Governor Howard Dean was, is and will be first in the hearts of true Democrats.

We've finally arrived through the space time travel -- a new front thread.

The only thing more inefficient than ethanol is the gasoline it replaces.

Think long and hard before you repeat oil company talking points.

a corn field is a carbon sink

Are you meaning to say that natural gas, hydro and solar cells are all less efficiant than ethanol? I don't think so.

1. yes, but I was here first until you were first. LOL

The blog clock is still 12 minutes behind. I don't know how that happens. The spouse's linux box does it too.

KUNSTLER ON ETHANOL

http://www.kunstler.com/

Out in Iowa last week, you could see that they had planted corn clear up to the highway on-ramps, and shiny new grain storage bins were everywhere. The ethanol program is in high gear there. It is, of course, a net energy loser when you figure in all the fossil fuel "inputs" and procedures needed in making the stuff. It was interesting to hear that a lot of "normal" Iowans regard the enterprise as exactly what it is -- an arrant government subsidy racket intended to enrich agribusiness, while blowing "green" smoke up the rest of America's ass.

82. It's my understanding that the left-over mash is still able to be used as animal feed--sort of like coal ash is used to make concrete blocks. The secondary products might have to be factored in. And then, there's the question of what comes out of the tailpipe when ethanol rather than gasoline is burned. It may be a net loss in terms of oil used and it may not. I'd like to see the figures and then compare them to the constructing and fueling of a nuclear power plant.

The vast agricultural infrastructure is already all in place to use the surplus corn supply for fuel rather than dumping the surplus on the world market driving third world farmers out of business. It is not the answer it is just one little piece of the puzzle.

Believe me Americans jumping in an SUV to run to Walmart to buy goods shipped from China made from raw material shipped from America is the inefficient part of the equation, not whether or not 10% of the fuel is made from corn.

Farmers would give up all subsidies if the competition did too.

4. Yep, I noticed that -- that's why I didn't mention Howard, since you had already taken care of that.

Ok, now that we've, in the words of The Doors's Van Morrison, have (with Sheri's help) done a  "break on through to the other side" to finally a new front thread --

-- I have a question (and I'll use the lyrics of the rock musical Jesus Christ Superstar to ask it) --

Which song do you personally identify more with, and why ?

http://members.tripod.com/~JCSKelly/lyrics.html

...

A.) 

...

MARY MAGDALENE
Try not to get worried, try not to turn on to
Problems that upset you, oh.
Don't you know
Everything's alright, yes, everything's fine,
And we want you to sleep well tonight.
Let the world turn without you tonight.
If we try, we'll get by, so forget all about us tonight.

APOSTLES' WIVES
Everything's alright, yes, everything's alright, yes.

MARY MAGDALENE
Sleep and I shall soothe you, calm you, and anoint you...
Myrrh for your hot forehead, oh.
Then you'll feel
Everything's alright, yes, everything's fine.
And it's cool, and the ointment's sweet
For the fire in your head and feet.
Close your eyes, close your eyes
And relax, think of nothing tonight.

APOSTLES' WIVES
Everything's alright, yes, everything's alright, yes.

JUDAS
Woman your fine ointment, brand new and expensive
Could have been saved for the poor.
Why has it been wasted? We could have raised maybe
Three hundred silver pieces or more.
People who are hungry, people who are starving
They matter more than your feet and hair.

MARY MAGDALENE
Try not to get worried, try not to turn on to
Problems that upset you, oh.
Don't you know
Everything's alright, yes, everything's fine,
And we want you to sleep well tonight.
Let the world turn without you tonight.
If we try, we¹ll get by, so forget all about us tonight.

APOSTLES' WIVES
Everything's alright, yes, everything's alright, yes.

JESUS
Surely you're not saying we have the resources
To save the poor from their lot?
There will be poor always, pathetically struggling
Look at the good things you've got.
Think while you still have me!
Move while you still see me!
You'll be lost, you'll be so sorry when I'm gone.

MARY MAGDALENE
Sleep and I shall soothe you, calm you and anoint you...
Myrrh for your hot forehead, oh.
Then you'll feel
Everything's alright, yes, everything's fine.
And it's cool and the ointment's sweet
For the fire in your head and feet.
Close your eyes, close your eyes, and relax....

APOSTLES' WIVES
Everything's alright, yes, everything's alright, yes......

...

...

Everything's Alright

s/b -

...

B.)

Everything's Alright

As the soldier interviewed on Frontline about extended tours. "I'd like to see the political leaders come over here and just do 24 hours of my duty, but hey. It's all good."

rdorgan wrote "typo - Everything's Alright s/b - B.) Everything's Alright."

