• Seattle Times Fishwrap & Bird Cage Liner
  
• NY Times Science News (Tuesdays only)
• Newsweek
• The Great Derangement by Matt Taibbi
• God's Politics: How The Right Gets It Wrong And The Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Waller
  
• Mental Floss
• Jim Hightower's Lowdown
  
• Too Damn Much e-Mail
• The Menu & Directories on TIVO
• My Own Blogs:
  1. Truth For Dummies
  2. InfoBlog
  3. Entropy Pile (in reruns)
     
  4. BlackBox (on hiatus)
• Surfers' Journal
• PHP Manual
• Argus Hamilton
• Intermittently:
  • Crooks and Liars
  • NewsHounds
  • BBC News
  • NPR News

Then after lunch, I read.....

I've been replaying moldy oldies from previous years of blogging. Many of those posts have a political bent. Don't assume that my interests stop at politics. Over the years I've also written about technology. The following is the first article in my first technology blog.

'Tis better to remain silent and appear the fool...

... than to use poor judgment when sending e-mails and erase all doubt.

OK, most of us have made every mistake in the book when sending e-mails. However, most of those mistakes aren't good enough to keep repeating. Let's all resolve to do better this year.

Common e-mail blunders:

• Forwarding bad advice. You've seen these e-mails. They carry warnings about some virus that the sender may have accidently sent to you previously. To solve the problem, you have to delete some file from your computer... and you have to forward the e-mail to all of your friends. Don't follow the bad advice, and don't forward the e-mail. If the e-mail is a hoax, you wind up looking foolish. If the e-mail itself contains a real virus, then you just helped spread the problem.
  
  Smart actions:
  • Research possible hoaxes at such web sites as
    
    • Snopes
    • Symantec
    • Hoaxbusters
  • Get professional help.


• Sending inappropriate e-mails, especially to someone's office. 'Nuff said?


• Sending large e-mails, anytime, anywhere. Big files sent can cause your recipients a large amount of grief. Your e-mail could tie up the internet connection and/or computer for a long time; such e-mails could also overflow an inbox and cause a system crash. Do that, and your friends may not appreciate your humor.


• Leaving a list of e-mail addresses in a previously forwarded message. I don't want my e-mail address in circulation; if I want you to know my e-mail address, I'll tell you what it is. Please don't spread it around without permission. If you pass along an e-mail that's been forwarded from someone else, erase the list(s) of previous recipients.


• Not virus-scanning an e-mail before forwarding it. You don't use a virus-scanner? Are you crazy??? One of the best is free! Download.

Labels: e-mail, hoax, hoaxbusters, large e-mail, snopes, symantec, virus

It's pronounced OR'-EE-GUN (or ORY-GUN)

It is not pronounced OR-IH'-GONE or ARE'-UH-GONE, or some similar blunder.

OR'-EE-GUN (or ORY-GUN)

Get it right, woohdja?

Labels: oregon, ory-gun

Make war, not love.

Hey! It could work.

Labels: abstinence, aids, make war not love, republican

The other day George Bush tried to take a shot at Barack Obama by citing a Senator who regretted not negotiating with Hitler. Bush tried to imply that a Senator who was willing to talk to people whom Bush considers to be enemies was an appeaser.

George, George, George. You are so clueless. Someone should smack you upside the head with a reality sandwich.

Reality:

1. The senator involved was Frank Borah, a Republican senator. He was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 1936 and 1940. Like most Republicans in the 1930s, he was an isolationist who argued strongly against getting involved in the "unrest" in Europe.
2. The Republican Party platform in 1936 included the following:

   Foreign Affairs
   We pledge ourselves to promote and maintain peace by all honorable means not leading to foreign alliances or political commitments.
   
   Obedient to the traditional foreign policy of America and to the repeatedly expressed will of the American people, we pledge that America shall not become a member of the League of Nations nor of the World Court nor shall America take on any entangling alliances in foreign affairs.
   
