Tuesday, January 08, 2008
No Corn For Oil!
We really need to ban ethanol from corn, because there is a growing food crisis from two bad crop years and its driving up food prices. The idea of using food crops fior energy is a bad one to begin with. There are plenty of alternatives.
As I’ve said before, switchgrass is the answer. It’s cheaper to grow, takes less energy and less pesticides and fertilizer and it can grow on land unsuitable for farming. It’s really a win/win kid of fuel source. But how good is it? Better than I thought.
On paper, making biofuels from switchgrass and other perennials that need not be replanted seems like a no-brainer. Use the sun’s energy to grow the crop, and then convert it to liquid fuels to power our cars without the need for gasoline. But so far, experiments with these “cellulosic” crop-based fuels have only been conducted on small scales, leaving open the question of how feasible the strategy is. Now, the first large-scale study shows that switchgrass yields more than five times the energy needed to grow, harvest, and transport the grass and convert it to ethanol. The results could propel efforts to sow millions of hectares of marginal farmland with biofuel crops.
Previous studies on switchgrass plots suggested that ethanol made from the plant would yield anywhere from 343% to 700% of the energy put into growing the crop and processing it into biofuel. But these studies were based on lab-scale plots of about 5 square meters. So 6 years ago, Kenneth Vogel, a geneticist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Lincoln, Nebraska, and colleagues set out to enlist farmers for a much larger evaluation. Farmers planted switchgrass on 10 farms, each of which was between 3 and 9 hectares. They then tracked the inputs they used—diesel for farm equipment and transporting the harvested grasses, for example—as well as the amount of grass they raised over a 5-year period. After crunching the numbers, Vogel and his colleagues found that ethanol produced from switchgrass yields 540% of the energy used to grow, harvest, and process it into ethanol. Equally important, the researchers found that the switchgrass is carbon neutral, as it absorbs essentially the same amount of greenhouse gases while it’s growing as it emits when burned as fuel.
Now, you know I don’t put much stock (if any) in the whole carbon thing. But that doesn’t mean I’m not for reasonable alternatives. And this option is vastly more logical than using corn, which costs more to grow than the energy it produces.
More info on switchgrass here.
UPDATE: The BBC concurs
The Scary Secret of Barack Obama
Obama is cleaning up in the polls and looks certain to win the next couple of states. The more he wins, the more hype he gets and the more he seems favored to win the primaries. But so far he has benefited from a lack of intense scrutiny about his past. That’s about to change as he becomes the front runner.
As this article suggests, he has a lot of questionable things in his past that might effect how people see him in the final race, if he makes it that far.
One of the things propelling Obama is that he’s perceived as the “great black hope”. Not so much by blacks, but by whites who want to prove they’re not racist by voting for him. It’s the white guilt thing. Back in the day, whites would use the mantra “I have black friends” to show they were desegregation minded. Now they can say “I voted for Obama.” Of course, most of these people weren’t that racist to begin with, but decades of guilt mongering by the media has made a lot of whites (liberals especially) sensitive to the R word. Most young people today are past all that which is why the racist charge is becoming a tired cliche. This country may have a guilty past, but it’s getting farther away from it by the minute.
Voting for Obama because he’s black is kind of racist though. It really shouldn’t matter what race he is. A person’s race doesn’t make them any more qualified. Isn’t that was we’re supposed to believe in a color blind society? Yet here we are taking about this nonsense.
What concerns me about Obama is that he was a leftist agitator. We already had one in Bill Clinton and look what that did for the country. We’ve never been so divided since the civil war. And all because of the Alinsky techniques they brought to the White House.
There’s also the matter of Obama failing to salute when the national anthem plays at events. Sure, many of us don’t, but were not in front of a crowd or running for office where we’re sworn to uphold the constitution and defend the country. It makes you wonder what his feelings or loyalties are. Ad then there’s the question of his Muslim background. I don’t think that should disqualify him, but you have to wonder, again where his loyalties lie. I doubt he’s a fan of Islamo-extremists. But who knows?
I’m sure we’ll find out a lot about him in the coming months. The spotlights will be on him now and its hard to hide in the shadows under that kind of scrutiny.
