HOW CAN OUR GOVERNMENT BE SO BLIND????

This article came from ARUTZ SHEVA, which is the Israel National News service.  Briefly, it's about the concessions to the Palestinians that the U.S. is forcing Israel to make.  Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that Israel's concessions are not enough, saying, "We will monitor exactly what the Israelis do and the purpose is to improve the Palestinians' freedom of movement."  Freedom of movement???  So they can conduct their terrorist activities against Israeli targets more freely??  Uh, hello Washington?? Earth to Washington??  The Palestinians SOLE OBJECTIVE is to annihilate Israel.  For those of you in our government, that means to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.  All anyone has to do is look at the Palestinians' history.  Going back to when Yassar Arafat was alive,  Israel offered to GIVE the Palestinians the land they claimed was their right.  Did Arafat accept?  NO!!!  Why?  Because getting the land IS NOT THE POINT!  Palestinian rights are NOT THE POINT! Here's the article so you can decide for yourself.  I think you will be shocked, but not surprised at what we're doing.  I think Israeli Opposition Leader and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right when he told Secretary of State Rice that a permanent arrangement with the Palestinians that does not leave the Israeli Defense Forces in charge of large areas of Judea and Samaria would lead to a Hamas takeover and what?  The CREATION OF ADDITIONAL Iranian bases there.  Wake up Washington!!  Here's the article:

U.S. 'Very Surprised' at Extent of Israeli Concessions

by Gil Ronen

(IsraelNN.com) Israeli diplomatic sources said Sunday that the American delegation was very surprised at the extent of Israeli concessions to the Fatah-controlled "Palestinian Authority" (PA) announced by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quick to say that they were not enough, and vowed to monitor Israel's execution of its promises.

The latest Israeli concessions to the PA in Judea and Samariainclude permission for construction of two new Arab neighborhoods in the Ramallah area, with a total of 5,000 to 8,000 housing units. In addition, about 50 closed roads will be opened in Samaria, thus enabling vehicular traffic between Jenin, Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Ramallah. The permanent IDF checkpoint in the Rimonim area will be removed.

Barak announced the decisions in the meeting he held with PA "Prime Minister" Salam Fayyad and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Sunday.

Rice Talks Tough About Israeli Compliance
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had some tough words for Israel Sunday regarding the "gestures" Israel has undertaken to carry out in Judea and Samaria.

"We will monitor exactly what the Israelis do and the purpose is to improve the Palestinians' freedom of movement," Rice said. "We want to be much more systematic about what is promised and what is actually carried out," Rice added.

American special envoy General William Fraser, Rice explained, will be following Israel's implementation of the Road Map closely "and making sure that the road blocks are indeed removed and that this has an impact on the Palestinians' freedom of movement." Before Fraser arrived, she said, "we did not do this, and we received promises that the Israeli steps would be carried out within a short time. I expect this to happen very soon."

25 APCs, 125 more vehicles
The Israeli concessions also included the following:

1. PA para-military police stations will open in some areas under joint Israeli and PA control.

2. 700 PA police personnel will be deployed in the Jenin area, once they return from training in Jordan. Ultimate security responsibility will remain in Israel's hands.

3. Additional roadblocks and checkpoints in Judea and Samaria are to be removed by mid-May.

4. 25 APC's – out of 50 originally requested – and 125 additional vehicles and pieces of logistical equipment will be delivered to PA/Fatah hands.

5. Various restrictions on the movement of public figures will be eased.

6. Various restrictions on the movement of businessmen will be eased.

7. An additional 5,000 permits will be issued for Arab construction workersin Israel (the current quota is approximately 18,500).

8. The Sha'ar Ephraim Crossing for will be opened for commercial activity on Fridays.
Two new Arab neighborhoods in the Ramallah area. In addition, about 50 dirt roadblocks in Samaria will be removed.

