Absolutely hilarious line from Josh Blackman’s blog:
I don’t get the entire “Who Dat.” Thing. Why would a fan base pride itself on a poor command of the English language?
10
Old News Anew: The unintended ripples from the biomass subsidy program
0 Comments | Posted by George in Econ, Politics
It sounded like a good idea: Provide a little government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.
But as laudable as that goal sounds, it could end up causing more economic damage than good — driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that has long used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry, and highlighting the many challenges involved in decreasing the nation’s dependence on oil by using organic materials to create biofuels.
In a matter of months, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program — a small provision tucked into the 2008 farm bill — has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy that is funneling taxpayer dollars to sawmills and lumber wholesalers, encouraging them to sell their waste to be converted into high-tech biofuels. In doing so, it is shutting off the supply of cheap timber byproducts to the nation’s composite wood manufacturers, who make panels for home entertainment centers and kitchen cabinets.
This sounds a lot like the dumbest idea of 2009: “Cash for Clunkers.” First, find a process that is relatively efficient (say, using leftover wood to make useful products, or, selling used cars to people who need them). Next, make that process less efficient and more exciting (for instance, by taking the wood away from making useful products and instead using it in a relatively inefficient biomass-to-energy conversion, or, taking used cars and permanently immobilizing them so that no one will ever drive them again). In both cases the government increases the price of products people need (wood products, cars) but claims it is doing something “green” while improving the economy. Bogus.
From The Art of Manliness, a blog a really enjoy reading:
Discipline is essentially the ability to put off what we want in the moment for what we want in the long run. By now, almost everyone is familiar with the famous marshmallow experiment run by Dr. Walter Mischel. Four year old children were each given one marshmallow. They could either eat the marshmallow immediately, or, if they waited 15 minutes for the lab assistant to return, receive another marshmallow, thus doubling their prize. The kids who were able to wait generally went on to become successful and well adjusted adults, while the kids who gobbled the first marshmallow had more trouble dealing with stress, frustration, and impulse control . . . .
By far, this is my favorite passage:
Stop thinking of your “flaw” as part of your identity. Part of why it’s hard to make changes in our lives, why we find ourselves unsuccessful in changing our habits, is that we rationalize our weaknesses as simply part of “who we are.” We assuage our guilt but adopting them as part of our identity, as part of our shtick.
We’re the jolly fat guy who makes self-deprecating jokes and amazes people with how many slices of pizza he can wolf down. We’re the funny drunk who always gets totally plastered and cracks everyone up with our antics. We’re a night owl, dammit! That’s how we roll, burning the midnight oil! We’re the player, not because we can’t keep a girlfriend but just because we crush a lot!
We do so much rationalizing that it can be downright painful to change; we feel like we’re losing a part of ourselves. Maybe our habits aren’t making us happy, but at least they give us the stability of an identity, the comfort of routine. What happens when the fat guy slims down and the drunk gets sober? Who are we then?
When it’s time to shape up your life, it’s crucial to replace your old identity with a new one; it’s the same concept that applies to changing your habits. Instead of being the jolly fat guy, become the super fit, former fat guy who loves being active. Instead of being a playah, become known as the guy women would love to date, a true gentleman.
Sarah Palin’s Op-Ed in the Washington Post today is illogical. She argues that the U.S. should boycott the Copenhagen talks:
This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics . . . . [o]ur representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits . . . . [t]he president should boycott Copenhagen.
She correctly points out the problem caused by the scientists involved in “Climate-Gate.” The problem is that facts were repressed, so arguably, the scientists and policymakers who read the scientific journals that suppressed this information could not make fully informed decisions about climate change. In other words, her premise is very valid: suppression of speech leads to poor policy choices because society can’t make fully informed decisions.
Her solution? Completely boycott the Copenhagen talks, thus completely ignoring all speech by those who believe that climate change is a serious issue. Apparently, to Palin, ignoring or suppressing the speech of those she agrees with is appalling, but ignoring or suppressing the speech of those she disagrees with is just dandy.
The logical fallacy is obvious. What’s worse is the whole Op-Ed is just an excuse for her to ramble on about herself.
Ironically, the Washington Post published this piece of SPEECH, yet I am sure that she would not mind if the Washington Post suppressed the swath of negative reactions to this piece that will be appearing in the paper for days to come.
From The Art of Manliness Blog:
During the early days of the internet, the web was heralded as a new kind of forum, a place where the free exchange of ideas would be unrestricted and people could interact and engage with all sorts of opinions and views. Unfortunately, what has happened is that the internet has instead been used to form narrower and narrower communities, smaller and smaller niches of like-minded individuals who enjoy having their preconceived notions confirmed and their egos stroked. (emphasis added)
This last sentence indirectly sums up how I feel about politics today. More and more people refuse to acknowledge the potential validity of opposing viewpoints, and are unwilling to explore the potential falsity of their own ideas. Exemplifying this notion is the fact that many people today treat politics like a team sport, voting the entire right side or left side of the ticket without stopping to consider the individual candidates.
