Food shortage ethanol follies, I've planted a food garden.
jtno...@yahoo.com
chaos, subsidized corn for ethanol fuel has crowded out other food
crops, speculators abroad have taken their bales of dollarpesos and
bought out our wheat supplies so that we'll have to re-import at a
higher price. Gov't. has paid southeast Texas farmers to raise
livestock instead of rice, now Sam's Club and Costco are rationing it.
So I tossed the ornamental plants and have planted corn, beans,
peppers, and tomatoes, maybe carrots next. I recommend others do the
same this season in their backyards if they have them. I don't think
there will be acute food shortages this year in the USA, but grocery
prices are high and getting higher. It will also save the fossile fuel
to get it from the farm to your table. I would raise meat but codes in
my 'burb won't allow it.
Rod Speed
> The per usual republicrat farm socialism has created food supply chaos,
You wouldnt know what real food supply chaos was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
> subsidized corn for ethanol fuel has crowded out other food crops,
Pig ignorant lie.
> speculators abroad
Corse there are never any of those inside the country, eh ?
> have taken their bales of dollarpesos and bought out our wheat
> supplies so that we'll have to re-import at a higher price.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> Gov't. has paid southeast Texas farmers to raise livestock instead of rice,
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> now Sam's Club and Costco are rationing it.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> So I tossed the ornamental plants and have planted corn,
> beans, peppers, and tomatoes, maybe carrots next.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to plant marijuana, stupid.
> I recommend others do the same this season in their backyards if they have them.
I recommend you top yourself.
> I don't think
You did manage to get that bit right, likely by accident.
> there will be acute food shortages this year in the
> USA, but grocery prices are high and getting higher.
Thats what inflation produces, stupid.
> It will also save the fossile fuel
No such animal.
> to get it from the farm to your table.
In spades if you had a clue and grew marijuana, stupid.
> I would raise meat but codes in my 'burb won't allow it.
Wota pathetic wimp.
HeyBub
Republicans are generally opposed to ethanol and government subsidies.
Still, the clamor from the easily-duped has forced much attention to the
subject.
It sorta works in the U.S. inasmuch as we grow twice as much food as we can
eat. However, diverting corn cobs to the Lexus does diminish our exports.
The U.S. does not import food staples.
U.S. Rice is abundant. We grow twice as much rice as we eat. Sam's Club is
rationing only ethnic rice. Ordinary long-grain, white rice is cheaper than
dirt - take as much as you want.
Frank
>
> U.S. Rice is abundant. We grow twice as much rice as we eat. Sam's Club is
> rationing only ethnic rice. Ordinary long-grain, white rice is cheaper
> than dirt - take as much as you want.
That maybe the case in your area, but we couldn't find any either at the
local Sam's Club or Costco stores. No Texas long grain or other type of
rice. I'd checked Costo again yesterday, the shelves were empty of rice as
usual for the last few weeks, lots of beans though, LOL. Rice prices are
very high and if I'm not mistaken, it has already triple for the year.
Cheapo Groovo
Hope you enjoy the process and your yield is great!
P.S.
Rod Speed appears to be a government provocateur
In article <688ce650-7a91-45bc-aa1f-171713062727
@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, jtno...@yahoo.com says...
George
grains, rice) to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going without planning
where that extra food will come from. At least we have alternatives
here. How about the people in poor countries who depend on rice for food
but we bought it to make ethanol?
Seerialmom
You can probably raise rabbits...and I know that even though it's not
an accepted food product in the US, guinea pigs are raised for meat in
South America.
Rod Speed
> Frank wrote
That isnt what is happening with rice.
Rod Speed
> COngrats!!
> Hope you enjoy the process and your yield is great!
> P.S.
> Rod Speed appears to be a government provocateur
You wouldnt know what a real government provocateur was if one bit you on your lard arse, spammer.
> jtno...@yahoo.com wrote
Rod Speed
Rats are raised in huge numbers in New York apartments.
jtno...@yahoo.com
I think that's an excellent idea, I used to hunt them and eat them as
a boy. I don't want to get a neighborhood reputation as the easter
bunny killer, though...any other protien ideas? Thanks to cheapogroovo
for the encouragement, maybe next year I will grow barley and brew
some beer...-Jitney
Dave Bugg
> The per usual republicrat farm socialism....
I think you meant "The per usual GoreCrat Greenie enviro-socialism.
Growing crops-for-fuel is the mantra of the man-made global warming,
petroleum is evil crowd.
--
Dave www.davebbq.com
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydWdnS3VDu63Ko3V...@comcast.com...
But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains, corn,
and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't imagine that
stuff fed to anything but livestock.
ChairMan
Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>spewed forth:
As are assholes down under.
Bob Eld
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydWdnS3VDu63Ko3V...@comcast.com...
Total BS! Rice is not used to make ethanol in the US and rice land is not
used for growing corn. Rice like most other commodities has been in short
supply mostly due to emergence of China and India as wealthy world powers
while the US dollar declines in value affecting everything, world wide,
especially energy. To blame ethanol for the worlds problems is absurd.
Ethanol is a fraction of the problem and mainly affects corn and related
things like raising pork and beef. In no way does in account for rice, fish,
copper, aluminum and a thousand other things that have seen runaway prices.
BTW, when was the last time you put any ethanol in your SUV?
Rod Speed
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> Frank wrote
>>>> U.S. Rice is abundant. We grow twice as much rice as we eat.
>>>> Sam's Club is rationing only ethnic rice. Ordinary long-grain,
>>>> white rice is cheaper than dirt - take as much as you want.
>>> That maybe the case in your area, but we couldn't find any either
>>> at the local Sam's Club or Costco stores. No Texas long grain or
>>> other type of rice. I'd checked Costo again yesterday, the shelves
>>> were empty of rice as usual for the last few weeks, lots of beans
>>> though, LOL. Rice prices are very high and if I'm not mistaken, it
>>> has already triple for the year.
>> What we are seeing is the result of deciding to grind up food
>> (corn, grains, rice) to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going
>> without planning where that extra food will come from. At least
>> we have alternatives here. How about the people in poor countries
>> who depend on rice for food but we bought it to make ethanol?
> Total BS!
Correct, but you add your own bullshit too.
> Rice is not used to make ethanol in the US and rice land is not used for growing corn.
Correct.
> Rice like most other commodities has been in short supply mostly
> due to emergence of China and India as wealthy world powers
Wrong.
> while the US dollar declines in value affecting everything, world wide, especially energy.
Wrong again.
> To blame ethanol for the worlds problems is absurd.
Correct. In spades with the availability of rice.
> Ethanol is a fraction of the problem and mainly affects
> corn and related things like raising pork and beef. In no
> way does in account for rice, fish, copper, aluminum and
> a thousand other things that have seen runaway prices.
There havent been any runaway prices of anything, not even crude oil.
> BTW, when was the last time you put any ethanol in your SUV?
Bit hard when I dont have a SUV.
krw
nsmon...@yahoo.com says...
No SUV, but every time I fill up. ;-) ...or really :-(
>
--
Keith
HeyBub
Ah, well. Like everything else, there's no shortage of rice; there's only a
shortage of CHEAP rice.
Seerialmom
>
> - Show quoted text -
How about snakes?
Don Klipstein
The low carb craze has increased grain demands by increasing demand for
livestock. Ethanol demand came in time to rescue grain farmers from the
decline of the low carb craze.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
aspasia
Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by influential
agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states, shoveling out their
contributions to our beloved Congress-whores. They did not care what
ripple effects this would create in the Third World, where people are
now starving. Effects even felt in our neighbor to the South, where
the price of corn went through the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- a
standard food, like wheat bread in the States.
Nobody bothered to check with knowledgeable scientists as to the state
of ethanol fuel technology . Not that it would have deterred the
cynical profiteers if they *had* run the science. (Incidentally, there
are so many crops that would be far better, with less downside, for
fuel technology, leading off with marijuana's little cousin, hemp. It
grows on any soil, reseeds itself, costs virtually nothing to produce.
Even Brazil, that was using sugar cane waste, is reconsidering the
technology.)
These Administration hot flashes, like Bush's notorious "hydrogen"
speech, are devoid of science or common sense. His handlers have
stuff written for him, and he reads it -- has gotten real good
at rasslin' that teleprompter! Nobody bothered to verify the
easily available science showing the wildly incomplete state of
hydrogen fuel technology.
Tfui!
Aspasia
h
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrng12a9...@manx.misty.com...
Wow. Eating a healthy diet is now a "craze"? You are aware that the hog
fattening diet is exactly the same as the USDA's food pyramid except for one
more serving of grain, right? Yeah, eating grain is good for you. Right.
That's why so many Americans are orca fat.
Norminn
>>>But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
>>>corn,
>>>and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't imagine that
>>>stuff fed to anything but livestock.
>>>
>>>
>> The low carb craze has increased grain demands by increasing demand for
>>livestock. Ethanol demand came in time to rescue grain farmers from the
>>decline of the low carb craze.
>>
>>
>
>Wow. Eating a healthy diet is now a "craze"? You are aware that the hog
>fattening diet is exactly the same as the USDA's food pyramid except for one
>more serving of grain, right? Yeah, eating grain is good for you. Right.
>That's why so many Americans are orca fat.
>
>
I've never paid attention to diet crazes, so I'm not conversant in the
"low carb" fad. All I know is that
carbs have a little more than half the calories, per gram, that fats.
If I want a plate full of food, then my
reasoning is carbs are better than fat. Of course, plenty of veggies.
I hear about people who have tried
every diet craze and still "can't" lose weight. I call them "tasters".
Pure bunk. They must think their
energy stores are some kind of nuclear reactor that keeps turning
without burning up the fuel. When
I decided to lose weight, I quit eating butter and gravy. Never loaded
up on the stuff, but I lost 40
pounds without doing anything else. The fat people I know keep a bag of
Oreo's and a liter of pop
next to their chairs at all times.
HeyBub
>
> Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by influential
> agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states, shoveling out their
> contributions to our beloved Congress-whores. They did not care what
> ripple effects this would create in the Third World, where people are
> now starving. Effects even felt in our neighbor to the South, where
> the price of corn went through the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- a
> standard food, like wheat bread in the States.
There has never been a famine in a democracy.