   We shall promote, as the best means of securing and maintaining peace by the pacific settlement of disputes, the great cause of international arbitration through the establishment of free, independent tribunals, which shall determine such disputes in accordance with law, equity and justice.
   
   National Defense
   We favor an army and navy, including air forces, adequate for our National Defense.
   
   We will cooperate with other nations in the limitation of armaments and control of tragic in arms.
   Source: The American Presidency Project

3. In those days, there were many Republicans whose patriotism was at best, suspect.
   
   One prominent Republican Senator was not content with denouncing our war effort against Nazi Germany. He continued to do business with the government of Germany while we were at war with Germany. Among his activities was providing financing to the government that was killing our troops. Finally - during the war - the US government seized those businesses, over the objection of that Senator and other Republicans.
   
   The senator was quite wealthy. His children and grandchildren attended the finest schools and entered "public service." His name: Prescott Bush. His son and grandsons George, George, and Jeb became great leaders.
   
   Grandson George disparages anyone who agrees with those portions of the Republican party platform. Not only has he not renounced or denounced his grandfather's dealings (and the inherited wealth generated by those dealings).... he closely associates with Republicans who likewise deal with the enemy. As one example, Halliburton Corp, under the leadership of Bush 'associate' Dick Cheney, did business for many years with Iran. Iran has been 'the enemy' for 30 years; it was (and is) illegal to do business with Iran.
   
   
4. For several days (or weeks) prior to this bonehead's bone-headed statement, his own handpicked Secretary of State (Ms. C. Rice) has been working behind the scenes to set up high-level talks with officials of (gasp!) Iran.
   
   
5. On the same day as the bone-headed bone-headed statement, the Bonehead-in Chief's own handpicked Secretary of Defense (Mr. R. Gates) supported Ms. Rice and said

   "The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.
   
   "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."
   
   In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran.
   
   "I think that may be the one opening that creates some space," Gates said."
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html
   

Shall I go on? Or is it clear that neither the Prez, nor his speech writers understand what's going on around them, understand history, have a clue, and see the irony in all of this.

And my imaginary friend wonders why I can no longer support those people.

Labels: appease, arms limit, clueless, Condeleeza Rice, George Bush, republican, republican party platform, Robert gates

The Blame Game Can Now End

OK, it's not really the 1st post of that year. It's from 2 days later. If you can't go through life not knowing what was in the 1st post of that year, look it up at http://tinyurl.com/6blfyz. It's the post named "Being There." WARNING: what happens at the end of the article is not a pretty sight. You've been warned.

Labels: brownie, chertoff, fema, katrina, PPT for Kids., Presidential Prayer Team

To Republicans, lower taxes masquerade as fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts, in the right-wing delusion, solve everything.

Lower taxes don't solve anything (unless you are part of one of the special interest group at whom tax cuts are typically aimed). Interestingly, good things happen after tax increases. I'm not advocating high taxes, but I'm pragmatic: go with what works.

Republicans have always laid claim to fiscal responsibility.

That is a myth. The facts say otherwise.

First, a quick summary

• Republican presidents
  1920-1932
  income taxes - negligible
  economy upward trend first 7 years
  then the biggest economic crash in history
  don't forget those really cool scandals & corruption
  

• Democratic presidents
  1932-1940
  higher income taxes on wealthiest
  economy recovered, slowly but steadily
  1941-1948
  higher income taxes on nearly everyone
  economy improved (war spending was a two-edged sword)
  

• Republican president
  1952-1960
  economy slowed
  deep recession
  
  
• Democratic presidents
  1961-1968
  economy soared
  

• Republican presidents
  1969-1972
  economy leveled
  1973-1976
  "stagflation" - stagnant economy and high inflation
  
  
• Democratic president
  1977-1980
  stagflation subsided, but the resulting credit crunch persisted
  

