Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- Phantom on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- Phantom on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- gster on Open thread 11/24
Open thread 10/07
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Oct. 7, 2007 at 1:06 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
82 Comments
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/6/22122/0224
CBS/AP) Exactly how Ciara Durkin died remains a mystery. The Army National Guard soldier from Massachusetts was found dead with a gunshot wound to the head in Afghanistan last week, and now her family is demanding answers from the military.
Initially the Pentagon reported that Durkin, part of a finance unit deployed to Afghanistan in November 2006, had been killed in action, but then revised its statement to read she had died of injuries “suffered from a non-combat related incident” at Bagram Airfield. The statement had no specifics and said the circumstances are under investigation.
Durkin had a desk job doing payroll in an office about three miles inside the secure Bagram Air Base. About 90 minutes after she left work last Friday, her family says she was found dead near a chapel on the base with a single gunshot wound to the head.
The reason my head went a-spinnin’ at the news is that it sounded horribly familiar. Juan Torres’ son John was also shot in the head, at Bagram, and John was…part of a finance unit. Doing payroll.
John told his father the same thing, several hours before he was killed.
That is an important subject Capn. I apologize for distracting from it. This was an exchange between me and Paul Rosell (econ101)
The subject is Rush Paul. If you wanna make it me and you I will HAPPILY go there.
I only bring in your past to explain your present. You’ll say anything. You’ll do anything. All for your rotten agenda that is no bigger than youw own wallet.
WHY DID HE EDIT THE TRANSCRIPT???
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Econ101! Just ignore JR, most everybody else does. He/She/It isn’t worth debating about anything.
Posted by: Joe Williams | October 06, 2007 at 11:05 PM
agreed
He is a drunk
His girlfriend pretty much admitted it when she attacked me once, by email.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 06, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Oh NOW you are in trouble Paul.
Produce that email. Or retract your lie.
Joe? Stay outta this.
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:09 PM
I’ll even let Joe be the moderator. Maybe he will learn something.
Produce the email Paul. You are lying through your teeth.
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:10 PM
He/she/it?
Uh Joe? We’ve met. Remember? Is your eyesight bad? I wasn’t wearing a dress.
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:11 PM
JRYou once attacked me constantly, much like this, and you said I was a bit of a coward, or something like that, since I did not post on every thread.
I mentioned that YOU were not on the recent alcoholism/substance abuse threads.
I guess you were a real joy to live with, after that, because she asked me to stop with that line of attack.
You disappeared for awhile, so I did not have to.
She might have been a fake.
But,, I believed her at the time.
Please don’t hurt her over this, she was trying to help you!
Posted by: Econ101 | October 06, 2007 at 11:14 PM
You can’t win this one Paul, JR is right.
Posted by: political_mom | October 06, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Oh you are SO lying Paul.
I’ve not dated in more than 7 years. And no one would go to the trouble to scam you like that.
Oh you are way over the top this time. And don’t PRETEND you wouldn’t save such an email. You would just as I would with you.
Busted Paul.
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Sweet victory.
I’ve wanted to destroy you since your first day here Paul.
Ya just did it to yourself.
Produce the email Paul.
Or…..are YOU mixing another drink?
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Oh you really stepped in it this time Paul. Everyone KNOWS you are a lying shill. Tonight you proved it. Unless and until you can prove your attack? I suggest you lie low. I know you know how.
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Now it makes sense. J R does act like a doped out drunk.
Posted by: Kansas | October 06, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Well look Paul!
You’ve the support of the section 8 poster “kansas”.
Come on back and prove your post.
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:32 PM
ECON, the e-mail thing is quite a story. If you’re telling the truth, post the e-mail.
If you don’t post it, I guess we’ll have to assume you’re being less than truthful.
Posted by: XXX | October 06, 2007 at 11:38 PM
JR,So good to see you and the family at Woofstock. Did you enjoy it? Man, traffic sucked getting out of the park.
Posted by: XXX | October 06, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Debate is one thing. Heated debate another. I do not in either case post lies and I will not have it done to me.
Since Paul will not share this email about or admit his lie, I’ve decided to go on offense.
