Jon’s Corner of the Whirled

At least after reading this article it doesn’t seem to. For example:

Corn requires large doses of herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer and can cause more soil erosion than any other crop. And producing corn ethanol consumes just about as much fossil fuel as the ethanol itself replaces. Biodiesel from soybeans fares only slightly better.

…

Much of what happens in its tanks and pipes is typical of any large distillery–after all, people have been turning grain into alcohol for eons. The corn is ground, mixed with water, and heated; added enzymes convert the starch into sugars. In a fermentation tank, yeast gradually turns the sugars into alcohol, which is sepa- rated from the water by distillation. The leftover, known as distillers’ grains, is fed to the cows, and some of the wastewater, high in nitrogen, is applied to fields as a fertilizer.

The process also gives off large amounts of carbon dioxide, and that’s where ethanol’s green label starts to brown. Most ethanol plants burn natural gas or, increasingly, coal to create the steam that drives the distillation, adding fossil- fuel emissions to the carbon dioxide emitted by the yeast. Growing the corn also requires nitrogen fertilizer, made with natural gas, and heavy use of diesel farm machinery. Some studies of the energy balance of corn ethanol–the amount of fossil energy needed to make ethanol versus the energy it produces–suggest that ethanol is a loser’s game, requiring more carbon-emitting fossil fuel than it displaces. Others give it a slight advantage. But however the accounting is done, corn ethanol is no greenhouse panacea.

I recently finished watching NOVA’s “Saved By the Sun”, and it described a more optimistic means of powering the planet. While solar may not be an ideal solution for several reasons, it certainly has a lot lower impact than ethanol. Did you know that Germany is investing a lot of money and resources in solar energy? Or that Las Vegas is moving toward solar energy? You can watch the program on the PBS website.

Anyway you look at it, this country has to come up with some solution to our energy dependance, and global warming too. My personal favorite candidate has a lot of good things to day on the topic, if anyone would just bother to listen.

Take this quiz at Forbes.com and find out who your ideal candidate is. It might surprise you. An ad appears when you first visit the site. Just skip past it…

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/01/election-candidates-politics-oped_cz_pmm_1002survey.html

My top three were:

1. Dennis Kucinich
2. Joseph Biden
3. John Edwards

I recently read the Kucinich press release claiming that the Democrats were “rigging” things against him in a couple of forums in Iowa.

I thought this was unfair, and shot off an email to both Iowa Public Broadcasting and the AARP expressing my dismay that he was excluded. I got this response from the AARP, which indicates that Kucinich was invited.

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the participation of Dennis Kucinich in the AARP/IPTV Forum that will be held on September 20 at the Adler Theater in Davenport, Iowa.

On July 2, 2007, Rep. Kucinich’s campaign was sent a registered letter inviting him to participate in the event. The letter was accompanied by criteria that were set by AARP for participation in the forum. Criteria include:

• Have filed an FEC Form F-2, “Statement of Candidacy,” with the Federal Election Commission;

• Have publicly announced an intention to run for the nomination of the Republican or the Democratic Party for President of the United States;

• Have a Campaign Office inside the State of Iowa; and,

• Have employed at least one paid campaign staff representative to perform

full-time campaign duties in the State of Iowa on behalf of the candidate since at least August 1, 2007.

During the weeks following his campaign’s receipt of the letter of invitation, Rep. Kucinich’s office had no communication with AARP or IPTV. The campaign did not acknowledge receipt of our invitation, nor did he or any of his campaign staff indicate any interest in participating in this forum. We did not hear from anyone about the forum until a story appeared in the Quad-City Times stating incorrectly, that Rep. Kucinich had not been invited to participate.

Rep. Kucinich did not meet all four of the stated criteria that would enable him participate in the upcoming forum by the designated date.

Ann Black

AARP Iowa Communications

It seems Representative Kucinich isn’t quite being honest in his press release!

I’ve been trying to follow the Democractic Presidential Debates when I can. There have been so many of them, it is difficult, but I’ve managed to see a few, hear a few, and read snippets from a lot of them. One thing that is apparent to me is that Dennis Kucinich doesn’t get the respect that he deserves. The debates seem to center around Hillary, Edwards and Obama. They all seem to have similar views on the world, with Hillary coming out in the slighly more conservative camp of the three. The most sane voice seems to be Dennis Kucinich. His list of issues on his website, and the summary of his positions on Wikipedia seem to mesh best with my own ideals, and I would think, a lot of the American people. His oratory skills rival that of Obama, and in the debates I’ve seen he and Biden are the most “Presidential” in demeanor.

Why doesn’t he get more respect?

Take, for example, this article over at the Washington Post. He gets a mention in the last two sentences in the article. I heard the debate the article refers to, he said a whole lot more than just that.

I don’t know if a direct correlation can be drawn, but the three democratic candidates that get most of the exposure are also the three biggest fundraisers.

According to this article at Time, McDonalds is lobbying dictionary companies to redefine the term “McJob” because it reflects poorly on the company.

I think it is a great idea. Perhaps we can redefine other terms that reflect poorly on the US to better improve our image.

For example, we could redefine “unconstitutional” to mean something that inspires a happy warm happy feeling. That would solve a lot of problems. For example the sentence: “The White House policies toward enemy combatants is unconstitutional.” has a much more pleasant meaning, and would change the nature of the discussions happening today.

I’m sure there are other terms that would benefit from redefinition. Perhaps “sarcasm” is a good candidate.