• Republican president
  1981-1992 borrow and spend like crazy under Reagan
  1981- biggest income tax cut in history
  budget deficits skyrocketed
  economy went backwards
  1982 - biggest income tax increase in history
  economy recovered
  1986 - shifted income tax burden away from wealthy to middle/lower classes
  1987 - 2nd largest wall st crash in history
  economy went into recession
  1989-1992, recession continued and worsened
  

• Democratic president
  1993-2001
  income tax hike
  economy went into best 9 years in historybudget deficits decreased every year, with 1997-2000 having budget surpluses (paid down national debt)
  

• Republican president
  2001-2008
  income tax cuts to wealthiest 10%
  went from budget surplus to biggest budget deficits in history
  economy slowed dramatically
  economy went into and stayed in recession
  

Now, let's back up the claims:

To measure fiscal responsibility, let's consider the change in the relationship between federal debt and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That relationship demonstrates growth (or decrease) in the government's debt in the context of growth (or shrinkage) of the economy as a whole. In other words, when times are good, does an administration use that as an opportunity to pay down debt? Or the opposite? Does fiscal policy cause increases or decreases in debt when times are bad?

Running up debt:

• Since 1945, every Democratic president presided over decreases in the debt-to-GDP ratio (that's good)
• Since 1945, every Republican president presided over
  1. in the best years, smaller decreases than under all Democrats
  2. in worst years (20 out of the last 36 years under Republicans), sharp INCREASES in the debt-to-GDP ratio (that's bad)
     

• 1977-1980, the Carter administration, was interesting in that
  1. his one term saw solid decrease in the debt-to-GDP ratio
  2. Nixon/Ford preceded him, and had deficit increases
  3. Reagan/Bush followed him, and had huge budget deficits
     

What about jobs?

• From 1929 to the present, job growth (net annual increase in number of jobs)
  1. under EVERY Democratic president, significant net increases in creation of new jobs
  2. under EVERY Democratic president, increases in rate over rate under preceding Republican
  3. under EVERY Republican president, smaller net increases than under ANY democratic president with one exception: 1945-1948, the net increase (under a Democrat) was smaller than those in 1969-1972 and 1985-1988 (under Republicans)
  4. Under two Republican administrations (but ZERO Democratic administrations) there were net job losses during their terms: specifically, 1929-1932 and 2001-2004; if the economy continues to fall this year, the small increase of 2005- part of 2007 could be erased.
     

So... can we conclude
Taxes = evil
Tax cuts = sacred & honorable
???

No and No.

• Borrow-and-spend (increase the national debt) is far worse than tax-and-spend.
• Borrow-and-spend creates the illusion of something good happening, but leaves it for future taxpayers to pick up the tab.

The facts:

1. Increases in income taxes always immediately precede economic improvement AND lower budget deficits.
2. Decreases in income taxes usually precede economic downturns AND higher budget deficits
3. Budget deficits fall, and the economy improves under Democratic presidents
   
4. Budget deficits increase and the economy nearly always slows (or worse) under Republican presidents
   

Let's face it:

• conventional wisdom about taxes is wrong: 'lower' does not mean 'better' and 'higher' does not mean 'worse'
  
• what matters is how the economy is doing, how many jobs are out there, how much money you have left at the end of the pay period, and whether or not we've prepared for the future (national debt increases or decreases).

Sorry, Republicans. Ouch!

Labels: borrow-and-spend, depression, economy, GDP, higher taxes, jobs, lower taxes, national debt, no longer a republican, recession, republican, tax cut, tax-and-spend

Labels: 9-11.9/11, 9/11, 911, troops, we remember

My imaginary friend thinks I have sold out to the tax-and-spend liberals, to the terrorist-loving wimps, to the big government wimps, to those who prefer a sluggish economy.

I haven't sold out to anyone. I just looked at the facts.

Tax-and spend isn't the problem. Fiscal responsibility is what matters.

• My former fellow travelers talk a good game, but truth be told, Republicans have long been fiscally irresponsible. They are the ones who borrow-and-spend.... and spend way too much.
• Democrats are more included to spend less, and do a better job of pay-as-you-go.
  

