend not calling us "deniers". We're skeptics. We're not disregarding facts (as some on your side are apt to do), but you haven't sold us on the conclusions drawn from the available data.
First off, the Birther movement draws the most attention because that's the way the media wants it. It's easier to portray conservatives as a bunch of loons rather than engage them in debate. Methinks an insecurity is betrayed by such an action.
Second, Fred, Republican lawmakers have to routinely adjust taxes down because Democrat lawmakers like to adjust them up. I wonder if Democrats think the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is a straight line, versus the more nuanced view the Republicans have with regard to the Laffer Curve. Also, population increases allow tax revenues to be collected from a more diverse base. If government can live within its means, it can raise plenty of revenue by focusing on volume. Keep taxes low, and middle-class people can afford to have more kids, meaning additional revenue 18 years down the road. Keep taxes low, and upper-class people can put more of their money at risk in ventures that result in more jobs.
Wait a minute, that's too forward-thinking for the party of instant-gratification! Why am I bothering to explain macro-economics to people who've formed a preconceived notion that the very engine of their existing wealth and the wealth of their nation, capitalism, is evil?
Take your Easter greeting and stick it...
So KayInMaine posted this morning:
A quick search of the site turns up:
Tomorrow, she'll go back to xeroxing posts from unbiased sources such as ThinkProgress and TalkingPointsMemo, and normalcy will return to the universe.
As an Atheist, I don’t have a religious bone in my body, but I do know some of my readers are religious, so this post is for you. Happy Easter!Hmm, guess this supposed to make up for the rest of the year when she's hostile to Christianity.?
A quick search of the site turns up:
- Hostility to "pasty white christian republicans"
- She manages a dig on Christian love in a post about Elisabeth Hasselbeck
- An attack on Michelle Bachmann for not wanting taxpayer money to give food & aid to people who have a long-standing problem with indiscriminately killing their neighbors.
- Sometimes, she just attacks the faith in general, such as here (right before last Easter) and here. By the way, in the last link, she demonstrates her ignorance by criticizing the Christian God of the Old Testament, as seen here.
Tomorrow, she'll go back to xeroxing posts from unbiased sources such as ThinkProgress and TalkingPointsMemo, and normalcy will return to the universe.
22 April 2011
Barry can be a prick sometimes...
OK, he can be a prick all the time, actually.
His latest antic?
Surest way to lose credibility for your argument and any respect you had from me? Call an ACC skeptic a "denier". As I've said before, it tells me everything I need to know about the rigidity of your own position.
It occurs to me that we should take a page from the liberal playbook when debating the severity of our debt. We should just start screaming:
NO! WE'RE BROKE! THE DEBATE IS OVER!
Get it shrill enough, and the libs might actually get the concept of a finite supply of money.
His latest antic?
“There are climate change deniers in Congress and when the economy gets tough, sometimes environmental issues drop from people’s radar screens,” Obama told about 200 guests at the residence of internet billionaire Marc Benioff
Surest way to lose credibility for your argument and any respect you had from me? Call an ACC skeptic a "denier". As I've said before, it tells me everything I need to know about the rigidity of your own position.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.-- Winston Churchill
It occurs to me that we should take a page from the liberal playbook when debating the severity of our debt. We should just start screaming:
NO! WE'RE BROKE! THE DEBATE IS OVER!
Get it shrill enough, and the libs might actually get the concept of a finite supply of money.
You keep using that word...
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, though, I know that it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Socialist.
A former colleague of mine actually used the word...to describe me.
Here's the context. My colleague comments on seeing this "clever" bumper sticker, which I've previously commented on. I point out the silliness of the logic behind the bumper sticker:
Prompting this comeback:
And apparently, compassion has suddenly become the purview of the Left?
Hardly. I have plenty of compassion for people and for animals. My colleague demonstrates how little he knows about me. I don't go around broadcasting all of my volunteer work or the things I've done for complete strangers. Why not? Because I don't do it for recognition. I do it because of values instilled in me by my family and friends. Because at the end of the day, I can look in a mirror and acknowledge that I inconvenienced myself to help somebody else's day, knowing that some day I may rely on the kindness of a stranger to improve my day at the cost of his or her convenience.
But my compassion is tempered by what I've seen of some people in this world, who feel entitled to my unwilling compassion in the form of money. They are able-bodied individuals who've never worked a day in their life. Over the past 40 years, they've been inculcated to believe they are entitled to my money, that it's my job to take care of them.