9. Israel will allow the passage of businessmen from Arab countries, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the PA and Israel on a VIP footing (without checks) through Ben-Gurion International Airport, for the Bethlehem Economic Conference for Investors in May. Israeli businessmen will be allowed to enter Bethlehem for the conference. Businessmen attending the conference will be allowed to move in organized groups in Judea and Samaria cities, and into Israel (including Jerusalem and Nazareth).

10. Industrial Zones will be established in Jericho, Hevron (Tarkumiyah) and Mukibla. The Tarkumiya Industrial Zone will receive Turkish financing. Another industrial zone will be established in Jericho for the processing and marketing abroad of PA agricultural produce. Japan and Jordan will be involved in this project.

A statement issued after the talks said that "the parties have completed connection of 27 Palestinian villages in [Judea and Samaria] to the Israeli power grid and, in an unprecedented action, have connected Jericho to the Jordan power grid."

PA will 'work' against terror
The agreements reached in the talks between Rice, Barak and Fayyad include only one commitment by the PA. "For its part, the Palestinian Authority will deploy security forces to provide law and order, and work to prevent terror," the statement issued by the American delegation said.

American officials voiced satisfaction with the Israeli "gestures." However, the sources said, Israel needs to do even more to make the Arabs' lives better.

Rice will meet Jordan's King Abdullah Sunday evening and will meet Prime Minister Olmert again Monday. She will then meet the heads of the Israeli and Arab negotiating teams, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qureia ("Abu Ala").

Opposition chairman Binyamin Netanyahu told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Sunday that a permanent status arrangement with the PA that does not leave the IDF in charge of "large areas" of Judea and Samaria would lead to a Hamas takeover and the creation of additional Iranian bases there.

"We cannot transfer responsibility for security to subcontractors. Security needs to stay in the IDF and the security establishment. The practical way is an economic peace with the Palestinians," Netanyahu said after the meeting.

"If we abandon security to the care of others, we will receive rockets," the Likud chairman said. "We are the ones protecting Abu Mazen, he isn't protecting us."

The U.S. is treading on very, very, dangerous ground here.  Instead of cowtowing to the Palestinians, who are known for their hatred of Israel, who are known for their terrorist attacks for DECADES, we should grow some backbone and stand up to them.  History has shown that no matter how many concessions are made, no matter how many negotiations take place, the Palestinians will continue their attacks and their quest to totally destroy Israel. 

Tags: Israel, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Palestinian Authority, Yassar Arafat

WHY ARE DIESEL PRICES OUT THE ROOF?

I’m answering another good question asked by Lisa, LIFE ON A BISON FARM.  She wanted to know why diesel fuel was so much more expensive than gasoline, when diesel was traditionally much cheaper.  Where Lisa lives, diesel fuel is $4.35 a gallon.  It may be more than that by now as she mentioned that it was going up almost daily. Thanks for your question, Lisa!  I think first I’ll give the “official” reasons why, then what I think is the real reason.  There is a difference many times!

 

One reason prices are so high on diesel fuel are pollution laws that went into effect in 2006.  Diesel fuel was required to have a much lower content of sulfur than previously.  Anytime you have environmental regulations change the formulation of any type of fuel, it’s going to cost you.  That’s part of the reason why gasoline prices are high, but of course not entirely.  Getting back to the diesel fuel, this requirement doesn’t come without cost.  As usual, the fuel mileage is lower.  Many trucking companies ordered entire fleets of new trucks to beat the engine redesign deadline that reduced the fuel economy.  Existing diesel engines can burn what’s called the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD).  However, there may be some diesel owners that may experience a problem with it.  According to a TECHNICAL BULLETIN from Chevron, the ULSD causes elastomers (O-rings) to shrink.  The most common problem from this is fuel pump leakage.  It is especially true for engines older than ten years, but it has occurred in new engines too.