Terrorists are a serious concern. Who has the good track record in dealing with terrorists? Whose record is dismal?

• Terrorists have tested our mettle 3 times.
  
• Under one party's leadership, the perps of both events were caught promptly and brought to justice.
  
• The other party has botched everything and wound up with terrorist leaders regularly going on TV and mocking us. My prior party's leaders have the dismal record.
  

Who really grows government? Who really shrinks the size of government?

• Small government sounds good, but the GOP consistently expands government, while the other side shrinks it.
  

Who wins wars? Who supports the troops? Who demonstrates the correct priorities?

• I am embarrassed to say that like other Republicans, I parroted the party line. We were dead wrong. And deadly wrong, as well.
  
• Which party is in charge every time we did not win?
• Which party is in charge every time we DID win?
• On whose watch have we cut-and-run?
• If you want to prolong a war, who ya gonna call?
• When veterans get mistreated, who is supposed to be providing leadership?
• An easy one - who has the most blood on their hands from active duty troops and veterans committing suicide?
  

Are you pissed off yet? Stay tuned... the proof is coming.

Labels: borrow-and-spend, do anything, greed, no longer a republican, racist, recovering republican, redneck, say anything, southern strategy, strong national defense, tax cut, tax-and-spend, zealot

Labels: dalai lama, religious icons, religious teachings, simple religion

Labels: bush, Free nations, Free nations don't attack each other, land of the free, least free nation. more WMD, weapons of mass destruction

It's all over the news. There are more mortgage foreclosures in the works now than there have been since the Great Depression (1930s).

My conservative friends point the finger at the people who are losing their homes. I hear things like "they should have read the fine print" and "if they're stupid enough to get into a bad mortgage, they're too stupid to own a home."

If only it were that simple. The fact is that there are many groups involved, each of whom has contributed to the problem. Let's consider the 'reasonable man' (or more correctly, 'reasonable person') concept in law. A reasonable person has done due diligence when assuming that the well-respected experts are honest and that proper oversight -financial and legal - is working.

• How would Jane Q. Public know the the local bank manager isn't doing his/her job correctly and that government isn't watching to make sure that everything is on the 'up and up'?
  
• How should John Q. Public respond when even his own lawyer says that all the paperwork is in order?
  
• How would John and Jane's lawyer know that a property value appraisal is inflated?

A reasonable person HAS to trust someone. Yet, when one or more of the groups involved perpetrates fraud - the reasonable person winds up paying the costs.

Who played what role in this mess?

• a. home buyers (we'll discuss them later)
  
• b. housing speculators - people who bought several homes with the intention of 'flipping' those houses for quick, big profits (we'll discuss them later)
• c. appraisers - they are the final authority on the value of real estate
  
• d. mortgage brokers - they put together buyers, houses, loans, and lenders
  
• e. lenders - provide funds for each house sale, and 'bundle' loans into packages; the packages become collateral for bonds that are sold in the bond markets
  
• f. bondholders - invest their money in those packages, assuming that their financial return will be in the form of dividends as the buyers make their loan payments and as the resale value of those bonds in the bond markets.
  
• g. Federal regulatory agencies - receive taxpayer funds in return for watching all of the above to make sure that everything is legal and proper.
  

Anyone in groups a,b,c,d,e, and f can become a victim of fraud. Some however, are more likely to perpetrate the fraud, and some are more likely to be the victims.

Members of groups c,d,e are the experts. They are supposed to act honestly AND watch out for fraud committed by the other experts.

Group g is charged with keeping group e honest. If group g doesn't keep group e honest, the entire system breaks down.

Certain political groups are subsidiaries of Wall Street. When those politicians get power, among the first things they do is to gut regulatory agencies and staff said agencies with those same "Wall Street' types who stand to gain the most if given free reign. They assign the weasel to henhouse duty. The oversight that Americans expect and for which Americans pay becomes insignificant. Without a proper watchdog, the inevitable occurs: in the name of 'free market' economics, the crooks take over and wreak havoc - while pocketing huge sums of tainted money.

