Reblogged from Bell Book Candle.

Here it is the beginning of the Memorial Day weekend when gas prices usually rise for the summer driving season, and gas prices are actually falling. I think that is an ominous sign for the continued health of the economy. Additionally, it was only a short time ago that the GOP was blaming President Obama for the spike in gas prices. Now they are totally silent about the fall in prices. If he is responsible in one direction, he is responsible in the other. (continued here)

Do I agree with ? No. So I left a few comments here and here.

After reading last reply (here), it occurred to me that most of us are inveterate conspiracy theorists. We all believe in them; we just deride the other guy’s conspiracy theories.

Why do we produce conspiracy theories? Why is  so determined to villainize the GOP and the oil companies? That’s hard to say, but logic does not support it. GOP politicians just do what they need to do get elected. What the oil companies do is provide a product all of us buy, but there is a rub. Whatever we do comes with tradeoffs.

Consider something basic. Because we must eat, we fight over the best land, and we defecate. One reason we war with each other is to gain control of the best farmland. Another reason we fight is to enslave others to grow our crops. In addition, because even the act of eating produces waste, we must find some way to clean up our dung, and that is not easy. It took centuries for our ancestors to develop the techniques we use for gathering and treating sewage, and much of the world still does not have adequate sewage treatment systems. Therefore, we still see outbreaks of disease carried through the spread our own dung (i.e., fecal pollution).

Similarly, the production and usage of petroleum products produces strife and pollution. Because our economies require petroleum products, as nations we fight to control oil fields. Because even unrefined oil is toxic to us and refineries stink, we find the compromises required to use that icky stuff difficult. Therefore, we struggle heroically to put new oil refineries in somebody else’s back yard.

Human nature is what it is. We are not innately good; we have to beg God to help us to be good. Otherwise, to get what we want, we will even lie to ourselves.

Anyway, I thank  for the correction. It is true that rein and reign have differing meanings, and I used the wrong word.

Reblogged from freedombytheway:

How many times have we heard those ill-informed fear-mongers, known for their mantra, “The Sea is Rising! The Sea is Rising!” say “The debate is over.”

 Only this time, they may finally be right. The debate IS over. Climate Change is a perfectly natural phenomenon. Spew out as much CO2 as you like, mankind, cattle, industry…the weather is gonna do what it’s gonna do, no matter what YOU do.

Read more… 984 more words

I worked at Johnson Space Center during the time period when we lost the Space Shuttle Challenger and the people who rode it to destruction. The experience soured me on a government-run space program. Why? The politicians running NASA put politics in front of science.

Anyway, I suggest you check out this editorial at the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/30/obama-shoots-down-mars-exploration/).

In addition, consider how the nanny state threatens to turn even the best of American manhood into a bunch of cowardly, ever-cautious wusses. The following is from Volume 1, Chapter XVIII, Part X of Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville.

The following comparison will illustrate my meaning. During the campaigns of the Revolution the French introduced a new system of tactics into the art of war, which perplexed the oldest generals, and very nearly destroyed the most ancient monarchies in Europe. They undertook (what had never before been attempted) to make shift without a number of things which had always been held to be indispensable in warfare; they required novel exertions on the part of their troops which no civilized nations had ever thought of; they achieved great actions in an incredibly short space of time; and they risked human life without hesitation to obtain the object in view. The French had less money and fewer men than their enemies; their resources were infinitely inferior; nevertheless they were constantly victorious, until their adversaries chose to imitate their example.

The Americans have introduced a similar system into their commercial speculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did for conquest. The European sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sail when the weather is favorable; if an unforseen accident befalls him, he puts into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvas; and when the whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his way, and takes an observation of the sun. But the American neglects these precautions and braves these dangers. He weighs anchor in the midst of tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads his sheets to the wind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may have sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term of his voyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a port. The Americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so rapidly. And as they perform the same distance in a shorter time, they can perform it at a cheaper rate.

