Obama’s energy plan way to go

As gas prices continue to rise and Big Oil again reports billions of dollars in quarterly profits, it’s time to choose a president who offers a real energy strategy. Barack Obama’s plan is just that and it gives relief to hard-working American families.

Instead of continuing the billions of dollars in tax cuts for Big Oil, like John McCain is proposing, Obama proposes a $1,000 tax cut for working families (paid for by taxes on Big Oil’s profits) and a $150 billion investment in renewable energy sources, which will create up to 5 million new jobs and billions of dollars in new business.

We can’t drill our way out of high gas prices. Barack Obama’s plan will help families, boost the economy and reduce our dependence on oil.

Wendy L. Hernandez
Rockport


Expanding population is problem

The world population discussion is not about how many people can stand shoulder to shoulder in Texas. It is really about life quality of all world citizens. Our current population, growing by 75 million per year, is on the verge of overwhelming us with its increasing  consumption of  all resources and resulting environmental problems.

As economist Jeffrey Sachs writes “Common Wealth,” his latest book: “The current trajectory of human activity is not sustainable.” Our continued dependence on fossil fuels is fueling the problem and, fortunately, the debate.

That most of us live comfortably for now does not mean that we will in the future, as 3 billion more drop in for lunch. One billion already live in extreme poverty and at least 2 billion more are very poor. Our increasingly globalized economy is not helping. Unless we are willing to invest considerable capital in sustainable development, we will all likely see our life quality continue to decline.

Believers and skeptics, alike, should read Sach’s book,  Robert Engelman’s “More” and Paul Collier’s “The Bottom Billion”; or they should access the resources of the Worldwatch Institute, Population Reference Bureau or Lester Brown‘s Earth Policy Institute before becoming entrenched in their beliefs.

Fred Curow  
Anacortes


U.S. Congress has run amuck

Congress, both houses, exists to represent the will of the people. Congress members have failed to do so. In fact, they refuse to do so. The vast majority of citizens want the U.S. borders protected against illegal entry, but Congress refuses. The vast majority of citizens (including Hispanics) want English as the official language, but Congress refuses.

Citizens want fiscal restraint and responsive government. But Congress continues to waste money — our money — on pet projects and failed programs.

They constantly devise ways to restrict free enterprise; they refuse to address the inequities of their Indian policies; they seek to restrict citizens’ basic rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights; and they even legislate toward controlling the very thoughts, sexuality and religions of the people with their constant babble about no public religious displays on government property. And yet they seem to condone sexual depravity through public education. Congress has utterly failed!

In addition, members of Congress have established mechanisms to maintain themselves in office. Yes, our votes are required; however, the process is “rigged” in favor of the incumbent. Campaigns are way too long and obscenely expensive, with millions coming from questionable sources. Incumbents seem to spend more time collecting money and campaigning than actually doing the job we hired them to do.

With their “approval rating” now near 9 percent, they certainly have failed to represent us. Instead, many of them seem to consider themselves a superior class who “own” their elected positions. They have corrupted the system and dishonored the offices they hold. They have forgotten that membership in the Senate or the House of Representatives is temporary employment! We hired them with our votes; now we need to fire them!

Anita W. Johnston
Oak Harbor


How full should tires be filled?

Now that “blow up your tires” is a new catch phrase, the crucial information the politicians, of course, omit is: “How much?”

• The owner’s manual in my car stresses the dangers of low tire pressure.  Tire wear and sidewall failure are two real dangers.  There is no danger cited for high tire pressure.  Perhaps, the braking performance is slightly affected, but higher tire pressure tends to reduce hydroplaning, so it is a push.

• Most cars tend to have overloaded front tires, because of the engine weight. The recommended” tire pressures are set partly for a better ride. Dangers result from this rather low recommended tire pressure resulting in more tire wear than necessary and, of course, increased rolling resistance.

• What is a practical safe tire pressure? Every tire has embossed on it words like:  “Maximum load  XXX Kg, YYY lb, at ZZZ MPa or AAA psi.” The psi figure is the safe cold inflation pressure for the maximum load that can be carried by the tire. That, then, is a safe inflation pressure in the view of many. A typical value is 44 psi. Look at the tires on your car.

The effects: The car rolls easily, like a golf ball on a concrete road. The tire life is much longer. The ride is stiffer, but cornering is much better and safer. Modern radial tires hold their shape very well and the fear that the tire will wear “in the middle of the tread from higher pressure” is unfounded today. 

• So you can save fuel and tire wear by using higher inflation pressure. I use 44 psi front and rear on my car.

Donald Stephens
La Conner


Of evolution, creationism in school

“Evolution with an olive branch” (SVH Aug. 2), is a perfect example of media propaganda that they continue to deluge us with concerning the origins of life.

The authors assert that the proposal before the Texas Board of Education to include the strength and weaknesses of evolution in the state’s science curriculum is a strategic effort to get around the First Amendment restrictions on teaching religion in the science classroom.

Evolutionists hid behind this court perverted application of the First Amendment. Their view is no less religious than that of a creationist with their dogmatic assertion that time and chance are the creators. Protected as a tenant of our state religion, evolution has been isolated from the rigors of scientific examination. With their monopoly, they purge every fact or person who refutes their beliefs.

Creationists aren’t trying to insert religion in the science classroom. They do start from the perspective that Genesis is an eyewitness account, rather then starting from Darwin’s speculative conjecture. But it is the scientific process of observation and experimentation that define science, not your starting point.

Here the creationist has the advantage because he can approach science as the search for truth without fear of where the evidence will lead. That freedom allows for honesty, integrity and openness to accept all the evidence.

The authors of this article offered an olive branch by addressing a concern that children may apply the principle of evolution to their behavior (like Hitler and Stalin did). Their gesture of peace merely addresses a symptom not the cause of the strife. The real solution would be to allow the examination of the assertions of the evolutionist and assertions of the creationist by using the rigors of operational science and critical thinking. 

Science needs freedom from courts and politics.   

Bob Gunderson
Bow


McCain’s oil plan is pandering

Presidential hopeful John McCain supports overturning the ban on oil drilling off our coasts as a way to bring down gas prices. Notwithstanding the adverse environmental risks, the idea simply doesn’t make sense.

The U. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that McCain’s proposal would have no impact on gas prices in the near-term since it will be close to a decade before the first oil could be extracted. The EIA projects production in 10 years would reach 200,000 barrels a day at peak production, which would be too small to have any significant effect on oil prices. Sounds like McCain is desperately pandering to us again, regardless of reality.

If the U.S. had raised auto fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards between 1985 and 2005 by a quarter of the amount it raised them annually from 1980 to 1985 — instead of leaving them virtually unchanged — the result would roughly have been the equivalent of 3.3 million barrels of oil per day in new production, 16 times the projected production from offshore drilling.

We could also negotiate with Iran like a civilized nation to lift sanctions and stimulate oil production in Iran by 1 million to 2 million barrels a day. That would be five to 10 times the projected production of drilling off our coasts. Also, the risk of another illegal and immoral invasion could be avoided.

Wouldn’t it be better to pursue modest conservation measures and civilized negotiations with Iran with the probable result of bring 20 to 25 times as much oil on the market rather than risk another environmental disaster and another invasion and occupation?

Here’s an even better idea. How about a national energy policy that incorporates carbon caps, carbon taxes and clean, alternative energy? Think about it: produce jobs, reduce carbon emissions and address climate change.

Nah, too rational.

Howard Pellett
Anacortes