Monday, June 25, 2007

Gas and Hot Air

Last week the Senate passed an energy bill mandating stricter fuel economy standards for autos and more production of ethanol. As someone who grumbles every time I drive past a gas pump (much less when I shell out $50 to fill my tank), who worries that U.S. dependence on oil from overseas is not in the national interest, who loves the outdoors, and who believes that human beings are to be good stewards of God's creation, I've got to say that the tank is half-empty on this thing.

The Associated Press notes:

"The legislation would require ethanol production for motor fuels to grow to at least 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over the amount of ethanol processed last year.

"And it calls for boosting auto fuel economy to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent increase over current requirements for cars, SUVs, vans and pickup trucks.

"The legislation also calls for:

"Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an 'unconscionably excessive' price for oil products, including gasoline. It also gives the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation."

I'm no expert on these issues, but it seems to me we have a long way to go-Democrats and Republicans-before we have a realistic energy policy. A few random thoughts:

-- Why is there no talk of increasing our national commitment to nuclear power, which, compared to foreign oil, is clean, efficient, and carries no risk of stirring up the bin Ladens of the world?

-- Do the senators know that our already massive commitment to producing ethanol for gasoline contributes to inflation for the many food products made with corn, and that the resulting corn shortages hurt the poor in the developing world?

-- Why is there no discussion of increasing the number of oil refineries in the U.S. as a way to increase the supply of available gasoline? The system that we now have is stretched to the limit and is extremely vulnerable to events that swiftly drive up the price of gasoline, such as refinery fires.

-- Why don't senators acknowledge that reformulated gas, which is mandated by the government, also drives up the price?

-- Why don't legislators ever talk about giving back some of their own record "windfall profits" from taxes, which go up proportionately with the cost of a gallon of gas?

-- Why don't politicians come up with new and creative ways to encourage mass transit? Where I live and want to go there are virtually no transportation options except for the automobile.

-- Why don't politicians allow for more domestic energy production, including drilling more oil wells in Alaska and offshore? This not only will help drive down energy costs, but it also makes sense for our national security.

-- While increased auto fuel economy would be helpful (at least for those with the means to buy new cars), are the politicians willing to acknowledge that this (despite anticipated technological improvements) will inevitably lead to more highway deaths as people drive smaller, less safe vehicles?

Yes, go after the oil companies if they are breaking the law. Gas prices are causing real pain in American households, and oil companies are reporting record profits. But remember that without the profit incentive, there would be no oil wells.

This bill is unbalanced because it mostly seeks to curb demand but does little to increase supply. We need to look at both, however. Allow the laws of supply and demand to work. If demand is sufficient, new supplies should eventually drive down the price of oil.

Unless we simply don't want people to drive automobiles at all. Some say it is time to stop using oil, so they actually like the higher prices at the pump. For senators who get chaueffers and government-paid expense accounts, that may not be a problem. For the rest of us, however, affordable gasoline is a moral issue.

Monday, June 18, 2007

The Cicadian Cycles of History

The cicada has landed. Like something out of the Book of Exodus, the 17-year cicadas have finally made their reappearance in the Chicago area. The harmless critters, with their bulbous, red eyes and screeching sound, have crawled up from the tree roots where they have incubated since 1990 and have attempted a takeover of our pools, picnic areas, and backyards. So far, the outcome remains in doubt.

There is something primal in their presence amid the well-manicured western suburbs. People who drive smart-looking BMWs and Mercedes have resorted to throwing ugly nets over their trees and bushes to keep the cicadas at bay. Boys wearing swimsuits carry live ones by the fistful and make not a dent in their numbers.

They are here, they are unimpressed with our technological progress, and they’ll more than likely be back in 2024. What kind of era will they enter, like the Rip Van Winkles of the insect world that they are? If the past is any guide, it will be far different, and yet strangely familiar. Let’s take a look back at world history through the bulging eyes of the cicadas.

2007: The United States, responding to the threat of international terror and lawless states with access to weapons of mass destruction, has troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The unpopular administration of George W. Bush appears ready to hand the White House keys over to a Democratic successor.

