Pole dancing and the Family Circus. Seriously.

From the “I’m really, really not making this up” category, I offer two pole dancing related items (What, only two?).

First, a Family Circus cartoon that poked fun at pole dancing.  Let’s just say that Bill Keane must have been having an off day.

family circus pole dancing

Side note: Family Circus is a mini-running joke in our house.   We’re pretty picky about comics and let’s just say that it does not meet our standards.  My youngest daughter bought a Family Circus book for my last birthday as a joke, but my 80 year old dad started reading it and was laughing out loud.  Watching him enjoy it was far funnier than the comics themselves, so I had them give it to him for his birthday.

Second, in case you missed the news, you can get a Pole Dancer Doll for Girls.  The lowest common denominator just gets lower.  Quote of the day:

God owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

P.S. On a marginally related note, while researching for this post I found a series of Pearls Before Swine comics that poked fun at Family Circus.  Good stuff.

Wow, an email from the White House!

Just got this today from Nancy-Anne DeParle at the White House (whoever she is) with the title of Help the Vice President debunk this myth. That was odd because the only corresponence I’ve had with the White House was to point out flaws of the ObamaCare program.  But I’m a loyal citizen and love to debunk myths.  So let’s give it a read:

 Dear Friend,

Our latest Reality Check video features Vice President Joe Biden addressing the biggest whopper of all: that our health insurance system works just fine and Americans don’t care about reform. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So we’re trying something new. You can help the Vice President debunk this myth by uploading your own video on why reform matters to you. This is an opportunity for Americans of all backgrounds and situations to make the case for reform in your own words.

Watch the Vice President’s video and then respond with your own:

A Reality Check from the Vice President

Need some help? We also have a new online quiz to help set the record straight about health insurance reform. Find out what’s in reform for somebody like you by answering a few questions.

What does reform mean if you already have insurance? What if you don’t? What does it mean if you’re young? If you’re a senior? If you have children?

Take the quiz and then share it — simple tools like this are a great way to cut through the noise and get the facts about reform: www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/quiz

Thank you,

Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform

P.S. No matter your age, where you work, whether you have insurance or not, you’ll be surprised at how much you’ll get out of health insurance reform. But don’t just take my word for it — take the quiz: www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/quiz

Again, according to Nancy-Ann, this is the myth:

our health insurance system works just fine and Americans don’t care about reform.

Here’s my debunking: That is a myth because it is a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument — i.e., no significant group of people is advancing that position.  None come to mind.  There, it is debunked, and I didn’t even need a video or to use government resources to do so.

Here’s more debunking: I care plenty about reform.  Here’s a post from mid-2007.  I just don’t think that an unprecedented power grab by the Federal Government is going to be an effective reform.  I would love to see reform regarding tort laws, insurance sales, tax benefits to consumers and more!  Can we talk about that?

Roundup

Is the death penalty a deterrent?  Of course it is.

Another provocative one from the Wintery Knight: His guidelines on courtship for Christian men and women.  I would tweak it just a bit myself, but overall I find it to be very solid, biblical and insightful. 

I liked the Bumbling Genius’ take on the police officer who is unfamiliar with or indifferent to the First Amendment (“It ain’t America no more”).  I think the man’s sign was unproductive, but the officer’s reaction and the non-reaction of the media and the President are very troubling and hypocritical.

President Obama is bearing false witness about other bearing false witness.  He seems shocked that we’d claim that his plans include government funded abortions, even though that has always been his claim and more honest politicians concede the point.

Cheney calls Democrats soft on national security and slams Obama’s politicized CIA probe – Yep.

Obama botches Honduras situation

The Wintery Knight notes that Obama cuts off aid to pressure Honduras into communist dictatorship.

The Obama Administration is about to cut off aid to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Earlier, the Obama Administration blocked travel to the United States by the people of Honduras.

Not only is Obama playing counterproductive games to advance his non-Democratic ideology, he is losing them.  He isn’t even winning over our foes.  And worst of all, he is going to hurt the people impacted by our aid. 