>
> Nobody bothered to check with knowledgeable scientists as to the state
> of ethanol fuel technology . Not that it would have deterred the
> cynical profiteers if they *had* run the science. (Incidentally, there
> are so many crops that would be far better, with less downside, for
> fuel technology, leading off with marijuana's little cousin, hemp. It
> grows on any soil, reseeds itself, costs virtually nothing to produce.
> Even Brazil, that was using sugar cane waste, is reconsidering the
> technology.)
Many do not check with reputable scientists.
Current technology does not favor "grass" type crops, including hemp,
'switch-grass' and others. The problem is the enormous cost of transporting
the raw materials to the processing plant. Corn is easy: high density
material in little kernals. Note they don't try to make ethanol out of the
corn STALKS.
The sugar cane conversion in Brazil works because the cane stalks are waste
from the sugar extraction; the raw material is already concentrated in one
place.
The basic problem is not ethanol, the problem is enviornmentalism. Consider:
most of our electric power and all of our transportation energy derives from
oil and gas. Yet the air is cleaner today than it's ever been - even cleaner
than before electricity (when people burned wood for heating). But we've got
this aversion to oil exploration, production, and refining.
Go figure.
Evelyn C. Leeper
>> U.S. Rice is abundant. We grow twice as much rice as we eat. Sam's Club is
>> rationing only ethnic rice. Ordinary long-grain, white rice is cheaper
>> than dirt - take as much as you want.
>
> That maybe the case in your area, but we couldn't find any either at the
> local Sam's Club or Costco stores. No Texas long grain or other type of
> very high and if I'm not mistaken, it has already triple for the year.
It could be that the "true" shortage is of varietal rice (basmati and
jasmine are what I heard), but when people started hearing this, there
was a run on all kinds of rice.
Note that there is a difference between a shortage and a huge price
increase. One can have the former without the latter.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
All art at some time and in some manner becomes mass entertainment,
and if it does not it dies and is forgotten. --Raymond Chandler
George
modest wind farm locally. My buddies firm did the design work so I am
familiar with the details. Unlike ethanol and other schemes the company
was not a welfare queen and didn't ask the government to pick everyone's
pocket to fund their idea. The site is in a rural area and the nearest
development was 7 miles away. All of the initial planning was approved
and when the people in the development found out about it they cried "it
will destroy our view of the sunset". Many influential people live there
so they quickly changed zoning requirements etc to block construction.
The interesting part is that if you go through there all you see are
massive "houses" with 5 ton fluffed up trucks in the driveways.
h
"Norminn" <nor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VvKdnV_2qoq3L4zV...@earthlink.com...
Carbs are sugar, and that's absolutely terrible for most people. Unless you
are very active, you will not use up all the carbs and then store the excess
as fat. If you eat predominately protein and fat you become a fat burning
machine instead of a sugar burning machine, which is better for your body.
Also, you don't experience the highs and lows of the sugar rush. The only
carbs I eat are veggies and fruit, and I only eat the lower-carb ones. And
the idea of drinking any beverage with sugar in it just amazes me. I can't
quite comprehend how anyone can eat pre-packaged, processed food. How hard
is it to make a salad and broil some chicken, meat or fish?
Cindy Hamilton
> But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains, corn,
> and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't imagine that
> stuff fed to anything but livestock.
Of course. What ivory tower do you live in? Carbohydrates are the
staple
food of millions of Americans.
Mmmm. Nice chewy, crusty bread. With real butter.
Cindy Hamilton
Seerialmom
> "Norminn" <norm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wish I could find soda with "sugar" in it; very few do
anymore...instead it's the HFCS (another dead horse that's been beaten
into the ground) which is worse. I agree that eating processed foods
(prepackaged frozen "Healthy Choice" for example) is worse for you
than eating an 8 oz steak and baked potato.
ra...@vt.edu
> I wish I could find soda with "sugar" in it; very few do
> anymore...instead it's the HFCS (another dead horse that's been beaten
Coca-Cola that is "Kosher for Passover" will have cane sugar
and no corn syrup of any kind. They put a different color cap
on it. Should be available right now, if you hurry.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Bert Hyman
news:42afee40-6b3f-4b3b...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com
Seerialmom <seeri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wish I could find soda with "sugar" in it; very few do
> anymore...instead it's the HFCS (another dead horse that's been beaten
> into the ground) which is worse.
Coke that's certified Kosher for Passover should be sweetened with sugar
only. In fact, any softdrink that's Kosher for Passover that's sweetened
(not artificially) should use only sugar.
This is the time of year to look for it.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Seerialmom
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I wish I could find soda with "sugar" in it; very few do
> > anymore...instead it's the HFCS (another dead horse that's been beaten
>
> Coca-Cola that is "Kosher for Passover" will have cane sugar
> and no corn syrup of any kind. They put a different color cap
> on it. Should be available right now, if you hurry.
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
I saw them at Costco I believe. Only one problem I have with it..it's
Coca-Cola and not Pepsi :p But I practice my own method of limiting
how much HFCS I get in my Pepsi by only drinking 1 - 8oz can a day
with lots of ice (5 days a week...tops). Jones Cola also has
sugar...but dang...way too expensive and sold mostly at Cost Plus.
SMS
It's interesting that the KFP Coca-Cola says "sucrose" not cane sugar,
but the Mexican Coca-Cola sold at Costco says "sugar" on the bottle, but
the sign in the store says "cane sugar." It's possible that the sucrose
in the KFP Coca-Cola is from sugar beets, not sugar cane. Why wouldn't
they say that it was cane sugar if it was cane sugar? Maybe it's some
political or marketing reason.
I did a blind taste test between the Mexican Coca-Cola and the KFP
Coca-Cola. There is definitely a difference, as I was able to pick out
the Mexican Coca-Cola every time, but this could be because of the
quantity of sweetener, not the type of sweetener. I wanted to do a taste
test between HFCS Coca-Cola as well, but I never buy the stuff, but
yesterday they had 2 liters of HFCS for 75¢ so I bought a bottle, and
will try this when I have a large group of people over.
Seerialmom
wrote:
That's one of my definite weaknesses; fresh "Dutch Crust" bread with
butter. But it's only bought when it's on sale (reminds me, I keep
telling myself to look for a recipe, bread isn't that hard to make
from scratch).
Rod Speed
> aspasia wrote:
>> Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by influential
>> agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states, shoveling out their
>> contributions to our beloved Congress-whores. They did not care what
>> ripple effects this would create in the Third World, where people are
>> now starving. Effects even felt in our neighbor to the South, where
>> the price of corn went through the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- a
>> standard food, like wheat bread in the States.
> There has never been a famine in a democracy.
Wrong.
>> Nobody bothered to check with knowledgeable scientists as to the
>> state of ethanol fuel technology . Not that it would have deterred
>> the cynical profiteers if they *had* run the science. (Incidentally,
>> there are so many crops that would be far better, with less
>> downside, for fuel technology, leading off with marijuana's little
>> cousin, hemp. It grows on any soil, reseeds itself, costs virtually
>> nothing to produce. Even Brazil, that was using sugar cane waste, is
>> reconsidering the technology.)
> Many do not check with reputable scientists.
> Current technology does not favor "grass" type crops, including hemp, 'switch-grass' and others. The problem is the
> enormous cost of transporting the raw materials to the processing plant.
Have fun explaining how come sugar cane works fine.
> Corn is easy: high density material in little kernals. Note they don't try to make ethanol out of the corn STALKS.
They dont with drinkable ethanol either.
> The sugar cane conversion in Brazil works because the cane stalks are waste from the sugar extraction;
Wrong. The ethanol comes from the sugar, not the waste.
> the raw material is already concentrated in one place.
Its still a grass type crop.
> The basic problem is not ethanol, the problem is enviornmentalism.
> Consider: most of our electric power and all of our transportation
> energy derives from oil and gas.
Only in countrys that dont use nukes.
> Yet the air is cleaner today than it's ever been - even cleaner than before electricity (when people burned wood for
> heating). But we've got this aversion to oil exploration, production, and refining.
Nope, thats been done so extensively for so long now that the
easiest to find oil has been found and quite a bit of it consumed.
> Go figure.
Not possible when you mangle the basics so comprehensively.
sam
Pig ignorant lie. There is no meat in the hog fattening diet. No veg either.
> Yeah, eating grain is good for you. Right. That's why so many Americans are orca fat.
Nope, the problem is the amount of it they shovel into their mouths, not the detail of the form its in.
Kurt Ullman
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > aspasia wrote:
>
> >> Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by influential
> >> agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states, shoveling out their
> >> contributions to our beloved Congress-whores. They did not care what
> >> ripple effects this would create in the Third World, where people are
> >> now starving. Effects even felt in our neighbor to the South, where
> >> the price of corn went through the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- a
> >> standard food, like wheat bread in the States.
>
> > There has never been a famine in a democracy.
>
> Wrong.
Name one, if you would be so kind. I can't think of any.
Dave Bugg
He'll probably try to pull out the Oklahoma Dustbowl as an example.
<snicker>
--
Dave www.davebbq.com
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan
mkir...@rochester.rr.com
> The per usual republicrat farm socialism has created food supply
> chaos, subsidized corn for ethanol fuel has crowded out other food
> crops, speculators abroad have taken their bales of dollarpesos and
> bought out our wheat supplies so that we'll have to re-import at a
> higher price. Gov't. has paid southeast Texas farmers to raise
> livestock instead of rice, now Sam's Club and Costco are rationing it.
> So I tossed the ornamental plants and have planted corn, beans,
> peppers, and tomatoes, maybe carrots next. I recommend others do the
> same this season in their backyards if they have them. I don't think
> there will be acute food shortages this year in the USA, but grocery
> prices are high and getting higher. It will also save the fossile fuel
> to get it from the farm to your table. I would raise meat but codes in
> my 'burb won't allow it.
Grocery prices are "high?" We've got the cheapest food supply in the
world, and a long way to go before that's no longer true.
Everywhere else in the world food, fuel, and taxes eat up most of a
family's income. Here we whine and cry about how food is sooooo
expensive when we have to pay 25 cents more for a gallon of milk.
