. So - the real question - is increased demand for corn, for ethanol production, really a problem? Wow, man, that's a complicated question isn't it? Yeah, it sure is. As I see it, biased as I am being paid to not raise crops on a few dozen acres, the system is farked up. We're buying oil from people who use our money to buy weapons to use against us. I, for one, see that as a problem. Yet, if we take that land out of ASCS, then it's not available for food production.
On the one hand, since its essentially impossible to produce corn at a profit today, raising the demand, and therefore the price, of corn would be good as it could eliminate some of the subsidies going to corn farmers. But, that's not likely to stick around for long because the big agribusinesses want cheap corn -- the cheaper the corn is, the more sense it makes to fractionate corn into everything we eat. Then again, higher corn prices might stick and result in the cow-factory thing declining in favor of more sustainable methods. Of course, increased demand/higher prices will result in greater corn production and a restabilisation of the price, but at what cost? It's an astonishingly complex thing to try to model, which I think we're both saying? Best _I_ can come up with, being a pragmatist and somewhat, er, lazy, is to say "try it and let the market work it out".
mono-culture corn production is an oil-soaked business: everything from tilling, transportation and processing to the fertilizers and *cides. It is extremely energy intensive. I think food production and delivery accounts for something like 1/5th of our energy consumption and corn production is a significant portion of that. This increased corn production will require more energy... if we transition to corn based energy production, well, its not pretty.
I don't have enough background in this subject to comment intelligently beyond what I've already said. Its a hugely complicated economic and social problem. But, on the face of it, if we can get reasonably clean energy from corn and as a result of market forces maybe clean up other parts of our food production system, that's probably a good thing. Provided we make smart choices.
If I can't figure out the huge picture, I'll go with my pocketbook. Selfish perhaps, but what else can I go with?
I encourage reading that book though (I'm almost done with it myself). It follows food production through three different paths: modern agribusiness (everything(!) is corn), grass fed farming, and hunting/gathering. very interesting. And I think he does an okay job of keeping it balanced in recognition of the problems of feeding so many people can't be handled by some of the less damaging methods yet not liking the current system..02
I'll check it out. And thanks for the rational discussion and the pointer.
_unless_ it's wind or solar (or Nuclear if you want to be scientific rather than emotional), no. Some huge percentage of the electric power used in the USA is from hydroelectric power plants (especially in the west).
What "huge percentage"? I thought it was single-digits, I'd be pleased to know that I'm wrong. In any case, Nuclear is the best option for the forseeable future; maybe someday the people who oppose it for emotional reasons will get a clue.
Seems to me that it's better to pay for our fuel locally, than to give that same money to people in countries which hate us.
When I'm paying, I'll buy from whoever has the best price. So, you'll give money to a terrorist to save a buck. Good to know. I suppose you buy from spammers too.
So, hell yes, let's buy the corn or beets or sugarcane or whatever grows locally. Biodiesel is another great use of fallow land.
Go ahead and buy some land and grow whatever you want and sell it on the free market. It's none of your business otherwise.
Actually, I _have_ 22 acres that I'm being paid not to grow anything on. Or rather, not to harvest anything from; it's now a tree farm. In 50 years it'll be ready for harvest. But, it was farmland, was taken out of production because the prices fell so far that farmers were going out of business. You might not care, but at some point, we need to have enough people out there still growing food for us. So, I guess somehow, it _is_ my business. Not sure what my personal land ownership status has to do with anything related to being allowed, in your mind, to comment on it, but there you go.
Stealing money from people so that you're happy about the "great use" of some land is approximately the same as stealing money from people to buy yourself a luxury car -- just a little less honest.
Who is stealing anything from anyone? I'd rather burn bio-something than dino-something, because dino-something sometimes finances countries who would rather kill us than work with us. And, given the costs of trying to secure dino-sources, I'd prefer that we subsidize the infrastructure to kick-start the biofuels economy here.
I predict a rant. Can you keep it somewhat on-topic please?
(snip of some great stuff)
See the book "Omnivore's Dilemma" for what appears to be a fairly balanced treatmwent of this subject. Fantastic information, thank you. So - the real question - is increased demand for corn, for ethanol production, really a problem?
Unless you're using strictly wind and solar generated electricity to run your air compressor, all you're doing is displacing your pollution from where the population is dense, to places where the air is clean now but you want to make it worse.
You may also have heard about this thing called "hydro-electricity". In fact, we produce so much in Ontario and Québec that we sell a bit of it to some of the northern USA states. Right, because it's simple to get a permit to make more hydroelectric dams, not to mention the abundant supply of sites just waiting for them. Oh, wait. Of course, it's great if you have it already but, try to get one past the environmental impact analysis phase these days. If we were smart, we'd be building a dozen nuke plants at any given time, but the emotional pseudoscience crap gets in the way of doing _that_, too.
So, given the real options for power generation capacity, the options are limited.
Yeah, because "Ethanol subsidies" are so much different than "farm subsidies".
How about if farmers just get off the welfare? Seems to me that it's better to pay for our fuel locally, than to give that same money to people in countries which hate us. So, hell yes, let's buy the corn or beets or sugarcane or whatever grows locally. Biodiesel is another great use of fallow land.
I wonder who is the cretin who modded this Funny. This is a very Insightful post. The frigging cattle factories are based on feeding cows something they can't really digest properly: corn.
The cows actually get sick by living on a grain diet and thus need the huge quantity of antibiotics they're getting just to remain alive.
