We live in a world where species of wild animals are disappearing and a billion people are barely able to get enough to eat. Is this the time to clear rain forests to grow palm oil or give up food-crop land to grow biofuels so that people can burn fuel derived from carbohydrate rather than hydrocarbons in their cars? This paucity of food-producing land is already driving up the cost of food for human populations.Five percent of the world’s crop land has been taken out of growing food and put into growing fuel; in the United States, that figure is 20%. Drought in Australia and more meat eating in China has pushed the world food supply below world food demand. In 2008 the food shortage caused food riots all over the world. Between 2004 and 2007, the world corn harvest increased by 51 million tons; but 50 million tons went into fuel ethanol, leaving nothing to meet the increase in demand for food. American car drivers were taking carbohydrates out of the mouths of the poor to fill their tanks.
This might be okay if the money spent on ethanol would save Americans money so they could afford to buy more goods and services from the poor and help them out of poverty. But…Americans are taxed three times for their ethanol hunger—they subsidize the growing of corn through the government; they subsidize the manufacture of ethanol; and they pay more for their food. Ethanol production actually impairs the ability of people to contribute to the demand for manufactured goods.
In order to produce fuel ethanol, a farmer must use fuel for his tractors, petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides, truck fuel, and distillation fuel. So…on balance, it takes just about as much fuel to produce the new ethanol fuel as the ethanol fuel, itself contains. Drilling and refining fuel from oil and coal reserves, of which there are many, gets you a 600% energy return on your energy used.
Making fuel from Brazilian sugar cane is more efficient, because it is produced by armies of underpaid laborers.
Using oil to drive cars releases CO2, which is a greenhouse gas; but using tractors to grow crops releases nitrous oxide from soil, which is a stronger greenhouse gas with nearly 300 times the warming potential of CO2.
The ultimate argument against the use of biofuels is that these fuels require land for their production; and the earth’s land area is finite. The human population, which uses land for food production, is increasing. By 2050, the earth’s population will need every bit of arable land for food production. We need to quit using biofuels until some more efficient way of producing them is discovered.
Data for this blog post were taken from The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
How Good Are We—Really?
It is common understanding that we, humans, are not the pillars of righteousness and beauty we think we are. We have more shortcomings than we care to admit—especially when it comes to the issue of confronting culture with the truth.
A recent study from Penn State University found that half the students said they would object if someone made a sexist comment; but in practice, fewer than one-sixth had ever said anything in objection to a comment like that.
In essence, we are afraid to confront society about things we think are politically incorrect. Especially, are we uncomfortable when it comes to telling people about our belief in Christ. In this matter, we need to remember the words of Christ, himself: “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32, 33)
Despite the prevalent idea that living a good, Christian, lifestyle before an unbelieving world will make people want to emulate the Christian belief that motivates such a lifestyle, this kind of “presence evangelism” just does not work. Words must be used. It is not possible for an unbeliever to distinguish a Christian from a Hindu or a Muslim based on a perceived moral lifestyle—those sects all look the same when judged on the basis of outward morality. But…there is a great difference; and it must be articulated in words.
Reader, do not despair! Telling the truth publically is not so dangerous. I remember a saying that was used by my Scoutmaster years ago: “If public opinion had any real power to harm, the skunk would have been extinct long ago.”
A recent study from Penn State University found that half the students said they would object if someone made a sexist comment; but in practice, fewer than one-sixth had ever said anything in objection to a comment like that.
In essence, we are afraid to confront society about things we think are politically incorrect. Especially, are we uncomfortable when it comes to telling people about our belief in Christ. In this matter, we need to remember the words of Christ, himself: “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32, 33)
Despite the prevalent idea that living a good, Christian, lifestyle before an unbelieving world will make people want to emulate the Christian belief that motivates such a lifestyle, this kind of “presence evangelism” just does not work. Words must be used. It is not possible for an unbeliever to distinguish a Christian from a Hindu or a Muslim based on a perceived moral lifestyle—those sects all look the same when judged on the basis of outward morality. But…there is a great difference; and it must be articulated in words.
Reader, do not despair! Telling the truth publically is not so dangerous. I remember a saying that was used by my Scoutmaster years ago: “If public opinion had any real power to harm, the skunk would have been extinct long ago.”
