One of my readers told me that many of the potential insights that may be found in my comments are often obscured by jokes, satirical comments, confusing analogies and other literary distractions that often make the point less obvious and sometimes not obvious at all. For example, when I rattled off four ways that America could reduce gas and food prices she stopped and said "Why don't you write it like that. Just a list with bullets that reads:
1. Encourage the use of nuclear, clean coal and natural gas for the producing electricity.
2. Use our own oil resources by permitting new oil drilling areas.
3. Develop a single blend of gasoline for use in the continental U.S.
4. Stop using corn to produce ethanol. Ethanol is inefficient, as well as being one of the most widely used foods for people and livestock.
Those four items alone would have a profound and far-reaching effect on the country."
Well, I said, Lots of people won't read it. It's too boring, too obvious and too simple. They want to be entertained. You can't really get them to eat less, drive less, or do anything to reduce their consumption because it will interfere with their lifestyle. After all, you know the economy stinks. Everybody tells you so. Yea, you work two jobs, and it does cost 100 bucks a week to fill your gas tank, but that won't stop you from spending five big ones to go to Europe and argue your doing it on the cheap and still complain about the price of gas. The point is if you don't want the price of gas to continue to skyrocket than you have to do something about it. Call your congressman and tell him to take action on the points above because they are the only people who can. It’s not the whole solution by a long shot, but the hydrogen car ain’t here yet.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I've been pretty hard on the election for the past two months, but as the primary season slows and the Democratic race gets a little muddier, I will going green for a while unless McCain's medical records give us pause, Hilary drops out, or Obama puts his other size 12 shoe in his mouth. Some of the recent reporting about Global Warming has taken on a new tone. Having failed to convince the vast portion of the population to sell theirs souls to the global warming devils, they are now using the expression Climate Change to describe the possible changes in the climate in the future. Hello-climate change takes place every day. From daily changes in weather, seasonal changes in hot and cold periods, hundred-year phenomena, and long-term climate changes such as recent ice ages or the extinction of the dinosaur. Revelations about the use of out-of-context images and the use of computer-generated images in the film, An Inconvenient Truth, and other reports such as those refuting various aspects of the global catastrophe theory, have forced many scientists and other experts to dismiss many of the dire predictions put forward by the climate change set. While many of the predictions are possible that presumes that no weather-related variable will change, which is highly unlikely. Trained meteorologists and climate scientists cannot predict, in anything but a general way, what next weeks’ weather will be. So how could anyone take seriously the prediction of the weather, or climate, if you prefer, a century of more into the future. Even the founder and former president of the Weather Channel provides very sound reasoning for dismissing the predictions as ridiculous and absurd. As you might expect I have had to defend myself quite often against from serious believers of climate change. They are as convinced that it is real as I am that it is not. However, this does not mean that I am not interested in helping to conserve energy as a means of driving down the cost of fuel. I drive a sedan, which gets better mileage than my critics who drive jeeps, SUV’s and trucks. In the short-term I am for nuclear power, clean coal and natural gas. I am not for ethanol for two reasons. First it requires more energy to create than it produces, therefore it is inefficient. Second it is made from edible food. Food that could feed millions and keep the price of milk, meat, rice, wheat, corn, barely and soy beans down if we didn’t use it to create poor quality fuel for cars. I try to conserve in other ways as well that are too boring to discuss. However, Climate Change is not fuel conservation or development strategy. It is a political and financial strategy. With the right number of lawyers, government officials and special interest groups, the climate change crowd will bring the nation to its knees by destroying our economy with stifling regulations. They will loot the taxpayers with the Cap and Trade Program and The New Kyoto Protocol. They will rip us off and tell us it is for our own good. They’ll convince many that their own destruction is in their best interest. So far my favorite example is the Al Gore light bulb. These corkscrew-shaped bulbs provide poor and hideous fluorescent light and cost six times as much as a regular bulb with half the light. It was recently learned that they contain mercury. That’s the same mercury that contaminates fish, and that some people say may cause childhood maladies like Autism. And yes, we are putting it in millions of light bulbs that the U.S. Congress will require all of us to use by law. Light bulbs that will be invariably be dumped into landfills unless the Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency pass laws and regulations requiring us to store our mercury containing light bulbs until we have enough to drive to a special toxic materials site for recovery and storage for which we must pay a fee. The other night I was in a hotel in Florida and I heard a customer ask the waiter for a glass of ice water. The waiter turned to him and said “This is Florida. No ice, no snow. Peel an onion, that’ll make your eyes water.” Groucho Marx said that.