My father has spent his entire life dirt poor working his ass off on a
farm to provide you with that cheap food. My mother has spent the last
35 years dirt poor and has worked herself almost to death to provide
you with that cheap food. My brother and sister grew up dirt poor
working their asses off on the farm to provide you with that cheap
food. I grew up dirt poor working my ass off on the farm to provide
you with that cheap food.
You make me sick.
Dave Bugg
> On Apr 24, 3:34 am, jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The per usual republicrat farm socialism has created food supply
>> chaos, subsidized corn for ethanol fuel has crowded out other food
>> crops, speculators abroad have taken their bales of dollarpesos and
>> bought out our wheat supplies so that we'll have to re-import at a
>> higher price. Gov't. has paid southeast Texas farmers to raise
>> livestock instead of rice, now Sam's Club and Costco are rationing
>> it. So I tossed the ornamental plants and have planted corn, beans,
>> peppers, and tomatoes, maybe carrots next. I recommend others do the
>> same this season in their backyards if they have them. I don't think
>> there will be acute food shortages this year in the USA, but grocery
>> prices are high and getting higher. It will also save the fossile
>> fuel to get it from the farm to your table. I would raise meat but
>> codes in my 'burb won't allow it.
>
> Grocery prices are "high?"
Yes, and getting higher.
> We've got the cheapest food supply in the world, and a long way to go
> before that's no longer true.
That's only a reasonable argument if we lived elsewhere in the world. We
don't. We live in America and our life-style and econmics are based in
America.
> Everywhere else in the world food, fuel, and taxes eat up most of a
> family's income. Here we whine and cry about how food is sooooo
> expensive when we have to pay 25 cents more for a gallon of milk.
Already addressed above.
> My father has spent his entire life dirt poor working his ass off on a
> farm to provide you with that cheap food. My mother has spent the last
> 35 years dirt poor and has worked herself almost to death to provide
> you with that cheap food. My brother and sister grew up dirt poor
> working their asses off on the farm to provide you with that cheap
> food. I grew up dirt poor working my ass off on the farm to provide
> you with that cheap food.
Every night at supper, part of the Thanks I offer is for those who grow our
food. However, unless you live in China, you and your family are not
required to farm; you have made that choice. The fact that you choose to
make your living growing food is yours alone. The orchardists and wheat
farmers in my area don't spend a whole lot of time feeling sorry for
themselves or complaining about the row they've chosen to hoe.
> You make me sick.
It's from ulcers. You need a new line of work.
HeyBub
>
>> There has never been a famine in a democracy.
>
> Wrong.
"Mr. Sen is famous for his assertion that famines do not occur in
democracies. "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in
a functioning democracy," he wrote in 'Democracy as Freedom'. " For this
sort of thinking, Amartya Kumar Sen was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in
Economics.
If you have an alternative to the assertion, please share it with us. Until
then, we'll assume you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>>> Nobody bothered to check with knowledgeable scientists as to the
>>> state of ethanol fuel technology . Not that it would have deterred
>>> the cynical profiteers if they *had* run the science. (Incidentally,
>>> there are so many crops that would be far better, with less
>>> downside, for fuel technology, leading off with marijuana's little
>>> cousin, hemp. It grows on any soil, reseeds itself, costs virtually
>>> nothing to produce. Even Brazil, that was using sugar cane waste, is
>>> reconsidering the technology.)
>
>> Many do not check with reputable scientists.
>
>> Current technology does not favor "grass" type crops, including
>> hemp, 'switch-grass' and others. The problem is the enormous cost of
>> transporting the raw materials to the processing plant.
>
> Have fun explaining how come sugar cane works fine.
Sugar cane is not a "grass" type crop - Duh!
>
>> The sugar cane conversion in Brazil works because the cane stalks
>> are waste from the sugar extraction;
>
> Wrong. The ethanol comes from the sugar, not the waste.
My mistake. You are correct in this one instance. They could probably do as
well with beets.
>
>> The basic problem is not ethanol, the problem is enviornmentalism.
>> Consider: most of our electric power and all of our transportation
>> energy derives from oil and gas.
>
> Only in countrys that dont use nukes.
There's a new measure of energy: the CMO (Cubic Mile of Oil). Right now, the
earth uses about 3 CMOs worth of energy per year. This is distributed as
follows:
Oil - 1.06 CMOs
Coal - 0.81 CMO
Gas - 0.61 CMO
Biomass (burning wood, ethanol, etc.) - 0.19 CMO
Hydroelectric - 0.17 CMO
Nuclear - 0.15 CMO
As you can see, hydrocarbons account for 2.48 CMOs, Nuclear for a tiny
fraction, probably even less than the use of charcoal.
You'd have to build one 900MW reactor per week for 50 years to generate the
energy contained in one CMO.
http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9928068-54.html?tag=ne.fd.mnbc
>
>> Yet the air is cleaner today than it's ever been - even cleaner than
>> before electricity (when people burned wood for heating). But we've
>> got this aversion to oil exploration, production, and refining.
>
> Nope, thats been done so extensively for so long now that the
> easiest to find oil has been found and quite a bit of it consumed.
Heh! Ronald Reagan said that those who say there are no simple solutions
have just not tried hard enough. Do you realize that over 40% of our
offshore potential can't even be explored or tested?
>
>> Go figure.
>
> Not possible when you mangle the basics so comprehensively.
Please enlighten us. I spent a number of years working in geophysical
exploration and production* and, while my knowledge is admittedly not up to
date, it is based on some experience.
-------
* Lab years involving the origin and migration of petroleum at the largest
laboratory for the world's largest oil company. Then a number of years for
the nation's largest exploration company.
Dave Bugg
> Please enlighten us. I spent a number of years working in geophysical
> exploration and production* and, while my knowledge is admittedly not
> up to date, it is based on some experience.
>
> -------
> * Lab years involving the origin and migration of petroleum at the
> largest laboratory for the world's largest oil company. Then a number
> of years for the nation's largest exploration company.
That's just not fair and probably a right-wing conspiracy set-up to boot.
Actual knowledge of the topic isn't allowed. There must be a Godwin rule for
this type of netiquette breach.... or something.
annezie
I went and got some more plants today.
About high prices: I have noticed that bread is a lot higher too. At
least a dollar more per loaf here in Kentucky, which to me is a lot. I
heard on TV that there was also a grain shortage. And in other
countries people spend up to 80% of their takehome pay on food, and
now food prices are rising a LOT.
It's a perfect time to plant -- and you can get seeds for crops such
as zucchini and peas that are great foods and economical.
Do you have enough space? Do you get a lot of sun?
About raising meat: are you sure you can't raise rabbits or chickens?
You may want to check around your area to find farmers that can sell
you meat at a good price that is from their farm. Around here, there
are a few that do that.
ES
On Apr 24, 2:34 am, jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The per usual republicrat farm socialism has created food supply
> chaos, subsidized corn for ethanol fuel has crowded out other food
> crops, speculators abroad have taken their bales of dollarpesos and
> bought out our wheat supplies so that we'll have to re-import at a
> higher price.>
<snipped>
Frank
>>> The low carb craze has increased grain demands by increasing demand
>>> for livestock. Ethanol demand came in time to rescue grain farmers
>>> from the decline of the low carb craze.
>
>> Wow. Eating a healthy diet is now a "craze"? You are aware that the hog
>> fattening diet is exactly the same as the USDA's food pyramid except for
>> one more serving of grain, right?
>
> Pig ignorant lie. There is no meat in the hog fattening diet. No veg
> either.
>
When farmers recycle the meat waste product back into the animal feed the
consequence was mad cow disease. What do they do with the meat waste
products now?
>> Yeah, eating grain is good for you. Right. That's why so many Americans
>> are orca fat.
>
> Nope, the problem is the amount of it they shovel into their mouths, not
> the detail of the form its in.
>
I think its both quantity and quality. From what I understand, most of our
meat, beef for example, are exclusively corn fed. There is no natural corn,
only hybrid genetically altered and selected for high packing density, fast
growth, resist diseases and pesticides and various characteristics to suite
the farmer's need. This genetic corn has low nutritious value and results in
six times more bad cholesterol and fat than grass fed beef. It worries me
when super strong pesticides kill the toughest weeds but couldn't touch the
corn stocks. Further, chemicals, antibiotics and growth hormones are added
to the feed. At one time, don't know about now, Europeans and even starving
Africans refuse to accept corn for the US. Alls I know is Americans are
different when compared with decades ago to the present, relative of weight,
health and behavior and I think it has to do with our food source in some
way.
Rod Speed
>> Wrong.
Depends on what you call a democracy. They had some in ancient times in Greece etc.
There were some in India after independance too.
And the Irish Potato Famine etc too.
> I can't think of any.
Your problem.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote
>>> There has never been a famine in a democracy.
>> Wrong.
> "Mr. Sen is famous for his assertion that famines do not occur in
> democracies. "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the
> world in a functioning democracy," he wrote in 'Democracy as Freedom'."
He's just plain wrong.
> For this sort of thinking, Amartya Kumar Sen was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics.
Nope, not for that steaming turd he wasnt.
> If you have an alternative to the assertion, please share it with us.
Just did.
> Until then, we'll assume you don't know what you're talking about.
Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
>>>> Nobody bothered to check with knowledgeable scientists as to the
>>>> state of ethanol fuel technology . Not that it would have deterred
>>>> the cynical profiteers if they *had* run the science.
>>>> (Incidentally, there are so many crops that would be far better,
>>>> with less downside, for fuel technology, leading off with
>>>> marijuana's little cousin, hemp. It grows on any soil, reseeds
>>>> itself, costs virtually nothing to produce. Even Brazil, that was
>>>> using sugar cane waste, is reconsidering the technology.)
>>> Many do not check with reputable scientists.
>>> Current technology does not favor "grass" type crops, including
>>> hemp, 'switch-grass' and others. The problem is the enormous cost of transporting the raw materials to the
>>> processing plant.
>> Have fun explaining how come sugar cane works fine.
> Sugar cane is not a "grass" type crop
Corse it is.
> - Duh!
Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom with a line with -- on it by itself in front of it.
>>> The sugar cane conversion in Brazil works because the cane stalks are waste from the sugar extraction;
>> Wrong. The ethanol comes from the sugar, not the waste.
> My mistake. You are correct in this one instance.
In all of them, actually.
> They could probably do as well with beets.
Those dont grow that well in Brazil and are harder to harvest too.
