date:20050710

Very good point here.  I cannot understand how people can see these images 
and still not see the truth.  Outside the US, I'm sure the images are 
readily available, but we live in a media bubble here.  There is one 
instance of someone showing true images of the Iraq war, and that is Michael 
Moore in Farenheit 9/11.  Now you may not agree with him ( I don't always), 
but the fact of the matter is, he didn't create those dead children on the 
screen, that's not Hollywood makeup.  But we have so many people in America 
who won't see it or when they do they say that it is just Left Wing 
propoganda.  Meanwhile, the Right Wing keeps telling people not to see it. 
It has been out for a while, and there are a lot of people who listen to the 
propoganda and say, I'll never see that crap.
I want them to watch it and so that they can see the Americans killing 
civilians, see the dead babies, watch as soldiers laugh and listen to let 
the bodies hit the floor while they massacre the enemy.  That is what I 
want them to see.  It saddens me that we have gone to war and it has nothing 
to do with threats, or people.  Only money.  I fear that one of the main 
reasons we won't pull out is that the right wing does not want to admit that 
they are wrong, that they got caught lying.  Meanwhile, we impeach a 
president for a personal moral indiscretion (which by the way only hurt 
Hillary...1 person...she is still alive and doing well.)


I acknowledge those Iraqis every day.  I just wish the rest of this country 
would.


Ryan



- Original Message - 
From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:35 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] A look in the mirror for America



Live! From Boston, Massachusettes and the Boston Globe, it's


 A look in the mirror for America

By Derrick Z. Jackson  |  July 8, 2005

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/08/a_look_in_the_mirror_for_america/

IN HIS INITIAL reaction yesterday to the London transit bombings, 
President Bush decried ''people killing innocent people. He said: ''The 
contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of 
those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty and those 
who kill -- those who have got such evil in their heart that they will 
take the lives of innocent folks.


This came a week and a half after Bush invoked the innocent in his Fort 
Bragg, N.C., speech in an attempt to shore up sagging American support for 
his invasion and occupation of Iraq. Doggedly tying 9/11 to Saddam Hussein 
even though no tie existed, Bush said of global terrorists: ''There is no 
limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take. We see the nature of 
the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping 
street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of 
the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital 
in Mosul. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian 
hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.


Bush also said the enemy will fail. ''The terrorists can kill the 
innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom, he said. Britain's 
Prime Minister Tony Blair said the ''slaughter of innocent people will 
fail to cower the British people, and Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin 
called the attack an ''unspeakable attack on the innocent.


It was all appropriate in the moment. In a greater context, there is a 
tragic hollowness. The world, of course, shares the sympathies of Mayor 
Michael Bloomberg of New York, who said the London bombings were a 
''despicable, cowardly act. Yet every invoking of the innocents also 
reminds us of our despicable, cowardly killing of innocent Iraqi 
civilians.


Or perhaps you forgot about them. That was by design. We have rightfully 
mourned the loss of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. We have begun mourning 
the loss of about 40 people in London. We have mourned the loss of 1,751 
US soldiers, who, bless them, were following orders of their commander in 
chief. But to this day, there has been no major acknowledgement, let alone 
apology, by Bush or Blair for the massive amounts of carnage we created in 
a war waged over what turned out to be a lie, the nonexistent weapons of 
mass destruction.


These innocents never existed, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. ''We don't 
do body counts, said both General Tommy Franks, former Iraqi commander, 
and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt 
was asked about the images of American soldiers killing innocent civilians 
on Arab television, Kimmitt said: ''My solution is quite simple: Change 
the channel. Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest 
news station. The stations that are showing Americans intentionally 
killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is 
propaganda. And that is lies.


The United States

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

There is a reason he kisses the saudi representative, and holds his hand 
looking at flowers and kills Iraqis like ants...

Ryan
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

intentional neglect, if you ask me.

since the '70s the right wing (primarily) of the political establishment 
has
been arguing that america's next great challenge was going to be 
terrorism.

they dialed up this rehetoric considerably when reagan got ito office, and
redoubled it after the collapse of the fsu.  of course, they knew what 
they were
talking about, because they were very well aware of what america's policy 
in

the middle east was breeding.

the bush family has very close ties to the saudi royal family and the bin
laden family going back more than 30 years.  connect the dots. . . .

-chris b.

In a message dated 7/8/05 2:22:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 You'll never understand it if you see it in the polarised
American Clinton vs Bush keyhole view. Both were responsible, but
especially Bush, as an abundance of evidence, testimony and
subsequent revelation of sheer neglect has shown, much of it in the
list archive for your convenience. 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

I have always been impressed with Clinton's ability to speak, and cause 
people to listen.  It is because of his presidency that I slowly began to 
take note of politics.  While I still consider myself uninformed, I felt 
much more confident about the candidates in the previous election than most 
of my friends and family.  Many of my family took a kind of, Eh (shoulder 
shrug) stance.  Welcome to the United States of Apathy.


Ryan
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


back in the '80s i started comparing the dual-party system here to 
choosing
between coke and pepsi.  with some satisfaction, i sometimes hear that 
same

sentiment from others.

i must admit, though, that while at first i was quite in favor of dean, my
disappointment was short-lived once he got sidelined.  since kerry seemed 
the
nominee-apparent,  i tried to find out what i could about him beyond what 
the

media was providing.  what i found surprised me.  if there was a single
democratic nominee in the past quarter century with solid credentials, it 
had to be
kerry.  his post-vietnam efforts (on behalf of both the veterans and the 
truth
about what happened there), and his instrumental role in getting the 
c.i.a. to

admit to its role in the L.A. crack epidemic, are just two examples.

how credentials like his could get morphed into the pathetic candidate we 
saw
in 2000 is beyond me.  compare that platform to his record in the senate, 
and
it's quite startling.  but that seems to be the strategic choice the 
democrat
ic party has made in the post-reagan era:  centrism as philosophy/policy 
i.e.
ideology, in contrast to the republican use of centrist rhetoric as a 
campaign

tactic.

all the sadder when you consider the wasted potential of other former
democratic leaders, esp. carter, mondale and clinton (although the former 
and the
latter aren't without their black marks).  i look at interviews they've 
done and

am truly impressed by their intellect and insight.

-chris b.








___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


Hi Robert:

robert luis rabello wrote:

There has been plenty of discussion concerning the nature of the 
value systems undergirding the evil in our world.  Have you been 
paying attention?  What happened in London is yet another symptom of a 
far deeper problem.


Sure.  I was speaking specifically about the event of 7 7.

There is nothing that can justify these  actions, nor nothing that 
would cause me to ever sit at a table to negiotiate anything other 
than an unconditional surrender and the incarceration/ execution of 
the perps.


I think nearly everyone who contributes to this forum would agree that 
the London bombings were heinous, criminal acts.


Thank you. They were also military acts. I've got a sense from past 
postings that many folks say they can understand why these people commit 
these acts (without advocating them or legitimizing them).  I can't 
really understand why killing people that are truly unconnected to 
primary causes is understandable.  Perhaps I've misunderstood the gist 
of the posts.


  Yet when you speak of unconditional surrender, you invoke military 
language.  In the classic sense, are you able to define the enemy?  


What do you mean by classic sense.  Do you mean, a nationality or 
uniform?  If so, then no.  However, the enemy is composed of 
cooperative individuals that embrace a common value system.


Can you point to a nation state as the perpetrator of such terrorism, 
or must we engage in endless, mindless slaughter of ill defined 
enemies until those enemies have no recourse other than to lash 
back at us?


If I understand you, we've misidentified the enemy and created new enemies?

  Has the policy of going after terrorism with the blunt cudgel of 
military power proven effective in eliminating the terrorist threat?


Somewhat.  There have been attacks prevented, such as the planned 
demolition of the Brooklyn Bridge.


