A reader brought to my attention that some wide images get cut off on smaller screens, such as in the case of the Madam & Eve cartoon here. To date, I haven’t linked them to the image file, as I did with the logo in this post. Starting with that cartoon, however, I’ll do so, which should fix the problem for readers who lack the necessary screen real estate to view some images in situ.

The Economist points out what should be obvious:

SOMETIMES you do things simply because you know how to. People have known how to make ethanol since the dawn of civilisation, if not before. … So why is ethanol suddenly back in fashion? … The obvious answer is that, being derived from plants, ethanol is “green”. But although that is true, the real reason ethanol has become the preferred green substitute for petrol is that people know how to make it—that, and the subsidies now available to America’s maize farmers to produce the necessary feedstock. Yet such things do not stop ethanol from being a lousy fuel.

This comparison, extracted from a chart in Popular Mechanics (file in PDF) comparing various alternative fuels, shows why:

The Economist continues with an interesting list of possible alternatives, before getting to the point in the last paragraph:

Whether biofuels will ever be competitive with fossil fuels remains to be seen. That will depend on a mixture of economics and politics. But the political rush to back ethanol, just because it is green and people have heard of it, is a mistake. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and see which one wins…

Technology can undoubtedly solve a great many of the world’s problems, as it has done in the past. But when governments dictate the choice between competing technologies, directly through regulation or indirectly through subsidies and tariffs, you can be sure that the best technology is not the one that’ll win. Since ethanol is the current pet leech on government coffers, one can safely assume that it is, indeed, a mistake.

(Via: Limbic Nutrition)

Listening to Redi Direko’s show this morning on 702, I was struck by the number of people calling in who (once again) blame the media for the speculation over the as yet unresolved questions about the suspension of the head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Vusi Pikoli. He had allegedly obtained an arrest warrant for police commissioner Jackie Selebi, over links (including alleged bribes) to Glenn Agliotti, whom Selebi calls a friend. Besides for his arrest over the Brett Kebble murder, Agliotti has no rap sheet and is listed in Who’s Who of Southern Africa, but he acts the wealthy gangster and has a pretty substantial rep sheet involving fraud, smuggling, tax evasion and (would you believe it) bigamy.

“The media is trying to destabilise the country. They have an agenda,” callers say (to paraphrase). This is doubtful, actually. I can’t speak for all publications, but I’ve been in many editorial meetings and most have been notable only for their lack of agenda.

Why is it, however, that when critical questions arise about key figures in government, the media is taken to task for it? That it is accused of having some unstated “agenda” when it simply reports the facts and asks the questions? Isn’t the media there to ask questions? Is it not reasonable to ask why our national police commissioner counts well-known crime figures among his friends? Is it not reasonable to ask why it emerges, after an explanation for the suspension of Vusi Pikoli is given, that he had obtained an arrest warrant for Jackie Selebi? Should any suspicions roused by these events not be laid to rest? And if all this is also connected to the ongoing fraud investigation by the NPA’s special investigative arm into former deputy (and possible future) president Jacob Zuma, is it not the lack of clear answers that is the real destabilising influence?

This speaks to a broader canard about the media. It often stands accused of negativity, of being overly critical of government, and of therefore not being sufficiently patriotic or respectful of the wishes of the electorate. However, the role of the media is to shine a light on problems. We can all smile at success, or celebrate progress, but problems are where action is needed. Government — like the business world — will trumpet its own success loudly enough. Government failure is why the electorate needs independent, critical media coverage. That is what focuses effort on improving our society. So by pointing out failures, challenges and corruption, and by asking the tough questions, the media are not being unpatriotic. They’re not out to undermine the legitimate ruling party. They’re not being overly negative, or being unfair to the people of whom these questions are being asked. In reality, asking these questions is a sign of patriotism, of a desire to strengthen our democracy and governance. The most unpatriotic thing the media could possibly do is to discover something questionable and responding with a shrug.