Groups d and e can pull off enough fraud to destroy the economy. However, it helps if c (appraisers) are complicit. C, d, and e in collusion, can rip off unimaginable sums from group f (bondholder) by overstating the value of the loans that are an integral part of the bondholders' investments.

If group c - appraisers - who sometimes do what less-than-scrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders want - they will report that properties were worth more than they were really worth.

Group d - mortgage brokers - do a fine job, but there's a serious potential problem. Brokers can work the fraud in both directions. Brokers can sucker unsophisticated buyers into loans that are doomed to fail. Then they can overstate values when convincing lenders to loan the money. The future problems don't matter to the broker - the broker collects fees from the borrower and the lender - and then washes his/her hands of the deal. The broker gets the money up-front. In a bizarre twist, the mortgage broker is the only one in the entire process who knows the full story... and the broker is the only one who has none of the risk.

The e group - lenders - are no longer your father's friendly neighborhood banker. They are still essential to the home financing process, but only as 'middle men'. Make no mistake about it: they do NOT 'hold on to' loans. They 'bundle' those loans and sell those packages to investors. If the lender is not paying close attention - or worse, with a 'wink-wink' - accepts bogus loan deals for resale... and then sells those mortgages in the form of bonds, then the bondholders are victims of fraud.

Group b - the "let's speculate in real estate and flip houses" crowd, have found themselves way overextended. When the economy slows, or when housing prices drop - the speculators go "upside-down" in their real estate holdings. If they can't make loan payments and can't sell at prices that enable them to break even, then whoever is "holding the paper" winds up holding empty houses. This always results in a loss.

And then there are the buyers. Experienced homeowners don't usually get caught up in shady deals. First-time buyers, however, are easier to defraud. They don't understand the true significance of adjustable-interest-rate mortgages - that when the rate goes up, they might not be able to make the payments any longer. They also don't realize that one cannot count on housing prices to go up forever. A sneaky broker can con them into thinking that the house WILL go up in value, and they'll be able to sell the house or re-finance with no problem.

Who's to bless and who's to blame?

Greed is at the root of all of this mess. Second in line, and somewhat related to greed, is the short-term attitudes of the players.

• the homebuyers and the bondholders are in it for the long haul (longer than a few weeks)
  
• everyone else in the financial side is there to get the money now - grab it and get out.

Also in the greed mix are the regulators - or more properly, the non-regulators. If the regulators made the lenders stay honest, most of these problems would be minimal. When Wall Street's politicians take over, the market system in the USA unravels as the Greed Factor sucks dry all of the honest people in caught up in this housing crisis.

Labels: appraiser, broker, crisis, foreclosure, fraud, greed, lender, mortgage, mortgage crisis, regulation, regulator, short-term, Wall St.

It's right there on the tip of my tongue. Why can't I remember that? I know this! I know it!

Ar-r-r-r-r-gh!

Oh no! I'm having a McCain moment.

A Double McCain would be if I flip-flopped on it.

A Triple McCain? Deny that I said it the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth time - even when it's on film.

Labels: mccain, mccain moment, senior moment

It's commonplace nowadays to send e-mails with attached files. If you want to piss off a lot of people and waste everyone's time, create text files in Microsoft Word and e-mail the Word documents as attachments.

It's not unusual for a 'mass-mailing' to become a mass-failing. You send out that Word file, and many intended recipients will get a file that is one or both of the following:

1. Unopenable and unreadable because the recipient has no way to open and read a file created using Microsoft Word. Just because YOUR computer has Word installed, don't assume that EVERYONE has a computer with Word installed. Yes, I know there are ways around that lack of expensive MicroSoft crap, but let's face it: those alternatives are beyond the comprehension of most computer users. Trust me.... I work with 'most' computer users every day.
2. Unopenable and unreadable because many e-mail programs have a way of buggering up Word files. I get calls about several times each month.

So you poured blood, sweat, and tears into that written masterpiece - and your message doesn't make it into the hearts and minds of your intended audience. Ain't life a bitch?