I had the blessing of going on a mission trip to Honduraslast year and was eager to return later this year.  However, the political situation there will probably result in the trip being cancelled.  While the former Honduras President selfishly ignores the will of the people and the Obama administration continues its opposite-land stances on foreign relations (ignore Iran’s election frauds when you shouldn’t / get involved with Honduras fairly run elections), the people suffer greatly.  Mission teams bring lots of money and aid to the poor there, but they are the first things to shut down when travel is cancelled. 

I’ve seen many reports from the leaders of the mission program in Honduras via Facebook and email.  Things are actually peaceful there.  But politics like Obama’s are not only pointless but counterproductive.

BTW, the ministry we work with there is Hope for Honduras, which provides food, medicine, education, the Gospel and more to countless people there.  They are really hurting due to the political situation, so if you are inclined please consider a donation to them.

The Telephone Game Part II

phone.jpgAs I wrote back in 2007, many people are familiar with the telephone game often used with kids to show the challenges and importance of clear communication.  It usually works with a message being given to one person, who has one chance to pass it along to another person.  By the time it gets to the end the message is hilariously (?) garbled.

Sometimes skeptics will use the telephone game analogy to criticize the writings of the Bible, and of the Gospels in particular.  Their premise is that the message was transmitted orally for at least a couple decades (and, by their often convoluted reasoning, many decades), so of course it got changed many times before it was put to paper. 

But that game is different from how the oral transmissions that make up the Bible in many key ways:

  1. The Bible wasn’t translated just one-on-one.  There were many witnesses and many people who heard and recounted the events.  People would catch errors instantly.
  2. They didn’t get just one try.  In the telephone game you only get one chance, but in real life – and especially with the New Testament – Jesus probably gave the same message many times, and people repeated it many times with overlapping audiences.  Again, errors would be caught quickly.
  3. Transmitters were well trained in memorizing stories.  People in that culture – especially Jewish men – were trained to memorize things well.  Many Muslims memorize the whole Koran even in our times. 
  4. The message being transmitted wasn’t insignificant.  These people thought they had the words of life, and they worked hard to communicate it carefully.  And they often risked their lives to communicate this message. A good analogy I heard was that if a group of cancer patients went to hear someone describe how they could be cured, they would be inclined to pay close attention and to collectively document the information accurately.
  5. The New Testament writers had the benefit of the Holy Spirit to guide them.  I don’t think the Holy Spirit is actively involved in too many instances of the regular telephone game.
  6. Paul’s letters and others were firsthand accounts of events, so no oral tradition was involved.  And we can be highly confident that the original writings were accurately transmitted to us.

A more detailed perspective is available here.

I was surprised to see an Assistant Professor of Religious Studies note that he actually uses this game to teach college students about the Gospels (a link came to my site from his blog via the “related posts” section).  I didn’t realize his background before my first comment, then read more after he responded.  Here’s my latest comment:

—–

I’ve used the telephone game to teach the gospels a number of times, but it troubles me.

A college prof thinks that is a good way to teach anything? Sad.

On the one hand, of course teaching the gospels by playing the telephone game makes perfect sense: what we have in the New Testament today does not reflect what actually happened in 0 to 35 C.E.

Hmmm . . . if you know what “really” happened perhaps you could enlighten us as to what that was and how you “know” it.

Second, even after they were written down, the stories were copied by scribes who altered the text—textual transmission is just as subject to changes as oral transmission.

False. Even pagan skeptics like Bart Ehrman concede that we know with > 99% confidence what the originals said. The system works, that’s why most Bibles footnote that the ending of Mark and the story of the woman at the well were not in the earliest manuscripts.

Ehrman just makes up a new rule that says that if every copy wasn’t perfect then the originals couldn’t have been inspired (we call that “making God in your own image”).

If you take the two most divergent manuscript streams you still get the same thing: Orthodox Christianity.

However, it is worth nothing that textual transmission may leave alternate editions that permit comparison—to my knowledge historians won’t be able to compare existing texts to oral tellings until they have time machines.

Of course. That’s why you should always assume the opposite of anything ever recorded by anyone.