I'm not sure how that would work, exactly. Corn turns into germs? Either way, point is, demand for beef is (x). You need (y) cattle with (z) growth rate to fill that demand. Corn gets them there, grass doesn't.
A cow needs grass, period. It actually makes the cow happy, healthy and all the products derived from it (milk and meat) are so much better, all via a feeding system that is cheaper than corn-fed cattle industry's (when you remove the corn subsidies). Plus, allowing the cows to forage in a grass field, one also eliminates the huge pollution issue the the big farms create. Which "pollution issue"? Manure? Around here it gets spread in the, you know, fields. Yeah, it smells like poop, animals do that.
Tell me, sir. Did your mother drop you on your head or were you just born stupid.
Here is a hint, there isn't a big market in India for electrically heated seats either.
How does it keep my feet warm in the scorching heat. Jezus H. Christ.
Who the hell pissed in _your_ Wheaties this morning? Sheesh. I was pointing out a couple things, which you missed. 1: This particular feature does not meet my needs, or the needs of much of the world. 2: This, like so many of MDI's previous claims, seems high on speculation and low on actual facts. and 3: Lighten up, Francis.
What the heck is wrong with you? Electricity can be produced in a nuclear power plant, y'know? True, but not a lot of folks can use that as a home power source. Home photovoltaic and wind systems, you can buy off the shelf today. The payback isn't there, and I shudder to think of the investment needed to get the capacity to charge my car for my daily commute with either.
If I could buy a Mister Fusion, sure but...that'd probably be car mounted anyway.
I would imagine that a single, large, well maintained and regulated power plant produces significantly less pollution than a number of internal combustion cars producing the same amount of energy. Couple people saying the same thing, which means I probably didn't say what I was trying to say when I said it. Yeah, I know, I agree, but it's not what I was responding to primarily. The aircar folks pretend it's pollution free. At point of use, yes. Free of creating pollution wherever the power was produced, _unless_ it's wind or solar (or Nuclear if you want to be scientific rather than emotional), no.
Fossil fuels _ARE_ extremely energy dense and thus good for cars. But if we could loslessly transmit that energy from a big honking power plant to vehicles, it wouldn't "shift the polution", it'd OVERALL REDUCE IT. Yes, but to my point, it puts the pollution on _ME_, rather than on the people who deserve to breathe it.
A fixed-speed generation engine with millions of users to spread load out and cost-effective pollution scrubbing is going to put out a lot less crap into the air then the equivilant number of small, badly maintained, stop and go vehicles.
Just because our current power generation comes from badly maintained coal plants doesn't mean it HAS to be that way. There are a lot of benefits to efficiences of scale.
Oh, indeed. But, the point I was responding to was the "pollution free" claim. The aircar people have been saying that for at least the 5 years or so I've been seeing their vaporware and unlikely claims, and it annoys the fark out of me. Same for the hydrogen people, far as that goes. "The only exhaust is water". Sure, from _here_, yeah.
So yeah, a fixed installation will have better emissions controls overall, agreed. But that wasn't the part I was addressing. I also question your pronouncement which seems to be saying that, well hell, it doesn't seem to be saying, it says, that our current power generation comes form badly maintained coal plants. Got any percentages on that I could read about? Because I'm of the impression that things have changed dramatically in that regard in the last dozen years or so.
Hell, you could do wind power without mechanical to electric to mechanical conversion. Simply have the blades drive a compressor directly. It will likely have far higher efficiency than generating electricity and using that to electrolyze water into hydrogen. Sorry but that's way, way oversimplified. Wind turbines are notoriously fickle, and a typical one for home use is 400 watts. How long will that push your car down the road, given an average day's wind at your location? The transmission and/or storage aside, do you have that much energy to harvest? I suspect not. Far as solar as a couple others have suggested, yeah, maybe, but the payback time is VERY long on a PV setup. I've got the land, I've got a windy hill, and I've got the background to make it happen, and as much as I'd love to, every few years I run the numbers and it's STILL not practical.
Just because it can't be applied in nothernmost parts of the world doesn't mean it can't be very, very useful anywhere else. Beijing, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Mexico City, Rio... a whole lot of warm-to-hot cities that will appreciate a pollution free car. Pollution free? Where the heck do you get that? Unless you're using strictly wind and solar generated electricity to run your air compressor, all you're doing is displacing your pollution from where the population is dense, to places where the air is clean now but you want to make it worse. Pardon, but if you want to live in the city, _YOU_ breathe the results of your decision. Don't screw up _my_ air supply. "pollution free" is absurd, and it disgusts me that the aircar advocates claim it as a benefit. It's inaccurate at best.
The French guy who invented the car has been working on it for years. The car has been announced several times before and they are able to produce working prototypes. Maybe, but they've continually refused to let anyone actually inspect the mechanism. Smells of "scam looking for market capitolist investors" to me.
The best thing about this car is that air-conditioning is very easy and costs no energy. As the air decompresses in the engine, it cools off. Directing that air into the cabin would provide air-conditioning with just about no effort. That's great; how does it help keep my feet warm? Honestly - we've been seeing MDI's breathless claims about the aircar for _years_, and it continues not to be quite ready. I wonder how many folks have invested in this "almost there" company.