1990: The U.S., adjusting to the sudden demise of the Soviet Union as the world’s lone superpower, will soon invade Iraq. George H.W. Bush will become immensely popular—before losing the 1992 election to a young upstart from Arkansas.

1973: The nation reels from Watergate, inflation, and a succession of really bad cars from Detroit.

1956: 96 U.S. Congressmen, upset over a Supreme Court decision desegregating the nation’s schools, sign a Southern Manifesto extolling segregation. “In God We Trust” becomes the national motto.

1939: Gandhi fasts to end British rule in India. Lou Gehrig, the “Iron Horse,” retires from baseball. Nazi Germany invades Poland.

1922: Amid the Roaring Twenties, America experiences the Teapot Dome scandal.

1905: Shockingly, Czarist Russia surrenders in the Russo-Japanese War.

1888: The “Great Blizzard of ‘88” kills 400 people on the Eastern Seaboard. Bad weather kills hundreds more in various sections of the country.

1871: Major League Baseball holds its first game. The Chicago Fire devastates a city (but allows for city planners to start fresh).

1854: The Crimean War begins. “The Grand Excursion,” amid much pomp, is held: Lucky travelers get to take a train from Chicago to Rock Island, Illinois; then they go up the Mississippi by steamboat to St. Paul, Minnesota. Also, the Republican Party holds its first convention.

1837: Martin Van Buren succeeds Andrew Jackson as president. Abolitionist newspaper editor Elijah Lovejoy is murdered by a pro-slavery mob. Samuel Morse invents the telegraph.

1820: The Missouri Compromise becomes law, satisfying almost no one over the question of slavery. The reported “first vision” of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith.

1803: In one of the most one-sided deals ever, the fledgling U.S. government purchases a vast tract from the French. Marbury v. Madison establishes the principle of judicial review. Four years later the British slave trade will be abolished through the exertions of William Wilberforce and other Christians.

1786: Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro premieres in Vienna. George Washington elected as America’s first president three years later.

1769: Daniel Boone explores what will later become Kentucky. Charles III sends Spanish missionaries to California. The first steam engine is invented.

Issues of war, peace, race, scandal, and invention are ever new, and yet repeat themselves endlessly. Truly did a wise sage quip nearly three millennia ago: “There is nothing new under the sun.”

Will we ever get things right? One thing is for sure: The cicadas will probably be around to find out.

The CT Liveblog

The latest on the supposed Islamization of Europe; Christians in violence-torn Gaza; and the death of Ruth Bell Graham, among other stories.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

The Giuliani Choice

Conservative leaders doubt his support among evangelicals will last.
By Sheryl Henderson Blunt

Monday, June 04, 2007

Tough Enough?

Last week Barack Obama was saying what he would do if elected president. Out of his mouth came the usual liberal laundry list: health insurance, higher minimum wage, etc., etc., etc. Notable for its absence was any concrete idea of how to prosecute the war on terror.

Now I happen to know that Obama-who is my age-is a really nice guy. He looks good, he speaks well, and compared to old-time Democratic stalwarts such as Hillary Clinton, he seems like a breath of fresh air. He handles the language of faith with apparent ease, and he is not beholden to race-mongering activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

And yet, the fact that terrorists are out to get us-such as the ones who were captured over the weekend planning to blow up JFK Airport-seems not to be on his radar screen, nor on those of the other Democratic candidates, who seem to think George W. Bush is the biggest threat to our life and liberties.

It's no wonder that Rudy Giuliani, a pro-abortion moderate whose personal life is an embarrasment, is receiving serious consideration from conservative Christians. Giuliani, for all his sins, knows what evil is, and he looks like the kind of person who has the guts and experience to stand up to it. These are dangerous times, and this country needs a tough leader to defend it.

At the end of Jimmy Carter's failed presidency, the hostages had been held in Iran for over a year, with no end in sight. But when Ronald Reagan ("the cowboy") took office, the mullahs quickly released their captives. They feared Reagan, and not without reason.

I'm just not sure the terrorists are all that worried about the likes of Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich. Would you be?