>>> The basic problem is not ethanol, the problem is enviornmentalism.
>>> Consider: most of our electric power and all of our transportation
>>> energy derives from oil and gas.
>> Only in countrys that dont use nukes.
> There's a new measure of energy: the CMO (Cubic Mile of Oil). Right now, the earth uses about 3 CMOs worth of energy
> per year. This is distributed as follows:
> Oil - 1.06 CMOs
> Coal - 0.81 CMO
> Gas - 0.61 CMO
> Biomass (burning wood, ethanol, etc.) - 0.19 CMO
> Hydroelectric - 0.17 CMO
> Nuclear - 0.15 CMO
Irrelevant to the countrys that choose to use nukes
for the bulk of their electric power generation.
> As you can see, hydrocarbons account for 2.48 CMOs,
But oil and gas doesnt dominate electric power generation. You are wrong.
> Nuclear for a tiny fraction, probably even less than the use of charcoal.
Not in some countrys like France and Japan.
> You'd have to build one 900MW reactor per week for 50 years to generate the energy contained in one CMO.
> http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9928068-54.html?tag=ne.fd.mnbc
Go tell the frogs. Dont be too surprised when they laugh in your face.
>>> Yet the air is cleaner today than it's ever been - even cleaner than
>>> before electricity (when people burned wood for heating). But we've got this aversion to oil exploration,
>>> production, and refining.
>> Nope, thats been done so extensively for so long now that the
>> easiest to find oil has been found and quite a bit of it consumed.
> Heh! Ronald Reagan said that those who say there are no simple solutions have just not tried hard enough.
And he ended up with Alzhiemers. You're well along that line.
> Do you realize that over 40% of our offshore potential can't even be explored or tested?
That aint the easiest to find, stupid.
>>> Go figure.
>> Not possible when you mangle the basics so comprehensively.
> Please enlighten us.
Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
> I spent a number of years working in geophysical exploration and production*
And you completely mangled that claim about oil and gas and electricity generation.
> and, while my knowledge is admittedly not
> up to date, it is based on some experience.
Pity about what has happened between your ears since.
No surprise that they gave you the bums rush.
> -------
> * Lab years involving the origin and migration of petroleum at the largest laboratory for the world's largest oil
> company. Then a number of years for the nation's largest exploration company.
And then they came to their senses and gave you the bums rush, right out the door.
SMS
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> There has never been a famine in a democracy.
>> Wrong.
>
> "Mr. Sen is famous for his assertion that famines do not occur in
> democracies. "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in
> a functioning democracy," he wrote in 'Democracy as Freedom'. " For this
> sort of thinking, Amartya Kumar Sen was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in
> Economics.
Alas, that assertion has been proven wrong in at least two democracies.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> The low carb craze has increased grain demands by increasing
>>>> demand for livestock. Ethanol demand came in time to rescue grain farmers from the decline of the low carb craze.
>>> Wow. Eating a healthy diet is now a "craze"? You are aware that the hog fattening diet is exactly the same as the
>>> USDA's food pyramid except for one more serving of grain, right?
>> Pig ignorant lie. There is no meat in the hog fattening diet. No veg either.
> When farmers recycle the meat waste product back into the animal feed the consequence was mad cow disease.
Thats not how mad cow disease was produced. It came from
the use of scrapie infected sheep meat used in the feed for cows,
and that only happened in a few countrys, it wasnt universal.
Some countrys never did get any mad cow disease.
> What do they do with the meat waste products now?
They dont let scrapie or mad cow infected meat get into the food chain anymore.
In the case of Papua and NewGuinea natives, they stopped them eating their relatives.
>>> Yeah, eating grain is good for you. Right. That's why so many Americans are orca fat.
>> Nope, the problem is the amount of it they shovel into their mouths, not the detail of the form its in.
> I think its both quantity and quality.
You're wrong. They ate plenty of grain in the days before the
epidemic of gross obesity. The problem is how much of it you
shovel into your mouth compared with how many calories you burn.
> From what I understand, most of our meat, beef for example, are exclusively corn fed.
Thats just plain wrong.
> There is no natural corn, only hybrid genetically altered
That last is just plain wrong too. And plant breeding
is what produced modern wheats and rice too.
> and selected for high packing density, fast growth, resist diseases and pesticides and various characteristics to
> suite the farmer's need.
Just like with all the grain crops too.
> This genetic corn has low nutritious value
Wrong. Its used because it has a HIGH nutritious value.
> and results in six times more bad cholesterol and fat than grass fed beef.
That number is plucked out of someone's arse.
> It worries me when super strong pesticides kill the toughest weeds
No they dont, thats weedicides.
> but couldn't touch the corn stocks.
Thats wrong too.
> Further, chemicals, antibiotics and growth hormones are added to the feed.
Wrong again with growth hormones.
> At one time, don't know about now, Europeans and even starving Africans refuse to accept corn for the US.
Yes, there are some fools that refused to eat any GM food.
Plenty of with a clue are happy to eat some GM food.
And everyone eats food thats the result of centurys of plant breeding which is
all about genetics, because there isnt any other kind except wild game and fish.
> Alls I know is Americans are different when compared with decades ago to the present, relative of weight, health and
> behavior
So is every other country on earth.
> and I think it has to do with our food source in some way.
You're wrong. And every other modern first world country has got
the same obesity result that americans have, for the same reason.
Plenty of the third world countrys too, most obviously with pacific islanders etc.
Rod Speed
> On Apr 24, 3:34 am, jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The per usual republicrat farm socialism has created food supply
>> chaos, subsidized corn for ethanol fuel has crowded out other food
>> crops, speculators abroad have taken their bales of dollarpesos and
>> bought out our wheat supplies so that we'll have to re-import at a
>> higher price. Gov't. has paid southeast Texas farmers to raise
>> livestock instead of rice, now Sam's Club and Costco are rationing
>> it. So I tossed the ornamental plants and have planted corn, beans,
>> peppers, and tomatoes, maybe carrots next. I recommend others do the
>> same this season in their backyards if they have them. I don't think
>> there will be acute food shortages this year in the USA, but grocery
>> prices are high and getting higher. It will also save the fossile
>> fuel to get it from the farm to your table. I would raise meat but
>> codes in my 'burb won't allow it.
> Grocery prices are "high?" We've got the cheapest food supply
> in the world, and a long way to go before that's no longer true.
True.
> Everywhere else in the world food, fuel, and taxes eat up most of a family's income.
Nope, that doesnt happen in any other first world
country and none of the second world countrys either.
It isnt even true of much of the third world either.
> Here we whine and cry about how food is sooooo expensive
> when we have to pay 25 cents more for a gallon of milk.
> My father has spent his entire life dirt poor working his
> ass off on a farm to provide you with that cheap food.
If he's dirt poor, he's doing it wrong.
> My mother has spent the last 35 years dirt poor and has worked
> herself almost to death to provide you with that cheap food.
If she's dirt poor, she's doing it wrong.
> My brother and sister grew up dirt poor working their
> asses off on the farm to provide you with that cheap
> food. I grew up dirt poor working my ass off on the
> farm to provide you with that cheap food.
The problem is clearly in the genes.
> You make me sick.
Your problem.
Rod Speed
>>> Wrong.
And Japan after it lost WW2 and was returned to a democracy by the Allies too.
h
"Cindy Hamilton" <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cc53294-5dca-4986...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 24, 2:57 pm, <h> wrote:
> But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
> corn,
> and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't imagine that
> stuff fed to anything but livestock.
>>Of course. What ivory tower do you live in? Carbohydrates are the
>>staple
>>food of millions of Americans.
Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.
Don Klipstein
>>>corn,
>>>and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't imagine that
>>>stuff fed to anything but livestock.
>>
>> livestock. Ethanol demand came in time to rescue grain farmers from the
>> decline of the low carb craze.
>
>Wow. Eating a healthy diet is now a "craze"? You are aware that the hog
>fattening diet is exactly the same as the USDA's food pyramid except for one
>That's why so many Americans are orca fat.
Hogs get fat from high calorie intake. Keep in mind that when the low
carb craze was expanding, America's waistlines and diabetes rates
continued expanding.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>
>"Norminn" <nor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:VvKdnV_2qoq3L4zV...@earthlink.com...
>> clipped
>>
>>>>>But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
>>>>>corn,
>>>>>and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't imagine
>>>>>that
>>>>>stuff fed to anything but livestock.
>>>>>
>>>> The low carb craze has increased grain demands by increasing demand for
>>>>livestock. Ethanol demand came in time to rescue grain farmers from the
>>>>decline of the low carb craze.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wow. Eating a healthy diet is now a "craze"? You are aware that the hog
>>>fattening diet is exactly the same as the USDA's food pyramid except for
>>>one more serving of grain, right? Yeah, eating grain is good for you.
>>>Right. That's why so many Americans are orca fat.
>> "low carb" fad. All I know is that
>> carbs have a little more than half the calories, per gram, that fats. If
>> I want a plate full of food, then my
>> reasoning is carbs are better than fat. Of course, plenty of veggies. I
>> hear about people who have tried
>> every diet craze and still "can't" lose weight. I call them "tasters".
>> Pure bunk. They must think their
>> energy stores are some kind of nuclear reactor that keeps turning without
>> burning up the fuel. When
>> I decided to lose weight, I quit eating butter and gravy. Never loaded up
>> on the stuff, but I lost 40
>> pounds without doing anything else. The fat people I know keep a bag of
>> Oreo's and a liter of pop
>> next to their chairs at all times.
>
>Carbs are sugar,
Many are starch.
>and that's absolutely terrible for most people. Unless you are very
>active, you will not use up all the carbs and then store the excess
>as fat.
That is true of all forms of calories.
> If you eat predominately protein and fat you become a fat burning
>machine instead of a sugar burning machine, which is better for your body.
More work on the liver and kidneys. And muscles burn sugar more readily
than anything else.
>Also, you don't experience the highs and lows of the sugar rush.
I eat most of my calories from starch and I don't suffer sugar highs and
lows.
> The only carbs I eat are veggies and fruit, and I only eat the
>lower-carb ones. And the idea of drinking any beverage with sugar in it
>just amazes me. I can't quite comprehend how anyone can eat pre-packaged,
>processed food. How hard is it to make a salad and broil some chicken,
>meat or fish?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Seerialmom wrote:
>I wish I could find soda with "sugar" in it; very few do
>anymore...instead it's the HFCS (another dead horse that's been beaten
>into the ground) which is worse.
