GASOHOL: THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

Okay, fellow travelers. So you've noticed that your car is stopping a little more frequently for fuel? You're not sure why it gets fewer miles on a tank of fuel, despite your being careful with the throttle? Here's a hint: next time you fill up, take a close look at the pump from which you're pumping fuel. Is there a sticker on it informing you that the fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol? That's chemist speak for alcohol. Gasoline containing alcohol is called gasohol. In many places you see a sticker that says E85. That's code for fuel that is 85% gasoline, 15% alcohol.

Ethanol does not produce as much power as gasoline when it is burned. It doesn't contain as much energy potential as gasoline. So of course you won't get the same fuel mileage you used to get, if you are now burning gasohol. The more alcohol in your fuel, the worse your gas mileage will be. Your car will not be as peppy. Not to mention - the more it will cost you to drive one mile.

The envirowackos (my regard for them is showing, I admit) tell us that adding alcohol to gasoline will reduce hydrocarbon emissions - that it's better for the planet than burning pure gasoline. Let's take an admittedly anecdotal look at the truth of that.

Personal experience: In two dramatically different cars - a '92 Jeep Cherokee and a 2005 Subaru Legacy - burning gasohol of the 10% variety reduced my MPG rating by a touch over 15%. For the Jeep, that translated into a gasohol fill being good for 250 miles on a tank, where I used to get 300 before a fill-up.

For illustration purposes, let's assume that it took ten gallons to fill the tank. In the case of pure gasoline, those ten gallons took the car 300 miles. For gasohol, ten gallons takes the car 250 miles. For gasohol, the amount of pure gasoline burned is nine gallons; we also burn one gallon of alcohol. Sounds good, right? Nine gallons instead of ten? But wait! We have to drive 50 more miles to get to 300 - two more gallons of fuel will be required to accomplish that. That's 1.8 gallons of pure gasoline and 0.2 gallons of alcohol.

If you're still with me here, let's add up how many gallons of pure gasoline, as part of the 10% gasohol fuel, had to be burned to travel those 300 miles: 9 gallons for the first 250 miles, 1.8 gallons for the next 50 miles. That adds to 10.8 gallons of pure evil petrochemical burned in the name of reducing petrochemical dependance and cleaner air, in place of the 10.0 we would have burned if we put pure gasoline into our tanks.

I admit to no longer being a rocket scientist, but this seems like something that most folks should have been told by responsible envirowackos. But that's oxymoronic; even if they existed, doing so would be contrary to their agenda, which contains no regard for the truth.

Hey, but gasohol is cheaper, you say! Oh really? Let's do a little more 3d-grade math. If you get 15% fewer miles per gallon with gasohol, how much cheaper does gasohol have to be to allow you to break even on the cost per mile? Duh - obviously it has to be 15% cheaper. But is it? Next time you get a chance to compare the 'expensive' pure gas price and the 'cheaper' gasohol price, do the math and see if the gasohol is really 15% lower in price. Or you can take it from the Ostrich Killer that gasohol is not 15% cheaper, which means it costs you more to drive a mile using gasohol than it does to drive a mile using pure gasoline. And we drive by the mile, not by the gallon.

So, bottom line: Filling up with gasohol means more evil petrochemical is burned to travel a given distance, and it costs more to drive that given distance. So why oh why are so many states pushing gasohol? Why are the envirowackos so enthralled with the idea of burning our food and feed supplies, instead of petroleum? Have you noticed a food price increase? That's because our sugar crops - corn, sorghum, milo, etc - are being made into alcohol for fuel.

Maybe that's a topic for a future discussion.

Your Ostrich Killer is out. Happy Father's Day, and Happy Birthday Josh.

Barack Hussein Obama Leaves His Church Without Condemning Its Messages

The Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, has left his church. He did so, he says, to spare its parishoners further harrassement from the media.

He did NOT say he condemns the messages spewing from its pulpit. He did not condemn its rhetoric, its racist, sexist, class-envying anti-American tirades. He instead scolded the media for asking questions of its parishoners.

He spent 20 years in that church, listening to the sort of rhetoric we've all heard lately. It has to have shaped his thinking, perhaps reflected it. Do we need a president who grew up in a racist, sexist and anti-American church, and leaves it now only because the media tries to talk to its members?

Okay, I'll say it: having heard the rhetoric, having heard Obama's half-hearted reasons for leaving the church, I believe Obama to be racist and sexist. And I predict that you'll hear from his wife words that will suggest she is too.

I also believe Obama to be what is fashionably called a 'socialist' whose view of uplifting people is to punish the rich. Not sure how this helps the less than rich, but it might make them feel good, at least until they find themselves out of work because the rich, who create jobs and services, will do what they have to in order to preserve whatever capital Obama lets them keep. Payback, right? Feels good, but you can't eat it . . .