Yes yes, the democrats (who had gotten all their information PRE-exaggerated and PRE-cherrypicked) did vote for Bush to be able to go to war if needed. Funny, but you seem to have forgotten that Congress was reading the intelligence reports that had already been bastardized by the administration. There goes that selective memory you've been accusing others of. How exactly did the Bush administration pull that off? Because if you'd go to the list of quotes that I may have posted, http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp - you will see that many of the from short-memoried Democrats are from _before_ 2001. I mean, he's insidious and all, but I don't think his influence predates his inauguration.
I think your entire line of posts on this subject have been like the pot calling the tupperware black. It's more been me asking why, when Bush says it, he's lying, but when the Democrats say it, they were just, you know, _wrong_. And now some of 'em pretend they didn't say it, or that the vote to use force was "last resort" (words which neither of exist in the law they voted for). It's disingenuous rewriting of history for political gain, and it disgusts me.
And don't go off on people providing sources of information, if you remember from out little thread a while back you didn't offer me ANYTHING but supposition and empty rhetoric. Oh, we've talked before have we? (shrug)
And tell me, as a lightbulb factory worker, just how HAVE you become such an expert at what evidence is 'obvious' and which is of the 'tinfoil hat' variety? Does your association with luminescent devices make you think you're bright? (Even my trite little jabs are better than yours)
If you got from that thread that I work in a lightbulb factory, then you missed my point entirely there as well. Maybe you're just pretending you did. What makes my evidence "obvious" to me at least, is that it's on a site which has, as it's very purpose, the function of finding and citing things which may or may not be plausible. By all means, if you find any of those quotes on the Snopes page to be incorrect, they would be delighted to get information they can use to verify your claims.
As for your little "we have plans to attack britain, my mom's house and the keebler elves" or whoever it is you listed, Yeah, ok right. Here's the deal. You accuse _me_ of being abusive, and then you play that game? Give me a break.
Please, PLEASE bring some sense and relevant facts to the table or just walk away. You don't seem to have read the Snopes link, or if you have you didn't notice the dates on the early ones. Names like Clinton, Pelosi, Kerry, you know...take a look.
Assume much? I don't watch Fox News, actually I usually get news online from cnn, bbc, and a few other sites which are fairly unbiased. I even listen to NPR from time to time, although I'll admit that's usually for entertainment value.
As far as exit polls, you've put so many words into my mouth that your comments are really not worth dealing with. They're imperfect. Just like all polling is. If they were perfect, you see, we could bypass counting actual votes and just go with exit polls. We don't. And yes, I know where the Georgia you refer to is, and find it somewhat amusing that you feel the need to insult someone who merely points out the flaws in your point of view by assuming that they are also ignorant. News flash for you, sparky: just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're (a) stupid, (b) ignorant, or (c) wrong.
Your points might have any weight at all, and have any chance of convincing someone, if they weren't accompanied by a tirade of obscenities and insults. As they are, you just come across as an angry, opinionated person, who prefers to shout down rather than reason with someone who disagrees with them. Best of luck to you; I suggest that your rhetorical tactics are not optimal.
Interesting that, rather than discuss the points I rationally raised in response to your messages, you decide to just tag me as 'foe'. Do you save this just for folks who clearly articulate points you can't answer, or do you do this for anyone who tells you you're wrong?
Thanks for learning what a cite is. Now you just have to work on tone and timing and you might some day grow up to communicate effectively. I'll watch the video. Surprised?
Okay you ignorant partisan asshole, you have thrown insult after insult. I am under no obligation to hold your fucking hand (snip)
Concession noted. Maybe you should look inside yourself and inspect why you feel the need to respond to clearly stated, verifiable facts complete with names, source, and date with obscenities. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant, especially when, as in this case, you're wrong.
"It's interesting. I provide facts and cites, you provide insults. I think that speaks volumes."
If you don't want it to get personal then don't make it so. Your "Or maybe you don't know what a cite is." was the first insult thrown and it was thrown by you.
Actually, it's a quite valid observation. I gave you links with quotes, times, dates, and names. That's what a cite is, you see. "it's on (vague pointer)" isn't a cite.
BTW the "cites" you provided was nothing more than neo-con dribble just parroting the same ol' right wing rhetoric.
I'm sure Snopes would be delighted to see your evidence that those quotes aren't accurate. Thing is, they're pretty good about that sort of thing, checking facts, investigating sources - that's kind of the entire point of that site. If you have evidence to show they're wrong, though, tell them. Or tell me and I'll tell them. Dismissing them as "neo-con dribble" doesn't help, they'll want facts.
And anything I seemed to say you would twist it around. I NEVER SAID that "last resort" was part of the language of the resolution.
Ah. Word games and Bullshit. You said they gave Bush the authority to invade as a last resort. Do I have to go quote it? You used the words "last resort". The authorization did not. This isn't a subtle point, it's you blatantly misrepresenting (or, maybe just, misunderstanding) what your representatives voted for. This is why I pointed you to the Library of Congress's site which shows the actual law in question.
Maybe I was unclear but I always meant that the resolution was to give Bush the power to go to war as a last resort.
Yes, you've made that interpretation, denied it, and am making it again. I _KNOW_ you said that. Nobody else did though, you see, that's my point. I mean, if you're going to disagree with the guy for violating this or that, maybe this and/or that should be in the thing you are saying he's violating. It's not.
Any intelligent person wouldn't take the war option without exhausting all other avenues first. Unless of course they wanted regime change.
I provided the most telling fact of all: that the Bush Administration decided to attack Iraq way before the WMD red herring was put out and they had a plan to take out seven countries in that region.
