Why do people think Liberal (or Democrats) Care?

As has been pointed out many times the search for a "renewable" energy source, such as bio-fuels, is not without a cost. In the case of ethanol however, the irrational decision to forge through with corn ethanol when sugar ethanol is a better choice is coming home to roost. many people laughed at the riots in Mexico a few months back because corn prices had sent the price of tortillas skyrocketing.

We here north of the Rio Grande can expect prices of all food to skyrocket as well. And in the spirit of capitalism, not just on products made of corn, or it's derivatives, such as corn syrup. We should expect the rising cost of corn to encourage farmers to switch crops to get their share of the action, this will drive up other grain prices as farmers make that switch. But it is not just limited to food prices, corn ethanol plants are energy pigs, as it takes more energy to convert corn ethanol than it yields. A small to moderate ethanol plant uses 1,000,000 gallons of water every day, that is not a small demand, especially in rural areas where these plants tend to be located. And who pays for the infrastructure upgrades to the water system? For the answer look at our water bill.

And finally, why are we investing so heavily in corn ethanol when other sources, such as sugar, can yield more ethanol per acre and would effect the cost of food to a lesser extent than corn? Our friends, the Democrats! The Democrats needed to reach out to Midwest farmers to break the GOP's infamous "Bible Belt". They did so by courting the corn farmers, first with subsidies and now with corn ethanol plants. This phenomenon is not new, it has been around for decades, but the escalation in the price of petroleum made companies actively invest in ethanol instead of deride it as a fringe alternate, and in the US corn is virtually synonymous with ethanol. Another phenomenon, this one totally artificial in nature, is global warming. In response to global warming another wave of investors got in on corn ethanol plants, these are green groups. So the fringe left using their pet theory of global warming, and capitalists, using greed as their primary motivation, both invested in the corn ethanol plants.

But I once again digress... the Democrats bought the Midwest farmers with subsidies. They now have to keep them on the hook with corn ethanol. But the implications of higher food prices across the board, from cereal, to soda, to candy, to meat, to milk, to eggs, to poultry, to bread, etc. , may well prove grim to the US, but the effects on the rest of the world may prove to have more dire effects. While the US has to worry about being inconvenienced by higher prices, other parts of the world, that are dependent upon the US for food (grain, poultry and meat), will have to worry about survival. The US grows 25% of the world's food. Diverting huge portions of that may help defray the cost of driving to Grandma's house on Sunday, and may reduce emissions along the way, but billions of people dependent on US food sources will have much more dire concerns, such as when they'll be eating the next time.

So sugar ethanol can benefit sugar farmers (they just got subsidies in the House Iraq spending bill) by making them work instead of paying them to not plant fields. Peanut farmers (also recipients of subsidies) can be paid to grow their fields as peanuts as well as soy can be used to manufacture bio-diesel. The Democrats claim to want energy independence, and claim to be supporting family farmers, but are married to a system that only will hurt the US. Instead of giving farmers subsidies not to grow we need to diversify the sources of fuel and let the farmers earn their money on the open market.

I guess the Democrats won't suggest that until they can find a way to turn paying a farmer a fair price for his crops into an entitlement. They don't care about high food prices, they don't care about the billions reliant on the US for food, they don't care that they lose energy with every gallon of corn ethanol, they just care about keeping their special interests happy. It's all about the votes and the lobbyists money!

CS Monitor: midwest real estate: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0322/p01s01-usec.html

BBC: biofuel demand affects food prices: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm

The Plame Game. Or, Valerie Plame the Overt Secret Agent

Valerie Plame, Valerie Plame, Valerie Plame. Keep saying that name and don't take your eye off the topic, disclosing the name of a CIA agent.

That is the strategy being utilized by the Democrats to continue their manufactured news story of Valerie Plame, the CIA agent "outed" purportedly to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson. Once again, the DNC and the media (now with the help of the Senate) are reshaping the argument to be the disclosure of the name of a CIA agent instead of focusing on what the issue was from the beginning; Joe Wilson.

