New Vegas Hotel Comes Equipped With Death Ray

One of Las Vegas’s newest resorts, the Vdara is an architectural marvel that towers 57 stories over the famed Strip. Located within mere blocks of some of the world’s best-known casinos, the Vdara was built as part of the new CityCenter development project that many hope will provide a boost to a sagging Vegas economy. Envisioned as a straight luxury resort without a theme, a nightclub, or a casino, the Vdara was built with a unique concave design and highly reflective bluish windows that give it a distinctive look. Each of its 1,495 luxurious suites and condos come fully equipped with their own gourmet kitchen, there is a fabulous spa that adjoins the Strip, and the building is fully outfitted with its very own death ray.

What?

Despite what Vdara's bartenders, pool attendants and visitors mockingly call it, the problem is technically known as "solar convergence." The sun's heat is amplified as it reflects off the curved building, creating areas of increased heat that, during a midday Monday visit by AOL News, made the metal parts of some chairs dangerous to touch.

The Vdara’s curved architecture and highly reflective windows actually have a similar effect to a magnifying glass when exposed to the sun’s rays – the building creates areas of extreme heat that are unsafe for hotel patrons to inhabit. Naturally, hotel patrons are less than pleased.

"It was fine here a little while ago, but then all of a sudden I felt like I was frying," said pool patron Danielle Civello, visiting from Dallas. "That's weird."

This seems like a somewhat large oversight that has the potential to impose large external costs on the patrons of the Vdara as well as anyone unfortunate enough to wander into the death ray’s danger zone. Despite the fact that solar convergence is a well-known phenomenon in architectural circles, currently circulating documents have confirmed that while MGM Resorts International was aware of the potential problem, they decided to go ahead with the Vdara’s construction and even turned down offers from architectural firms to coat the windows with anti-reflective film. Now that the hotel’s construction is complete and it is open for business, the problem is proving to be exceedingly difficult to fix due to the danger zone’s propensity to migrate throughout the day. This means that for the foreseeable future, visitors to the Strip might want to be mindful of the potential of 57-story death rays to ruin their day.

The Rise of the Middle

By now most people are aware of the Tea Party movement to represent the extremes but most have not hear of the new political group that is beginning to make noise called the “Militant Middle.” This group is made up of disillusioned independents and moderates who feel that current government policies are being dominated by the extremes. The “Militant Middle” has even found a vocal supporter in Jon Stewart:

Stewart tells his devoted audience, "We live in troubled times with real people facing very real problems; problems that have real if imperfect solutions that I believe 70 to 80 percent of our population could agree to try and could ultimately live with. Unfortunately the conversation and process is controlled by the other 15 to 20 percent."

Political scientists say that the Republican and Democrats are picking more extremely partisan candidates because it is easier for them to get funding within the party in the initial stages and it is easier to distinguish them from other candidates in their campaign. Voters who would normally steer towards the middle are being forced to pick polarized candidates (because those are their only options—something that could help this is allowing people other than registered party members vote in primaries) so voters appear to be more partisan than they actually are.

Advocates of the middle seem to suggest that Downs’ Median Voter Theorem is actually not working. The “Militant Middle” is arguing that the Democrats and Republicans and their candidates are actually not moving towards the middle but rather forcing the middle to choose a side (like making you walk that extra mile to get a hotdog instead of competing for your business). Even though parties are fully informed of the middle’s preferences, they are simply not conforming to them. One interesting thing to note is the complaints by some contributors that President Obama promised policies that suggested a movement towards the middle after winning the primaries (like the theory predicts might happen) but they feel that he has not delivered on these.

Even if this movement fails to bring any real candidates to the political forefront, the party can serve the same purpose as the aforementioned Green Party by putting partisan Republicans and Democrats on notice in an attempt to bring the extremes back to the middle.

Take the Green Out of Blue and You Get Red

There was much ado about the hanging chad in the 2000 Election, but another costly reason Al Gore lost Florida had to do with Ralph Nader running on the Green Party Platform.

Nader was the Green Party nominee again in 2000. He actively campaigned and raised money, and was supported by several high-profile celebrities. He significantly increased his national vote total, receiving 2,882,955 votes, or 2.74 percent. But it was the 97,488 votes Nader received in Florida that brought him the wrath of Democrats once Gore lost the state and the election.

Those one hundred thousand votes came almost solely from Democratic voters, greatly damaging Gore's chances in Florida, which he lost be an astonishingly close 537 votes. Nader's platform called for far greater emphasis placed upon environmental issues, especially as related to greenhouse gas emissions. While Nader claims he was running under the hope of actually winning the election, it is clear that he was mostly intending to get the issues of the Green Party on to the national forum, and in turn, allow the Gore the option of regaining Nader's voters in return for adopting a more 'Green' party line. However, Gore ignored this option, which is clearly defined in Downs' work An Economic Theory of Democracy.Downs spells out this theory on page 131:

When one of the parties in a two-party system has drifted away from the extreme nearest it toward the moderate center, its extremist supporters may form a new party to pull the policies of the old one back toward them [...] This party cannot possibly win itself, but it can throw the election to the opponent by diverting extremists votes from the moderate party. To get rid of this menace, the moderate party must adopt some of the extremists' policies, thus moving back from the center.

Gore chose to more or less ignore the Green Party, resulting in scenario one (throwing the election to the opponent). Had he co-opted the Green Party from the start, he would have had the advantage of accruing those votes and likely winning the Presidency.

Of course Nader cannot be the only source of blame for Gore's defeat. His inability to win his own home state amongst other blunders all contributed to George W Bush winning he election. But maybe if Gore had a keener understanding on simple majority in the two party system, he would have used Nader to his advantage and kept the Presidency under the Democrats for (at least) 4 more years.

O' What A Game

A recent Washington Post article illustrates a perfect example of the spatial location theory in the realm of sports franchises. Washington recently received a new baseball team, the Nationals, after the Baltimore Orioles had the only team in the area for several years, effectively breaking the local baseball monopoly. The two teams now compete for fans from the affluent suburbs of Maryland and Northern Virginia, a battle that the Nationals appear to be winning.

"Since the Nats came to town, they've wrestled with the O's for undecided voters, especially in wealthy suburbs in Maryland between the two ballparks. This season has finally done the trick."

The Nationals and the Orioles are located in efficient points where in an ideal world they would offer the lowest costs to consumers meaning that they are located close enough to fans in their respective areas. Fans from Northern Virginia no longer have to travel long distances to Maryland to go see a baseball game when they can just cross the border over to DC. This theoretical equilibrium is thrown off however because the two teams are not selling identical products. For one, the Nationals are a much better team with a brand new stadium which is preferred by some to the older Baltimore stadium. Also, the rich suburbs of Virginia are expanding rapidly giving the nationals a wealthier fan base than the one in the surrounding Baltimore area. Would it make sense for the Orioles to move their team to gain better access to customers, or would simply improving their product be a more cost effective move?