That's not quite as glaring as calling Jim Morrison Van.

The Doors is apt as is Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit, but how about the Dead and "what a long strange trip it's been"

truckin

bbl

Tom -

Yep, boy that was a real typo. (please forgive me all The Doors fans here).

Ok, selection time:

A.) What's the Buzz  ?

or 

B.) Everything's Alright  ?

rdorgan wrote "Ok, selection time"

I would opt for Everything's Alright, but rely more on the 1973 cover of the Mojos' song of the same name by David Bowie on Pin Ups. 

6. You're right, Phil. But, an addendum--it's largely an accounting problem that gives us a false picture of reality. Waste (pollution, rot, consumption by vermine) doesn't count and doesn't exist, if it's not paid for. Economics has to be the only "science" where the measuring stick (money) becomes the thing measured (money). The economy grows when more money is used to mediate transactions. Which is what makes this whole thing so ironic because if industry starts having to pay for waste disposal as a normal business expense, the economy will grow. But, as long as government is seen as responsible for dealing with negatives and what government spends is subtracted from the "economy" in the form of taxes, efforts to deal with (clean up) wastes are going to be resisted because government doing it is counted as a drag on the economy.
The private/public distinction is entirely artificial--something to make the accounting more managable.

Some support for privatization was actually based on the expectation that accounting for our activities would become more rational. I know I never realized until recently that the prime motivation for privatization was simply to remove the transfer of public assets and resources into private coffers from public view.

15.

ok, you answered the which but now the why "everything's alright" ?

Apparently, some people consider the impact of the Freedom of Information Act to have much greater significance than those of us who have nothing to hide. LOL
Just think, that wasn't passed until 1966.

3.

Monica Smith
Mon, 10/15/07
9:07 am

......
The only thing more inefficient than ethanol is the gasoline it replaces.

Think long and hard before you repeat oil company talking points.

a corn field is a carbon sink

Are you meaning to say that natural gas, hydro and solar cells are all less efficiant than ethanol? I don't think so.
--------

!!!

Even though, it depends on WHAT are we talking about.

If we are talking about DEPLOYMENT of one or the other KIND of energy source FOR the benefits of a FEW at the expense of MANY then THE EFFICIENCY (the coefficient of energy extraction per its unit) DOES NOT MATTER! With ANY KIND of energy source people are just going to SERVE the energy’s ever increasing CONSUMPTION (as it is happening now!).

E.g. ultimately it is NOT about specific “kind” of energy source itself but TO WHOM it BELONGS - to PEOPLE or to CORPORATIONS!

rdorgan wrote "why ‘everything's alright’?

I recall year after year during the Reagan administration, listening to the radio, watching the news and reading the paper, always with the same reaction. It was mood depressing and enervating, like sensing the beginning of the end. The economy was turning top heavy, deficit spending was soaring. We heard about welfare queens, voodoo economics and the Iran-Contra scandal. You know, what Republicans consider to be Morning in America.

The Republican recent hegemony is about to be broken. The ideological spectrum does shift, and Democrats are timid in power, but I think the evolution of this country’s values as a world citizen is imminent. The policies of the Clinton administration were no panacea by any means, but they made Morning in America seem like Midnight on the Titanic by comparison.

20

Thoughtful response.  I tend to be a more "everything's alright" here on this blog (the screw slowly turns but it turns).

On the Obama '08 blog, I tend to be more of a "what's the buzz", for bringing up my concerns.  I, and others that post that way, often get labeled as "debbie downers" (labeling coming from the "ursula uppers"? -- ok, I just made up the ursula term, was thinking of James Bond movies and had to come up with a naming to counter the SNL term debbie downer).

20. I don't see much difference between Clinton and Reagan/Bush. There's been a rather consistent program of asserting a ruling class whose wealth is derived from the labor of others and supported by the threat of the use of force. In a sense, it's the plantation system writ large.
It's the threatened use of force that's central. The real use of force as in suppressing the strikes in the early part of the twentieth century and trying to contain the civil right movement obviously didn't work very well. That's because the direct use of force inevitably prompts physical resistance. Using force against a third party to make an example is much more effective. "We'll fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."
Have you asked who "them" is? You assume it's "terrorists." Right? But who's a "terrorist"? Why does the Department of Justice refer to "law enforcement and the war on terror" as a unified program? Why have local police departments all around the country been issued riot gear? No doubt, to line the pockets of the people who make such stuff. But, why else?

