> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 6:44 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Who Killed the Electric Car? > > There is no certain way to protect one from fooling oneself, but I've > found scholarship to be helpful. > I tend to downgrade documentaries like this because I think they are > not efficient ways of > conveying information. They are a good way of conveying feeling.... > (sic) > > of course any dialogue should be based on informed views, dan. just > not on "facts" from talk radio or fox news. moore's films are backed > both by source data, and humorous anecdotes.
When did I say I thought Rush or Fox were good sources? One doesn't have to be a fascist to think that Communist governments in the USSR and China were genocidal any more than one has to be Communist to be anti-fascist. I don't like Bush's reasoning, I don't like Moore's, I don't like Rush's. I don't like polemics... I tend to favor scholarship. It's a particular discipline that I think is extremely helpful in understanding a wide range of empirical topics. One principal of universal scholarship is that technique is a good indicator of scholarship. I saw Moore in a discussion with Dr. Sanjay Gupta tonight in which he regularly refused to back down an inch while calling the Dr. Gupta a liar to his face. Several interesting points came out. First, when Moore got the numbers for the money spent by Cuba and the US, he compared different types of numbers. For example, the Cuban number came from an unattributed BBC report, while the US number came from a projection for 2007 by Bush. The BBC report also had a US number, but it wasn't used...because it wasn't high enough. Second, when Dr. Gupta quoted a several day wait (up to 6 days) for emergency heart catheterization in Canada, compared to hours in the US (60 days vs 3-6 for non-emergency)...Moore just changed the subject. He did that several times....kinda like Bush. Third, he claimed that the expert Dr. Gupta quoted was a biased source, with ties to the Republican party and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Dr. Gupta stated that they vetted the source for biases, and that his connection was simply that he was associated with Vanderbilt. too much pedantry, even > when factual, tends to lose an audience. Therein lies a major problem. On average, a careful balanced analysis is BORING to most. This tends to favor folks who appeal to emotions as the primary driver. >i don't see the neo-cons > supporting their lies and distortions with facts. their emotional > appeal to primal hates and fears has misled many more americans than > moore's films. btw, have you seen any of them? I saw part of Bowling for Colombine. Roughly about the same length of time as I've heard from Rush on several occasions I forced myself to listen to him. I left both for the same reasons. Their twisting of facts sickened me...Especially (with Moore) when I kinda agreed with some of the fundamental points (remember I'm a gun control advocate as Rob can attest to). > that was the question and i would prefer the government invest in > alternate sources of fuel energy than in wars over oil. as for > agribusiness, that is already happening, and let's not forget corporate > subsidies. Government putting money in a field doesn't guarantee success. Governments do a wonderful job sponsoring science. Technology tends to get politicized, and governments have often spent hundreds of millions or billions getting nowhere, while real progress was made for a few million by small design teams. Government subsidies for businesses, or tax breaks > i see what you are doing, dan. let me ask you a question, do you > believe there is a world wide network of terrorists working to destroy > all infidels? A loose, not so secret network of terrorists, with goals of fighting for a resurgence of Islamic supremacy? probably. But, where I was going with this is looking at the implications of the argument that "this is really practical and cost effective, but it's kept off the market by these companies and the government." I ask, "what would be required for that to happen?" > it should be obvious that market forces, and profit margins determine > short term interests far more than environmental concerns over long > term consequences. OK, if we say that, then a reasonable conclusion is that battery cars are not widely used because they are not a cost effective means of transportation. I thought the movie's conclusion was that they were effective, but that big oil and car makers just stopped them. > i am not arguing vast conspiracies. i do believe convenient canards > like terrorism (and communism in the past) Isn't the best response to pat answers from the left and the right holding them up to rigorous, skeptical analysis? We and the Europeans have poured billions into alternative energy sources will modest results. Only wind has shown any market potential....even after the mandates and subsidies. That indicates to me that there are fundamental problems in developing these sources. Thus, I've argued for investing in basic sciences that may, in the future, underlie breakthroughs in technology. One good example of this is fusion. We've been trying to engineer fusion for about 40 years now. It's been clear to me that we need to step back, work more on the basics of plasma physics, and only engineer once we know enough science. This is clearly true for solar power. It is possible that a breakthrough in mesoscopic physics will allow us to develop much more effective (in terms of efficiency and cost of production) solar units. I know of no fundamental laws of physics that would prohibit this....but I know that we have not made much in the way of advances (pr blurbs for the last 30 years notwithstanding) since I was in high school. I think the same is true for biofuel. There are some risks with every new technology, but risk/benefit analysis needs to be done and then we need to move forward. The pattern in all of this is that I think we need a real long term approach to a solution....I don't think quick fixes will work. I see pouring money into subsidies for development projects that are lobbied for as money wasted on quick fixes. I see all these arguments that all we need is commitment and we'll quickly develop a solution (I'm thinking a real semi-permanent solution is 50 years or so away) as the same short term thinking I've seen from corporate managers who want things built on their wish time line, and have to redo it over and over again, until the project is still being redone long after a real project would be done. But, I know I'm fallible. Thus, I also propose increasing the price of fossil fuels through taxes, to create an economic advantage for alternatives. In a sense, it's real economics, because the use of fossil fuels has a long term cost. It will also allow many people to try to find a solution by dangling a carrot in front of them. As flawed as the market is, it tends to handle new technology better than a government committee which decides what the next breakthrough would be. Dan M _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
