Don’t get mad, get worried 
at Democrats’ post-election acts

I wish our friends on the left would stop angrily saying conservatives are angry all the time. I even read in The Daily Sentinel I was supposed to be angry, apparently about the results of the election. That’s not true.

I’m a little concerned we’re headed toward national bankruptcy, starting a health care system that’s going to deliver the best care that 1937 had to offer and engaging in a foreign-policy where the only people afraid of what we might do are our allies.

Actually, I’m mainly curious, with a little apprehension thrown in. Sort of like being in a haunted house and slowly realizing the ghosts are real. My apprehension mainly comes from the fact some people have said, since the election, that we should just get out of the way and let what happens happen.

This is part of the “let them own it” way of thinking that supposes if the far left wants to pursue policies that collapse our economic system, the rest of us should just stand aside, let it happen and rebuild from the rubble.

The hitch is having to live in the rubble, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t make good rebuilding material. So, for that reason, I think most of us shouldn’t lose interest in what’s thumping against the walls of the republic.

With that in mind, we should look at one of our state’s very own wrecking balls, Sen. Mark Udall. Just to lay some foundation, our senator is quite interested in alternative energy, which I have been able to determine is the alternative to energy.

Moreover, Sen. Mark Udall of our state and his cousin, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, love them some biofuels. They love them so much they want to make sure they’re developed. Since nobody wants to use their own money to figure out a way to make them commercially viable, our senator thinks we should experiment in the public sector with a nonessential area, like the military.

To help that along, our senator recently attached an amendment to some legislation that would remove a prohibition in place to prevent the military from paying more for alternative fuels than conventional ones.

This is a clear effort to take one of the largest consumers of fuel products in the nation and drive it toward utilizing an economically unfeasible but politically expedient product and lure producers into the business. What will entice them into the venture is that the military can now purchase gallons of biofuels at 8 to 10 times the price of conventional diesel.

Last summer, the Air Force spent $59 per gallon on biofuels for a demonstration that, according to the Heritage Foundation, amounted to $639,000 for 11,000 gallons of the fuel, which coincidentally came from a company located in Colorado.

This purchase makes a more recent expenditure by the Navy, as part of its new “green fleets” initiative, seem a bargain. The Navy recently purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuels at a mere $27 per gallon.

It also appears the fuels might actually damage the fuel storage equipment. Studies suggest these fuels tend to exacerbate corrosion in storage tanks and, one would assume, transmission machinery, which would suggest retrofitting costs or increased maintenance and replacement of equipment.

The fact that the nation’s military is one of the first places that our senator thinks he should be monkeying around with experimental fuels should be enough of a concern. But these expenditures, by a military still fighting at least one war and hoping to avoid getting drawn into another that may be coming in the Middle East, seem inexcusable.

The military is also looking at possible cuts of up to $500 billion, and we are on track to have a Navy smaller than we did during World War I.

Despite the president’s comments that ships are more advanced and we don’t use bayonets anymore (we do actually), the world also hasn’t gotten any smaller and has become more dangerous — hardly the time to muck about with our national defense to score some political capital with your base.

Actions like Sen. Udall’s don’t make me mad, but they should make all of us worried.

Rick Wagner writes more on politics at his blog, The War on Wrong.


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


How many schooners do we need captain Wagner?

Rick Wagner not angry? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Poor Rick, he jumped on a point that Romney got his buns toasted. A navy with less ships is not less strong. One missile submarine today carries enough firepower to destroy a nation. One carrier today could take out the entire Japanese Pearl Harbor attack force or the Midway Invasion fleet. The grand number of Battleships of World War I was shown to be useless in the face of air attack by Billy Mitchell and it took Pearl Harbor for this to be realized.
He needs to realize that fossil fuels have a finite life and, if the machinery of war will need fuels, biofuels may have to fill that need. While the industry of biofuels is limited, costs are high; but, it doesn’t mean it will stay that way.
On the other hand, there is only one thing standing in the way of electrical power taking over the roles of both fossil fuel and biofuels and that is power storage. Present battery technology is not up to par to make this transition. However, in the realms of nanotechnology, the carbon materials are showing promising use as capacitor storage that would outlive and hold enormous power storage at rapid recharge. This also brings the advent of hydrogen as the liquid fuel of choice with the coupling of high strength, light weight fuel tanks of carbon composite.
The trouble with being dogmatic conservative is it puts blinders on vision of the future by clinging to the past. Couple this with the fear and loathing that has been promulgated by this group resistance to being taken into the future, and you have new members for the flat earth society.

Page 1 of 1




TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Advertiser Tearsheet
Information

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy