Mistakes are made by all sides, in every war. To the extent that an organization feels ashamed of its mistakes, it is likely to attempt coverups as well. (There's no need to cover it up, if you have no remorse about it.) By characterizing this as a "great" story, you seem to revel in, or celebrate, the mistakes made by our side.
To the extent that the story is true, I would call it a "tragic" story, not a "great" story.
In the war on terror, "smart," high-precision, low-yield weapons are used. There are certainly civilian casualties, as you point out, but the number of civialian casualties is orders of magnitude lower than in World War II, when the U.S. intentionally firebombed large residential neighborhoods in Germany and Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo )
Given that information, I have a few questions for you.
Tom Brokaw wrote a famous book about the WWII generation titled "The Greatest Generation." Do you agree with Brokaw's characterization? Do you believe the current generation of warriors is even greater than the WWII generation, because it kills orders-of-magnitude fewer civilians? Why or why not? If current tactics amount to "U.S. indiscriminant killing of civilians," how would you characterize the tactics used in WWII? Will future generations of Afghans and Yemenis hate America less than current generations of Japanese and Germans do, because of the far-less-deadly tactics used today? Why or why not?
That article is infected with an over-the-top victim mentality right from its very title. If Mac were truly a "slave," he would still be in that job; slaves are not free to quit their jobs. Everyone who accepts a job in a warehouse does so because it's the best job offer they received. Slaves, on the other hand, continue to be slaves because the alternative is to be hunted down as a runaway slave.
FTFY: Everywhere is where everyone wins with technology.
[Explanation: every new technology destroys jobs in one field, while creating even more jobs in other fields, for a net gain of jobs. Far more people have jobs today than had jobs 200 years ago -- and it's not a case of "if you have lots of babies, the jobs for them will magically appear;" it's a case of the additional jobs having been made possible by new tech.
"no human jobs are being taken" is complete, utter BS.
You're correct, of course, but but more importantly: every new technology destroys jobs in one field, while creating even more jobs in other fields, for a net gain of jobs. Far more people have jobs today than had jobs 200 years ago -- and it's not a case of "if you have lots of babies, the jobs for them will magically appear;" it's a case of the additional jobs having been made possible by new tech.
Some people, when fortunate enough to gain a lot of leisure time, do spend that time on self-education, art, or other constructive pursuits. Others spend it on destructive pursuits. What's needed is a way to inculcate an ethos of desiring the constructive pursuits and reviling the destructive pursuits.
But don't blame technology. By all realistic accounts, life before technology was even more brutish than it is now.
I suppose if you show a propensity to misuse your leisure time, you should get less of it. But instead, you get more. (Time is an abundant resource for the incarcerated.)
technology was supposed to free people up to not have to work.... except that the profits from such advances don't trickle down to the people, but instead stay within the company
You are so right! Nobody owns cars, or televisions, or lives in centrally-heated residences. Computers have not become more affordable for people. Nobody has running water, or access to antibiotics. The internet has not trickled down to anyone. Modern transportation systems have not been built out to any extent. If only the profits from technology would trickle down, just a little bit, we might be able to advance from sending letters written on papyrus to some more rapid means of communication. In the 18th century, the number of people with health insurance was zero; that is still true today, so it's downright strange that we're even familiar with the concept.
Damn those companies for not providing these products and services to anyone! The profits that they don't earn from providing these products and services are so misused.
in no sense can they be called subsidies—i.e., money taken from Smith and given to Jones. The failure to tax Exxon more does not increase your payment to the IRS by one red cent.
This passage is perfectly defensible. If there is a deficit, the-failure-to-tax-Exxon-more has the short-term effect of increasing the deficit. If there is a surplus, the-failure-to-tax-Exxon-more has the short-term effect of decreasing the surplus. (The long-term effect, of course, depends on whether we sit on the inhumane side of the Laffer Curve.) But what the-failure-to-tax-Exxon-more does not do is increase your tax rate. Only a literal act of Congress can do that. (No, I'm not advocating deficit spending. One does not have to advocate deficit spending to defend the correctness of this passage from the article.)