A very wise man once said: Violence begets violence.  The way of 
peace is a long and difficult path, but it begins with listening.


There are things worth dying for (defensive).  There are no things worth 
murdering for (aggression).  There are things worth killing to preserve 
(defensive).  [This is an important distinction.]  We must be very 
careful to ensure that we are taking truly defensive actions.


All the best... Tim

--
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

- Original Message - 
From: "Hakan Falk" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, 
stupid

  Ryan,  At 05:23 PM 
7/9/2005, you wrote: snip What is the 
probability thatthey would love and be grateful to the Americans? 
Why are the Americanssurprised, when the Iraqis do not love them? Is 
it not understandable thatsome of the Iraqis want to kill Americans, 
how would you react in theirsituation?  I posted 
that, but you only repeated a part of it. The introduction to this  
questions was and here is what I wrote,  "I always think about 
some obvious realities, when Americans come up with this dreams about 
the future. Iraq is a country with a population that to 80% consist of 
old people, widows and Fatherless children under 15 years of age. The 
Americans have directly or indirectly been involved in making the women 
widows and the children fatherless. What is the probability that they 
would love and be grateful to the Americans? Why are the Americans 
surprised, when the Iraqis do not love them? Is it not understandable 
that some of the Iraqis want to kill Americans, how would you react in 
their situation?"
I apologize for only repeating part 
of your post. My fault.

 I have brought this up to 
several poeple, they all just look confused, like they can't handle 
the possibility that we are the bad guys. I use this 
example:If France decided that George W. Bush was a threat to them 
and said, well lets make a preemptive strike, then they came here 
and said to us, "we are liberating you from this oppressive 
government."You can bet on the majority of the American population 
picking up some guns and fighting the intruders. The news 
would say it was our only hope for survival. And the NRA 
(National Rifle Association) would have a field day.Most people 
still cannot grasp the concept.Here is the link to that 
"respected" talk show host. This is the entire transcript, all 
of what he 
said.http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070705/content/rush_is_right.guest.html 
  I do not normally read or listen to him, because 
for me as a foreigner he  is neither famous or a normal diet, but did it 
now and have the following  questions.  Do many 
Americans listen to this?

you would be 
surprised.

Washington post states that it 
is 20 million people per week. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48952-2005Mar19.html

An MSNBC article on his oxicontin 
abuse scandal states:
Limbaugh could count on 20 million Dittoheads and 
talk-radio fans to tune in five days a week
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3158206/

 Are you not afraid when you hear his views?

Of course I am, those 20 million people regurgitate his 
propoganda as truth and proudly call themselves "dittoheads."I haven't 
listened to him in quite some time. I used to listen to him and argue with 
a friend, mentioned in a moment. But eventually I got tired of hearing 
it. There are no talk radio shows that even resemble a balance. It 
is all a huge propoganda machine. And they said video killed the radio 
star. Ha. It just slowed them down for a 
while.
 You know that I sometimes think that Americans are a bit naive, 
but I will  not go so far as that they belive this "whacko", or do 
they?

I have a friend who will only listen to Rush or Sean 
Hannity, and will only let his children watch Fox news because,"they say 
republicans are good, democrats are bad."  I did a 
calculation once, based on Iraqi family sizes with probable number  of 
relatives and close friends, and draw the conclusion. That it was almost 
 impossible, or at least very rare, that any Iraqi did not knew a person 
 well, that had been killed by the Americans.  With this 
background, how likely is it that US would be welcomed and loved  as 
liberators?

Chances are slim to none, but as you mentioned before, 
we are naive, wearing a blindfold.

 Is not the thought or expectation of that Iraqis would love the 
Americans a  bit naive?

Very
 Based on civil wars and other occupations, wouldn't it take 80 to 
100 years  before Iraq can get over this with the Americans?

Wish I knew. I know we could help expedite that 
process by treating them like people and stopping this insanity, but it would 
not heal it. You can't Kill 100,000 people then say, whoops, thought you 
were helping terrorists. Our bad.
 Would it not be the responsibility of any Iraqi or American, that 
love his  family, his friends and his country, to fight an 
occupier?

Of course, who wouldn't. Could you watch your family 
attacked, your neighbors even and do nothing? These people are doing right 
by their families and friends and we call them insurgents.
 If you answer no to the above question, does it not make your 
country,  including US, very easy to occupy and subdue?

Yes.  Hakan   This will 
give you an idea of why we are so "accepting of our governments 
lies, Hakan.Don't get me wrong, he's very 
fun to

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

well said keith, I can't believe he gets around the whole world with this.

Ryan

- Original Message - 
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

Hi Hakan and all

snip

Here is the link to that respected talk show host.  This is the entire 
transcript, all of what he said.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070705/content/rush_is_r 
ight.guest.html

I do not normally read or listen to him, because for me as a foreigner he 
is neither famous or a normal diet, but did it now and have the following 
questions.

Do many Americans listen to this?
Are you not afraid when you hear his views?

I sure am.

You know that I sometimes think that Americans are a bit naive, but I will 
not go so far as that they belive this whacko, or do they?

FWIW, Rush Limbaugh is featured every day on American forces radio 
stations at US military bases, at least in Japan, I suppose elsewhere too. 
So is Paul Harvey, who Doug just mentioned. I like Todd's term 
limbaughtomized. Your brain has to be not all present and correct to 
listen to that stuff and go on thinking all is well and good. IMNSHO.

Best

Keith

I did a calculation once, based on Iraqi family sizes with probable number 
of relatives and close friends, and draw the conclusion. That it was 
almost impossible, or at least very rare, that any Iraqi did not knew a 
person well, that had been killed by the Americans.

With this background, how likely is it that US would be welcomed and loved 
as liberators?
Is not the thought or expectation of that Iraqis would love the Americans 
a bit naive?
Based on civil wars and other occupations, wouldn't it take 80 to 100 
years before Iraq can get over this with the Americans?
Would it not be the responsibility of any Iraqi or American, that love his 
family, his friends and his country, to fight an occupier?
If you answer no to the above question, does it not make your country, 
including US, very easy to occupy and subdue?

Hakan

This will give you an idea of why we are so accepting of our governments 
lies, Hakan.

Don't get me wrong, he's very fun to listen to, but eventually I have to 
turn it off and form my own opinion.
If you surf the site, you will notice a veeery conservative bias. Again, 
no problem with this, I just don't agree.  Without left we can have no 
right. The problem is when they get out of balance, yin and yang.

Happy Day to all
Ryan

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] biodiesel and WVO in all liquid cooled Diesel engines?

2005-07-10 Thread graveshouse




Hello,

I've been looking at different ways to use diesel 
motors in my lifestyle, burning biodiesel and/or WVO. I've run into 
several people who've said that this or that particular motor won't burn 
biodiesel. I'm confused, since I'm fairly sure I've read here and other 
places that ANY diesel motor with liquid cooling can burn bio and I believe WVO 
(with modifications, ie xtra fuel tank, straining grease and heating it to 160 F 
) with slight modifications to take into account the solvency of bio. I'm 
wanting to burn it in my Kubota tractor (new to me, 20+ years old), a 
replacement pickup for my farm and a perhaps smaller engine to run an electrical 
generator.
Please let me know, am I right and these people 
just don't want to take the chance of being wrong (telling me it can burn bio if 
it can't) or are wrong? Please also tell me again what modifications to 
need to be made (specific hose types to change, etc). 
Thank you for your input. Sincerely, Jason 
Graves
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Terrorism defined

The State Department defines terrorism as premeditated, politically 
motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational 
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. In 
another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy 
chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key 
elements of terrorism:
 1.. It is premeditated-planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of 
rage.
 2.. It is political-not criminal, like the violence that groups such as 
the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political 
order.
 3.. It is aimed at civilians-not at military targets or combat-ready 
troops.