Monday, January 9, 2012
Monkey See, Monkey Do… or, Young People Act Out TV Model
About half of American girls eleven to seventeen regularly watch “reality” TV, with another 30% watching it sometimes. And it’s bad for them, according to a study sponsored by the Girl Scout Research Institute. Thirty-eight percent of these girls think a girl’s value is based on how she looks, for example compared with 28% of those who do not watch reality television. Almost 40% of the first group but only 24%of the second group believe “you have to lie to get ahead.”
The reason we can guess. What you see, if you see it often enough, begins to feel normal—even if you start watching it because you think it is not normal.
(In case you don’t know… “reality” TV is a genre of TV programs, supposedly unscripted, that show supposedly non-actors, i.e., “normal people,” in unusual or stressful situations. The language and behavior are street language and behavior, complete with vulgar words and ideas. On example of this kind of programming is the program, Wife Swap.)
The reason we can guess. What you see, if you see it often enough, begins to feel normal—even if you start watching it because you think it is not normal.
(In case you don’t know… “reality” TV is a genre of TV programs, supposedly unscripted, that show supposedly non-actors, i.e., “normal people,” in unusual or stressful situations. The language and behavior are street language and behavior, complete with vulgar words and ideas. On example of this kind of programming is the program, Wife Swap.)
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Larger the Government, The Smaller the Citizen
We live in an era of burgeoning government. One hallmark of the Obama Administration has been the Dodd-Frank Bill (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act H.R. 4173) designed to identify risks to the financial stability of the U.S. and promote market discipline. The other has been the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, designed to make health care much more of a responsibility of the Federal Government by adding layers of regulation into health care access.
I have looked as carefully as I can into these two bills; and I find them incomprehensible in their complexity and sheer size. In my opinion, they will almost double the size to the Federal Government.
We, as citizens of the United States, need to be very suspicious of such sweeping legislation and look at burgeoning governments of the past to evaluate such programs.
In The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, I read, “Empires, indeed governments generally, tend to be good things at first and bad things the longer they last. First they improve society’s ability to flourish by providing central services and removing impediments to trade and specialization; thus, even Genghis Kahn’s Pax Mongolica lubricated Asia’s overland trade by exterminating brigands along the Silk Road, thus lowering the cost of oriental goods in European parlors.” Later, however, a pattern was set which has been followed by governments ever since. Aging governments “employ more and more ambitious elites who capture a greater and greater share of the society’s income by interfering more and more in people’s lives as they give themselves more and more rules to enforce, until they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a lesson for today. Economists are quick to speak to speak of ‘market failure,’ and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from ‘government failure.’ Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of their customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.”
I have looked as carefully as I can into these two bills; and I find them incomprehensible in their complexity and sheer size. In my opinion, they will almost double the size to the Federal Government.
We, as citizens of the United States, need to be very suspicious of such sweeping legislation and look at burgeoning governments of the past to evaluate such programs.
In The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, I read, “Empires, indeed governments generally, tend to be good things at first and bad things the longer they last. First they improve society’s ability to flourish by providing central services and removing impediments to trade and specialization; thus, even Genghis Kahn’s Pax Mongolica lubricated Asia’s overland trade by exterminating brigands along the Silk Road, thus lowering the cost of oriental goods in European parlors.” Later, however, a pattern was set which has been followed by governments ever since. Aging governments “employ more and more ambitious elites who capture a greater and greater share of the society’s income by interfering more and more in people’s lives as they give themselves more and more rules to enforce, until they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a lesson for today. Economists are quick to speak to speak of ‘market failure,’ and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from ‘government failure.’ Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of their customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.”
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
State Department to Defend Islam Against Free Speech
The Wall Street Journal reported on 5 December on page A-17 that Hillary Clinton has invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to hold a conference in Washington to discuss ways in which governments can prevent their otherwise free newspapers from criticizing Islam. She has said that the conference is to build “muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance” into Western societies that criticize Islam.
For more than 20 years, the OIC has pressed Western governments to restrict speech about Islam. In 2009 the OIC issued fatwas calling for free speech bans, including “international legislation” aimed at protecting “the interests and values of [Islamic] society,” and for judicial punishment for public expression of apostasy from Islam. Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu emphasized that “no one has the right to insult another for their beliefs.” (I wonder if Mr. Ihsanoglu thinks that no one has the right to KILL other people because of their beliefs!)
The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but its leading member states’ practices are illustrative. These states are in the practice of severely punishing de facto “insulters” of Islam and condoning the attack upon their lives and families by Muslim vigilantes.