HFCS is usually 55% fructose 45% glucose. Sucrose is half fructose half
glucose. I don't think the difference is great.
But soda in Canada usually has sucrose - they don't boycott Cuba so
sugar is cheaper in Canada.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Our beef would be about the same even if the corn was "older tech"
corn - just more expensive from the corn being more expensive. Beef from
cattle grown largely standing still on feedlots is different and a lot
fattier than beef from cattle that lived on grazing land and had to walk
and run a lot.
Americans are different from decades ago by getting a lot less exercise,
and eating more of everything, with a notable exception of veggies.
Americans consume especially more fast food, junk food and soda than
before. And trans fats have been used a lot mainly during and after the
second half of the 20th century.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Then how does that explain America continuing to get fatter when the low
carb craze came in, and low carbers failing to lose weight as much as
everyone else? And most of the few skinny Americans eating at Old
Country Buffet having their calorie intake mainly from carbs?
And overweightness increasing in Japan when the diet there gained fat
and protein content, especially fat content? What about the diets and
overweightness rates in India and China?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
annezie wrote:
>I think growing a garden is the smart thing to do this year.
>
>I went and got some more plants today.
>
>About high prices: I have noticed that bread is a lot higher too. At
>least a dollar more per loaf here in Kentucky, which to me is a lot.
Even at today's high prices, the wheat in a loaf of bread costs about
20 cents or somewhat less.
If I understand right, wheat prices at the Chicago Board of Trade most
recently went for $8-$8.09 per bushel. (The price peaked in late
February, a bit over $12 at Chicago Board of Trade and about $17 at
Minneapolis Board of Trade IIUC.)
A bushel of wheat weighs 60 pounds. That has wheat costing about 8.3
cents per pound. A loaf of bread usually weighs 22-24 ounces, including
some added water.
I would encourange gardening to combat the inflation in whatever/whoever
is increasing the size of their slices of the pie.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Phred
>Rod Speed wrote:
>>"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>> Current technology does not favor "grass" type crops, including
>>> hemp, 'switch-grass' and others. The problem is the enormous cost of
>>> transporting the raw materials to the processing plant.
>>
>> Have fun explaining how come sugar cane works fine.
>
>Sugar cane is not a "grass" type crop - Duh!
Hey Bub, I'm afraid you've left me a bit confused. Sugar cane is a
grass, so I don't see what you're getting at here.
On the other hand hemp is *not* a grass, nor even a ' "grass" type'.
It's a dicot; grasses are monocots. Pretty fundamental difference.
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Kurt Ullman
" Frank" <nore...@nothome.net> wrote:
> When farmers recycle the meat waste product back into the animal feed the
> consequence was mad cow disease. What do they do with the meat waste
> products now?
>
Brain and spinal cord (hardly all meat waste) is what causes problems
with mad cow.
>
> six times more bad cholesterol and fat than grass fed beef. It worries me
> when super strong pesticides kill the toughest weeds but couldn't touch the
> corn stocks.
Why? Pesticides interfere with certain processes going on in weeds
that aren't going in corn stocks. You get upset when strong pesticides
kill the toughest weeds but leave your lawn grass alone. You worried
about how antibiotics kill the toughest germs but leave you alive? Same
principle.
Kurt Ullman
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't think of any.
>
> Your problem.
From your reply apparently the same one you have. I loved the late
inclusion of the "depends".
Kurt Ullman
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> Hogs get fat from high calorie intake. Keep in mind that when the low
> carb craze was expanding, America's waistlines and diabetes rates
> continued expanding.
>
But that is a function of market share than anything else. The low
carb "craze" still did not come close to involving even a plurality of
the entire citizenry or even large minority. Never have seen a
study/survey, etc., indicating that more than 20% or so of obese (or
even just overweight)) Americans were on ANY diet. So, the amount of
newsprint generated by a diet, doesn't really have any correlation with
how many people are on it.
HeyBub
>
>> "Mr. Sen is famous for his assertion that famines do not occur in
>> democracies. "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the
>> world in a functioning democracy," he wrote in 'Democracy as
>> Freedom'."
>
> He's just plain wrong.
>
>> For this sort of thinking, Amartya Kumar Sen was awarded the 1998
>> Nobel Prize in Economics.
>
> Nope, not for that steaming turd he wasnt.
Uh, yes. For exactly that:
"Amartya Kumar Sen is an economist best known for his work on famine, Human
development theory, welfare economics, and the underlying causes of poverty
and hunger. When the world was talking of free market economy, Prof. Sen
emphasised the need for giving a human face to development. Amartya Sen is
one of those few economists who talk of political economy of hunger. He
received the ... Noble prize for economics... for his work in mathematical
economics in 1998."
>
>> If you have an alternative to the assertion, please share it with us.
>
> Just did.
Okay, show us a famine that has ever taken place in the history of the world
in a functioning democracy. There have been food shortages in democracies,
true. There may have even been widespread hunger. But never a famine.
The ball's in your court. Instead of flatly denying what many can
demonstrate as an obvious truth, show us an example.
Just one.
>
>> As you can see, hydrocarbons account for 2.48 CMOs,
>
> But oil and gas doesnt dominate electric power generation. You are
> wrong.
I said "hydrocarbons."
Electric power generation in the United States by source:
Coal - 50%
Natural gas - 18%
Oil - 3%
Total hydrocarbons - 71%
Nuclear - 20%
Hydropower - 7%
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=360
>
>> Nuclear for a tiny fraction, probably even less than the use of
>> charcoal.
>
> Not in some countrys like France and Japan.
France generates 78% of its electricity from nuclear.
Japan is a little different (Japan alone accounts for half of Australia's
coal exports)
Coal - 19%
Oil - 18%
Natural gas - 20%
Total hydrocarbon - 57%
Nuclear - 32%
Both France and Japan have substantial generation capability using nuclear
energy.
>
>> Heh! Ronald Reagan said that those who say there are no simple
>> solutions have just not tried hard enough.
>
> And he ended up with Alzhiemers. You're well along that line.
Can't find fault with the message, so attack the messenger. Such
argumentation techniques demonstrate the paucity of arguments.
>
>> Do you realize that over 40% of our offshore potential can't even be
>> explored or tested?
>
> That aint the easiest to find, stupid.
You're correct. The "easiest" to find is that which seeps out of the ground
as in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859 or the La Brea Tar Pits today, or
where seams of coal break the surface. Offshore exploration is, however,
almost trivial. The company I worked for, Western Geophysical, was selling
offshore seismic survey results at $20/mile in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course
that was back when $20 was a lot of money - they're probably charging $30
today.
>
> And you completely mangled that claim about oil and gas and
> electricity generation.
I never said "oil and gas." I said "hydrocarbons." Hydrocarbons account for
83% of the world's energy use (not just electricity) - 71% in the U.S.
I may no longer be in the oil bidness (as we say in Texas), but I remember
the difference between "hydrocarbons" and "oil and gas."
HeyBub
>
> I would encourange gardening to combat the inflation in
> whatever/whoever is increasing the size of their slices of the pie.
>
>
Gardening works if it attracts rabbits.
Remember, vegetables are not food; vegetables are what food eats.
h
It's not a "craze". It's been around forever. I stopped eating all grains in
my 20s, when I discovered my gluten sensitivity. If I ate wheat I got
asthma, if I didn't I was fine. I had already stopped eating most other
carbs because I would crash after eating them. I had never heard of "Atkins"
at the time. It was just healthy, proper eating. I'm now in my 50s and I
weigh the same as I did in my 20s. I've gained an inch or two since my
ballet dancer days, but muscle weighs more than fat, and I only exercise an
hour a day these days, so I'm not as fit as I was then. Still, I have more
energy than any carb guzzler half my age.
The type of calories DO matter, not just the amount. A 1,000 low carb
calorie diet of will cause anyone to lose weight, while a 1,000 high carb
calorie diet will cause most people to gain weight, exercising or not. Plus,
they'll be tired and feel hungry all the time.
Also, I have NEVER met someone who didn't lose a LOT of weight on any low
carb diet. The problem is that they go back to their "normal" diet of sugar
poison and gain it all back. Low carbing is something that should be done
for a lifetime, not just to dump some weight. If every type II diabetic cut
carbs from his or her diet today, most of them would be symptom free in a
few weeks. Fat doesn't make you fat. Sugar makes you fat.
Smitty Two
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
Sounds like my favorite bumper sticker: "If we're not supposed to eat
animals, why are they made of meat?"
SMS
> In article <5fSdnfr6-eZuy4_V...@earthlink.com>, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> In article <-cadne-FwOfHI4zV...@earthlink.com>,
>>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Current technology does not favor "grass" type crops, including
>>>> hemp, 'switch-grass' and others. The problem is the enormous cost of
>>>> transporting the raw materials to the processing plant.
>>> Have fun explaining how come sugar cane works fine.
>> Sugar cane is not a "grass" type crop - Duh!
>
> Hey Bub, I'm afraid you've left me a bit confused. Sugar cane is a
> grass, so I don't see what you're getting at here.
Yes, it is a grass, and it's also one of the most efficient photo
synthesizers. Plus, after the crushing, the remains can be used for a
variety of products from generating electricity, to making paper.
Dan Espen
> Okay, show us a famine that has ever taken place in the history of the world
> in a functioning democracy. There have been food shortages in democracies,
> true. There may have even been widespread hunger. But never a famine.
Wikipedia has a handy list of famines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
scanning the list I see there were famines in Belgium and Greece
during WW2.
There are a few Irish famines, and one in Scotland.
I'm pretty sure all those countries had some sort of benevolent
monarchy at the time which was the fashion until only recently.
Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.
I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.
The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
Democracies may lead to more peace but I think that's unproven.
We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.
Dean Hoffman
And the distillers grain and such left over from ethanol production
is feed for critters. The feed value isn't changed for ruminants like
cattle by the ethanol process.
Dean
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Rod Speed
> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote
>> Okay, show us a famine that has ever taken place in the
>> history of the world in a functioning democracy. There have
>> been food shortages in democracies, true. There may have
>> even been widespread hunger. But never a famine.