 4.. It is carried out by subnational groups-not by the army of a country.
Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad, right.

America has such great potential, but we also have great greed.  Hopefully 
soon the majority will see the light.


Ryan 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid





Hi Todd:

Appal Energy wrote:
Why
would you find it "fascinating?" People build bombs. People blow up and
never see their loved ones again. People get maimed, scarred and
disfigured for life and perhaps never look at anything in the same
fashion again, much less in a natural fashion.
  
  
That's not fascinating. That's horror.
  

The choice of the word "fascinating" was in reference to traffic on
this list, not about the horror of the events of London.
Perhaps
what is fascinating is the fact that the recipient nations remain
defiant in their industrial, colonial, imperial and military endeavors,
refusing to address the core of the problem, in turn giving no cause
for insurgents, terrorists or "freedom fighters" to back down either.
  

Sorry, I have to disagree with your view. The evaluation of a value
system is in the examination of its fruit. Many societies in this
world are oppressive places and downright evil places to live; ask any
woman or minority living there.
Think
about this for a moment:
  
In Iraq War #1, there were two quotes that while they echo in my daily
being seem to have been lost on 99.9% of the world's population. The
first was George Herbert Walker Bush stating that "This is about jobs,
American jobs."
  
  
The second was George Schultz stating, "This is about preserving the
American lifestyle."
  
  
Granted, Kuwait was invaded. Granted, Kuwait was slant drilling into
Iraqi oilfields. Granted, Iraq took no effort to resolve the issue
diplomatically.
  
  
But take a look at the responses from American "leadership," - "jobs"
and "lifestyle" were the paramount justifications for war, not any
moral high ground, not any "points of light," just "jobs" and "the
American lifestyle."
  

OK, I'll think about this and try to find the context of these
statements. By the way, my experience on taking moral stands is that
people call you a religious nut and classify you as unfit to lead or
foolish or ignorant, etc. "Who are you to foist your religious view on
them?" is commonly said or implied.
Now,
tell me what has changed since then. Afghanistan being a house of
military bedlam for two plus decades, fueled by both the United States
and the USSR. Entire populations of similar mindsets in neighboring
nations fed up with "the American lifestyle" and how its manipulations
had, are and will continue to affect them if change is not brought
about. Individuals of limitted resources adamant that change must be
effected as soon as possible and with some justification at perhaps all
costs.
  
  
What is fascinating and remarkable is that in the face of what many
perceive - in many respects correctly so - to be international
oppression, starvation, exploitation and strangulation, no one
addresses the role that imperialistic powers play in lighting the fuses
that lead to events such as London. They certainly didn't address the
same issues on September 12th, 2002. They haven't discussed their own
role since then.
  

Hmmm. So if anywhere in our collective past there was evil done, we
are not free to address any other evil? I suppose our "guilt" means we
should roll over and take our "penance"? How does the possible death
of my children in an airplane crash into an office tower make
retribution for the actions of a past President (if indeed there is the
complicity you charge)?
Personally?
Were I of Arab descent? I'd be mad as hell. And knowing how easily it
is for humans to be impatient and act or react rather than wait for a
slow, bureaucratic, greedy internatiionally intwined monster to even
begin to deliberate what it might destroy or compromise with its next
bite, it's not a far reach to understand where the underpinnings of all
this originate from.
  

Ah, thanks Todd. There's a good quote to answer Keith's question...

  
There is nothing that can justify these
actions,
  

Who wants to justify them?

  

This sounds like a justification to me. Is that a fair statement?
That's
what is fascinating. The denial, avoidance and betrayal of the core
issues by national governments, all more interested in their
"lifestyle" than the betterment and peace of the rest of the globe's
peoples.
  

I for one continue to work diligently at "the betterment and peace of
all people". But I've also been called names for that too, because I
won't accept all human value systems as equivalent in worth.
So why
talk about London and "evil" of type you imply when the evil at the
core remains unaddressed, much less resolved?
  

I've tried to begin that conversation about justice earlier, but it
wasn't considered worthy of discussion. (I'd give you the archive link,
but the search functions of the archive seem somewhat limited; search
by email address?).
I think
that "evil at the core" is what is being addressed here. The bombs,
bloodletting, shortened lives and lost futures is what we'd all like to
prevent, even if it seems to be so simple as "de-evolving" and choosing
alternative and softer paths..
  

I

[Biofuel] Biodiesel Tax Credits

2005-07-10 Thread Bill Jones




Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about 
federal tax credits for biodiesel use? 

Thanks!

Catherine Jones
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


Hi Keith:

Keith Addison wrote:

Lots of argument about what each person thinks their unimpeachable 
sources of information say.


Who are you quoting please? I can't find that word used in the 
discussions, let alone in that context.


I'm guilty of reading between the lines.  One group quotes Limbaugh and 
the other Chomsky.  When either source is question, the advocates get 
emotionally defensive.  The implication is that both sources are above 
reproach, even if statements are made to the contrary (ie, I've checked 
on him in case A, B, C, so I'm sure he's fine on D).

[snip]

You're talking the language of blame. As recent history has shown 
rather loudly, it's this kind of thinking that lashes out, desperate 
to find someone to punish, oblivious to all else, such as the reasons 
for the attack, the long chains of cause and consequence that have 
brought us all to London as you call it, which stretch back 
sometimes to not quite what you might expect. That's what a lynch mob 
does. So we must lash out again, maybe at altogether the wrong target 
again, and set in motion more chains of causes and consequences that 
bring us to more London's, just as it's brought us to other places 
and dates. It's called sowing dragon's teeth. Osama bin Laden is 
exactly a dragon's tooth.


This is not what I'm advocating at all.  I'm stating that the proper 
response to a terrorist is no negotiation with or acquiescence to their 
demands.  By all means we should look to fixing the causes, if it is 
legitimate for us to do so.


What happens if our search leads us to understand that the value 
system(s) held by the oppressed people are the cause of their 
oppression and poverty.  Does this mean we have the right to work to 
change the value systems of the oppressed?


Rather than raise a lynch mob it makes much more sense to find out 
just what happened and trace it back to its causes - who, what, where, 
when, why and how (a good reporter answers all those questions in the 
first 25 words). But where there's lots of blame-talk flying around 
raising such questions can get a person accused of attempting to 
justify the crime, being soft on terrorists.


Will you continue the questions past the events to human value systems, 
and their fruit?  Most don't seem to have the stomach for it.  They like 
to speak of tolerance and love, and shy back from causal links to 
the actual values held by the majorities in those societies.



Anyway, how would you make certain that they're the right perps?


Some are caught, some are killed in attempts, some admit to their 
complicity, some are caught through intercessory investigation, etc.


The picture that's emerging in other posts is that none of the perps 
imprisoned were perps anyway, only a andlful have been charged, 
huindreds of others or more were innocent, and the REAL perps remain 
free. So that didn't work very well. Meanwhile there were 3,192 terror 
attacks worldwide last year with 28,433 people wounded, killed or 
kidnapped. So that isn't working very well either.


Better some success and many thousands of lives saved, than doing 
nothing because we don't have a better plan.  I'm all for a better plan.


Anyway, the Brits are coping with it, as one would expect, they're 
tough and level-headed folk. *They* know that there's a hell of a lot 
more to London than just London.


And I'm very thankful for their stedfastness through it all.


What do you think of Spain's response to Madrid?


It's been a while, but my assessment at the time was that I would never 
have rolled over like they did.  However, there is a large Muslim 
population in Spain, so I would expect it was the politically expedient 
thing to do.  Not the right thing.


Best regards... Tim

--
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


Hi Kim:

Kim Travis wrote:

Actually I think Canada was hijacked long before Regan, it was Trudeau 
that did it.  He took a strong independent country and put in all 
kinds of extravegant government services.