To quote Judge Smalls from Caddyshack, the world needs ditch-diggers too.
But I digress. Asking if I'm turning into a socialist because I care about what happens to this country? No, of course not. My colleague mistakes patriotism and motivated self-interest for near-worship of the State. Doubtful that he's lived in a socialist country. I have, by the way. And let me tell you closet socialists that the reality never works as great as the theory.
So to it round it off, I shut down my colleague's feeble attempt at name-calling with this brief reply:
UPDATE:
So my colleague posted the following on his wall:
Really? What a prick! What is it with these anti-Christian liberals and their need to tear down the Church? It's not enough to exercise your right to not believe in a Supreme Being, you've got to demean and belittle people of faith. Why is that?
My theory: Liberals are control-freaks.
Think about it: They think government controls of the economy is the way to prosperity. They think speech codes on college campuses is the way to go. They think we should throw our entire way of life into upheaval to try to counteract global temperature increases predicted with models based on severely flawed data.
I know in their mind, being jerks towards those of faith is their way of trying to drag "the masses" out of "superstition" and into "reason".
Just one question: Who the fuck asked them to do this?
Oh, I get it: They know better than us. Riiight.
Next time one of these liberal pundits claim we conservatives are being melodramatic about the "War on Christmas" or the "War on Easter", point out all the "tolerant" atheists who insist on being dicks during the two most important times of the year for Christians.
Now, I expect to see similar "tolerance" shown for the Muslims during Ramadan. Come on atheist pricks, let's see some consistency!
Socialist.
A former colleague of mine actually used the word...to describe me.
Here's the context. My colleague comments on seeing this "clever" bumper sticker, which I've previously commented on. I point out the silliness of the logic behind the bumper sticker:
My gearshift doesn't have a "D" on it, *****. Besides, you can drive forward off a cliff :-)
Prompting this comeback:
Yes,*** , it is a good idea to protect the masses from driving off a cliff. I didn't realize you were so compassionate. Are you turning into a socialist?Wow, right there is an insight into my colleague's viewpoint: They're not people, they're masses. Guess who else referred to them as "masses"?
Religion is the opiate of the masses--Karl Marx
And apparently, compassion has suddenly become the purview of the Left?
Hardly. I have plenty of compassion for people and for animals. My colleague demonstrates how little he knows about me. I don't go around broadcasting all of my volunteer work or the things I've done for complete strangers. Why not? Because I don't do it for recognition. I do it because of values instilled in me by my family and friends. Because at the end of the day, I can look in a mirror and acknowledge that I inconvenienced myself to help somebody else's day, knowing that some day I may rely on the kindness of a stranger to improve my day at the cost of his or her convenience.
But my compassion is tempered by what I've seen of some people in this world, who feel entitled to my unwilling compassion in the form of money. They are able-bodied individuals who've never worked a day in their life. Over the past 40 years, they've been inculcated to believe they are entitled to my money, that it's my job to take care of them.
To quote Judge Smalls from Caddyshack, the world needs ditch-diggers too.
But I digress. Asking if I'm turning into a socialist because I care about what happens to this country? No, of course not. My colleague mistakes patriotism and motivated self-interest for near-worship of the State. Doubtful that he's lived in a socialist country. I have, by the way. And let me tell you closet socialists that the reality never works as great as the theory.
So to it round it off, I shut down my colleague's feeble attempt at name-calling with this brief reply:
No need for name-calling, *****. I won't thread-jack *****'s status further, so anytime you feel like verbal jousting, my wall's available.
UPDATE:
So my colleague posted the following on his wall:
Easter canceled, they found the body.
Really? What a prick! What is it with these anti-Christian liberals and their need to tear down the Church? It's not enough to exercise your right to not believe in a Supreme Being, you've got to demean and belittle people of faith. Why is that?
My theory: Liberals are control-freaks.
Think about it: They think government controls of the economy is the way to prosperity. They think speech codes on college campuses is the way to go. They think we should throw our entire way of life into upheaval to try to counteract global temperature increases predicted with models based on severely flawed data.
I know in their mind, being jerks towards those of faith is their way of trying to drag "the masses" out of "superstition" and into "reason".
Just one question: Who the fuck asked them to do this?
Oh, I get it: They know better than us. Riiight.
Next time one of these liberal pundits claim we conservatives are being melodramatic about the "War on Christmas" or the "War on Easter", point out all the "tolerant" atheists who insist on being dicks during the two most important times of the year for Christians.