Civil society must vigorously protect the freedom of its press and of its speech. Any religion or world view that is worth its salt should stand in the strong winds of public criticism and prove its value by open debate. All religions of the world must stand and protect themselves publically, answering the following questions: Which religion teaches us to love our neighbor? Which religion teaches that we should tolerate differing opinions peaceably without resort to violent means for winning converts? Which religion convinces people to believe by means of persuasion rather than force?
Any religion that fails these questions must resort to such agencies as the United States State Department and to legislative coercion in order to protect itself from open debate.
Furthermore, I do not believe that our government has any business meddling in the freedom of our press or speech unless that expression is openly subversive of law and order in our society. Clearly, open criticism of Islam in the press of a Western nation is not disruptive, nor has it advocated overthrow of government based on religion. On the other hand, I cannot say that Islamic regimes have not advocated overthrow of non-Islamic governments. Islam has claimed suzerainty over governments in order to take complete control of them by their religion.
For more than 20 years, the OIC has pressed Western governments to restrict speech about Islam. In 2009 the OIC issued fatwas calling for free speech bans, including “international legislation” aimed at protecting “the interests and values of [Islamic] society,” and for judicial punishment for public expression of apostasy from Islam. Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu emphasized that “no one has the right to insult another for their beliefs.” (I wonder if Mr. Ihsanoglu thinks that no one has the right to KILL other people because of their beliefs!)
The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but its leading member states’ practices are illustrative. These states are in the practice of severely punishing de facto “insulters” of Islam and condoning the attack upon their lives and families by Muslim vigilantes.
Civil society must vigorously protect the freedom of its press and of its speech. Any religion or world view that is worth its salt should stand in the strong winds of public criticism and prove its value by open debate. All religions of the world must stand and protect themselves publically, answering the following questions: Which religion teaches us to love our neighbor? Which religion teaches that we should tolerate differing opinions peaceably without resort to violent means for winning converts? Which religion convinces people to believe by means of persuasion rather than force?
Any religion that fails these questions must resort to such agencies as the United States State Department and to legislative coercion in order to protect itself from open debate.
Furthermore, I do not believe that our government has any business meddling in the freedom of our press or speech unless that expression is openly subversive of law and order in our society. Clearly, open criticism of Islam in the press of a Western nation is not disruptive, nor has it advocated overthrow of government based on religion. On the other hand, I cannot say that Islamic regimes have not advocated overthrow of non-Islamic governments. Islam has claimed suzerainty over governments in order to take complete control of them by their religion.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Should We Slow Down the Rich or Speed Up the Poor?
There is no question about American society, these days. The rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer. The spread between the two is becoming more marked every day. As I mentioned in my blog post of 23 November, the share of money going to the top 1% of earners in America has increased from 8% in the 1960’s to 20% today. At the same time, incomes of the lower income group have been stagnant for several decades. Observers have noticed that the middle income group has been decreasing in size.
Liberals insist that the way to remedy this situation is to tax the rich, knock them down in the economic hierarchy; and that is supposed to equalize our societal unbalance. I would propose a different approach to the same problem. My approach is founded on the fact that society is becoming more and more sophisticated and requiring of more sophistication in education and training.
I read in the newspapers that even in this recession and period of high unemployment; companies are having trouble finding skilled workers for blue-collar jobs. Welders, diesel mechanics, finish carpenters, etc. are in short supply—simply because those jobs require a higher level of training and education.
It is my opinion that instead of penalizing the upper income group for making money, our society should be working to train up more skilled blue-collar workers and white-collar executives and supervisors. That measure would narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.
Punishing the rich is an exercise in futility. Our government is experiencing a deficit if revenue; and overtaxing the rich will only decrease government revenues. One fact of taxation in the United states is that those who make $1 million/year accounted for about 0.2% of all tax returns but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with adjusted gross income above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of tax filers but paid 50.1% of the $866 billion in total personal income taxes. This means the top 3% paid more than the bottom 97%. Yet the 3% are the people that President Obama claims do not pay their fair share. Before the recession, the $200,000 income group paid 54.5% of the income tax. (Redacted from an editorial by Robert Barron in the Wall Street Journal 8/24/11)
The way to prosperity is to train up the poor and the uneducated to take their proper place in our economic scheme of things. Leave the rich alone and let them earn as much money as they can—that will benefit government revenues. But get the lower classes in our society to bring up their earning capacity.