 

Another reported cause were the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico disrupting production and refining.  In an ARTICLE in Edmunds, a part of the reason for the more recent price increases are hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.  When the refineries came back on-line, they produced mostly gasoline which was in more demand.  Another cause was winter.  The demand for heating oil went up resulting in a price increase in diesel.  One factor that no one hears much about is an increased demand for diesel fuel in Europe.  In some European countries, more than half of the vehicles on the road are diesel powered.

 

The list of reasons for the high cost of diesel goes on and on.  But here is my observation.  Ever since the so-called gasoline shortage of the early 1970’s (there was no shortage, it was contrived by the oil companies just to drive the price up, but that’s another story), diesel powered vehicles gained in popularity.  The fuel at the time was much cheaper than gasoline, and diesel engines were considerably more fuel efficient than their gasoline counterparts.  One example was the 1980-81 Pontiac Bonneville.   There was a 350 c.i. diesel engine available. The VW Rabbit  also had a diesel option.  And then there’s always been the diesel Mercedes . My point is that when the oil companies purposely spiked gas prices, people started turning to the much cheaper and more fuel efficient diesel.  That’s when diesel prices started climbing.  The cost didn’t jump like it has in recent months, but nevertheless it rose.  I believe the oil companies increased the price so they would stop “losing money.” I think this is the major reason why diesel has gone up so much recently.  There are a lot of diesel pickup trucks out there andI read in EDMUNDS INSIDE LINE that Mercedes is planning to introduce a diesel SUV, the 2009 GL320 Bluetec. Even though diesel vehicles only account for between two to three percent of the total vehicles in the U.S. (Popular Science, DIESEL REVISITED, January 29, 2002), the fact that the carmakers are considering reintroducing diesel models on a more widespread basis would be enough for a “pre-emptive strike” by the oil companies.  I think my point was made in the Edmunds article I referenced above, the author, Steven Cole Smith, asked a friend of his that was in the petroleum business why they charge so much for diesel.  His answer?  “Because we can.”  Enough said. 

 

 

Tags: Diesel, fuel prices, oil companies

ANSWER TO A QUESTION ABOUT HYBRID CARS & MORE (OF COURSE!)

I know it has been a while since my last post, but the subject matter of this entry has taken a lot of research and reading.  This entry is in response to a question Sheila, author of JUST ANOTHER HOOKER, asked if the newer hybrid vehicles could operate as efficiently as they say using ethanol.  That’s a great question since it’s a known fact that a vehicle’s fuel efficiency drops when ethanol is used as compared to pure gasoline.  Thanks for your question, Sheila!  I’ll try to answer it as completely as possible.  While on the subject, I’ll also discuss the real (hidden) costs of hybrid vehicles.

 

In answer to Sheila’s question, the only thing I could find was a report by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division, released in September 2007 entitled HYBRID, E85, AND GASOLINE VEHICLES IN GOVERNMENT FLEETS.  While it did not specifically mention hybrids, it stated that the fuel economy on “most 2008 model year vehicles” was estimated to drop about twelve percent in fuel economy for city driving and about eight percent for highway driving. This estimate was reported by the Environmental Protection Agency.  Since the EPA’s report included “most 2008 model year vehicles”, I would assume the same held true for hybrids.  Since a hybrid uses a gasoline engine for speeds above about twenty-five miles per hour, then it would follow the fuel efficiency would be lower with ethanol than 100% gasoline.  I think the reason for the difficulty in finding data to answer this question is because hybrids have not been around long enough for extensive research to be done.  I hope this answered your question, Sheila.  Thanks again for the great question!

 

I’ll now move on to the hidden costs of hybrids.  First, for those who may not know, a brief definition of a hybrid is a vehicle that uses an electric motor part-time in combination with a gasoline engine.  There are a couple of different types of hybrids, but I won’t go into it here.  Basically, the most common hybrids we see advertised use the electric motor at speeds below about twenty-five miles per hour.  When the vehicle exceeds that speed, the gasoline engine starts and powers the vehicle.  This results in a much higher fuel economy in city driving which is where most of us do the majority of our driving.  This is a VERY basic definition of a hybrid, and there’s more to how it works.  For the purpose of this post, the details are not important.  The fuel economy of this type of vehicle is commonly around forty to forty-five miles per gallon.  The city mileage is lower than highway on standard vehicles, but the fuel mileage on a hybrid is actually higher in the city than it’s highway mileage.