From the beginning the goal of this exercise was two-fold; to discredit Bush and to avoid disclosing why Joe Wilson was sent to Niger. Joe Wilson, was a diplomat who was in Niger in the 1970's, as a career diplomat his was offered the prestigious assignment as Ambassador to Gabon under Bush Sr. He returned to Niger in 1999 on a CIA fact finding mission, at the request of his wife. He was recommended, again at the request of his wife, to explore the rumors of yellow cake sales to Iraq. Wilson was chosen because of his knowledge of the country, over a quart century on the past, not because he has any experience in WMD or terrorism; that would be his desk bound wife who was retired from the field.

During the original Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into his trip to Niger Wilson reported a much different story than he is now, and both of those accounts differ from his official CIA debriefing when he returned from the trip. His book also contains information easily debunkable, such as Cheney picked him for the mission. Wilson’s position on that team, was to repudiate the other two members of the team who were experts and actually filed a written report when they returned.

Valerie Plame was not "outed" to discredit her husband, and in truth her name would have been forgotten had the DNC and anti-war movement not invented the issue of identifying a covert agent. She and her husband were regulars on the DC social circuit, she was hardly unknown, and anyone who cared about Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame knew of her position in the CIA. The story of Plame's outing was created to discredit the administration.

The Valerie Plame was outed gambit was not a Bush administration plan, it was created by the antiwar movement and DNC to discredit the Bush administration. It actually helped to give credit to Joe Wilson’s lies by making a martyr of his wife by spinning the disinformation that she was endangered by a GOP scheme to discredit him. Besides if she was really worried about being disclosed she would do more to protect her identity. You don’t file multiple lawsuits, appear on TV, write books, and pose for the camera in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee if you were truly covert at one point and fear for your life. When real covert agents appear before the SIC they do so in closed chambers in disguise or behind a screen, they stay covert.

And you'll never hear Joe Wilson at the trial. He has changed his story so may times they cannot have him in a position where people can connect all of the dischordant lies. They need to keep him buried.

Added 3/16/07:
One more thing before I let this go, (although I don't promise it will be the last time I mention Plame) she claims she never suggested her husband be on the team that went to Niger. That is in direct conflict to sworn CIA testimony in Scooter Libby's perjury case. When will Waxman convene hearings to determine who is telling the truth? Either Plame or the other CIA agent is lying, and they both testified under oath. Presidents have been impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, Waxman has an obligation to seek the truth and determine who is lying.

So THAT is why they are such assholes

France was the economic juggernaut of Europe (read the world) during the time preceding King Louis XIV. Until around 1800 France was the most populous country in all of Europe, they were accustomed to a lifestyle filled with what at the time were considered luxuries. This meant France, who had a dearth of natural resources, was forced to import much of the raw materials. In pre-colonial era that meant importing a lot. Since France also maintained much of Europe’s largest banking institutions they were aware of the toll their deficit spending was taking on their economy. So the King’s economic advisor ordered that the economy would be a national priority, industry would be developed to free France of the burden of imports and make the economic leader of the world. This decree established an economic policy that would span 300 years, one that continues to drive France’s foreign and domestic policies today.

Due to a lack of natural resources this led France to begin expanding by colonizing much of Africa. 125 years later, 40 years after the last of the colonies were “freed”; France continues to pillage African natural resources. Supporting the faction that promises them the most spoils for their effort. The French Foreign Legion is alive and well and supporting “freedom fighters” or fighting “rebels” depending on the value of that government’s trade agreement.

Other modern events have pitted France against the US solely based upon money. France opposed the Iraq war because they had agreements for TOTAL, the state run oil company, to expand and modernize some of Iraq’s oil production facilities. In the meantime they were happy to be one of the largest purchaser of legal Iraqi oil through the Food-For-Oil program, a/k/a the Koffi Annan retirement fund, while at the same time purchasing illegal embargoed oil through Syria.

Since the 1960’s France has engaged in state supported industrial espionage. The DGSE, France’s secret service, has a department called Service Seven, which is their industrial espionage branch. France claims to be laissez faire when it comes to business but they are most definitely not. The information collected by the DGSE is shared not only among the fully or partially state owned corporations but also with other key privately owned industries.