UPDATE: Bill Clinton unloads on Obama. They are going into full attack mode. We’ll se if Obama can weather it.
Monday, January 07, 2008
That’s Gotta Hurt
Obama just opened up a 10 point lead over Hillary in New Hampshire (Edwards faded to third). And polls show the gap narrowing in the super Tuesday states where Hillary looked sure to win just a week ago. Her lead has dissipated in the winds of change. (Ah, the C word which she used about 900 times in the debate Saturday).
Now there’s talk of her getting out before she gets humiliated. I don’t think she will. But apparently, this is effecting her as she’s been seen with tears in her eyes on the campaign trail.
A once cheering press is now savaging her.
But if she loses Super Tuesday, it’s all over for her. Unless Obama offers her the VP slot. Which would not be a dumb move for him. But if she can’t carry the big states on Super Tuesday, it would be unnecessary. He wold be better off offering it to Bill Richardson who would be a lot easier to work with.
I was fairly sure she would win the nomination a few weeks back, but Obama has played it very smart and his appeal seems to have been growing in leaps and bounds. Unlike Huckabee, I think Obama has a chance of grabbing the brass ring.
Hillary’s presidential hopes may be shattered. For now, anyway.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Ouch of the Day
The Opposing States of Mankind
NOTE: This article was on my old blog, which got lost when the database was incompetently deleted by my previous web host. Thanks to Amritas, here it is again.
In researching my American Intifada post the other day, I started thinking about the Mezo-American cultures and why they hadn’t advanced as well as Europeans. When Cortez came to Mexico, he discovered a stone-aged culture with impressive cities but backward ideas.
The “Aztec empire” wasn’t very large by modern standards. Neither were the empires that preceded it, like the Mayan and Olmec. The transportation systems we invented in Europe, from the carriage to the train, allowed the transportation of people over long distances, which made vast empires possible. The Mezo-Americans didn’t have the wheel or the Horse. When you’re stuck with Fred Flintstone technology, you don’t get too far.
So why were they so backward? It’s a really good question. One that sheds light on the importance of today’s debates.
Many patronizing Europeans of the time (and even today) thought it was because the people in the New World and Africa were stupid. Why else would they be so primitive? But there’s a good reason why some societies advance while others stagnate. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with human nature.
There is a yin-yang of societies. Two frames of thought that humans seem to possess. Playwright George Bernard Shaw once said, there are only two stories. “Cinderella” and “Jack and the Beanstalk”. What he meant is that, if you strip all the stories that exist down to their essence, you have “Boy Meets Girl” and the “Hero on a Quest”. In a way it’s the yin-yang of things. As it is in nature, there is the positive and the negative force. One creates, the other destroys. Boy Meets Girl will eventually result in love and children. The Hero on a Quest usually involves hate and someone or something getting killed.
Stories are humanity’s way of explaining how the universe works to ourselves. While stories are symbolic explorations of the material world, politics are a strategic methodology that affects us materially.
Human beings have taken two separate paths in the way they organized their societies. These methods have all kinds of names and variations, but ultimately, there are only two ways that humans have worked it out. I call them the plus and the minus systems. One is positive, the other is negative. Like the poles on a magnet, they repel each other, but oftem, you have elements of both in every social order that exists.
The plus system inspires people to be innovative and creative. The minus system inspires stagnation and economic failure. History has proved this many, many times. It’s proving it as you read this. But people often fail to see the truth taking place right before their eyes.
Let’s use the Mexica/Aztec conflict with the Spaniards as a perfect example.
Many have decided that one race excelled and another didn’t because of some kind of racial prowess. But the truth lies not in the race, but in the career path these groups took. It’s similar to two children in school. One decides to go to college; the other decides to drop out. The educated one becomes successful, the other a failure. It’s the plus and minus system in action.
The Mexica/Aztecs (we’ll call them Mexica from now on) had a minus system, which was tribute based. All minus systems follow a simple logic. A few elites at the top make everyone below them work for their benefit and give them all the resources the society provides. The common people are only allowed to keep what the elites say they can, which is usually enough for them to get by. In the case of the Mexicas, everything was done in the service of the emperor who was worshipped as a god. While not considered a god exactly, he was supposed to be the spokesperson for the gods. He was a divine being in their eyes.
The Mexicas had a virtually stone-aged society. They could make metal art from gold and silver, but they didn’t use iron, copper or metal tools. They didn’t have the wheel. They didn’t use draft animals. So they had to move all goods around by human beings. Imagine all those people carrying everything around on their backs. They not only had to serve the emperor, they had to give their lives to him if he wanted it. Below the emperor were the priests and below that, soldiers. Below that, everyone else. And of course they used slaves like most societies at the time. But the Mexicas were not much better than slaves, whether they were called that or not in their class. They made absurd sacrifices (both human and otherwise) for their leader.
A system like this was very common in the early days of humanity. It’s a system that punishes free thought. Everyone is expected to follow a religious ideology that demands total obedience. Because, this is a form of mind control. Elites can make the people do whatever they want if they get them to believe the gods demand it. But this system stagnates a society because it does not encourage creativity. So the scientific development of the Mexicas and other American peoples was limited. Subjects were told to believe things happened a certain way because the gods ordained it. Therefore, they never developed critical thought. They just followed orders. And those orders came from ignorant people who only wanted personal gratification.
The Europeans and to a lesser extent, the Chinese, invented a kind of plus system of government. The Romans were the first civilization to really use it, which is partially why they were the most successful civilization until modern times. The Spanish also had a weak form of a plus system. While they had a religious ideology than inhibited scientific progress, European nations were competing with each other, which encouraged science and the arts. Individuals were able to think and question things. Plus systems do that. And as a result, science is allowed to flourish. Science made it possible for the Spanish to travel around the world and conquer almost every people they encountered.
When the Mexicas first tried to block Cortez’ soldiers, Emperor Moctezuma II (actual spelling) sent his magicians to stop them. A bunch of feathered, painted men showed up before Cortez and started singing, dancing and shaking bones and totems. The Spanish looked at them like they were lunatics. An Indian guide explained what Moctezuma was trying to do. They were casting spells on the Spaniards. Using magic to defeat them. Cortez laughed it off. When the Mexicas tried to fight the Spanish in battle, the got slaughtered in the first few rounds because, in that culture, you were supposed to hit your enemy on the head with your club and the losers were supposed to surrender to be humiliated as sacrificial slaves. Except the Spanish just slaughtered them with their guns and swords and the Mexica soldiers were horrified. “You’re supposed to let us live so we can be sacrificed to your god!” Thus, Cortez was able to walk right into the capital and order Moctezuma around.
Again, in minus-style societies, ideology is needed to control people. Free thought and critical thinking is banned. So citizens become easy marks to forces that don’t share their beliefs.
This was true in 1519 Mexico. It was true in Ancient Japan, which had a similar minus system of government. Once Japan adopted a plus style economy, they became an economic powerhouse.
Today we call the plus style “Capitalism”. Its ideological opponent is called “Socialism or Communism”. These are modernized versions of the old tribute system of the Mexicas or Japanese. In Socialism the state and the party leadership become the new elites. But all capital and resources go to feed the state. So called “benefits” are handed back to the citizens as leavings, once the elites enrich themselves. The more extreme the Socialistic/Communist society becomes, the more it resembles the tribute systems of ancient peoples. And it stagnates and fails over time.
We’ve seen multiple examples of this in our time.
China and India both had socialistic societies, but in the last decade they’ve moved toward more market-oriented (plus style) systems. As a result they’re seeing incredible economic progress where before they were stagnate.
Those nations that are still behind the curve almost universally have minus style economies. They are either socialist systems or an old fashioned totalitarian state. Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mussolini, Saddam all ran totalitarian socialist states. Castro and Kim Jong Il are still doing it and their countries are a mess. Such systems stagnate because they don’t allow innovation or progress. People have no freedom. They are kept prisoner in their own countries.