He also patriated a constitution that stripped all the rights we had 
under english common law (infinite, unless restricted by statute, 
precident or nature), and implemented a bill of rights that gave us 
back a few under a napoleonic law premise (none, unless specified).  For 
example, Canadians don't have the right to own property.


He gave the people $1.31 worth of services for every $1 we paid in 
taxes.  This went on for 17 years, since Canada has no term limits.  A 
whole generation came to adulthood and had their kids under this kind 
of greed, so when it came time to pay the piper, well you know how the 
rest of the story goes.  If you are going to ask me where I got the 
figures, frankly I no longer remember the source.  It was researched 
thoroughly back in my college days.


The government (read bureaucrats) has also looked to Sweden as an 
ideal form of socialistic governance, and have been systematically 
trying to emulate it through regulation and changes to law.  Compared to 
what Canada was when I was a young man, it's an overbearing, stifling, 
overregulated nightmare.


As to what Canada has been up to for the last 13 years, I am just a 
visitor now and then.  I live in Texas and don't follow the Canadian 
news much.  I have had lots to learn living in a new country and 
learning how to create a sustainable farm.  I was a city girl, till 
Texas.  I do hear my kids and my family B*  but I have no real 
knowledge of what is happening there anymore.


Neither do most of the people that live there, or at least they're too 
apathetic to look like they do.



At 03:59 PM 7/9/2005, chris b. wrote:

hi, kim.  perhaps my understanding of the political trajectory is 
more limited than i give myself credit for, but i've kind of had the 
notion that canada's political process was hijacked in the same way 
as the u.s.' during the reagan era (though perhaps somewhat more 
discretely?).  thanks for the confirmation.
 
and perhaps i'm naive in this, but it does seem to me that canadian 
society hasn't sunk quite as low as down here south of the border.



Actually, when I moved to the US, it was like a breath of fresh air.


all in all, you might call it u.s.a. /light/?  ;^,


No, Sweden light.  Canadians generally find being mistaken as Americans 
as extremely distasteful.  They're much too sophisticated and 
intelligent to be Americans.


Best regards... Tim

--
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re[2]: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-10 Thread Gustl Steiner-Zehender

Hallo Todd,


Amen and well said brother.

Happy Happy,

Gustl

Saturday, 09 July, 2005, 22:20:29, you wrote:

AE Tim Brodie,

AE   I find it fascinating that virtually nothing has been said in this forum
AE   about London.  Lots of argument about what each person thinks
AE   their unimpeachable sources of information say.  Nothing about
AE   the current event that demonstrates the face of this evil, and the
AE   nature of the value systems that executed these actions.

AE Why would you find it fascinating? People build bombs. People blow up 
AE and never see their loved ones again. People get maimed, scarred and 
AE disfigured for life and perhaps never look at anything in the same 
AE fashion again, much less in a natural fashion.

AE That's not fascinating. That's horror.

AE Perhaps what is fascinating is the fact that the recipient nations 
AE remain defiant in their industrial, colonial, imperial and military 
AE endeavors, refusing to address the core of the problem, in turn giving 
AE no cause for insurgents, terrorists or freedom fighters to back down 
AE either.

AE Think about this for a moment:

AE In Iraq War #1, there were two quotes that while they echo in my daily 
AE being seem to have been lost on 99.9% of the world's population. The 
AE first was George Herbert Walker Bush stating that This is about jobs, 
AE American jobs.

AE The second was George Schultz stating, This is about preserving the 
AE American lifestyle.

AE Granted, Kuwait was invaded. Granted, Kuwait was slant drilling into 
AE Iraqi oilfields. Granted, Iraq took no effort to resolve the issue 
AE diplomatically.

AE But take a look at the responses from American leadership, - jobs 
AE and lifestyle were the paramount justifications for war, not any moral 
AE high ground, not any points of light, just jobs and the American 
AE lifestyle.

AE Now, tell me what has changed since then. Afghanistan being a house of 
AE military bedlam for two plus decades, fueled by both the United States 
AE and the USSR. Entire populations of similar mindsets in neighboring 
AE nations fed up with the American lifestyle and how its manipulations 
AE had, are and will continue to affect them if change is not brought 
AE about. Individuals of limitted resources adamant that change must be 
AE effected as soon as possible and with some justification at perhaps all 
AE costs.

AE What is fascinating and remarkable is that in the face of what many 
AE perceive - in many respects correctly so - to be international 
AE oppression, starvation, exploitation and strangulation, no one addresses 
AE the role that imperialistic powers play in lighting the fuses that lead 
AE to events such as London. They certainly didn't address the same issues 
AE on September 12th, 2002. They haven't discussed their own role since then.

AE Personally? Were I of Arab descent? I'd be mad as hell. And knowing how 
AE easily it is for humans to be impatient and act or react rather than 
AE wait for a slow, bureaucratic, greedy internatiionally intwined monster 
AE to even begin to deliberate what it might destroy or compromise with its 
AE next bite, it's not a far reach to understand where the underpinnings of 
AE all this originate from.

AE That's what is fascinating. The denial, avoidance and betrayal of the 
AE core issues by national governments, all more interested in their 
AE lifestyle than the betterment and peace of the rest of the globe's 
AE peoples.

AE So why talk about London and evil of type you imply when the evil at 
AE the core remains unaddressed, much less resolved?

AE I think that evil at the core is what is being addressed here. The 
AE bombs, bloodletting, shortened lives and lost futures is what we'd all 
AE like to prevent, even if it seems to be so simple as de-evolving and 
AE choosing alternative and softer paths..

AE Unfortunately, cowboys and assholes in power (not!) would rather 
AE preserve American and western lifestyles as they have derisively 
AE become to be known.

AE I believe we're all in for a bit of a shock if such mindlessness is 
AE permitted to prevail. And we haven't seen anything yet if we don't 
AE change our direction and goals as a country.

AE Todd Swearingen
-- 
Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns.

We can't change the winds but we can adjust our sails.

The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, 
soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, 
without signposts.  
C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen, 
daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht 
gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden.

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't
hear the music.  
George Carlin

The best portion of a good man's life -
His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love.
William Wordsworth



___
Biofuel

question on desert storm was Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-10 Thread Garth Kim Travis


Greetings Todd,

While I was buried under a ton of philosophy books during desert storm, 
back in Canada, I have never heard the following:


At 09:20 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote:

Granted, Kuwait was invaded. Granted, Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi 
oilfields. Granted, Iraq took no effort to resolve the issue diplomatically.


Todd Swearingen


Will you please provide references for this?

Bright Blessings,
Kim 




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Bring land back from the dead

2005-07-10 Thread r





We are cutting ourselves from fuel source options, by wasting land that
can be used to grow plants for biofuel, just when the demand gets
strong enough to create new markets for biofuel products.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  In the mid-Atlantic area where I live, it's sad to see prime
agricultural land being turned into tracts for subdivisions, malls, and
McMansions, the latter of which often have acres of lawn that must be
cut, fertilized, etc., for no good purpose. 
  
  Unfortunately the market doesn't capture the long-term value of
that land, which may be needed in the future for biofuel production,
agricultural production close to urban areas (as food transportation
costs increase), etc. We as individuals seem to vote with our dollars
for development (and even second homes) rather than investing in the
future by purchasing easements for that land. And we as a body
politic can't seem to work together through our elected representatives
to make long term, rather than short term and short sighted decisions.
  
  
  I don't know the answer.
  
  

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Hybrid Diesel

2005-07-10 Thread r





Anybody heard of the Direct Democracy League? What do you think of it?

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  Unfortunately voting Libertarian had nothing to do with getting 
rid of these extreemists...

