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.

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.

Drill. No Ceremony

One of the issues Americans will carry into the voting booth this fall will be the high price of gasoline. The candidate that comes up with the most cogent solution stands a good chance of winning the White House.

On one hand, we have a significant pillar of Barack Obama's energy plan. He wants to punish the oil companies by creating a windfall profits tax.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama sought to tap into Americans' anxiety over high gasoline prices by pledging to seek a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies if elected.

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said on Monday according to Reuters.

This is consistent with traditional liberal ideology, in that they think they can tax their way out of a problem. Got a problem? Create a tax. But what Sen. Obama is not telling us is who ultimately will pay the tax. Anytime a tax is levied on a company, it is passed on to the consumer. Taxes are costs and built into the price, the consumer pays. So to solve the high gas price quandary, his solution is for us to pay more.

Note to Obama - This does not help. The Robin Hood approach will not solve the problem in the short term and will only create more problems for the long-term.

On the other hand, John McCain has unveiled his energy plan.

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

There is no magical solution to this problem. As long as we are dependent on oil for energy, the demand will be high. Add to this the surge in Chinese and Indian demand and you can clearly see that OPEC has the world in a bind. As long as it only costs OPEC a few dollars to pump a barrel of oil while charging $140, they will own the entire developed world. But while flooding the market with non-OPEC oil will certainly make an impact, drilling for new sources will only be part of the answer.

We need to develop new forms of energy. We've done this with ethanol, but silliness has prevailed in the form of using food sources to do it. Common sense tells intelligent people, don't mess with the food supply. And as I watch the floods in the Corn Belt destroy a significant portion of this year's corn crop, I can only surmise that we can expect more rises in the prices of food this year. This is because much of the corn futures are destined to become fuel, not feed for livestock or integral ingredients for many of the foods we eat. Supply down, prices up, this goes for both ethanol and food.

The greater the supply of anything leads to lower prices. Taxes do not. We need to take a good serious look at all forms of energy, not just bio-fuels. All measures that create more sound energy sources should be given a serious look, especially those that will not take food out of our mouths. This will create more choices, for consumers. More choices equals more supplies.

Despite McCain's plan not being a panacea, it is more far sound than Obama's. It is a step in the right direction. If nothing else, it certainly draws a marked distinction between him and his socialist opponent.

On Notice: Evan Bayh

The junior senator from the state of Indiana is up for re-election this year. Here is a brief look at why Evan Bayh's period of employment belongs "On Notice".

First and foremost - - let me explain that I have voted for Sen. Bayh four times in my lifetime, twice for governor and twice for senator. Much unlike his liberal father (Birch Bayh), he always presented himself and acted in a manner that would usually define him as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

I remember in one State Assembly session, he cut spending fairly radically. When the Republican-led body sent him a a huge bill laced with pork, he vetoed it. After that, the Assembly promptly overrode it and forced him to cut spending in areas not covered in the bill. Most Dems at that time were more than happy to increase spending on just about anything, so having a frivolous bunch of Republicans would have normally been a gift. But Bayh was not a frivolous man, at least not at the time.

When he left the Governor's Mansion after his limited two terms, he left a surplus in the treasury. It didn't last long, the next administration was Democratic and they promptly began squandering it away the day he left. But he left it. And you must understand, this was at a time when many other states were running huge deficits like they are now.

So for the most part, he was what we all believed to be a common sense Democrat.

I also worked in middle management at a local level for the state of Indiana, when he was governor. As a Chief Executive, morale was fairly good during his tenure (at least as far as government jobs go, anyway). No leader is ever perfect and there are always disenchanted workers (even if Karl Marx were leading them). But relatively speaking he did well enough to capture some measurable loyalty and respect along the way.

But something has happened to him in the time since he has left that post. Now that he has been sent to Washington to represent the people of Indiana, he seems to have forgotten who sent him there and just who he once was.

He has evolved from the firm common sense principles of a fiscal conservative to a Washington fiscal liberal in 12 short years. This is a transformation way too radical to believe on the surface. You can't tell me that he hasn't sold his soul to the same progressive establishment that once owned his father.

Much of this transformation has taken place in a little over a year. Senator Bayh has voted for TARP, the Stimulus package, and now the healthcare bill. All of these things together are priced at well over a trillion dollars. It may be even more, because when was the last time a government program ever came in on budget?

And if that isn't enough for you, watch him as he haggles to vote for Cap and Trade. What will you bet he will hold out for added pork (for Indiana's best interest, of course), like money to throw at the bio-fuel industry that seeks to advance the use of corn based ethanol and soy-diesel (the two biggest cash crops).

How is that this man can change so drastically in a little over a year? One word, power.

When Bayh was voting more sensibly, there was a balance of power. Since the election of 2008, the power has been in hands of the Democratic party and he now feels free to assume a mandate to vote for utterly wasteful progressive legislation. In short, he feels free to come out of the closet, where many have said he has been hiding his liberal tendencies for years.

But with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, he is now trying to backtrack a little bit. Whereby for a season now he has not been seen from nor heard from, he is now showing up to readjust his strategy a bit. Maybe it's because this Rasmussen poll shows he is now vulnerable in a state that has been so good to him.

But people like me are not impressed. Because the votes he has already cast (late in the last session and in the first half of this one) are enough to put this country in debt for the rest of my life and my children's lives, without borrowing another dime. He has consented for China to own this nation by throwing money, borrowed from them, at problems that cannot be fixed by mere money.