White pages lists Paul F and Robert Rosell. I’ll leave off the address and phone number.
Paul F and Robert.
We’re pretty open minded here Paul. Do you have a lifestyle choice you’d like to share with us?
Nevermind. Just get that email you SAY you have. Put it up here in full.
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Hey X!
It was good to see you too.
I want to clarify family, since Paul is lying about me.
I was with my son and my Mom.
I didn’t have a lot of trouble getting out X. We parked far and had to walk alot though.
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:47 PM
ghis would be better on the open but since you asked.
Woofstock was cool. I saw folks who had a shih tzu with a blue eye. And I saw dogs that looked like small horses.
Oh and Hank was there.
How’s about it Paul?
Find that email yet?
Posted by: J R | October 06, 2007 at 11:52 PM
11:14 Econ 101 Paul F Rosell posts a vile lie about me.
11:18 He is called on it.
No reply since.
I think Econ 101 Paul F Rosell is done here. I’ll take his lie unsubstantiated if that is the result.
Posted by: J R | October 07, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Yeah, Econ, I want to see the e-mail too.
Why don’t you fabricate it like Bush did the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that were going to come raining down on an American city in as little as 45 minutes?
That’s why we call you CONs.
You f***ing lie.
Why do you think Democrats are called “Dems”? It’s actually for “Dim light bulb”! heh, heh, heh
In case you haven’t noticed, “time for change,” we Dems ARE the change.
I’m going to look at my options Capn. As I know who “econ” is, I may bring litigation against him for slander.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=AhH8YedUPI9EVCetf.ZyeetQ_b4F
Bush, Texas at odds over death case.
Want to read about just how goofy this presidents thinking is?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_MEXICAN_NATIONAL?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
REPUBLICANS SAY OK FOR MEXICANS TO KILL!! Death Penalty Only For American Citizens!!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_MEXICAN_NATIONAL?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
One wonders, JR: If Paul had called you a brainwashed, disloyal, terrorist-loving Stalinist, I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. My trolldar is probably giving off false signals, but this one seems even beneath him.******************************Oh well: on a brighter, note: CSPAN is covering a “book party” for Clarence Thomas, and guess who’s hosting the man?
It’s our old buddy Armstrong Williams!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm
Gee, for some reason, I found that amusing and apropos.
Not that they need encouragement, but politicians were given the green light to lie about their opponents by the Washington Supreme Court the other day.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07lying.html
We descend deeper into the cesspool of American politics.
President Bush indicated Saturday that he would be willing to accept a larger increase for a children’s health insurance program than the one he has proposed, but defended his veto of the expansion of coverage approved by Congress.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-children7oct07,0,7981950.story?coll=la-home-nation
I expect all of the neocons to scream like mashed cats. Sounds like President whatever is doing a flip-flop.
The Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has thwarted investigations into corruption at the top levels of his administration, including probes of his relatives, while nearly four dozen anti-corruption employees or their family members have been brutally murdered, the former top Iraqi corruption investigator told a House panel yesterday.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100401305.html
How can you tell when republicans set up a puppet government?
“How can you tell when republicans set up a puppet government?”
When they open their mouths?
. . . and the water problems are starting in Kansas. Colorado and Nebraska are using more water than they are supposed to, according to the water treaty between the three states.
Why? Glad you asked. Because of the price of corn jumping to ridiculous levels. And the price jump is due to ethanol; that gas saving, energy robbing poor excuse for a gas substitute.
Ya, go ahead and buy a new toyota using ethanol. The difference between the gas and ethanol version is 6 to 8 miles per gallon. All that wasted water for 6 to 8 less miles per gallon.
But that’s okay; we got a coal fired plant going up in western kansas, with most of it’s output going to colorado, and all of its pollution going to kansas. Not to mention . . . water hog. Sweet!
Saw the new crime map in the on-line Eagle today. Keep an eye on it: What you’ll find is that affluent neighbohoods are “drug law enforcement free zones.”
