Comments on: A Few Notes on Hillary’s Speech http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/08/27/a-few-notes-on-hillarys-speech/ Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004. Thu, 24 May 2012 18:45:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jimmiehttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/08/27/a-few-notes-on-hillarys-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-665862 Jimmie Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:15:50 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5461#comment-665862 Very good points, EricH. One thing I'd add is that on the subject of energy, most folks are very susceptible to conspiracy theories. If you were to ask the average American why wind and solar aren't a bigger part of our energy portfolio, you'll get all sorts of theories about oil companies and rich Congressmen. You might here, once in a great while, the truth - if wind and solar could practically be a bigger part of our energy supply, they would be. Very good points, EricH.

One thing I'd add is that on the subject of energy, most folks are very susceptible to conspiracy theories. If you were to ask the average American why wind and solar aren't a bigger part of our energy portfolio, you'll get all sorts of theories about oil companies and rich Congressmen. You might here, once in a great while, the truth – if wind and solar could practically be a bigger part of our energy supply, they would be.

]]> By: EricHhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/08/27/a-few-notes-on-hillarys-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-665854 EricH Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:04:20 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5461#comment-665854 Funny, I specifically noticed the last two of those points at the time. The first, I didn't realize until you brought it up. But the energy investment section was the one that bothered me--the other two might be insulting, but don't lead directly to policy recommendations that damage the country. "giving windfall profits to the oil companies"? Excuse me, they already earned the profits, all you can debate is how much to let them keep. She is also, apparently, unaware that the energy companies are the largest investors in alternative energy research--for perfectly good, capitalistic reasons: fruitful research leads to more profits. Research that doesn't show results will be dropped. Leave it to bureaucrats without a profit motive, and you end up funding research into perpetual motion machines, because con artists don't let inconvenient facts get in the way when writing grant applications. Funny, I specifically noticed the last two of those points at the time. The first, I didn't realize until you brought it up. But the energy investment section was the one that bothered me–the other two might be insulting, but don't lead directly to policy recommendations that damage the country.

"giving windfall profits to the oil companies"? Excuse me, they already earned the profits, all you can debate is how much to let them keep.

She is also, apparently, unaware that the energy companies are the largest investors in alternative energy research–for perfectly good, capitalistic reasons: fruitful research leads to more profits. Research that doesn't show results will be dropped. Leave it to bureaucrats without a profit motive, and you end up funding research into perpetual motion machines, because con artists don't let inconvenient facts get in the way when writing grant applications.

]]>