Another issue for voters to consider is from where the Senator's campaign money comes. Open Secrets shows us the largest industry that contributes to him is the same one that always seems to pop up high on Democratic lists, lawyers. I cannot imagine too many attorneys having the best interest for the citizens of any given entity. So the question becomes... what kind of bang are they getting for their buck from Evan?

Folks, I have said it many times here on PYY. It's time for these career politicians to go. We have time to study and analyze the issues before November, and we have time to look for and recruit candidates to run against the elected officials like Evan Bayh.

Mr. Bayh, you are now on notice. I will be working hard to unseat you this fall. I will be recruiting people to work against you this fall. I have worked on a few campaigns in my lifetime, both Republican and Democrat. I am relentless and will stop at nothing to prevent you from casting another vote in the U.S. Senate, after next January. My advice to you is get your resume together.

I thank you for your service to the state of Indiana and this nation, as not all of your decisions were stupid. But it is time to re-energize and rejuvenate. Time to lose the dead weight and begin to undo the damage that you and your colleagues have done to this nation.

And just so you know that we mean business, watch this video if you haven't already seen it. And if you have, watch it again:




Have a nice day.

Another Blast From The Past

If I had to names names, Matchbox 20, the Cowboy Junkies, and this weekend's featured act were easily three of the great bands of the 90s. Their sound was unique, fresh, and versatile. If you haven't give this band a chance or have never heard of them at all, you owe yourself an opportunity to get to know them.

Meet one of Canada's biggest Indie bands, Barenaked Ladies.

This first song wreaks of the LA folk sound from the late 60s- where bands like Buffalo Springfield and the Byrds were two of the dominant forces. Here is the catchy, mellow tune called, If I Had A Million Dollars:



This one revisits some pasts ghosts in the writer's life. There aren't any real major demons here that most people haven't faced at some time or another, but there are certainly some unresolved issues about moving forward. This one is named, The Old Apartment:



This is not necessarily a tribute song. It leads me to believe that he was a fan, but recognized his ability to identify with some of issues of his idol. The music is not in any way connected, but the message was real in an abstract sense. It was art imitating life. The music in this one really blew me away, the first time I heard it. Here is the song, Brian Wilson:



This next one reminds me a little of Herman's Hermits with a 90s technology in the music. It's an upbeat little tune called, It's All Been Done:



Our last tune is a real rocker. In fact, it's one of may favorites even though it's a tribute to one vice I do not share with others I have known. I can take it or leave it (mostly leave it). But when I do imbibe, I like Martinis (That's gin and vermouth with an olive, on the rocks; none of this apple-tini and other flavored sissy drinks that show "-tini" on the end.) Here is the molecular compound known in chemistry circles as ETOH, ethanol, or put very simply, Alcohol:



Enjoy.

News In Brief (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary)

The news shows have been saturated with Obama and Hillary destroying each other (and the Democratic Party), while John McCain has been traveling the world (looking Presidential, staying out of the crossfire). As a result, there hasn't been much else to focus on.

But here are a couple of things that have less to do with the race for the White House, and more to do with the issues that the candidates will likely face should they get there:



Scientists Question Use Of Biofuels

Gordon Brown is preparing for a battle with the European Union over biofuels after one of the government's leading scientists warned they could exacerbate climate change rather than combat it.

In an outspoken attack on a policy which comes into force next week, Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said it would be wrong to introduce compulsory quotas for the use of biofuels in petrol and diesel before their effects had been properly assessed.

"If one started to use biofuels ... and in reality that policy led to an increase in greenhouse gases rather than a decrease, that would obviously be insane," Watson said. "It would certainly be a perverse outcome."

Slowly, information about the earth cooling has been coming out and yet, I find it quite ironic that this story comes out under the pretense that warming is still a consensus. During the advancement of this junk science theory, we have found the push for biofuels, especially in areas which produce the crops that go into the making of these fuels. Indiana has led the push, because Indiana farmers stand to make a fortune off of them.

Very little attention has been given to the fact that this transition toward biofuels is not a good idea (for so many reasons). Now we have scientists that are rethinking this strategy, albeit for the wrong reasons. Never mind the sound reasoning that people like John Stossel, Mustang, and myself have put forth, these guys are backtracking because they believe that it will increase warming (despite the fact that this is still not a proven theory).

Whatever the rationales put forth by Professor Watson, the fact remains that the production of ethanol is leading to a rise in food prices across the board. Not only is there less corn for you and I to eat, there is less for livestock. Not only is the price of corn itself going up, the price of beef and pork is going up. If this (alone) is not enough for the junk scientists, maybe a faulty theory about a faulty theory will dissuade the world from jumping on this bandwagon.



China Continues Crackdown On Tibet Protests

Paramilitary police opened fire on hundreds of monks, nuns and Tibetans who tried to march on a local government office in western China yesterday to demand the return of the Dalai Lama.

Residents of Luhuo said that a monk and a farmer appeared to have been killed and about a dozen people wounded in the latest violence in Tibetan areas of China. Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, said that one officer was killed when police confronted a “lawless mob” in Luhuo.

With China on the world stage through the hosting of the Olympics in Beijing this year, the movement for Tibetan independence has flared up. And from the looks of their response, China doesn't intend to allow them the opportunity to share a part of that stage. But China may be shooting themselves in the foot, as the EU is already debating a boycott of the opening ceremony.

If China continues on this bloody path, it may be that the idea of an all-out boycott will be brought up and implemented soon. If this ends up being the case, China could be left holding the bill, for which they will not be able to recover.