 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought February 26, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
I don’t know how many years I have been hearing how great ethanol is as a gasoline additive. I mostly thought of it as a boon to farmers who raise corn and other crops that are converted into this form of alcohol. The energy bill, a mishmash of giveaways to all kinds of energy interests, mandated more use of ethanol and biodiesel. Then the President gave his State of the Union speech and talked about using woodchips and who knows what else to make it. Ethanol has some significant incentives going for it. It receives a 51-cent-a-gallon federal subsidy. Biodiesel gets a $1-a-gallon federal tax credit. Politicians love ethanol, particularly if they are from farm states, but some farmers are not as thrilled. In the February issue of Wheat Life, a magazine published by the Washington Association of Wheat Growers, the president of the Association of Washington Business, Don C. Brunell, had some words of caution. “Washington State seems poised to jump on the biofuel bandwagon, but before we do, it may be wise to look before we leap.” Brunell pointed out that the concept of biofuel has been around for more than a century, but “the idea faded because making gasoline from crude oil was cheaper and easier to refine.” Brunell is far from alone is raising a warning. In a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle noted, “Ethanol, touted as an alternative fuel of the future, may eat up more energy during its creation than it winds up giving back, according to research by a UC Berkeley scientist that raises questions about the nation’s move toward its widespread use.” Geoengineering professor, Tad Patzek, was published in the journal, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. His view was that “up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains.” Patzek is cited as believing that “those who think using the ‘green’ fuel will reduce fossil fuel consumption are deluding themselves—and the federal government’s practice of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it is a waste of money.” Prof. Patzek is not alone. A Cornell University ecologist, David Pimentel, came to a similar conclusion. “There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel. These strategies are not sustainable.” Together with Patzek, the two conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass, as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report was published in Natural Resources Research. Corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, switch grass requires 45 percent more, and wood biomass requires 57 percent more. Prof. Pimentel concluded that, “The United States desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future, but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road.” He noted that the government “spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel.” Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., on February 20, the chief economist for the U.S. Agriculture Department, Keith Collins, announced that the United States, the longtime number one corn exporter in the world, will soon distill more corn to make ethanol than it sells abroad. Does this make any sense at all? According to the USDA, United States corn exports are projected to rise to 2.0 billion bushels in the 2006/07 marketing year, while ethanol production is forecast to consume 2.15 billion bushels. Despite those large numbers, corn-based ethanol is now used in only three percent of U.S. gasoline, while consuming fourteen percent of the nation’s corn crop this marketing year. The United States is the largest ethanol producer in the world, producing 4.3 billion gallons in 2005. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, production is expected to climb to 5.1 billion gallons this year and 6 billion by 2007. The question is why? Why would the United States throw billions in tax subsidies at a gasoline additive that requires more energy to produce than the energy it generates? On that basis alone, using petroleum-derivative fertilizers and fuel energy to produce ethanol is idiotic. Once again, environmental hype has triumphed over reality when it comes to addressing the problem of a finite amount of oil. Between being told that the Earth is running out of oil and being told that we are polluting whenever we drive our cars and trucks, ethanol seems like some kind of answer, but in terms of the energy it saves, the answer is none. We are decades and maybe even centuries away from running out of oil. Known, as yet untapped reserves exist and technology to exploit them exists. It is far too soon to push the panic button, but not too soon to stop wasting money and energy producing a useless panacea. |
|||||
