Reflections From a 20-Hour Layover

Remember when Expedia.com offered the opportunity to offset the carbon emissions of your flight with some sort of e-carbon credit? For about $15 you could negate the CO2 from your flight by paying for like new trees or something. I'm sure they simply calculated the average fuel usage for a trip of XX miles, and multiplied by the carbon intensity of the fuel used for the flight. What I'd love to be a part of is looking at the real footprint of a plane ticket (while being exempted from having to partake in the necessary regressions).

The difference b/t what I want to do, what's probably done: that plane is flying with or without you - it's not like a car's carbon footprint which is entirely dependent on your driving habits. You'd actually have to calculate the likelihood that your ticket creates a tipping point, wherein a bigger plane is needed to transport everyone. Multiply that probability by the additional intensity of a larger plane, and you've got the carbon footprint of a plane ticket.

I don't know how this would work with the standby system, but it probably further diminishes the probability of you being of consequence. Additionally, I'm making a strong assumption that airlines react to demand by allocating larger or smaller planes to each trip. i really have no idea if this is the case, as the capacity to be responsive would take on an additional burden (i.e. having to store additional planes in the hanger). Predictive modeling would ballpark it pretty well, which I'm sure already occurs, but I'd like to know the extent. Then I could extort carbon offset companies by demonstrating how much the market signal of a single ticket really is, the carbon cost it really incurs, and get paid not to tell anyone else.

Willing to go in 50/50 with someone possessing in-depth knowledge and personnel access in the airline industry. Immediate proceeds will go towards paying for the ticket I just purchased, as I missed my plane and am sitting in the airport waiting for a second flight I definitely didn't budget for.

Observations

Observations from a week of Kansas conservative talk radio (the best option available whilst hauling wheat):

It's common to paint Democrats/liberals as intellectuals (which is bad - you'd rather have someone setting policy that you feel comfortable having a beer with, not someone who reads). However, I wasn't aware of how strongly Obama's ego was derided on talk radio. What's interesting is the interplay between this and the egotistical facade expected of major radio talk show hosts. Every episode is a reminder of how they accurately predicted something two years ago, that Nobel Prize winner Krugman is a doofus compared to their downhome understanding of economics, and they know exactly what's going on. Obama is then criticized for 'lecturing us.' Not surprisingly ironic, just interestingly so.

I don't know if it's more intriguing or frightening with how facts are presented on these shows. Fox and MSNBC have their respective 'issues' in how the news is spun, but it's amazing how Hannity will just straight up lie. Some is merely spin, but distortions also exist that no sane person properly equipped with facts would ever agree with. You want to merely dismiss it, but the ideas that oil merely dissipates in the ocean and it's impossible to reliably run machinery on natural gas reach millions of voters everyday. Many more than Air America (which I may begin describing as Al Franken's greatest joke to date).

Tiarht is running one of the most pathetic, rhetorical campaigns ever. We're used to campaigns light on substance, heavy on labels; he's taking it to a whole new level. You encounter an ad for that Senate race about every 20 minutes, with Todd running about two for every one ad Moran puts on. Moran's are 100% defensive in nature (he's obviously taking the 'enjoy your lead and don't do anything stupid to lose it' approach), and simply says he's conservative enough to represent Kansas. I've heard if you do a cross-comparison, they essentially share an identical voting record. The only real difference is that Moran has a spine, which is why he should get your vote in the primary. Your alternative is a man proud of earning Sarah Palin's endorsement.

Albeit this space typically reserved for saying something insightful (at least at some rudimentary level), it has a different place today. I was looking around this afternoon and saw that the paper I wrote last summer was finally published by the Great Lakes Commission. Feel free to cite to your heart's content.

Alternative Big XII Scenarios

According to Orangebloods.com, my Wildcats may have a chance of staying in a competitive Big 12(-2) yet. The defections of Nebraska and Colorado threw the conference's future into doubt, and that future runs through Texas. While Texas continues to hold the process hostage, some favorable light shines:

-Colorado was really a parasitic school, and took more money from the Big 12 than it generated.
-The conference gets to renegotiate its TV contract in 2011, and as long as those marquee Texas/Oklahoma match-ups remain, revenues should double.
-That's right, double, putting payouts on par with SEC receipts.
-Texas will be allowed to continue the pursuit of its own college network (a desire that cast a shadow onto the Big XII's future even before the Big 10 mentioned its interest in Mizzou).