What's the difference between gated communities being built up in Iraq and the gated communities springing up in the U.S? What are the denizens of these enclaves afraid of? That failure over there will be replicated here? Gated communities are an affront. Not because people lock themselves in, but because other people are excluded. You see, civil rights are meaningless you live in a private enclave rather than a civil society.

Monica wrote "I don't see much difference between Clinton and Reagan/Bush. There's been a rather consistent program of asserting a ruling class whose wealth is derived from the labor of others and supported by the threat of the use of force. In a sense, it's the plantation system writ large."

Yeah, I know, but besides that they seem different.

22.

Monica Smith
Mon, 10/15/07
10:37 am

........
"We'll fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."
Have you asked who "them" is? You assume it's "terrorists." Right? But who's a "terrorist"? Why does the Department of Justice refer to "law enforcement and the war on terror" as a unified program?
........
---------

Precise observation, imo!

A republic and a democracy are essentially the same critter in different languages. The elitism being promoted by Republicans is not, IMHO, unique to them. There are also elitists among those who call themselves Democrats. As the two groups have evolved, the main difference is the manner in which the elites maintain their status. On the Republican side, the elites prefer to use threats (law and order policies) to maintain their eminence. On the Democratic side, the elites prefer to use munificence (benefits and hand-outs) to keep the hoi poloi in line. Both tend to interpret the law as a formal instrument, as opposed to a regal whim, with which to rule the populace. That the law depends on the consent of the populace is something they'd rather not think about and, despite the evidence of the 2006 election, still in denial about. That's why Rham and the DLC keep nattering about what THEY accomplished. Popular rule is a really scary notion, probably because they know they've been abusive and fear that the tables will be turned on them.

It's interesting that Nancy Pelosi thinks that the protesters on her sidewalk are "protected" from being removed by the guarantee of their freedom of speech. She seems unaware that the right to travel freely is determinative. Arresting people for loitering is often tried and generally thrown out in court.

23. things are often not what they seem

Bill Clinton's first campaign was "rescued" by the same people who staked GHWB and GWB before and after and who employed Hillary when she was still a lawyer. I expect that Reagan was promoted over GHWB in the same way that Dubya was promoted over JEB--somewhat simple and therefor less threatening.

The vast agricultural infrastructure is already all in place to use the surplus corn supply for fuel rather than dumping the surplus on the world market driving third world farmers out of business.

That's scraping the bottom of the barrel as an excuse for ethanol.

Burning fuel to produce more fuel to burn is the height of folly.

It's time to kick not just the oil habit, but the entire burning habit. It's about the future.

Subsidize wind farms, not carbon fuel farms. 

How is the invasion of Poland by the Nazis different from the invasion of Iraq by the Bushes? Ah, yes, Poland was right next door.
But, some things have changed haven't they? When airplanes can circumnavigate the globe in a single day, everybody's almost next door. And just think, drones are being directed to drop bombs on Iraq from computer consoles in Nevada and Denver.

Phil Specht
Mon, 10/15/07
9:09 am

    Hi Phil.

            I would argue that it is time to rethink farming all together in this country.  Corn should be a viable crop for feed in this country.  That means our ethenol sources should be effecient, ie.. sugar beets, sorgum caine, and switch grass.  

         If we meet the right mix we would see land used in a much more various way that would be health for all, would provide for a good corn harvest with out subsidizing the extra product which we need to do now through ethonol.  Corn is one of the most inefficient was to make ethenol.  Its best use is for cattle and human consumption.

       there is a really good article about this in this months Nation Geographic.

       Also, world production of Bio-Diesel should note the Physic Nut which has 3 times the yield of oil as soybean, grows for 40 years and is happy living in dry conditions.  Many area's of our southwest that are marginal for other crops could easily grow them.

 http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770914047

Here's Howard Dean's videos on C-Span Friday.  Two of them.  

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1580

Really great speech at John Hopkins and question and answer session to 3 colleges via satellite.

Monica wrote "things are often not what they seem."

I guess that settles things.  Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan; what's the difference?  Vote for either or none.   This comes as a relief if nothing else, but tends to undermine Sen. Wellstone's sentiments, for example, when he explained that "I'm for more investment in Head Start, I'm for more investments in children's education. I'm for expanding health care coverage. I'm for more environmental protection. I'm not telling you we're not going to have to organize hard after Al Gore wins, but I'm telling you the differences between Al Gore and George W. Bush on these issues make a difference to the lives of ordinary people, and we shouldn't have too much distance from those problems, everyday problems that people have to say it makes no difference."