At this juncture of human history were watching the plus and minus system battle it out for dominance. Those who love control and push ideology favor the minus system. Hence, the Islamo-Fascists want a society resembling an ancient Tribute state. The Socialists marching in our streets in the west want statism to provide them with “benefits”. But if you look at the societies that have tried it, that way lies slow death.
There is only one choice that makes sense, but it’s not exactly the disordered mess we call Capitalism today.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
ABC Democrat Debate Wrap Up
This says it all about how Hillary did. She hurt herself, I think. And she has the nerve to say she has 35 years of experience. Please.
Richardson was good, but he was running for the VP slot. I think he would make a good VP for the Dems, but the question is, who would take him. I think Obama would, but I don’t think Edwards would. Not that he’s ever going to win the nomination.
Edwards tried to hog the debate as much as possible. I think he was annoying, even though he did say some good stuff here and there about lobbyists. The problem with Edwards is he’s an ambulance chaser. He’s worse than a lobbyist.
Obama did exactly what he needed to. He came off well when he had to answer questions. He didn’t attack anyone. He even made a good speech about how we should all work together when Hillary kept attacking him, so he came off as the better person. I think he has a good shot at the nomination now because he’s what all the white guilt liberals have been looking for. I think they see him as a way to prove they’re not racist by voting for a black man. Unlike Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, Obama comes off like a reasonable, non gimmicky candidate. He doesn’t bring up race that much, even though his platform has some stuff about racism in it. It’s mostly reasonable positions.
I don’t see myself voting for him, but I think many of his positions are good ones. He has better (and far more) policy positions than any other candidate. I spent the day checking out the various candidates websites.
Obama will take NH. Edwards will come in second again. He did good and Hillary did not.
Republican ABC Debate Wrap Up
Romney shot himself in the foot by coming off both defensive and smug. He had this smirk on his face when almost everyone else was talking. I was never a fan but now I actively dislike him.
Huckabee didn’t come off any better. I don’t think he’ll sway too many NH residents.
Giuliani came off pretty decent, but once again it was all about 9/11. He’s sounding too much like a one note guy. He did OK explaining his immigration stance but I don’t think he came off great.
McCain was funny and did well enough to secure a win in NH as the polls are showing at this time. He did a poor job defending his
immigration bill, though.
Ron Paul came off at a disadvantage as everyone kind of made fun of him and mocked his positions. Frankly, his foreign policy statements were naive. Whatever a terrorist says as the reason they attacked us is meaningless. What people say and do are two different things. They would have an excuse no matter what since many of the nations they attack aren’t occupying their countries. When did Bali ever attack them?
Finally, Fred came off well. He seemed the most reasoned and mature of them all. However, I don’t know if he will sway anyone else to vote for him. I am still rooting for Fred because he seems the most level headed and pragmatic of all these guys. I don’t know if he’ll be exciting enough to draw more people to his candidacy. I think he won the debate. But the heat may all be on McCain and maybe Rudy. Huckabee won’t win in NH. Depending on how bad he loses, he may have seen his last hurrah.
Next up, the Democrat Debate. I’m watching it now. I think, so far, Obama will come away the winner because he seems the most presidential. He’s also the more likable one. Richardson just doesn’t look like a president. He looks like a typical bureaucrat.
Prepare for some Real Climate Change
If these NASA scientists are right, forget about the Global Warming stuff you’ve been hearing. Get ready for a new little ice age.
Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.
Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.
“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”
Which means, keep up the CO2, kids!
Global Warming/Climate Change • (0) Comments • Permalink •
Random Links
Awesome Wallpapers
Here’s a whole assortment of cool desktops for your computer.
Copyright © 2008 James D. Hudnall. All Rights Reserved
This page has been viewed 3673184 timesPage rendered in 0.5118 seconds
Total Entries: 2440 / Total Comments: 4863 / Total Trackbacks: 0
Most Recent Entry: 11/19/2008 04:58 pm / Most Recent Comment on: 11/20/2008 12:58 am
Total Members: 78 / Total Logged in members: 1 / Total guests: 28 / Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 11/20/2008 05:59 am
The most visitors ever was 847 on 11/15/2007 03:28 am
Current Logged-in Members: Brian Swisher
