The American Spectator

KNEE HIGH BY JULY
Re: R. Andrew Newman's Where Corn Counts:

I suppose I'd better respond to Andrew Newman's article, since it was probably my article on biofuels last week that touched off his criticisms. Interestingly I have Nebraska ties as well. My late father-in-law and I used to have this argument all the time -- and he was a Democrat!

Although I realize ethanol subsidies have become the equivalent of Social Security in the farm belt, I don't think that's any way to ignore the long-range consequences of all this. The venture into corn ethanol has been a truly tragic policy mistake that is going to come back to haunt us sooner or later, and the sooner we face it, the less haunting it is going to be.

It is simply crazy to be subsidizing farmers to burn up close to 30 percent of our corn crop each year just to pretend we are accomplishing something about energy. Corn ethanol is wildly uneconomical, which means it is probably losing energy. Why else do we need the 51-cents-per-gallon tax exemption, plus all the "renewable portfolios" that are driving it. (The soils that are exhausted from monocropping, plus the aquifers drained by intensive irrigation, by the way, are not renewable.) All this talk about how Brazil is running on ethanol is another wild fairy tale from environmentalists. Two-thirds of the vehicles in Brazil run on diesel fuel and have nothing to do with ethanol. The slice of the market that runs off the sugar crop is relatively small -- and even that requires huge subsidies. When you put all this on top of our farm subsidies, you have a situation where the rest of the country is simply shipping money to the Midwest to buy farm votes. I realize the Senate and the Electoral College are heavily weighted toward the farm states -- two votes for New York, two votes for Nebraska -- but this is ridiculous. Is the whole Presidential election going to come down to a referendum on biofuels?

I would suggest people in Nebraska take a comprehensive look on how to bring down trade barriers on agricultural products in both Europe and America and try to open up world markets. American agriculture could thrive with all kinds of speciality crops. But paying farmers to incinerate almost a third of the corn crop each year is ridiculous. Why not just pile the whole crop up in a bonfire and pay farmers to light the match?
-- William Tucker
Nyack, New York

Are we to pretend that bio-fuels are any less the preposterosity than they have been shown to be in order to win an election?

Andrew Newman would leave this discussion for another day. When? After we have fraudulently obtained the votes of those in the farm belt by allowing them to believe there is a future in this boondoggle?

Sometimes I just can't believe what I read on TAS.
-- Robert Randall
Nashville, Tennessee

Mr. Newman, freelance journalist in western Nebraska, is to be complimented for clearly articulating why I have no choice every time I pull up to the pump but to remove 10% of high energy and extremely efficient gasoline and replace it with low energy and extremely inefficient ethanol. I have no choice because our elected representatives have agreed with Mr. Newman and have decided that it is the role of the federal government to mandate what I can pump. These same elected representatives have decided that fuel economy standards are to be increased by fiat, so under the same Capitol roof they reduce fuel economy [ethanol] and demand greater fuel economy.

I have exactly one question for Mr. Newman, for which I would be most grateful for a straight answer. At what point did it become "right" for every man in every state to "rightfully" demand that his elected
representative go to Washington and do his best to steal from the taxpayers in the other 49 states?

Mr. Newman's electoral math may be impeccable; I strongly suspect that it is. But in tallying his numbers does he realize that he is writing the epitaph of what made the United States what it is, or perhaps more precisely what it used to be? Has he sounded the death knell of all reasoning save that of counting the votes of people who are motivated solely by personal selfishness? By that same calculus, the votes are there to strangle U.S. domestic oil and natural gas production, hence no drilling in ANWR, no drilling off California, no drilling off Florida and no drilling off the East Coast. Instead, the votes demand turning food into inefficient flammables for automobiles.

If "we the people" are now federalized corn counters, count me out.
-- Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey

More words, more confusion. I keep waiting for a straightforward definition of "conservative." I keep waiting for a straightforward definition of 'liberal." This article is just confusing blather. Read this quote from the article: "While there is not space today to elaborate sufficiently upon those definitions and assertions." It is because the author has no definitions.
-- Bruce Purdie

Andrew Newman seems to be a bit peeved at Movement Conservatives. If by Movement Conservatives, he means those who find our pork laden, earmark soaked, entitlement rich federal budget a travesty, then I suppose he is correct in his anger. The bio-fuel craze is an example of a "solution" in search of a problem. This 30 something year old relic of a program from the Carter Years finally found a powerful ally in the AGW Movement. Corn farmers now have found a veritable pile of riches - endless riches - as federal mandates most certainly will cause an endless demand spike on our corn supply. Now that farmers are in the energy business, they too can enjoy the profits of Exxon and BP. All it took was a weak lame duck President, a perceived global catastrophe (AGW catastrophes are always something in the future, just over the horizon), and a Congress and regulations lobby that are insatiable.

Andrew Newman isn't bothered in the least that global food supplies in a period of 18 months have shrunk to less than 4 weeks, and that there isn't enough biomass on the earth to supply our nation with "clean burning" fuels for even a month; as long as corn farmers are happy in places like Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska, all is well with the world. Newman is the perfect example of what happens when an entire class of the electorate is held in thrall to the Beltway. He says he is a populist and a small C conservative. Actually, men like will vote for whom ever promise to keep the endless gravy train of subsidies, price controls, and "investments" going. Most Americans empathize with the plight of today's farmers -- that is small farmers. Most Americans tolerate paying extra for food in order to allow family farms to continue. However, this empathy will not last long when they realize that the double digit inflation they see at the grocery store is caused by the ethanol industry, and that the ethanol industry owes its entire existence to tax payer subsides, and congressional mandates. In Newman's world, civics is reduced to an all against all fight for federal tax dollars and congressional favors. And any would be President must bow to these "interests" if he wants their vote. Gone is the debate whether these programs benefit anyone other than the program recipient.

