Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!


California to Repeal Laws of Physics

Those people really are fruits and nuts

"Zero-Emission Car" Lunacy, Discrimination Against "Low Income" People

The lamestream media told you:

Six laws and a dozen other regulations have been passed in Calif. recently, representing a more than $2 billion financial commitment to "clean" transportation... Tax concessions are a cornerstone of the government’s goal of rendering the internal combustion engine irrelevant by 2050... drivers are also offered an $8,000 grant towards an electric car... "Electric vehicles (EVs), generate fewer global warming emissions than gas-powered cars, and don't produce tailpipe pollution (hence the term: “zero emission vehicle”)," according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. A series of mandates, kickbacks, tax breaks and required "incentives" will force manufacturers to comply with state government climate-warming initiatives.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

All-electric, plug-in hybrid cars use energy of course -- which they get from the power plant that makes the juice you get from the wall or hard-to-find charge stations that makes the car work. Reporters and legislators don't seem to understand this simple rule of physics: "Electric cars need electricity."

Even if the plant uses hydro, wave, geothermal, wind, solar or magic power, the power must be transmitted, which creates loss. Then it must be stored in the vehicle, which creates loss. The vehicle must convert the stored energy to dynamic motive force, which creates loss. When you add up the losses, and compare it to using fuel directly -- well, no one knows whether it is efficient because no one has done such enormously complex studies. They just want to promote things that are "green." Turns you green with envy. The cars have no emissions. The power plants do.

Recalling the summer, and the winter, when the power grid teeters on the brink of collapse, communities suffer brownouts, smart meters are used to cut power to neighborhoods, curious minds want to know how the nation's fleet of cars will run off power plants on the electric grid. It sure won't be from the nuclear plants we aren't building, or from coal-fired plants the current administration has convinced democrats are evil. When asked, technical experts at a huge tech firm based in San Francisco (I asked, I was there), said you will charge you car at night, when demand is low. I typical fuel my vehicle in daylight, when fuel is low. And you?

The article never makes clear who exactly is making the $2 billion commitment.

Government Weather Forecast Tells Nothing, Carefully

The lamestream media told you:

Caleb Jones (Associated Press) Officials with the National Weather Service’s Central Pacific Hurricane Center said Thursday there is about a 40 percent chance the season will be above normal, a 40 percent chance it will be normal and a 20 percent chance it will be below normal.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Is it actually possible the AP reporter who reported this report couldn't tell this reports nothing? There is no way to tell if this report is accurate -- even after the fact. If storms are at, above or below average the report will be correct. It is framed so that it cannot be wroPublishng. It is probably the worst example of a report detail, or maybe best that is worthless ever created, tied with who knows how many other government reports. But this one stands out thanks to the math.

How much did this 40/40/20 result cost the tax payers, and how many "scientists" did it take to screw in this light bulb? In fairness, they did say Pacific hurricanes (technically cyclones) will be average, and predict between four and seven. Who's counting, who's accountable and is there any accounting if the count is off? Does it matter if a tax-funded bureau guesses there will be X storms and there aren't? How much does that cost?

Solar Plane IS HEAVY

The lamestream media told you:

The solar plane "Solar Impulse" is flying entirely around the world without a single drop of fuel! It is a glorious day for this miraculous feat of fuel-free engineering and human accomplishment, leaving the climate-change disgusting and ugly world of fossil fuel and CO2 destruction of the environment behind!

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The solar plane is actually a battery-powered plane.

The splendiferous idyllic image of a plane that runs completely on sunlight is magnificent and simply glorious. How illustrious the accomplishments of humanity to create a solar plane, how Earth-saving, how pure! How Disney! How inaccurate.

Recall for a moment that this story is brought to you by the same "news" people who paint the world as liberal left as they can, for every other topic you care about, right? Guns, politics, environment, healthcare, immigration, why would this suddenly be different? Before you get carried away on the wings of an angel, add this to the mix:

The plane appears to be 100% solar charged, this is true, a stunning piece of engineering, because how much power can you get into heavy batteries before you can't lift them off the ground. But you don't just put this thing out in sunshine and fly around. It's not that kind of solar plane.