The European touches several times at different ports in the course of a long voyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making the harbor, or in waiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and he pays daily dues to be allowed to remain there. The American starts from Boston to go to purchase tea in China; he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days, and then returns. In less than two years he has sailed as far as the entire circumference of the globe, and he has seen land but once. It is true that during a voyage of eight or ten months he has drunk brackish water and lived upon salt meat; that he has been in a continual contest with the sea, with disease, and with a tedious existence; but upon his return he can sell a pound of his tea for a half-penny less than the English merchant, and his purpose is accomplished.

I cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that the Americans affect a sort of heroism in their manner of trading. But the European merchant will always find it very difficult to imitate his American competitor, who, in adopting the system which I have just described, follows not only a calculation of his gain, but an impulse of his nature.

Reblogged from freedombytheway:

2/17/12 update: Although I wrote this post almost a year ago, it is by far and away my highest-grossing post for views with numerous hits every single day. Obviously, energy costs are a hot topic. By clicking on the links provided for Arizona Clean Fuels and Hyperion, you’ll find where the companies are in the process. One must look at the unfavorable regualtion climate of the Obama administration to understand why progress is so SLOW on these much-needed refineries.

Read more… 600 more words

Here is an example of why it is no longer profitable to do business in the United States. Here some links to news articles on the subject.

• Amid Keystone Controversy, Another Energy Project Moves Forward
• APNewsBreak: Judge upholds Hyperion permit in SD

   

Amid Keystone Controversy, Another Energy Project Moves Forward

BEWARE OF THE PERVASIVE POISON OF BIG GOVERNMENT

Here, in the seventh post in a series on Mitt Romney, we will talk about his attitude towards environmental issues (See 2012 PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON MITT ROMNEY for the first post and links to the remaining posts in this series.).

The Environment

In 2008, like other Republicans Romney offered a plan to “End Energy Dependence”. Romney wanted a national energy plan that involves subsidies and research. He mentions everything from ethanol subsidies to liquefied coal to offshore oil drilling to energy conservation. His justification?

“The United States must become energy independent. This does not mean no longer importing or using oil. It means making sure that our nation’s future will always be in our hands. Our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007) (from here)

Romney’s acquiescence on alcohol subsidies, of course, makes his promises with regard to spending cuts a bit harder to take seriously.

In 2007, Grist.org provided a synopsis of Romney’s environmental proposals and his record as Governor of Massachusetts (here). Grist.org has since then grown more unhappy with Romney.

Where does Mitt Romney stand on climate change and energy issues? Brace yourself: He doesn’t have that flip-flopper reputation for nothing. (continued here)

That article goes on to observe that as recent as June 2011 Romney expressed concern over Climate Change (aka Global Warming). By October 2011, Romney swiveled around on his climate views. Thus, Romney’s “Believe In America” speaks to environmental issues in two sections. Romney offers an Energy Policy that he says would ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process. In particular, he supports and he offers a Regulatory Policy that he says would eliminate unnecessarily costly environmental regulations. In particular, Romney would eliminate “Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview.”

Here is how his regulatory reform proposals sound now.

Reform Environmental Regulation

As president, Mitt Romney will eliminate the regulations promulgated in pursuit of the Obama administration’s costly and ineffective anti-carbon agenda. Romney will also press Congress to reform our environmental laws to ensure that they allow for a proper assessment of their costs.

• Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
• Provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with onerous new environmental regulations

(from here)

In this campaign, Romney’s focus is jobs.  So he has either honed his message to please the most people, or he has flip-flopped.  Take your pick.

It appears that Romney’s most solid accomplishment as the governor of Massachusetts was signing a law to reduce mercury pollution (here).

With just over two weeks until Election Day, Senate races are really heating up, and few moreso than the matchup between Bryce Reeves and Edd Houck.

For many conservatives, incumbent Democratic Senator Edd Houck needs no introduction – and that’s not a good thing. He’s chair of the infamous Senate Committee on Education and Health, the committee where good bills go to die. You want to know why Virginia doesn’t have a credible charter school program, or why common sense pro-life bills seem to go nowhere? Look no farther than Ed & Health and its chairman, Edd Houck.

