Economics, Political Commentary

Obama’s Ethanol

If ethanol is so great, why doesn’t he support its importation from Brazil? Surely it’s not because he’s in the pocket of ADM?

ADM is based in Illinois, the second-largest corn-producing state. Not long after arriving in the U.S. Senate, Obama flew twice on corporate jets owned by the nation’s largest ethanol producer. Imagine if McCain flew on the corporate jets of Exxon Mobil.

Corn-based ethanol gets a 51-cents-a-gallon tax subsidy that will cost taxpayers $4.5 billion this year. McCain opposes ethanol subsidies while Obama supports them. McCain opposed them even though Iowa is the first caucus state. Obama, touted by Caroline Kennedy as another JFK, was no profile in courage in Iowa.

…Last year, as President Bush was about to sign an energy cooperation agreement with Brazil, Obama said the move would hurt “our country’s drive toward energy independence.”

Really? The only thing it might hurt is Obama’s drive to the White House.

Must be that new politics. You know, “change”?

And it’s also amusing to note that the Democrats don’t want to wait for drilling to pay off, but they’re perfectly happy to wait for switch grass.

[Mid-morning update]

Further thoughts:

If it’s intended to cut the nation’s energy bill, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, if it’s intended to secure the nation’s energy supplies, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, if it’s designed to improve the nation’s relationship with a major Latin American trading partner, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, but, if, on the other hand, it’s just another example of good old porkbarrel politics, Obama’s ethanol policy makes a great deal of sense.

Economics, Political Commentary

Obama’s Ethanol

5 Comments

If ethanol is so great, why doesn’t he support its importation from Brazil? Surely it’s not because he’s in the pocket of ADM?

ADM is based in Illinois, the second-largest corn-producing state. Not long after arriving in the U.S. Senate, Obama flew twice on corporate jets owned by the nation’s largest ethanol producer. Imagine if McCain flew on the corporate jets of Exxon Mobil.

Corn-based ethanol gets a 51-cents-a-gallon tax subsidy that will cost taxpayers $4.5 billion this year. McCain opposes ethanol subsidies while Obama supports them. McCain opposed them even though Iowa is the first caucus state. Obama, touted by Caroline Kennedy as another JFK, was no profile in courage in Iowa.

…Last year, as President Bush was about to sign an energy cooperation agreement with Brazil, Obama said the move would hurt “our country’s drive toward energy independence.”

Really? The only thing it might hurt is Obama’s drive to the White House.

Must be that new politics. You know, “change”?

And it’s also amusing to note that the Democrats don’t want to wait for drilling to pay off, but they’re perfectly happy to wait for switch grass.

[Mid-morning update]

Further thoughts:

If it’s intended to cut the nation’s energy bill, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, if it’s intended to secure the nation’s energy supplies, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, if it’s designed to improve the nation’s relationship with a major Latin American trading partner, Obama’s ethanol policy makes no sense, but, if, on the other hand, it’s just another example of good old porkbarrel politics, Obama’s ethanol policy makes a great deal of sense.

Education, Philosophy, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Rewiring Our Brains?

7 Comments

Is the Internet changing the way we think?

Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going–so far as I can tell–but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

It’s anecdotal, but I’ve noticed the same thing. I used to read many more books (and magazines, such as The Economist) than I do now. Almost all of my reading occurs on line, and I am much less able to focus than I used to be. But it’s not clear whether this is an effect of aging, or new habits. More the latter, I suspect.

Political Commentary, Space

“Not Silent”

As usual, Doug Cooke defends ESAS:

The “direct” variation fails to meet NASA’s needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.

Advocates for the “direct” variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including “direct”-like concepts.

Also as usual, he provides no evidence for his assertions. We are simply supposed to accept them because Doug Cooke says so. Have we ever seen the actual report that came out of the sixty-day study, with a description of methodology and assumptions? I haven’t.

I’m not necessarily a big fan of “Direct,” but his statement raises more issues than it answers. Why doesn’t the “lift capacity allow a sustained presence on the moon” in a way that ESAS does? Why should it be assumed that NASA’s new launch system will service space station? I thought that this was what COTS was for? What are the marginal costs of an additional Jupiter launch versus Ares 1?

Give us some numbers, and provide a basis for them, and we might take this seriously.

[Wednesday morning update]

More thoughts and comments at NASA Watch, and from Chair Force Engineer.

Political Commentary, Space

“Not Silent”

21 Comments

As usual, Doug Cooke defends ESAS:

The “direct” variation fails to meet NASA’s needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.

Advocates for the “direct” variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including “direct”-like concepts.

Also as usual, he provides no evidence for his assertions. We are simply supposed to accept them because Doug Cooke says so. Have we ever seen the actual report that came out of the sixty-day study, with a description of methodology and assumptions? I haven’t.

I’m not necessarily a big fan of “Direct,” but his statement raises more issues than it answers. Why doesn’t the “lift capacity allow a sustained presence on the moon” in a way that ESAS does? Why should it be assumed that NASA’s new launch system will service space station? I thought that this was what COTS was for? What are the marginal costs of an additional Jupiter launch versus Ares 1?

Give us some numbers, and provide a basis for them, and we might take this seriously.

[Wednesday morning update]

More thoughts and comments at NASA Watch, and from Chair Force Engineer.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!