The Hammer of Reality and Green Energy

Ball and stick model of ethanol

Ball and stick model of ethanol (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s been enough going on that I’ve kind of let energy slide lately. I shouldn’t, like all the other projects built on magic and wishful thinking, they are running into the hard wall of reality. Some would say they are getting hammered. I tend to think of the hammer of reality as Mjølner, the modern incarnation of Thor’s Hammer, that can level mountains at a single stroke.

And Mjølner has been busy lately, rather than me rewriting it, I’ll simply excerpt from Marita Moon’s latest, and you can find the details at the link.

The whole idea of green energy—renewable resources—grew out of an energy reality that was much different from today’s. It was in the 1970s, following the OPEC Oil Embargo that solar panels began popping up on rooftops and “gasohol” subsidies were enacted. It was believed that green energy would move the U.S. off of foreign oil and prevent oil from being used as an economic weapon against us.

Today, that entire paradigm has been upended and OPEC’s power has been virtually neutered by increasing domestic oil production and decreasing gasoline consumption.

Jay Lehr, Heartland Institute science director, likens continuing “as though our new energy riches did not exist” to “ignoring our telecommunication revolution by supporting operator-assisted telephones with party lines.”



Mandated for blending into America’s gasoline supply in 2007 through the Energy Security and Independence Act, ethanol now has an unlikely coalition of opponents—including car and small-engine manufacturers, oil companies and refiners, and food producers and some environmental groups.

A national movement is growing and calling for the end of the ethanol mandates that, according to the WSJ, have “drained the Treasury of almost $40 billion” since the first gasohol subsides were enacted in 1978. Realize the word “Treasury,” used here, really means “taxpayer.”

“At the end of 2011, the ethanol industry lost a $6 billion per year tax-credit subsidy,” the WP points out. But the mandate for the American consumer to use ethanol remains through what Senator David Vitter (R-LA) calls: “a fundamentally flawed program that limps along year after year.”

Imagine the surprise, given that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asserts: “Biofuels are a key part of the Obama Administration’s ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, cut carbon pollution and create jobs,” when, on November 15, the EPA gave a nod toward market and technological realities and, for the first time, proposed a reduction in the renewable volume obligations—below 2012 and 2013 levels.

On a call with reporters, a senior administration official explained: “While under the law volumes of renewable fuel are set to increase each year this unanticipated reduction in fuel consumption brings us to a point where the realities of the fuel market must be addressed to properly implement the program.”

The WP describes the problem: “Mixing more and more ethanol into a fixed or shrinking pool of fuel would bump up against the capacity of existing engines to burn it, as well as the capacity of the existing distribution network to pump it.” It states: “The downward revision of roughly 3 billion gallons is the first such reduction since Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2007.”

The EPA’s decision is lauded by AAA President and CEO Bob Darbelnet: “The EPA has finally put consumers first.” He said the targets in the 2007 law are “unreachable without putting motorists and their vehicles at risk.”


Ethanol has been dealt a blow.

Here’s one of those rare times when the EPA is on the right track, likely it’s for the wrong reasons but even small blessings are welcome. I sit in the midst of millions of acres of corn, lots of it subsidized by ethanol, and I’ll tell you it’s a crock, it made a little sense when we were short of oil. So dod running the Germans running King Tiger tanks on charcoal, but it’s decidedly suboptimal.

And while I’m bashing my neighbors, have you noticed how bad soda made from corn syrup tastes, do you even remember what it used to taste like? You can still get the real stuff, look for Coke (and Pepsi too) products imported from Mexico. Here they are commonly available, and are made with real sugar.

Why are we in this spot? Because for about half of forever we have protected our sugar crop growers with ridiculously high tariffs, leading to corn being used instead, it’s not as good,  but it is affordable. If the sugar guys can’t make it without my tax money, they, like corn farmers should go out of business.


While the ethanol mandate hasn’t been eliminated, the administration has wavered and has given a nod toward “market and technological reality.” Likewise, those of us oppose government mandates and subsidies were handed a small victory in Arizona when, on November 14, the commissioners tipped their hand by setting a new direction for solar energy policy. In a 3-2 vote, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) took a step and added a monthly fee onto the utility bills of new solar customers to make them pay for using and maintaining the power grid.