Imagine an outrageously oppressive income tax rate: 99.9% of your income is being confiscated. Then imagine that you get a slight tax break, reducing your rate to 99.8%. By your definition, you have just gotten a subsidy.
Here's an example of an entity that receives a true subsidy: Amtrak. In all its years of existence, Amtrak's revenue has never been sufficient to cover its expenses. The only reason it can carry on is that the shortfall is covered by a subsidy. Amtrak has never paid tax -- which makes sense, given that it has never had a profit, and only profits are subject to tax.
If you are going to claim that "a tax reduction is the same thing as a subsidy," you must conversely also claim that "a subsidy reduction is the same thing as a tax." Do you really want to go there? If words are to mean anything, I should hope not. Amtrak's subsidy has generally increased quite a bit over the years -- from $601 million in FY1986 to $1,555 million in FY2010 -- but it dropped to $1,475 million in FY2011. Does that reduction mean Amtrak has paid tax? No, not by any stretch of the imagination. And profitable oil companies have been subsidized to the exact same extent that Amtrak has been taxed -- which is to say, not at all. Your assertion to the contrary seems to be purely for political purposes; i.e., it's doublespeak. Was is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Tax Reductions are Subsidies. Big Brother is beaming at this new addition to the doublespeak lexicon.
Thanks for the thorough treatment of this subject. However, you have called it a "tax break" as well as a "subsidy." It can't be both -- see "The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy" on the aptly-named Reason.com.
It's pure Orwellian doublespeak to assert that confiscating a smaller fraction of a Company X's profits is the same thing as subsidizing Company X. I have no particular love for the oil industry, but freedom from doublespeak is something for which we should all fight passionately.
You've just admitted that it has a "low rate of return." If there's one thing the government should never put up money for, it's projects with a low rate of return. To the extent government diverts capital out of high-rate-of-return applications into low-rate-of-return applications, there will be less economic growth and more unemployment. Does that sound like something we can afford at this time, given that the deficits in fiscal years 2009-2012 averaged $1.273 TRILLION?
that's the end of large scale private electricity generation then if your idea is followed
I looked into covering my roof with photovoltaic panels a few years ago. Didn't do it, because I would have gotten a better return on my money by sticking it in a savings account that paid a pathetically-low interest rate. I will periodically revist the idea. If and when it offers a decent rate of return (and I believe someday it will), I will do it. You must have very little faith that this technology will improve, if you think subsidy-free private electricity generation will never be viable.
If a government confiscates a smaller fraction of a person's earnings, the government did not "give" money to that person. It was never the government's to give; 100% of it belonged to the person until the moment when taxes were rendered. It's just scary how many people have begun to think of all assets as belonging to the government, and that we should be grateful for whatever fraction the government "allows" us to keep.
If words are to mean anything, government "giving" should be reserved for situations where a person receives some benefit without having paid for it. NOT for a mere adjustment in the rate at which privately-owned assets are confiscated.
Confiscating fewer privately-owned assets only increases the deficit if the government is already living beyond its means. In 1998 - 2001 there were four consecutive years of surpluses. If fewer private assets had been confiscated during those years, the short-term effect would have been a smaller surplus, not a larger deficit. (And the long-term effect depends on whether we sit on the inhumane side of the Laffer Curve.)
Ok, you like what Heritage has to say about the "EOR Tax Credit" and the "Marginal Well Production Credit." Now you -- and The Atlantic, and the CS Monitor, and the Center for American Progress, and Heritage! -- should get your terminology right by grokking "The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy" on the aptly-named Reason.com.
It's pure Orwellian doublespeak to assert that confiscating a smaller fraction of a Company X's profits is the same thing as subsidizing Company X. I have no particular love for the oil industry, but freedom from doublespeak is something for which we should all fight passionately.
Then there's the matter of your cherry-picking -- failing to mention Heritage points out that "the oil industry faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500." I bet the industry would gladly give up small-potatoes stuff like the EOR Tax Credit and the Marginal Well Production Credit in exchange for getting its marginal tax rate reduced to 26%. How much higher than 41% would the industry's rate be, if not for the tax credits you detest?
