The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Petro Pelosi

8.18.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 3)

"Energy questions in the United States flow from the very fact that we have an energy policy in the first place."

That is: this "energy crisis" -- inaptly named despite the ready availability of gasoline anywhere, at least until Inauguration Day -- arises, for the most part, from the same place that most problems causing politicians everywhere to gnash their teeth and bewail our misfortune come from: first, from the mistaken belief that if we shoot a sufficiently large ball of dollars out of a sufficiently powerful cannon at whatever befuddles or vexes us, that it will go away, never mind any relevant track record of failure, or any constitutional authority to do so, or the possible effect on our personal freedom and property rights; and second, the fact that we do not leave our neighbors alone so long as they return the favor.

We approach and harass strangers if we spot them smoking or driving alone in a large, thirsty vehicle, or if we disagree with they way they raise their own children; we allow faceless bureaucrats to design education curricula for a nation of 300 million; we refuse to see our own health care or retirement as our own responsibility; we think it is our business, through our representatives and their police enforcers, to see to it that the driver in the next car has his seat belt fastened or doesn't drive faster than we'd like, and in turn, allow them -- our neighbors and representatives -- to make these decisions for us. The list could effectively be endless; were government silent on these matters, your pocket would not be picked, nor your leg broken.

Yes, (Prime) Minister (BBC series of the '80s) had it succinctly put twenty years ago: Government departments are tombstones; the Department of Energy marks the grave of Energy, the Department of Education marks the grave of Education, etc. The depth of a problem is in direct proportion to governmental immersion in it. This is its own argument for smaller, disinterested government; it matters not who controls it, since each side wishes to use its power to entice or coerce you (and business, and everyone else) into doing their particular bidding; it matters only that their influence is reduced to the barest minimum. Better that the states abandon their manifest failures in these and other areas and confine themselves generally to reacting when the life, liberty, or property of another is harmed, and better still that the federal government confine itself to those constitutionally directed duties.
-- John M. Lengyel

Senator's Obama and McCain apparently agree that higher CAFE standards are desirable -- to encourage petroleum conservation. While the idea of focusing mandates on manufacturers rather than consumers can rightly be ridiculed as a political ploy, the standards can still be effective, and don't necessarily deny consumer choice.

Manufacturers are free to violate the CAFE standards -- they simply must pay penalties. To recoup the cost of CAFE penalties the manufacturer can simply raise the retail price of less efficient cars. That's what BMW and Porsche do -- in a typical year they pay the USA $5m each in CAFE penalties, and obviously still make a profit selling cars here. The real problem with the CAFÉ standards -- from an energy policy perspective -- is that the penalties are too low to accomplish anything. The penalty -- for flunking the standards by 10 miles per gallon -- is the equivalent of adding $850 to the cost of a car. If the goal is to reduce use of petroleum (without keeping prices high, so as enrich unstable and adversarial governments) the only solution is to artificially raise the cost of driving, through either a gas tax hike or CAFE standards with much higher penalties. If the goal is not to reduce petroleum consumption, and let the chips fall where they may, we just continue what we've been doing.
-- Donald Susswein
Washington, District of Columbia

SKIN GAMES
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s In Michael Phelps' Skin:

Interesting article by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. In short, Mr. Tyrrell is a bona fide purist -- a distinction he clearly earned. And maybe the IOC should ban such 'outfits' but the harsh reality are these:

Artificial skins are allowed (even coarse to mimic a shark!)

The benefits are negligible.

An Olympic swimmer is certainly distanced from an Olympic near-miss swimmer with or without such assistance.

I asked one of Phelps' early coaches about those special suits a year ago. His response was simply "either the swimmer's got it or they don't...the suit will not win the race."

The same discussion regarding swimming attire can be lent to running shoes. Compare the 'typical' track star's shoes to those from the same Rome Olympics. Heck, compare/contrast Abebe Bikila's barefoot win in 1960 to today's top runners. It is what it is. If everyone is wearing shoes, the guy with the Jack Purcell's doesn't stand a chance with the guy wearing Asics' GEL-Kinseis.

Phelps's achievements are monumental. Suppose everyone in the pool loses .5 seconds not wearing the space-swim-suits. The margin of victory remains the same. And Phelps remains the greatest of Olympic athletes.
-- Kevin Scally

PAT ON THE BACK
Re: Diane Smith's letter (under "Doppelganger") in Reader Mail's If Slogans Were Jobs:

Amazing. Scrolling down, reading the start of the next letter, 'n I say to myself, "self, there's another terrific Diane Smith letter." And it is. Or Ira, Beverly Gunn, or several others with distinctive writing styles or wonderful ways of thinking. Yet, it's the substance, along with style; no Pabulum Puke letter writers here, the most stimulating bunch of contributors of any publication I've been privileged to come across -- even those with whom I disagree. And I thank you.
-- frost

I nominate Diane Smith's letter as the best you have ever printed. And go ahead and Google "frim-fram sauce and shifafa on the side." You will learn a lot. I did.
-- Glen Hoffing
Shamong, New Jersey

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Health Care, John McCain, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Economics, Business, Entitlements, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, Russia, NATO, Energy, Oil