Of course we do. We probably have plans on file on how to invade England, France, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Lichtenstein, and anyone else as well. There's even plans, I'd bet, on how to subdue, say, a California rebellion (let 'em leave, I say, but that's just me). Does that mean we're gonna invade France? Don't be silly.
Unless of course you claim that Ret. General Clark is a liar. The proof is an interview that is playing on Free Speech TV. It's not a "cite."
You're right. For that to be a cite (that's a real word by the way, go look it up before you look even more ignorant), you would provide a specific URL, or a time/date, or some way that I would be able to verify that what you claim, is really out there. Based on your interpretation of the law authorizing the US to go to war, I strongly suspect, you see, that if I go and watch his statement, that you have misrepresented _this_ as badly has you have invented this "last resort" theory of yours.
Although I believe you can find the video on the free speech tv site. The url I gave you. www.freespeechtv.org. And if you really can't find it I did record it and could convert it into a mpeg and post it on UTube or whatever.
The URL you provide does not show me the video. A URL to the video, you see, would be a cite. To a site.
Let's summarize. You are pissed off at Bush. From everything you've shown the world here, it's for things that aren't actually true. You fail to be pissed off at your party's people for saying essentially the same
The Congress ASSUMED Chimp-man would only use it as a last resort. My statements stand.
It's interesting. I provide facts and cites, you provide insults. I think that speaks volumes.
"Yeah, I didn't think you could. Thanks for the non-effort there. Or maybe you don't know what a cite is. There's a couple above that you could use as examples."
That's pretty f****** lazy dude. Take you attitude problem and shove it up your ass. That's astonishingly arrogant for someone who has refused or ignored the cites I have provided showing that you people claimed one thing before and claim something else now.
Go out to www.freespeech.org and find the video yourself. You might learn something. Or tune your fricking tv set to that channel and watch for it. It is well documented that the WMD crap was just an excuse for doing what the Administration was going to do no matter what. Then maybe your democrats should have voted against, rather than for, something they now claim they were against. See previous re: playing both sides of the fence, especially regarding disgust.
You're really in denial dude. Really. Then why is it that I've provided cites, and you've provided nothing but insults? Great, you win, blah farking blah. Obviously I'm wasting my time in trying to educate you. Just keep in mind that not everyone is as stupid as you hope they are. PLEASE, please please please, nominate Hillary, will you? Thanks muchly.
I'm not saying that Democrats didn't vote to give the President the authority as a last resort. I'm saying that this war was planed and the "evidence of WMDs" was picked and exaggerated so as to make most of the Congress feel that force was justified. OK, so you didn't read my cites, obviously. The language in the law that a bunch of Democrats with short term memory problems voted for didnt' say "last resort" it was to "
Read it this time: Right from the loc.gov site.
I just looked for the word "last" or "resort", they're not in there. Lots of "protect", "defend", "enforce" though. You should read it, it might be informative to know what your representatives actually voted for. Do you need me to google up the voting record too?
So as far as your "evidence of WMDs was picked and exaggerated", here's some info from another cite I gave that you didn't read. See if you recognize any of the players.
Here's a couple of the first ones. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
So...tell me. Which of these guys were picking and exaggerating which of the facts they were talking about? Why is it that when Bush or someone else on the right says it, it's "Bush lied and people died", but when your people say it, it's something else?
"I'm sure you can provide, you know, a cite for that"
His interview is playing on Free Speech TV. Watch it for yourself. Yeah, I didn't think you could. Thanks for the non-effort there. Or maybe you don't know what a cite is. There's a couple above that you could use as examples.
"The democrats voted to authorize Bush to decide if we would go to war."
This war was based on cooked intelligence. It is part of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. OK, apparently you DO need to see the links. Here, read this and get back to me about which of these Democrats were being puppets of Wolfowitz, and which ones were, you know, just merely wrong or something:
Snopes page regarding Democrats' statements on WMDs Tell me - were Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Kerry, etc etc etc etc just wrong, or were they lying?
Ret. General Clark stated for the record that he was told at the beginning of the Afghanistan war by a high ranking officer at the Pentagon that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq had been made. He was later told by the same person that the Administration was planning on crushing seven countries in the region. I'm sure you can provide, you know, a cite for that. Please compare and contrast it with the words and actions of the Democrats who at the time supported it, and now stand, hands in pockets, whistling and looking skyward as if they had nothing to do with it.
It's not so much disagreement which annoys me, that's FINE. It's selective memory and playing both sides of the fence for political gain that I find disgusting.
Selective snipping and taking things out of context as you have, shows rather a lot of bias. WTF?!?! I posted one link to one article and didn't even comment on the damn thing! Call the dogs off there Attacky McOffense and stop putting words, hell, apparently whole RANTS into my mouth.
Oh, no, you're doing just fine with your rants without my help.
I regularly read the sight that the article I linked to links to, but I posted the about.com article because I thought you might like that source better than a progressive news service webpage commondreams.org, and the site that THAT article originally came from is a pay-subscription site... I was trying to link to a non-partisan source for you, in spite of my 'bias' that somehow came shining through in 10 words.
Sorry, apparently I didn't make my point clearly. It's not the source you chose or didn't choose that shows the bias, it's interpreting this non-event as significant that shows your bias, you see.
I agree with you about that whole thing being a 1st amendment right, and have been aware of that aspect of the story for a while now. Just cause he's allowed to say it doesn't make it less suspicious. If there is an outbreak of hangings in a town where the KKK just happens to be exercising their 1st Amendment rights up and down the street every day for a month, would you be suspicious? You SHOULD be, unless the hangings don't bother you too much.