Now, I expect to see similar "tolerance" shown for the Muslims during Ramadan. Come on atheist pricks, let's see some consistency!
18 April 2011
Logic for dummies...
So I heard 14-year-old speaker Tricia Willoughby at the recent Madison Tax Day Tea Party was drowned out by protesters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnJKc337Ic&feature=player_embedded
Here's what the teenager actually said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpeF4X7Ubo. Yeah, really extreme stuff. Really deserving of being called a "brat".
One commenter named willonomous, with an obvious learning disability said:
* Face-palm *
God, please tell me this commenter's not a teacher of anything that requires mastery of logic. If he/she/it is a teacher, let's hope it's something harmless, like art.
Or journalism.
Let me see if I get this right: She's 14. The government says because she's 14, she can't vote. It doesn't matter how "mature" or "unbiased" she could become in the eyes of willonomous (in other words, how much her opinion meets his/her/its approval), she still can't vote.
Perhaps if willonomous had been able to hear the speech instead of the protester's mouth, he would've realized that her speech was about how the reckless spending of the federal government carries a price borne more by Tricia's generation than the loud-mouthed buffoon shouting at her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnJKc337Ic&feature=player_embedded
Here's what the teenager actually said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpeF4X7Ubo. Yeah, really extreme stuff. Really deserving of being called a "brat".
One commenter named willonomous, with an obvious learning disability said:
Also, for petes sake, if she's 14, she can't vote, yet it's okay to make her stand upto people telling them her views? If she's mature enough to have a unbiased view, she'd be allowed to vote. But she's not, because she's 14, so isn't
* Face-palm *
God, please tell me this commenter's not a teacher of anything that requires mastery of logic. If he/she/it is a teacher, let's hope it's something harmless, like art.
Or journalism.
Let me see if I get this right: She's 14. The government says because she's 14, she can't vote. It doesn't matter how "mature" or "unbiased" she could become in the eyes of willonomous (in other words, how much her opinion meets his/her/its approval), she still can't vote.
Perhaps if willonomous had been able to hear the speech instead of the protester's mouth, he would've realized that her speech was about how the reckless spending of the federal government carries a price borne more by Tricia's generation than the loud-mouthed buffoon shouting at her.
10 April 2011
Violence abounds
A shooting occurred at a grocery store I used to frequent before moving to IA.
Will the event deter me from going back to the store? No.
First off, this wasn't some random act or robbery gone bad. It involved three of the grocery store's employees. It was a love triangle. Unless you were a participant in the triangle or unfortunate enough to be in the line of fire, you weren't in very much danger.
Know what I'll do next time I'm in the neighborhood of that grocery store? I'm going to go shop there.
Why? Because I inherited something from my mother called "spite". I refuse to live my life in fear of what might happen to me in a place already touched by violence. If I did, the purveyors of violence and evil would win.
It's similar to a gang-related shooting that took place a few miles to the south a number of years ago at a movie theater. Despite the high cost and lower quality of the cinemas, I and and a co-worker went to the movie theater out of spite.
Interestingly enough that some hack at the University of London has produced a study that sampled from 90 college students who "self-identified" themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. I've posited what I think of journalists who self-identify themselves as "moderate" when their bias betrays a pervasive liberalism in their thinking. Anyway, the researcher claims a correlation between an enlarged amygdala (the "fear" center of the brain) and a propensity toward conservatism, while denser gray matter (where conflict resolution occurs) may leads towards a person being more likely to be liberal.
Yeah, I rolled my eyes too. These lefties will stop at nothing to not win the debate, but merely overwhelm it with diversions and distractions. Conservatism's a disease. Your amygdala's too big.
Anybody peer-review this guy's findings?
Unsurprisingly, the fingers point to Glenn Beck. I listen to the man's radio program and occasionally watched his television program. I'm not sure it could be characterized as fear-mongering. A more apt description would be that he is encouraging his fellow citizens to be vigilant of what their government's doing, or what some people are doing with the government's blessing. Since when did a healthy distrust of one's politicians become paranoia? Never forget, they are contractually-obligated employees. The contract? The U.S. Constitution.
Alas, I've decided that the brouhaha about enlarged amygdalas and Glenn Beck dovetails nicely with how every act of violence directed against politicans, members of law enforcement, or "immigrants" (where the media conveniently drops the "illegal" adjective is the result of a mindless right-wing drone whipped up into a "violent frenzy" by the "hate speech" from talk radio.
