What was in the koolaid at MSNBC?
drtaxsacto.blogspot.com
[2]
Last night Keith Olbermann offered a homage to Edward R. Murrow. It
was a pale homage but a homage none-the-less. His six and a half
minute rant against a speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave to the
American Legion was bizarre. He accused Rumsfeld of all types of
sins. He suggested that Rumsfeld is trying to stop any dissent.
Olbermann's conclusion is that Rumsfeld should be compared to
Chamberlain not Churchill. Chamberlain, in the lead up to the war,
tried to assail Churchill in all sorts of ways. And he thought the
secretary's criticisms of opponents of the war was Chamberlainesque. ...

Rumsfeld, I believe correctly, raised questions about two areas in
the speech about the opponents of the Middle East policy. From my
perspective he was presenting his beliefs and not questioning the
patriotism of the opponents. He asked why the coverage of the war in
Iraq has missed some major stories? Their coverage, to a lot of
observers, seems one sided -- accentuating negative aspects of the
policy (and there are many) and ignoring positive developments. That
is a legitimate question that a senior official should ask. He also
asked whether those who want to get us out of Iraq immediately, have
a legitimate plan and whether they recognize the threat that the
country faces. Those are questions that should be raised. They do not
question the patriotism of people who disagree. Yet, Olbermann for
some reason decided to present a false picture of Rumsfeld's speech. ...

I think there are many reasons to question the President's policies
in Iraq. But there are also many reasons to question the judgment and
coverage that the mainstream media has chosen to offer to the
American people on issues in the middle east. ...

Instance of growth
mayagirl.blogspot.com
[3]
Once upon a time, I posted a livid entry regarding a cap and trade
proposal for mercury emissions. I objected strenuously to using
market forces to reduce such a harmful chemical. I still stand by
that position, but only because of the nature of mercury. At the
time, I thought cap and trade programs were inherently flawed.

Then I took economics and quantitative analysis, and read a lot more
about how such policies work. And I learned about Coase and Pigou.
While my extreme liberal roots would have me siding with Pigou
(assess a tax to compensate the populace for negative externalities)
because I used to think you should just regulate the hell out of the
polluting bastards, my newfound understanding of incentives makes me
more inclined to support a market-based approach. Mind you, not a
voluntary market-based approach, but a situation for which there
currently exists no market, to have one imposed upon it. That is how
a cap and trade system works. It introduces scarcity into a situation
before the scarcity is actually reflected in costs. Thus it builds in
the social costs of production before the point at which actually
paying the social costs becomes unavoidable.

In that light, I must say that I find the new global warming deal ...
to be, in a word, awesome. ...

More For The Global Warming Crowd
rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com
[4]
The Boston Globe recently ran a story about "MIT's Alfred P. Sloan
professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen," who doesn't toe the party
line when it comes to global warming.

"Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he
acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the
warming -- but they also might not."

This isn't what the environmentalist zealots want to hear, especially
from an MIT meteorology professor. And I like the Globe reporter's
comment about stifling opposing viewpoints:

"He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve
Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him.
It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than
to debate him on the merits."

I've said several times on this blog with regards to global
warming--the climate has changed several times in recorded history
and several more times in pre-history, which we only know about
through scientific research. I'm not yet convinced that man is
responsible for this current change, or that we can do anything about
it other than adapt to it. ...