Movement Conservatives have been fighting a rear guard action ever since the New Deal. Most Americans, like Andrew Newman, do not see a problem with a Federal Government that consumes over 3 trillion dollars of our wealth annually. And I do admit, it is not often that a deal like our current Energy Program comes along. Besides a growing demand for US grains worldwide, farmers will enjoy an ever growing demand for their biofuels due to congressional intervention. It will be a great racket while it lasts. At least Newman and people like him should just come out and admit the truth: Farmers will be the only people who benefit from the biofuels industry.

At the end of the day, consumers will see ever increasing food prices, gas prices will remain artificially high (ethanol is very difficult to produce and distribute), clear cutting of the globe's rain forests will accelerate, and subsistence grains will be in ever shorter supply. Earlier this month Indonesians rioted due to low supplies of soybeans. Indonesian farmers have given up on soybeans for the much more profitable biofuels. But all of these alleged problems can be ignored -- they are just the irrelevant voices of an outdated group of Movement Conservatives.
-- JP
Indiana

R. Andrew Newman's "Where Corn Counts" makes an excellent point. Conservatives have long been too concerned with ideological purity and "big C" conservatism. It is clear that what we need is more pragmatism and less ideology. If farmers like ethanol subsidies, let 'em have 'em. As the original "compassionate conservative" has repeatedly told us: "When people are hurting, government must help." Or, in this case, "When wealthy farmers want the federal government to spend other people's money on subsidies for an inefficient and ultimately destructive product..." It's not exactly elegant, but you get the idea.

Since "conservatives" are now apparently in the business of doling out largesse in exchange for electoral support, I'd like a new Porsche and a gummint-backed, interest-free mortgage. That would be VERY compassionate and would buy -- er, um "earn" -- my vote.

After all, we need to fill Congress with warm bodies with "R" after their names. Principle, schminciple!
-- Daniel H. Fernald, Ph.D.
Mountainview, California

Mr. Newman makes some excellent points on Republicans respecting its base in the heartland, but I must comment on his criticism of the Club for Growth's anti-subsidized energy policy. While I support bio-fuels and heartland industry, I am concerned with the use of corn as the product employed for bio-fuels. Corn is criticized for providing a poor return of energy compared to that put into the fuel's manufacture, while it increases food prices. I've read that switch grass among corn alternatives is an easy crop to grow, nets far more energy for fuel than corn. It seems win-win to me if our heartland industry would support policies that did not focus on the relatively poor fuel producing corn crop. Its bio-fuel industry could continue to thrive with less reliance on subsidies and impact on other markets that corn is a part of.
-- Brian White
Simsbury, Connecticut

R. Andrew Newman may wax eloquent about the economic salvation of the Farm Belt provided by corn-based biofuels, but I wonder if he understands the price paid for a little more flexibility in enhancing American mobility is just a little more starvation elsewhere in the world.

I am not opposed to biofuels, but perhaps we should be putting more effort into research to produce them from waste materials instead of food grains. There are things more important in life than politics, namely, life itself.
-- Howard Hirsch
Chairman, Lyon County Republican Central Committee
Dayton, Nevada

After reading Mr. Newman's article, "Where Corn Counts," I have a few questions.

Why should the American public subsidize any industry. Farming, ranching and, yes, oil, all enjoy either direct government subsidies, specialized tax exemptions and credits or both. Doctors, accountants, other professionals, service people, and retail merchants enjoy none of these. Why then, farmers?

Because, as Mr. Newman points out, somebody knows where the votes are in this country and they cater to them.

But, using that logic, is not the Conservative Movement composed of voters? Why then does the Republican Party make little or no attempt to cater to those members? Farmers vote as often for Democrats as Republicans, as evidenced by the example given by Mr. Newman; especially when their subsidies are threatened. Conservatives almost always vote for a Republican candidate or they don't vote at all. Yet, Mr. Newman would marginalize Conservative voters, who cost the rest of the country nothing, in favor of the members of an industry that is partially directly funded by tax revenue. Again, why? Perhaps because conservative voters are considered safe Republican voters and therefore, politicians need only pay lip-service to Conservative ideals and need not deliver to insure Conservative votes. He asks if Conservative voters would alienate the voters of mid-America for their own principles thereby allowing Democrats to win election. The answer may turn out to be yes. Conservatives are neither Republicans nor Democrats, they are Conservatives; something that the Republican Party seems not to understand. Conservative voters subscribe to a system of values that are diametrically opposed to those held by liberals. The Republican Party comes closer to embodying those principles than does the Democrat party, by they still fall far short. Finally, Conservatives are for limited government and the control of the economy through market forces. If ethanol is a viable motor fuel, then it should make vast in-roads into the petroleum motor fuel industry. In twenty years, it has not. This is in spite of state and federal subsidies. Ethanol subsidies are just one more way for politicians to enrich themselves. It is a means of buying votes from a segment of the population, at the expense of other segments of the population, nothing more.