I’m convinced that life is some type of energy. It has to be. All anyone has to do is look at any power structure in the world. By that I mean even a family or a corporation. Energy always takes the path of least resistance and so it is with people. In electricity it’s called a short circuit. In any pressure vessel it’s called a leak. In a cryogenic system a thermal leak can lead to what is known as cryo-pumping, which is where the air is being pumped into the thermal leak as it condenses. It steals the air from the room and it also can cause fire and explosions at times. Because it’s taking all of the air it can get a little difficult to breathe. The way it works with people is that horrible little crime we commit against ourselves, and others. The word for that is appeasement. Appeasement is what leads to wars and all kinds of nastiness. In politics it can manifest itself in the form of Neville Chamberlain. In a family it can manifest itself in the form of one parent selling out to the noisiest kid. You know the one, that little charmer that demands things until mommy or daddy sells out and gives what they demand. In the long run that kid has to face the music and so do the parents because the kid is completely out of control. It looks pretty similar in the office too. But I could be talking about anything here now couldn’t I? That might not be an accident. I think that right now might be a good time to get specific though. The biggest and most dysfunctional collection of sellouts is the Democratic Party and their followers. They had a model for many years that worked well for them but it isn’t working quite like it used to. Like all appeasers they will twist and turn as they dodge the knives of their former friends. I’m just overjoyed that I’m not in any way associated with them. For years they were able to hold their party together with empty promises, which, like all empty promises, were eventually shown to be lies. Then comes the fun. At this moment the liberals are falling apart. They are trying to pull their party together as it flies apart. Kerry the former war candidate is now anti-war, just like he was right after he got out of the military. It’s just not any fun to stand up for anything that matters. It is much more fun to stand up for whatever the other party doesn’t stand for. This is often done by holding ones finger to test the wind. Unfortunately they only seem notice the undercurrents. The one real man they have in their party is Lieberman and they rejected him out of hand because he refused to redefine himself to their standards. So many of them have decided to be anti-war because they are remembering how much fun they had in the sixties. The biggest problem they’re having though, is that they voted in favor of the war but are trying to say they didn’t really mean it. Exactly what does that mean? It means that they are short-circuited. They are trying to appease the anti-war crowd and look sincere while they are doing it. That’s the exciting thing about watching something like this. It’s the lies and cowardice, stupid. It’s an absolute riot. They are going to continue to split and divide for a very long time. At the rate they’re going they’ll still be reinventing their past, present and future when the next election cycle comes up. What does it take to stop all of these short circuits? It takes men and women of courage. It takes principled people who aren’t going to cave in at the first sign of resistance. Poor Lieberman really does have his work cut out for him doesn’t he? And Hillary is trying to replace him as she reinvents herself. Her problem is that the Democrats have been appeasing for so long that they now have a large group of children in their village that are used to getting their way, or at least thinking they are, who are now starting to rebel. That by the way is the end result of all appeasement. Wars, tyrants and rebellions feed on it. This is the primary reason that liberals can’t be trusted with anything that matters. They are adrift on a sea of confusion, appeasement and cowardice. Appeasement always looks easy in the short term but the results are always a disaster in the long run. This applies to companies, bosses, families and even nations that support terrorists so they won’t be the targets. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
It’s been a while since the Olympics seemed to mean anything. Back in the day, the Summer and Winter Games would come once — and together — every four years. The very infrequency of these events made them seem rather special. Memorable. Even politically important. But in the 1990s, that changed. The two portions were torn apart like conjoined twins joined at the soul. They were staggered so that one or the other would take place not every four years — in keeping with the definition of “Olympiad” — but rather every two. Every Olympics has blended together like so many seasons of Survivor ever since. Now no one knows their Lillehammers from their Naganos. This week marks the end of the 2006 Winter Games in Torino. In light of how meaningless the Olympics have become, it would be easy to cast these games to the Recycle Bin on the Desktop of History. America has won a number of medals so far, but they’ve been overshadowed by a series of embarrassingly high profile losses and blunders. Few Americans care one way or the other. And even fewer are watching. Most of us will probably look back four years from now and think of these Olympics as little more than “those two weeks when everyone called Turin ‘Torino.’” But unlikely as it may seem at the moment, I think these games will turn out to be a lot more memorable than anyone realizes. It may take us 15-20 years to notice this. And after we notice it, many of us may not admit it. But I believe the very same things that’ve made Torino so forgettable for Americans will someday make Torino an Olympics we’ll never forget. Because subtly, under our noses, everything wrong with post-9/11 America — everything creepy and distinctly un-American about it — has been put on trial in these Olympics. Our imperial hubris. Our false wars with mutating excuses. The torture. The secret prisons. The enemy combatants. All of it. Each and every piece is on trial. From the bulldozing of Dixie Chicks CDs straight down to domestic spying and this crazy, insane belief that the president being above the Constitution is the Constitution. It’s all here. And its losing. For better or worse. This probably