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 
=
Paddy,

Actually, according to the President's FY2006 budget to Congress, his 
administration proposed an $18 billion cut from the Dept of Defense budget 
(compared to FY2005).  I haven't finished looking to see if this was just 
hidden elsewhere (there were increases in "National Defense" in the Dept of 
Energy and other agencies), plus it doesn't include the "unexpected costs" 
of invading other countries like Afghanistan or Iraq.  It is true that the 
defense budget amounts 19% of the overall $2.568 TRILLION FY2006 federal 
budget, but what we really should be asking is what else are they wasting 
our money on?

Also, where is the $210 million from and what is it for?  From the FY2006 
budget, I see a lot more being put into areas of cleaning up the 
environment - In the EPA's budget alone there is about $1.5 billion for 
states to clean up water supplies, $121 million to clean up industrial 
brownfield sites, $10 million to retrofit school buses to reduce their 
emissions, $73 million to repair or remove leaking underground storage tanks 
and, finally $1.2 billion to clean up Superfund sites.  That's something 
like just under $3 billion on cleaning up our environmental messes.

I agree that this Administration has been rather relaxed on helping to 
prevent environment problems, but then can you blame them?  Many of the 
members of this administration are from either the oil or defense 
industries, two areas that are the worse contributors to enviromnental 
destruction there ever was.  To them, saving the environment means losing 
money.  And it is our fault for putting them in office (well not my fault, I 
voted Libertarian).  Next time let's keep the money-grubbing, 
wilderness-drilling, nation-conquering, "we don't count civilian casualties" 
politicians out of office in the next election, and maybe we will have a 
chance to save the environment (and our own pocketbooks).

I encourage you to look at the budget and determine for yourself what they 
are wasting our money on.  Go to 
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/browse.html to look at the budget.

Thanks,

Earl Kinsley

- Original Message - 
From: "Paddy O'Reilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hybrid Diesel


  
  

  
I do
agree, though, that that was a heck of an expensive program for the U.S.
taxpayer.



  
  
  

I'm sorry, but I have to comment on what's being said here.
Basically, the American tax dollar is begrudgingly given to help with
cleaning up our environment to the tune of 210 million (ever deflating)
US dollars yet a blind eye is being cast on the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of
those same dollars being wasted on the beloved American Defence Budget.
I heard somewhere that the INCREASE in the American defence budget this
year exceeds the total defence budgets of the next five largest defence
budgets of other "superpowers" put together.

And George won't even consider cancelling third nation debt (I suppose
it doesn't hold any immediate return for him so he doesn't care).

So putting the whole thing into perspective, the payment of 0.175% of
the American defence budget (which will be spent on developing new and
improved ways of wiping out the planet in the shortest time possible) on
helping some other Americans develop ways of reducing our dependence on
the Earth's natural resources is a waste of money while creating weapons
of mass destruction isn't.

Hmmm, methinks there's a slight imbalance in priorities here. The term
"Heck of an expensive program(me)" should be reserved for George Dubya's
retirement fund (aka defence budget).



  As expensive as today's oil consumption is proving to be, in so many
different ways? And not just for the US taxpayer either.



  
  
IIRC, under PNGV the US gave $70 million to each of the big 3
automakers to come up with these 'possible vehicles'.



  

I've cut out as much as is reasonable from this email trail to preserve
bandwidth. Hope it still makes sense.
By the way, I'm using English spelling in this mail not the American
mutated version.


The information contained in this e-mail and in any attachments is 
confidential and is designated solely for the attention of the intended 
recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, you must not use, 
disclose, copy, distribute or retain this e-mail or any part thereof. If 
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return 
e-mail and delete all copies of this e-mail from your computer system(s).
Please direct any additional queries to: [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Thank You.

[Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


Hello Tim


Hi Keith:

Keith Addison wrote:

 Lots of argument about what each person thinks their unimpeachable
 sources of information say.

 Who are you quoting please? I can't find that word used in the
 discussions, let alone in that context.

I'm guilty of reading between the lines.


Whether you're reading between the lines or not you're not reading 
correctly, and that's not the first time. Your sig says We do not 
see things as they are; we see things as we are, but you tend to see 
things that simply aren't there, and not see things that are there. 
When it comes down to who said what and there's an archives of it 
it's not just a matter of opinion or of filtration through different 
value systems, it's verifiable. Thus:



One group quotes Limbaugh and
the other Chomsky.  When either source is question, the advocates get
emotionally defensive.  The implication is that both sources are above
reproach, even if statements are made to the contrary (ie, I've checked
on him in case A, B, C, so I'm sure he's fine on D).


It didn't happen. I posted an article by Chomsky and Jerry sneered at 
Chomsky. I didn't get defensive or emotional about it (LOL!), I gave 
him some information and a couple of links. What he'd said wasn't 
true and he was unable to defend his claims.


Someone else, Jill, quoted Limbaugh. When questioned on it she was 
unable to respond, there was no checking done of Limbaugh in an 
attempt to substantiate his views, nothing further was offered in 
support of Limbaugh.


You have these impressions of what goes on here, of what people here 
think and do, mostly a-priori impressions, just labels really. Then 
you do some misreading and end up with facts to corroborate your 
impressions. You've done it time and again, all very circular. And 
tiresome. It's the same with the archive link you can't find about 
your view of justice, the same with your arguments about evolution. 
Always the same.



[snip]

 You're talking the language of blame. As recent history has shown
 rather loudly, it's this kind of thinking that lashes out, desperate
 to find someone to punish, oblivious to all else, such as the reasons
 for the attack, the long chains of cause and consequence that have
 brought us all to London as you call it, which stretch back
 sometimes to not quite what you might expect. That's what a lynch mob
 does. So we must lash out again, maybe at altogether the wrong target
 again, and set in motion more chains of causes and consequences that
 bring us to more London's, just as it's brought us to other places
 and dates. It's called sowing dragon's teeth. Osama bin Laden is
 exactly a dragon's tooth.

This is not what I'm advocating at all.  I'm stating that the proper
response to a terrorist is no negotiation with or acquiescence to their
demands.  By all means we should look to fixing the causes, if it is
legitimate for us to do so.


You ARE talking the language of blame, and, as it's steadily 
emerging, you're thinking that way too. Several people have now 
mentioned some of the root causes you say we should look to fixing, 
but you say we shy from the hard realities, and you talk of 
appeasement.



What happens if our search leads us to understand that the value
system(s) held by the oppressed people are the cause of their
oppression and poverty.  Does this mean we have the right to work to
change the value systems of the oppressed?


You're obviously going to focus on this and blinker out any other 
possibilities. We could argue about value systems all week and never 
have to look at the real causes. They're glaringly obvious and 
horribly numerous, while it's quite hard to find any obvious 
manifestation of errant value systems on the part of the perps 
being a root cause. These are not actions, they're responses. If you 
can't see that it can only be because you don't want to. You're not 
looking at realities, you're looking at what you might be more 
comfortable with.



 Rather than raise a lynch mob it makes much more sense to find out
 just what happened and trace it back to its causes - who, what, where,
 when, why and how (a good reporter answers all those questions in the
 first 25 words). But where there's lots of blame-talk flying around
 raising such questions can get a person accused of attempting to
 justify the crime, being soft on terrorists.

Will you continue the questions past the events to human value systems,
and their fruit?


You can throw up your smokescreen all by yourself, I won't help you. 
Several other list members have now discussed what's at the root of 
it, they all say much the same obvious thing, if you haven't read 
their messages you should have. By comparison, the horse you insist 
on backing is a non-starter, it's got no ground to run on. It does 
have one very attractive aspect though - if you can get that horse to 
win, or even to run convincingly, then that removes any 
responsibility for these atrocities from everyone except the perps

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


Hello Ken


Keith Addison wrote:

You'll find societies that ate mostly vegetables and not much meat, 
and others that ate mostly meat and very little vegetables or 
grain, but none that only ate vegetables and grains and no meat.