But wait! There is a file type that is universally accepted as 'standard'. That file type is "Adobe PDF." And how does one create a PDF file? It's easy.

The following assumes that you are using any version of Windows created in the past 13 years. There are similar solutions for Mac and LINUX, but Mac and LINUX users are mighty scarce. Since both groups consider themselves smarter than Windows users, surely they can figure out a solution without my help.

1. Start with your already-written MicroCrap Word document.
2. Process it with a simple, free tool.
3. Your unreliable Word file is now a PDF file, available to virtually anyone who has a computer and an e-mail program (and an Internet connection).

The conversion software is Primo PDF.

1. Download it from http://tinyurl.com/2mrrqn
2. Run the installation program that you just downloaded
3. Primo PDF installs as a "printer". To convert a Word document - or any other document - to PDF, tell Word (or whatever) to Print. A list of printers pops up. Select "Primo". Instead of using ink or toner, Primo just re-arranges the electrons.

Attach the newly-created PDF file to your e-mail.

Primo PDF: http://tinyurl.com/2mrrqn
Adobe Reader: http://tinyurl.com/6ip (just in case someone doesn't have the Adobe PDF Reader already.

Yes, I know there are many ways to solve the Word-as-e-Mail-attachment problem. I was using, programming, and fixing computers before more than 50% of the world's population was born (really). The above is the simplest, most straightforward way to solve the problem.

Labels: adobe, attachment, e-mail, email, microsoft word, pdf, primo pdf

Hillary Clinton:

1. Has thrown $12,000,000 of her family fortune at what is, at best, a futile attempt to become US President.
2. Insists that she is still in the race for the nomination.
3. Will say anything, do anything to scratch and claw for votes/delegates
4. Has shown that she will destroy her party and its presumptive nominee for personal gain
5. Supports her party's presumptive opposition candidate to her party's presumptive own candidate
6. Gleefully accepts endorsements from influential Republicans - even though everyone else in the world knows that the right-wingers prefer to run against Hill rather than against Barack. Hint: they might be able to beat her in November; they haven't a prayer against Obama.

• I would rather not have a president is is delusional.
• I would prefer a president who doesn't squander millions of dollars on useless activities.
• I would hope to have a president who priority is not "Me first. Screw the rest of you."
• I would like to live in a country where a bumbling, doddering old fool can't manage to defeat someone who is so widely hated... not just in her country, but even among members of her own party.
• I want a President who has the humility and humanity to say:
  
  • "I was wrong when I supported the 'authorization to use force.'
    
  • I was wrong because I didn't do my homework before promoting and voting for that authorization."
    
  • "I was wrong to give the warmongers another shot at starting a war by declaring another country was run , in part, by terrorists."
    
  • "I was wrong to encourage the people of the state (in which I am a carpetbagger) to entrust me with their say in governing the country - when all that I have done is pander for votes."
  • "I was way, way wrong to smear, slime, lie about, and swiftboat my colleague. "
  • "I ask the forgiveness of my country for my reprehensible behavior."

If she can do that, she might be an OK president - if OK means playing politics as usual.

Labels: business as usual, clinton. swiftboat, do anything, hilary, hillary, pander, politics as usual, right-wing, say anything, slime, smear, swiftboat

In April 2008 I took John McBush to task for his unwarranted image as a maverick. Now I will correct him on an error of fact that he makes. To be fair, it is a mistake that many, many people make - even people who think of themselves as environmentalists.

Before he was a candidate for the nomination to run for president as a republican, GW McCain said "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve our air quality."

That was then.

But, in time for the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, "I do not support subsidies, but I support ethanol and I think it is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse reduction effects"

White man speak with forked tongue.

Worse, his knowledge of science is faulty.

"ethanol ... greenhouse reduction effects". Wrong! Where, oh, where to begin?

Everyone take notes. There will be a quiz on this.