There you go again. Let me give you an example. I work for a very large company that makes, among many other things, light bulbs. I also have strong feelings about compact fluorescent bulbs. Yet, when I say "you should buy them to replace your standard bulbs as the burn out", I'm not saying that as a spokesman for my employer, I'm saying it as someone who is interested in the benefits of using CF bulbs. The distinction isn't subtle. Similarly, I help with the re-election committee of a friend of mine. When I spend my time, energy, and so on promoting why he should be re-elected as Sherriff, I'm doing that as _me_, not as an agent of my employer. This shouldn't be surprising to you.
There is an abundance of evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, yes STOLEN, as in theft, as in took my vote from me. Why doesn't THAT piss you off? Because I've seen the "evidence" and it fails the smell test. In 2000, not one count, recount, rerecount, rererecount, or rerererecount in just heavily Democratic counties put Gore over the top. The Supreme Court ruled and said "Gore, knock it off, give it up already, you lost." And yet your type has tried to re-invent history to somehow say that he won. He didn't. The "evidence" for 2004 is even more stinky - exit polls have NEVER been statistically valid. If they were, you see, we wouldn't have to do this whole "voting" thing.
And to all the cute little 'well why didn't it work in 2006 then?' comments, I've got a theory. Maybe they've (they as in the GOP machine) run the probabilities through a anti-unrest database to predict how many votes they can steal before the threat of armed uprising becomes too significant. OK, I'm done. Your tinfoil hat appears to be a little tight there, sparky.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it sure is. As I see it, biased as I am being paid to not raise crops on a few dozen acres, the system is farked up. We're buying oil from people who use our money to buy weapons to use against us. I, for one, see that as a problem. Yet, if we take that land out of ASCS, then it's not available for food production.
On the one hand, since its essentially impossible to produce corn at a profit today, raising the demand, and therefore the price, of corn would be good as it could eliminate some of the subsidies going to corn farmers. But, that's not likely to stick around for long because the big agribusinesses want cheap corn -- the cheaper the corn is, the more sense it makes to fractionate corn into everything we eat. Then again, higher corn prices might stick and result in the cow-factory thing declining in favor of more sustainable methods. Of course, increased demand/higher prices will result in greater corn production and a restabilisation of the price, but at what cost?
It's an astonishingly complex thing to try to model, which I think we're both saying? Best _I_ can come up with, being a pragmatist and somewhat, er, lazy, is to say "try it and let the market work it out".
mono-culture corn production is an oil-soaked business: everything from tilling, transportation and processing to the fertilizers and *cides. It is extremely energy intensive. I think food production and delivery accounts for something like 1/5th of our energy consumption and corn production is a significant portion of that. This increased corn production will require more energy... if we transition to corn based energy production, well, its not pretty.
I don't have enough background in this subject to comment intelligently beyond what I've already said. Its a hugely complicated economic and social problem. But, on the face of it, if we can get reasonably clean energy from corn and as a result of market forces maybe clean up other parts of our food production system, that's probably a good thing. Provided we make smart choices.
If I can't figure out the huge picture, I'll go with my pocketbook. Selfish perhaps, but what else can I go with?
I encourage reading that book though (I'm almost done with it myself). It follows food production through three different paths: modern agribusiness (everything(!) is corn), grass fed farming, and hunting/gathering. very interesting. And I think he does an okay job of keeping it balanced in recognition of the problems of feeding so many people can't be handled by some of the less damaging methods yet not liking the current system.
I'll check it out. And thanks for the rational discussion and the pointer.
What "huge percentage"? I thought it was single-digits, I'd be pleased to know that I'm wrong. In any case, Nuclear is the best option for the forseeable future; maybe someday the people who oppose it for emotional reasons will get a clue.
When I'm paying, I'll buy from whoever has the best price.
So, you'll give money to a terrorist to save a buck. Good to know. I suppose you buy from spammers too.
So, hell yes, let's buy the corn or beets or sugarcane or whatever grows locally. Biodiesel is another great use of fallow land.
Go ahead and buy some land and grow whatever you want and sell it on the free market. It's none of your business otherwise.
Actually, I _have_ 22 acres that I'm being paid not to grow anything on. Or rather, not to harvest anything from; it's now a tree farm. In 50 years it'll be ready for harvest. But, it was farmland, was taken out of production because the prices fell so far that farmers were going out of business. You might not care, but at some point, we need to have enough people out there still growing food for us. So, I guess somehow, it _is_ my business. Not sure what my personal land ownership status has to do with anything related to being allowed, in your mind, to comment on it, but there you go.
Stealing money from people so that you're happy about the "great use" of some land is approximately the same as stealing money from people to buy yourself a luxury car -- just a little less honest.
Who is stealing anything from anyone? I'd rather burn bio-something than dino-something, because dino-something sometimes finances countries who would rather kill us than work with us. And, given the costs of trying to secure dino-sources, I'd prefer that we subsidize the infrastructure to kick-start the biofuels economy here.
I predict a rant. Can you keep it somewhat on-topic please?
See the book "Omnivore's Dilemma" for what appears to be a fairly balanced treatmwent of this subject.
Fantastic information, thank you. So - the real question - is increased demand for corn, for ethanol production, really a problem?
Right, because it's simple to get a permit to make more hydroelectric dams, not to mention the abundant supply of sites just waiting for them. Oh, wait. Of course, it's great if you have it already but, try to get one past the environmental impact analysis phase these days. If we were smart, we'd be building a dozen nuke plants at any given time, but the emotional pseudoscience crap gets in the way of doing _that_, too.