France, of course, was the driving force behind the European Economic Union. The reasons behind it, trade between member states, traveling though Europe without visas and border stops, common currency, and others based around the premise it was designed to create increased trade. The truth is the EU was formed behind France and Germany to create an “economy” that surpassed the US. France, a country slightly smaller than Texas, has an obsession with being superior to the US and having a larger economy. So against the common good of the Union they allowed the last group of impoverished eastern European countries to join, although (besides Poland) they have nothing to offer the rest of the EU. Except of course the population needed to surpass the US and the GDPs that when added to the rest of the EU surpass the US. (Added benefit: they are so poor and have such high unemployment rates it takes the heat off France where the average income is shrinking due to resorting to 35 hour work weeks in order to create jobs to obscure the 10.5% unemployment rate.


“Why,” I can hear you asking yourselves, “do you hate France so much?”

I don’t hate France. As a matter of fact, once you understand that every decision made by France has to do with their economy it puts their irrational jealousy of the US and 125 years of atrocities in Africa into perspective.


Take for example the 2003 heat wave. 15,000 deaths were officially attached to the heat wave (another 10,000 deaths were termed “incidental” and not related). Some people would be outraged that 25,000 people perished, almost exclusively the elderly, with many of those deaths occurring in hospitals and nursing homes. But think about it, that is 25,000 fewer pensions the cash-strapped government has to pay, and 25,000 of those most likely to need public medicine around to use it. When you look at it in those terms the loss of a mere one-tenth of a percent of the population resulted in an economic windfall, with the added bonus that since most of the deaths were pensioners who weren’t earning wages the average income of the country went up with each death.

Viva le France!

Trek to North Pole to Document GLOBAL WARMING Suspended

BANCROFT AND ARNESEN SUSPEND ARCTIC EXPEDITION


Damaged gear, frostbite, extreme cold combine to compromise explorers' safety

Frostbite ends study of effects Global Warming. That's right, not melting pack ice, not potential for avalanches or perilous crevases, but it was simply too cold.

Where is Al Gore when you need him?

Shut the Chuck Up

Charles "Chuck E Cheese" Shumer is calling for the resignation of Alberto Gonzalez. Listing as his primary reason that Gonzales was playing politics instead of doing his job.
You know what Chuck? I feel the same way when every single elected representative of the people votes as they are instructed by their party instead of along the wishes of their constituents. The elected members of congress are supposed to be the peoples' representatives, not the party's representatives.

I can deal with a lying politician, because they all lie. But to play politics and ask Gonzales to resign for playing politics goes beyond hypocrisy! It is a typical liberal tactic and one of the many reason I hate Chuck Shumer. After 18 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate he has accomplished absolutely NOTHING!!! He votes along party lines, has never once forwarded meaningful legislation. His entire career has been spent being Mr. DNC, he has never voiced an opinion that differed from his political puppetmasters.

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/about_chuck/ac-about_chuck_main.html

So prove that your are not a hypocrite and RESIGN or, at the risk of repeating myself, SHUT THE CHUCK UP!

At the risk of repeating myself, it is all about the money

I actually have work today, much to my chagrin and disappointment. However, once again ripped from the headlines is something I had been trying to convince the liberals on Y!A of for months.

The real reason the triumvirate of France, Germany and Russia were against the Iraq war was because they were busy contracting with Iraq, Iran, and Syria to build nuclear power plants, modernize oil drilling and refining, sell weapons, and all kinds of profitable projects through their state run corporations.

Now the idea of UN sanctions against Iran may be brought before the UN Security Council... at the request of Iran.

Ahmadinejad wants to put Tehran's case for a nuclear program before the U.N. Security Council.

Why would Ahmadinejan possibly want to bring the Security Council into possible sanctions over his nuclear program? I'm sure the fact that Russia, who is building the plants for Iran, and has Security Council veto power has nothing to do with it. And since Russian has been selling MiG 27s and 31s to Iran, along with anti aircraft defense systems they don't want to be involved in any military conflict with their top of the line military equipment anytime soon.