One can illustrate this point by playing the telephone game: read just a single verse from one of the gospels and have the students pass the message up and down the rows by whispering it to one other.

As noted in my first comment, that is not how the Gospels were transmitted. In theory, you could go to a professor of religious studies and they’d enlighten you as to how it really worked.

So, for instance, we shouldn’t read the gospel of Matthew with an eye to the extent to which it preserves the original message of Jesus, but with an eye to the problems his community was facing some 40 to 60 years after Jesus died, and how he hoped to resolve those problems by writing up some new propaganda.

First, that dating is all wrong. It is easy to demonstrate that the most logical case for the NT datings has the Gospels being written before 70 A.D. 

Second, it is hard to imagine someone actually reading the Gospels and coming to that conclusion. Over 25% of the Gospels focus on the Passion Week. How does that represent some solution to an unrelated problem?

The problem is that we are sinners in need of a Savior and Jesus is that Savior. His death on the cross paid the price for us.

You might want to trade in the religious studies gig for fiction writing.

Thoughts on health care

It isn’t like all the projections of ObamaCare are hypotheticals.  You can already see what government controlled health care looks like in pockets of the U.S. 

And just who “created this mess?”  But our “bipartisan” President insists that it was those who oppose him, so of course he wants to shut them up.  But the facts get in the way of his claim (Hat tip: LCB):

Health care experts across the spectrum can agree that there are three main problems with the health insurance industry in America today:  community rating, which forbids insurance companies from charging premiums based on an individual consumer’s health status; the practice of defensive medicine, under which doctors order numerous costly and often unnecessary tests to cover themselves against the possibility of malpractice lawsuits; and employer-based coverage.  Each of these problems, which together contribute most to the “mess” in health care delivery, were all either brought into existence, or are perpetuated by Democrats.

Obama & Co. continually present the fale dichotomy that you either support their plan or the status quo.  But many have sought changes in health care for years (e.g., tort reform, insurance law changes, tax incentives for the insured and not the employers, etc.).  But guess who fought those ideas?

Yes, there is a better way, and no, it isn’t ObamaCare or KennedyCare (although those are aptly named, since they obviously care(d) mostly about themselves).

Ken Hoffman, a humor writer for the Houston Chronicle, received this letter about the Department of Motor Vehicles.  Read it carefully and ask yourself if you would like to assign more responsibility to inflexible organizations with customer service ethics such as this one, or less. 

At a place such as Target, we never experience long lines.  They constantly watch the queues, and if they get more than two deep a new register is opened.  Yet the DMV, which has very predictable demand, can’t find a way to staff appropriately or offer flexible in forms of payment. 

Also consider that they charge a fee for online registrations, even though that saves everyone tremendous amounts of time and money, and which is a green strategy as well (you don’t have to drive to get your renewal).

I didn’t know who else to contact about this most frustrating experience. My driver’s license needs to be renewed. I checked online and they said I could not do it online, so I headed out to the Gessner location. This is one of the most dreaded things I do, and I felt very prepared, having a book and other reading material plus a bottle of water. I started to take my checkbook, but then thought that there was no way they would take checks with all the potential bad checks being written, so had my debit and credit card ready.

When I arrived, the line was out the door in the 100-degree heat. There was a sign that said “No Food or Water” and “No debit or credit cards—cash or check or money order only”. Wow, that shocked me, so only having $12 in my wallet, I headed out to look for an ATM or grocery store to get cash back. There was a CVS at the corner and there were signs on every cash register that they would only give $10 cash back. I talked to a sales clerk about why and he said they have 100 people every day come in for cash for DPS and would run out if they gave out more. Fortunately, I must have looked trustworthy or desperate, and he gave me $20 cash back, so I would have enough for the $24 renewal fee.

I headed back, resigned to the fact I would be waiting for a while. The line snaked through the office with no seats in sight. I was growing increasingly angry about this inefficient system when a nice woman exited and said to us all, “Good luck—I’ve been here for over three hours, and I work 10 hours a day, and my feet are killing me.” I left in frustration.

Here’s my bottom-line question:

What does Mayor Bill White do to renew his license?