So, given the real options for power generation capacity, the options are limited.
How about if farmers just get off the welfare?
Seems to me that it's better to pay for our fuel locally, than to give that same money to people in countries which hate us. So, hell yes, let's buy the corn or beets or sugarcane or whatever grows locally. Biodiesel is another great use of fallow land.
I'm not sure how that would work, exactly. Corn turns into germs? Either way, point is, demand for beef is (x). You need (y) cattle with (z) growth rate to fill that demand. Corn gets them there, grass doesn't. A cow needs grass, period. It actually makes the cow happy, healthy and all the products derived from it (milk and meat) are so much better, all via a feeding system that is cheaper than corn-fed cattle industry's (when you remove the corn subsidies). Plus, allowing the cows to forage in a grass field, one also eliminates the huge pollution issue the the big farms create.
Which "pollution issue"? Manure? Around here it gets spread in the, you know, fields. Yeah, it smells like poop, animals do that.
Tell me, sir. Did your mother drop you on your head or were you just born stupid.
Here is a hint, there isn't a big market in India for electrically heated seats either.
How does it keep my feet warm in the scorching heat. Jezus H. Christ.
Who the hell pissed in _your_ Wheaties this morning? Sheesh. I was pointing out a couple things, which you missed. 1: This particular feature does not meet my needs, or the needs of much of the world. 2: This, like so many of MDI's previous claims, seems high on speculation and low on actual facts. and 3: Lighten up, Francis.
True, but not a lot of folks can use that as a home power source. Home photovoltaic and wind systems, you can buy off the shelf today. The payback isn't there, and I shudder to think of the investment needed to get the capacity to charge my car for my daily commute with either. If I could buy a Mister Fusion, sure but...that'd probably be car mounted anyway.
Couple people saying the same thing, which means I probably didn't say what I was trying to say when I said it. Yeah, I know, I agree, but it's not what I was responding to primarily. The aircar folks pretend it's pollution free. At point of use, yes. Free of creating pollution wherever the power was produced, _unless_ it's wind or solar (or Nuclear if you want to be scientific rather than emotional), no.
Fossil fuels _ARE_ extremely energy dense and thus good for cars. But if we could loslessly transmit that energy from a big honking power plant to vehicles, it wouldn't "shift the polution", it'd OVERALL REDUCE IT.
Yes, but to my point, it puts the pollution on _ME_, rather than on the people who deserve to breathe it.
A fixed-speed generation engine with millions of users to spread load out and cost-effective pollution scrubbing is going to put out a lot less crap into the air then the equivilant number of small, badly maintained, stop and go vehicles.
Just because our current power generation comes from badly maintained coal plants doesn't mean it HAS to be that way. There are a lot of benefits to efficiences of scale.
Oh, indeed. But, the point I was responding to was the "pollution free" claim. The aircar people have been saying that for at least the 5 years or so I've been seeing their vaporware and unlikely claims, and it annoys the fark out of me. Same for the hydrogen people, far as that goes. "The only exhaust is water". Sure, from _here_, yeah.
So yeah, a fixed installation will have better emissions controls overall, agreed. But that wasn't the part I was addressing. I also question your pronouncement which seems to be saying that, well hell, it doesn't seem to be saying, it says, that our current power generation comes form badly maintained coal plants. Got any percentages on that I could read about? Because I'm of the impression that things have changed dramatically in that regard in the last dozen years or so.
Sorry but that's way, way oversimplified. Wind turbines are notoriously fickle, and a typical one for home use is 400 watts. How long will that push your car down the road, given an average day's wind at your location? The transmission and/or storage aside, do you have that much energy to harvest? I suspect not. Far as solar as a couple others have suggested, yeah, maybe, but the payback time is VERY long on a PV setup. I've got the land, I've got a windy hill, and I've got the background to make it happen, and as much as I'd love to, every few years I run the numbers and it's STILL not practical.
Maybe, but they've continually refused to let anyone actually inspect the mechanism. Smells of "scam looking for market capitolist investors" to me.
The best thing about this car is that air-conditioning is very easy and costs no energy. As the air decompresses in the engine, it cools off. Directing that air into the cabin would provide air-conditioning with just about no effort.
That's great; how does it help keep my feet warm? Honestly - we've been seeing MDI's breathless claims about the aircar for _years_, and it continues not to be quite ready. I wonder how many folks have invested in this "almost there" company.
How exactly did the Bush administration pull that off? Because if you'd go to the list of quotes that I may have posted, http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp - you will see that many of the from short-memoried Democrats are from _before_ 2001. I mean, he's insidious and all, but I don't think his influence predates his inauguration.
I think your entire line of posts on this subject have been like the pot calling the tupperware black.
It's more been me asking why, when Bush says it, he's lying, but when the Democrats say it, they were just, you know, _wrong_. And now some of 'em pretend they didn't say it, or that the vote to use force was "last resort" (words which neither of exist in the law they voted for). It's disingenuous rewriting of history for political gain, and it disgusts me.
And don't go off on people providing sources of information, if you remember from out little thread a while back you didn't offer me ANYTHING but supposition and empty rhetoric.