 

The first and foremost cost of owning a hybrid is buying one.  According to CARSEEK, a hybrid generally costs anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 more than a conventional car.  The Federal income tax deduction doesn’t exactly cover this – up to $2,000.  It would take quite some time to start realizing any savings.  How long could you keep your current vehicle in gas for even the low end of $3,000?  Even at today’s prices, a good while.  The reality is, though, that many people will buy them simply for the increase in fuel economy.  A purchase price of $20,000 will keep what you have in gas for a very long time.  It’s definitely a false economy to buy another car for more gas mileage alone.  An article in CONSUMER REPORTS said that their figures showed that “even the most cost-effective models require an investment of about five years for the owner to break even.”

 

One of the costs of a hybrid vehicle is battery replacement.  Hybrids have a number of batteries.  To have a hybrid, you have to give up some trunk space to make room for the load of batteries.  If you keep the car rather than trade every couple of years, sooner or later, you’ll have to replace them.  Or if something goes wrong with the charging system to decrease their life.  Cost of replacement?  Around $3,000 to $4,000.  Manufacturer’s state that the battery packs should last the life of the vehicle.  My point is, it’s man-made and therefore can fail.  Manufacturer’s also state that the failure rate of the battery packs has been low.  Personally, I wouldn’t want to be in that “low” category.  If I were one of those that had a battery pack failure, I wouldn’t care at all about how good the statistics were and how small a percentage had to be replaced.

 

Another question is the additional energy it takes to build a more technologically advanced car and whether or not it outweighs the benefits of the higher fuel economy.  The mechanism in a hybrid is quite complex.  There are also some questions about the negative environmental impact of the manufacturing of hybrids as compared to conventional cars.  A report from an extensive research project by CNW Marketing Research, Inc. entitled DUST TO DUST indicates that the overall energy cost of a HONDA ACCORD HYBRID  is $3.29 per mile as compared to the HUMMER H3 at $1.949 per mile.  This two year project covers the entire energy expenditure of planning, building, use, and disposing of specific vehicle models.  It also factored in the distance the plant employees drove to work, electricity usage at car dealerships, and hundreds of other variables.

 

Personally I don’t think hybrid vehicles are going to make any more of a difference in reducing our oil imports than ethanol will.  More fuel efficient vehicles have not reduced our dependence on foreign oil over the past thirty-five years.  Federal law has mandated increases in fuel efficiency through the CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFÉ) standards.  One reason is that people will drive further for vacationing, for example, with a fuel efficient car than they they will a less efficient vehicle.  People figure that they can go places they couldn’t go before for the same cost as driving shorter distances in a less efficient car.  I’m one of those people!  My 1994 FORD EXPLORER  gets thirty miles per gallon at fifty-five miles per hour, and twenty-three to twenty-four miles per gallon in town.  Even at seventy miles per hour, it achieves the city mileage.  After I bought it and discovered this little secret, you better believe I went some places I couldn’t go before!!

 

The bottom line to all this is that you can’t conserve your way out of a problem.  We’ve been trying it for years and it hasn’t worked.  The only answer is to increase production.  Increasing the production RIGHT HERE in the United States is the answer to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.  That would mean doing away with a lot of Federal regulations that have made it too expensive to build more refineries here and blocked not only the exploration for more oil, but prevented getting what we already know about.  I don’t believe that will happen in mine or your lifetime.  When was the last time you remember our government reducing regulations on anything??  

 

 

 

 

Tags: Hybrids, ethanol, E85, oil, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, Dust to Dust, CNW Marketing Research

ETHANOL - HISTORY REPEATED, CAUSE WE DIDN'T LEARN THE FIRST TIME!