Again, I don't think that I suggested that anyone else should eat 
only vegetables and grains and no meat.  I recommended reduction of 
the dependence of meat and dairy in the American culture from 
current levels that I perceive as excessive.


It's the general direction, hence the separate discussion in the 
thread of the merits of vegetarianism. The drift of the discussion is 
(or was) the idea of replacing livestock production so that the land 
used to grow livestock feed (grain) can be used to better purpose, 
viz. food for humans and biofuels crops for energy. But without the 
livestock, properly managed, as they most certainly aren't now with 
industrial farming, the fertility of the soil will sooner or later 
run down and you won't be able to produce the vegetable/grain crops 
either. At least not without resort to ever-larger inputs of 
fossil-fuel based fertilizers and chemicalized crop protection, a 
lousy solution in every way, a non-solution.


The point is that if you don't produce the gallon of milk you'll be 
less likely to able to produce the grain sustainably.


What principles make this statement a true one?


See below. And above and previous.

Not at all - less dairy means less grazing livestock, less grazing 
livestock means less manure and less fertile soil. Without a dairy 
market as well as a meat market, ley farming becomes much more 
difficult.


But WHY is dairy a necessity for grazing?


You say this below:

I understand the concept that you propose - that animals are 
essential to a farms overall soil health but, I really don't 
understand how dairy products increase the


So you accept the cows but not the milk? Are you proposing that 
cattle should be raised strictly for beef? Why would you propose that?


I keep stressing that farms that practise ley rotations or something 
similar are mixed, integrated farms, not specialised battery farms. 
You have a herd, cows and a bull, the cows calve and then you have 
milk and milk products, much more than the calf needs. And you have 
calves. Half of them will be bulls, but you only need one bull for a 
herd, the rest are beef on the hoof. So you're going to produce the 
milk anyway as well as the beef. I suppose you could feed it to pigs 
if there's some pressing reason not to sell it, but the rational 
thing to do is to sell it, or you risk cutting the profitability of a 
major segment of the farm to perhaps below economic levels. It's the 
sustainability aspects that will suffer first.


Why do you object to milk production? Or is it, again, that you're 
objecting to industrialised milk production?


True, but she's not the only cow on the block, and even depleted, 
her manure contains a hell of a lot more fertility potential than a 
bit of wheat straw does. Or a fertiliser bag. Anyway the calf is 
also producing manure.


However, if the milk is going to humans instead of the calf, there 
is no calf to produce manure.


There's a calf in the first place, then the milk. No calf every year, 
no milk either. Industrial operations remove the calf after two or 
three days and feed it a commercial brew instead (often containing 
cattle blood, IIRC). No need for that, there's enough milk for the 
calf and plenty for the market as well.


Also, even with the calf in the equation, the calf is growing and 
using more of those nutrients so ITS manure is of a lesser quality 
than that of a cow that was not lactating.


It doesn't make any difference. Read this bit again:

Sow a piece of land with a good pasture mixture and then divide it 
in two with a fence. Graze one half heavily and repeatedly with 
cattle, mow the other half as necessary and leave the mowings there 
in place to decay back into the soil. On the grazed half, you've 
removed the crop (several times) and taken away a large yield of milk 
and beef. On the other half you've removed nothing. Plough up both 
halves and plant a grain crop, or any crop. Which half has the bigger 
and better yield? The grazed half, by far. Ley Farming explains why 
grass is the most important crop and how to manage grass leys. Leys 
are temporary pastures in a rotation, and provide more than enough 
fertility for the succeeding crops: working together, grass and 
grazing animals turn the land into a huge living compost pile.


So it doesn't much matter how much the cows remove or which of them 
removes it. The grazing herd consists of ALL the cattle, cows in all 
conditions, calves of all ages, and the bull.



And we're not using human manure for fertilization.


Why not? With ley farming there's no need for anything extra, you'd 
use the humanure elsewhere on the farm. It's only part of an overall 
composting operation anyway, and of course ley farms do composting

[Biofuel] Quote of the day...


I think there is a legitimate feeling, 'Why me? What did I do wrong?'

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=925895

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-10 Thread Garth Kim Travis


Greetings,
I think we both missed the biggest change that happened during his reign, 
History was replaced with Social Studies.  Now the people have no idea what 
has been done before or where they have been as a people.  They are doomed 
to repeat it.  sad.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 02:40 AM 7/10/2005, you wrote:

Hi Kim:

Kim Travis wrote:

Actually I think Canada was hijacked long before Regan, it was Trudeau 
that did it.  He took a strong independent country and put in all kinds 
of extravegant government services.


He also patriated a constitution that stripped all the rights we had under 
english common law (infinite, unless restricted by statute, precident or 
nature), and implemented a bill of rights that gave us back a few under 
a napoleonic law premise (none, unless specified).  For example, Canadians 
don't have the right to own property.


He gave the people $1.31 worth of services for every $1 we paid in 
taxes.  This went on for 17 years, since Canada has no term limits.  A 
whole generation came to adulthood and had their kids under this kind of 
greed, so when it came time to pay the piper, well you know how the rest 
of the story goes.  If you are going to ask me where I got the figures, 
frankly I no longer remember the source.  It was researched thoroughly 
back in my college days.


The government (read bureaucrats) has also looked to Sweden as an ideal 
form of socialistic governance, and have been systematically trying to 
emulate it through regulation and changes to law.  Compared to what Canada 
was when I was a young man, it's an overbearing, stifling, overregulated 
nightmare.


As to what Canada has been up to for the last 13 years, I am just a 
visitor now and then.  I live in Texas and don't follow the Canadian news 
much.  I have had lots to learn living in a new country and learning how 
to create a sustainable farm.  I was a city girl, till Texas.  I do hear 
my kids and my family B*  but I have no real knowledge of what is 
happening there anymore.


Neither do most of the people that live there, or at least they're too 
apathetic to look like they do.



At 03:59 PM 7/9/2005, chris b. wrote:

hi, kim.  perhaps my understanding of the political trajectory is more 
limited than i give myself credit for, but i've kind of had the notion 
that canada's political process was hijacked in the same way as the 
u.s.' during the reagan era (though perhaps somewhat more 
discretely?).  thanks for the confirmation.


and perhaps i'm naive in this, but it does seem to me that canadian 
society hasn't sunk quite as low as down here south of the border.

Actually, when I moved to the US, it was like a breath of fresh air.


all in all, you might call it u.s.a. /light/?  ;^,
No, Sweden light.  Canadians generally find being mistaken as Americans as 
extremely distasteful.  They're much too sophisticated and intelligent 
to be Americans.


Best regards... Tim

--
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/






___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid- limbaugh: Paul Harvey

2005-07-10 Thread the skapegoat

That is pretty disturbing. However, he is implicating Saudi Arabia. Interesting that a right wing-type would be doing that...Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi DougHakan, Rush Limbaugh represents the views of a substantial number of Americans,enough that we have the president and legislator we have today. Anotherbroadcast celebrity here in America is Paul Harvey and some recent remarksby him advocating slavery, genocide and the use of nuclear and biologicalweapons on his program have pretty much flown under the radar.Pretty much, but there's this anyway:http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2569Action AlertPaul Harvey's Tribute to Slavery, Nukes, GenocideHateful rant shows Disney's double standard on speechJuly 1, 2005FAIR-LFairness  Accuracy In ReportingMedia analysis, critiques and activismVisithttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/weblog/archive s/2005/06/paul_harvey_ah.htmlto
 read his remarks. Harvey makes his living as a salesman and goodsalesmen do not say things that could adversely impact sales. Harvey hasbeen selling for over 30 years that I'm aware of, so he is a good salesmen.He was correct in believing that enough Americans wouldn't be outraged tosubstantially affect sales. He may have back-peddled, but I don't listen tohis programs on a regular basis, haven't done so for a long time. Luck ofthe draw that I heard that program that I did. There are good people inAmerica,Most?I have to hope they will prevail and the rest of the world allowsthem enough time to do so.I think maybe all of us are hoping that very fervently.All bestKeithDoug - Original Message -From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 7:22 PMSubject:
 Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid:: Ryan,:: At 05:23 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote:: :: What is the probability that: they would love and be grateful to the Americans? Why are the Americans___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: Fwd: [Biofuel] give up meat?

