When, as economists call it "allocation decisions" (what is bought and sold) are controlled by a large, powerful institution as opposed to many individuals making the decision with their own hard-won resources, then the economy is LESS EFFICIENT. There is no more obvious example than this. What is sad, is that a large minority of the populace has no idea that this is true, and will not pay attention even to obvious examples like this one. What's more, this same part of the populace will not examine the science of alternative energy, opting to make the issue a "matter of faith", as opposed to hard, engineering decisions.

Did anyone notice that the Chair of the hearing Committee seems to have a problem pronouncing words in intelligible fashion?
"Foo-Pah"? [The expression is from French "Faux Pas" (false step) and the first word has a very long "O" sound...no OOOH at all].

Then, rather than use the pronunciation of "Comity" with the same long "O" vowel, which would make the term completely clear for the audience, he
uses some other pronunciation, legitimate or not, which makes us hear "Comedy". Is the "Ah" sound really the best pronunciation?

I wonder about these people. A lot.

In California (the home state of Villaraigosa, Brown, Lockyear, Newsom), we already have term limits for legislators. And, as you wisely mention it results in a game of "Political Musical Chairs", and therefore assures that someone, with NAME RECOGNITION, is eying almost any post that is coming up on the next ballot. These people are career politicians because THEY ARE GOOD AT IT. What we need to do is be BETTER VOTERS. Why do we never focus the attention on ourselves as voters? Why are we not delving even deeper and deeper into the backgrounds of the candidates?

It would be nice if we could get you on as a writer for MSNBC, but I think they might not want this level of candor.

So, what about this video (which you improperly tagged when you included your own colon character...) of Bob Schieffer interviewing Ron Paul, indicates that the "media's bias is to whatever opinions the establishment holds" (let's not even get into the awkward grammar of that statement). Certainly it is obvious the media is biased, but let's examine the video for a few minutes, eh? Reporter Schieffer is obviously dumbfounded that candidate Ron Paul would bring back the troops from Japan, and South Korea, and says so during forming his questions for Paul. He goes on to express the same incredulity when asking Congressman Paul about closing Education, Commerce, Interior, FEMA and other agencies. He is curious as to what will take up the things that all these agencies DO? [so, apparently, he has never even thought for a minute that these agencies largely run programs that shift resources away from taxpayers and to agency "selected" other businesses, and people in the country; in short--"transfer payments"] . So, what do you call someone who so favors a large government that they would not even CONCEIVE of a leaner organization? I'd say that today's "liberal" means favoring larger, more agency-driven (i.e. Executive Branch) solutions to problems. A journalist might bemoan how this program or that has become "wasteful" or ineffective, but they never question the premise that a solution is only as far as the best-run, best-funded Federal agency. They will act astounded when you suggest that the Federal Education department is not assisting in the process of education. So, that seems to SUPPORT the notion that CBS, and this show seem leaning Leftward. Pretty easy to figure out, really (it is why "Big Government" is a web site).

During the recent decades we have seen a rise in the number of agencies (Education was formed, DHS was created, earlier EPA, and in the fifties what became HUD). This is the best indicator of the general trend that started in 1933. When you look at the (Google this:) "Wiki Control of Congress" page and graphs as EVERYBODY should do, you see that this year in the early thirties is when the Red shifted out of Washington, and the Blue became the hue.

Consider that India has plans in effect now to provide 30% of all it's nation's energy by the use of Thorium Reactor technology. These reactors do not produce anywhere near the amount of waste as typical Uranium / Plutonium reactors, and they "eat" weapons grade materials, or spent nuclear waste as fuel. They CANNOT go critical, and therefore are vastly safer than the kind of reactors presently in use. What's even better they are more difficult to use to produce weapons material, and are considered to be a likely way to produce easy to implement small reactors for use in many locations (a "regional" reactor system). Thorium is absurdly common in nature and comes out of the ground nearly ready to "rock and roll", needing little processing.

There is no need to quest for miracle sources of power, while we can use reasonable, and currently developed power sources which are vastly safter, and more plentiful than our existing power sources. These methods are scientific soundness in use, and are practical. There have even been government movements to encourage exploring greater use of Thorium reactors.

RIGHT NOW...the USA is the world's THIRD LARGEST PRODUCER of oil. It is places and deposits just like that in the Santa Barbara bay which allow that to be true. There will always be a certain amount of oil seepage, and it will only be worse if we do not remove oil from its deposit sites under ground.

I personally do not believe that having extremely expensive oil is going to help with alternative fuel development, and I like to point out that much of petroleum winds up in things like rubber, plastics, synthetic fibers, and fabrics, and millions of other things that have nothing to do with it's use as energy.

Why do we not think of fabrics, plastics, medicine, and high tech components when we think of oil and petroleum?

Apparently not. In college Econ 101 or 102 (can't remember which, but I remember the material), we learned that a minimum wage normally results in job losses. The jobs the law affects are often those held by teenagers in their very fist jobs. The example given was that of a kid hired to retrieve umbrellas from a beach, and to put them away in the beach resort clubhouse.

This means that first time jobs are harder to get. This also affects inner-city youth, because often those low wage jobs are a way they can prove themselves as being "workers", and not "gangbangers". These jobs are not a "constant", but rather a stepping stone to better job positions over time. All blown now, because of over-reaching, intrusive government.

Of course all this kind of stuff is weak as a general proposition.

Of course the idea of "doing this right", assumes that Stewart is going to be able to deliver funny lines while negotiating a maze of complex thoughts and concepts he probably could never remember, or internalize. Olbermann is so twisted in so very many ways, and the things he has said and done are so far removed from reality, that a complete re-run of all the ACTUAL news during his tenure is the only way to "skewer" the man. That would be awkward, and Stewart could never deliver the lines.

I have to content myself that at least there is some humor here and a bit of balance. There is none to be found elsewhere.

People like Ed, and probably most of these other media folk NEVER do their own tweeting. That is something much more likely done personally by someone like Breitbart, or Malkin. So Ed's tweet means the twenty-something person hired to do Ed's tweets could not come up with anything better to say, and probably does not really understand what the heck is going on here.

I find this kind of stuff from Stewart actually kind of funny, because he is on ground that he really knows. The stuff he does about conservatives sounds as though he has maybe one or two conservative friends that he "humors", because he has known them for years. He does not have a clue as to why conservatives believe as they do. But he CAN be funny some of the time.