The flight path of the battery-powered solar plane is calculated to rise and fall so gravity, air current, exposure, temperatures, air density and scores of other factors will allow it to fly at all, and complete its amazing circumnavigation quest. Proof of principle, engineering marvel, all that. Don't get me wrong -- the science kid in me is in awe, mesmerized, this is wonderful. But the over-the-top save the-the-world global-savior blush on this is pure reporter lefty hype.

It is the four ten-horsepower motors that get the plane's 5,070 pounds off the ground. It is definitely the batteries, not the sun, that fly it at night. All the "I want a clean future" promotion on the website is sweet, and it's obvious what the social direction of all this is. The planet's self-anointed stewards are rushing off headlong to a brave new world the old world won't recognize, or exercise much control over, for better or worse.

If you add in the gargantuan fossil-fuel needs for building and supporting this monumental and wonderful experiment, no self-respecting environmentally sensitive individual could support it (fuel needs are not calculated, disregarded totally). From fabricating the materials, to the power for the global computing network (and everything else!) in development, to the non-stop transportation needs of the staff, the banking, lawyering, to the energy just in so-called "news" coverage, there's enough Arab oil here to light global cities.

And it's all to fly one plane one time to say look, we did it, and gloat forever -- we burned all that oil, nuked all that uranium, put out all that CO2 (desperately needed for plant life, but don't mention that), every day for years, just so we could fly with no CO2 (kinda sorta). Which is a great thing, if all you see is the small picture. How much CO2 did that take? They don't know, or care, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (or their electric bills, now THAT would be something). And the loony idea that we're flying purely solar planes now. The massive teams use more oil on one day aloft than a real plane might use flying around the world. But we are advancing a brave new world. Thank God for that.

WAYBACK MACHINE report on: Al Gore's inconvenient Noble Prize

The lamestream media told you:

"Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years." -Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Prize in 2007.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Both poles are still there, and there is some evidence that north polar ice is growing, but Nobel Prizes are forever, so Al Gore is safe, but we'll keep watching of course.

Dr. Peiser's study that shows increases in north pole size cited above comes from a research institute whose stated purpose is to challenge global warming alarmism, dubious claims, economic demands and other recent climate extremism. It's a terrible job, but someone has to do it. Al Gore and his millions of followers certainly can't be left out on their own, seven years later.

Missing Global Warming Evidence Puzzles Scientists

The lamestream media told you:

Science News, 9/20/14 --Beth Mole. In a story missed by virtually every "mainstream news" outlet, the venerable 90-year-old Science News magazine is reporting that, "The Atlantic and Southern oceans may be covering up global warming by hoarding heat. The finding could explain a puzzling plateau in Earth's surface temperature that many scientists have blamed on the Pacific Ocean.

"Since the turn of the century, global average temperatures have remained flat despite an unabated rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have developed several theories to account for the lost heat, including that it is getting trapped in the oceans."

Their report is based on the even more assiduous Science magazine, where the news first broke. "Using climate simulations, many studies have pointed to the Pacific Ocean, where unusually strong trade winds may have shoved warm water deep below the surface."

"But the new research suggests that the Pacific may play only a minor role. Instead, the Atlantic Ocean and the Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, are stashing most of the warmth." The article continues to describe the arguments between scientists for who's right and where the hidden heat must be. Some say both, some say one or the other, none know for sure.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

If this news ever got out it would undercut the entire politics of global-warming wealth redistribution and so-called "climate-science" spending. Because atmospheric gas ratios are changing, scientists can make computer guesses as to the effect that will have. The guesses come in the form of graphs and colored maps, purported to predict effects in the future. The effects change pictorially as the input data is changed.

Measurements, however, don't back up the guesses, so scientists are guessing why the guesses are wrong. Now they are guessing why the main guess theories are wrong. A lot of research money and their salaries (and the future of the entire human race, they say) depend on these guess, so I guess we better wait and see if they get it right. Though one of the gases you exhale and that plants breathe gets all the media attention, the gas that comes from water and makes clouds is orders of magnitude more significant. Both are very poorly understood.

Unlike any other field of science, this one has a bright dividing line politically. One half of the political spectrum is four-square behind it, and the other half is four-square against it. Even a moron knows true science is not supposed to work that way. Certainly, the left and the right don't have these arguments over gravity, inertia, particle physics, metallurgy, chemistry, mechanics or other hard science.