Russians: Iran nuke plant to be delayed

Iran Air Force (modern info near bottom of page)

And I'm sure the fact that the national oil company of France is in negotiations with Tehran over moderizing Iran's oil infrastructure has little to do with it. (Isn't France on the Security Council as well?) TOTAL wants to do more in Iran but is unwilling to do so until Iran sweetens the pot a little and gives more profit to the operators of the wells. Maybe showing a little love in the Security Council is all France will need in order for Iran to loosen their purse strings.

TOTAL Iran website

And for those who read the whole Iran Air Force page you also saw China is prominently mentioned as a supplier of defense equipment to Iran. Coincidently, they also sit on the Security Council.

And where does Germany play into the Iran scheme? In 2005 Germany was the single largest importer of Iranian exports (gas and oil) representing over 25% off all exports from Iran.
So if I'm Ahmadinejan I'd bring it to the Security Council as well. Two of my close allies who I have extensive business dealing with have veto power (three including China). That is better odds than you'd get in any casino in the world! I normally know better than to bet against the house but with the deck stacked in your favor like that how can you not go for it?

The 2nd Amendment returns to our nation's capital

The citizens of Washington DC have had their constitutional rights restored by a federal Appeals Court. Now you don't need to be a pimp or drug dealer to have a hand gun in our nation's capital.

Appeal to the Supreme Court was most likely filed before you read this. Nanny states like the Washington DC don't like losing their power over the sheeple.

So the people of Brazil don't want an "Ethanol OPEC"? And you're buying that???

So much to say, so little motivation to say it. So I'll just play a simple game of connect the dots.

1. Bush visits Brazil and is greeted by a few small protests, well actually not "greeted" as they were cleared away prior to his arrival. In Brazil they can usually get 20,000 people to protest various minor inconveniences such as no electricity or jobs. A blown call at a soccer match can get 35,000 to 50,000 people.

2. The people are not protesting the war or American imperialism (funny how even Brazilians know these are false issues created by propagandists) but rather what they perceive as Brazil and the US starting an ethanol "OPEC" type cartel.

3. Upon seeing his attempts as fomenting a virtual revolution in Brazil failed Chavez hops into his jet to spread his anti-Bush agenda ahead of Bush's trips to those countries.

Why you ask would Chavez stir the pot in Brazil against an ethanol agreement between the US and Brazil? What is Venezuela's biggest export and almost sole sustaining factor of their economy? Crude oil exports.

If the US, Brazil (soon to be joined by Canada and Mexico) form a cartel for selling and manufacturing ethanol they will not only be in a position to control the price of the commodity, but of their own economies. Right now Venezuela sells the bulk of it's crude to the US. Any move that facilitates the US, Canada and Mexico finding an alternative to crude, or at least in the quantities it is currently exported spells trouble for Venezuela.

How would Brazil benefit from this arrangement? It costs them 17 cents a gallon to produce one gallon of ethanol. It costs the US about 5 times that price. If the US and other countries can form a coalition to sell this bio-fuel to Europe and Asia they will be in a position to maximize their prices. If they deal individually with each purchaser they will have to negotiate prices and be in competition with other producers, undercutting prices.

How would the US benefit from this? It guarantees prices for imported ethanol. It prevents European buyers from starting a price war by out bidding the US for their import needs. As the success of the program is seen in other countries they will look at planting crops to be used for bio-fuels. The ones that do will see their economies improve with the help of the US, improving US-Latin relations.

So now that we see it is not the Brazilians who are against the ethanol cartel but rather Hugo Chavez. We'll examine that angle later.

Emperor Hugo; suppressing freedom since 1998

If other South American countries start seeing the success of growing crops for fuel they might also start growing sugar cane, sugar beets, corn, soya and related crops for fuel production. So crops that benefit a relative few, such as coca, would be abandoned (enforced by the governments) and cash crops that benefit the economy would be planted. As they produce more bio-fuels they would also be welcomed into the cartel.

This would give these countries some recognition and strengthen their economies. And both of these are equally important in South America. South America has developed a complex of being virtually of the world's radar, much more so than Africa. And as such they have poor economies because they do not generate much export income.

