Dr. Blanchard will not be pleased.
From the "Credit Where Credit Is Due" Department, I note that Governor Dennis Daugaard is at least consistent in his expressed desire to expand energy jobs. Last week he cosigned a letter on behalf of the National Governors Association urging Congress to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy.
Governors are pursuing a wide variety of strategies to promote job creation and economic development in their states. Continued development of renewable energy resources and manufacturing is an important component of these efforts. Renewable energy provides Americans with high-tech manufacturing jobs, secure sources of energy, and our states with crucial economic development opportunities.
To supplement state efforts, governors support the continuation of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind and renewable energy and the investment tax credit (ITC) for wind as well as the recent legislative proposal to institute ITC's for the first 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind facilities placed into service. Such measures can help promote environmentally responsible, efficient, and secure affordable energy to fuel America's future [Governors Dannel P. Malloy and Dennis Daugaard, letter to Congressional leaders, National Governors Association, 2012.04.04].
Even though the governors' statement undermines her and Daugaard's prior contention that government doesn't create jobs, Rep. Kristi Noem has shown support for extending the PTC. Senator Tim Johnson backs PTC. So does Senator John Thune... even though some conservatives call the PTC pure corporate welfare. The wind industry says it was catching up in price competitiveness until gas prices plummeted; they say extending the PTC would help them sustain jobs and development through their current recessionary period and not have to start over from scratch when the gas bubble bursts in a few years.
If the Governor and Kristi are insisting that government doesn't create jobs, that's just goofy. Government created THEIR jobs.
Yes Cory, the New World Order is bi-partisan. Call it socialism or call it fascism, but it is why we have a huge federal debt, consolidation of wealth, and the loss of posperity via higher inflation.
Isn't there some term for when people try to use government as the engine to stir the drink and that process always fails? It's not "liberalism" or something like that, it's more like Calvinist or Kinkist or something. Mr. Fleming?
"always fails"? Yes, the term you're looking for is "wishful thinking." See also "conservative ideological blinders." If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, government makes all social and economic success possible. No social contract, no mutual sacrifice of freedom for the sake of prescribed liberty, no civilization, no science, no economy, no progress.
Government lover.
I heard grudznik has two pets... a skunk and a porcupine.
Three. I also have an eelpout named Ruth.
Watch The Road, Grudz. I love government much more than the state of nature. So do you.
I won't hazard any guess as to when the gas (methane) bubble will burst. I did, however, just get done writing a little blurb about fracking in the revision of "Alternative Energy Demystified." I refrained with some difficulty from mentioning that the process has driven quite a lot of political partisanship; I only said that it's "controversial," and pointed out some of the more commonly suspected problems with it (pollution, potential for causing earthquakes).
I'd welcome any useful input from the scientifically-minded community out there!
I'd love to see wind and solar energy exploited, but not as a result of government coercion or market manipulation. That said, however, I do realize that sometimes people have to be forced to do what's good for them. (So eat your tofu, Cory.)
Among things I will fight to the death: year-round school and tofu subsidies.
I can imagine the difficulties in producing a real science textbook and not just a casual blog post on alternative energy. Did economics and subsidies fit into the parameters of the book, or did you stick with the science of extraction, use, pollution, etc.?
Kids should get a summer break, but teachers and administrators should have to go to the school year-round, from 8 until 5, and sit there without air conditioning. And be grateful they're getting paid. You can read high-brow literature on your kindals and ipaqs if you want, but you should sit at your desk.
I think most administrators are on 12-month duty. Teachers often spend the summer taking classes and doing their independent reading and study to improve their curriculum and skills. I can also tell you that when I taught English, even when I settled down for a relaxing summer read, I couldn't help thinking, "Hey, could I teach this text? Does it have some good vocab out of which I could make a quiz? Could I cut this text for an interp piece or an oration? Is there a one-act play idea in here?"
And Grudz, are you interested in improving performance, or are you just craving to punish and insult? Why require teachers to do work at a desk in a hot stuffy building that they can perform even better in a university library, or on their front porches? Besides, if I had to sit in my classroom all summer, how would I keep up with your witty online repartee during the day?
(Readers, feel free to drag us back on topic. ;-) )
I don't need a Kindle or an iPad to read a book.
Among things I will fight to the death: year-round school and tofu subsidies.
"I can imagine the difficulties in producing a real science textbook and not just a casual blog post on alternative energy. Did economics and subsidies fit into the parameters of the book, or did you stick with the science of extraction, use, pollution, etc.?"
Well, economics figure in. Subsidies not so much. Mainly I was concerned with the science of it, but did not hesitate to point out both the advantages and the limitations of all technologies.
For example, fracking might cause pollution, but wind turbines can kill birds.
Burning coal directly for energy certainly pollutes, but in Wyoming they're quite interested in coal gasification, a whole 'nother ball game.
Solar and wind power can serve as great backup energy sources for the home, but they do entail an up-front investment that not everyone can afford.
And so on.
Sort of a tough call sometimes. But I have tried to stay away from the partisan politicking that goes on in this business -- except to point out that it exists!
Oh, and yes, I oppose year-round school. Kids need to be kids, sometimes! As for tofu, I couldn't care less about it. Has anyone tried stuffing pillows with it?
Sounds like a fair and focused text, Stan!
"government makes all social and economic success possible"
Right Cory, ask the Soviets and the Greeks. And what happened to the great Roman Empire? Not enough government?
Not the point, Steve. Civilization does not exist without government, just as life does not exist without cells. The fact that some cells turn cancerous does not justify eradicating all cells.
"Civilization does not exist without government"
Again, we have simple minded dichotomy thinking. This is not about total anarchy versus total tyranny. The question is, what is the role of government? What should be the limits? At what point to we reach diminishing marginal utility?
Right here, Sib: https://p.twimg.com/AqICX0LCAAI1FP9.jpg