Yes, Mr. Newman, the Republican Party, as well as the Democrats, know where the votes are and how to buy them. And they have decided that the farm vote is more important than the Conservative vote.
-- Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Is your article trying to push bio-fuels which is a stupid idea, or are you trying to push John McCain which is a stupid idea? In either case you rambled all over. Luckily in November we will get rid of McCain. Unfortunately, it will take longer for all the ethanol plants to go out of business proving that a fool and his money are soon parted.
-- Burton Hollabaugh
Marion, Indiana

Mr. Newman is, or course, exactly right. Having read his brilliant and insightful article, I (one of those "small c" conservatives) have seen the light.

What we small "c" conservatives need to learn is that federal government confiscation of our income and subsequent redistribution of those funds to others is really okay, as long as it goes to Midwestern corn growers and is done by Republicans and helps Republican candidates get elected. Further, food riots caused by this government hand-out program are "somewhere else in the world" and therefore should be of no concern.

Got it. Thank you so very, very much.
-- Keith Kunzler

With all due respect to Mr. Newman, you don't have to be an "MC," "C" or "c" to recognize what a boondoggle ethanol is. The prime beneficiaries of ethanol remain the corporate farmers ADM, Cargill, and agricultural suppliers Monsanto and DuPont. Only in America would politicians foist a program that contains 33% less energy than gasoline, contributes as much if not more CO2, and has to be subsidized in order to be price competitive on a per gallon basis (but not per BTU) on the public. Compounding the issue is that corn prices have risen substantially over the last seven years which has a direct impact on the cost of food products that use corn; the government is building inflation into the nation's and world economic system. There is also a moral question of should we be burning "corn" in our autos while sub-Saharan Africans starve?

I think the "MC's" would like to see a portion of the monies that subsidize the "farmers" be diverted towards nuclear power, off-shore drilling and more refining capacity. Energy sources that would be of benefit all of us.
-- Tim Reed
Highlands Ranch, Colorado

Are you saying that we should support the funding of bio-fuel research because it will garner us votes?
-- Deane Pradzinski
Highland, California

OCCAM SOCK 'EM
Re: Mark Tooley's Brilliant Blunderer:
Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Consider: Sharia is completely incompatible with Western moral, ethics and laws v. Over 11,000 words and counting (by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams) to justify allowing Muslim law to be grafted (shafted?) onto existing Western morals, ethics and laws.

Occam, you genius.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

The current Archbishop's bilge about accommodating Sharia Law coupled with his dithering over the schism in the U.S. communion, to me, put the lie, very big lie, to his "intellectual brilliance." His gaffes and failures speak more to a toadying intellect which has deftly moved itself through the bureaucracy to power and, unsurprisingly, clearly demonstrated the Peter Principle.
-- Reid Bogie
Waterbury, Connecticut

TUNNEL VISION
Re: J. Peter Freire's On the Rivera:

I have been away and missed the many entertaining articles and letters, On returning have spent the long week-end catching up.

One question and an open borders reassurance for Geraldo.

My question is: In what way is dancing transforming for him? He is a total ass in other respects but not on the dance floor? Geraldo Asstaire?

In case he missed it, he need not be too exercised over the prospect of our ever having secure borders. Recently in a TV interview, the Mayor of Eagle Pass, TX gave us a pretty good insight into the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude of at least one (and probably representative of most) good ol' Texas fatboy rancher. Apparently he can sit in his rockin' chair on his front porch and gaze out at his propitty which extends to the lapping shores of the Rio Grande. And he ain't about to give a inch of it up to the gum'mit for construction of a fence. His solution? More Border Patrol! Sez he has seen 'em at work and they do a fine job, we just need more of 'em!. In other words, he would like Personal Property Protection at government expense.

As a child, my mother lived in Mission, Texas, and she told the tale that Texas Rangers slept on their roof, lying in wait for Pancho Villa's men. Well, my mama had a vivid imagination, but if it was in any part true, those days are long dead. The Rangers, Border Patrol and all the Reserves in the U.S. will not deter illegal immigration.

Will the fence, if we ever get it, go as far underground as it goes up? Because we will need it to stop the tunnelers! Does anyone remember the movie Paint Your Wagon, where an entire mining town collapsed due to Lee Marvin's enterprising tunneling to get to the gold dust under the saloon? That will be California in a few years.

Meanwhile, we have just separated the Patriots from the Stingy Border Land Owners. I can hear it now. "Well, would you want your view spoiled by an ugly fence? Would you want to sell off some prime land for cents on the dollar?" You hear a lot of "fought at the Alamo" that goes with this lament. The Alamo would have had to be as big as the Cotton Bowl stadium to have accommodated all the ancestors who fought there.

I only own the land my house sits on, but the perimeters have easements, which means although I pay taxes on that portion of my "land," I cannot put a fence on it or anything else that might conflict with whatever utility company has first call. Any time I want more land, I go buy it by the sack. I call it potting soil.

I guess the more land you own, the more Entitled you feel! No one ever went broke underestimating the greediness of a Big Land Owner. Lyndon Johnsson's mother put it best, "I only want my land and that which adjoins it."

