The Law of Unitended Consequences

In an effort to "protect the planet," environmentalists have forced upon us ethanol. Corn bases gasoline costs more and is less efficient than regular gas. Now we have discovered that shoving edible food into our gas tanks has caused food prices to rise. Here is a column from Fox.

This is the latest in a long line of environmentalists messing up our lives, and ultimately upsetting the environment and the market.

About ten or fifteen years ago, there was the big debate over paper versus plastic shopping bags. We were accused of killing trees if we wanted paper bags. Think about this: paper bags are biodegradable; plastic bags are made from petroleum, which we could be putting in our cars.

In the last few years, we have been ordered to use fluorescent light bulbs instead of Edison's incandescent light bulb. Now we discover that the fluorescent bulbs have mercury in them, which is harmful to the environment and a person's health.

If you want to help the planet, prevent an environmentalist from doing anything for the environment.

The Big Wind Down

The semester is winding down. This time it is on two fronts for me: teaching and studying.

As far as teaching goes, the semester has been incredibly average. Nothing great, but nothing awful. I did make a student cry, today. With finals coming up next week, I gave each student a note letting them know what they need to make on the final to get their desired grade (A, B, or C). Some students have no chance. One who has no chance left the room crying. I tried to console this student, but to no avail. I feel terrible about it, but I am not a magician.

This also concludes my first semester as a graduate student, but only attempting one class. The thing I loved about this class: no tests. The thing I did not like: fuzzy expectations (we never received a syllabus). I have to turn in my final review essay by next week. I just have to take the chainsaw to it, as it is ten pages rather than the suggested five to eight pages.

The light is at the end of the tunnel, and it is the summer sun.

Happy Earth Day

Today is Earth Day.

The whole debate over global warming and the "save the planet" stuff started me thinking. We have all this irrefutable evidence that within a matter of years we will be buried by the oceans or just burn up from really hot temperatures.

About a century ago, there was irrefutable evidence that Jews were lesser humans. Biologists, social scientists, psychiatrists and others in the science profession did numerous studies and conducted wide ranging research and drew the conclusion that Jews were inferior to just about every other race on the planet.

One hundred years later, we look back on those studies and roll our eyes at the methods they used. They did such things as measure the size of a person's head, which was thought to measure intelligence. They examined every part of the body. They did (what we would consider crazy and unethical) medical experiments on people. We now realize that the science they were practicing was junk science or pseudo-science.

It all makes me wonder what those living a century from now will think about our science of global warming. Do you notice that it is no longer called "global warming"? Recent studies have shown that the temperature is leveling off over the past ten years. It also seems ridiculous to talk about global warming when the upper Midwest and northeast faced record cold and snowfall this past winter. It is now called "climate change," which is a convenient catch-all no matter what direction the weather is heading (more storms, fewer storms, higher temperatures, lower temperatures).

Think about this when you go off to hug a tree.

What Other?

Last week, I received an e-mail about a survey regarding the student union at the campus where I go to grad school. (I am not sure which building it is in, but they were offering prizes for completing the survey.) The survey was set up and run by an outside organization with many standard questions. There was a page of personal information such as age, academic standing, marital status and so on. Then I came to the part about gender (which should really be sex, but we cannot say sex because it is a "dirty" word). Normally, one sees two options at this point, and they are pretty straightforward: male and female. It is not quite like race, where one can have ancestors from more than one race. Under gender they had male, female, transgender and other. Male and female I get. Transgender? Huh? Even if one accepts the idea that a person could be transgender, what in the world would classify as other? Is there some sort of evolutionary process at work here that I am not aware of? I thought about clicking "other" just for kicks, but I stuck to what I have put on every form previously.

Marriage Limitations

Recently, the circus surrounding the polygamist compound/ranch in west Texas has become big news. The issue of polygamy has been raised. Reportedly, girls as young as thirteen were forced to marry. People, rightly, are shocked by this charge.

This brings me to the issue of marriage, in general. I do not have much taste for the culture wars that many Christians revel in. However, I am annoyed by the charge of those who support the idea of homosexual marriage, that heterosexuals can marry anyone they want. That is simply not true.

