TRUTH IN POLITICS

Forced to be Fuelish                     By: Michael Swickard Ph.D.

Shuckins! At my gas station this week was the dreaded note on the pump: “This gasoline now contains ethanol.” I have changed stations several times this last year to keep from buying E10, gasoline laced with 10 percent ethanol. This move to ethanol laced gasoline is political in nature. I have three major objections to being forced to use E10.

First, the BTU (energy) content of E10 is not as high as regular gasoline, so I surrender gas mileage. I already drive carefully and under the speed limit to boost gas mileage so this will not “break the bank” in my life. However, I do not want to spend money foolishly fuelish.

Further, my 1998 Mercury Grand Marquis reacts to E10 with a warning to “Check Engine” which means the oxygen sensors in my car puke with E10. It has always done so and the advice of my mechanic has been to not put ethanol in my gas tank. When I put regular gas back in the warning light goes off. So, why should I pay money to have a problem with my car and lose gas mileage to boot?

Second, the use of the food crop corn to make fuel raises the price of corn-based food since the production of corn competes with the federally subsidized ethanol production. Farmers weigh the value of producing corn for food or for fuel where they get a federal ethanol subsidy. The reduction of corn in our food chain increases the cost of food both for humans and for animal feed. Increasing the cost of feeding animals results in higher animal-based food costs to consumers.

Taxpayers subsidize the production of ethanol, which in turn raises the cost of our food. While food cost is not a problem for me, I do not want to spend the extra money needlessly. Importantly, the escalating food costs are very problematic for the more fragile families in New Mexico.

More so, this artificial increase in food prices have causes riots in Mexico and in other countries with large populations who are mired in poverty, since the increase in food prices is very real to those people and quite catastrophic. There is no reason their corn-based food should increase in price.

Finally, closer to home, New Mexico uses its oil industry to fund education. The use of E10 fuels subtracts money from our schools because the 10 percent of ethanol used in gasoline is mainly produced in the “corn belt.” There is no reason to use less New Mexico produced petroleum to satisfy political whims.

From Voluntary to Mandatory

Understand, I have no objection whatsoever to E10 being sold. Anyone who wants to drive with E10, or E85 for that matter, is free to do so. My objection is that E10 is being forced upon me because it is getting harder and harder to find gasoline without ethanol. While we can talk about ethanol being cleaner burning I am not convinced it is critical when compared to the harm done to food production and New Mexico schools.

Likewise, there is a move to mandate paying for recycling when some citizens do not wish to recycle. In Las Cruces the city council is considering mandating the payment of recycling for every citizen even if some citizens do not wish to recycle. Either directly or indirectly every citizen pays for recycling because recycling does not pay for itself. If recycling made dollars and sense it would not have to be subsidized.

It is important to note that often with government what starts as “voluntary” moves quickly to mandatory, as friends of mine in other cities have found. I have a friend who must separate into six barrels paper, glass, metal, garbage, and two other things which I do not remember. I just remember when I visit he is perpetually upset by all of the care he must take in separating everything he uses. His garage is taken up by the mandatory recycling which he remembers WAS voluntary when it started.

Is it certain that if the Las Cruces City Council starts a recycling program with mandatory payment it will end up as obtrusive as my friend’s? No, but that is the way to bet.

Michael Swickard is a columnist on this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com

Need to Change Our Approach to the Drug Wars

In reading the ‘Their View’, written by Gary Johnson the ex Governor of New Mexico in the Sun-News I had to take a different view on the legalization of marijuana. What he worth made a lot of sense and in retrospect shows that prohibition of a product that has no more danger to it than alcohol will never work. The greatest amount of money made by the criminal element of the roaring 20s was from the very prohibition of a product that had theretofore been in plentiful supply to the American people.

It was preached that it was good for the people because alcohol was the ‘Devil’s Brew’, it caused one to lose all inhibitions and that it was addictive. It only caused a small segment of the population of America to lose their inhibitions, commit crimes and was only addictive to a small particle of the population that could not handle its use socially. If the American people want something they will find a way to get it, even more so when it is banned as being against the law.

Marijuana is no more addictive than any other substance that is used to the point of abuse, such as cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and yes, even hard drugs. The addiction comes with the loss of will and drive within a few humans who think they can control their desires, but lose out to the strong abuse of the drugs. One can become addicted to almost any substance known to man, if they abuse it. Look at the people who become addicted to overeating, to drugs that enhance their strength beyond reason. Look at the children that become addicted to the power they have to subjugate another child and become bullies. The same can be said of many grown adults.

Marijuana used in moderation is no different or dangerous to the body than the use of alcohol and should not be on the list of restricted drugs. If controlled and taxed, as is liquor, or cigarettes, it would become a great source of income for the building of our infrastructures and our nation. But when we prohibit its growth and use we make it more desirable to the public, simply because it is the rebelliousness of our human nature to prove we can control it, and thereby abuse it to the extent the people did during the great prohibition of the twenties.

Under any type of prohibition we open an avenue of profit in the black-market trade of that product. I agree that many hard narcotics should be regulated with prescriptions and by other means, to keep them out of the hands of people who are foolish enough to abuse them. This must be done in order to protect our society from the ills that come with addiction. For almost all the narcotics there are uses that are beneficial to man, such as the alleviation of pain of many types, but with the regulation of these drugs it takes away the desire to beat the system and takes away the need for the black-market trade of those products to a certain extent.