Oh, we've talked before have we? (shrug)
And tell me, as a lightbulb factory worker, just how HAVE you become such an expert at what evidence is 'obvious' and which is of the 'tinfoil hat' variety? Does your association with luminescent devices make you think you're bright? (Even my trite little jabs are better than yours)
If you got from that thread that I work in a lightbulb factory, then you missed my point entirely there as well. Maybe you're just pretending you did. What makes my evidence "obvious" to me at least, is that it's on a site which has, as it's very purpose, the function of finding and citing things which may or may not be plausible. By all means, if you find any of those quotes on the Snopes page to be incorrect, they would be delighted to get information they can use to verify your claims.
As for your little "we have plans to attack britain, my mom's house and the keebler elves" or whoever it is you listed,
Yeah, ok right. Here's the deal. You accuse _me_ of being abusive, and then you play that game? Give me a break.
Please, PLEASE bring some sense and relevant facts to the table or just walk away.
You don't seem to have read the Snopes link, or if you have you didn't notice the dates on the early ones. Names like Clinton, Pelosi, Kerry, you know...take a look.
Assume much? I don't watch Fox News, actually I usually get news online from cnn, bbc, and a few other sites which are fairly unbiased. I even listen to NPR from time to time, although I'll admit that's usually for entertainment value.
As far as exit polls, you've put so many words into my mouth that your comments are really not worth dealing with. They're imperfect. Just like all polling is. If they were perfect, you see, we could bypass counting actual votes and just go with exit polls. We don't. And yes, I know where the Georgia you refer to is, and find it somewhat amusing that you feel the need to insult someone who merely points out the flaws in your point of view by assuming that they are also ignorant. News flash for you, sparky: just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're (a) stupid, (b) ignorant, or (c) wrong.
Your points might have any weight at all, and have any chance of convincing someone, if they weren't accompanied by a tirade of obscenities and insults. As they are, you just come across as an angry, opinionated person, who prefers to shout down rather than reason with someone who disagrees with them. Best of luck to you; I suggest that your rhetorical tactics are not optimal.
Bah! It's all ball bearings these days...
Interesting that, rather than discuss the points I rationally raised in response to your messages, you decide to just tag me as 'foe'. Do you save this just for folks who clearly articulate points you can't answer, or do you do this for anyone who tells you you're wrong?
Thanks for learning what a cite is. Now you just have to work on tone and timing and you might some day grow up to communicate effectively. I'll watch the video. Surprised?
(snip)
Concession noted. Maybe you should look inside yourself and inspect why you feel the need to respond to clearly stated, verifiable facts complete with names, source, and date with obscenities. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant, especially when, as in this case, you're wrong.
"It's interesting. I provide facts and cites, you provide insults. I think that speaks volumes."
If you don't want it to get personal then don't make it so. Your "Or maybe you don't know what a cite is." was the first insult thrown and it was thrown by you.
Actually, it's a quite valid observation. I gave you links with quotes, times, dates, and names. That's what a cite is, you see. "it's on (vague pointer)" isn't a cite.
BTW the "cites" you provided was nothing more than neo-con dribble just parroting the same ol' right wing rhetoric.
I'm sure Snopes would be delighted to see your evidence that those quotes aren't accurate. Thing is, they're pretty good about that sort of thing, checking facts, investigating sources - that's kind of the entire point of that site. If you have evidence to show they're wrong, though, tell them. Or tell me and I'll tell them. Dismissing them as "neo-con dribble" doesn't help, they'll want facts.
And anything I seemed to say you would twist it around. I NEVER SAID that "last resort" was part of the language of the resolution.
Ah. Word games and Bullshit. You said they gave Bush the authority to invade as a last resort. Do I have to go quote it? You used the words "last resort". The authorization did not. This isn't a subtle point, it's you blatantly misrepresenting (or, maybe just, misunderstanding) what your representatives voted for. This is why I pointed you to the Library of Congress's site which shows the actual law in question.
Maybe I was unclear but I always meant that the resolution was to give Bush the power to go to war as a last resort.
Yes, you've made that interpretation, denied it, and am making it again. I _KNOW_ you said that. Nobody else did though, you see, that's my point. I mean, if you're going to disagree with the guy for violating this or that, maybe this and/or that should be in the thing you are saying he's violating. It's not.
Any intelligent person wouldn't take the war option without exhausting all other avenues first. Unless of course they wanted regime change.
I provided the most telling fact of all: that the Bush Administration decided to attack Iraq way before the WMD red herring was put out and they had a plan to take out seven countries in that region.
Of course we do. We probably have plans on file on how to invade England, France, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Lichtenstein, and anyone else as well. There's even plans, I'd bet, on how to subdue, say, a California rebellion (let 'em leave, I say, but that's just me). Does that mean we're gonna invade France? Don't be silly.
Unless of course you claim that Ret. General Clark is a liar. The proof is an interview that is playing on Free Speech TV. It's not a "cite."
You're right. For that to be a cite (that's a real word by the way, go look it up before you look even more ignorant), you would provide a specific URL, or a time/date, or some way that I would be able to verify that what you claim, is really out there. Based on your interpretation of the law authorizing the US to go to war, I strongly suspect, you see, that if I go and watch his statement, that you have misrepresented _this_ as badly has you have invented this "last resort" theory of yours.
Although I believe you can find the video on the free speech tv site. The url I gave you. www.freespeechtv.org. And if you really can't find it I did record it and could convert it into a mpeg and post it on UTube or whatever.
The URL you provide does not show me the video. A URL to the video, you see, would be a cite. To a site.