2005-07-10 Thread bob allen

Howdy Ken et al

Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

if you want to eliminate meat from your diet, then you need to find
another way of getting the protein meat provides.

Actually, getting enough protein on a vegan diet is not at all a
problem. However, you do have to eat legumes and carbohydrates to get a
complete protein from vegetables alone.

I think you mean beans and grains here. There are several traditional dishes where beans and grains
are present. My late fathers favorite- beans and corn bread (he wasn't a vegetarian, but grew up
dirt poor where meat was a luxury)

Cajun fare- red beans and rice

Native American- succotash

and I am sure many others. The trick is to get the right complement of amino
acids in the diet.

There is much research going on
every day to point to a potiential excess of protein in the average
American diet but, I don't think that there is any definitive scientific
proof to conclude either way on this subject. Even the USDA has
recently produced reports stating that protein intakes needed to be
curbed in the U.S. - keep in mind, I don't hold much stock in anything
the USDA releases. The only real nutritional issue with a meat and
dairy-free diet is a defficiency of the vitamin B12 which is only
naturally available in meat.

yeast provides B-12. We (humans that is) actually produce lots of B-12 via microbial synthesis in
the gut, the problem is we don't absorb it. I have read that some B-12 is provided in the diet via
fecal contamination. :(

There are vegans who don't get
supplemental B12 and are quite healthy.

That depends. We store a few years of b-12 in the liver, but at some point one
must get more.

I get mine from Silk soy milk,

though.

Can I assume that the soy milk is supplemented with B-12 'cause it shouldn't be
there naturally?

--
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves - Richard Feynman

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Hybrid Diesel


Hello Richard


Anybody heard of the Direct Democracy League? What do you think of it?


Not heard of them, but there are some previous discussions following 
a direct democracy initiative in Gibralter planned by list member 
James, you might find it interesting:


http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg18457.html
[biofuel] Direct Democracy

The whole thread is linked at the end of the page.

Best wishes

Keith



mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Unfortunately voting Libertarian had nothing to do with getting
rid of these extreemists...

 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

=
Paddy,


snip


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


Hello Tim

snip

I finally figured it out, too improbable for me.


 Personally? Were I of Arab descent? I'd be mad as hell. And knowing
 how easily it is for humans to be impatient and act or react rather
 than wait for a slow, bureaucratic, greedy internatiionally intwined
 monster to even begin to deliberate what it might destroy or
 compromise with its next bite, it's not a far reach to understand
 where the underpinnings of all this originate from.

Ah, thanks Todd.  There's a good quote to answer Keith's question...

 There is nothing that can justify these  actions,

 Who wants to justify them?

This sounds like a justification to me.  Is that a fair statement?


It's not me you're accusing of trying to justify it, it's Todd, via 
some sort of cognitive dissonance that's just as strange. As everyone 
else has been doing, he points to the causes you said we should be 
looking to fix, but it sounds like a justification to you and you 
talk of appeasing terrorists.


That's what I said you'd do in the first place:

Rather than raise a lynch mob it makes much more sense to find out 
just what happened and trace it back to its causes - who, what, 
where, when, why and how (a good reporter answers all those 
questions in the first 25 words). But where there's lots of 
blame-talk flying around raising such questions can get a person 
accused of attempting to justify the crime, being soft on 
terrorists.


Which is why I asked you who wants to justify it - you'd already 
decided we did. I said this too:


You have these impressions of what goes on here, of what people here 
think and do, mostly a-priori impressions, just labels really. Then 
you do some misreading and end up with facts to corroborate your 
impressions. You've done it time and again, all very circular. And 
tiresome. It's the same with the archive link you can't find about 
your view of justice, the same with your arguments about 
evolution. Always the same.


Case now rests on every count. You're being true to form Tim. This is 
the second time I've seen you coming right at the start, you're more 
transparent than you know, though I'm sure it all convinces you.


Sure you're entitled to your opinion, but are you entitled to this?

These are not actions, they're responses. If you can't see that it 
can only be because you don't want to. You're not looking at 
realities, you're looking at what you might be more comfortable with.


In such an issue, where people are getting killed all the time, truth 
is not to be sacrificed for the comforts of self-induced oblivion. 
But we should stand by and let you draw a veil over the loud and 
continuing worldwide chorus stating the totally obvious, that the 
root cause of all these evils is ongoing US foreign policy, you're 
entitled to that? I don't think so.


It's just more denialism, which is just another kind of lying. 
Nelson's blind eye may have saved England but when you use the same 
tecnique to try to absolve yourself and your society of 
responsibility it makes a really lousy excuse.


Let's have no more a-priori accusations of justification and 
appeasement, no more self-fulfilling prophecies such as that 
tolerance and love is our recipe for dealing with terrorists 
while we shy away from the causal links that you're shying away from 
with all this claptrap, no more prevarication. Huh, some hope.


Keith Addison




Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:36:19 +0900
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Hello Tim


Hi Keith:

Keith Addison wrote:

 Lots of argument about what each person thinks their unimpeachable
 sources of information say.

 Who are you quoting please? I can't find that word used in the
 discussions, let alone in that context.

I'm guilty of reading between the lines.


Whether you're reading between the lines or not you're not reading 
correctly, and that's not the first time. Your sig says We do not 
see things as they are; we see things as we are, but you tend to 
see things that simply aren't there, and not see things that are 
there. When it comes down to who said what and there's an archives 
of it it's not just a matter of opinion or of filtration through 
different value systems, it's verifiable. Thus:



One group quotes Limbaugh and
the other Chomsky.  When either source is question, the advocates get
emotionally defensive.  The implication is that both sources are above
reproach, even if statements are made to the contrary (ie, I've checked
on him in case A, B, C, so I'm sure he's fine on D).


It didn't happen. I posted an article by Chomsky and Jerry sneered 
at Chomsky. I didn't get defensive or emotional about it (LOL!), I 
gave him some information and a couple of links. What he'd said 
wasn't true and he was unable to defend his claims.


Someone else, Jill, quoted Limbaugh. When questioned on it she was 
unable to respond, there was no checking done of

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid- limbaugh


 Hitler would have been a guaranteed
 success as American talk show host.

Some similarities Hakan, but even Limbaugh is only marginally popular. 
Most of my right-wing friends see him for precisely what he is - a 
showman who's painted himself into a corner. A lucrative corner at that.


Even so, Americans would probably always opt for the bigger, more 
bellicose, fat man in a tie before they would a small, thin, guy 
sporting brown dress fatigues, a paint brush on his upper lip and trying 
to hide his bald spot with a comb over.


They would also tend to exercise their Christian principles of 
forgiveness and give a higher rating to the hipocrit-once-drug-fiend who 
knows their favored rhetoric backwards and forwards rather than a rabid 
little zealot.


On the other hand, at least in today's era, Herr Adolf  could probably 
be cast on some obscure network, like., oh., perhaps CBS? Or 
maybe the After Hours Disney Channel?


Todd Swearingen

Hakan Falk wrote:



Doug,

Amazing.

Hitler would have been a guaranteed success as American talk show host.