My position is consistent: there should be no subsidies for oil, ethanol, solar, nuclear, wind, or coal; no subsidies, period. (And when I say "period," I mean the opposite of what was meant in this quote: "no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”)
The GOP allowed solar -production- to be kicked over to China
If the GOP had successfully blocked the subsidies to companies like Solyndra, you might have a point. And we'd sure be better off if the GOP had successfully blocked the subsidies to Solyndra. But the GOP failed to do that.
Fact is, low labor costs allow China to manufacture just about everything cheaply. We should be surprised if solar equipment were somehow an exception to that rule. It has nothing to do with what the GOP did or didn't fail to do.
Take heart in one thing: free trade is a great equalizer of all things (and unlike socialism, it equalizes by elevating lower classes, not by lowering upper classes). Over the long run, it even tends to equalize labor costs. Apple's recent decision to open a manufacturing plant in Arizona is an early manifestation of that truth.
but it's abundantly clear that the GOP is not seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
This member of the GOP -- and all the others I know -- are seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
If they were, they would be fighting against oil and ethanol subsidies
I fight against ethanol subsidies. And when I heard in the media that oil companies are subsidized, I went looking for oil subsidies, in order to fight them. But I didn't find any.
would propose winding down the national petroleum reserve (used to manipulate prices)
President Obama has released oil from the reserve to hold down prices, during a time when it would have been particularly politically damaging for oil prices to continue rising. But that was a misuse of the reserve. Its official name is the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" and it's an invaluable enabling asset for the DoD, whose need for oil would skyrocket at the exact time supplies cannot be assured: during a major conflict.
and would never actively fight against particular forms of energy (as described in summary and TFA).
TFA and the summary are full of it, right from the very first sentence, "Clean energy technology has always been an easy punching bag for conservatives." Wrong. When a new power plant is built, conservatives want to use the energy source that will deliver the highest return on investment, because that in turn will cause the most economic growth and create the most jobs. Conservatives like me will be thrilled if and when the day arrives that solar plants deliver a higher return on investment than older energy sources.
Miles driven before incident is the measure that's used
An even better measure would be "number of incidents per mile driven" (lower is better) or its reciprocal, "miles driven per incident" (higher is better).
Those few acres of woods could provide for about ten homes' worth of nearly free heat, and the only pollutant would be carbon.
Wrong. Wood is the ultimate carbon-neutral energy source. The carbon released into the atmosphere was pulled out of the atmosphere just a few short years earlier. If you don't burn the wood, its carbon will be released into the atmosphere anyway, via a slightly slower process know as rotting.
my other option (if we remove government) is to come over to your house and shoot you.
Not only is shooting your neighbor unethical, it doesn't even result in the leak being cleaned up. Cleaning up the leak does result in the leak being cleaned up.
So it would seem that not only are there other options, there are far better options.
there were major fires south of the Bay Area, CA that resulted in some horrible air quality (sort of like a lot of people burning wood).
Except wildfires are nothing like people burning wood. The type of stove currently being banned produces far fewer particulates per kg of wood burned than a wildfire. Even Ben Franklin's stove of 1741 produced fewer particulates than a wildfire.
I've experienced smoke from a wildfire 15 miles away entering my neighborhood; and I've experienced cold days when lots of neighbors were using woodstoves. There is no comparison. The former was a miserable experience. The latter was a pleasant experience.
We could accomplish this by using a very successful precedent: the president announces, "no matter how we reform HVAC systems, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your ductwork, you will be able to keep your ductwork, period. If you like your woodstove, you’ll be able to keep your woodstove, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
I don't think this was bought, but it is a stupid regulation.
* Naturally-caused wildfires -- in which incomplete combustion is the name of the game -- have been raging for 360 million years, and release far more particulate pollution than fires in woodstoves. No collective use of woodstoves has ever resulted in smoke plumes easily seen from space!
* Wood is the ultimate carbon-neutral energy source. The carbon released into the atmosphere was pulled out of the atmosphere just a few short years ago. If you don't burn the wood, its carbon will be released into the atmosphere anyway, via a slightly slower process know as rotting.
* When my neighbor uses his woodstove on a cold winter night, I'd hardly call it pollution; it's a scent most pleasing. I'm saddened by the thought that my son might grow up in a world where's he'll never see that archetype of domestic contentment , a curl of smoke escaping a chimney.