I decided to do a post on this after I went to WAL-MART to fill up with gas today.  While I was filling up, I looked down, and attached to the hose was this big ear of corn shaped sign that read “Ethanol Enhanced”.  The notice said that up to ten percent of what I was getting was moonshine liquor, er, sorry, “ethanol.”  I thought, “great, just what I needed, less gas mileage and some engine damage.”  So, I thought I would put the facts about ethanol out there, because there is a lot that many do not realize.that makes it not so great, other than the fact we tried it in the 1970’s and it didn’t work.  No reason to believe it will work now.

 

The first thing that you hear about the so-called “benefits” of ethanol is that it’s purpose is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  To understand that this will not work, there’s a point that needs to be made here.  First is that we’ve already tried this in the 1970’s.  Have you heard the saying,”Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it?”  Needless to say, we have never had any historians in Congress, the White House, or anywhere else in Washington.  Back in the ‘70’s, ethanol was known as “gasohol.”  Then, as now, about a ten percent mixture of alcohol produce mainly from corn is mixed with the gasoline.  The idea is to make what gasoline is available go farther, thereby theoretically cutting oil imports.  The flaw with this idea is that ethanol produces lower fuel mileage than 100% gas.  This means you burn MORE fuel, and thereby actually INCREASE the demand.  A test run by the American Coalition for Ethanol, obviously pro-ethanol, showed an average loss of 1.5% in fuel economy with the ten percent mixture.  One of the vehicles, a Ford Taurus, logged a whopping 4% drop in fuel mileage.  That translates to more out of your wallet and even more record profits for the oil companies.  Any wonder the oil companies are all for it?

 

Here’s the next hit taken on the chin by John Q. Consumer.  Did you know that if you own a vehicle that is more than about ten years old, ethanol will damage your engine?  That’s right.  Unless you make a number of costly modifications, the repairs will begin.  Ethanol starts eating away at all the rubber seals in your engine and fuel system.  But, THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS published a list of what you would need to do to keep your older vehicle.  The list is long if you have a carbureted engine.  It’s not so long with a fuel injected vehicle.  All you need are larger control jets – that’s all.. You can click on The Mother Earth News above and view the entire list.  Vehicles older than 1996 are susceptible to damage from ethanol use.

 

There’s still more fallout from ethanol.  Higher prices at the grocery store.  You may wonder how that can be.  Corn is the major ingredient used in making ethanol.  Beef is one of the items that has gone up because of ethanol.  Cattle ranchers have to pay more for feed containing corn, so the cost is passed on right on down the line – TO YOU!  According to a June 15, 2007 article in the WASHINGTON POST, milk, cereal, eggs, and pork prices have gone up also.  The higher corn prices (that doubled in a year’s time) are also driving up the prices of ketchup and soft drinks according to a March 2007 article on the KIPLINGER BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER website.  How?  Because high fructose corn syrup is used to sweeten them.

 

The ethanol idea is a bad one.  For one, it’s just another method of trying to force people out of their older cars.  This affects many Americans.  A study conducted by the FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION shows that as of 2001, the average vehicle age in the U. S. was nearly nine years.  That means there are many, many people out there driving cars more than a decade old that cannot handle the ethanol fuel.  The use of ethanol was a miserable failure in the 1970’s and did not make even so much as a dent in our dependence on foreign oil.  It won’t this time either.  The only thing that can cut our dependence on foreign oil is increasing production here, but we won’t do it.  We’re sitting on a lot of oil, and won’t go get it.  The OPEC nations are laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

 

History here is definitely repeating itself.  If it didn’t work before, why is there ANY reason to believe that it will work now.

 

Final note:  As far as I know, BP is the only company now that does not sell ethanol.  I’ve been told that’s soon to change, though, because the Federal government is giving big tax incentives to the oil companies to produce it – at OUR expense of course.

Tags: blogplugs, ethanol, E-10, E-85, oil, OPEC, BP, corn