While the ACC decision didn’t make national headlines, as the EPA decision did, it has huge national implications.

The issue is net-metering—a policy that allows customers with solar panels to receive full retail credit for power they deliver to the grid. Supporters of the current policy—including President Obama—believe that ending it “would kill their business.” Opponents believe it “unfairly shifts costs from solar homes to non-solar homes.”

The ACC vote kept the net-metering program, but added a small fee that solar supporters call “troubling.” Officials for SolarCity and SunRun—companies that install solar arrays—have reportedly said: “The new fees mean fewer customers will be able realize any savings.”

“What amounts to a $5 charge is a big hit to the solar industry,” said Bryan Miller, SunRun vice president for public policy and power markets. “In our experience, you need to show customers some savings.”

Considering that Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) wanted to cut the rate paid to customers with solar and wanted a much larger fee added, the ACC decision might not seem like a victory. In fact, the solar supporters called it a victory for their side, claiming “policymakers in Arizona stood up for its citizens, by rejecting an attempt from the state’s largest utility to squash rooftop solar.” But that’s not the full story.


Renewable energy has suffered a setback in both the EPA ethanol decision and the ACC solar decision. Shouldn’t wind be next?

That’s an improvement but I see no particular reason any producer of solar power should be paid more than the wholesale rate for peak power, otherwise we are simply subsidizing inefficient suppliers at the expense of consumers.


On November 14, fifty-two Congressmen signed a letter, organized by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), calling for the end of the wind production tax credit (PTC). In the letter addressed to Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, they point out that the PTC, which was scheduled to end on December 31, 2012, was extended “during the closing hours of the last Congress,” as a part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA). Not only was it extended, but it was enhanced by modifying the eligibility criteria. Originally, wind turbines needed to be “placed in service” by the end of the expiration of the PTC to qualify for the tax credit. Under ATRA, they need only to be “under construction” to qualify.

The letter points out: “If a wind project developer merely places a 5% deposit on a project initiated in 2013, it will have at least until 2015 and possibly 2016 to place the project in service and obtain the PTC. That means that a wind project that ‘begins construction’ in 2013 could receive subsidies until 2026.”

Like ethanol and solar, “the growth in wind is driven not by market demand, but by a combination of state renewable portfolio standards and a tax credit that is now more valuable than the price of the electricity the plants actually generate.”


These mandates and tax credits are remnants of an outdated energy policy that is akin to “ignoring our telecommunication revolution by supporting operator-assisted telephones with party lines.” America’s energy paradigm has changed and our energy policies need to keep up and be revised to fit our new reality.

Subsidizing green energy is like supporting operator-assisted telephones with party lines « Sago.

As always, if you want efficiency, which translates to the lowest price, let the market decide, without government intervention.

Go, Mjølner, Go

A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude: On the Prairie

English: The official logo of the University o...

English: The official logo of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many of you know that I completely discount the whole climate alarmism as essentially nonsense. The climate has been changing as long as there has been a climate. Probably about the fourth day, “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:” Genesis 1: 14. But in any case it’s nothing new.

So it’s ironic that I have friends at the University of East Anglia, that hotbed of UK corrupt science, that ran on government subsidies (or maybe still does). I don’t kid them about it much because they are good conservative people who know corruption when they see it, and are as honest the day is long.

I’m even gladder that I don’t as I write this introduction, because it seems that the University of Nebraska, Lincoln is every bit as corrupt, and in the exact same way, so I hope they will extend me the same courtesy, as I have said so often in the last few years, “I didn’t vote for this s**t.”

Still I’m a technical guy, and a religious one as well. Yes, there are quite a few around, you just don’t hear about us, because we’re not the ones getting the corrupt grants that so many universities run on anymore, and that may kill the universities yet if they don’t fix it. You see, science is like math: A=A and 2+2=4 not 3.9756 and a good excuse. In other words what is; is, and always has been, and always will be.

