Ethanol and Other Follies

            Every time I stop at a gas station to fill up, I am reminded that good intentions come to naught when they clash with common sense. 

            Before I pull the nozzle I'm told that the fuel I'm about to pump contains 10% ethanol.   What a wonderful idea!  By replacing gasoline, ethanol reduces our dependence on foreign oil.  And, of course, burning less fossil fuels means less pollution.  Who could argue with that?
            Well, it so happens that this argument clashes with common sense reality, because it ignores the negative effects of ethanol.  First of all, the production of ethanol requires an increase in corn harvests, meaning that more land (5 million more acres so far) must be converted to this crop.  And where does this land come from?  From grasslands, from filled-in wetlands, and conservation lands.  And what else is needed?  Fertilizer.  Lots of it.  We're talking billions of pounds of nitrates that can filter into our streams, our rivers, and our aquifers. 
            But nitrates are not the only polluters occasioned by the thirst for ethanol.  You can't just put corn juice in your tank.  It has to be converted to a flammable liquid, just like oil needs to be refined into gasoline.  Where is that done?  In factories burning coal and polluting the air.
            What else?  It costs more to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline.  And devoting so much land to growing corn for ethanol raises the price of all other corn products.
            Ethanol is not the only idea that our well-intentioned energy gurus have come up with that clashes with reality.  How about wind farms?  Is the little energy produced by wind turbines, whose tips can rotate up to 170 miles per hour, worth the lives of thousands of eagles and migrating birds?  How about insect-eating bats?  The Journal of BioScience estimates that in 2012 between 600,000 and 900,000 bats were killed by wind turbines.  Consider that one bat can consume between 600 and 1,000 mosquitoes and other insects in just one hour.  Could it be that flying insects, not humans, are the biggest beneficiaries of wind turbines?
            The United States government is moving full speed ahead to subsidize other renewable energy sources (biomass, thermal, hydro, etc.), but has not always been wise in choosing winners and losers.  The list of losers like Solyndra ($535 million lost), Spectrawatt ($500 million), First Solar ($1.46 billion), Sun Power ($1.2 billion), Fisker Automotive ($529 million), Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700 million), Brightsource ($1.6 billion), and many others have proven again and again that investment in renewable energy is no slam dunk. 
            Some $80 billion of taxpayer money has been flushed down the renewable energy drain since Obama took office in 2009.  This is not to say that renewable energy has no future.  It does.  But it would be wise, I think, to consider the pros and cons of any project before pouring money into it.  The market, which uses its own money, is much better at that sort of thing than the government, which uses ours.  I doubt very much that the market would have picked $80 billion worth of losers or raped the land to produce more corn.  

Subsidies

            Forget about all the trouble ObamaCare is having with its website.   The fact is ObamaCare is bound to be a raging success.  The computer problems will be fixed eventually, and enrollments will come pouring in.  Sure there will other problems with people facing increased premiums and higher deductibles.  But it's all part of the plan.  You see, those who are calling ObamaCare a train wreck are ignoring the program's real goal: votes.  And, as we all know, votes equal power.  And unlimited power in the hands of government leads to tyranny.

            How will ObamaCare produce votes?  With one simple method called subsidies.  We've already heard that most people who have managed to get through the tangle of the ObamaCare website have learned that they are eligible for Medicaid.  Eligibility for Medicaid has been raised to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).  A family of four with an income of $31,155 or less can now get free medical care with Medicaid.  All these new Medicaid enrollees are sure to vote Democratic in gratitude.
            But what if you make more than 138% of the FPL?  Not to worry.  You can make up to 250% of the FPL (almost $59,000) and get a subsidy from the federal government to help pay for your increased premiums.  That's on a sliding scale, of course, but free money is free money.  Add these people to the list of likely Democratic voters.
            Incredibly, you can earn up to 400% of the FPL and get a subsidy from the government called an advance premium tax credit.   It's kind of hard to explain how it works, but the point is that just about anybody earning under $95,000 a year gets free money to offset the cost of health insurance under ObamaCare.  More grateful voters.
            Now, does President Obama and his Progressive entourage really care about the poor?  Nonsense.  When the president and his wife spend millions of taxpayer dollars on themselves every year to live like royalty, do they display any affinity for the poor?  On the contrary, the real object of Obama's ideology is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a Socialist form of government that redistributes wealth and creates an underclass of citizens dependent on government.  Grateful voters, all.
            ObamaCare , with control of one sixth of the economy, is the key to the Progressives' permanent takeover of this country.  The only way to stop ObamaCare is to defeat every politician who voted for it.  Otherwise, if you want a glimpse of the future, they're playing previews of coming attractions in Cuba.