Houck has tried to increase the sales tax, the gas tax, communications taxes, and the vehicle sales tax. He wants to impose an internet sales tax. He voted for the “abuser fees” – then later claimed that he had no idea what he was voting for. He has tried to eliminate income tax deductions for senior citizens, championed increasing court fees, favors impact fees, and even wanted to impose a fee for riding a mountain bike on Department of Forestry land. Long story short, if there’s a tax or fee Edd Houck doesn’t think should be higher, I haven’t found it yet.

As committee chair, Houck actually sets a day to systematically address all of the human life initiatives — and then sees to it that they each go down to defeat.

Fortunately, Senator Houck has drawn a great challenger in Bryce Reeves, a former Army Ranger and police detective and a successful small business owner. Bryce knows that higher taxes aren’t the solution, and if elected, he will be a champion for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and common sense conservative values.

If you’ve seen Houck’s television ads, you know he’s getting desperate, and no wonder. If I had his record, I’d be worried, too.

(Recently, PolitiFact tore one of his ads to shreds, exposing Houck’s false claims. You’ll want to read the whole thing – and then you’ll probably want to contribute to Bryce Reeves.)

As we enter the final weeks before Election Day, I’m stepping up my efforts to elect conservative Senators across Virginia; you can learn more about it, and find my itinerary, on my website. With your support, we can elect solid conservatives like Bryce Reeves. Let’s make a difference – together!

Preserving Natural Beauty the RIGHT Way

When it comes to Virginia’s national forests, some people in Washington can’t see the forest for the trees.

Every few years, there’s an effort to have more of Virginia’s national forest land designated “wilderness area,” and this time around, the effort has backers within the Obama administration.

At first glance, nothing seems wrong with designating our national forest land as “wilderness area,” and locally, I know that many people support this effort out of the best of intentions. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details.

When land is designated as a federal wilderness area, it quickly becomes off limits. No vehicles are allowed in wilderness areas, for instance. If you love the scenic wonders of our Commonwealth, this ought to give you pause – especially if you’re one of those who regularly takes advantage of Virginia’s natural beauty. How many of the trailheads and campsites that you frequent are only accessible from forest service roads? Would we really want to shut these down?

Wilderness area is also essentially off limits for forest management. That means that they can’t take steps to reduce the risk of fire, or even act to put one out if it starts. They can’t engage in reforestation, remove unhealthy timber stands, or counter invasive species. All this is part of the mission of the U.S. Forest Service, and when the “wilderness area” label is slapped on a region, it goes out the window.

Back in 1988, a hands-off approach to naturally-caused fires backfired in Yellowstone National Parkand a third of the nation’s most famous national park went up in the conflagration. Foresters learned their lesson, and today’s forest management plans would never willingly allow a fire to get that out of control. Unless, of course, it started in a wilderness area, in which case the policy is to sit back and watch.

It’s worth noting that the George Washington National Forest is abutted by quite a few towns and countless homes, all of which would be placed at risk by such a policy.

The wilderness area designation also puts an end to all economic activity in a forest. But anyone who has spent any time in our forests knows that economic activity can be entirely consistent with forest management goals. Timber harvesting, for instance, employs many Virginians. It also helps create those all-important fire breaks and thins stands of trees that have grown unhealthily close together. That’s why the Forest Service often authorizes (and regulates) timber harvesting in our national forests.

Right now, some groups are proposing locking up 55,000 acres of forest land in the Shenandoah Valley, and they have supporters in Washington who want to adopt these policies. That’s irresponsible, especially when the proposed wilderness area is so close to cities and towns, unlike most of the wilderness area west of the Mississippi. It would destroy local jobs, place communities at risk, and even hurt the forests themselves.

The Shenandoah Valley is a remarkable place, and we all want to preserve the natural beauty of our mountains and forests. We do that already, with Shenandoah National Park, the George Washington National Forest, and other protected areas. Wilderness area designation isn’t preservation. It’s abdication.

With best regards,

Mark D. Obenshain
Virginia State Senator

Some people insist upon simple answers. People pollute the environment? People scare and kill the wildlife? What’s the simple answer to these problems? We eliminate people? Well, that is an answer, and it is simple, but shouldn’t we doubt the wisdom of any who suggest such an answer?