PYY Sunday Reader

After 20 years of membership in a church that teaches black separatist theology and a primary presidential campaign that brought this abhorrent ideology to the forefront, Barack Obama has finally decided to resign his membership from the Trinity United Church Of Christ. But it's not for the reasons we would expect.

From the article:

"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," Obama said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation he sent to the church on Friday.

"I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."

Basically, he is not quitting due to the doctrine of anger and hostility being taught here. This statement is simply saying he wants to spare the church of unwelcome attention that it has received during this campaign. In other words this "noble sacrifice" is not because it is the right thing to do for his campaign (or for himself personally), it's for the church's benefit.

Right. And my uncle plays lead guitar for The Who.



In the Indy Star today, we see some commentary on ethanol's role in the recent spike of food prices.

The price of food is rising, and the sharp increase in demand for corn to produce ethanol since 2005 is partly to blame. The only question is: How much to blame? Ethanol proponents say at most 4 percent of the overall run-up in food prices is due to ethanol. A different study estimates that as much as 30 percent of the rise in food prices worldwide is due to the production of ethanol and other biofuels, especially biodiesel from soybeans.

Such vastly different estimates mean two things: First, researchers are looking at different factors; and second, a precise answer really isn't possible. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that the ethanol industry's number is far too low.

The opposite assessment can be found written by someone that is benefiting from ethanol. Naturally, he places the blame squarely on oil.

Over the last 18 months a firestorm of criticism concerning biofuels, and specifically ethanol, has erupted in the U.S. press. The criticism is directed at corn-based ethanol (ethanol produced from the corn kernel), with a number of "experts" and economists declaring that corn-based ethanol is the reason for rising food prices.

This is the premise of the essay but what follows is some weak, cherry-picked facts that really do not prove his point. Even the premise is faulty, because the critics are not putting the blame on ethanol, totally. Both are factors, the difference lies in how much the corn lobby wants us to believe is due to ethanol.

Read both pieces and see what you think.



Linda Chavez has written a lengthy opinion piece on race. I would recommend reading it before falling into this unhealthy trap of believing that race relations in this country are at an all-time low.

To put the truth plainly: far from there being a racial stand-off in the United States, relations between blacks and whites have never been better. According to virtually every survey of racial attitudes taken over the last several decades, only about 10 percent of whites report generally unfavorable views of blacks. In a 2007 Pew Research Center poll, the relevant figure stood at 8 percent—lower, interestingly enough, than the percentage of blacks reporting similarly negative views of their fellow blacks.

Amazing, but I doubt the MSM or Democratic hacks will even acknowledge this.

Rising Food Prices Got You? Maybe It's Time To Rethink Ethanol

Don't mind me. I am just going to say, "I told you so", one more time.

A year ago, I first called attention to what a bad idea promoting ethanol as a panacea to the current energy crisis. In fact, I didn't even like it as a supplemental solution. Even as late as two months ago, I posted a caution on this. (Read: Here and Here, for both accounts.)

Why would I have made such a bold prediction at a time when the bandwagon was full of support? Because I applied a simple economic theory to the equation and couldn't come up with anything, but negative outcomes. That theory is nothing more than, the law of supply and demand.

I am not wanting to gloat or anything, in fact I wish I had been wrong. But recently, we have seen some of the outcomes I predicted would come to pass. Take a look at this recent article from the Indy Star.

Hoosiers are caught between concerns about rising fuel costs on the one hand and rising food costs on the other.

After years of generally favorable feelings toward ethanol as a "green" alternative to foreign oil, consumers are asking whether the corn-based gasoline additive is driving up food costs.

And some in Congress are now calling for an end to federal ethanol subsidies, which sounds like fighting words to many Hoosiers.

Living in Indiana, I certainly don't want to jeopardize the health, well-being, and economic success of those that grow corn. But I cannot feel sorry for those that did not think this thing through, before getting things stirred up. Now we have rising food prices in all aspects of the industry. Not all of it is due to subsidizing production of corn for use as fuel, but some of it is. And while much can be attributed to higher costs of gasoline in the transportation sector, it cannot be overlooked that ethanol has contributed more than its share.

Once again, thank the environmentalists that will not let us drill and steered the bus into another wall, by promoting junk science. Then, thank the corn lobby for jumping on the same bandwagon usually occupied by academics and leftist moonbats that have no other goal, but promoting the failure of market capitalism.

Promotion Of Biofuels Yields Unintended Consequences

For Progressive types that want to see biofuels used more in place of carbon based, here is something you may want to consider in your reflections:

A surge in the production of biofuels derived from corn, wheat and soyabeans is helping to push up food prices so sharply that the World Food Programme, the United Nation’s agency in charge of fighting famine, is finding it difficult to feed as many hungry people as it has in the past.

This means that more people go hungry and the UN is already feeling the pinch, before this technology is even fully developed.

So to all of the members of the Global Warming Church I say, remember this, when famine becomes more widespread. Remember that it was you that put everyone on such a course.

It was you that scared people into believing that mankind is responsible for the ills of everything, to include warming. And the next time I hear a sob story about a village in a third world nation that is starving to death because the UN cannot provide relief, I will be reminded that it was all so Progressives could feel good about changing the world for the better.

Maybe some of them can go to that village and explain why it's more important to keep food out of their mouths, over some unproven theory.

Is Ethanol The Answer?

Much of the emphasis in the energy sector these days is directed towards getting out from under the thumb of Middle Eastern oil sheiks, who seem to enjoy the lavish lifestyles at the expense of the world's dependency on oil. Add to that the environmentalists and their desire to see carbon emissions drop and you see the stage being set for a new and innovative fuel source that can be found right here in the Midwest, ethanol.

Sounds like a win-win, doesn't it?

But not so fast.

A couple of months ago, a post by Mustang at Social Sense addressed this very subject with some startling findings that many in the energy sector are not taking into consideration. You can read it here. And today, we see another convincing "not so fast", The Many Myths of Ethanol written by ABC's John Stossel.

If you read these two pieces and are still not convinced that ethanol is a bad idea, allow me to throw one more fly into your ointment:

If you want to see a major disaster here and elsewhere in the world, just watch what is likely to happen in the corn belt, this year. All of the signs are pointing towards a drought. And if we as a nation (or we as a world) are dependent on a fuel source that is dependent on the weather, think of the potentially catastrophic repercussions a poor crop of corn would have on the economy, in any given year.

As much as I would love to see us out from under the oppressive grips of ME oil barons and guys like Hugo Chavez, I would highly caution people to think this thing through before jumping on the bandwagon of the environmentalists' latest cause, too soon.