Ethanol Fuel is a Boondoggle

The New York Times published an article discussing ethanol lobbyists efforts to convince the government to force ethanol-gasoline blends from 10% to 20% or even 30%. The lobbyists say there is a sweet spot where a 30% fuel blend can get more mileage than pure gasoline. The reality is that too many corn farmers took government subidies to grow corn for ethanol production - and now there is a glut. Rather than get rid of the subsidies, which would bring prices down throughout the food supply chain, they want to force the extra ethanol into existing cars.

This wouldn't be so bad if we all drove E85 cars like Sen. Obama, but most Americans drive vehicles that run best (and CLEANEST) on pure gasoline. Adding more ethanol would put more wear and tear on the engines, and according to an Austrailian study it would increase emissions. Not to mention the loss in mileage, requiring consumers to buy more fuel to go the same distances, raising the price of gas AGAIN.

I don't know who is worse - the corn/ethanol lobbyists or the oil sheikhs!

For Heaven's Sake Gentlemen, Hitler is Dead!

Why must we continue to look for monsters to slay? There is only one country in the world right now with the industrial might of 1930s Germany and anything close to the iron will to conquer the world, and Hitler ain't here.

While the evil Versailles treaty after WWI created Hitler, there was little Europe could do to stop him. In the end it took what was left of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and a fully committed United States to bring him down. Nothing less.

Iran can't stop the incursions by our Special Forces. Neither could Iraq. Venezuela is a slave to the high oil price. North Korea can't keep the lights on. The reality is that there is no new Hitler, and to dream him up is only invective.

Global War on Terror = PIRATES!!!

Friggin Pirates! What is this, the 17th century?

When will the United States government understand that Islamic rule doesn't equal Al Qaida and 9/11? The reality is that Ethopia doesn't give a damn about what bad happens to Somalia, so they aren't the go-to people to try to work with the new Somali government. Nevermind the guys behind the new Somali regime were the same guys Clinton was fighting before the famous "Black Hawk Down" incident. And now, since we eliminated the popularly supported decentralized Islamic court based government - Somali shipping gets to deal with increases in piracy on the high seas.

Now that's a movie.

When Are We Gonna Light This Candle?

Patrick Foy over at Taki's Top Drawer has a great article on the growing probability of a full scale war with Iran. Here is a key passage discussing President Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Columbia University in NYC.

The New York tabloids, the fashion plates reading the news at the cable networks, and the more expensive ones at the non-cable networks, and all leading presidential candidates had the same reaction to Ahmadinejad’s visit. One wonders if they were handed the same script and talking points, prepared in one central office. More likely, they just knew what was expected of them. The commentators brought in from the “think tanks” to elevate the discussion were ready to have a cow. These “experts” sputtered predictable, unenlightened accusations at Ahmadinejad, repeating ad nauseam that he is a dictator (preposterous) as well as a “Holocaust denier” (a deliberate distortion), that Iran is working feverishly to acquire nuclear weapons (flat out untrue) which will be used “to wipe Israel off the map” (a mistranslation and another distortion), et cetera. Faced with such hysteria, one could be forgiven for thinking that the world was about to spin off its axis.

It's funny, only online do we learn the reality that many of the key quotes from Ahmadinejad about Israel and the Holocaust were mistranslations and distortions. Not that they matter anyway, but they do whip up the war fever among folks who don't bother to check if the talking heads are telling the truth or spitting bs.

Russia Is Not Scared of Iran, Are We?

Today the AP ran a story with the headline, "Rice Says Iran is An Obstacle to US Goals In the Middle East." I am no apologist for Iran, but if they helped bring the Northern Alliance to the table in Afghanistan and they are re-building the infrastructure in Iraq - I kinda wonder what the US Goals really are.

Geography is stronger than rhetoric - the United States cannot isolate Iran in the Middle East any more than the United Kingdom can isolate Argentina in South America. The Iranians have money, technical know-how, and an interest in leading that part of the world - and outside the Iraq-Iran war, they have used those assets in peace.

Most of the story was just bs setting you up for the real story, that the US is backing off on European missile defense until Iran actually tests a ballistic missile. This is interesting because President Putin of Russia never believed the missile shield was about Iran in the first place.

The reality is that it is hard to tell what we are trying to do over there. We don't want "rogue" states with nukes, yet we offer to share nuclear technology with Egypt - home of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. We want peace and stability in Iraq, but we switch support between the Sunnis and the Shiites whenever one side gets too strong - keeping the battle raging in perpetuity. We hail the peacefulness of the Iraqi Kurd Autonomous Region, only to fail to go after the terrorist PKK there and forcing Turkey's hand. Guess what, the IKAR ain't peaceful any more. We give all this rhetoric about peace and stability in the region, while we send special forces into Iran to scout targets for a future attack.

The doublespeak would be sinister and diabolical if it wasn't for the fact that it feels like our foreign policy just doesn't make much sense at all.

More GOP Debate Goodness

One of my co-bloggers at Wash U For Ron Paul did a great liveblog of the last GOP Debates in Michigan. Plenty of obvious pandering to the auto unions, and a lot of mindless support of ethanol subsidies. This observation is my favorite.

Huckabee is asked about ethanol, whether the free market should determine whether they are used. Huckabee says it's critical for national security and economic interests to use "biofuels." It's a tremendous boondoggle, in fact, and Huck, a pinko through and through, is pandering. Blathers about "Islamofascism," as if ethanol gives us independence from the Arab world! "We can't wait till another generation." I hate Huckabee.

The reality is that ethanol benefits two groups: the politically powerful corn farmers who grow the now premium priced corn, and the oil industry because now they can sell less efficient gasoline for a higher price. Oh, no one mentioned that 100% petro fuel is both cheaper and more efficient than ethanol. Or the fact that this means that when you buy gasoline with ethanol additives - you are buying more gas more often for a higher price than if the additive wasn't there. Well, now you know.

Corn-based ethanol subsidies disadvantages a lot of folks though: food manufacturers (veggies, beef, chicken, and other protein), sugar producers, and normal folks who get to pay higher prices for well - just about everything.

Pols at Americans For Prosperity - Missing the Point

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was truly leading the pack at the Americans For Prosperity event, claiming "extravagant spending" was the reason for GOP Congressional losses in 2006. Of course, overspending is a domestic issue - and never takes into account the $456 BILLION in supplemental expenditures (not including DoD annual budget requests) on the Iraq war. Never mind that Sen. Ted Stevens' "Bridge To Nowhere" or Sen. Clinton's "Bribes for Babies" is just a drop in the bucket comparatively.

It seems that the GOP candidates (save Ron Paul) are returning to the old school GOP strategy of attacking any kind of liberal domestic program or expenditure as excessive. The only problem is that we weren't dumping hundreds of billions of dollars in the sand in the 1980s and 1990s (even during Gulf War I). The party faithful will eat up the nostalgic rhetoric like twentysomethings over Transformers - but those who look at the math will find their rhetoric ringing hollow.

The strangest thing was the ghost of the Laffer Curve haunting the conference. The article indicates Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson all made references to it - although Giuliani stands out again by stressing the revenue benefits of the theory vs. the benefit to the taxpayer. It's funny, all this "self-condemnation" over spending - yet few calls to simply cut spending across the board (again, save Ron Paul).

This "bring back the good 'ol days of the GOP" is nothing but cotton candy laced with LSD. The reality is that you can't create a credible image that is equal parts George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.