"Unintended Consequences of the Biofuel Industry" and other gripes that come from watching the news

So today I turn on my television and see the heading, "Unintended Consequences of the Biofuel Industry." Now what is going through my mind is some sort of dangerous pollution caused by running cars on ethanol, or maybe some hippie on a soapbox talking about how many animals are slaughtered by machinery used to harvest corn and grain.

But what is the unintended consequence? Higher prices for food crops caused by using those crops for fuel production.

Three words: HO - LY - SHIT!

For those of you who aren't mouthing your words as you read this, when the Damand for a product increases, and the Supply doesn't change, then Price goes up. Take using corn, soybeans, and occasionally wheat for fuel: when you slate a significant portion of these crops for fuel production instead of food, naturally, (since there is now less for food) the price will increase. Gee, do you imagine that this is why so many of this nation's farmers were for using the crops for fuel to begin with? (Not firing a shot acros farmers' bows, just pointing out why any farmer would be for this)

Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not charging everyone with an intimate knowledge of economics. I just think that there are some things that everyone, including legislators, heads of administrative agencies, career farmers, and Fox News correspondents, should know know as a matter of common sense. The fundamental principle of economics is one of those things.

Now I know that some people reading this will think, "But wait, not everyone is intelligent or successful enough in life to understand that." However, I really doubt that those individuals are the ones writing whiny news stories based on a "no shit" assessment of crop prices, but then again, I may be wrong.

This is almost as thoughtful as the standard "Most citizens of (pick today's Arab nation, usually Iraq or Afghanistan) dislike United States foreign policy." Really? Personally, I would love having my country bombed, seeing tanks rolling down my city's streets, and requiring an allied-supervised police force to secure my safety from suicidal nut-jobs with strap-on bombs. I'm not saying that this country didn't need to put a little beating-down on its enemies in the area, but should anyone be suprised that the civilians in those countries aren't really all that appreciative?

Maybe this entire post is cliche', but I still felt the need to get on my soapbox about journalism. I really am not asking for too much, just think about what you are going to report before you report it. For example, if the first thing that you think when you read the story is "no shit," then you should at least reconsider reporting the story.

Another request to mainstream media: is it possible to stop trying to undermine the legal profession by reporting on ridiculous cases and framing disputes in a sensationalist nature?(eg announcing that an umpire sues because he gets hit in his protective helmet by a baseball, which had previously bounced off a batter's helmet) Being a student of the law, I am really tired of, every time I turn on the news, hearing a ridiculously one-sided, underinformed, and ill-advised summary of a lawsuit. It isn't really that hard to report on a case objectively, I do it every time a law professor asks me to summarize a court opinion.

All these people have to do is wait until the court issues its informed opinion (provided ridiculous case reported on even makes it to trial), and then summarize the case. Damn, that sounds really hard. . . Although this won't necessarily result in the same sort of ratings as reporting sensationalist versions of the same case, it might actually convince me that I am watching the news and not hearing about it from my 80 year old grandmother. In the immortal words of WJC, "Give me the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts so help you God."