Obama Motivates, Funds "Behavioral" Scientists

"Whoever controls people's minds controls everything."

"BRAIN" Program Designed to Physically Modify Behavior

The lamestream media told you:

According to a recent report, "The BRAIN Initiative" (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies), could surpass the work of presidents Roosevelt (Manhattan Project for the atom bomb, 1942-1945, $26 billion in 2013 dollars, 100,000+ people); Kennedy (men on the moon, 1963-1969, $134 billion, 400,000+ people); and Clinton (the human genome project, 1990-1993, $4.6 billion, "thousands" of people).

And it could be the greatest legacy of the Obama administration, they say.

Though initial funding, announced on April 2, 2013, is small [Note: $100 million is now "small"; Wikipedia suggests it's $300 million per year for 10 years], increases are expected, and the private sector is doing well-funded parallel work to unravel the secret workings of the human brain and mind.

The White House description of what they're doing includes how Obama: "will direct his Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to explore the ethical, legal and societal implications raised," by this and similar projects.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

According to reports, Obama's greatest achievement (that's what they call it) -- but potentially most serious threat to freedom and The American Way -- may be his slightly below-radar science project, to map the entire human brain and exercise control over how it works. I'm not making this up.

"News" outlets somehow failed to mention the brain-control aspect of the program, even though it is part of the openly public record and plan. A Science News report in mid-February brought it back to light.

Presented on its surface as a way to cure disease, ease human suffering and advance the boundaries of human knowledge, the dark side of the project is immediately obvious. This is marginally recognized by the promoters of the plan, from Obama with his promise to review the ethics and societal impact, to rank and file workers who can't figure out what name to give it so the public will more easily accept it.

A person would have to assume scientists are immune to imagination, have never seen a mind-control sci-fi movie, and have never watched a harmless science project turn into a horrific weapon. Only we the people think of such things.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is leading the research.


Their federal grant is the biggest so far. Created to avoid surprises like the Soviet launch of Sputnik, DARPA's mission includes developing new technologies for use by the military, and it also includes creating technological and strategic "surprises" for our enemies (their phrases). "Creating breakthrough technologies for national security is the mission of DARPA"(opening line of their mission statement).

The Wikipedia entry on the BRAIN Initiative is surprisingly short, q.v. According to Science News (2/22/14), "Before doctors can fix the brain, scientists must first understand how it works." Under any federal administration, not just the current one, "fixing the brain" may not be all flowers and light.

A cubic centimeter (very small piece) is believed to store more information than the Library of Congress, and with trillions of connections, 100 billion cells and possibly a lot more than just wet physics and chemistry involved, the very souls of humanity are under this new government microscope. "Success would change the world," Science News states.

The magazine reports the initiative seeks "to develop new technologies to measure and manipulate the brain," and to "explore how cells and molecules create thought and behavior," and to "build powerful new weapons for neutralizing the pathological enemies of the brain and mind." This is perfectly harmless, coming from a benevolent government here to help you. A look at the language used might imply otherwise: "powerful new weapons," to "neutralize pathological enemies."

It's a paradox really. Advancing scientific understanding of ourselves is a good thing, with all sorts of benefits. The potential for abuse though, which may be built right in, is monstrous. Private and government agencies are already at odds over how to proceed, and are complaining the funding is inadequate. "It isn't clear what victory will look like on this project," one scientist laments, from the National Institute of Mental Health. Victory?

In mapping out goals, which are in disarray, the National Institute of Health, according to Science News, has nine preliminary ideas, including, "developing techniques that can eavesdrop on many neurons at the same time and allow scientists not just to listen in, but to change how the neurons behave."

DARPA, which is spending $50 million, wants to create a device that can listen to "abnormal" electrical signals in the brain and correct them, reportedly to help military personnel with psychiatric disorders and brain injuries. It doesn't seem like a big step to move from sick people to everyone else, but this is not mentioned. Page Nine readers are now all wondering how this thing could be weaponized, and how far along that process already is.