What does Rick Perry do?

What about the CEOs of JP Morgan Chase or Shell Oil?

Or, for that matter, Lynn Wyatt?

What does Ken do?

Help! I am not that patient and don’t understand why this system for all these years has not improved one bit.

— Suzy LaForge,Houston

Why drag Lynn Wyatt into this? The DPS office is supposed to be torture. It’s run by the State. It’s socialism! After three hours in there, you’ll be wishing for death panels. Here’s how I beat the system. I drag a lawn chair and iPod, and I get to the DPS office an hour before it opens. It’s like the old days, waiting to buy concert tickets. It’s usually cool in the early morning, and you meet a wonderful bunch of people who also dread the DPS office.

Roundup

If you are going to have a productive discussion about predestination, it is important to have a clear understanding of what each party means by the term free will. Stan’s son does a nice job of summarizing it in the link.

Remember, it was acceptable for Ted Kennedy to joke about Mary Jo Kopechne’s death but if you remind people of it then you are crass and tasteless.

And according to a writer on the Huffington Post , maybe Mary Jo would have thought her death was worth it all:

Still, ignorance doesn’t preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn’t automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.

Or who knows? Maybe she would have become a Senator.

Here’s the best eulogy for Ted that I’ve seen.  Very thorough. 

Apparently Michael Behe is just too scary for some people. As he notes, perhaps we aren’t as free and/or as brave as we thought.

But remember, Expelled! just made all that stuff up about scientific and academic freedom. All those scientific types just want the facts out there.

Watch the trailer for Blood Money. Looks like a great expose of the abortion industry and those destroyed by it.

Go here to get on a list for updates.

Euthyphro’s Dilemma

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has thorough response to Euthyphro’s Dilemma, which asks,

Is an act right because God says it’s so, or does God say it’s so because it’s right?

The question is used by skeptics, such as the late Bertrand Russell, to posit that Christianity must be false because either choice would disagree with it.

Koukl points out how it is actually a false dilemma, because it ignores a third option.

This is precisely why the moral argument for God’s existence is such a good one. The awareness of morality leads to God much as the awareness of falling apples leads to gravity. Our moral intuitions recognize the effect, but what is the adequate cause? If God does not exist, then moral terms are actually incoherent and our moral intuitions are nonsense.

Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro’s dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God’s immutable nature.

Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God’s laws express His character and–if our moral intuitions are intact–we immediately recognize those Laws as good.

This doesn’t mean Christianity is true, only that it’s is not handicapped by Plato’s challenge to Euthyphro.

Roundup

40 Years Ago Today in Steelers History: Rocky Bleier Fights Back — I grew up watching the 70′s Steelers on TV but had forgotten the details of his story.  It is an amazing tale, and not just for Bleier’s unbelievable passion to overcome serious war injuries but for the owner of the Steelers who cared enough to help him.  And Bleier didn’t just come back for show, he excelled in many ways.  Read it, and ensure that you don’t make excuses about why you can’t work hard to achieve your goals.

Muslim father forces 10 year old daughter to marry 80 year old man — Just more of that Sharia Law we’ve been hearing so many good things about.  But hey, all cultures are equally valid so who are we to criticize?

Steven Crowder exposes the hypocrisy of the Democratic party on the “Astroturf” claims.

In fairness and balance I must give kudos to Democrats Betsy Markey and Howard Dean for telling the truth about senior citizens losing out on benefits with this new plan and the concession that the Democrats won’t fight trial lawyers and the clear implication that tort reform should be in the bill.

Evolutionary Explanation for Contradictory Altruism Findings – Just another example of the embarrassment evolutionists put on themselves with their “just so” stories.  They “know” we came from nothing and evolved to where we are today, so all the evidence has to be twisted to fit their prejudices.  Maybe one day they’ll just follow the evidence where it leads instead of being slaves to their philosophical presuppositions.

Doubtful.

Leave your critiques there, not here. 

News flash: The profit motive drives innovation in health care and elsewhere.  Read it and watch the video.  Why don’t people understand that the same things that motivate them also motivate others?