Happy Trails,
-- Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California

AWFUL AUTOCRAT
Re: George H. Wittman's Icon-in-Chief:

Had Putin wanted to secure a place in history, he would have let the people rule him. Because he chose, instead, to do the opposite, he will go down as simply another in the long line of grasping, growling Russian autocrats.
-- David Govett
Davis, California

THE STEROID KING
Re: Michael Brendan Dougherty's The Waxman Cometh:

How can any one write an article on steroids and HGH and not bring up the name of the "Governator" who brought them to public prominence and popularity.

Everybody now knows that they are the magic road to success. One can become a movie star and get rich. One can marry into prominent families. One can go into politics and become politically powerful. They even increase one's brainpower. One can make trips to national events and lecture about the dangers of global warming and people listen, awestruck, to every word.

It's obvious that Waxman never took them or he would never have been foolish or ignorant enough to have that silly hearing!
-- Bob Keiser
Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania

MR. SMITH GOES TO JAIL
Re: Jeffrey Lawrence's letter (under "The Mormon Spectator") in Reader Mail's Roger That:

Mr. Lawrence, I believe that you misunderstand my point about Joseph Smith. It was not an attempt to justify his lynching, which I think I pointed out in my original letter, it was to refute the idea that Joseph Smith was some innocent little lamb. I well know that Joseph Smith had neither been tried nor convicted of a crime, but he had been arrested for a very serious crime that the historical record quite clearly indicates he was guilty of. He and Hyrum did swear out false affidavits that denied their practice of plural marriage and adultery, when the truth was that Joseph Smith had been practicing polygamy in secret for nearly a year! Joseph did destroy The Nauvoo Expositor for the "crime" of exposing his polygamy to the public, and he did commit the crime of treason by calling out the Nauvoo militia to protect him from arrest. It was not a justification for his murder by mob, but spare me the weepy eyed crap about how innocent Joseph Smith was. Even if the government of Missouri was "persecuting" Joseph and the Mormons, they were no innocents in the escalating tensions within the state

Many Mormons like to claim that Joseph Smith went to prison for his belief, but he went to prison for denying what he called a "new and everlasting covenant" that was essential to exaltation. He was arrested for his persecution of those that opposed and exposed his polygamous practices, and he died in a blazing gun battle in which he killed at least two of his attackers and wounded another. While the people who attacked the jail and murdered Joseph and Hyrum Smith committed a despicable crime, don't bring that story about Joseph's innocence to me because the historical record tells the true story. And if you are so worried about due process, then why weren't the leaders of the Church concerned when they were perjuring themselves in an effort to destroy a newspaper that dared criticize them?
-- Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina

MAD ABOUT SAD
Re: Richard Morlock's letter (under "It's Always a Few Years Away") in Reader Mail's Roger That:

It's a hoot, that quote of "sad, truly sad" in Richard Morlock's little note at the end of yesterday's letters.

Innuendos and no facts. But that's pretty much typical of those who'd advance his cause(s), never anything even close to offering proof of his claim.
-- Jack Frost

ONE MORE THING
Re: George Neumayr's By Obama We Were Saved:

Mr. Neumayr accuses Senator Obama of offering bogus hope and false promise. (Is it he alone who does this, do you think?)

But be assured that Hillary the policy witch cannot expose Obama's limitations by dragging him back to earth. Recall what happened when she said that Dr. King had the dream, but Lyndon Johnson delivered the goods. There was muttering, outrage and thunder; there was insurrection and the smell of sulfur; dogs formed into packs.

You don't seduce the public by making them read the fine print. They don't want to hear the facts from Lyle H. Barnstable, the shy fellow with a bachelor's degree in Urban Planning and a master's in Sincere. They want to be hugged by L. Harold ("Honest Harvey") Barnstable, the workingman's friend, democracy's last hope.

The only serious question about Dr. Obama's proposed new deal is this: Does he believe his own flapping gums? Is his hot air delivered willfully, or is it inspired by the fact that he doesn't know what such promises inspired during the 20th century? Are we watching a naif stumble into the spotlight, or is a child prodigy tickling the hicks as they have not been tickled since FDR died?
-- Edmund Dantes
Coshocton, Ohio

RARE BIPARTISANSHIP
Re: Michael Brendan Dougherty's The Waxman Cometh:

We can all be happy that Congress has nothing more pressing to do than get some face-time on ESPN. We can marvel that Mr. Waxman et. al. have solved our economic, social and military problems and now have time to kick back and investigate whether a few of America's most pampered people, right after actors and politicians, use performance enhancing substances.

I guess the VA medical care is fixed. Global warming, assuming it ever began, has now been halted. Finances are good and we'll all get free health care. I assume since Democrats can waste time on things like this, we can all stop working because heaven on earth has been created!

God Bless Democrats.
-- Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina

I like your articles, but think the steroid stuff in baseball is important enough for Congress to get involved. Baseball and the other sports have put up with it, kids copy these sports and it is very risky for them to take it. If Roger just won with spitballs and kids copied that I would agree Congress shouldn't get involved.
-- Kevin

The entire fracas with Clemens and McNamee on the Hill was an embarrassment for all involved: Clemens, McNamee, and the U.S. House of Representatives. And Andy Pettitte did not come out if this looking good either; he lied to the committee in his deposition and ratted out his best friend in a deposition so that he didn't have to face any questioning.

What you had was a proven liar in McNamee and a suspected liar in Clemens being grilled by publicity-seeking members of Congress, all of whom had taken sides long before the hearings started. This was not so much a hearing as it was a star chamber, where the Democrats had decided that Clemens was a liar and McNamee was some sort of flawed hero. But there were no heroes in this sordid mess.