Do humans have an effect on climate? Probably, but it is so small that it is immeasurable. Mankind is a prideful beast however, who wants to take credit for things he didn’t and can’t do.

And so another story of a corrupt institution and how it will sell whatever answer its political masters want, if the price is high enough. maybe someday our universities will once again do real, peer-reviewed, honest science. But it’s unlikely to be soon, unless we shut off the government cash-teat.

The crazy goings-on in Nebraska cannot be ignored – especially because they are symptomatic of much bigger problems. As our article notes, Nebraska scientists are refusing to participate in a study that state legislators want to examine natural causes of climate change, unless it is revised to include human influences. In fact, they won’t even suggest that other scientists participate in it. Including ONLY human influences in climate studies doesn’t seem to bother alarmists one whit. But focusing for a change only on natural factors is cause for outrage.

Their stance seems mystifying – until one examines climate change financing, political correctitude, and determination to gain control over people’s lives and livelihoods. Dennis Mitchell and I survey the problem in this week’s column, and point out that these attitudes are found far beyond the Cornhusker Kickback State.

Thank you for posting our article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,


A climate of fear, cash and correctitude 

Trashing real science to protect grants, prestige, and desire to control energy, economy, lives.

By Paul Driessen and Dennis Mitchell

Earth’s geological, archaeological and written histories are replete with climate changes: big and small, short and long, benign, beneficial, catastrophic and everything in between.

The Medieval Warm Period (950-1300 AD or CE) was a boon for agriculture, civilization and Viking settlers in Greenland. The Little Ice Age that followed (1300-1850) was calamitous, as were the Dust Bowl and the extended droughts that vanquished the Anasazi and Mayan cultures;cyclical droughts and floodsin Africa, Asia and Australia; and periods of vicious hurricanes and tornadoes. Repeated Pleistocene Epoch ice ages covered much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-thick ice sheets that denuded continents, stunted plant growth, and dropped ocean levels 400 feet for thousands of years.

Modern environmentalism, coupled with fears first of global cooling and then of global warming, persuaded politicians to launch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its original goal was to assess possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human-induced warming. However, it wasn’t long before the Panel minimized, ignored and dismissed non-human factors to such a degree that its posture became the mantra that onlyhumans are now affecting climate.

Over the last three decades, five IPCC “assessment reports,” dozens of computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused almost entirely on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for “dangerous” global warming, climate change, climate “disruption,” and almost every “extreme” weather or climate event. Tens of billions of dollars have supported these efforts, while only a few million have been devoted to analyses of all factors – natural and human – that affect and drive planetary climate change.

You would think researchers would welcome an opportunity to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change – to enable them to evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. You would be wrong.

A few weeks agoNebraska lawmakers called for a wide-ranging study of “cyclical” climate change. Funded by the state, the $44,000 effort was to be limited to natural causes – not additional speculation about manmade effects. Amazingly, University of Nebraska scientists are not just refusing to participate in the study, unless it includes human influences. One climatologist at the university’s National Drought Mitigation Center actually said he would not be comfortable circulating a study proposal or asking other scientists to participate in it; in fact, he “would not send it out” to anyone. The director of the High Plains Climate Center sniffed, “If it’s only natural causes, we would not be interested.”

Their dismissive stance seems mystifying – until one examines climate change politics and financing.

None of these Nebraska scientists seems reluctant to accept far larger sums for “research” that focuses solely on human causes; nor do professors at Penn State, Virginia, George Mason or other academic or research institutions. They’re likewise not shy about connecting “dangerous manmade global warming” to dwindling frog populations, shrinking Italian pasta supplies, clownfish getting lost, cockroaches migrating, anscores of other remote toridiculous assertions – if the claims bring in research grants.

American taxpayers alone are providing billions of dollars annually for such research, through the EPA and numerous other government agencies – and the colleges, universities and other institutions routinely take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to derail that gravy train, and all fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles would imperil funding from sources that have ideological, political or crony corporatist reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy and related topics. Perhaps they would be tempted if the Nebraska legislators were offering $4 million or even $440,000. But a lousy $44,000?