The system we use says that the "free" in "free market" means anyone can participate in that market, what's not so clear is whether anyone is free NOT to participate.
Until a few weeks ago, Americans were free not to participate in the market for health insurance. Now, not participating is illegal. (Or, if you're Chief Justice Roberts, you can consider it to be a legal but taxable activity -- just long enough to establish the constitutionality of the scheme -- and then we can all go back to saying "I absolutely reject the notion" that Obamacare is a tax.)
Obamacare supporters justify all this by saying that the free market wasn't working, because people who could afford to buy health insurance, but didn't, were getting free healthcare anyway; hence the need for an insurance mandate.
Here's the flaw in that argument. Let group B be the cancer patients who faithfully paid insurance premiums prior to their diagnosis, and group A be the cancer patients who had the means to insure their health, but chose not to.
When healthcare providers or governments, out of misplaced compassion, make the financial outcome for group A not so different from the financial outcome for group B, the incentive to buy insurance in the first place is indeed greatly eroded. Trouble is, it's not a free market that was malfunctioning and providing that perverse disincentive; it's a non-free market. A free market would rigorously enforce that the catastrophe group B insured itself against really happens to the group that chose not to insure itself against catastrophe. Those who choose not to insure their health would understand that they'd be subjecting themselves to seizure and forfeiture of their assets, no kidding, to whatever extent necessary to compensate their healthcare provider. Cautionary tales of people who gambled that they wouldn't need health insurance, and lost that gamble, would provide powerful free-market incentives to buy health insurance.
Sound harsh? It's not as harsh as the alternative Americans just acquiesced to: government coercion to buy health insurance.
Someone once described American liberalism as confusing wishes with facts.
Well said. To believe that, for the first time in history, we could impose a massive new bureacracy and 13,000+ pages of new regulations on an industry, and not see its costs shoot through the roof, is an extreme example of wishful thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Mistakes are made by all sides, in every war. To the extent that an organization feels ashamed of its mistakes, it is likely to attempt coverups as well. (There's no need to cover it up, if you have no remorse about it.) By characterizing this as a "great" story, you seem to revel in, or celebrate, the mistakes made by our side.
To the extent that the story is true, I would call it a "tragic" story, not a "great" story.
In the war on terror, "smart," high-precision, low-yield weapons are used. There are certainly civilian casualties, as you point out, but the number of civialian casualties is orders of magnitude lower than in World War II, when the U.S. intentionally firebombed large residential neighborhoods in Germany and Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo )
Given that information, I have a few questions for you.
Tom Brokaw wrote a famous book about the WWII generation titled "The Greatest Generation." Do you agree with Brokaw's characterization? Do you believe the current generation of warriors is even greater than the WWII generation, because it kills orders-of-magnitude fewer civilians? Why or why not? If current tactics amount to "U.S. indiscriminant killing of civilians," how would you characterize the tactics used in WWII? Will future generations of Afghans and Yemenis hate America less than current generations of Japanese and Germans do, because of the far-less-deadly tactics used today? Why or why not?
That article is infected with an over-the-top victim mentality right from its very title. If Mac were truly a "slave," he would still be in that job; slaves are not free to quit their jobs. Everyone who accepts a job in a warehouse does so because it's the best job offer they received. Slaves, on the other hand, continue to be slaves because the alternative is to be hunted down as a runaway slave.
FTFY: Everywhere is where everyone wins with technology.
[Explanation: every new technology destroys jobs in one field, while creating even more jobs in other fields, for a net gain of jobs. Far more people have jobs today than had jobs 200 years ago -- and it's not a case of "if you have lots of babies, the jobs for them will magically appear;" it's a case of the additional jobs having been made possible by new tech.
To pessimistically focus on the lost jobs, while ignoring the created jobs which are greater in quantity and quality, creates the anti-technology mindset that infects the world's Luddites.]
"no human jobs are being taken" is complete, utter BS.