           

Trust

            The words "In God We Trust" appear on the back of every bill in my wallet.  This reminds us that our Founders believed that we could rely on a higher power to watch over us.  Now, I'm sure our increasingly secular society would love to eliminate any reference to God, not just on our currency, but in every aspect of our daily lives.  But if we can't trust in God, who can we trust?

            The answer we get from the Progressives in this country Is...Government.  After all, government knows what's best for us.  The latest example of that Progressive dogma is ObamaCare.  The law and its thousands of pages of regulations smack of an arrogance that belittles everyone seeking a solution to health care.  You want a simple policy that covers only catastrophic illnesses?  Not good enough.  ObamaCare has something better for you.  Even though you're a childless single adult you still need pediatric dental coverage;  if you're 60 years old you still need maternity coverage.  It may cost you a lot more, but that's what fairness is all about.  A talk with someone in the Administration might go something like this:

            __ We know what's best for you. Trust us. 
            __ Wait a minute!  I thought the president said that if I liked my health plan, I could keep it, and that no one will take it away, no matter what.    
            __  He did say that, but he just forgot to add that your policy had to meet the standards set forth in the ObamaCare regulations.  Just a slight omission.
            __ And didn't he also say that I could keep my doctor? 
            __ True.  But some doctors are refusing to participate in the program.  So you might not be able to keep yours.  It's not your fault: it's your doctor's fault.
            __ But will my costs go down like the president promised?
            __ I believe you are being a little selfish about this.  We need you to pay more so that people with no insurance can get it for free with government subsidies.
            __ So was the president lying when he promised I could keep my health plan and my doctor, and that my costs would go down?
            __ Of course not.  He was in the middle of a re-election campaign and he didn't want people like you to get upset and not vote for him.  In politics there is no such thing as a lie.  It's just politics.
            __Oh, thank you.  You had me scared there for a minute.  So I can really trust the president?
            __You bet.
            __Good. 'Cause I really like his smile.  So where do I go to sign up?
            __ The president gave you an 800 number to call.  Just dial that number, and a nice person who knows what's best for you will help you.

We Will Not Forget

            "It's Over."  So read newspaper headlines after the president signed the bill to end  the government shutdown and extend the debt ceiling.  Everybody shakes hands.  It's all behind us now, so let's forgive and forget.  Really?  Not so fast. 

            Will we forget the vicious name-calling, like White House aide Dan Pfeiffer comparing tea party members to jihadists, "people with a bomb strapped to their chest"? 
            Will we forget HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius assuring us that all was well with the opening of ObamaCare exchanges, when it was clear that it was an enormous disaster?   
            Will we forget the image of a clueless Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel showing up for the first time ever to receive caskets returning from Afghanistan, when his department had announced that it would not pay death benefits to the families of the dead soldiers? 
            Will we forget National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis squirming before a congressional committee and saying he couldn't remember the name of the person he talked to at the White House who told him to prevent public access to national parks and the Washington Mall?  
            Will we forget the guard who admitted, "We're just following orders.  We were told to make it as painful as possible."? 
            For me, the most indelible image is of the veteran with tears running down his cheeks, not in sadness or sorrow, but in anger and frustration at President Obama for dishonoring the men who fought and died for this country by preventing veterans from  visiting the WW II Memorial.  Behind him were men and women depositing the Mall's metal barricades at the White House fence.  In the spirit of Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, they rejected Obama's insult, shouting, "Take Down These Barricades."
            It's not over.  We will not forget.

State solutions

            From the floor of the Senate in 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts rose to give another one of his fiery anti-slavery speeches.  This time he went too far when he called  South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler an imbecile and said, "Senator Butler has chosen a mistress. I mean the harlot, slavery."  Two days later, Butler's cousin, Preston Brooks, a congressman from South Carolina, avenged his family's honor by bludgeoning  Sumner with his gold-tipped cane and almost killed him.  It took years for Sumner to recover.

            Maybe we have grown a little more civilized these days.  But the counterproductive spectacle of name-calling going on in Washington these days makes some of us wonder if the federal system of government devised by our Founding Fathers is fatally flawed.  Extremists at both ends of the political spectrum rarely show that they are interested in solving problems.  Instead, when they take time off from slandering each other, they go trolling for votes so they can stay in power, or seek glory in martyrdom by sacrificing themselves on the altar of ideology.  But it needn't be that way. 
            In  a recent article, Cal Thomas demonstrated that Washington should follow the example of several states that have achieved a high level of success in those very areas that have plagued our federal government.  Louisiana, Ohio, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Wisconsin have all done very well in growing their states' economy: GDP is up, unemployment is down, personal income is up, taxes are down, manufacturing is up, deficits are down. 
            How did they do it?  They enacted tax reform, they shrunk their bureaucracies, they modernized programs like Medicaid, and they worked with private industry to create jobs programs that really work.    
            If these states can solve their problems, why can't Washington?  Thomas points out that the five states all have Republican governors.  This is more than a clue.  What they all have in common is the belief that smaller government, lower taxes, and free enterprise are the elements that foster growth.  Not more spending, not higher taxes, not job-killing regulations.
            North Carolina, with tax reform enacted this past year by its Republican legislature and signed by its Republican governor, seems to have gotten the message.  Maybe the next time Cal Thomas writes about the states that have shown the way to economic growth, North Carolina will have been added to the list.

