For reduced gas mileage.
Each year I notice a significant change in the number of miles I get out of my tank of gas. And each year I have to remind myself that E10 is the culprit, not some nocturnal siphoning gang.
After each fill, I note how many miles are on the trip odometer, and then hit the reset button. I can get up to 350 miles on the tank with about 12 gallons added back in - somewhere around 30 miles to the gallon. But during this magical time of the year, I'll only get something like 20 mpg.
I'm told that ethyl alcohol burns cleaner and is therefore better for the environment. I am told that it is cheaper than gasoline and should therefore lower the pump price. I am also told that my mpg should only be reduced by 2%. The way I figure it, I'm losing up to one third of my mileage, and the prices did not seem to go down 2%, let alone 33%.
I ask myself why are we forced to purchase more gallons of E10 than we would regular gasoline to go the same distance? What is the logic here? I must conclude that there are nefarious reasons.
Without doing any research (due to laziness) I am guessing there is one main reason for this deception. What else? Money. Someone has to be reaping a ton of money from this somehow. Here are a couple guesses: 1) the corn lobby and 2) governments at all levels.
First, if the government mandated that every hamburger bun in America was required to have sesame seeds, then the demand for sesame seeds would presumably go up as would the price of sesame seeds. So it goes with ethyl alcohol and corn. Yay for the corn farmers and their successful lobby.
Secondly, if everyone in America now has to buy more gallons of gasohol than before, they are now paying more in "gas" taxes. As far as I know, there is no prorated pricing schedule at the pump that takes into account the 10% deficiency of gasoline for every gallon of E10. You are paying that same gas tax per gallon, only getting 90% of the gas, and having to buy more of it because of mpg efficiency.
Your taxes just went up. Merry Christmas.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Prisons are no deterrent - come to think of it, neither are laws
Why do we bother making laws? Think about it. Think about life with no laws. If you are a good person, are you going to do something that will have broken a law, had a law actually been passed? Would a bad person adhere to a law simply because some words were written down and published as a set of statutes?
So why do we need laws? Why dole out punishments when they do not seem to deter the criminal element?
As a society, we agree that certain things are anti-social. Things such as murder, rape, child abuse, robbery, reckless endangerment and so forth. We all agree that prisons are supposed to serve a purpose: that those people who choose to be anti-social are removed from it and sent to a place away from society. Do prisons deter anti-social behavior? Perhaps in some cases, but I submit that it is irrelevant. We do not build prisons to deter behavior, we build them to house people who have demonstrated their inability to abide within our social construct. If prisons end up providing an ancillary benefit of deterrence, that's great, but it is not the primary purpose for prisons.
What about punishment? Do we have a penal system, or a correctional (rehabilitation) system? Are we punishing someone for their crimes or coddling them with wringing hands and knitted brow? Suppose someone is convicted of a crime that will see them rot in prison for life. How are going to correct the behavior of a murderer? What rehabilitation will bring back victims from the grave? Once someone has committed certain ultimate anti-social acts, they should be removed permanently from society. And before you go quoting me some anecdote about some murderer who found God in prison and turned their life around, let me just say that I stand by locking them up forever. Anyone truly converted to a godly life would also admit that what they did before their conversion was deserving of a life in prison. Any claim otherwise should cast significant doubt on the true nature of their conversion.
Back to the idea of a penal system designed to punish and remove anti-socials from among the rest of humanity. If we do not remove anti-socials from our midst, we are doomed to suffer continual disruptions to our peaceful coexistence with our fellow man. If we catch criminals, convict criminals, room criminals, board criminals, and release criminals the way a sports fisherman might catch-and-release bass all day, then no punishment has really been inflicted. No removal from society has been imposed.
Our penal system has become a mere speed bump in the way of the self-gratification of our criminal element. They get caught, temporarily incarcerated, and released back out to continue their spree.
If you tell your child to stop swiping the cookies from the jar, and simply send them to their room for a few minutes after each time they take a cookie, they soon realize that the payoff is worth their trouble. Indeed, with that system of non-punishment, you have encouraged the perpetrator to go ahead and satisfy their yen for chocolate chips.
This is the way I see our current system. Not a penal system, but one of encouragement. Emboldened criminals who see that we are wishy-washy when it comes to punishment. Punishments that are based solely on time spent. Punishments that amount to a new-age "time out" in the corner. Punishments that are cut short due to prison overflow. The criminal understands that if enough crime happens, then his time in the revolving door will shorten. The criminal sees others of his ilk walking around breathing free air and knows that even if he is caught, there will be no stocks, no hard labor, no severed arm. There will be access to college classes, telemarketing jobs, weight rooms, Jif peanut butter, and enough contraband to make Templeton the rat blanch at the smorgasbord.