> Wikipedia has a handy list of famines:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
It does indeed.
A few obvious omissions tho, particularly Japan just after WW2
had ended when democracy had been imposed there by the allies.
And India after independance.
> scanning the list I see there were famines in Belgium and Greece during WW2.
Those werent arguably democracys at that time tho. Holland tool.
> There are a few Irish famines,
Yep, those are good examples of famines in a democracy.
> and one in Scotland.
That wasnt as extreme a famine as many of the others.
> I'm pretty sure all those countries had some sort of benevolent
> monarchy at the time which was the fashion until only recently.
They were also democracys, in spades with Japan after WW2.
> Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
There isnt really much alternative.
> Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.
Wrong, particularly with the first democracys in ancient greece etc.
> I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.
What was been discussed as clearly Sen's assertion
that there has never been a famine in a democracy.
He's clearly just plain wrong on that.
> The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
Not really. In most recent times its been more about effective plant breeding
thats eliminated the famines that arent the result of war. Effective plant
breeding has been going on for a hell of a lot more than just modern times.
> Democracies may lead to more peace
Even thats very arguable with WW1 and WW2 being mostly involving democracys.
> but I think that's unproven.
And Sen's claim that there has never been a famine in a democracy is clearly just plain wrong.
> We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.
Yep, in spades with WW1, WW2 and the cold war, and Vietnam etc.
Its certainly true that now that modern plant breeding and the transport of food to
areas affected by natural catastrophe, that its mostly areas where war or civil strife
is rampant that sees famine now, most obviously with the most recent famines.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> "Mr. Sen is famous for his assertion that famines do not occur in
>>> democracies. "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the
>>> world in a functioning democracy," he wrote in 'Democracy as Freedom'."
>> He's just plain wrong.
>>> For this sort of thinking, Amartya Kumar Sen was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics.
>> Nope, not for that steaming turd he wasnt.
> Uh, yes. For exactly that:
Nope, nothing like that particular steaming turd. He got his Nobel prize
for MATHEMATICAL ECONOMICS, and that particular steaming
turd of his has NOTHING to do with MATHEMATICAL economics.
> "Amartya Kumar Sen is an economist best known for his work on famine,
> Human development theory, welfare economics, and the underlying
> causes of poverty and hunger. When the world was talking of free
> market economy, Prof. Sen emphasised the need for giving a human face
> to development. Amartya Sen is one of those few economists who talk
> of political economy of hunger.
Irrelevant to what he got the Nobel Prize for.
> He received the ... Noble prize for economics... for his work in mathematical economics in 1998."
And that steaming turd at the top has nothing to do with MATHEMATICAL economics.
>>> If you have an alternative to the assertion, please share it with us.
>> Just did.
> Okay, show us a famine that has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy.
Just did, they had some in ancient times in Greece etc.
There were some in India after independance too.
And the Irish Potato Famine etc too.
And Japan after democracy had been imposed by the allies after WW2.
And Sen never said anything about a FUCNTIONING democracy,
thats you slithering off from the original claim, as you always do.
> There have been food shortages in democracies, true. There may have even been widespread hunger. But never a famine.
The Irish potato famine was a famine by any measure and is called a famine too.
> The ball's in your court.
Nope, yours.
> Instead of flatly denying what many can demonstrate as an obvious truth,
You're lying now.
> show us an example.
> Just one.
I showed you 4. Bullshit your way out of those.
>>> As you can see, hydrocarbons account for 2.48 CMOs,
>> But oil and gas doesnt dominate electric power generation. You are wrong.
> I said "hydrocarbons."
Says he carefully deleting what he actually did say from the quoting.
He's what you ACTUALLY said
>>>>> The basic problem is not ethanol, the problem is enviornmentalism.
>>>>> Consider: most of our electric power and all of our transportation
>>>>> energy derives from oil and gas.
You are a flagrantly dishonest pathological liar. You ACTUALLY said oil and gas, liar.
> Electric power generation in the United States by source:
> Coal - 50%
> Natural gas - 18%
> Oil - 3%
> Total hydrocarbons - 71%
> Nuclear - 20%
> Hydropower - 7%
> http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=360
Like I said, fuck all oil is involved in the generation of electricity in the US.
Even gas is only a minor contributor, less than nukes and some countrys
like France have grossly more generated by nukes than oil and gas combined.
>>> Nuclear for a tiny fraction, probably even less than the use of charcoal.
>> Not in some countrys like France and Japan.
> France generates 78% of its electricity from nuclear.
And fuck all from oil and gas, so your original claim, which you carefully
deleted from the quoting and I have restored is clearly just plain wrong.
> Japan is a little different (Japan alone accounts for half of Australia's coal exports)
Irrelevant since your stupid claim was about OIL AND GAS, not hydrocarbons.
> Coal - 19%
> Oil - 18%
> Natural gas - 20%
> Total hydrocarbon - 57%
> Nuclear - 32%
> Both France and Japan have substantial generation capability using nuclear energy.
What I said.
>>> Heh! Ronald Reagan said that those who say there are no simple solutions have just not tried hard enough.
>> And he ended up with Alzhiemers. You're well along that line.
> Can't find fault with the message,
You're lying, again. That claim is terminally stupid. There is no simple
solution to the world's consumption of crude oil, whatever that fool claimed.
> so attack the messenger.
You're no messenger, just a pathological liar.
> Such argumentation techniques demonstrate the paucity of arguments.
Your pathological lying in spades.
>>>>> Yet the air is cleaner today than it's ever been - even cleaner than before electricity (when people burned wood
>>>>> for heating). But we've got this aversion to oil exploration, production, and refining.
>>>> Nope, thats been done so extensively for so long now that the
>>>> easiest to find oil has been found and quite a bit of it consumed.
>>> Do you realize that over 40% of our offshore potential can't even be explored or tested?
>> That aint the easiest to find, stupid.
> You're correct. The "easiest" to find is that which seeps out of the ground as in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859 or
> the La Brea Tar Pits today, or where seams of coal break the surface. Offshore exploration is, however, almost
> trivial. The company I worked for, Western Geophysical, was selling offshore seismic survey results at $20/mile in the
> Gulf of Mexico. Of course that was back when $20 was a lot of money - they're probably charging $30 today.
The problem with offshore oil aint the exploration, its the cost of getting that oil out of the ground.
It makes a lot more sense to exploit onshore oil while its available.
>> And you completely mangled that claim about oil and gas and electricity generation.
> I never said "oil and gas." I said "hydrocarbons."
You're a pathological liar. Here is what you actually did say, liar.
>>>>> The basic problem is not ethanol, the problem is enviornmentalism.
>>>>> Consider: most of our electric power and all of our transportation
>>>>> energy derives from oil and gas.
How odd that you deleted that from the quoting.
> Hydrocarbons account for 83% of the world's energy use (not just electricity) - 71% in the U.S.
Irrelevant to your stupid claim about oil and gas in electricity generation just above.
> I may no longer be in the oil bidness (as we say in Texas), but I
> remember the difference between "hydrocarbons" and "oil and gas."
But your altzhiemers is now so bad that you cant even manage to remember what you actually
did say about electricity generation and have to lie about what you said just one over ago.
No wonder you got the bums rush, right out the door.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote
>>>>> aspasia wrote
>>>>>> Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by
>>>>>> influential agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states,
>>>>>> shoveling out their contributions to our beloved Congress-whores.
>>>>>> They did not care what ripple effects this would create in the
>>>>>> Third World, where people are now starving. Effects even felt in
>>>>>> our neighbor to the South, where the price of corn went through
>>>>>> the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- a standard food, like wheat
>>>>>> bread in the States.
>>>>> There has never been a famine in a democracy.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> Name one, if you would be so kind.
>> Depends on what you call a democracy. They had some in ancient times in Greece etc.
>> There were some in India after independance too.
>> And the Irish Potato Famine etc too.
>> And Japan after it lost WW2 and was returned to a democracy by the Allies too.
>>> I can't think of any.
>> Your problem.
> From your reply apparently the same one you have.
> I loved the late inclusion of the "depends".
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Address those named, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
h
"Smitty Two" <prest...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:prestwhich-545A7...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
EXACTLY! Carbs are what food eats.
HeyBub
>
> Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
> Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.
>
> I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.
The point is that famines are caused by political systems. In a functioning
democracy, food can be supplied by the central government. In other words, a
democratic government is the solution to difficulties caused by natural
disasters. In totalitarian governments, often the government is the cause of
the famine. For current examples, consider North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.
>
> The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
> Democracies may lead to more peace but I think that's unproven.
> We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.
North Korea and Zimbabwe are both at peace. Don't know about Zim, but North
Korea certainly has the capacity for modern industry - witness their nuclear
program.
habshi
out hundreds of millions will starve to death
Bumper boro crop: But what next?
Ahsan Mansur
BANGLADESH is at the threshold of a massive bumper boro crop. Reports
from all across the country point to a potential boro output well
above the ambitious government target of 17.5 million tons. This is
certainly the best news for the country and the government besieged by
the surge in rice price all across the globe and the danger of food
shortage.
The excellent outlook for boro also comes on the heels of bumper wheat
and potato crops. This outlook also poses important policy
opportunities and challenges for the government to reestablish our
agriculture policy on a sustainable footing, consistent with the
objectives of making Bangladesh self-sufficient in food, alleviating
social and political tensions arising from the high food prices, and
at the same time eliminating emerging fiscal imbalances.
This forthcoming record rice output is the result of farmers'
whole-hearted response to the terms-of-trade (TOT) shock in favour of
rice producers and the strengthened support provided by various
government agencies. The favorable TOT shift is the most that the
farmers have experienced anytime in recent history.
The price increase of Tk 12-15 per kg of rice observed in local
markets should create additional income of Tk 21,000-26,250 crores
($3-3.75 billion) for the farmers based on the official target for
boro. Since both acres brought under boro production and the yield per
acre are projected to be higher than their targets, the actual amount
of the increase in income from boro should be significantly higher. If
we add to his boro crop an average level of production of aman and
aus, Bangladesh should expect to achieve self-sufficiency in food
grain. With total output exceeding 30 million tons, the amount of
potential total additional income for the farmers would range between
Tk. 36,000-45,000 crores ($5.1-6.4 billion) or 8-10 percent of GDP in
a full year.