As for the Mike Greenberg line about Shakespeare, he was simply trying to say that this situation had many of the themes that are evident in tragedy. Especially in the close relationship that Clemens and Pettitte had, and the seeming betrayal of one friend of the other for personal gain. And he acknowledged that his reference to Iago was not a good analogy and tried to find a more apt analogy. And the friendship angle was compelling, because it puts their relationship to the test: what lengths would a friend take to protect his friends?

All in all, this was a mess from the beginning and should never have been taken up by the Congress. I guess it is true of some of these members that the most dangerous place in the world is between them and a camera from ESPN.
-- Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina

I, for one, am eternally grateful to Rep. Henry Waxman for his dogged pursuit of the use of steroids by a few professional athletes. Had he not taken the time of the Congress with this matter, it might, even now, be watering down the protections for telecom companies in the new FISA extension, or raising taxes, or otherwise imposing itself in ways which would not be of benefit to the American people. The damage that they have done to the military every time that they have turned their attention to us is just one example of the mischief that a Congress run by liberal Democrats could make if it focused on its constitutional mandates instead of these sideshows. If, as Daniel Webster said, no man's life or property are safe while the legislature is in session, then these distractions serve a critical national interest, and they must continue.

Of course, the use of enhancements in baseball is but the tip of the iceberg. Baseball is a sport watched by millions of Americans, but Hollywood movies and television shows are watched by billions of people, and it is a rare starlet who has not had some form of medical intervention in order to enhance her performance, be it cosmetic surgery, pharmaceutical diet aids, aroma therapy or exotic colonics. Clearly, a Congress that has a mandate to investigate whether Roger Clemens was able to unnaturally extend his career with steroids has the same obligation to determine just how many times Cher has been injected with Botox, and for the same reason. I have no doubt that a serious, in-depth examination of the day-to-day changes in breast size among starlets would be the most compelling testimony since the scandals of the Clinton years, and would attract the same audience, not to mention the enthusiastic participation of many members of the Congress (Teddy Kennedy may have to be restrained). Tabloid speculation on the cosmetic surgery to the stars could be laid to rest with a few months of hearings, and the ratings bonanza could put C-SPAN into the black for decades.

Of course, while this is going on, serious issues facing the nation would remain unaddressed, but a bit of creative gameplay, a sort of policy version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, could be used to focus attention where it is needed. For example, FISA deals exclusively with foreign intelligence gathering. Most illegal steroids are produced by overseas labs, and the trafficking in steroids requires coordination between foreign and domestic smuggling networks, and terrorists are often involved in smuggling as a means to enhance their revenues as well as moving their equipment. Therefore, it is imperative that FISA be reenacted in order to track the flow of steroids from terrorists to our elite athletes. Once the case has been made that Al Qaeda was involved in steroid abuse, it's a simple matter to get congress to turn their
attention to national security instead of national pastimes.
-- Mike Harris
MAJ, U.S. Army

Am I the only person on the planet who believes Roger Clemens? I am sure he knew this was a perjury trap by a bunch of gasbags, and I applaud Dan Burton for his strong defense.
-- Tommy G. Bailey

REAL MONEY
Re: W. James Antle III's A Trillion Here, a Trillion There:

I would like to thank W. James Antle III for the Revenue charts that he linked to, because they remind things are somewhat better now than in the 1980s and moving in the right direction toward a balanced budget despite the seemingly outrageous size President Bush's proposal. He does overlook a major problem with the new budget -- many conservatives by choosing to focus their ire only on Republicans handed Congress and control of the Federal purse to the Democrats in 2006. All President Bush or Republicans in Congress can now do is fight Democrat efforts to increase the size of the budget. Hopefully, in the not too distant future a Republican President and filibuster proof majority Republican Congress can whittle away at budget outlays by doing away with waste such as PBS, Legal Aid and a host of Democrat and independent sacred cows and reforming entitlements as President Bush attempted to do with Social Security. Unfortunately, that day may be longer in coming than I hope since it is apparent many fiscal conservatives are happier attacking Republicans and insuring Democrats retain control of Congress than actually getting rid of tax and spend Democrats who are the worst threat to our pocketbooks.
-- Michael Tomlinson

I shuddered when I read Mr. Antle's "A Trillion Here..." essay. This budget will of course increase the national debt, which is now over nine trillion dollars. I am the grandfather of four, and I fear that their generation will pay for our profligacy.

Most people have no conception of how much one trillion anything is. For example, one trillion seconds is well over thirty-one thousand YEARS. Think about that. If you could count one number each second, it would take thirty-one thousand seven hundred years to reach the number one trillion. Don't believe me? Do the math.

There are 3,600 seconds in an hour. One million seconds is (I round up slightly) 278 hours, or 11.58 days. A billion is one thousand million, so one billion seconds is 11,580 days, or 31.7 years. A trillion is a thousand billion, so one trillion seconds is 31,700 years.

The bad news is that, if the government were to pay off the national debt at One Dollar per second, it would take 290, 200 years to do it. The good news is, that if the government were to pay off the national debt at One Thousand Dollars per second, it would take only 290.2 years.
-- James F. Csank

GET WELL SOONEST
Re: Lawrence Henry's Waiting:

This probably doesn't mean much coming from a stranger, but I hope you get your wish -- and soon.
-- Andrew J. Macfadyen, M.D.
Omaha, Nebraska

I hear you. I worked in a dialysis clinic for about three years over 20 years ago.