Let's summarize. You are pissed off at Bush. From everything you've shown the world here, it's for things that aren't actually true. You fail to be pissed off at your party's people for saying essentially the same
It's interesting. I provide facts and cites, you provide insults. I think that speaks volumes.
"Yeah, I didn't think you could. Thanks for the non-effort there. Or maybe you don't know what a cite is. There's a couple above that you could use as examples."
That's pretty f****** lazy dude. Take you attitude problem and shove it up your ass. That's astonishingly arrogant for someone who has refused or ignored the cites I have provided showing that you people claimed one thing before and claim something else now. Go out to www.freespeech.org and find the video yourself. You might learn something. Or tune your fricking tv set to that channel and watch for it. It is well documented that the WMD crap was just an excuse for doing what the Administration was going to do no matter what.
Then maybe your democrats should have voted against, rather than for, something they now claim they were against. See previous re: playing both sides of the fence, especially regarding disgust.
You're really in denial dude.
Really. Then why is it that I've provided cites, and you've provided nothing but insults? Great, you win, blah farking blah. Obviously I'm wasting my time in trying to educate you. Just keep in mind that not everyone is as stupid as you hope they are. PLEASE, please please please, nominate Hillary, will you? Thanks muchly.
OK, so you didn't read my cites, obviously. The language in the law that a bunch of Democrats with short term memory problems voted for didnt' say "last resort" it was to " Read it this time: Right from the loc.gov site.
I just looked for the word "last" or "resort", they're not in there. Lots of "protect", "defend", "enforce" though. You should read it, it might be informative to know what your representatives actually voted for. Do you need me to google up the voting record too?
So as far as your "evidence of WMDs was picked and exaggerated", here's some info from another cite I gave that you didn't read. See if you recognize any of the players.
From http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp again.
Here's a couple of the first ones.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
So...tell me. Which of these guys were picking and exaggerating which of the facts they were talking about? Why is it that when Bush or someone else on the right says it, it's "Bush lied and people died", but when your people say it, it's something else?
"I'm sure you can provide, you know, a cite for that"
His interview is playing on Free Speech TV. Watch it for yourself.
Yeah, I didn't think you could. Thanks for the non-effort there. Or maybe you don't know what a cite is. There's a couple above that you could use as examples.
No, mathematical fact.
"The democrats voted to authorize Bush to decide if we would go to war."
This war was based on cooked intelligence. It is part of the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
OK, apparently you DO need to see the links. Here, read this and get back to me about which of these Democrats were being puppets of Wolfowitz, and which ones were, you know, just merely wrong or something: Snopes page regarding Democrats' statements on WMDs
Tell me - were Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Kerry, etc etc etc etc just wrong, or were they lying?
Ret. General Clark stated for the record that he was told at the beginning of the Afghanistan war by a high ranking officer at the Pentagon that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq had been made. He was later told by the same person that the Administration was planning on crushing seven countries in the region.
I'm sure you can provide, you know, a cite for that. Please compare and contrast it with the words and actions of the Democrats who at the time supported it, and now stand, hands in pockets, whistling and looking skyward as if they had nothing to do with it.
It's not so much disagreement which annoys me, that's FINE. It's selective memory and playing both sides of the fence for political gain that I find disgusting.
Oh, no, you're doing just fine with your rants without my help.
I regularly read the sight that the article I linked to links to, but I posted the about.com article because I thought you might like that source better than a progressive news service webpage commondreams.org, and the site that THAT article originally came from is a pay-subscription site... I was trying to link to a non-partisan source for you, in spite of my 'bias' that somehow came shining through in 10 words.
Sorry, apparently I didn't make my point clearly. It's not the source you chose or didn't choose that shows the bias, it's interpreting this non-event as significant that shows your bias, you see.
I agree with you about that whole thing being a 1st amendment right, and have been aware of that aspect of the story for a while now. Just cause he's allowed to say it doesn't make it less suspicious. If there is an outbreak of hangings in a town where the KKK just happens to be exercising their 1st Amendment rights up and down the street every day for a month, would you be suspicious? You SHOULD be, unless the hangings don't bother you too much.
There you go again. Let me give you an example. I work for a very large company that makes, among many other things, light bulbs. I also have strong feelings about compact fluorescent bulbs. Yet, when I say "you should buy them to replace your standard bulbs as the burn out", I'm not saying that as a spokesman for my employer, I'm saying it as someone who is interested in the benefits of using CF bulbs. The distinction isn't subtle. Similarly, I help with the re-election committee of a friend of mine. When I spend my time, energy, and so on promoting why he should be re-elected as Sherriff, I'm doing that as _me_, not as an agent of my employer. This shouldn't be surprising to you.
There is an abundance of evidence that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, yes STOLEN, as in theft, as in took my vote from me. Why doesn't THAT piss you off?
Because I've seen the "evidence" and it fails the smell test. In 2000, not one count, recount, rerecount, rererecount, or rerererecount in just heavily Democratic counties put Gore over the top. The Supreme Court ruled and said "Gore, knock it off, give it up already, you lost." And yet your type has tried to re-invent history to somehow say that he won. He didn't. The "evidence" for 2004 is even more stinky - exit polls have NEVER been statistically valid. If they were, you see, we wouldn't have to do this whole "voting" thing.
And to all the cute little 'well why didn't it work in 2006 then?' comments, I've got a theory. Maybe they've (they as in the GOP machine) run the probabilities through a anti-unrest database to predict how many votes they can steal before the threat of armed uprising becomes too significant.
OK, I'm done. Your tinfoil hat appears to be a little tight there, sparky.