When you take away the motivation of making money, you remove the incentive for people to risk their own capital to try to develop new cures and treatments.

Socialist countries in the West run on the fumes of our innovation (as well as our military protection).  Guess what happens to everyone when  that dries up?  “Oh, but that would make me think of the unintended consequences of my views and destroy my fantasies.”

Witnessing to the Witnesses

I was working from home today and took a break to talk with a sweet old lady from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Please pray that a seed was planted and that she rethinks her beliefs.

My strategy was to stay focused on the JW’s mistranslation of John 1:1, where their Bible says the Word (Jesus) “was a God” instead of the accurate translation of “was God.” There are many other passages I could have referenced, but they know that and just bounce around with non sequitors.

I walked her through the simple evidence that we know what the original writings of the Bible said and how we know that it should be translated “was God.” Then she would change the subject to their standard challenges of the Trinity.

Instead of following her trail, I gently pointed out how she had changed the subject. We were both claiming to believe that the Bible was the inspired word of God, but the question is, “What did it really say?”

She would change the subject, then I’d bring it back. I encouraged her to research the translation process and come back if she could demonstrate that I was mistaken.

As they always do, she offered me reading materials about her religion. I told her I’d be glad to take them if she would take some materials from me. I know they aren’t allowed to take anything from the people they visit, so I gently pointed out how it seems odd that if they are the sole possessors of eternal truths that they wouldn’t be willing to consider arguments against their beliefs.

I also pointed out to her how my religion encourages me to read things in light of Scripture (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good and Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.).

The whole conversation was very friendly and low key.

Please note how simple that conversation was. I stuck to a couple key points: The facts demonstrate that their Bible is mistranslated and that unlike Christianity, their religion won’t permit you to consider critiques of it.

I told her that I respected her for taking the time and energy to share what she believed to be true, but I made it clear that we both can’t be right. To her credit, she agreed. I emphasized that we agree on most of what the Bible says, but that her religion’s founders had deliberately modified several passages in a vain attempt to change doctrines such as Jesus’ deity and the reality of Hell.

You don’t have to be an expert on the JW’s to point out some serious flaws and give them something to think about. Just don’t let them take the conversation all over the place. Politely point out to them how they haven’t addressed your fact-based objections and note how peculiar it is for them to give you materials when they won’t take any in return.

Then pray for them.

Sounds more like a concession speech to me

Via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Dems’ new rallying cry: Let’s pass this trillion-dollar travesty for Teddy – Really?  That’s their plan?  One blogger referred to it as the Mary Jo Kopechne Health Care Program

Hot Air has it right: Why not have a conservative rallying cry of opposing it in the name of Ronald Reagan?

Seriously, the fact that an extreme liberal politician died has no bearing on whether an unprecedented power and money grab on the part of the Federal Government is a swell idea.

How to spot a theological liberal

And yes, you do need to be able to spot them (though it isn’t that hard).  Their unspoken mission statement is Sending people to Hell, unoffended and full of self esteem, so you must avoid them yourself and warn others about them.

1. Just listen to them talk about the Bible.  They have supreme confidence in the word of God when they find something they think they agree with and extreme skepticism when it it something they don’t like.  (I emphasized think because it is often clear that they don’t even understand the parts they quote)

They are Dalmatian Theologians who think that the Bible is inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots, and some are Advanced Dalmatian Theologians who think that God is changing the spots and, oddly enough, He is only telling Western Theological Liberals (probably because they listened so closely the first time, eh?).

2. Note whether their worldview is distinguishable from that of the world.  It is usually remarkable consistent — i.e., pro-legalized abortion, pro-oxymoronic same-sex marriage and other “In your face, God!” beliefs.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.

3. See if their sermons would offend (in the right, biblical sense) non-believers.  They usually don’t.  They could be preached in a Hindu temple, a mosque or on the street without generating controversy.

4. They treat Jesus as a “nice to have,” not a “have to have.”

5. They say ridiculous things like this (Hat tip: IRD).  They may believe it, but that doesn’t make it true.  What is obvious is that they’ve made a god in their own image.