I believe that some crimes are worthy of death, but to cede the argument, I would settle for life imprisonment. Really for life, and really imprisoned. Among these crimes are murder and rape. I include in rape the heinous act of molesting children. Certain things should be 1 strike-you're out.
Please tell me why, oh why, do we as a society allow things like rape and child molestation to go unpunished? Why do we let these anti-social predators out to commit more acts of savagery? Why is there even such a thing as a sex-offender registry? Why aren't they still in prison? Why aren't they actually punished? Shouldn't they be punished for at least as long as their victims will be affected by the crime? Can you argue that this time span is less than forever?
Rather than spending billions on the Governmental ABCs of agencies, bailouts and condoms, I'd rather see thousands more prisons built to halt the revolving door. And if we perhaps see a deterrent effect, then all the better.
So why do we need laws? Why dole out punishments when they do not seem to deter the criminal element?
As a society, we agree that certain things are anti-social. Things such as murder, rape, child abuse, robbery, reckless endangerment and so forth. We all agree that prisons are supposed to serve a purpose: that those people who choose to be anti-social are removed from it and sent to a place away from society. Do prisons deter anti-social behavior? Perhaps in some cases, but I submit that it is irrelevant. We do not build prisons to deter behavior, we build them to house people who have demonstrated their inability to abide within our social construct. If prisons end up providing an ancillary benefit of deterrence, that's great, but it is not the primary purpose for prisons.
What about punishment? Do we have a penal system, or a correctional (rehabilitation) system? Are we punishing someone for their crimes or coddling them with wringing hands and knitted brow? Suppose someone is convicted of a crime that will see them rot in prison for life. How are going to correct the behavior of a murderer? What rehabilitation will bring back victims from the grave? Once someone has committed certain ultimate anti-social acts, they should be removed permanently from society. And before you go quoting me some anecdote about some murderer who found God in prison and turned their life around, let me just say that I stand by locking them up forever. Anyone truly converted to a godly life would also admit that what they did before their conversion was deserving of a life in prison. Any claim otherwise should cast significant doubt on the true nature of their conversion.
Back to the idea of a penal system designed to punish and remove anti-socials from among the rest of humanity. If we do not remove anti-socials from our midst, we are doomed to suffer continual disruptions to our peaceful coexistence with our fellow man. If we catch criminals, convict criminals, room criminals, board criminals, and release criminals the way a sports fisherman might catch-and-release bass all day, then no punishment has really been inflicted. No removal from society has been imposed.
Our penal system has become a mere speed bump in the way of the self-gratification of our criminal element. They get caught, temporarily incarcerated, and released back out to continue their spree.
If you tell your child to stop swiping the cookies from the jar, and simply send them to their room for a few minutes after each time they take a cookie, they soon realize that the payoff is worth their trouble. Indeed, with that system of non-punishment, you have encouraged the perpetrator to go ahead and satisfy their yen for chocolate chips.
This is the way I see our current system. Not a penal system, but one of encouragement. Emboldened criminals who see that we are wishy-washy when it comes to punishment. Punishments that are based solely on time spent. Punishments that amount to a new-age "time out" in the corner. Punishments that are cut short due to prison overflow. The criminal understands that if enough crime happens, then his time in the revolving door will shorten. The criminal sees others of his ilk walking around breathing free air and knows that even if he is caught, there will be no stocks, no hard labor, no severed arm. There will be access to college classes, telemarketing jobs, weight rooms, Jif peanut butter, and enough contraband to make Templeton the rat blanch at the smorgasbord.
I believe that some crimes are worthy of death, but to cede the argument, I would settle for life imprisonment. Really for life, and really imprisoned. Among these crimes are murder and rape. I include in rape the heinous act of molesting children. Certain things should be 1 strike-you're out.
Please tell me why, oh why, do we as a society allow things like rape and child molestation to go unpunished? Why do we let these anti-social predators out to commit more acts of savagery? Why is there even such a thing as a sex-offender registry? Why aren't they still in prison? Why aren't they actually punished? Shouldn't they be punished for at least as long as their victims will be affected by the crime? Can you argue that this time span is less than forever?
Rather than spending billions on the Governmental ABCs of agencies, bailouts and condoms, I'd rather see thousands more prisons built to halt the revolving door. And if we perhaps see a deterrent effect, then all the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
