1. Analysis of Media Coverage in 2012 Presidential Race
The Project for Excellence in Jouralism has conducted a study of media coverage of all 2012 presidential candidates (including Barack Obama) and released its results. Unsurprisingly, Ron Paul ranks among the three that have received the least media coverage (the other two being Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman), though he has the highest rating among all of the candidates in terms of positive mention in the blogosphere. At the top of the list in terms of positive coverage is, believe it or not, Rick Perry. The Project reports that Barack Obama has received the most negative coverage of all of the major candidates.
2. More on Anti-Science Politicians
There are two things at issue here. One is the safety of genetically modified foods and the other is whether they should be labeled as genetically modified or not. I don’t see any reason why the latter is a problem, just so long as people understand that the vast majority of the products they see on the shelves at the supermarket would wind up with such a label. If the regulations applied to the rest of the agricultural industry were enforced in the “organic” sector (they are not), I’d wager many of the foods peddled by organic farmers would wind up with a big old “GM” label as well. As to the former, there is currently no compelling evidence that GM foods have led to any significant illness or side effect. None. As a matter of fact, GM foods present the greatest opportunity in world history of finally realizing the goal of ending the global hunger epidemic. But Greenpeace douche bags with flamethrowers are happy to destroy GM crops grown by researches that could likely have saved millions of lives, and politicians in Washington “have concerns.”
3. Constitutionally-Protected Ignorance
This article would be hilarious if it weren’t so infuriating. There are far too many misrepresentations of the constitutionalist viewpoint to be counted, but chief among them are the belief that the “original intent” of the Founders is infallible. Constitutionalists are happy to admit the Founders may have been wrong (SLAVERY), its just that they understand that the constitution is one of enumerated powers and strict construction and, in order to add new federal powers or alter it a constitutional amendment should be adopted. The second is the canard, dropped casually early in the article by the author in a rare and hypocritical moment of Framer-intent-referencing, that the Framers established Congress for the express purpose of collecting taxes. While one of the chief powers of Congress is to collect taxes, every single one of the Framers warned against overburdensome taxes as a form of pecuniary slavery, and the country spent well more than a century without a federal income tax while attending to its business quite nicely. I’ll concede the point to the author that there are many conservatives who claim to know and love the constitution but espouse all sorts of social positions that are anathema to it, and that we would all do well to jealously guard the constitution against any politician claiming to best represent it, but this gentleman seems to prefer shadow-boxing to having a constitutional argument with real constitutionalists.
4. Computers Doing Our Research B*tch-Work
Interesting, and akin to the whole “crowd-sourcing” breakthrough via gaming for HIV earlier this year.
5. FBI’s DNA Database
Great news, the FBI is updating its DNA database (you weren’t aware that they had one?) and doesn’t seem to have any idea of the scientifically-sound approach to running matches against it! So (surprise!) you may be getting your front door knocked in for mailing anthrax to the White House! “Oh, you’re innocent, eh? Tell it to the military tribunal... once your indefinite detention is served.”
6. Green Energy Hurting the Middle Class
Amazed at this very well-written expose from Slate, of all places, of the corruption and pocket-lining that is the administration’s green-energy agenda, the practical effect of which is that the rich get richer while absolutely no benefit of any kind is seen by the middle class.
No time yesterday to comment at all. Comments today are limited, but..
ReplyDelete3) "The leadership found time on the first day to introduce H.J. Res. 1, the latest and most radical iteration of the “balanced budget amendment,” which would make it all but impossible for any future Congress to raise taxes—thus gutting one of the central aims for which the Founders in Philadelphia wrote the document." This statement says more about the author of the article's understanding of the founders than anything else he writes. Nevermind decades of bitter battles, ongoing to this day, over the limits and goals of taxation...the founders *obviously* had our current tax-and-spend governmental structure in mind. Clearly. Ugh. Well-mentioned.
6) The $7,600 figure for "used cars and fuel" spending by the lower-middle class figure seems odd. This must include purchases of vehicles, because fuel+maintenance should barely break a few thousand a year, even for an older used car, provided it has been well maintained. Even a two-car family would seem hard-pressed to get the figure that high.
Then there's this: "In interviews, people told me how they made ends meet: taking on an extra job so they could pay just to get to their full time jobs, skipping meals, taking the kids out of sports and private school. Some of their short-term attempts to keep gas in the tank are expensive in the long term: putting gas on a credit card with 19 percent interest, or skipping asthma medication and landing in the ER." While extra jobs and skipped meals are harsh medicine, indeed, private school and extracurricular sports are pure luxuries. As for paying gas on a credit card? At that point just give up, you've already lost (and I've been there, I know).
Final point on this one: I don't disagree that there are probably decisions made based on concentrated benefits with dispersed costs. I also don't agree that the "middle" (a terrible term if there ever was one) pays taxes that help to subsidize the "rich"...but...the "rich" pay proportionately far more than the middle, in terms of percentages and real dollars, so you could easily say they are paying for themselves to get tax breaks...wait what? Also, since green energy is a burgeoning technology that is far from going mainstream and enjoying accompanying economies of scale, it seems reasonable to propose that these subsidies are structured in precisely the best way possible - target individuals with the means to adopt a technology, and provide incentives to do so. Their participation will drive innovation and expand demand, which drops prices creates opportunities for more buyers to enter the market. At least theoretically. Or we can just pump tax dollars into oh-so-many Solyndras, because heck, it all ends up back in the economy anyway, right?