What’s interesting about the ethanol fiasco is this: If you take a 1000 mile trip using regular gas, at 26 miles per gallon, you will use about 35.5 gallons. Using 85/15, on the same vehicle, you will get 20 mpg, and use 50 gallons. I leave it to you to figure out just how much gas you really aren’t saving.
o, ya . . . that doesn’t account for temperature effects on gas volume, which is greater with ethanol then it is with regular gas. Hotter fuel, more volume, less energy.
Ethanol also degrades over time and cannot be piped, meaning much more expensive transportation cost.
If the US removes their protectionist tariffs on imported ethanol, the local ethanol industry would be done overnight, because Brazil can produce ethanol much cheaper and at more volume then we can ever do.
Walker, have I told you lately that YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kev and JM Walker. I actually agree with Bush’s assertion in this case. Case in point- there are Americans in other countries imprisoned when they should not be. If we don’t want THEM putting our citizens to death, we have to respect their requests. I’m not saying release them, but you have to consider the innocent Americans imprisoned abroad.
At least Paul F. Rossell used to acknowledge when he misrepresented the truth. Guess he doesn’t have that much honor any more.
At least Paul F. Rossell used to acknowledge when he misrepresented the truth. Guess he doesn’t have that much honor any more.
Walker, I’ll take you up on that challenge. Next time I fill up, I’ll calculate exactly how much mileage I’m getting. And then compare it to a fill up of regular gas.
“Walker, have I told you lately that YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Gracias, deahhhh . . . MOTHER would be proud!
‘mornin’, farmer:-)
“That is the same court Bush has since said he plans to ignore if it makes similar decisions affecting state criminal laws.”
Referring to the Vienna Treaty. The same treaty he wants to impose on the Texas court system.
Pmom, do you not see the problem here? Again we have the decider deciding to either impose, or ignore, depending on what is to be gained or lost for the administration. Selective use of the law, in my opinion, is nothing less than anarchy.
Pmom,That would be interesting. I’m looking forward to the results.
With a campaign to increase energy-usage efficiency, for a time using more North American coal, natural gas and petroleum, and going full speed on wind and solar power, we can eliminate our dependence on terroism-spawning Middle East oil.
Suppose we had to drive somewhat cramped electric vehicles that got 120 mpg/ energy-use equivalent, and turn in our spacious SUVs and pickup trucks.
Suppose we had to turn our summer air conditioning up to 78 degrees, and our winter heaters down to 60 degrees in daytime and 50 degrees at night, wearing lighter clothes in summer, and heavier clothes and thick comforters in winter.
These adjustments wouldn’t kill us. But they would protect us from terrorism, and from sociopathic return-to-medievalism fascists who want most Americans to live in fear, which empowers the medieval-minded fascists to strip us of our constitutional rights and freedoms. They are fundamentally con artists. Do you want to be their “marks”?
Actually why heat or cool the house at all; wear my new enviro-suit, which in winter is heated by a car battery, and in summer, is cooled by plastic tubing connected to an ice chest. We should dry and recycle our poop too.
Good post, MPS, but actually we don’t even have to sacrifice that much.
Gov’t incentives for insulation, new building codes, re-cycling and a host of other small changes could reduce our energy use and CO2 emissions to about what they were in 1970.
Door King–
I think that waste treatment plants do indeed process and compost human waste for fertilizer.
At least, they used to IIRC.
What’s interesting about the ethanol fiasco is this: If you take a 1000 mile trip using regular gas, at 26 miles per gallon, you will use about 35.5 gallons. Using 85/15, on the same vehicle, you will get 20 mpg, and use 50 gallons. I leave it to you to figure out just how much gas you really aren’t saving.
Dick birds, you save 35.5 gallons of gas. The efficiency of the fuel is irrelevant, as thousands of propane burning vehicles prove. You dumb @sses, ethanol is not gas. Sheesh!
They do, it’s called milorganite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milorganite
Good point, Door King.
Even though ethanol is less efficient, we aren’t importing it from Osama bin Laden. And it’s much less polluting when burned.
Those are important points.
*****
Thanks, Blaidd D.
Rage–
I think Econ has had a number of opportunities to explain his scurrilous assertion that JR has an alcohol dependency problem.
Since he has not done that, one can be reasonably sure that what JR laid out is accurate.
As for the lawsuit, I encourage JR to go for it. I don’t know how that works though since JR (like I and most post-ers do) keep our posts semi-anonymous.
Can one be slandered or libelled in a legal sense if one’s identity is not known?
I don’t know the answer to that one . . .
There’s also ‘Dillo Dirt’ (cool name!) compost,
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/dillo.htm
“Dick birds, you save 35.5 gallons of gas. The efficiency of the fuel is irrelevant, as thousands of propane burning vehicles prove. You dumb @sses, ethanol is not gas. Sheesh!”
Posted by Door King.
Nice intelligent addition to the blog, doormat. Think again: energy usage per mile using gas OR ethanol/gas mix. Use a formula to take into consideration natural resources used to produce ethanol, including water, fuel (to refine the ethanol) and land/fertilizer use. I think you will find ethanol to be both a resource/energy waster.
Well, people with any intelligence would come to that conclusion. You may be the exception.
‘Melting ice pack displaces Alaska walrus’http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071007/ap_on_sc/sea_ice_walrus;_ylt=Agxj2DF.OlGk.76qvwZ5J0as0NUE
“ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Thousands of walrus have appeared on Alaska’s northwest coast in what conservationists are calling a dramatic consequence of global warming melting the Arctic sea ice.
Alaska’s walrus, especially breeding females, in summer and fall are usually found on the Arctic ice pack. But the lowest summer ice cap on record put sea ice far north of the outer continental shelf, the shallow, life-rich shelf of ocean bottom in the Bering and Chukchi seas….Historically, Ragen said, walrus have used the edge of the ice pack like a conveyor belt. As the ice edge melts and moves north in spring and summer, sea ice gives calves a platform on which to rest while females dive to feed.
There’s no conveyor belt for walrus on shore.
“If they’ve got to travel farther, it’s going to cost more energy. That’s less energy that’s available for other functions,” Ragen said.”
I work in the oil fields., they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, as I work on a rig site on a Fort Mac construction project, I am required to pass a
random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them…?? Please understand – I have no problem with
helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on
their arse drinking beer and smoking dope. Could you imagine how much money the provinces would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque…?
I’m going to look at my options Capn. As I know who “econ” is, I may bring litigation against him for slander.
Posted by: J R | October 07, 2007 at 01:59 AM
That would be fun for all to watch.
Electricity from Ocean Waves
Don’t hear much about this in the press. Imagine how much power potential there is on the US coastline, Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf! And also in the Great Lakes! So this could be a source used on the East and West coasts, Gulf coasts, and Great Lakes states!
Ocean waves and tides provide a nearly constant source of energy generating potential.
This should make the Global Warming people happy, those seeking Cleaner Air happy, and those seeking Energy Independence for America happy.
http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/PDF/FirstProjectinUK_final.pdf
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/wave_power_ocean.php
I think it was Steven looking for some environmentally friendly investment opportunity. Here’s one:
http://www.digital50.com/news/items/BW/2001/07/14/20070729005078/ocean-power-technologies-announces-results-for-the-year-ended-april-30-2007.html
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/story?id=44883
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/generation/tidal-wave-ocean-energy/msnbc/waves-run-this-power-plant/index.shtml
Electricity from Garbage!
Another power source that receives little press, garbage! The garbage burning power plants could be built in every state in America!
Generate low emission electricty (lower then coal) to help Clean the Air, Cool Global Warming, Keep our landfills empty reducing pollution runoff, and reducing the waste of prime farmland!
Florida is going to put the trash out for good!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-09-fla-county-trash_x.htm
I don’t understand why the Congress can’t stop the Iraq war.
This morning on one of the Sunday morning news shows, Nancy Pelosi was saying Bush needs to sign off on a resolution passed by Congress to end the war.
Why doesn’t Congress not pass a spending bill for the Iraq war? That does not require Bush to sign anything.
I voted for the Democrats who said they would end this war. Now they’ve let me down.
Oh hi Martha.
I saw Pelosi this morning also. I had the same thoughts wondering why Bush we need to sign anything.
There won’t be anything to sign.
Congress doesn’t pass any funding bill for the war. There’s nothing there to sign or veto!
BTW, Muffin is doing much better now. Had to take her to the Vet and she’s on antibiotics that seem to have worked.
Minnie, glad to hear Muffin is ok.
Here’s that article from the Arizona newspaper that Dick told me about this morning.
Looks like there is something Congress can do about global warming if they would just pass this:
Support federal global-warming legislationOct. 6, 2007 12:00 AM
Earth as we know it is undergoing some very serious changes. Global warming is, and will continue to be, one of the greatest threats to ecosystem integrity, individual fish and wildlife species, coastal human settlements and world economic development throughout the 21st century.
Scientists have recognized that global warming poses unprecedented risks to wildlife. The changing, shrinking and destruction of habitat caused by warming requires wildlife to migrate or adapt and threatens their very existence. They predict a 2- to 10-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures by the end of this century. The warming of our planet will likely cause sea levels to rise as much as 2 feet, more-frequent and more-severe storms and a loss of up to 85 percent of our coastal wetlands.
Communicate with your elected officials. Write your representatives in Washington and ask them to support the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act included in House Resolution 2337, the Safe Climate Act of 2007 and the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. These bills create a comprehensive framework for a coordinated national approach to address the impacts of global warming.
Also, speak out for better fuel economy standards. Remember, light bulbs, thermostats and washing machines matter. Buy organic and buy local. – Josette Umbertino,Phoenix
I wish Al Gore would run for President.
He’d be a good President and make sure we did something about Global Warming, like pass that bill you mentioned.
Something about Hillary I just can’t stand.
I’ll vote for her if I have to, plugging my nose.
“I’m going to look at my options Capn. As I know who “econ” is, I may bring litigation against him for slander. ”
Posted by: J R | October 07, 2007 at 01:59 AM
J R,
It’s probably more important that other people know who both you and Econ101 are? Like the editor? It’s not really an “anonymous” blog when the nics are connected to real people.
And I wonder if Econ101 really wants all of his clients to know his opinions about fossil fuels, global warming, etc?
As for the lawsuit, I encourage JR to go for it. I don’t know how that works though since JR (like I and most post-ers do) keep our posts semi-anonymous.
Can one be slandered or libelled in a legal sense if one’s identity is not known?
I don’t know the answer to that one . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 07, 2007 at 11:47 AM
*Points and Laughs*
Here’s that Bill I was talking about above.
H.R. 2337. Energy Policy Reform
A bill to promote energy policy reforms and public accountability, alternative energy and efficiency, and carbon capture and climate change mitigation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Science and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned (Congressional Record: May 16, 2007 [House], Page H5290). Text of the Bill to be available here.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2337ih.txt.pdf
Oh, and Minnie, there’s even more pending bills out there on the environment.
I think if we write all our Congressmen we do our part to push for improvement to our climate.
http://www.fedcenter.gov/news/regs/
Speaking of Al Gore,
this is hillarious.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20071006-9999-1n6gore.html
Picture of Al Gore hitting someone. Can’t tell exactly who he’s hitting in this picture. It might be the President of Mexico!
That should help immigrant relations!
Probably right there cosmos.
I’ve met the editors. Don’t know if econ has. He wasn’t at the Eagle meet up.
It’s time for a blog “Good for you” award. It’s presented to bloggers for positive activities in the real world. It has no monetary worth and is not recognized by the Nobel committee.
I went to Woofstock yesterday. It was a people and dogs event to benefit the Kansas humane society.Our own Hank Price was there demonstrating herding dog skills for many interested folks. Hank was there all day contributing this demonstration and his time to this good cause. XXX can confirm as he was there too.
Good for you Hank! * Adjust your text color for gold star.
In all seriousness. I think that was cool.
Picture of Al Gore hitting someone. Can’t tell exactly who he’s hitting in this picture. It might be the President of Mexico!
That should help immigrant relations!
Posted by: Mike Herron | October 07, 2007 at 02:31 PM
The GORACLE needs to back away from the feed bag.
He’s getting jowls of the third kind.
Ok, Martha lots of reading for me to do now.
Will chat with you after I do some reading!
I like this global warming web site. Glad you told me about it.
Would suing someone for slander for something said on an anonymous blog about an anonymous poster be like prosecuting someone for arranging sex with a cop posing as a teenage girl. Given the latter, anything is possible. Still, yer all @ssholes. Now sue me
Nice intelligent addition to the blog, doormat. Think again: energy usage per mile using gas OR ethanol/gas mix. Use a formula to take into consideration natural resources used to produce ethanol, including water, fuel (to refine the ethanol) and land/fertilizer use. I think you will find ethanol to be both a resource/energy waster.
But that wasn’t the argument, J.M. Whoever keeps posting the idiotic posts about the relative BTU equivalents of gas and ethanol and claims that causes a person to use more gas is an idiot repeating right wing talking points. You need to at least know that gas and ethanol are not the same thing.
As for the efficiency of ethanol production: Yes, it takes fossil fuels to produce it. Now that’s an argument.
As for the efficiency of ethanol production: Yes, it takes fossil fuels to produce it. Now that’s an argument.
Posted by: Door King | October 07, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Unless of course you have a “still” on the back forty.
“Picture of Al Gore hitting someone. Can’t tell exactly who he’s hitting in this picture. It might be the President of Mexico!
That should help immigrant relations!”
Posted by: Mike Herron | October 07, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Reality check — caption under photo,
“Former Vice President Al Gore reacts after ACCIDENTALLY hitting a man while waving in Mexico City on Friday…”
“Former Vice President Al Gore reacts after ACCIDENTALLY hitting a man while waving in Mexico City on Friday…”
Posted by: cosmos | October 07, 2007 at 02:57 PM
Smootchies for your GORACLE cosmos? :)
Hey J R,
Thanks for the kudos! My contribution was very small compared to most of the volunteers. There are some people that literally work on Woofstock all year long, gratis!
I don’t dare start mentioning names, I’d surely leave most of them off of the list.
Sorry I didn’t get to talk to everyone that showed up, I stayed pretty busy! For a donation we would instinct test your dog on stock. I tested over thirty dogs in five hours and John Monnenbach did the same. I don’t know how much we ended up giving to the KHS, but it was more than last year, I think.
Last year we only had one round pen set up and John and I took turns testing so we got to wander around and see the sights. This year we had two and stayed busy all day. We stopped now and then to allow the stock a break but Woofstock was bigger and better this year and I didn’t begin to see it all.
Nice weather, good music, good folks, hundreds of dogs and thousands of people all out for a good cause. Don’t get any better than that!
Hank
“As for the efficiency of ethanol production: Yes, it takes fossil fuels to produce it.”
Posted by: Door King | October 07, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Not if you burn the waste…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Electricity_from_bagasse“Part of the bagasse is currently burned at the mill to provide heat for distillation and electricity to run the machinery. This allows ethanol plants to be energetically self-sufficient and even sell surplus electricity to utilities; ”
Or use wind, or solar.
Good on all you woofstockers!
But in the meantime: Protect your 3rd Amendment rights! Join NAQA!
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/third_amendment_rights_group
Hank, I salute you for your support of the Kansas Humane Society. It is a great cause.
I volunteered there awhile back, and it is a much better place now, and the new facility, operating in coordination with the Wichita Animal Shelter, will make it much better yet.
Yes cosmos: But I believe most plants in the U.S. consume natural gas for distillation. Burning the bagasse may be a good idea, but I believe most of that is hauled away to feed livestock. It still takes fossil fuel to grow corn, though I suppose you could burn ethanol in a tractor. You can burn soy diesel with almost no mods.
What is really said is that the equations about the efficiency ethanol plants accessible to us are more political than scientific. Environmentalists count the fossil fuels required to make the steel to make the tractor. Who the hell knows how efficient it can be? But at 2.5 gallons of fuel per bushel of corn, surely the net restult is a positive energy output, as long as the corn is grown with rainwater.
Your really not making a good case, door king. Ethanol is not a good product, in its present, corn grown state. The energy equations don’t support a positive energy gain from using it. Quite the contrary; there is an energy loss, all factors considered.
You are correct in that it’s political, however, it’s the oil companies controlling the market. They are still going to sell unmixed gas, and the addition of ethanol to the 85/15 blend means they make a profit on a product they basically do nothing with, but blend it. They win both ways, the water problem deepens, and the American people lose due to an edible product being overpriced, thus increasing prices on anything made of corn products.
Supply and demand, in this case, makes for a major energy loss. It ain’t rocket science.
You can bet big ag has their hands in the rush for ethanol too J M.
It’s too bad people are confused by this. Ethanol is viable for Veneuela. But there they get it from sugar. Getting it from corn is, as has been pointed out, not a step forward into the future of energy. It’s more a step sideways. Too, it’s a big shiny distraction and political tool.
“They win both ways, the water problem deepens, and the American people lose due to an edible product being overpriced, thus increasing prices on anything made of corn products.”
And what food products don’t have corn syrup in them. Very few. I heard a guy on NPR say that if you were to analyze people by the food we consume, each of us would be one large corn chip.
They’re still doing lots of research on ways to make ethanol and other biofuels.
Some news here, and check the ‘Topics’ section.http://www.greencarcongress.com
I’d rather see the main emphasis be on boosting vehicle mpg now to cut demand for all fuels — oil, biofuels, and electric. We could double the mpg for many vehicles, with current technology.
And about 4 times, if cost of composites and other issues can be reduced.
Then ramp up biofuel production later, using the best/cheapest methods.
I have read comments above where it takes more energy to produce ethanol, but I also want to contribute that you get less MPG when burning enthanol than regular unleaded.
I drive a hybrid. The hybrid cars display MPG average to the tenth of a second. They also record and display it for the driver in a constant mode. This allows the driver to “fine tune” his/her driving abilities to get the best possible fuel economy.
This is probably an important point in that the driver is constantly reminded if they are “wasting” fuel. An easy example would be quick exceleration from a stop light. The gauge reveals immediately, your MPG drop. For the owner, this is a simple example. For owners trying to challenge the vehicle to perform at its best, let me use a long downhill slope as another example. Even merging becomes a challenge.
At any rate, my point is, I know to the second my MPG. I also know each portion of a trip, each trip, and each tank of gas my MPG.
I have documented that I average 44.5 MPG on regular unleaded.I get 39.4 on ethanol.
We then did the math for the savings buying the cheaper cost for ethanol over regular unleaded. (a savings supported by federal price supports/taxes)
Bottom line: Even though ethanol is cheaper by a couple of pennies lower than regular unleaded – it is cheaper for us to continue using regular unleaded fuel.
In other words: If you burn ethanol, you are spending more money for gas than if you buy unleaded.
“It’s probably more important that other people know who both you and Econ101 are? Like the editor? It’s not really an “anonymous” blog when the nics are connected to real people.”
Some of you local yokels from Witchy-taw, who are stupid enough to reveal your real name on a web blog deserve everything you get.
Just so you old farts, or dis-oriented rural Kansas farts know, they are teaching our elementary students to NEVER REVEAL YOUR IDENTITY ON THE WEB.
You are idiots and deserve everything you get.
PS: You will get an offer in the mail that is too good to be true. Why because you are the SUCKERS who keep those people in business.
PSS: You will get a telephone call from the bank, the county on jury notice, or some other stupid prank – and you will also be the idiots who keep those people in business.
The web is not a play pen for local idiots who think they have a private line.
It’s the old party line – stupid.
Glad we could provide you an outlet there Bubba.
Bottom line: Even though ethanol is cheaper by a couple of pennies lower than regular unleaded – it is cheaper for us to continue using regular unleaded fuel.
However, do you figure in the cost of mid-east wars in your equations. Bush’s current request is $600 for every american, money you wouldn’t have to spend if we weren’t dependent of foreign oil. That’s 200 gallons, enough to drive your car 8,000 miles.
However, do you figure in the cost of mid-east wars in your equations. Posted by: Door King
Good question Door King.
If everyone in America drove a hybrid car – we would cut our gasoline consumption in half over night. Maybe MORE than half.
Every swinging camel jockey would go broke. Instead of building island resorts in the UAE, they would be eating their camels and sucking sand.
The money for terrorists, and all the PLO type organizations, and states such as Iran, would dry up overnight.
I AM FIGHTING THE WAR! But in my own way.
This is something everyone on this blog can do NOW. Buy a hybrid. Toyota or Honda, or if the big three have one with over 40 MPG.
I am not a tree hugger. This saves me big bucks on my commute and I’ve cut my payments to arabs in half.
Additionally, I got an after tax, tax break on my federal return of $3000. Kansas has a $1,500 tax break. Figure THAT savings. But do it fast. The breaks expire in 2007.
Don’t force me to buy ethanol. Minnesota has dictated it’s use.
I will not drive through that state if I have to buy gas there.
“The energy equations don’t support a positive energy gain from using it. Quite the contrary; there is an energy loss, all factors considered.”===========================
I am old enough to remember when everybody went to Unleaded… Very much the same kind of argument as this one here was made back then when we had to all go from Leaded, or Unleaded!! In fact, for a long time, you could get either one at a gas station…. Gradually, Leaded gas was phased out…
For those of you not old enough to remember that, it was considered by some, “Unamerican” to buy Unleaded Gas for a number of years when there was a choice…
Strange how things seem to be on a constant merry-go-round…
Leaded gasoline had built-in problems completely different from ethanol. Leaded gases byproduct is lead . . . airborn. Had that been fully understood by the public, and the fact other additives could be added to improve anti-knock, removing it was a no brainer.
Fast forward to now, and this “solution” loses much of its appeal when looked at closely. I do agree if we could replace corn with sugar beets, or some other lower rung plant, there might be a acceptable energy trade off point. But the current process is a complete sham.
JM I wasnt talking bout the chemistry of the Leaded stuff… Just the “reaction” of making the change from Leaded to Unleaded… So similar to all of the conflab over Ethanol… And there IS another source that could easily be used… HEMP!!
This more or less supports the claim that the media is picking the candidates THEY want…special interest groups are that way.=============August 22, 2007 2:54Dennis Kucinich vs. ABC News
Should the networks and interest groups that have been sponsoring the seemingly endless series of debates and candidate forums start limiting their invitations to those contenders who seem, by whatever definition, “viable”? Having so many candidates onstage fighting for air time does make it harder to come up with any format that goes beyond gotcha moments and sound bites. With a smaller group, we might actually learn something about the people who have the best chance of becoming the next President of the United States.
But I have generally liked the idea of including candidates from the second tier–and beyond–in these settings. You never know when lightning may strike, and how is an underfinanced long-shot going to get a breakout moment otherwise? Just as importantly, candidates such as Dennis Kucinich often are the only ones giving voice to ideas–like single-payer health care and a quick withdrawal from Iraq–that have not been embraced by the leading candidates, despite having significant support among the party rank and file.
Still, having decided to include them, should they be given the same amount of time and attention as the leaders in the race? At his blog Newpairodimes, frequent Swampland commenter Trifecta argues that Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul “are getting hosed” by the networks:
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/08/dennis_kucinich_vs_abc.html
Nancy Pelosi bulldozed a wildlife preserve displacing two protected and endangered species to build the Cordevalle Golf Course and Country Club. She was ordered to restore the habitat 5 years ago…still hasn’t happened. But you will all be glad to know that the most beautiful 7th fairway you’ve ever seen before straddles this once protected wildlife preserve.
Long day tomorrow….
Good Night; Good Luck; and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings All!!
Smootchies for your GORACLE cosmos? :)
Posted by: Kansas
do people get any more gay or more dumb than you kansass?
Nancy Pelosi bulldozed a wildlife preserve displacing two protected and endangered species to build the Cordevalle Golf Course and Country Club. She was ordered to restore the habitat 5 years ago…still hasn’t happened. But you will all be glad to know that the most beautiful 7th fairway you’ve ever seen before straddles this once protected wildlife preserve.
Posted by: Joe Williams
WOW
i THOUGHT that was nancy pelosi out there on that big earth moving piece of equipment, but i wasn’t sure it was her.
now i know the truth.
BTW, how does someone become as freakin dumb as you?
was it your childhood environment, or public schooling ??
They eat talk show lies for breakfast, call me.