Here, we believe you achieve salvation by doing social justice.

Constance Guice-Mills, a member of Manhattan’s liberal Riverside Church, whose senior pastor, Rev. Dr. Brad R. Braxton, recently resigned due to theological disputes within the congregation, among them that Braxton preached the exclusivity of Christ and personal salvation.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only way to salvation roughy 100 times (directly and indirectly), and there are countless references to the God of the Bible being the one true God, not to mention the severe punishments the Israelites received for worshiping false gods. 

If your church denies Jesus’ exclusivity then it isn’t a church. 

Add your own in the comments section!

“The Other McCain” on unions

Be sure to read all of Palin causes unprecedented event:Labor unions condemn ‘lying’ by The Other McCain (great blog — accurate conservative content and good humor).  Some choice bits:

What is most interesting about anti-Palin fanatics is how uninteresting they are. Insanity is interesting; stupidity is not. And never have such dull people gone so hopelessly mad.
. . .

The U.S. auto industry is now in receivership because of union control. It’s obviously not because American workers cannot make cars — Toyota, Nissan, Honda, KIA and many other foreign automakers have U.S. plants. But those plants are all located in “right-to-work” states, where unions can’t force workers to join.

Join a labor union and you’re paying dues to those who will eventually put you out of a job.

The only industry where the anti-competitive effect of unionism seems to have no such job-killing effect is . . . government.

Roundup

If Obama fails, it isn’t his fault– the excuse making has begun in earnest.

Evangelical Christians now thanking Allah– Just more evidence that Emergent “Christians” like Brian McLaren are just flavor of the day false teachers.

On McLaren’s personal blog, he recently announced his intentions: ‘We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.’”

Chastity matters — a lot.

Sex change vs. sexual orientation change — why do worldly psychologists endorse one but not the other? 

Obama & Co. want the (un)Fairness Doctrine reinstated to silence their opposition.  How Orwellian.

The religion vs. science false dichotomy and other myths

Melinda at Stand to Reason has a good analysis of Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God, which “offers a negotiated settlement between science and religion.”  It fails.

The atheists and religious believers are not wrong for the same reasons.  The atheists who are philosophic materialists have a presuppositional bias that excludes any conclusion from the evidence that there is a Designer.  They rule out from the beginning any personal agency behind the origin of the universe.  Now, some religious believers may also dismiss evolution from a presupposition, but many don’t – especially those engaged in the public debate.  These religious believers consistently argue on the evidence against evolution (or lacking in the theory) and from the problems inherent in scientific materialism.  They use valid scientific and philosophical arguments, engaging the evidence rather than ignoring it.

. . .

In accepting Wright’s bargain, religious believers concede everything and there’s no good reason to do so.

The speculation that natural selection could, given enough time, produce a rational, moral creature is not scientifically plausible, as Wright states.  It is only the tremendous blind faith scientific materialists place in evolutionary explanations that make it seem so.  The fact is, there is no good reason based on the evidence for religious believers to make a bargain with evolutionary theory and concede one single thing so we can get along.  Wright’s bargain is a plea for peace through surrender.  Let the debate continue.  It may be heated at times, but that is usually how the truth is resolved.  There’s no reason to make any other bargain.

Good stuff.  Read it all.

Capitalism even helps the religion of global climate change

For the sake of discussion, assume that we are completely convinced that human-driven CO2 emissions must be reduced and that we, as a society, are willing to spend some of our limited funds for that.  Key word: Limited.  (If you can make the case that we have unlimited resources I’d like to hear it). 

If that is the case, wouldn’t it be logical to ask which programs are most cost-effective in reducing emissions?  Courtesy of Forbes Magazine, consider this disparity in the cost per ton of avoided CO2:

A. The Cash for Clunkers program — $1,700

B. Subsidizing electric cars — $250

C. Pay an electric utility to reduce coal consumption by burning clean natural gas — $20

Unless you like spending 10 times or upwards of 100 times as much as you have to for something, I’d encourage you to go with the last option.  You won’t release as many endorphins and get as much press, but you’ll be doing the right thing.