High food prices
Rod Speed
> As long as the oil is there food can be produced. Once it runs out
It wont ever 'run out', just get more expensive.
> hundreds of millions will starve to death
Not necessarily.
> Bumper boro crop: But what next?
> Ahsan Mansur
> BANGLADESH is at the threshold of a massive bumper boro crop.
> Reports from all across the country point to a potential boro output
> well above the ambitious government target of 17.5 million tons. This is
> certainly the best news for the country and the government besieged by
> the surge in rice price all across the globe and the danger of food shortage.
There is no danger of food shortage.
> The excellent outlook for boro also comes on the heels of bumper
> wheat and potato crops. This outlook also poses important policy
> opportunities and challenges for the government to reestablish our
> agriculture policy on a sustainable footing, consistent with the
> objectives of making Bangladesh self-sufficient in food, alleviating
> social and political tensions arising from the high food prices, and
> at the same time eliminating emerging fiscal imbalances.
You need to fix the problem of pumping out so many kids.
> This forthcoming record rice output is the result of farmers'
> whole-hearted response to the terms-of-trade (TOT) shock in favour
> of rice producers and the strengthened support provided by various
> government agencies. The favorable TOT shift is the most that the
> farmers have experienced anytime in recent history.
> The price increase of Tk 12-15 per kg of rice observed in local
> markets should create additional income of Tk 21,000-26,250 crores
> ($3-3.75 billion) for the farmers based on the official target for boro.
> Since both acres brought under boro production and the yield per
> acre are projected to be higher than their targets, the actual amount
> of the increase in income from boro should be significantly higher. If
> we add to his boro crop an average level of production of aman and
> aus, Bangladesh should expect to achieve self-sufficiency in food grain.
> With total output exceeding 30 million tons, the amount of potential total
> additional income for the farmers would range between Tk. 36,000-45,000
> crores ($5.1-6.4 billion) or 8-10 percent of GDP in a full year.
> High food prices
Looks like you had a premature ejaculation.
Rod Speed
> Dan Espen wrote
>> Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
>> Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.
>> I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.
> The point is that famines are caused by political systems.
Pigs arse they are. The vast bulk of them were caused by natural catastrophes like drought.
> In a functioning democracy, food can be supplied by the central government.
You dont need a democracy to do that.
> In other words, a democratic government is the solution to difficulties caused by natural disasters.
Different matter entirely to what the cause of the famine was.
> In totalitarian governments, often the government is the cause of the famine.
Nope, the natural disaster was.
> For current examples, consider North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.
There is no famine in Zimbabwe and we have seen some famines in democracys too.
>> The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
>> Democracies may lead to more peace but I think that's unproven.
>> We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.
> North Korea and Zimbabwe are both at peace. Don't know about Zim, but
> North Korea certainly has the capacity for modern industry - witness
> their nuclear program.
Irrelevant to what causes famine.
jtno...@yahoo.com
> In article <67etoeF1v1s8...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > aspasia wrote:
>
> > >> Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by influential
> > >> agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states, shoveling out their
> > >> contributions to our beloved Congress-whores. They did not care what
> > >> ripple effects this would create in the Third World, where people are
> > >> now starving. Effects even felt in our neighbor to the South, where
> > >> the price of corn went through the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- a
> > >> standard food, like wheat bread in the States.
>
> > > There has never been a famine in a democracy.
>
> > Wrong.
>
There haven't been that many democracies, historically speaking. Post-
colonial India has had some starving people from time to time, but
perhaps it is a stretch to call it a true democracy...And that doesn't
mean it can't happen.
Can we get back to the subject matter of the original post? How many
out there are planting garden crops this year?-Jitney
jtno...@yahoo.com
> In <ce35f13a-121c-4c6e-897c-c7407801b...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
On this and your earlier post on obesity, perhaps growing more of our
own food is part of the solution. Kids play videogames for hours
rather than fieldsports, and we drive our cars to the supermarket and
load up the food rather than planting, hoeing weeds, and harvesting
and preparing. If we do more of what earlier generations did, we will
start looking more like them. Even if we don't grow all of our own
food, we will appreciate more the work that goes into it. The greater
supply will lower the overall market demand, moderating prices. It
will also save some of the fuel used to carry the food from the field
to our table. As much corn as the US grows, it is much less acreage
and effort than goes into our lawns.-Jitney
Dan Espen
> Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>> Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
>> Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.
>>
>> I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.
>
> The point is that famines are caused by political systems.
Disagree. Look at the list again.
> In a functioning
> democracy, food can be supplied by the central government.
Governments don't supply food.
If there is no food you have a famine.
Theoretically a totalitarian government would have an
easier job of seizing food and giving it away.
> In other words, a
> democratic government is the solution to difficulties caused by natural
> disasters. In totalitarian governments, often the government is the cause of
> the famine. For current examples, consider North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.
No.
As a simple scan of the that list shows, famines are caused
by war, and natural disasters.
Zimbabwe and Sudan are no where near at peace.
North Korea has serious climate issues including floods.
Part of the NK problem is that they are still officially
at war with the South.
Both Zimbabwe and North Korea also have screwed up ECONOMIC
systems.
>> The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
>> Democracies may lead to more peace but I think that's unproven.
>> We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.
>
> North Korea and Zimbabwe are both at peace. Don't know about Zim, but North
> Korea certainly has the capacity for modern industry - witness their nuclear
> program.
Another leading cause of famine, too many people.
Democracies are helpless when it comes to controlling population.
I still don't see the point.
I'd rather live in a democracy than the opposite
but it's not because I'm worried about a famine.
Rod Speed
> On Apr 25, 10:20 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>> In
>> <ce35f13a-121c-4c6e-897c-c7407801b...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> annezie wrote:
>>> I think growing a garden is the smart thing to do this year.
>>
>>> I went and got some more plants today.
>>
>>> About high prices: I have noticed that bread is a lot higher too. At
>>> least a dollar more per loaf here in Kentucky, which to me is a lot.
>>
>> Even at today's high prices, the wheat in a loaf of bread costs about
>> 20 cents or somewhat less.
>>
>> If I understand right, wheat prices at the Chicago Board of Trade
>> most recently went for $8-$8.09 per bushel. (The price peaked in late
>> February, a bit over $12 at Chicago Board of Trade and about $17 at
>> Minneapolis Board of Trade IIUC.)
>>
>> A bushel of wheat weighs 60 pounds. That has wheat costing about 8.3
>> cents per pound. A loaf of bread usually weighs 22-24 ounces,
>> including some added water.
>>
>> I would encourange gardening to combat the inflation in
>> whatever/whoever is increasing the size of their slices of the pie.
> On this and your earlier post on obesity, perhaps
> growing more of our own food is part of the solution.
Nope.
> Kids play videogames for hours rather than fieldsports,
Plenty still play various sports.
> and we drive our cars to the supermarket and load up the food
> rather than planting, hoeing weeds, and harvesting and preparing.
Those are a pretty minor energy user with the usual home garden.
> If we do more of what earlier generations
> did, we will start looking more like them.
Nope, the food we eat is very different for starters.
> Even if we don't grow all of our own food, we
> will appreciate more the work that goes into it.
Nope, not when the vast bulk of the food we eat comes from industrialised agriculturer now.
> The greater supply will lower the overall market demand, moderating prices.
Pure fantasy. The prices that most howl about cant be produced at home.
> It will also save some of the fuel used to carry the food from the field to our table.
Such a trivial part of that that its irrelevant.
> As much corn as the US grows, it is much less
> acreage and effort than goes into our lawns.
But we dont put that much effort into that now, we use machines to do most of that now.
Rod Speed
>>> Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
>>> Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.
>>> I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.
>> The point is that famines are caused by political systems.
> Disagree. Look at the list again.
>> In a functioning democracy, food can be supplied by the central government.
> Governments don't supply food.
Yes they do, most obviously when first world govts supply food to the third world when there is a famine.
> If there is no food you have a famine.
There is always food somewhere.
> Theoretically a totalitarian government would have
> an easier job of seizing food and giving it away.
In practice they hardly ever bother to do that.
>> In other words, a democratic government is the solution
>> to difficulties caused by natural disasters. In totalitarian
>> governments, often the government is the cause of the famine.
>> For current examples, consider North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.
> No.
> As a simple scan of the that list shows, famines
> are caused by war, and natural disasters.
> Zimbabwe and Sudan are no where near at peace.
> North Korea has serious climate issues including floods.
Mainly the problem was drought and a political system that didnt allow
the usual thing done during drought, import what food is lacking.
> Part of the NK problem is that they are still officially at war with the South.
Nope, that was irrelevant to the famine they experienced.
The problem as just a hopelessly inadequate political response to a nature disaster.
> Both Zimbabwe and North Korea also have screwed up ECONOMIC systems.
And Zimbabwe doesnt have a famine either.
>>> The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
>>> Democracies may lead to more peace but I think that's unproven.
>>> We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.
>> North Korea and Zimbabwe are both at peace. Don't know
>> about Zim, but North Korea certainly has the capacity
>> for modern industry - witness their nuclear program.
> Another leading cause of famine, too many people.
> Democracies are helpless when it comes to controlling population.
No they arent. The main mechanism for controlling population is a viable
democracy is a decent economy that controls population automatically
like has been seen in every single modern first world democracy.
> I still don't see the point.
We are discussing Sen's stupid claim that you dont get famine in any democracy.
> I'd rather live in a democracy than the opposite
> but it's not because I'm worried about a famine.
Irrelevant to what we are discussing.
Don Klipstein
>
>"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
>news:slrng15bg...@manx.misty.com...
>> In article <4811a037$0$30226$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, h wrote:
>>>
>>>"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slrng12a9...@manx.misty.com...
>>
>> carb craze was expanding, America's waistlines and diabetes rates
>> continued expanding.
>
>It's not a "craze". It's been around forever. I stopped eating all grains in
>my 20s, when I discovered my gluten sensitivity. If I ate wheat I got
>asthma, if I didn't I was fine. I had already stopped eating most other
>carbs because I would crash after eating them. I had never heard of "Atkins"
>at the time. It was just healthy, proper eating. I'm now in my 50s and I
>weigh the same as I did in my 20s. I've gained an inch or two since my
>ballet dancer days, but muscle weighs more than fat, and I only exercise an
>hour a day these days, so I'm not as fit as I was then. Still, I have more
>energy than any carb guzzler half my age.