27.

Sitka
Mon, 10/15/07
11:03 am

....
It's time to kick not just the oil habit, but the entire burning habit. It's about the future.

---------

!!!

...and not even "entire burning habit" but the entire consumerist LIFESTYLE forced upon People by Corporations when People simly become SERVANTS of such a lifestyle.

A big congrats to John Edwards in getting the Iowa SEIU endorsement. This is big since the National SEIU declined to endorse anyone, leaving it up to the states.

33.

Yep, saw that earlier today. He worked hard for the endorsement, kudos to him.

That means our ethenol sources should be effecient, ie.. sugar beets, sorgum caine, and switch grass.

They still dump carbon into the atmosphere both to be produced and to be used. 

I guess it needs to made still simpler...... 

Burning bad. 

A big congrats to John Edwards in getting the Iowa SEIU endorsement.

Here's to hoping it helps him as much as it did Dean. 

Sitka
Mon, 10/15/07
11:24 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah..............BIG Fn DEAL

36 - OUCH!!!

Endorsements are meaningful only to political insiders. It's just a little game they play with each other. Climb onto the right bandwagon early enough and you get rewarded later.

36/37

Sour grapes guys! Every endorsement can mean in difference in Iowa.

ABC = Anybody But Clinton

Morning Folks,\

First snow fall here, mostly a dusting and ice crystals, but the sun returns, always welcome.

Thanks to Tom Huges for all you work and best wishes for success.  Couldn't get ot the blog yesterday.

And here, you've probably all read it and chuckled, but in case you haven't from the Huffington Post.

Also, and Phil, you're the one to answer this.  I've read that cows shouldn't be eating corn, that their digestive systems are supposed to, that grasses are their proper feed.  We get our beef from McGreagor Ranch here in Estes Park, and it's all grass fed.  Can you shed some light on the corn and cows connection?

Posted October 14, 2007 | 03:53 AM (EST)

Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on global warming, the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Nobel and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead.

• Email
• Print
• Comment

For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of the Nobel committee and the world, the high court's decision to give his prize to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least.

But in a 5-4 decision, the justices made it clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his Nobel because President Bush deserved it more.

"It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. "But President Bush has actually helped create global warming."

Even as Mr. Gore was being stripped of his Nobel, he received strong words of support from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said that the former vice president's Nobel win "shows that he is devoting his life to the right thing and should definitely stay the course."

In an interview with reporters in Iowa, Sen. Clinton said that "Al Gore should remain dedicated to the cause of global climate change, at least through November of 2008."

Sen. Clinton suggested that Mr. Gore could further research the source of global warming by immediately boarding a rocket ship to the sun.

The Borowitz Report, October 12 2007

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He appears at the 92nd St. Y in NYC on Nov. 7 with Alec Baldwin, Arianna Huffington, and Mo Rocca. For tickets go to 92y.org.

27.Sitka

That's scraping the bottom of the barrel as an excuse for ethanol.

Burning fuel to produce more fuel to burn is the height of folly.

It's time to kick not just the oil habit, but the entire burning habit. It's about the future.

Subsidize wind farms, not carbon fuel farms
=====================

Sitka,

Stick to something you know like politics and rock music. Ethanol extracts carbon from the air and recycles it back into the air. It doesn't take it out of geologic storage like petroleum.

Nothing "makes" carbon. We take it from one place to another. Taking out of cold storage, where it's been accumulating for hundreds of million of years and releasing it into the atmosphere in a few decades is what's created the problem.

Ethanol takes it out of the air and then puts it back when we burn it. It does not add carbon to the atmosphere.

Ethanol is an experiment in the making. Soon we'll find more efficient ways to make it, and even better things to make it from. I think it is great that the government is subsidizing a form of alternative energy.

I guess you're going to call me a troll for explaining how naive you are. You ahead, but that makes you the troll, and most people know it.

Good Morning All,

Back from the the Oral surgery......I know you're all just thrilled.  But he sure seemed good. 

NOW, something to wet your whistle.......

Mr. Gore has uploaded 3 personal videos on current.com!!!

YES!

Iraq, stating clear he believes we should re deploy as soon as possible

Health Care , on FILM, stating we should have a SINGLE PAYER HEATH CARE

Civil Protection and strenghening our Constitution-put in more protections from this over reaching power and eaves dropping .

ENJOY!!!

http://current.com/people/algore 

Repeat after me.

Burning make CO2.

CO2 make earth too warm.

Burning bad. 