1. Ethanol is a carbon-based source of energy. For you technically minded, its chemical formula is C₂H₅OH.
   
   
2. ANY and EVERY Carbon-based fuel releases energy AND CO₂ (Also known as Carbon Dioxide). CO₂ is a major component of our greenhouse gas problem.
   
   • The "C₂" part is the Carbon component of ethanol.
   • "H₅" is Hydrogen
   • "OH" means that a part of the ethanol molecule is a hydroxide, and consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen
     
   • The nice thing about the H and OH portions of ethanol is that when burned , as in an internal combustion engine, the by-product includes water - that's the sort-of good news. The bad news is that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
   • Much worse - in terms of greenhouse gases - is that when the carbon in ethanol is oxidized (when it burns), it releases energy and forms Carbon Dioxide.
   • In other words, when you burn ethanol to release the energy contained therein, you release two greenhouse gases. There is a Law of Nature that covers the topic. It is inevitable.
     
     
3. Ethanol-as-fuel is a hot topic. But when politicians address Ethanol-as-fuel, they are referring Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn, which translates into votes in the Farm Belt and campaign funds from such agribiz giants as Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill. They want you to believe that Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn is a good idea, when the real issue is getting elected/re-elected.
   
   Ethanol-as-fuel is probably a good idea. Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn is not just a bad idea, it's worse: it's a distraction from real issues regarding energy.
   
   In today's agriculture, corn is expensive to grow. From a financial viewpoint, it requires good soil, huge amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, and massive fuel-guzzling farm equipment.
   
   From any energy viewpoint, all of those items (except the soil) require petroleum to produce, transport, and use.
   
   In today's refinery system, corn is an expensive raw material for producing an energy source. It requires a lot of energy input, e.g., heat - to produce the ethanol.
   
   All things considered, it requires about 3 gallons of fuel to create, transport, and deliver 4 gallons of fuel at the gas pump. And - those 4 gallons of fuel do not produce as many miles as 4 gallons of petroleum-based fuel.
   
   That's just the tip of the iceberg. As corn production is diverted to ethanol production, corn is taken from the food supply. That causes food prices (and feed prices for livestock) to increase. Reducing the corn supply also impacts other parts of the food network. We are beginning to see shortages and price hikes of food other than corn. For example, if grain production resources were diverted to corn production, the price of wheat will shoot up; in turn, prices of wheat-based foods will skyrocket (you heard it here first).
   
   Ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn just doesn't make economic or ecological sense.
   

Do we need alternative sources of energy? Absolutely. BUT! Everyone needs to understand that

• substituting one carbon-based energy source for another is NOT a solution to the critical greenhouse gas / global warming problems that we face
• among Ethanol-as-fuel endeavors, ethanol-as-fuel-made-from-corn benefits politicians and agribiz. It does little, if anything for the rest of us.
• While any ethanol production will help reduce oil imports, it is more than anything else, a distraction from the pursuit of REAL energy solutions.
  

How do we solve our growing energy, dependence on foreign oil, and pollution (greenhouse gas) problems?

• We can't fall into the trap of seeking a panacea - a one size fits all - approach.
• Our biggest - best - easiest first step is conservation; we need a comprehensive national program to use less and recycle more.
• Make better use of "local" oil. Consider this: 40% of US oil production is exported. Reigning that in won't solve the greenhouse gas problem, but it would most certainly put a dent in oil imports. How can it make sense to export oil and import expensive oil that comes with strings attached. There are serious geopolitical issues involved in being at the mercy of people who despise us and use our money (money that we paid for foreign oil) to support terrorists who will most certainly attack us repeatedly.
• Develop good alternative sources of energy - preferably sources that don't carry baggage such as greenhouse gas production and destruction of the natural environment. Interestingly, developing and producing these alternative energy sources will help in another big way: it will encourage entrepreneurship and will create new jobs right here in the good ol' US of A.
  

Labels: alternative energy, carbon dioxide, carbon-based fuel, co2, conservation, ethanol, maverick, mcbush, mccain, misconception, misunderstanding