So the exodus of the Big XII South and subsequent conference demise may be more exaggerated than first thought. Opportunities for expanding the conference back to 12? The CEO of FedEx is prepared to pay upwards of $10 million a year to a BCS conference that will add Memphis (that's right Texas - even more money!), and the Big XII cements itself at the top of the college basketball world. In my own little fantasy world, we'd either raid Arkansas from the SEC for a second team, or (wait for it)…

take Notre Dame and slap the Big 10(+2) in the face. In examining these options, Arkansas is a natural rivalry and still plays its former Southwest Conference opponents (especially Texas) in pre-conference action regularly. The school also betrayed the SWC in bolting for the SEC in the 90s, demonstrating its willingness to switch sides.

However, I think the Notre Dame option is even more intriguing. It switches from one great basketball conference (Big East) to another, and gets $17-$20 million guaranteed every year for football. The football thing is important, because I don't see NBC resigning a huge contract for a consistent 7-game winner. Additionally, Notre Dame played Washington State in San Antonio in 2009 as a 'home game' in a shameless ploy to enter the fertile recruiting ground of Texas. Joining Texas' conference and establishing a firm pipeline, maybe creating its own TV station, and not having to deal with Big 10 administrators that have been reproving Notre Dame for years? Oh yeah, I think it could happen.

Democrats are Wrong, but Republicans are Wronger, and the Senate's Wrongest

There's nothing more fun in politics than pointing out the other side's hypocrisies. Although this does little to further intellectual inquiry, it makes for great political theater. In comparing healthcare and market reform, I will attempt to provide the facade of doing both.
I'm of the personal opinion that Chris Dodd's reform package is about the best you could expect of the Senate. While not perfect, it has some important components. The one component Republicans contend it lacks is eliminating the concept of 'Too Big to Fail.' What's interesting is that few (if any) Republicans are pushing for size restrictions. Rather, they clamor for a provision that says we will not bail out any financial institutions in the future - thus eliminating the moral hazard created by our rush to mollify AGI's asshattery as the sky's falling down.
This pie in the sky fancy is about as disingenuous as the healthcare budget numbers Democrats were peddling earlier this year. A quick recap of what's bothersome: the current tax exemption for health insurance means that, as a general rule, we have an incentive to overconsume health insurance. This is why you end up with the so-called 'gold-plated' health insurance policies. The Senate was too scared to tackle this issue today, and instead wrote in the bill that they would be taxed starting in the year 2018. This tax was then used to calculate the long-term budget impacts of the healthcare bill.
I call this disingenuous because it doesn't take a policy degree to guess the likely future. Come 2017, Congress will come under pressure to amend the legislation and prevent new taxes, it will, and the financial solvency touted by Obama will be thrown out the window.
The same applies with McConnell going to the Senate floor and screaming about the 'institutionalization of bailouts.' It really doesn't matter how much power you give regulators - when shit hits the fan, they'll be on Capitol Hill demanding the power to prevent Citigroup from going under, and (assuming the President has a lick of sense) it will be done. When faced with the prospect of disaster, policy will be amended (regardless of long-term consequences).
I may be giving McConnell too much credit here in pretending he's merely disingenuous - he's lying to advance his party's standing while hurting America. When you look at what happens under the Dodd bill, no institution is saved. The government may take it over and chop it up into little pieces, but it is an entirely different company in which the stockholders lose their shirts. And that's really the crux of the matter - when you understand you'll lose your investment if a company goes under, you'll either search for a safer investment or demand a greater rate of return. Which is what this bill does. Which makes McConnell wrong. Again. Upon review, nothing too earth-shattering in this paragraph.
I still contend derivatives trading contributes absolutely nothing to the economy.