Peer pressure, eco-activist harassment, politically correct posturing, and shared ideologies about fossil fuels, forced economic transformations and wealth redistribution via energy policies also play a major role, especially on campuses. Racial and sexual diversity is applauded, encouraged, even required, as is political diversity across the “entire” spectrum from communist to “progressive.” But diversity of opinion is restricted to 20×20-foot “free speech zones,” and would-be free speech practitioners are vilified, exiled to academic Siberia, dismissed or penalized – as “climate skeptics” from Delaware, Oregon, Virginia and other institutions can testify. Robust debate about energy and climate issues is denounced and obstructed.

A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | PA Pundits – International.

Video Thursday

I don’t completely agree with the video here. It’s a bit too conspiratorial for me. But it’s not exactly wrong either.

But one thing I want you to remember, while much of this video is true, I think, minus some of the more lurid conspiracy elements, the American Dream isn’t really, entirely, or even mostly about economics is it? It’s about freedom, and while economics plays a part, there are other parts, that need strengthening as well.

Then there is this, which is superficial, but not, I think, false.



Obamacare; Some Thoughts

It’s probably a fair bet that you’ve already seen this, but it’s cute and pretty much true, funny too. So enjoy

It’s a cute video and the problems is speaks of are real enough but its far from funny for those of us (read American taxpayers) paying for this farce. We got charged a multiple of what any private company would have paid for that fool website and now we’ll get to pay even more to fix it. Incidentally, my friends who write code tell me that what is normal is that when they find a bug, it uncovers another at the ratio of 2 uncovered hides 1 more. It’s going to be a while, I think. But eventually, it will probably get fixed.

Then what? Then we can start finding out just how much more expensive it will be-early indications are a lot. We will also realize that except for certain carriers (mostly Blue Cross/Blue Shield) if we get sick away from home, our insurance will only be minimally useful, and without any limit on co-pays or total cost. If like me, you live in a rural area, your choices will be very limited and will consist of the cheap providers, who are cheap for a reason. Of course, as the British have noticed, one way to reduce costs is to let people die without care, we’ll see it here as well, “Bye, Granma”

But, you know, that’s the hallmark of the socialistic, industrial age program, treat everybody the same (usually badly) and keep the cost per unit down. Now I have no problem with reducing cost, that’s just good business, but there are a lot of things around that competition could do to reduce cost while providing even better care than we have. The way we find them is this, we get government as far as possible out of healthcare. We need possibly (I’m not sure we do, but let that pass for now) a certain basic level of regulation, to insure proper care. Although I think it a bad business practice to kill of your customers, unless, I suppose, you’re an abortionist.

But we’ll never know here, unless we go visit India or the Philippines or one of those countries where the people actually pay for their own healthcare directly. And that’s the key, you care about how you spend your money, not as much as for your life, but you care. If you have to pay for it, you’ll look for the best value, whether it’s a house call by a doctor in a buggy, or an internet enabled consultation. If I’m paying for your medical care, you’re going to get the cheapest that is consistent with my ethics, if any. See the difference there.

And in many ways, I could understand this kind of program when, say Social Security was enacted. Like most programs in the nineteenth and twentieth century, it was designed for an industrial nation. One in which the assembly line was the model. That is not to say people didn’t excel, many did or we’d still be riding around in buggies, and taking the steam cars at best. We’ve always had our innovators, and while we have tended to revile them some, we have made them legitimately rich.

But in many ways, building and marketing a better mousetrap is not the way to get ahead in America anymore. The preferred route has become to get a federal grant to study the habits and preferences of mice, no matter that George Washington’s generation knew all that was necessary.

Most of the grants given out by the government would not have ever been granted by a private business. I know, many of you are thinking that business will never do basic research. But, they used to. Look at the innovations in steel and transportation (mostly railroads) in the nineteenth century, the basic processes of telegraphy, scheduling, and steel itself were developed by private, for profit, enterprises. Why? to increase their profits. They fueled the longest and greatest increase in the standard of living ever seen in the world. Without government.

