June 22, 2002
I just wanna be cool. But, I'm not.
In case you can't tell, I'm having major anxiety over the look and operation of my journal.
I have now unzipped the Movable Type file. Making progress. Woo!
Now for the installation process. :::reading::: Oh, man, this is difficult. I could pay the $20.00 and just let them do it. Do I have $20.00? Yes, I think so. Or, I will on payday.
For now, I'm stuck with this format. Okay, this is sufficient.
Maybe someday it'll all make sense to me.
Doubtful. But possible.
More things give me anxiety than things that take it away.
Some anxiety producers:
Some anxiety relievers:
An outsider looking in. That's what it feels like. Or, maybe I should say, trying to look in.
Perhaps it would be best if I just drop my obsession with making this thing work and just do it.
One thing this journal has going for it, anyway, is its simplicity. And I do like it simple.
Okay, this is me news journaling. Or, trying to.
A proposed ethanol mandate is another example of government complicating something very simple.
Why is there so much opposition to an ethanol mandate? President Bush has endorsed it. The Department of Energy endorses it. However, the Council of Economic Advisers and the Federal Trade Commission do not endorse it. Who are these people, and what business is it of theirs?
Does an ethanol mandate fall under economic issues, as in fuel pricing? Clean air issues? Energy and renewable resources issues? Transportation issues? Okay, so maybe it's a little complicated on its own.
If you do a search on Google using the words "ethanol mandate," the first item on the list is an article from the Reason Public Policy Institute entitled Ethanol Mandate: Forcing Outdated Technology that May Not Even Work. Fascinating. This is an opinion piece, in my opinion. He's got several so-called facts and figures in there, but it would take some time and some work to verify same. For instance:
Lost in all these political machinations is the decisive scientific evidence that ethanol doesn't perform as advertised. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences have issued reports showing that adding ethanol to gasoline will at best have no effect on air quality and could even make it worse. Studies show ethanol could even increase emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are major ingredients of smog.
If this is true, why hasn't the whole thing been scrapped?
The author sure talks about a lot of studies. Okay, well, let's see some valid peer-reviewed studies on this issue.
From the web site disclaimer:
Reason Public Policy Institute produces rigorous, peer-reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge, and results.
I hope I didn't overquote them.
An interesting discovery. Dr. Lynne Kiesling is Director of Economic Policy at Reason Public Policy Institute and has a weblog called The Knowledge Problem: Commentary on Economics, Information and Human Action. Well, well, well. That is very cool. Even though I may not agree with her, I think her opinions are definitely worth hearing. Will be checking out her journal more in the future.
Oh, I love the disclaimer on her weblog.
No analysis contained herein should be construed as an attempt to influence legislation
Geez! She's kidding, right? On another note, I should be a think-tanker. I'd be really good at it.
This is very interesting. That Google search definitely shows the power of key words. Almost everything on that pages is anti-ethanol. What I was looking for was the actual wording for the ethanol mandate and something that shows why we should have it. And, I'm not finding it there.
Basically, and this is from memory, the U.S. Senate version of the ethanol mandate provides for the tripling of ethanol in gasoline by the year 2012.
As a Midwesterner, I came into this fully supporting such a mandate. My intention today was to write an article on why it should be approved and passed into law and why it probably won't be passed into law. I have to admit I don't know this issue inside and out, so maybe I should refrain from extending my opinion at this time.
This is what I see so far, though. Corn farmers in the Midwest want the mandate. More money in their pocket, eh? Californians are opposed to the mandate for a myriad of reasons, none of which I can actually put my finger on at this time. And then, guessing, there's an as yet unheard from contingent who also opposes the mandate. I should look into the environmentalists' position, the Texas oilmen's position, and any other significant positions which I might dig up.
Hey, I told ya it was complicated. And, please take note that I didn't snicker when I discovered that the RPPI is in California.
© L.M. Carnes 2002.
All content herein owned by L.M. Carnes unless otherwise noted.