The Cash Cow of the Cartels

Our government has long known that the ‘cash cow’ of the Cartels is marijuana, bringing in more than 60 to 70% of the financial gain through money, arms and ammunition, etc., which gives them the power to become more powerful than the government of many countries. Take a look at what marijuana did to Panama under the dictator Noriega, look at what has happened in Mexico. The cartels have moved mostly from Colombia into Mexico, since with the eradication of the marijuana trade in Colombia by the destruction of the crops, but they are a long way from dead. The need for the ‘cash cow’ of marijuana to support their endeavors is the uppermost in their black-market enterprises.

There will always be people foolish enough to snort, sniff, or mainline any new substance that is the popular drug of the age, but marijuana should never have been prohibited in this country or in any other country. It has its true medicinal purposes and if controlled and taxed would be no more dangerous than the alcohol that is consumed in this country. Sure it will take some mental change in our attitude to make this happen, but some far thinking people in some states are getting the message.

Remember it took some really far thinking people to come to the conclusion that the prohibition of alcohol was a no win situation and open it to the public and tax it. The same can be said of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, Benzedrine, or many of the substances used and abused by the public. But let’s be realistic. Are we winning the drug wars? What would happen to the cartels if we took away their largest ‘cash cow’ marijuana? Would they be able to assassinate politicians, pay huge amounts for guns and equipment that makes them stronger than the government as they have in Mexico?

Many states are getting into the medicinal marijuana trade on their own, to fight against the illegal growing in Mexico as well as our own national parks. The answer is not prohibition, it is control, control and taxation of the marijuana. Think how you would feel if prohibition of alcohol were brought back to the country?  Many would give up its use, but still, about 50% of the population would still find a way to make it or smuggle it into the country. And who would that enrich? The criminals who would gather in the black-market trade of liquor.

There will always be abuse, no matter what, and there will always be people who can’t control their own bodies or minds, but the need to control the greedy and dangerous people in the illicit trade of marijuana is ludicrous. The people and the government is crying that we are going broke, yet they stick their heads in the sand and ignore a source of income from the taxation and legal growth of hemp, which is no more dangerous than alcohol. We have gained some sort of handle on the problem of alcoholism in our country, but we still reap a huge tax from it every day. We would not be in any greater danger from marijuana than we were from alcohol.

Letter to Jeff Bingaman:

Sen. Jeff Bingaman;

Thank you for you response concerning illegal immigration, dated July 26, which arrived by the U S Postal Service on August 16. In the future, I welcome your response by e-mail, as it is more reliable.

In that response you made several statements, the most notable being: “I understand the need to reform our broken immigration system and enhance our border security. I am pleased that additional resources have been deployed in New Mexico and am encouraged that border security agencies are now staffed at record levels. However, we must face the reality that while we are making some headway, more must be done… I continue to believe that maintaining border security is critically important and will continue to support efforts to secure our nation’s borders.”

Senator, you are now the second of my two senators and one representative who speaks with a forked tongue. You say one thing and then act in the opposite direction…that Sir is equivocation with intent to deceive!

I could certainly take your words at face value, yet you and Senator Tom Udall are pushing hard for passage of S B 1689, which would designate more than 800 square miles of Southern Dona Ana County as federal wilderness. This would disenfranchise several historical ranching operations and open corridors for illegal aliens and terrorists, as have already been well documented in Arizona, south of I-8 and west of Tucson.

There are already documented instances where various New Mexico agencies will not proceed south of I-10 without armed escort. The one or two people I know who live in that areas are always armed.

Charlie Revie

Las Cruces, N M

Investigate RGGI Letter to Bingaman:

Sen. Bingaman, Sen. Udall, Rep. Teague, I respectfully demand that Congress investigate the corruption behind RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative). RGGI is a secretly created administration created entity that is already choking companies in the northeast with huge tax increases in the name of the environment. I object to my tax dollars funding this secret climate initiative. Soon RGGI will expand to every state and stick you with astronomical energy prices. I urge Congressional investigation because RGGI is essentially a tax payer funded shell company. Beltway insiders say RGGI was created to "combat the threat of global warming." Even though global warming does not exist, RGGI has accomplished nothing for the environment. What they have accomplished is to increase energy prices and create slush funds in each of their member states. No one knows how much money is in the slush funds or how they will be used. If you didn't think the RGGI conspiracy could get any more shocking, think again. The Chair of RGGI, Jonathan Schrag recently purchased a $2.2 million dollar condo in Manhattan. His spacious loft is only 5 blocks away from RGGI. He made sure he wouldn't have to pay the gas taxes he is going to push for. Someone is clearly paying Schrag a pretty penny to do nothing. RGGI has refused to let the American public know how much Schrag and their other employees make. The Obama machine's lofty goals of transparency turned out to be too complicated. I urge Congress to investigate the RGGI scandal. We cannot allow our government to set up secret organizations that needlessly tax hard working Americans. If the corruption at RGGI is not exposed the government will seek to expand it to every state. Remember, if Carbon Dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" then so is OXYGEN!

Charles Revie                                                                                                                                                           Las CrucesNM 88011-4677

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 13, 2010

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz). 
 

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign. 

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?
Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy " an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, "I'm not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.