Of course, point out the well-documented trail of violence from the Left, and you get described with some "colorful" adjectives in lieu of debate. After all, liberals are more nuanced thinkers. Or so they keep telling us. Meanwhile, they're also telling us civilization as we know will come to an end if the government shuts down. Or public employee unions losing some of their power is the first step on the road to indentured servitude. Or questioning the allocation of funds to the EPA means that Republicans want to poison the earth, air, and water.
Um, who's the one fear-mongering again?
Back to the study. Dense gray matter correlates with the likelihood of being liberal? Consider the fact that many young people start out as liberal until their rampant altruism collides with the reality that
Oops, I just realized I used the word "self-reliant" above. Let me translate it into liberal-speak: "selfish". After all, acting in your own self-interest is never to the benefit of others. Unless your successful business venture means jobs for your community and increases your ability to donate to charity.
Yep, selfishness (ability to care for yourself and others), paranoia (ability to recognize a threat to your way of life and be vigilant), and violence (ability to kick said threat in the ass it doesn't leave your way of life alone).
Sign me up.
Will the event deter me from going back to the store? No.
First off, this wasn't some random act or robbery gone bad. It involved three of the grocery store's employees. It was a love triangle. Unless you were a participant in the triangle or unfortunate enough to be in the line of fire, you weren't in very much danger.
Know what I'll do next time I'm in the neighborhood of that grocery store? I'm going to go shop there.
Why? Because I inherited something from my mother called "spite". I refuse to live my life in fear of what might happen to me in a place already touched by violence. If I did, the purveyors of violence and evil would win.
It's similar to a gang-related shooting that took place a few miles to the south a number of years ago at a movie theater. Despite the high cost and lower quality of the cinemas, I and and a co-worker went to the movie theater out of spite.
Interestingly enough that some hack at the University of London has produced a study that sampled from 90 college students who "self-identified" themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. I've posited what I think of journalists who self-identify themselves as "moderate" when their bias betrays a pervasive liberalism in their thinking. Anyway, the researcher claims a correlation between an enlarged amygdala (the "fear" center of the brain) and a propensity toward conservatism, while denser gray matter (where conflict resolution occurs) may leads towards a person being more likely to be liberal.
Yeah, I rolled my eyes too. These lefties will stop at nothing to not win the debate, but merely overwhelm it with diversions and distractions. Conservatism's a disease. Your amygdala's too big.
Anybody peer-review this guy's findings?
Unsurprisingly, the fingers point to Glenn Beck. I listen to the man's radio program and occasionally watched his television program. I'm not sure it could be characterized as fear-mongering. A more apt description would be that he is encouraging his fellow citizens to be vigilant of what their government's doing, or what some people are doing with the government's blessing. Since when did a healthy distrust of one's politicians become paranoia? Never forget, they are contractually-obligated employees. The contract? The U.S. Constitution.
Alas, I've decided that the brouhaha about enlarged amygdalas and Glenn Beck dovetails nicely with how every act of violence directed against politicans, members of law enforcement, or "immigrants" (where the media conveniently drops the "illegal" adjective is the result of a mindless right-wing drone whipped up into a "violent frenzy" by the "hate speech" from talk radio.
Of course, point out the well-documented trail of violence from the Left, and you get described with some "colorful" adjectives in lieu of debate. After all, liberals are more nuanced thinkers. Or so they keep telling us. Meanwhile, they're also telling us civilization as we know will come to an end if the government shuts down. Or public employee unions losing some of their power is the first step on the road to indentured servitude. Or questioning the allocation of funds to the EPA means that Republicans want to poison the earth, air, and water.
Um, who's the one fear-mongering again?
Back to the study. Dense gray matter correlates with the likelihood of being liberal? Consider the fact that many young people start out as liberal until their rampant altruism collides with the reality that
- there is no money tree from which a government can pluck T-bills in hopes of solving all of society's ills
- trying to help someone improve their station in life can backfire because you have taken an incentive away
- the money comes from others, many of whom have figured out how to be self-reliant, begging the question of why the person being helped cannot also help themselves.
Oops, I just realized I used the word "self-reliant" above. Let me translate it into liberal-speak: "selfish". After all, acting in your own self-interest is never to the benefit of others. Unless your successful business venture means jobs for your community and increases your ability to donate to charity.
Yep, selfishness (ability to care for yourself and others), paranoia (ability to recognize a threat to your way of life and be vigilant), and violence (ability to kick said threat in the ass it doesn't leave your way of life alone).
Sign me up.