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The emerging Cap and Trade Standards that are being contemplated by the U.S. Congress, the United Nations and many other so-called members of the “green” movement are nothing more than a new form of taxation that is designed to pry additional taxes from businesses, and in turn from individuals, for the perfectly natural process of producing carbon dioxide-a natural substance without which life could not exist. Any rational discussion of this topic must include a short tutorial on the chemistry of plant and animal life on Earth. The majority of non-green living things inhale oxygen and dispel carbon dioxide. It is a perfectly natural process that is the supporting element of most life on the planet. Green things, grass, trees, seaweed, and the like breathe in carbon dioxide and convert it into oxygen in sunlight (photosynthesis) and breathe like other living things in the absence of light, or darkness, if you prefer. This can be refined somewhat to talk about the gills of fish, which separate oxygen from water, but basically this breathing of oxygen and exhaling of carbon dioxide is a process which none of us can live without. With this in mind let us examine some of the theories behind the concept of Cap(ping) and Trade(ing). Under Cap and Trade a person or a business would be permitted to create a certain amount of carbon dioxide and would be required to pay a fee (tax) if they exceed the limit. Mind you, they pay a fee (tax), but they do not really decrease their emissions, only pay a penalty for exceeding the artificial limit. Below is an example of such thinking. The following is directly from a website that catalogs these Cap and Trade specialists: Example: a mid-sized 30 mpg car driving 12,000 miles/year will create about 3.55 tons of CO2/year. Using the carbon calculator of one of the companies which are listed here, we figured this would cost only about $19.50 or $1.63/month to be offset! This means that for a very small amount of money you can drive the equivalent of a zero-CO2-emission car! Further reading only confirms the obvious. You do not really reduce the emissions, but you drive the equivalent of a zero-CO2-emission car by paying the $19.50. Supposedly a company, like the one owned by Al Gore plants a tree with the money, but if they use the money to buy a gas-guzzling SUV or fly a jet to Aruba, how would you know? Another part of Cap and Trade is the removal and storage of Carbon Dioxide from the environment. Has any research been done to determine the effect of removing CO2 from the atmosphere? Has anyone considered the effect on the trees and green groundcover all over the planet if we remove CO2 from the atmosphere? What we would actually be doing is preventing plants that perform photosynthesis from the having the CO2 they need to create oxygen. Such activity can only make the situation worse and not better. Cap and Trade is gimmick. It’s a gimmick that basically charges you for the air you breathe. Wise up America or you will only have yourself to blame.
Monday, April 14, 2008
I'm getting a little tired of one-liners being a substitute for an intellectual argument. It’s just a way to get a rise out of people at the expense of other people. Comedians do it. Did you get a load of Jimmy Kimmel unloading on the rarely pathetic Simon Cowle, whose discomfort was evident? I have a feeling Paula Abdul will live to regret it deeply since she found Kimmels' insults so funny and clever. When Simon pays her back it will be worth watching. However I don't think this is the proper approach for a person that wants to be President. I think its okay when the venue is the Al Wilson Dinner in New York or the National Correspondent's Dinner in Washington, where the President is expected to be funny, clever, sarcastic and sometimes as nasty as those who criticize him. But when Barack Obama characterizes Hilary Clinton as Annie Oakley to ridicule something she said to get a cheap laugh, it seems unbecoming and not very Presidential. Hilary has also done this with her clever retorts, designed by professional writers, to be evoke a good laugh and permit her to avoid answering tough questions or putting forth good ideas. All three candidates have tried to use the various news and entertainment forums to create awareness of their Presidential aspirations in the voting population. Its Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Stewart, Matthews, King, Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, Wallace, Stephanopolous and Russert. Their efforts to have their speechwriters come up with good jokes, clever retorts and biting insults makes them appear like a bunch of comedians and not serious candidates for the Presidency. Quite frankly, it's too clever by half and has become stupifyingly boring. If we wanted a comedian for a President there are plenty of them to choose from. But, I don't want a comedian. I want someone who is serious about being President. I want someone who will take our important and even non-important issues seriously. Want to tell jokes Barack? Want to tell funny stories Hilary? Want to match wits with Letterman, John? Get a job as a comedian and leave the Presidency to someone who is serious.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Did you ever get hit with an Obamarock? I did. Yesterday, right after he called my cousin, who recently lost his job in Harrisburg, an embittered, white guy who was one of those who fell through the cracks during the Bush Administration, and had become a xenophobic, anti-immigrant, protectionist, racist, rifle-totting nut ball. Well I suppose that's not what he said exactly. What he said exactly, as quoted from the New York Times, was “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." There; that's exactly what he said. After you read both you will probably say, yea they sound the same, but the second guy was a little nicer. Anyway, that is an Obamarock. He throws them quite often. He said America has a race problem that requires a thoughtful approach and that white people are naturally racist even though they may not be aware. He even used his grandmother as an example, while acknowledging that she didn't have a conscious racial bone in her body, but was a racist never-the-less. He threw another Obamarock when he was questioned about the speeches by his pastor and mentor for 20 years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. After the Reverend retired to a multi-million dollar home in a gated community in Chicago, Obama said if Wright was still pastor he would leave the church. He has not renounced the accusations made by the pastor. He has not renounced support for Black Liberation Theology, which was the dominant theme of Sunday Services for many years in that church. And right after he hit my cousin with one Obamarock he threw another at a speech in Indiana when he said “Lately, there’s been a little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true..." So how many rocks do you let him throw at you before you figure out he doesn't like you, but would like you to elect him President so he can make you a better person. His wife Michelle throws them too. You might call them Mobamarocks. She said she "was never proud of her country until now," which was when Obama supporters began to see he could get traction with the electorate. That was a pretty big Mobamarock. She is a black professional with a substantial income. She has gone to the best schools and lived a life of comparative wealth and yet this was the first time she has been proud. Has she ever been asked if she agrees with Reverenced Wright? Does she believe the government developed AIDS to kill black people? Does she believe that the President and Vice-President conspired to bring down the World Trade Center? Does she believe in the separatism espoused by Louis Farrakhan? Does she believe that the government is hiding the spacecraft from other planets to discredit Farrakhan’s visit to the Mother ship? So you might ask. What is all this rock-throwing business? Well it's like this. These comments by Obama and his wife are not one-time, off-the-cuff remarks made in tiredness, haste or poorly-written speeches. This is what they believe. They do not love America. They do not care about the people who do not agree with them. They do not care about the entire history of our nation, only the part about slavery, Jim Crow and the unconscious racism of America's white people. The Obama's along with other haters of America, like Jimmy Carter, Ramsey Clark and William Ayres, relish in the thought of being able to pay back all those who have oppressed them in the past and wish to make America the laughing-stock of the world. The Obama’s and their allies wish to loot America the way the Bolsheviks looted Russia in 1917. They wish to replace our borders, rebuild our institutions and change the way we live so that we may live in the poverty that so dominates many parts of the world. So the next time your hear an Obamarock or a Mobamarock whiz by your head you better duck; Another one is coming.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
If Hilary CLinton thinks that President Bush's attendance at the Chinese Olympics this summer is a tacet seal of approval of China's policy toward Tibet, does she also think that criticizing the President's action in Iraq and Afghanistan is a seal of approval for the actions of Moqtada al-Sadr, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Ladin? Seems like a good analogy to me. However I'm sure the irony of her statement is lost on her. Her lust for the Presidency is so great that she is blind to the obvious contradictions of her position. America cannot elect a President who wears blinders to their own character flaws.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Because the mainstream media despises President Bush and works hard every day to tarnish his Presidency many things go overlooked and unanalyzed. For example, it's been two years since the Democrats have taken over the House and Senate. In that period of time the real estate market has virtually collapsed, the dollar has given up ground to almost every currency and the price of gas has doubled, along with the price of food, medicine and almost every other essential consumer product. Our Congress has introduced and passed legislation that has contributed to these things and a battered President has signed them into law because beaten men always give in. Yet, the Congress has escaped scrutiny so far. With attention focused on the White House, a miserable war, an ailing economy and the shortcomings of America our anti-capitalist Congress has sold us out to the world-wide socialist movement, which continues to seek countries to loot and people to exploit to satisfy its craving for money, power and glory built on the backs of others. And like the Russians of 1917, we may be too late to stop it. If Lenin's version of communism survived for 75 years on the accumulated wealth of Czar Nicholas and the Russian nation, how long could a new version of communism survive on the accumulated wealth of the United States? Congressional policy has put us at the mercy of commodity traders. By refusing to explore and produce oil and gas reserves in our own country we are not only starving our own nation, but keeping the price of fuel high the world over. By using food for fuel we are not only causing price increases in food, but