An official with DARPA points out, "We serve a constituency," namely solders, including those with mental problems. They're interested in equipment that can "both diagnose and treat mental health problems," which is a good thing. The device would listen to your brain, pick up abnormal signals, and then correct them. Correct them to what, and who decides what's abnormal, was not addressed, at least publicly. They admit there is much to be done before testing in people can begin, which they'd like to see around 2017.

Another goal is development of implantable microchips that send wirelessly. It's time to move beyond cumbersome hard-wired probes that only work in sterile lab settings and cannot read numerous signals at once, from a distance, scientists say.

The capability of observing and recording huge numbers of brain cells, and then manipulating them in a "fully awake behaving animal, or person," is called "a breathtaking vision," by one of the methodical scientists involved.

At a recent series of nationwide symposia on identifying mass murderers before they act out, that this observer was able to attend, doctors and researchers lamented the lack of tools and methods for determining what's actually going on in peoples' brains. They wish for ways to measure what, up to now, is the vague and cloudy pseudo-science of psychoanalysis, and find foolproof methods for changing behavior. Extremely talented researchers are working on those problems full time.

At the very least, we may be on the threshold of an infallible lie detector, and at worst, behavior modification tools that will, at last, soothe the savage beast within. The benefits to anyone who needs a lobotomy could be enormous.

In their search for a snappy one-liner on which to sell the idea to the public (they're actually doing this) and more important, to denizens of Congress who will fund it, their brainstorms haven't yielded anything significant yet. That question, "creates real tension," says one member of the panel working on it. Considering their stated motives, which include "optimizing" classrooms, military training camps and courtrooms, this comes as no surprise, despite the banter about curing the sick.

I'll be taking bets on names that will not be used, including: DARPA -- We can read your mind, We know what you think, No more secrets, Lipstick On Your Collar, and Managing brains for the betterment of governance.

Big Brother move over, Oh Brother is here.

Meanwhile, in other news,
Americans are preoccupied with Mr. Obama's:
1) failure to investigate IRS criminal activity,
2) takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy with ObamaCare,
3) NSA spying on Americans,
4) ATF gun running to drug lords,
5) BLM treating landowners in debt like terrorists,
6) stable of 39 appointed czars (I'll run the list next time)
7) and perhaps greatest of all: his direct usurpation of undelegated powers to amend legislation without acts of Congress -- without a response from Congress.

The last one makes you wonder if what some people are starting to say is true:
"They're all in on it."

Global Whining Unravels

The lamestream media told you:

"Associated Press --DURBAN, South Africa -- Brighten clouds with sea water? Spray aerosols high in the stratosphere? Paint roofs white and plant light-colored crops? How about positioning "sun shades" over the Earth?

"At a time of deep concern over global warming, a group of scientists, philosophers and legal scholars examined whether human intervention could artificially cool the Earth -- and what would happen if it did.

"A report released this month in London and discussed at the U.N. climate conference in South Africa said that, in theory, reflecting a small amount of sunlight back into space before it strikes the Earth's surface would have an immediate and dramatic effect... but no one knows what the side effects would be.

"Within a few years, global temperatures would return to levels of 250 years ago, before the industrial revolution began dumping carbon dioxide into the air, trapping heat and causing temperatures to rise."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Howard Maccabee, Ph.D., M.D., writing for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, notes, "Allegations of harmful effects of climate warming on health are based on increased deaths observed in heat waves, especially in European cities. Year-round mortality data show, however, that death rates during cold weather are seven to nine times greater than during warm weather.

"If the predictions of the climate modelers based on the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming were true, rising temperatures in the 21st century would save millions of lives and improve human health directly."

Download the article, with its charts and graphs:

Imaginary Alien Life

The lamestream media told you:

“There are now so many stars known to exist in the universe, there simply must be life out there somewhere, in addition to our own... scientists have reported that there are three times as many stars as they previously thought.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

This prognosticating groundless editorial, placed in the “news” section of papers around the nation late last year is so so bad, I'll have to pick it apart piece by piece.

Whether life exists in the universe in addition to us is anyone's guess, but it's only a 100% guess -- there is absolutely zero objective or observable support either way. This article demonstrates that when facts get in the way of an exciting story, facts are simply ignored up and down the entire "news" media chain of command. Maybe we're alone, maybe not. Too much "news" has become idle supposition, and the masses have practically lost the ability to distinguish between the two.