I watched patients hang in there, get transplants and be transformed. They had energy, they had life, they could get up and GO! Their time and schedules were their own, not the machine's.

And I watched patients who were not good candidates for transplants for one reason or another, ride the dialysis merry-go-round and eventually deteriorate. Traditional dialysis literally takes it out of you.

I'm glad to hear of procedures that make life maybe a little easier on you than traditional dialysis.

But I hope you get a transplant soon.

Best wishes and regards.
-- Anastasia Mather

Hope the new place does better by you. Keeping you in our prayers.
-- Anne & Ken Fox

INFLECTED
Re: Jennifer Rubin's Back to Michigan and Florida:

Won't it be a hoot if Hillary can coerce the Super Delegates to give her the nomination? Then we can all refer to her as the candidate who was,(all together now) "SELECTED, not ELECTED."
-- Randy Gammon
Drexel, Missouri

STAYING HOME
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's Dearest John:

McCain has not gotten my vote...yet. I just don't like him, he is a RINO and right now my feelings are if I am going to vote for a Democrat I might as well vote for a REAL one, not one running on the Republican ticket. At least with a Dem President the Republicans will block a lot of what they try to do, but with a Republican President they will feel they have to go along with him, just look at what Bush has gotten away with. McCain's policy on illegal immigration sticks in my craw, his bill gutting the First Amendment and his love of anything Kennedy just turns me off. He needs to go back in history and check out the periods of warming and cooling that has gone on FOREVER with Earth, not just in modern times. Global Warming is a hoax.
-- Elaine Kyle

I wonder how a man comes by the audacity to ask me to vote for him, when he values my franchise as a citizen, and my vote, not one whit. That you would deny me the right to speak out at any time about a candidate, and then tell me to "get over it"!!! I have a mound of sand you, Mr. Senator, are cordially invited to go pound on. That you would give the vote, via a bastardized version of citizenship, to anyone who can swim, is all the evidence I need to know you are not deserving of my vote. And you will not get it. All of you 'maverick' politicians think you can get away with anything because we keep electing the false conservatives among us. It is time to show you we mean business. Even if it costs us the election. What is the point of having convictions, if we are not willing to stand up for them. I have a family member who resigned a service commission (he too, was a Fighter Pilot) when Bill Clinton was elected. He could not in good faith serve with him as C-in-C. He was less than 2 years shy of retirement eligibility.

As a direct result of Senator McCain's actions, and those of far too many others like him, I am no longer a Republican. Why? Because they do not know how to lead when they win an election. And because they do not make the Democrats realize that they lost the election. The RNC, White House, and the Congress have squandered the greatest opportunity the Party has EVER had to make permanent and lasting corrections to the way of life in America that has proven time and again, to be the right way of things. But no, let's just give it all away. Oh yeah, after we take it all from the serfs first.

Senator, I hope you either drop out of the race, or lose the race. I have to tell you that I really would prefer the opposition trashing the Constitution, than to see it being done by someone who claims to be one of us. You sir, are no Conservative. Stop trying to act like one!
-- W. Radford

He can start by ridding himself of Juan Hernandez -- how does he expect us to believe even the bare minimum, pro-forma secure the borders first pablum he dribbles out with Juan on board?

He can announce McCain/Feingold has turned out to be a mess and that he will work for its repeal.

He can instruct his staff and reps to stop accusing people who disagree with him of corruption and venality and stupidity.

And last, he can explain why he joined John Kerry in betraying the families of Vietnam POWs/MIAs.
-- Mary McLemore
Pike Road, Alabama

OVER THE RIVERS
Re: J. Peter Freire's On the Rivera:

A quibble with an otherwise right-on article: the author mentions, "a man sporting two (fake) names ending in vowels."

If he's referring to the widespread belief that Rivera's given name was Jerry Rivers, wikipedia and snopes.com report that to be an urban myth.

He may be an idiot. He may be a Puerto Rican/Hispanic fifth-columnist. He may be a shameless dolt. But he apparently genuinely is Geraldo Rivera.
-- Larry Eubank
Bloomington, Indiana

STOP BREATHING FOR LENT
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell's Sharia-ing is Caring:

Dr. Rowan Williams's beclowning of himself in advocating Sharia Law in Britain is not an isolated aberration. It is only the latest episode in a continuing story of buffoonery.

In 2004 he claimed that: "every transaction in the developed economies of the West can be interpreted as an act of aggression against the economic losers in the worldwide game" and claimed in the Times of 25 November, 2007, that: "there is something [sic] about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul." This occupant of the Throne of Saint Augustine was reported shortly after as urging Christians to give up carbon emissions for lent.
-- Hal Colebatch
Australia

THE MORMON SPECTATOR
Re: Eric Edwards's letter (under "Benefiting From Doubt") in Reader Mail's The Mormon Ticket and Christopher Orlet's No Mormons Need Apply:

I just couldn't let Mr. Eric Edward's rationalization of the cold blooded murder of Joseph Smith go. Joseph Smith had indeed been arrested by his persecutors (as he had been many times before), but he had neither been tried nor convicted of any crime, let alone a capital offense. Mr. Olsen, however, seems quite comfortable with the mob acting as judge, jury and executioner declaring that Joseph Smith was no "innocent victim." I'm sure that Illinois Governor Boggs believed the Mormons well deserved his "extermination order", and I'm sure the mob that forced the Mormons to flee their beautiful Nauvoo while their temple burned slept soundly in the belief they too had been doing God's work. Mr. Edwards makes Mr. Orlet's point with spectacular clarity. Innocent til proven guilty? Religous freedom? Life, liberty and property? Mormons need not apply.
-- Jeff Lawrence

Isn't a "Civil War-era Humorist" sort of an oxymoron? Wouldn't it be better to refer to a "Nineteenth Century humorist"? Perhaps, given his tragic Civil War-era circumstances, Mr. Ward dealt mostly in black humor--or is that a racist comment? Or just a really bad unintended pun? I am a Mormon (a DNA Mormon, actually, per Jan Shipman's term, although not a practicing one), so it must be racist, as Mormons are inherent racists, according to Jason Riley of the WSJ editorial page, and as Mr. Orlet notes, officially racists per Christopher Hitchens, at least until the 1970's.

Mr. Orlet unfortunately omits mention of Mark Twain's humorous observations on the Mormons. Twain writes of planning a vigorous expose' of the reprehensible Mormon practice of polygamy before going to Utah, but then, once there, changed his mind, since with one look at the Mormon women, he decided that any man that would marry even one of them was a true saint. He also noted how easy it was for peddlers to make money off Brigham. All a peddler had to do was give a broach to one of Brigham's wives, and instantly he had 30 sales. Same with whistles for the children, only even more sales. And when the territorial governor of Nevada needed a couple of ne'er-do-wells off his hands, all he had to do was send them on a job surveying a telegraph line to Salt Lake City, and then send a message to Brigham that they were escaped criminals who should be executed, secure in the knowledge that Brigham would be happy to immediately carry out the sentence, no questions asked. Of course, with all the changes in mores since the late 19th Century, when the U.S. government was attempting to financially ruin and crush the Mormon church for the practice of polygamy, the subject is now topical on television. However, as a medical student at UCLA, I felt slighted during Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender week on campus as there was no category for Progeny of Polygamists (like Mitt Romney, I have both paternal and maternal great grandparents who practiced polygamy). The week was not a fully inclusive one, from my perspective!

One should add to Mr. Orlet's observations that Joseph Smith was the first American Presidential candidate in American history to be assassinated. At least, fortunately, Romney didn't suffer that fate, although who knows what might have happened if he had done better in his campaign, given the level of animosity toward Mormons from many quarters, including from Hollywood (September Dawn--although that may have just been pure economic and marketing opportunism), exposed in the campaign. One of the objectionable policy positions that Joseph Smith took, and one of the reasons that he and his followers were run out of Missouri and that he was assassinated in Illinois, was that the freedom of Slaves should be purchased by the Federal Government, financed by the sale of public lands (eventually of course the nation would pay a far higher price in blood and treasure to end slavery). How's that for racist? So Joseph Smith was in part assassinated for advocating the freeing of the Slaves (Smith's position on Slavery was later espoused by none other than Ralph Waldo Emerson), only about 120 years before Martin Luther King was assassinated for advocating equal rights for Blacks. In fact, the Mormon extermination order issued by Lilburn Boggs, Governor of Missouri, that any Mormon in Missouri could be shot on sight, was issued in large part because such pesky Mormons as W.W. Phelps were giving rousing sermons advocating the abolition of Slavery in a border state at the height of national tensions over the extension of Slavery. That was more than 20 years before the Civil War. Joseph Smith, also like King, foresaw his own death ("I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer's morning. I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men..." and "I have been to the mountaintop... I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you...").

It is little wonder that, given the Haun's Mill massacre of Mormons in Missouri and Joseph Smith's assassination in Illinois, in no small part because of his position on Abolition, that Mormons would be chastened in regard to race issues, and over-react in the opposite direction after the death of Joseph Smith, who was no racist. As far as I'm aware, however, no Mormon ever lynched an innocent Black (although some killed a considerable number of innocent Whites at Mountain Meadows--interestingly to me, one of my maternal great grandfathers, William Bringhurst, hid under the floorboards of his house in Cedar City, Utah, to avoid being forcibly conscripted into the "militia" that perpetrated that atrocity), or tried to deny any Black their constitutional rights. One of my paternal grandfathers, in fact, Warren H. Lyon, was evangelizing Blacks in South Africa to Mormonism at the turn of the last century, in the maw of apartheid. And while America was pursuing a policy of genocide against Native Americans, Mormons were trying to evangelize them, too. (In fact as a descendant of people close to the Mountain Meadows massacre, I grew up with the Paiutes who descended from the very Paiutes the Mormons tried to blame for the massacre!). At any rate, in the context of all the bigotry directed towards Mormons, and all of the bigotry rampant in America (including the rabid anti-religious bigotry of Christopher Hitchens -- he does a distinct disservice to the memory of such genteel and civilized atheists as the great David Hume, his far superior antecedent, who certainly was no anti-religious bigot, even though he was tried for atheism), Mormons come out looking rather good in the bigotry department.