further aggravating the possibility of famine all over the world, by converting corn into ethanol, a product that requires more energy to produce than it creates. By accepting the concept of global warming despite the evidence to the contrary we are letting our guilt stand in the way of our progress. Yes, guilt. There are many people in America, especially the really wealthy and privileged among us that think we have it too good and must ease the burdens of others. Their guilt is marketed to us every day until we think it is our guilt. The examples are so numerous and have been record by other authors but here a few. Wealthy actors and actresses adopt children in other countries while children in America remain parentless. Our government sends mosquito nets to Africa to prevent malaria, while the real cure (DDT) remains locked in tanks because forty years ago, a writer without a background in science (Rachel Carson) said it should be banned. Prior to that Malaria had almost been eradicated from the planet. Unlike the privileged in our nation most people do not have money to burn, although by world standards even our poorest people do better than the well-to-do in other countries. However, we now have a Congress that wishes to even the playing field with the world. Their goal is to make us all equally poor because as you penalize the wealthy for their success everyone, except the government, becomes less wealthy. As the level of the wealthiest declines more people are then in the wealthy category and they too now become victims of the insatiable appetite for other people's money. Think it over. Our Congress changed the rules for getting mortgages and that has lead to the near collapse of the real estate market. The Congress has put the brakes on oil exploration and production and that has driven up the price of gas and food. The worst part of it is that many people think they are right. Do you? If not, you have a chance to have your voice heard in November. Don't blow it.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
This is not a painting or a sculpture. It is a discussion. How can we end racism if all we talk about is race? CNN ran a program called Conversation with Black America. Huh-I thought America was a single country. That it wasn't a white, black or tan America, but an America of many skin colors that has put the past of slavery and oppression behind it. That as a nation we learned the lessons of putting off the inevitable. The fight for equality in America began in the 1790's and even by that time many Northern states (like Maine) had already made slavery illegal. If you follow the history of America closely it is plain that many statesmen of the time sought to end slavery in America. It was a struggle from the founding of the nation. Despite the civil war slavery in many disguised and blatant forms still took place in the country and it took 100 years of work by good men and women to bring it to an end in 1964. So why is it that many black people think it hasn't changed? Why do so many white people think it has? The truth is it doesn’t matter. There are profiteers playing both sides of the race issue. What does matter is that citizens who vote must not vote on race or gender. They must vote on the issues of war, the economy and the other issues we face as a nation. They must vote on the candidate who goal is to give America a better, stronger future, not sell out to our economic and political enemies. All the candidates have differing views that overlap and diverge, but America wants a President who loves the country and is interested in protecting it from those who would act against us if they thought they could take us down successfully. We must not select a President who will help our enemies, both political and economic, succeed.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
A Democratic Congress dragged in the executives of five of the major oil companies in an effort to saddle them with the rising cost of gas. The Congress ignored the fact that the oil companies no longer have control of the price and that they would have been more correct if they had called in the commodity futures brokers who actually do control the price of gas. In a typical dog and pony show the Dems called in executives from Exxon Mobil, Chevron Corp, ConocoPhillips, BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell to answer for high prices. The solution proposed by such oil "experts" as Representative Ed Markey (Mass-D) was to strip the oil companies of $18 Billion in tax breaks to offset their combined $129 Billion in profits. There was no effort to encourage new exploration, or to establish a fuel blend for nationwide use. Instead it was charade designed to shield a Congress from its many mistakes concerning energy policy and shift the blame to the oil companies. The simple fact is that the retail price of gasoline and diesel fuel is controlled by future's brokers around the world who drive the price. If Congress wants to do something serious about fuel prices that is where they should be looking. Their effort to bully oil companies into alternative energy is just another diversion to point Americans away from Congressional policy failures. The New Narrative has written about our failed energy policy, the flaws in using food for fuel and our government's constant interference to stymie the exploration for oil in America. Until our Congress and the various state conservation departments realize that oil will be our main means of fuel for trains, planes and automobiles for another fifty years we will see very little progress in keeping fuel prices low. By the way: A vote for any Democrat is a vote to increase the price of gas and oil. Remember that the next time you fill up on the way to the voting booth this fall.