Seth Borenstein, writing for the AP, tells us:

“WASHINGTON - Lately, a handful of new discoveries make it seem more likely that we are not alone, that there is life somewhere else in the universe.”

--No discoveries of life have been made in any way -- this is pure conjecture, also known as imagination. Only "scientific" statistical projections have changed, based on newly discarded old "flawed" estimates.

“The evidence is just getting stronger and stronger," said Carl Pilcher, director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, which studies the origins, evolution and possibilities of life in the universe.”

--The evidence can't be getting stronger, because there is zero evidence, which the reporter failed to note, or to correct for his NASA source. This tax-funded NASA functionary cannot possibly be studying the origins and evolution of life in the universe where none is known to exist, unless he is studying us.

"I think anybody looking at this evidence is going to say, 'There's got to be life out there.'”

--If he thinks anybody would agree, well, he doesn't get out much. It's a free country, he's free to say that, but he blatantly demonstrates his abject lack of objectivity, since there is no evidence of life of any kind, and many people would indeed question his hypothetical statement.

Don't get me wrong, there may be life out there, anyone can conjecture that. But there are only statistical theories, probabilities and hopeful guessing, nothing more. Many people, including many bona fide scientists evaluating the numbers game, say the chances of life out there are unlikely. None of these were quoted by this “reporter.” Yes, life "may" be out there. No one knows, evidence remains absent and the search continues, fruitlessly so far.

“Scientists have an equation that calculates the odds of civilized life on another planet. But much of it includes factors that are pure guesswork on less-than-astronomical factors... Stripped to its simplistic core, with the requirement for intelligence and civilization removed, the calculations hinge on two basic factors: How many places out there can support life? And how hard is it for life to take root?”

--This invented equation omits the most important question:

How long does it take for life to develop on a planet in the known universe?

We DO have an answer for this, but since it amounts to hard evidence it is completely ignored by the wishful thinkers at NASA, the AP, the school system and most of the ignorant masses. Let's hold the biblical model aside despite its enormous popularity, and use the Big Bang model currently preferred by the science community. It took Earth about nine billion years to form, and then about four billion more to reach its current state.

So for the ONLY model we have to work from, it takes 13 billion years for a universe like ours to develop one life-bearing planet. There is NO postulate of any kind suggesting we are slow, or the rest of the universe is faster. Arguing solely from known facts, we could easily be the first planet with life of any kind. If the Earth model says anything about life, it begins in a single spot and then spreads. Why the universe might be immune to this principle has no scientific support (or inquiry for that matter) of any kind. If true, that makes us pretty special -- we are the harbingers of life for the universe, the very first to arrive, and we are only now beginning to work on spreading.

The entirely valid yet hopelessly ignored question of where did life first begin, and when, is confounded by Einstein's discovery that -- simultaneity at great distances is indeterminable -- and if you could understand that statement, maybe we'll discuss that little kernel some other time. (Because of the limit of light speed, there's no way, as far as we can currently tell, to determine who may have been first.)

“That means the probability for alien life is higher than ever before, agree 10 scientists interviewed by the Associated Press.”

--Not even a smokescreen of impartiality exists, with the reporter unabashedly admitting he found no one to discuss any alternative but the one he is promoting. The probability of life remains the same, only our perception of numbers has changed.

“Scientists who looked for life were once dismissed as working on the fringes of science. Now, Shostak said, it's the other way around. He said that given the mounting evidence, to believe now that Earth is the only place harboring life 'is essentially like believing in miracles.' And astronomers tend not to believe in miracles.”

--This is so bogus, where to begin? The wacky fringe is now the mainstream? And that's OK? Boy that sounds like a plan. Mounting evidence? Bad star counts that are now "good" star counts are not evidence of life, but scientists and their reporter followers are just oblivious to this simple truth. Astronomers don't believe in miracles? This means, painted with the broadest brush, they are all hard-core atheists, godless wonks declaring the framework for the unknowable?

“Astronomers, however, do believe in proof. They don't have proof of life yet.”

--One gram of truth appears, 16 inches after the prior guesswork-presented-as-fact story, which is why they're called “stories.”