You're correct, of course, but but more importantly: every new technology destroys jobs in one field, while creating even more jobs in other fields, for a net gain of jobs. Far more people have jobs today than had jobs 200 years ago -- and it's not a case of "if you have lots of babies, the jobs for them will magically appear;" it's a case of the additional jobs having been made possible by new tech.
To pessimistically focus on the lost jobs, while ignoring the created jobs which are greater in quantity and quality, creates the anti-technology mindset that infects the world's Luddites.
Some people, when fortunate enough to gain a lot of leisure time, do spend that time on self-education, art, or other constructive pursuits. Others spend it on destructive pursuits. What's needed is a way to inculcate an ethos of desiring the constructive pursuits and reviling the destructive pursuits.
But don't blame technology. By all realistic accounts, life before technology was even more brutish than it is now.
I suppose if you show a propensity to misuse your leisure time, you should get less of it. But instead, you get more. (Time is an abundant resource for the incarcerated.)
technology was supposed to free people up to not have to work.... except that the profits from such advances don't trickle down to the people, but instead stay within the company
You are so right! Nobody owns cars, or televisions, or lives in centrally-heated residences. Computers have not become more affordable for people. Nobody has running water, or access to antibiotics. The internet has not trickled down to anyone. Modern transportation systems have not been built out to any extent. If only the profits from technology would trickle down, just a little bit, we might be able to advance from sending letters written on papyrus to some more rapid means of communication. In the 18th century, the number of people with health insurance was zero; that is still true today, so it's downright strange that we're even familiar with the concept.
Damn those companies for not providing these products and services to anyone! The profits that they don't earn from providing these products and services are so misused.
Another quote from the article:
in no sense can they be called subsidies—i.e., money taken from Smith and given to Jones. The failure to tax Exxon more does not increase your payment to the IRS by one red cent.
This passage is perfectly defensible.
If there is a deficit, the-failure-to-tax-Exxon-more has the short-term effect of increasing the deficit.
If there is a surplus, the-failure-to-tax-Exxon-more has the short-term effect of decreasing the surplus.
(The long-term effect, of course, depends on whether we sit on the inhumane side of the Laffer Curve.)
But what the-failure-to-tax-Exxon-more does not do is increase your tax rate. Only a literal act of Congress can do that.
(No, I'm not advocating deficit spending. One does not have to advocate deficit spending to defend the correctness of this passage from the article.)
Imagine an outrageously oppressive income tax rate: 99.9% of your income is being confiscated. Then imagine that you get a slight tax break, reducing your rate to 99.8%. By your definition, you have just gotten a subsidy.
Here's an example of an entity that receives a true subsidy: Amtrak. In all its years of existence, Amtrak's revenue has never been sufficient to cover its expenses. The only reason it can carry on is that the shortfall is covered by a subsidy. Amtrak has never paid tax -- which makes sense, given that it has never had a profit, and only profits are subject to tax.
If you are going to claim that "a tax reduction is the same thing as a subsidy," you must conversely also claim that "a subsidy reduction is the same thing as a tax." Do you really want to go there? If words are to mean anything, I should hope not. Amtrak's subsidy has generally increased quite a bit over the years -- from $601 million in FY1986 to $1,555 million in FY2010 -- but it dropped to $1,475 million in FY2011. Does that reduction mean Amtrak has paid tax? No, not by any stretch of the imagination. And profitable oil companies have been subsidized to the exact same extent that Amtrak has been taxed -- which is to say, not at all. Your assertion to the contrary seems to be purely for political purposes; i.e., it's doublespeak. Was is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Tax Reductions are Subsidies. Big Brother is beaming at this new addition to the doublespeak lexicon.
Thanks for the thorough treatment of this subject. However, you have called it a "tax break" as well as a "subsidy." It can't be both -- see "The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy" on the aptly-named Reason.com.
It's pure Orwellian doublespeak to assert that confiscating a smaller fraction of a Company X's profits is the same thing as subsidizing Company X. I have no particular love for the oil industry, but freedom from doublespeak is something for which we should all fight passionately.
You've just admitted that it has a "low rate of return." If there's one thing the government should never put up money for, it's projects with a low rate of return. To the extent government diverts capital out of high-rate-of-return applications into low-rate-of-return applications, there will be less economic growth and more unemployment. Does that sound like something we can afford at this time, given that the deficits in fiscal years 2009-2012 averaged $1.273 TRILLION?
that's the end of large scale private electricity generation then if your idea is followed
I looked into covering my roof with photovoltaic panels a few years ago. Didn't do it, because I would have gotten a better return on my money by sticking it in a savings account that paid a pathetically-low interest rate. I will periodically revist the idea. If and when it offers a decent rate of return (and I believe someday it will), I will do it. You must have very little faith that this technology will improve, if you think subsidy-free private electricity generation will never be viable.
More doublespeak.
If a government confiscates a smaller fraction of a person's earnings, the government did not "give" money to that person. It was never the government's to give; 100% of it belonged to the person until the moment when taxes were rendered. It's just scary how many people have begun to think of all assets as belonging to the government, and that we should be grateful for whatever fraction the government "allows" us to keep.
If words are to mean anything, government "giving" should be reserved for situations where a person receives some benefit without having paid for it. NOT for a mere adjustment in the rate at which privately-owned assets are confiscated.
Confiscating fewer privately-owned assets only increases the deficit if the government is already living beyond its means. In 1998 - 2001 there were four consecutive years of surpluses. If fewer private assets had been confiscated during those years, the short-term effect would have been a smaller surplus, not a larger deficit. (And the long-term effect depends on whether we sit on the inhumane side of the Laffer Curve.)
Ok, you like what Heritage has to say about the "EOR Tax Credit" and the "Marginal Well Production Credit." Now you -- and The Atlantic, and the CS Monitor, and the Center for American Progress, and Heritage! -- should get your terminology right by grokking "The Difference Between a Tax Break and a Subsidy" on the aptly-named Reason.com.
It's pure Orwellian doublespeak to assert that confiscating a smaller fraction of a Company X's profits is the same thing as subsidizing Company X. I have no particular love for the oil industry, but freedom from doublespeak is something for which we should all fight passionately.
Then there's the matter of your cherry-picking -- failing to mention Heritage points out that "the oil industry faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500." I bet the industry would gladly give up small-potatoes stuff like the EOR Tax Credit and the Marginal Well Production Credit in exchange for getting its marginal tax rate reduced to 26%. How much higher than 41% would the industry's rate be, if not for the tax credits you detest?
My position is consistent: there should be no subsidies for oil, ethanol, solar, nuclear, wind, or coal; no subsidies, period. (And when I say "period," I mean the opposite of what was meant in this quote: "no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”)
The GOP allowed solar -production- to be kicked over to China
If the GOP had successfully blocked the subsidies to companies like Solyndra, you might have a point. And we'd sure be better off if the GOP had successfully blocked the subsidies to Solyndra. But the GOP failed to do that.
Fact is, low labor costs allow China to manufacture just about everything cheaply. We should be surprised if solar equipment were somehow an exception to that rule. It has nothing to do with what the GOP did or didn't fail to do.
Take heart in one thing: free trade is a great equalizer of all things (and unlike socialism, it equalizes by elevating lower classes, not by lowering upper classes). Over the long run, it even tends to equalize labor costs. Apple's recent decision to open a manufacturing plant in Arizona is an early manifestation of that truth.
but it's abundantly clear that the GOP is not seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
This member of the GOP -- and all the others I know -- are seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
If they were, they would be fighting against oil and ethanol subsidies
I fight against ethanol subsidies. And when I heard in the media that oil companies are subsidized, I went looking for oil subsidies, in order to fight them. But I didn't find any.
would propose winding down the national petroleum reserve (used to manipulate prices)
President Obama has released oil from the reserve to hold down prices, during a time when it would have been particularly politically damaging for oil prices to continue rising. But that was a misuse of the reserve. Its official name is the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" and it's an invaluable enabling asset for the DoD, whose need for oil would skyrocket at the exact time supplies cannot be assured: during a major conflict.
and would never actively fight against particular forms of energy (as described in summary and TFA).
TFA and the summary are full of it, right from the very first sentence, "Clean energy technology has always been an easy punching bag for conservatives." Wrong. When a new power plant is built, conservatives want to use the energy source that will deliver the highest return on investment, because that in turn will cause the most economic growth and create the most jobs. Conservatives like me will be thrilled if and when the day arrives that solar plants deliver a higher return on investment than older energy sources.