Liberals insist that the way to remedy this situation is to tax the rich, knock them down in the economic hierarchy; and that is supposed to equalize our societal unbalance. I would propose a different approach to the same problem. My approach is founded on the fact that society is becoming more and more sophisticated and requiring of more sophistication in education and training.
I read in the newspapers that even in this recession and period of high unemployment; companies are having trouble finding skilled workers for blue-collar jobs. Welders, diesel mechanics, finish carpenters, etc. are in short supply—simply because those jobs require a higher level of training and education.
It is my opinion that instead of penalizing the upper income group for making money, our society should be working to train up more skilled blue-collar workers and white-collar executives and supervisors. That measure would narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.
Punishing the rich is an exercise in futility. Our government is experiencing a deficit if revenue; and overtaxing the rich will only decrease government revenues. One fact of taxation in the United states is that those who make $1 million/year accounted for about 0.2% of all tax returns but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with adjusted gross income above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of tax filers but paid 50.1% of the $866 billion in total personal income taxes. This means the top 3% paid more than the bottom 97%. Yet the 3% are the people that President Obama claims do not pay their fair share. Before the recession, the $200,000 income group paid 54.5% of the income tax. (Redacted from an editorial by Robert Barron in the Wall Street Journal 8/24/11)
The way to prosperity is to train up the poor and the uneducated to take their proper place in our economic scheme of things. Leave the rich alone and let them earn as much money as they can—that will benefit government revenues. But get the lower classes in our society to bring up their earning capacity.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Shall We Adopt China’s Ways?
Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union (SIEU) wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on 12/1/11 after he had returned from a trip to Chongqing, a city of 32 million people in western China. In the editorial, he extoled the praises of the Chinese economy. He reported that the bustling Chinese city is building new floor space at a rate of 1.5 million square feet daily, which will include 700,000 units of public housing annually. He reports that China’s 12th five year plan aims at a 7%/year growth plan for the general economy. Western China is programmed for a cloud computing program and automotive/aerospace production. The area is predicted to produce an annual growth rate of 12.5% with a 49% growth in tax revenue each year. Wages there are predicted to advance at a rate of 10%/year.
By way of contrast, Mr. Stern says that in the USA, we have seen a decade of high joblessness, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking of the middle class, and phenomenal gains in wealth by the top 1% of our country’s taxpayers.
His conclusion is that “America needs to embrace a plan for growth and innovation, with streamlined government as a partner with the private sector.” In other words, we need to become more like China.
I am under the impression that China is booming economically precisely because it has adopted western ways of entrepreneurship and combined that change with an extremely low wage scale for laborers—bordering on slave-labor-type wages.
I suppose we, Americans, could do the same as China—as Mr. Stern implies we should. It might require that we give up our penchant for civil rights, personal control of our lives separate from government, and the basic desires we have for human dignity.
But, what more might we expect from a labor leader like Mr. Stern. America’s tradition of profit-seeking entrepreneurship has served us well in the past; and I would guess that China’s use of our system is the main driving force behind that country’s economic success now. If we were to adopt China’s ways, we would obviously have to knuckle under to more government control over business—which effect is proving the death knell to American business under our present administration.
I believe in American private business ownership and the stimulus of true profit making.
Any of you who would like to read more about this subject can link to Mr. Stern’s editorial at (Adopt China's ways?)
By way of contrast, Mr. Stern says that in the USA, we have seen a decade of high joblessness, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking of the middle class, and phenomenal gains in wealth by the top 1% of our country’s taxpayers.
His conclusion is that “America needs to embrace a plan for growth and innovation, with streamlined government as a partner with the private sector.” In other words, we need to become more like China.
I am under the impression that China is booming economically precisely because it has adopted western ways of entrepreneurship and combined that change with an extremely low wage scale for laborers—bordering on slave-labor-type wages.
I suppose we, Americans, could do the same as China—as Mr. Stern implies we should. It might require that we give up our penchant for civil rights, personal control of our lives separate from government, and the basic desires we have for human dignity.
But, what more might we expect from a labor leader like Mr. Stern. America’s tradition of profit-seeking entrepreneurship has served us well in the past; and I would guess that China’s use of our system is the main driving force behind that country’s economic success now. If we were to adopt China’s ways, we would obviously have to knuckle under to more government control over business—which effect is proving the death knell to American business under our present administration.
I believe in American private business ownership and the stimulus of true profit making.
Any of you who would like to read more about this subject can link to Mr. Stern’s editorial at (Adopt China's ways?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