Nymex Crude Future 85.06 1.37 1.64 11:23
Dated Brent Spot 82.39 1.33 1.64 11:53
WTI Cushing Spot 85.00 1.31 1.57 09:08

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

PRICE* CHANGE % CHANGE TIME
Nymex Crude Future 85.06 1.37 1.64 11:23
Dated Brent Spot 82.39 1.33 1.64 11:53
WTI Cushing Spot 85.00 1.31 1.57 09:08

Sitka
Mon, 10/15/07
11:22 am

      There is no cabon gain from burning reprocessed carbon.  Problems do occur when the process of creating such products uses fossel fuel, which is stored carbon.

Either way, you turn on the lights, you go somewhere, you type on a computer your using carbon.

44.Sitka

Repeat after me

================

Batteries and electronics create toxic vapors and extremely toxic solid waste.

All fuels burn, including hydrogen.

Batteries, electrical devices, and electronics create extremely toxic air and water pollution when produced and recycled.

There is no energy utopia. All paradigm shifts take time.

47.teatimetim NE Ohio

There is no cabon gain from burning reprocessed carbon. Problems do occur when the process of creating such products uses fossel fuel, which is stored carbon

=================
It is a myth that you need petrochemicals to farm. It is a red-herring the oil companies have created as an inevitability. People have been growing more efficiently long before petro-chemical fertilizers and pesticides existed.

Ever hear of composting and organic methods? Eventually, we'll find species of grains or grasses that "grow on air and water" and are much more efficient alcohol producers too, but we need capital for the infrastructure while it is being developed.

The hydrogen economy will take decades to develop, if ever, ethanol is something to fill in the meantime.

The Iraq War has not made us safer says the National Counterterrorism guru. Well, no kidding!

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Counterter...

I hope Clooney plays all Howard's clips of his supposed *gaffes* and then shows the reality and how Howard was right about it all. Howard was so ahead of the knuckleheads in DC.

-------
Forgot to say good morning to all!

There is no cabon gain from burning reprocessed carbon.  Problems do occur when the process of creating such products uses fossel fuel, which is stored carbon.

If you burn anything made of carbon, CO2 will be the byproduct. 

The molecular formula for ethanol is CH3CH2OH.

"C" means carbon 

If you burn it, it will pollute. 

What will be the effect of putting trillions of tons of H2O into the atmosphere from burning hydrogen as opposed to trillions of tons of CO2 from burning carbon? And where will the energy to produce hydrogen come from?

And it will take how many billions converting to ethanol just so we can spend how many billions more converting to hydrogen -- just to keep altering the environment in a different way.

Wind, solar, hydro. It's the right way. Just do it.

Sitka
Mon, 10/15/07
12:12 pm

      Your half correct.  True you burn anything the byproduct is carbon.  The other half:  If it grew this year in take the same amount of carbon out of the atmosphere.  Plants remove carbon.  

 The net carbon foot print is zero.   

And Sitka purposal for living in modern society? 

   To be quite honest Sitka, I can survive without anything but a knife, or rock splintered like a knife.  But I don't know of many who can do the same. 

49.

Howard was so ahead of the knuckleheads in DC

Hi Mary,

And Howard still is ahead of the same knuckleheads in DC and even elsewhere as well as the new ones that keep cropping up.

I wonder if he will be asked to input anything into the movie or will the  movie be a third person's view of everything Howard has done or has happened to him. Who will play Howard? Judy?

53. teatimetim NE Ohio

Your half correct.
=================

He's totally incorrect. The water and carbon come from the hydrosphere and atmospere and go back to the atmosphere when it is burned.

Hydrogent production uses water too, just as much or more, and it goes into the atmosphere when burned.

Hydrogen production requires a huge technical infrastructure and uses much more electricity than we can create with wind and solar for a long time. Wind and solar requires a huge industrial development too, if used on a mass basis.

Biofuels like ethanol can be literally produced in your garage.

Hi Joan - I read this AM that hunky George Clooney will play hunky Howard Dean. LOL.

Have a great day - much to do.

A "manhattan project" rush to build solar cells would cause mining refining and idustrial pollution of heavy metals and chemical pollutants in our air, water, and ground that we have never seen before. It would consume huge amount of energy too, which is now very expensive to produce.

Batteries even worse. I don't think Sitka has ever had to live near a battery production plant in West Virginia and breathe the toxic/acidic emissions, or an electronics plant in China.

In China, a Lake’s Champion Imperils Himself

By JOSEPH KAHN

Lake Tai, the center of China’s ancient “land of fish and ric