"Killong Jesus" Pros and Cons

            I have just finished reading “Killing Jesus,” the well-publicized book by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard.  As many are aware, the book has already been praised as well as panned by many.  In my opinion, a little of both is in order.  Like “Killing Lincoln” and “Killing Kennedy” before it, “Killing Jesus” is a great read.  It is captivating and flows easily from chapter to chapter.  The controversy surrounds “facts” used by the authors as a basis for the book.  Right up front they say that they make an effort to separate fact from legend, and then proceed to violate their promise. 

            I think the Christian community of faith will applaud the book, because it is full of background information on the times Jesus lived in, especially details on the Roman empire and its effect on Israel.  At the same time, the book follows the gospels closely in presenting Jesus as the Son of God.  This is clearly a book written by believers.
           As to the person of Jesus, critics have already been quick to point out that too much fluff has gone in to augment the meager facts as we know them.  O’Reilly and Dugard have a vivid imagination that is evident at all times.  That’s not bad, just creative license. 
            More interesting to me are the scenes in the Bible that the authors chose to include as well as the ones they chose to ignore.  The Last Supper, for instance, has the washing of the feet found only in John, while it ignores the consecration of the bread and wine, which is central to the Synoptics. 
            Other scenes as written violate principles of history writing, that is, they cannot be substantiated by witnesses, corroborating evidence, or plausibility.  For example, the authors report as fact the words Jesus spoke in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane as he prayed alone while the apostles slept.  There are many such scenes that rely on myth, legend, and Christian tradition.  For this reason, it is best, in my opinion, to call “Killing Jesus” a historical novel rather than  A HISTORY, as the subtitle says.
            All in all, this is a good book.  It is well-researched and engrossing at all times.  The description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion is riveting and likely to move believers and non-believers alike.  Flaws aside, I highly recommend reading "Killing Jesus."

 

Rains from the Eaves

            On December 13, 1862, Union General Ambrose Burnside attacked the Confederate army by sending his troops charging up Marye's Hilll west of Fredericksburg where the rebels held the high ground.  The result was a massacre of epic proportions.  Confederate General James Longstreet later compared the rate of falling Federals to the "...steady dripping of rains from the eaves of a house."

            Every time I reflect on the current battle in Washington I think of Senator Cruz leading his cohorts in Congress in a battle he cannot win against Senator Reid and his Senate Democrats who hold the high ground.  The attempt to defund ObamaCare cannot succeed any more than the senseless charge of Burnside's troops at Fredericksburg.  Senator Cruz, as valiant as he is, should have chosen a different time and better ground to engage the enemy.
            The Union army occupied the town of Fredericksburg, just as the Republicans control the House.  It held the town hostage, just as the Tea Party is accused of holding the country hostage by refusing to pass a clean spending bill.  But, just as in Fredericksburg, Republicans cannot dislodge the entrenched opposition holding the high ground.  As a consequence of this  foolhardy charge, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are drooling over the prospects of  voters in next year's elections causing the Republicans in Congress to fall like "dripping of rains from the eaves of a house."
            The question remains: How will the voters remember this tawdry episode?  Will they hold the Republicans responsible for closing down the government, or will they recall the obstinacy of the Democrats in refusing to pass House bills to ease the burden on veterans, on national parks, and on D.C. government?  Will they hold the president accountable for preventing WW II veterans from visiting their memorial on the Washington Mall or the graves of their fallen comrades in Normandy?
            To me, there is one important difference between the attitude of the victors at Fredericksburg and that of the Democrats in Washington.  The Confederates did not rejoice at the slaughter of their foes; they felt a genuine compassion at the sight of the bodies of Union soldiers piled high on Marye's Hill.  In Washington we hear the Democrats and their media sycophants call the Republicans racists, anarchists, obstructionists, and worse.  The president himself is blitzing the country excoriating his opposition, while vowing never to negotiate a cease fire.  There is a meanness in his speeches that has never been heard before.
            Is this the kind of leadership we should expect from our elected officials?  In a battle as nasty, brutish, and ugly as this one, is it any wonder opinion polls of politicians are dropping?  Perhaps like "rains from the eaves of a house"?