sounds like an exaggeration, and it is, but only to the extent that every Olympics’ political implications are. In 2002, with America fresh off September 11th, Salt Lake City hosted the Winter Games. The world was with us back then; they showed us goodwill, as we showed them our proud but tattered flag. The U.S. went on to win its most Winter medals ever. But if that was a symbol of American resilience in the face of terror, then 2006 is a symbol of American overreach in the name of the very same thing. Post-9/11 America gave birth to the strange belief that we can’t be isolationist, but that we don’t have to care what the rest of the world thinks. So now we’re at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And elsewhere, in the “shadows.” And soon in Iran, too. And Syria, maybe. And God knows where else after that. Common sense would seem to indicate this pace is impossible. But we’re bent on spreading our unique brand of freedom around the world anyway. The problem is, it isn’t the real kind of freedom. It isn’t homegrown democracy. No, instead it’s mass produced. A watered down, saturated version — prepackaged for popular consumption. Just like so many songs and movies and restaurants in modern, monocultural America. And just like our 2006 Winter Olympic athletes. Of course, this sounds harsh. I’m not saying any of this to demean the men and women representing our country on Torino’s ski slopes and skating rinks. And to be fair, the Winter Games were never America’s forté anyway. But all I heard in the weeks leading up to Torino was that this was going to be America’s “best team ever.” And this never struck me as a simple sign of confidence. It was the height of arrogance, really. But the bad kind of arrogance. The idle kind. The kind that makes promises that America’s best — or most over-hyped — team can’t possibly compete with. This is why Michelle Kwan, who was sent to Torino without qualifying, turned around and came home right after arriving. This is why Nike poster child Bode Miller, who appeared on every magazine cover short of Cat Fancy, flopped miserably and then stated, quite frankly, that he didn’t even care. America has had its successes in Torino, yes. And when you consider the fact that Thailand’s only athlete lives and works not in Thailand but Philly, or the fact that so many NHL players fill other nations’ rosters that the league is on hiatus for two weeks, it’s clear that America’s fingerprints are all over these Olympics. But that’s not what we’ll remember, if we remember any of it. We’ll remember figure skater Johnny Weir dropping from second to fifth because missing his bus somehow turned him “black inside.” We’ll remember Lindsey Jacobellis grabbing her snowboard in midair on the last jump of a race she was leading, only to fall and finish second. A little bit of Shock n’ Awe for you. And showboating. It’s honestly as if some of these people thought they would win not because they were good but because they were American. Or maybe they’re not the ones who believed that. Maybe we are. But this strategy has never worked well, historically. Not since the days of David and Goliath. It’s the same reason the Brits lost America to those cagey Americans, and why America lost Vietnam to those cagey Vietnamese. Indeed, it’s why Rocky Balboa beat Ivan Drago in Rocky IV, even though Rocky’s training regimen consisted of chopping wood and running up mountains while Drago’s consisted of steroids and, you know, actual sparring. Because in sport, as in life, it’s all about heart. The eye of the tiger. The young, hungry, and arrogant have it. The old, bloated, and arrogant do not. To me, that’s the attitude that fuels so much of what America stands for right now. We won’t shine a light on the world; we’ll install one in every dark, tyrannical country. Not because we should, but because we’re America. Love it or leave it. Like it or not. Perhaps we don’t appreciate this now, and perhaps we won’t for many years, but what we’re witnessing in Torino at the moment is Jesse Owens — a black Alabaman, of all of God’s creatures — capturing four gold medals in godless, sociopathic Nazi Berlin in the ‘36 Olympics. It’s Team USA pulling off a “miracle on ice” against the Soviets at the Lake Placid games of 1980. The only difference is, instead of the Nazis and instead of the Soviets, it’s us now. Which isn’t to say that America is anything like the Nazis or Soviets, but rather that this is what happens when David becomes Goliath. This is what happens when a country, a superpower, sees fit on any stage — let alone the Olympics — to exert its dominance as if by divine right. Every Goliath — be it the mighty U.S.S.R. or Hitler’s ill-fated Aryan experiment — will inevitably fall. Obviously, I’m not rooting for the collapse of America. Nor am I rooting against America’s athletes. I love this country and would still rather live here than anywhere else. But we’re fooling ourselves if we think the name “America” on the label is still matched by a genuine American product inside. Eventually, we’ll probably notice this. And someday, God willing, we’ll stop buying into it. On that day, we’ll look back on Torino, on the high profile blunders of our brand name athletes, and think, “Wow, that was it. That was the moment.” That was when the world rejected irrational, imperial America like Coke II and other new and unimproved formulas before it. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Many Americans are upset by the thought of a Dubai-based corporation running port operations in several major American cities. The company involved now has agreed to delay taking over those operations while the Bush administration and Congress settle their differences and address the ire of the American people. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with a company from the United Arab Emirates being involved in U.S. port operations. After all, Islamic terrorists have lived in many European countries, and nobody suggests that E.U. corporations should be similarly disqualified. But this is not a matter of one foreign company buying another and taking over existing operations in the United States. The Dubai company, DP World, is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. It is in essence an agent of a foreign government, which raises questions: Does DP World truly operate like any corporation, answering to a board of directors, serving shareholders, and working to boost profitability? Or does it serve the foreign policy and economic goals of the United Arab Emirates? This is not a true free market transaction, but rather a marriage of multinational corporate and state interests. And surely the American people should have a say over foreign governments doing business here, especially when that business affects port security. It's important to note the administration did not bother to consult with Congress or the state governors involved. The Treasury department approved the purchase with no congressional oversight whatsoever. While many applaud unchecked presidential authority when it comes to war in Iraq, wiretapping, and other national security matters, they now demand that Congress overturn a unilateral administration decision. The lesson learned is that everybody likes presidential power when they agree with how it’s used. When they don’t, they rediscover that the Constitution authorizes Congress to make policy after all. There also is an important states’ rights issue involved in this controversy. Why are Treasury department bureaucrats in Washington making decisions about port security? Most American ports are owned by U.S. states, cities, or local port authorities, not the federal government. Do Treasury department personnel 1500 miles away really know what’s best for the ports of Galveston or Freeport? I strongly support those governors who have indicated they do not intend to allow the federal government to dictate who will run their ports. I hope Texas state officials display the same determination and resist a potentially dangerous federal dictate regarding the operation of our ports. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
To be completely honest; I am excited over Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn’s proposal, the “I-Connect Initiative”, initially intended to provide a personal laptop computer for all 169,000 seventh grade students in Illinois public schools.1 I can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want to see students realize the benefits of keeping all school related materials in a portable database. Just think about it; anything at all related to school could be accessed in one convenient location. Students wouldn’t have to phone the homework hotline; worry about carrying books back and forth (click here); or forget papers, teachers could post outlines of material covered in class; online videos for students who were absent for the movie or want to give it a second look; and provide links to more in depth information on any topic. There would be no need for checking assignment notebooks, or printing countless worksheets. Supplemental information could be provided on topics that struggling students don’t fully grasp or for gifted students who want to challenge themselves. Absent teachers could leave extensive plans for the substitute, so that critical instructional time is used to its fullest potential. Of course, I’m comfortable spending hours at a time on my computer and I can’t imagine ever trying to write or research without one. There’s no telling how many hours I save instantly accessing news from all over the world, experts in a plethora of fields, or being an email away from colleagues. I’m not the only one aware of the benefits. The policy of Dr. Mark Edwards, Superintendent, Henrico County Public Schools, is straightforward, "We don't think technology will ever replace teachers. But teachers who can use the technology will replace those who can't use it because it's here to stay."2 Teachers, uncomfortable with computers and hesitant to change established routines and practices, need only step out of their comfort zone and learn the PC to gain an appreciation for the many advantages which outweigh any disadvantages. According to Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, “No Illinois child should be left on the wrong side of the digital divide,”3 He, like I, believes that, “Laptops are the textbooks of tomorrow.”4 As amended, HB 5244
(Kelly, D-Matteson) establishes a pilot program, narrower in its scope,
costing considerably less to implement at $5 million. Participants would
be culled from two school districts from each Regional Office of Education
area and 30 school districts each from the City of Chicago and from
Cook County outside the City of Chicago. Priority will be given to schools
with at least 40 percent low-income student enrollment.5 • Laptop computers
for all 7th grade students and classroom teachers (All laptops will
be equipped with science and math tutorials, word processing, note taking,
spreadsheet software, and a warranty). There are justifiable
concerns broached by Illinois taxpayers. What if $5 million dollars
buys a lot of instant messaging between friends and playing games? From
all appearances, the price doesn’t actually include Internet access.