“Last week, a Yale University astronomer said he estimates there are 300 sextillion stars - triple the previous number.”

--More stars, a guess by a single person, suggests the entire scientific community was wrong all this time, by 300%. Nonetheless, it is adopted by the AP and the science community, and now amounts to more “evidence.” Is it any wonder so many people are doubting so-called modern science, scientists, NASA, and the buckets of federal dollars spent on studying everything from cow farts to global whining to astronomical counting as a substitute for evidence? Science, like the media, is earning its troubled reputation. And I happen to like science.

I'll be the first to jump up and shout omigod when alien life is discovered, if it's discovered, elsewhere or here, especially if it's been here at Area 51 since the 1940s. But puhleeeeze, don't fill me with editorial guesswork where the news hole is supposed to be. The entire "news" media were out stargazing and could not be reached for comment.

Congress Scraps GreenForks

The lamestream media told you:

In the first move toward phasing out part of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) "Green the Capitol" program, plastic foam cups have been reintroduced as an option for coffee drinkers in the Capitol Carry-Out, the building's mini-cafeteria.

The basement eatery had been part of Pelosi's "greening" program since  2007, when democrats took control of the House. The program brought climate-friendly vending machines and compact fluorescent light bulbs to the Capitol; caused the Capitol Power Plant to switch from burning coal to natural gas; and reduced energy and water consumption in Capitol  buildings by 23 percent and 32 percent, respectively, according to a report.

But it was the $475,000 composting program in the House-side cafeterias that stirred the most controversy. Designed to cut down on waste, the program instituted the use of biodegradable utensils and trays made of cornstarch -- an idea that may have worked better in theory than in practice, as it led to take-away boxes that leaked, spoons that melted and forks that broke when stuck into so much as a chicken tender.

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, announced last month that the program would be suspended indefinitely, contending that "it is neither cost-effective nor

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

I can't add to that story.

I can point out that: An Underwriters Laboratory study of green products recently revealed that 95% of them are not what they claim to be. USA Today reported:

"The biggest sin is making claims without any proof," says Scot Case of UL Environment, adding that companies want consumers to "just trust them." The report finds "vagueness" is the second-leading problem (a shampoo claimed it was "mother-earth approved") in "greenwashing" -- a term that refers to misleading, false or unproved green claims."

This is so typical of leftist politics and ideology. If it feels good it counts. Who cares if it's real -- and the rest of you should be forced to swallow.  In all fairness, however, a small but rising share of products make accurate green claims -- 4.5% this year, up from 2% in 2009 and 1% in 2007, when the first survey was done. Sorta gives you goosebumps don't it.

Electrical Supply Short

The lamestream media told you:

According to reports on CNN, the demand for electricity is far outstripping available supply. A lack of new generating stations, coupled with increased consumer demand and an endless supply of power hungry gadgets threatens our way of life.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In an absurd headlong rush to be "green" whether the steps makes sense or not, consumers are being driven, largely by the media, to think about and purchase so-called electric cars. Advertising shows electrical plugs as a clean convenient source of energy, and manufacturers are being hard pressed to turn out cars that run exclusively on electrical sockets. Detrimental effects to the oil industry and its millions of American workers are ignored in the purportedly "earth-friendly" ads.

All of this dramatically contradicts the media's own reports that the supply of electrical power is stretched to its limits, brownouts and rolling blackouts are expected, and the Obama administration has pledged to block any new coal-fired power plants, the largest and most reliable source of new electrical capacity. Pollution from electricity generation is typically cited as a leading cause of smog, a word that seems to have disappeared around the same time ads for battery cars appeared -- but you remember the word SMOG, right?

It remains hopelessly unclear whether battery cars are indeed more "green" than normal historically significant and currently normal "fueled" cars, since huge amounts of fuel must be burned anyway under the "electric-green-car" plan to boil water, to generate steam, to turn dynamos, to generate high-voltage electrical current, to send over great distances with great power losses to substations, to convert high voltage to household current, to wire to households, which can then be used to charge relatively inefficient batteries, to run the "non-fuel" vehicles. At a savings or cost? What about just keeping the lights on? It may not be such a great idea to convert the national vehicle fleet to centrally controlled and generated electric power.

Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!