Now we are moving beyond the mass-produced industrial age. It’s arguably too soon to see what the world of the future will look like. Just like Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson could not have envisioned, in their wildest dreams, our world. The only guaranty is that 2114 will be different beyond our imagination. That’s scary, but it’s a good scary. The alternative is to go backwards, and that’s what Obamacare is, a leap into the past. It’s very like, because the dream for its proponents is single payer) the British NHS. And that is a discredited model. It’s the worst possible way forward because it looks to the past.

The best solution is to eliminate interstate bans on insurance, reform tort law to restrict nuisance suits, and promote medical savings accounts. Although it would be even better to abolish the income tax, so that people could spend their money as they wish. That would take a major cut back in the federal government, back to its original purposes, which would be a major stimulus to the economy, similar to what we call the gilded age.

After all, do you really care if A.J. Cassatt gets very rich, if you have everything thing you want?

Why would you?

Break the Paradigm

The frontispiece of the book Leviathan by Thom...

The frontispiece of the book Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You know for 130 years now, the federal government has had the civil service. It began with the Civil Service Act under Chester A. Arthur. It was an attempt to restrain the unseemly (and corrupt) spoils system, that had every customs officer and postmaster, lose their job when a president of a different party was elected.

Well, it cured the obvious problem, the hordes of federal workers (Do locusts come in hordes?) no longer get fired when the party of the president changes. The trouble is they never, ever get fired for anything. If there is one thing we know in the private sector, it is that one has to weed out the dead wood, the incompetent, the lazy, and the corrupt. That is nearly impossible in the government, the Civil Service system makes it very difficult and if that wasn’t enough, the government has decided that their employees should have a union as well.

If there was ever a system designed to make the bureaucrat different from and indifferent to the citizen, this is it. This is a system that has no penalties for non-performance, misfeasance, malfeasance, or even outright corruption, other than one or two flashy examples every once in a while to make a politician look good. Understand this, bureaucrats are not by definition evil, the word means they work in a bureau, In my mind Joseph after he got taken to Egypt was a bureaucrat. The problem is not what they are. The problem is that they have no incentives.

They almost literally cannot be fired. There is a method, they say. I’d guess it has been attempted once since FDR’s first election, and probably failed. Conversely there is no incentive to do better, to innovate, to do anything that would make the government work better.

On top of that there is a system (it exists in big business, as well) that tells them that if they don’t spend all the money in the budget, they’ll get less next year, while if they have overruns, they’ll get more. In a system where your worth is measured by your budget and number of subordinates: what would you do? Yeah, me too. We all act in our own interest.

I hate to say it, but I think the wildly corrupt spoils system was better. If nothing else, they had to respond somewhat to the citizen to help keep their party in charge.

Are there solutions? Of course, there are. I doubt I know most (or even many) of them. The key thing, I think, is to figure out some way to incentivize good behavior. The ways we do it in the private sector are fairly obvious, but I don’t think we want the Department of Justice trying to make a profit. Some say that the RICO Act went too far in that direction, and I’m not sure they’re wrong.

As a stopgap, perhaps much of it could be contracted out. Yes I know, contracting justifiably looks bad itself right now, but I’m not referring to single-source contracts to politicians’ buddies. What I have in mind are contracts, broken down into small pieces, like maybe the management of 5 rural post offices, or something along that line. Something that Harvey and Lois Lunchbucket would have a shot at winning and completing successfully.

That’s not a final answer of course, that requires a lot of contract management, but I see it as a start, maybe giving some of the supervisors a chance at the contracts. The point is that, those five post offices, if we do it right, will compete, not only with each other but with UPS, FedEx and all the others, if they can reduce their cost by some other method, they will do so, as long as we don’t write the specification like a straight jacket. I didn’t say it was easy, it’s not, but a government worthy of the people is worth some work, isn’t it?

We also need to think about what we do in government. Is there a reason for a Department of Education in the Federal Government? I don’t see one, but there may be an argument out that would convince me. Same with HUD, same with Interior, Agriculture. Same with almost the whole thing. It’s a legacy structure, that grew up to help settle the country and build industry and the world’s largest common market. That job is done. And in fact we are moving (at least in the first world) beyond industrialization and mass production.

As we sit here in America, watching the last gasp try of industrial socialism (which is failing) we should be thinking about where we go from here.