We have numerous laws and mores in this country governing who can and cannot be married.

As is the case with polygamy, a person cannot be married to more than one person. I cannot decide that I want to marry another woman while still married to my current wife. (I do not know why anyone would want more than one wife. I have not figured the first one out yet.)

Again, as the Texas case shows, age is a prohibition in marriage. A couple of fourteen year olds cannot decide to get married. Some states offer marriage with parental consent.

There are limits on marriage to close relatives. Brothers and sisters cannot marry. In some state, close cousins cannot marry.

The thing is, if marriage is defined as anything other than one man and one woman, there is no end to what marriage can be defined as. Could I marry my motorcycle?

Opening Pandora's box can lead to things we really do not want.

The "Voluntary" Tax System

How is something voluntary if you can be punished for not doing it?

Listening to the Candidates

As I mentioned previously, all three major US presidential candidates believe that government is the solution to various real or perceived ills. When they are asked a question about health care, jobs, gas prices, trade, etc., they have the start to the answers, "The government would..." They go on to list what the government would do, or how the government would spend money--for which they often use the word "invest."

Here is something that will help you understand what they really want to do. Whenever they say, "The government will pay for" something, substitute the phrase "you tax payers" for the word "government." Then it will read, "You taxpayers will pay for..."

Promises are so abundant during political season. Be smart and realistic about what the candidates are promising. Ask yourself, "Who is going to pay for this?" The answer is that you will pay for it, if you have a job. The government's money is confiscated from the taxpayers. If you would not pay for it on your own, why should the government.

Why Is This True?

In a statement of the incredibly obvious, a reporter from our local daily rag, made the following observation:

A slip of the tongue seems to provide better ammunition nowadays than policy differences in the race for the United States presidency, officials say.

My initial response to that statement was, "Duh!" Every election year we groan and complain about the lack of substance in political campaigns. Everything is mudslinging, name calling and personal attacks. What else is there? Can Obama and Clinton debate on policy? They agree on everything as far as policy. A Clinton administration would look almost identical to an Obama administration. The reporter acknowledges that there are few differences between the two Democratic hopefuls.

My thought is concerning McCain. No matter who the Democrats nominate, one could use this quote in reference to the general election. Is there really any substantial difference between McCain and Clinton or Obama? I submit that the answer is no. McCain is Democratic-Lite. Every problem that McCain addresses has the solution being more government action, another government agency or government based solution. Where are the candidates that say we need less government, not more?

Happy Tax Day

I find it curious that some people get so excited over a tax refund. (Perhaps I am sour because I owed Uncle Sam money this year.) Some people run around like they won the lottery when they find that they are getting a refund.

Think about it this way. It is your money to begin with. The government confiscated it before your employer even paid you, unless you are self-employed. The government has been using for over a year buying stuff like pens, staplers, tanks; paying bureaucrats, soldiers, congressmen; providing health care services like immunizations; giving out food stamps; and so on. Now after you notify them that they took too much of your money to begin with, they will send you a check. If you did not bother to tell them that they seized too much of your money, they would not give it back.

Make no mistake, the government is not giving you their money. It is giving back the money it confiscated from you. It is your money, not the government's. The government has no money of its own, as it does not produce anything. The only money the government get is what it seizes from its citizens.

Happy Tax Day. I hope you get a whole bunch of your money back from the government.

Blah, blah, blah: The Response

Here is the canned response from Fox Sports regarding their decision to show non-athletes going nowhere rather than the end of the baseball game between the Yankees and the Red Sox:

"Dear FOXSports.com Participant,

Thank you for taking the time to give us your feedback. We are aware that many individuals were displeased with the programming regarding the Yankees-Redsox MLB and Nascar coverage that interfered with each other. We would like to apologize for any displeasure that this caused as well as the inconvenience many of you had to deal with as a result. We have forwarded your comments to the appropriate coverage department so that your voice can be heard. We value the opinion of all of our users and participants, and should we require any more information about this occurrence we will be sure to contact you. We appreciate your time and assistance, and thank you again for your feedback.