There is potential for the computers to get lost or break during their
six year anticipated life expectancy. They definitely wouldn’t
be running on the most current operating systems. Most importantly,
it should be up to individual schools to decide how best to educate
their students. This program allows for no flexibility in how to appropriate
this educational money; it's for laptops or nothing.8 Drawing on what is already known from other states that have invested in the laptop program, problems have surfaced in schools not fully planning how laptops would be used; that didn’t include staff in deciding ways laptops should be implemented; where money was not set aside for program or professional development; where teachers rarely asked students to turn on their laptops; if students left laptops at home; where frustrated parents felt money was invested in tools only being used sporadically; where digital resources were unreliable and of poor quality; when bandwidth was poor; or when batteries would only last 90 minutes.11 According to Vicki Wilson, Henrico County Public Schools’ assistant superintendent for curriculum, training is a big consideration. "New students and parents need a tremendous amount of training to understand the technology and be able to use it. It also has to be differentiated, because teachers, students, and parents are all at different places with their technology skills." 12 Henrico County Public Schools also discovered that security is a big issue. Some 50-60 students were disciplined for downloading pornography at home, and two students were suspended for trying to hack into the computers of teachers and classmates. This was resolved by "scrubbing" the iBook hard drives and placing restrictions that prevent instant messaging and limit file sharing. 13 Indisputably, more research is needed to know exactly how computers can be the most effective tool at school. According to Ludger Woessmann, a researcher at the University of Munich, "if you overuse computers and trade them for other [types of] teaching, it actually harms the student."14 Basically, what needs to be determined is when computers are useful and when they're not. According to Dr. Marcia Linn, professor of education and director of the Technology Enhanced Learning in Science Center at the University of California at Berkeley, "People need guidance in how to use [computers in education]."15 According to the Illinois Government News Network, Illinois, “School districts will decide how the laptop computer will be utilized in the classroom. Teachers will also receive professional training on how to integrate laptop computers into everyday curriculum.”16 According to the IGNN Press release, Henrico County Virginia students taking part in a similar laptop initiative for grades 6-12, achieved the highest SAT verbal and math scores ever recorded in the county, just four years after the program began.17 Phoenix, Arizona students attending Deer Valley Unified, a 30,000-student district, and using laptops as part of their curriculum, are retaining the increases they made in fifth grade. Schools participating in the project do better than those that are not. 18 According to a study of one-to-one laptop computing at Piscataquis Community High School (PCHS) conducted by the Mitchell Institute (as part of a Great Maine Schools Project grant funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), PCHS’s laptop program improved computer skills, increased access to educational resources, boosted student motivation and interest in school, and enhanced interaction among students and teachers. Overall, laptops improved the quality of work and student achievement. The program contributed across the spectrum of PCHS students, most of all helping at-risk and low-achieving students. It prepared all students for higher-level learning. Of particular note, after implementing the laptop program, daily student attendance increased from 91% to 98%. Discipline referrals declined by 45% during the first year of implementation. Some average students became high-achievers and students with behavior issues became more focused. Laptops provided opportunities for social contact to those who otherwise might not reach out. Shyer students were availed of opportunities to express themselves and get involved. Students wrote more, preferring typing to handwriting, and access to spelling and grammar check gave them more confidence. Grades improved with laptops.19 Jeff Herbel, Oklahoma City's information technology project leader, makes a very good argument for purchasing laptops for students. “Going to the lab interrupts class schedules, and it takes students and teachers out of the classroom." 20 There appears to be many good reasons for implementing laptop programs in Illinois schools. Because Illinois can learn from the mistakes of other school districts around the country, many potential pitfalls can be avoided. Still, it should be up to the individual school districts to decide exactly how they want to use available technology. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Reference Links: 11 After
Laptop Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:28 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