Personally, I think as we move into the new economy, we will find that in many ways we are moving personally back before the industrial revolution. not in income, or ease of access or lack of food, or anything that characterized the pre-industrial world. I don’t see Thomas Hobbes as a prophet. I think we will see a continuing move to work from our houses, for ourselves. Doing as much as we want, to meet our expectations, not some one elses. In other words more and more family based.

There’s no reason in this scenario for very much to be delegated to the federal government. Even more than during the industrial age, it will benefit the people for the states to compete, in whatever way they think will work, for population, for jobs, for all that stuff. The key point is the states be fully cognizant that the federal government is not going to bail them out, if they screw up, it’s up to them to fix.

Obviously, I don’t have all (or many) of the answers. I am convinced this is the way the world is going, I’m also convinced that America, is best suited because of our heritage of self-reliant individuals to lead the world in this movement. But let’s start thinking about this.

What do you think, how do we…

Break the paradigm

Why Won’t The GOP Let Us Have a Normal Debate? Why!?

Obama greets Harkin the day after healthcare b...

Obama greets Harkin the day after healthcare bill passed (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Jonah Goldberg has an article up at National Review Online. In it he makes the point that many, many establishment Republican are carrying water for the lying methods used by the Democratic party (exclusively) to foist this abortion of a health care bill on us. Enjoy


Greg Sargent thinks it’s unseemly and ill-mannered for Republicans to focus on the fact that a great many people are losing their health insurance because of Obamacare. He does make a few very reluctant concessions. For instance:

Critics of the law are right to ask whether it is having an adverse impact on these millions of Americans. And the White House could have been clearer in laying the groundwork for this political argument: It wasn’t sufficient to say people who like their plans will be able to keep it, which is narrowly untrue.


And this:


Well, let’s see if we can lift the veil of mystery. For starters, Obama’s statements were not  ”narrowly untrue.”  They were broadly, knowingly and entirely untrue. He repeated them over and over again, often straight into the camera. It’s nice that Greg Sargent concedes now that the president “could have been clearer.” But “could have been clearer” implies that he was a little clear about how this would work and just didn’t clarify enough. The truth is the complete opposite. He wasn’t even deliberately unclear. He was clearly dishonest. Obama was stridently deceitful. Seriously, watch this video compilation of Obama’s repeated and vociferous statements about “keeping your plan” and tell me he was just failing to be sufficiently clear that millions of people wouldn’t be able to keep their plans:

This raises a larger problem about the wonkosphere. Ross Douthat is right when he tweets:

“Furor over ‘if you like your plan …’ is a reminder to everyone in Wonkland (where everyone knew it was BS) that most ppl don’t live here.”

I agree that everyone in wonkland knew it was BS. But what does it say about the liberal wonks that they either never said so when the legislation was being debated or said so very quietly under their breaths. I’m genuinely curious, did Sargent or his colleagues at the Washington Post report that what Obama was saying — never mind the impression he was leaving — was a lie, or even “narrowly untrue”? I mean did they report it when it might have hurt the law’s chances of passage, not afterwards when all lies are retroactively absolved as the price for social progress. 

Indeed, what is so infuriating to many of us is that is that now that it’s the law of the land, Obamacare supporters act as if all of the lies were no big deal and no serious person believed them anyway. But as anyone can tell you, if Obama had been honest about the trade-offs in his signature piece of legislation, it would never have become his signature piece of legislation. So please, don’t tell me the lies don’t matter.

Indeed, this might help unravel the mystery for Sargent. Republicans (or at least a great, great many of them) know that this law glided to passage with tracks greased with b.s.[...]

And now, when the Democrats’ lies are proving politically inconvenient, we’re told that if Republicans were smart, they’d accept the law and engage in a sober conversation about the very real trade-offs in the law liberals lied about for years. 

I’m not arguing that the GOP shouldn’t capitulate to the law simply out of spite (though spite is underrated in this circumstance if you ask me). [...]


Quite a lot more at Why Won’t The GOP Let Us Have a Normal Debate? Why!? | National Review Online. Go there



%d bloggers like this: