Slashdot Mirror

Um, because using government coercion to legislate cutting our energy usage by 10-50% will cause us to be poorer and less healthy in the short term. Also, it will decrease our capacity to invent, develop and mass-produce technologies which would enable us to adapt to climate change (in _either_ direction)! Given the likely time-scales involved in such change (even the most dire models give us decades), adaptation is certainly achievable, provided we have a dynamic, free economy and society without bureaucrats deciding the "one best way" to adapt.

It comes down to dynamism vs. one-size-fits-all stasism . I prefer the former.

For a case study of how innovation and intellectual property was handled in a communist country, see the story of Otto Wichterle's invention of the soft contact lense in Czechoslovakia:

http://www.dynamist.com/articles-speeches/forbes/p lay.html

You have been living under a rock. Something like 20% of American productivity gains in the '90's can be directly attributed to WalMart. (Productivity, remember, is the engine that drives wealth and, ultimately, your standard of living). Further, the wages paid in China and other Third World 'paradises' becomes the seed capital of their own businesses, leading to more wealth creation, and ultimately a higher standard of living for everyone. You included. Back Stateside, WalMart passes most of its efficiencies on to its customers, they gain welcome price relief across a product line that encompasses much that is needed and even wanted in life. Further, their competition drives ineffficient, subpar companies *cough*MonkyWard*cough* to improve or go under, freeing labor and capital to be reinvested in more efficient ventures. Again, helping everyone's standard of living, yours included. There have been some concerns about wage rates and health care coverage, but those can be addressed, and don't necessarily imply evil. So, where's the problem?

        U.S. scientists and their supporters tend to assume biomedical research is threatened by know-nothings on religious crusades. But as the Canadian law illustrates, the long-term threat to genetic research comes less from the religious right than from the secular left. Canada's law forbids all sorts of genetic manipulations, many of them currently theoretical. It's a crime, for instance, to alter inheritable genes.

        And the law has provisions the fabled religious right never even talks about. It's a crime to pay a surrogate mother or to make or accept payment for arranging a surrogate. It's a crime to pay egg or sperm donors anything more than "receipted expenses," like taxi fares. Since eggs are used not just in fertility treatments but in research, this prohibition stifles both.

        Meanwhile, in backward, intolerant America objections to embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning are less politically persuasive than they were a few years ago. With the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Congress is close to a veto-proof majority to expand federal subsidies for embryonic stem-cell research. Many conservative leaders are uncomfortable opposing potentially lifesaving research.

        Given today's political climate, what do you think will happen in the field of reproductive medicine?

        G: Well, let me put it this way. If the environment today existed when IVF was started in 1978, we never would have had IVF. In the first two pregnancies with IVF, one was ectopic and one was a miscarriage. Our government would have stopped us right there. But IVF has resulted in a technology that is mainstream. Like IVF, the technologies we're working on now are to help people with serious medical problems--not to create Frankensteins.

        Would science be better off with Democrats in the White House?

        G: I don't know. I just don't know. Democrats think you're not smart enough to make your own decisions. They think they need to protect you from evil scientists. They will regulate everything that could possibly happen. Republicans, on the other hand, think regulation isn't good, except when it comes to decisions people make in their bedrooms. Then it's absolutely required.

Hit & Run over at Reason magazine is pretty interesting. It is fundamentally a libertarian blog of various Reason contributors. This blog has the distinction of having contributors supporting three different candidates, and almost the full spectrum of opinion on the Iraq war.

Also like Virginia Postrel's Dynamist blog.

I then try and read some of NRO's blogs and Daily Kos and Atrios just to make sure I keep up with what people are saying outside my own little echo chamber.

Here's a sampling of the best I've found:

Vodkapundit. Stephen Green's blog. Probably the best match for my own political views. Hawkish libertarian and consumer of fine ethanol-based beverages.

Instapundit Glenn Reynold's blog. Another decent match for my own viewpoint. Glenn's more of a linker than a commentator, but he's one of the best about linking to all sides of the blogosphere. When he does extended bits (such as at his MSNBC site or his TCS columns), he's quite cogent. Has a lot of outside interests (electronic music, space policy, nano-tech, constitutional law) that dovetail into my own and make his site more interesting than the politics-only blogs. Frequently mentions Slashdot and links to relevant discussions.

Reason's Hit and Run Another libertarian blog, run by Reason magazine. Much more in tune to the Libertarian Party than the above.

Virginia Postrel YALB (Yet Another Libertarian Blog). Postrel is a former editor of Reason. More of a social commentator these days and has written some fascinating books recently. Seems to have become ever-so-slightly more hawkish since 9/11.

The Corner National Review's blog. Conservative and largely Catholic, it's best feature is Jonah Goldberg (the token non-Catholic), who has a pleasantly snarky, pop-cultural laden view of current events. Least pleasant on the blog in John Derbyshire, who is quite the math geek but is way out there on the borderline-racist right (quite pleasant in email, though).

Andrew Sullivan. Classical liberal, Oakeshott conservative. A very incisive and passionate writer, he has an infuriating habit of demonizing the opposition. Originally very pro-war (and spent much time fulminating against the "fifth columnist" element on the left), he's now got a new enemy (those opposed to gay marriage/gay rights), so all those who were the enemy last year (the Democrats/John Kerry) are friends, and all those who were friends last year (the Republicans/George Bush) are enemies who can now do no right. When his emotions are not ruling his thinking, though, he's very, very good.

Mickey Kaus Slate's resident blogger, Mickey is a DLC "New" Democrat. He's one of the more honest of the bloggers (zings his own side often, recognizes good arguments on the other side) and a good source of insider media stuff.

Josh Marshall Establishment Democrat. I found his stuff to be really good a few years back, but recently he's spending more time rooting for the team (DNC/Kerry) than being objective. Also, darkly hints at constant "breaking soon" scoops that either never appear or completely underwhelm. Very bright guy, though, and insightful when not attempting to spin too obviously.

Kevin Drum Another Establishment Democrat. Kevin tends to be more self-reflective than Josh, which stands him in good stead. Great place to capture the mood of the DNC political types.

New Republic They have a couple of blogs (&c. and Campaign Journal). &c. is by far the better of the two. Skews left, but a sort of rationalist left (understands that while America may suck at times, other places suck more).

Tapped This used to be a great blog back in the

Leftist editors don't want to think that this could even happen.

Enjoy

As we all know...everyone is smarter than the Mericans! Especially the Bush administration. Now repeat (bleat) the mantra with me...Haliburton! Haliburton! Haliburton!

This review is stolen from here, but thanks for karma-whoring anyway.