If you want to assert that oil companies are subsidized, you must first offer some valid and specific criticism of this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-gas-tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil
So far, nobody has been able to tell me where David Blackmon got his facts wrong.
Miles driven before incident is the measure that's used
An even better measure would be "number of incidents per mile driven" (lower is better) or its reciprocal, "miles driven per incident" (higher is better).
If the rear of the car is raised more than the front of the car, there may actually be less lift than before the update.
...but in a good way. If Musk's figures are correct, the headlines should be saying, "Gas-powered cars catch fire 4.7x more often than Teslas".
Those few acres of woods could provide for about ten homes' worth of nearly free heat, and the only pollutant would be carbon.
Wrong. Wood is the ultimate carbon-neutral energy source. The carbon released into the atmosphere was pulled out of the atmosphere just a few short years earlier. If you don't burn the wood, its carbon will be released into the atmosphere anyway, via a slightly slower process know as rotting.
my other option (if we remove government) is to come over to your house and shoot you.
Not only is shooting your neighbor unethical, it doesn't even result in the leak being cleaned up. Cleaning up the leak does result in the leak being cleaned up.
So it would seem that not only are there other options, there are far better options.
there were major fires south of the Bay Area, CA that resulted in some horrible air quality (sort of like a lot of people burning wood).
Except wildfires are nothing like people burning wood. The type of stove currently being banned produces far fewer particulates per kg of wood burned than a wildfire. Even Ben Franklin's stove of 1741 produced fewer particulates than a wildfire.
I've experienced smoke from a wildfire 15 miles away entering my neighborhood; and I've experienced cold days when lots of neighbors were using woodstoves. There is no comparison. The former was a miserable experience. The latter was a pleasant experience.
Collective use of woodstoves never comes anywhere close to creating plumes that can easily be seen from space.
We could accomplish this by using a very successful precedent: the president announces, "no matter how we reform HVAC systems, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your ductwork, you will be able to keep your ductwork, period. If you like your woodstove, you’ll be able to keep your woodstove, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
(Four Pinocchios -- the most that are ever given) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/
I don't think this was bought, but it is a stupid regulation.
The system we use says that the "free" in "free market" means anyone can participate in that market, what's not so clear is whether anyone is free NOT to participate.
Until a few weeks ago, Americans were free not to participate in the market for health insurance. Now, not participating is illegal. (Or, if you're Chief Justice Roberts, you can consider it to be a legal but taxable activity -- just long enough to establish the constitutionality of the scheme -- and then we can all go back to saying "I absolutely reject the notion" that Obamacare is a tax.)
Obamacare supporters justify all this by saying that the free market wasn't working, because people who could afford to buy health insurance, but didn't, were getting free healthcare anyway; hence the need for an insurance mandate.
Here's the flaw in that argument. Let group B be the cancer patients who faithfully paid insurance premiums prior to their diagnosis, and group A be the cancer patients who had the means to insure their health, but chose not to.
When healthcare providers or governments, out of misplaced compassion, make the financial outcome for group A not so different from the financial outcome for group B, the incentive to buy insurance in the first place is indeed greatly eroded. Trouble is, it's not a free market that was malfunctioning and providing that perverse disincentive; it's a non-free market. A free market would rigorously enforce that the catastrophe group B insured itself against really happens to the group that chose not to insure itself against catastrophe. Those who choose not to insure their health would understand that they'd be subjecting themselves to seizure and forfeiture of their assets, no kidding, to whatever extent necessary to compensate their healthcare provider. Cautionary tales of people who gambled that they wouldn't need health insurance, and lost that gamble, would provide powerful free-market incentives to buy health insurance.
Sound harsh? It's not as harsh as the alternative Americans just acquiesced to: government coercion to buy health insurance.
Someone once described American liberalism as confusing wishes with facts.
Well said. To believe that, for the first time in history, we could impose a massive new bureacracy and 13,000+ pages of new regulations on an industry, and not see its costs shoot through the roof, is an extreme example of wishful thinking.