09 April 2011
The GOP blinked
That's my feeling. The Democrats, whom never met spending they didn't like, aside from funds allocated to the DoD, pushed the GOP to the wall over $61 billion in cuts to a budget that grew by $1 TRILLION the past two years!
If that's all the cuts we could find, the government needed to shut down until our elected representatives could find better accountants!
Last year's trouncing of the Dems in the mid-term elections demonstrated one thing: The much-maligned and oft-underestimated Tea Party is growing in strength. People are sick of endless and reckless government spending with OUR MONEY! Yes, the U.S. has a revolving debt, paying off the debt-holders from time to time by borrowing from other debt-holders. This economic system has survived for generations because of the confidence of the debt-holders in the continued existence of the U.S., and it's continued ability to pay its debts.
But we are fast approaching the point where the federal debt will be 90% of our GDP. Unless we can increase the growth rate of the national economy, it becomes increasingly more difficult for that debt to ever hope to be paid off. Debt-holders lose confidence in the U.S. economy, and become more reluctant to lend us money.
If that's all the cuts we could find, the government needed to shut down until our elected representatives could find better accountants!
Last year's trouncing of the Dems in the mid-term elections demonstrated one thing: The much-maligned and oft-underestimated Tea Party is growing in strength. People are sick of endless and reckless government spending with OUR MONEY! Yes, the U.S. has a revolving debt, paying off the debt-holders from time to time by borrowing from other debt-holders. This economic system has survived for generations because of the confidence of the debt-holders in the continued existence of the U.S., and it's continued ability to pay its debts.
But we are fast approaching the point where the federal debt will be 90% of our GDP. Unless we can increase the growth rate of the national economy, it becomes increasingly more difficult for that debt to ever hope to be paid off. Debt-holders lose confidence in the U.S. economy, and become more reluctant to lend us money.
What sort of math are they teaching in schools?
rwhitten
11:11 AM on January 22, 2011
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore rwhitten. Show DetailsHide Details
There are questions about whether ethanol is actually carbon neutral, but it is probably better than oil. The problem with ethanol is that the government is choosing the alternative energy to supplement fossil fuels via subsidies.
A better solution is to gradually increase tax on fossil fuels at the point of consumption and rebate the proceeds equally to everyone. This is a revenue neutral scheme proposed by Dr. James Hansen, renowned NASA climate scientist from small town Iowa. The result is that those who conserve fossil fuel use are rewarded and those who waste are punished. The market place would respond by making more energy efficient devices and investing in alternatives that wouldn't yet be viable. The market place would choose winners and loosers, not the government. The market place can respond more quickly to changing technology than can the government.
This comment was posted on a recent article about the coming introduction of E15 to fuel pumps in Iowa.
Um, rwhitten, people who conserve fuel are already awarded and people who waste it are already punished. It's called the Free Market. When I drive my SUV, I'm punished more by having to visit the gas station more often than when I drive my sedan. What is so complicated about this? Instead, rwhitten cites Dr. James Hansen, the balanced individual who thought climate skeptics should be tried for "high crimes against humanity". A revenue-neutral scheme? With many things liberal, it sounds good in theory, provided that theory is surface level. How much will it cost to collect the extra taxes at the pump?
11:11 AM on January 22, 2011
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore rwhitten. Show DetailsHide Details
There are questions about whether ethanol is actually carbon neutral, but it is probably better than oil. The problem with ethanol is that the government is choosing the alternative energy to supplement fossil fuels via subsidies.
A better solution is to gradually increase tax on fossil fuels at the point of consumption and rebate the proceeds equally to everyone. This is a revenue neutral scheme proposed by Dr. James Hansen, renowned NASA climate scientist from small town Iowa. The result is that those who conserve fossil fuel use are rewarded and those who waste are punished. The market place would respond by making more energy efficient devices and investing in alternatives that wouldn't yet be viable. The market place would choose winners and loosers, not the government. The market place can respond more quickly to changing technology than can the government.
This comment was posted on a recent article about the coming introduction of E15 to fuel pumps in Iowa.
Um, rwhitten, people who conserve fuel are already awarded and people who waste it are already punished. It's called the Free Market. When I drive my SUV, I'm punished more by having to visit the gas station more often than when I drive my sedan. What is so complicated about this? Instead, rwhitten cites Dr. James Hansen, the balanced individual who thought climate skeptics should be tried for "high crimes against humanity". A revenue-neutral scheme? With many things liberal, it sounds good in theory, provided that theory is surface level. How much will it cost to collect the extra taxes at the pump?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)