Romney's steadfast refusal to make his religion a defining issue in his campaign is an example, after JFK, of principled adherence to the concept of religious pluralism, including the right not to believe (compare Huckabee, who campaigns on his religion, and McCain who has unfairly criticized Evangelicals in the past and at times has seemed to have an almost visceral distaste for both Romney and Mormons --notably, both Evangelicals and Romney have evinced Christian forgiveness, the Evangelicals in South Carolina who contributed greatly to McCain's victory there despite his attacks on them by voting for him, and now Romney who is endorsing McCain and asking his delegates to support McCain--good Christians and patriots all--although Romney may stand to gain some personal political benefit by his endorsement of McCain). And, to their credit, not only talk radio conservatives, led most avidly by Hugh Hewitt, but also Douglas Kmiec, Rich Lowry and National Review, many Evangelical leaders, and many other conservatives strongly supported Romney regardless of, or perhaps because of, his religious values.

As to Joseph Smith being a con man: Not a lot of con men are willing to die for their convictions; not a lot of con men concoct a religion of such power that people leave home, family, and country, and traverse over half a continent on foot, to join themselves to the believers. Nor do con men attract what Charles Dickens called the "flower of the nation," the best of the citizenry of the British Isles, to their cause. Con men do not construct the great cities of the Nation (Nauvoo, Salt Lake City). Not a lot of con men devise a religion of such power that even critics pay homage to their achievement, as Richard Land, the great Baptist scholar, does to Joseph Smith (perhaps not intentionally) by declaring Smith's religion the Fourth Abrahamic Religion--e.g., he accords Mormonism, accurately, the status of one of the World's great religions. And if the fourth largest religious organization in the nation (after the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the United Methodist Church) comprising a greater percentage of the population than American Jewry, can be called a cult, then just about any religion can be deemed such. Nor does a con man devise a religious doctrine that values the human individual, not to mention the family, more highly than any other extant religion, as Smith did.

Mormonism is a quintessentially American religion, born and bred in this nation, espousing its founding principles as a part of its religious canon, and deriving doctrines directly from the American Founding. Mormons consider America a land blessed above all other nations. Mormonism is the essence of the American Gnosticism described by Harold Bloom, and an off-shoot and perhaps the most overt extant expression of the American Zionism of the Puritan Fathers described by David Gelernter in his book, Americanism, the Fourth Abrahamic Religion (it's not exactly a coincidence that Land and Gelernter use the same characterization for Mormonism and Americanism, respectively). Mormonism overtly equates America with the Shining City on a Hill of Winthrop and Reagan, and the Mountain of the Lord's House of Isaiah and Micah that in the latter days shall be established in the tops of the mountains, to which all nations would flow. Smith laid out the City of Zion in Missouri, and consecrated it as the center-place of the American Zion, to which all nations would gather, even as he and his followers were being driven out of the State. Now that's religious chutzpah! Whatever Joseph Smith was, a con man is hardly a good characterization of him. More accurately, he could be described as one of the most creative religious figures of the modern era (although of course many object strongly to his religious and doctrinal creativity). And a quintessential American who loved his country, despite the persecution and death he received at its hand. For Smith and his religion, Van Buren played the role of Pilate, when he said regarding Smith's petition regarding Mormon persecution in Missouri: "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you."
-- Kent Lyon
College Station, Texas

Count me as one of those who ruled out Romney because of his Mormonism. I've never met a Mormon I didn't like, but having had some intimate acquaintance with another American-born cult (Jehovah's Witnesses), I'll always be creeped out by anything cultish. And you can't look at the history of Mormonism without seeing a cult screaming back at you. If you doubt me, just read through Mark Twain's take on Mormonism, which -- since all of Twain's books are online -- you can access simply by Googling these four words: twain roughing surety hefted. And for a bit of ill-remembered Mormon history, just Google these three words: twain mountain meadows.

Either Smith was a fraud, or Twain was a bigot. Which is it?

Cults can be big or small, and their members may in many cases be quite decent folks, but their common denominator is that they were spawned by a scheming, self-aggrandizing liar. Those liars' place in history may range from the great throne occupied by Mohammed (violence personified; today's massacre-makers and head-choppers rightly claim to be following their Prophet's example) to the little stools occupied by lesser cranks and charlatans such as the JWs' Charles Taze Russell, the Scientologists' L. Ron Hubbard, and the Mormons' Joseph Smith.

Since Romney was born into the LDS church and all his nearest and dearest are Mormons, his own humanity ties him to that faith, and he is not to be blamed for that, any more than a Muslim, all of whose nearest and dearest are Muslims, is to be blamed for his attachment to Islam. If a Mormon sought to be governor, senator, or Supreme Court justice, I could abide it. But a president to some degree personifies the nation, and to elect a Mormon as president would indeed add immense prestige and legitimacy to a church that anyone with a regard for truth must, on full investigation and reflection, conclude to be a grand edifice built on sand. It would hurt the spiritual lives of countless potential converts to Mormonism to lend the LDS church any such prestige. That was always an insuperable barrier to my ever voting for Romney as president.
-- Karl Spence
San Antonio, Texas

IT'S ALWAYS A FEW YEARS AWAY
Re: William Tucker's Biofuels Meltdown:

It was hard for me to decide whether to laugh or to cry after reading "Biofuels Meltdown" by William Tucker. Chock full of misinformation and last year's Ethanol technology, it is pathetic that this is a featured article of your magazine.

When Ethanol shows its economic viability, coming within the next few years, what will Mr. Tucker and Science magazine decide to pan in order to make their living? Sad, truly sad!
-- Richard Morlock