The only thing worse for Chavez than a loss of petro dollars is a Latin America that thinks favorably of the United States. Or rather it is a South America than can become successful without the help and guidance of Hugo Chavez. He is a megalomaniac who is not satisfied being a plenipotentiary ruler of Venezuela... he wants to be the de facto emperor of South America.

And a South America with strong economies is not what Chavez wants. His ego will not allow the entire continent to not see him as a hero and the one to deliver them from oppression. Chavez sees himself as a modern day Che Guevera. His “friendship” with Castro is designed to capitalize on the emotions of South Americans who saw Guevera as a freedom fighter and also had a relationship with Castro. But Chavez is not interested in freedom for the people; he is looking for the power that goes with being the “hero of the people.”

And the US is a treat to that power. The US (who for its own selfish purposes) threatens to help enrich and empower the smaller impoverished South American countries who are currently relying on the “generosity” of Venezuela to meet their operational budgets. Giving people an incentive to grow cash crops instead of drug crops also threatens the power of the drug cartels.
There are a lot of people who don’t want the US to form an ethanol cartel to set fair production quotas and prices… and those people are not thinking about the best interest of the citizens of South American countries, they are thinking of their own vested interests which run contrary to the needs of the people.

Chavez envisions a socialist South American economic union that has him as the leader and keeps the member states poor so they rely upon the union. Unlike an ethanol cartel that would assure growth for the member states, he wants a union based on shared wealth that enslave the member states and make them dependent, not independent.

Another energy related rant

Note: this was a comment I made to someone else's blog, but I liked it as it ties in with what I've said before.

Renewable energy (bio-fuels, solar and wind) can reduce our dependency on fossil fuels but not replace it. Without accepting that our power demands cannot be met without nuclear power plants we will sink more time and money into research for the mythical renewable energy sources. The key give away that this is all politics is the proliferation of corn ethanol plants. Corn is an expensive way to make ethanol and tons of money is being dumped into sugar subsidies (paid to not grow it) even though sugar is a ridiculously cheap way to manufacture ethanol. Plus it takes more energy to make corn ethanol than it does sugar ethanol, same with the cellulose ethanol plants.

Solar and wind can decrease the reliance on the power grid for homes, small farms and offices, but it will never replace it. And while bio-diesel from soy can replace petro-diesel, E85 can't replace gasoline, you need an engine designed to run on E85. So while you've got the various farming lobbies, the coal lobbies and the auto lobbies making out great with the current direction of energy generation, the consumer is left out of the equation... except of course we will be picking up the check!

For those who might find themselves asking "What is a troll?"

A troll is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Trolls delight in sowing discord. A troll is someone who inspires rhetoric and argument, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into a flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

The classic troll tries to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. A troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.

He (and in most cases it is he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Many trolls are people trying to promote an agenda. Other times they are just control freaks and seek to drive out legitimate threats to them being king (or queen) of the forum. Others harbor different anti-social disorders and enjoy causing fights and anger among friends. These are the typical living-in-their-mother's-basement shut ins who have no life and live vicariously through their internet alias(es). They enjoy making people as miserable as they are. This is the typical MO of a schoolyard bully.

Trolls often ignore forum rules and TOS and incite others to do the same. When banned or suspended they merely create another alias. They will goad others in to repsonding to their flames and then report the "victim" for being off-topic or violating TOS. They often have various aliases at the ready and launch a attack with "support" from his aliases, this makes the victim appear to be outnumbered, or that a majority is supporting the troll's position.

Trolling is a form of harassment; the best response is to ignore it. How many times were we admonished to "Ignore bullies, and they will just go away?" Negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions or arenas (such as disputes on Y!A crossing over to 360.) People can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between users. Likewise, new members often get their first impressions of a forum or it's users by reading ongoing flame wars.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, and for fear of criticism, or being attacked, members fail to post. Trolls also use this paranoia as a form of "divide and conquer", pitting traditional allies against each other. Sowing doubt and distrust. Trolls will reach out to common friends and the victims will push their former allies away for associating with the troll, furthering the divide and conquer technique.

When trolls are ignored their initial response is to step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. But if denied that attention for too long they will find another arena to spread their disruption and havoc.

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction and not to respond to trolling messages.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!