Thank you for using FOXSports.com

-- The FOXSports.com Feedback Team"

Fox Sports Stupidity

Fox cut away from the Yankees-Red Sox game, which was a one-run game with two outs in the ninth, to show non-athletes going nowhere.

Here is my response that I sent to Fox:

"Are you brain dead? Why on earth would you cut away from the "biggest rivalry in sports," as you anchors called it to show the beginning of a bunch of guys driving around a circle? Not everyone has cable and go to FX. Fox Saturday baseball is the only game I get to watch every week. You should have put the start of the race on FX and switched when the real American past time was over. Your decision was poor. There were two outs and a one-run difference. I could understand if one team was 10 or 15 runs ahead.

It is disgraceful that you have absolutely no respect for the grand American game and more concerned with a bunch of non-athletes burning gas going nowhere!"

A Great Way to Save Gas

I think I have an idea that would save massive gasoline consumption. Since the liberal, environmentalist Democrat types will not let us increase supply by drilling for oil in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, we have to decrease demand.

No, I am not talking about ethanol or driving wind up cars.

Imagine the obscene amounts of gasoline consumed every week by non-athletes driving their super fast cars around a giant oval. They go absolutely nowhere. They drive for a couple hours and wind up right back where they started. Where I come from, that is called being lost. They burn thousands of gallons of gas, used hundreds of tires, and think they actually accomplished something.

Banning auto racing would saved thousands of dollars and thousands of gallons of gas per week. Imagine the saving over the span of a year or decade.

Not Caring What Others Think

If you were ever picked on as a child, someone (parents, teacher, or someone else) probably told you not to worry what others think.

I had a conversation with someone yesterday about the upcoming presidential election in the context of how Europeans are watching the election. He commented that western Europeans really do not like President Bush, although eastern Europeans tend to like him. My thought is, "Who cares?" He is not the President of any European country. Sure, each countries foreign policy impacts other nations. We should not elect a President on the basis of whether or not some foreign country like or dislikes a candidate.

I Guess People Fall For This Stuff

Lately, I have been getting hit with more spam e-mail. It is everything from fancy watches/jewelry to male enhancement products to other garbage. I guess that these companies send out these e-mails because people respond to them. Why? Why would anyone respond to them?

It's like telemarketing. Telemarketers call hocking their wares like street vendors in third world countries. Do people actually buy from them? They must because they keep calling.

I cannot think of anything I would buy from a telemarketer or e-mail spammer.

If you buy junk from them, please quit, so they won't bug me.

This Amazes Me

Perhaps I am a little late to the new wave of technology, but I am amazed. For my 20th Century European History class, we have to do research on a sub-topic (mine is anti-Semitism). We are to look at secondary sources--academic articles and monographs--but no primary sources--archival material, etc. I have managed to compile a long list, which I am trimming down to the assigned number of sources.

That is not what amazes me. The thing that amazes me is that I have not set foot in a library anywhere to do this project. I have not been to the university library, the public library or any other library. I have done all the research on-line. I have downloaded numerous articles, or had them e-mailed to me via inter-library loan. Both of the monographs that I am considering are available on-line through the university library's collaboration with NetLibrary.

Like I said, perhaps I am late to the party, but it amazes me. When I was an undergraduate, I practically lived in the school library.

The Olympics and Totalitarianism

Many people are upset (raging angry, in some cases) about the upcoming summer Olympics being held in China. The beef is mainly with Chinese human rights violations, in general, and in Tibet, in particular.

The Olympics really do not have a very good track record on this issue. There were "Hitler Olympics" of 1936, where der Fuhrer sought to showcase the superiority of the Germanic race. The funny thing is that an American of African decent, Jesse Owens, went over there and needed a cargo plane to bring back his medals.

Then there were the Moscow Olympics of 1980, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Jimmy Carter thought it would be a good idea to boycott them. The Stalinist tactics, however, were not repudiated by Olympic officials.

So, why should China be any different? The butchers of 6 million Jews had their day. The proprietors of the Gulag had theirs. It seems only fitting that the butchers of Tienanmen Square have theirs. Who nows, maybe Osama bin Laden will be the organizer of the Olympics in the near future.