>
>The type of calories DO matter, not just the amount. A 1,000 low carb
>calorie diet of will cause anyone to lose weight, while a 1,000 high carb
>calorie diet will cause most people to gain weight, exercising or not. Plus,
>they'll be tired and feel hungry all the time.
I would call a liar anyone who says that an adult can gain weight in fat
from 1,000 calories a day.
Also, if I eat 1500 calories in a day or less, I have high incidence of
feeling tired and hungry and get slowed down on my bike no matter what
form the calories are, though worse with less carb - been there, done
that, tried it!
>Also, I have NEVER met someone who didn't lose a LOT of weight on any low
>carb diet.
I have! Plenty! Coworkers, friends, relatives!
> The problem is that they go back to their "normal" diet of sugar
>poison and gain it all back.
Mostly they abandon low-carb after finding low-carb not working after
the first couple weeks once the body efficiently makes use of calories
mostly from fat or protein - or not working at all.
>Low carbing is something that should be done
>for a lifetime, not just to dump some weight. If every type II diabetic cut
>carbs from his or her diet today, most of them would be symptom free in a
>few weeks. Fat doesn't make you fat. Sugar makes you fat.
You avoid mentioning starch!
Meanwhile, I have a friend who made a major calorie intake cut after
having a heart attack, cutting mainly fat, after that alcohol, after that
minor cuts in protein and carbs, and his calorie intake intake is now high
majority carbs (was before half carb at most). He eats breakfast cereal
for a late afternoon snack in place of something fattier. He counts every
percentage point of "recommended daily intake" of fat and mostly stays
below half that - in part on advice of his cardiologist, but also because
that reduces calorie density bigtime.
He went from pudgy with a beer belly to nice and lean. His
triglycerides are now a little over half the upper limit of the good
range. His cardiologist has reduced the frequency of need for bloodwork
because that guy has the best numbers his cardiologist sees in any of his
patients. He even got good numbers when his late afternoon (or early
evening) snack bowl of cereal was Froot Loops.
He largely quit fattier meats and pizza, and he quit eating American
chinese takeout food (mostly having a fair amount of soybean oil - unlike
what is usually actually done in China).
His weekend restaurant fare shifted significantly towards buffet places
(pig out on veggies of all carb levels) and Subway (footlong no-cheese
subs with the lean meats). Or a steak place and get a smaller steak and
extra side veggies (including beans, whatever) and buttering his potato
very minimally.
He started walking daily, average of about 2 miles a day.
I credit his highly effective weight loss mostly to reduction of calorie
intake by cutting more where calorie density is higher.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Vic Smith
Klipstein) wrote:
>
> His weekend restaurant fare shifted significantly towards buffet places
>(pig out on veggies of all carb levels) and Subway (footlong no-cheese
>subs with the lean meats). Or a steak place and get a smaller steak and
>extra side veggies (including beans, whatever) and buttering his potato
>very minimally.
>
> He started walking daily, average of about 2 miles a day.
>
> I credit his highly effective weight loss mostly to reduction of calorie
>intake by cutting more where calorie density is higher.
>
Counting calories and walking some miles a day worked for me.
Nothing too complicated about it. Calorie cutting diets have been
around a long time and are very effective when done honestly.
Exercise accelerates weight loss and has other benefits.
Some of these weird diets - don't pay much attention to their names -
are plain silly. My dad was going on about a diet he was on where he
could eat all the eggs, bacon, pork roasts, etc he wanted.
Gimme a break! Of course that never worked.
I think my diet was 1200-1500 calories a day, and was basically small
portions of a well balanced diet. There was nothing I couldn't eat,
but common sense dictated certain foods worked better than others.
It takes some thought to set up a plan that you can live with.
After that it's just sticking to it. Didn't eat out at all except
when necessary, then just had a bit to eat. Nobody forces you to wolf
down a lot when you're dieting.
I had a bit of a splurge on Sundays, maybe an extra 500 calories, and
once a month all the pizza I could eat.
That kept me sane. I do love pizza.
My weight had gone up slowly over about 10 years after I started a
desk job, leading to the diet. Only took about 6 months to drop the
50 excess pounds. I think I just bought a cheap calorie counting book
and used that to set up my meals.
The experience gave me a good feel for the simple steps to lose weight
whenever I bump up a few too many pounds. And it's mostly plain and
simple don't eat so much.
I've been around a lot of overweight people and see it as a
psychological problem more than anything.
They just think about food all the time.
Some blame it on metabolism. That's bullshit.
--Vic
habshi
you get out of it , you have run out of oil
h
Starch IS sugar. You are just so wrong about all of it that I can't be
bothered to educate you. Plonk.
Phred
[snip]
>There haven't been that many democracies, historically speaking. Post-
>colonial India has had some starving people from time to time,
Back in the era of "starving millions" in the 1950s/60s India was
considered such a basket-case that even FAO had given up on it.
(Pakistan was in similar trouble, but it was seen as salvagable.)
India (and other countries in dire straits) were saved by the green
revolution of short straw/high harvest index grains.
>but perhaps it is a stretch to call it a true democracy...
They have an elected government. They have lively Opposition parties.
At least one Indian State (Kerala) has actually *elected* a Communist
government. (I think there may have been another more recently too,
up in the NE corner. But I wasn't paying enough attention at the time
so I'm not sure about that.)
How much more do they need to do to be a democracy? They're already
in front of the United States.
>.And that doesn't mean it can't happen.
> Can we get back to the subject matter of the original post? How many
>out there are planting garden crops this year?-Jitney
I have a plan. :-) Mind you, I had one last year too, but it didn't
come to much -- apart from feral cherry tomatoes, some chillies, and a
grafted eggplant, the harvest was pretty meagre.
The fruit crops do a lot better though, especially the mangoes and
passionfruit. The carambola and monsteras are pretty reliable too;
but the old-style custard apple is nearly stuffed now. And the
marvellous grapefruit that has been so prolific for many years looks
like it's succumbing to the dreaded basidiomycete _Phellinus noxius_
<http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=1007&sts=>
which has already killed off the nearby stand of pigeon pea. :-(
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Rod Speed
> Once it takes more oil energy to pump oil to the
> surface than you get out of it , you have run out of oil
Not necessarily, depends on what energy you use to do the pumping.
habshi
reserves would vanish within a decade
Rod Speed
>>> Once it takes more oil energy to pump oil to the
>>> surface than you get out of it , you have run out of oil
>> Not necessarily, depends on what energy you use to do the pumping.
> You could use nuclear energy to pump the oil but
> uranium reserves would vanish within a decade
Wrong. And there are breeder reactors even if that was true.
jtno...@yahoo.com
> >> habshi <hab...@anony.com> wrote
> >>> Once it takes more oil energy to pump oil to the
> >>> surface than you get out of it , you have run out of oil
> >> Not necessarily, depends on what energy you use to do the pumping.
> > You could use nuclear energy to pump the oil but
> > uranium reserves would vanish within a decade
>
> Wrong. And there are breeder reactors even if that was true.
And spent fuel reprocessing, MOX reactors, heavy water reactors that
can use depleted uranium, etc.-Jitney
Cindy Hamilton
> "Cindy Hamilton" <angelicapagane...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5cc53294-5dca-4986...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 2:57 pm, <h> wrote:
>
> > But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
> > corn,
> > and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't imagine that
> > stuff fed to anything but livestock.
> >>Of course. What ivory tower do you live in? Carbohydrates are the
> >>staple
> >>food of millions of Americans.
>
> Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.
They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn. There's
no
magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces swings in blood
sugar
that makes it difficult to control one's intake. Low-carb diets don't
enable
one to violate laws of physics.
Our recent ancestors lived mainly on carbohydrates, but their energy
expenditures were much higher than ours. Consequently, they were
less prone to obesity than we are.
Cindy Hamilton
Rod Speed
>>> But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
>>> corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't
>>> imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.
>>>> Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
>>>> Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.
>> Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.
> They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.
Correct.
> There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
> swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.
Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins particularly
does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.
> Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.
But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.
> Our recent ancestors lived mainly on carbohydrates, but
> their energy expenditures were much higher than ours.
> Consequently, they were less prone to obesity than we are.
Its more complicated than that too. Societys like the Japs that havent had
any higher energy expenditures than other modern first world countrys,
havent seen the same epidemic of obesity that the worlds of the modern
first world countrys have seen, even tho they do eat a rather high carb diet.
The real reason is that their consumption of western fast food is significantly
lower and they have much more of a clue about sensible portion sizes.
Don Klipstein
>Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> <h> wrote
>>> Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> <h> wrote
>
>>>> But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
>>>> corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't
>>>> imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.
>
>>>>> Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
>>>>> Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.
>
>>> Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.
>
>> They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.
>
>Correct.
>
>> There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
>> swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.
>
>Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins particularly
>does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.
>
>> Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.
>
>But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
>being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.
Calories expended to digest food become heat, which offsets need of the
body to burn calories to produce heat.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
>> Correct.
The body doesnt always need to burn calories to produce
heat, because the body doesnt always need to be heated.
And not all calories that go into the mouth are digested either.
Don Klipstein
The calorie labeling on food packages in the USA are normally according
to a method that takes into account digestion. That's why fiber does not
have its calories included in the calorie count on food packages, and why
protein is counted as 4 calories per gram instead of 5.3.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
>>>> Correct.
That last is a pretty crude simplification tho.
Don Klipstein
Actually, I meant to say metabolizability in the case of protein. The
human body does not completely oxidize it.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
>>>>>> Correct.
Yeah, thats what I meant too, digest was a poor way to describe it.
Phred
>In article <67mk2qF...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed wrote:
>>Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>> swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.
>>
>>Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins particularly
>>does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.
>>
>>> Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.
>>
>>But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
>>being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.
>
> Calories expended to digest food become heat, which offsets need of the
>body to burn calories to produce heat.
Pity the body doesn't have some sort of reverse cycle system -- we
could do with more coolth during the day here. :-) Hmm... maybe I
need to tan more -- black-body radiation and all that stuff. ;-)
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
clams_casino
>
>
> Name one, if you would be so kind. I can't think of any.
>
>
May want to try a little harder. Or does thinking make your head hurt?