Hakan



At 04:51 AM 7/10/2005, you wrote:


Hakan,

 Rush Limbaugh represents the views of a substantial number of 
Americans,

enough that we have the president and legislator we have today.  Another
broadcast celebrity here in America is Paul Harvey and some recent 
remarks
by him advocating slavery, genocide and the use of nuclear and 
biological

weapons on his program have pretty much flown under the radar.  Visit
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/weblog/archives/2005/06/paul_harvey_ah.html 


to read his remarks.  Harvey makes his living as a salesman and good
salesmen do not say things that could adversely impact sales.  Harvey 
has
been selling for over 30 years that I'm aware of, so he is a good 
salesmen.
He was correct in believing that enough Americans wouldn't be 
outraged to
substantially affect sales.  He may have back-peddled, but I don't 
listen to
his programs on a regular basis, haven't done so for a long time.  
Luck of

the draw that I heard that program that I did.  There are good people in
America, I have to hope they will prevail and the rest of the world 
allows

them enough time to do so.
Doug
 - Original Message -
From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


:
: Ryan,
:
: At 05:23 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote:
: snip
:
: What is the probability that
: they would love and be grateful to the Americans? Why are the 
Americans

: surprised, when the Iraqis do not love them? Is it not understandable
that
: some of the Iraqis want to kill Americans, how would you react in 
their

: situation?
:
: I posted that, but you only repeated a part of it. The introduction to
this
: questions was and here is what I wrote,
:
: I always think about some obvious realities, when Americans come up
: with this dreams about the future. Iraq is a country with a population
that
: to 80% consist of old people, widows and Fatherless children under 15
years
: of age. The Americans have directly or indirectly been involved in 
making
: the women widows and the children fatherless. What is the 
probability that
: they would love and be grateful to the Americans? Why are the 
Americans
: surprised, when the Iraqis do not love them? Is it not 
understandable that
: some of the Iraqis want to kill Americans, how would you react in 
their

: situation?
:
:
:
: I have brought this up to several poeple, they all just look 
confused,
: like they can't handle the possibility that we are the bad guys.  
I use

: this example:
: If France decided that George W. Bush was a threat to them and 
said, well
: lets make a preemptive strike, then they came here and said to us, 
we

are
: liberating you from this oppressive government.
: You can bet on the majority of the American population picking up 
some
: guns and fighting the intruders.  The news would say it was our 
only hope

: for survival.  And the NRA (National Rifle Association) would have a
field day.
: Most people still cannot grasp the concept.
: 
: Here is the link to that respected talk show host.  This is the 
entire

: transcript, all of what he said.
: 
:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070705/content/rush_is_right.gu 


est.html
: 
:
: I do not normally read or listen to him, because for me as a 
foreigner he
: is neither famous or a normal diet, but did it now and have the 
following

: questions.
:
: Do many Americans listen to this?
: Are you not afraid when you hear his views?
: You know that I sometimes think that Americans are a bit naive, but 
I will

: not go so far as that they belive this whacko, or do they?
:
: I did a calculation once, based on Iraqi family sizes with probable 
number

: of relatives and close friends, and draw the conclusion. That it was
almost
: impossible, or at least very rare, that any Iraqi did not knew a 
person

Re: question on desert storm was Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


Kim,

 Will you please provide references for this?

 Granted, Kuwait was invaded. Granted, Kuwait was
 slant drilling into Iraqi oilfields. Granted, Iraq took no
 effort to resolve the issue diplomatically.

Which part? I presume the former and the latter are rather 
uncontestable. So as to the slant drilling,


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_07.shtml

You may notice a small, table of contents in brown text on the left of 
the BBC page. It gives historical background as to Iraq's birth, 
development and the ongoing border disputes with and recognition of Kuwait.


A few other quick references.

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm
http://www.rense.com/general3/slant.htm

A Google search would give you a few dozen.

Todd Swearingen


Garth  Kim Travis wrote:


Greetings Todd,

While I was buried under a ton of philosophy books during desert 
storm, back in Canada, I have never heard the following:


At 09:20 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote:

Granted, Kuwait was invaded. Granted, Kuwait was slant drilling into 
Iraqi oilfields. Granted, Iraq took no effort to resolve the issue 
diplomatically.


Todd Swearingen



Will you please provide references for this?

Bright Blessings,
Kim


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-10 Thread Hakan Falk



Tim,

It is amazing that the word terrorist is so often used without any valid 
definition. Too often it is a label on people who oppose a bully.


With the way the label terrorist is used today, US is a product of 
terrorism against the English and French. During WWII, the poor Germans 
were quite often the victims of terrorists in countries that they occupied. 
In the same way as poor US is victims of terrorists in Iraq. The only body 
that maybe can legally decide about armed interventions, is UN and 
therefore the Iraq occupation is not legal. US can with good reasons be 
defined as internationally criminal and also some of the methods that are 
used.


The terror bombings of Baghdad as an introduction of the occupation, was 
with without any doubts an act of terror. The protection of the Iraqi oil 
ministry and not the most valuable museums on earth, was criminal according 
to international law. Not taking the responsibility for the security of the 
civil population, is a war crime.


I read the legal opinions about Afghanistan and Al Queda and the warnings 
that the administration could be tried for war crimes. Cuba was a way of 
trying to minimize that risk. When the administration then applied the same 
philosophies on Iraq, then it is no longer doubts, in that situation the 
war crimes and violations of the Geneva convention are clear. The US 
administration take the risk to be tried for war crimes, if they go abroad 
or US finally decide to deal with it.


It is almost stupid and completely new, to claim that armed resistance 
against an occupying armed force is terrorism. When an occupying force uses 
methods to subdue resistance, that endanger the security of the local 
population and causes collateral damages, it is by definition a war 
crime. The Geneva convention is dead and irrelevant, completely abused by 
Israel and US.


It's imperialism, stupid

Hakan


At 08:52 AM 7/10/2005, you wrote:

Hi Keith:

Keith Addison wrote:

Lots of argument about what each person thinks their unimpeachable 
sources of information say.


Who are you quoting please? I can't find that word used in the 
discussions, let alone in that context.


I'm guilty of reading between the lines.  One group quotes Limbaugh and 
the other Chomsky.  When either source is question, the advocates get 
emotionally defensive.  The implication is that both sources are above 
reproach, even if statements are made to the contrary (ie, I've checked on 
him in case A, B, C, so I'm sure he's fine on D).

[snip]

You're talking the language of blame. As recent history has shown rather 
loudly, it's this kind of thinking that lashes out, desperate to find 
someone to punish, oblivious to all else, such as the reasons for the 
attack, the long chains of cause and consequence that have brought us all 
to London as you call it, which stretch back sometimes to not quite 
what you might expect. That's what a lynch mob does. So we must lash out 
again, maybe at altogether the wrong target again, and set in motion more 
chains of causes and consequences that bring us to more London's, just 
as it's brought us to other places and dates. It's called sowing dragon's 
teeth. Osama bin Laden is exactly a dragon's tooth.


This is not what I'm advocating at all.  I'm stating that the proper 
response to a terrorist is no negotiation with or acquiescence to their 
demands.  By all means we should look to fixing the causes, if it is 
legitimate for us to do so.


What happens if our search leads us to understand that the value system(s) 
held by the oppressed people are the cause of their oppression and 
poverty.  Does this mean we have the right to work to change the value 
systems of the oppressed?


Rather than raise a lynch mob it makes much more sense to find out just 
what happened and trace it back to its causes - who, what, where, when, 
why and how (a good reporter answers all those questions in the first 25 
words). But where there's lots of blame-talk flying around raising such 
questions can get a person accused of attempting to justify the crime, 
being soft on terrorists.


Will you continue the questions past the events to human value systems, 
and their fruit?  Most don't seem to have the stomach for it.  They like 
to speak of tolerance and love, and shy back from causal links to the 
actual values held by the majorities in those societies.



Anyway, how would you make certain that they're the right perps?


Some are caught, some are killed in attempts, some admit to their 
complicity, some are caught through intercessory investigation, etc.


The picture that's emerging in other posts is that none of the perps 
imprisoned were perps anyway, only a andlful have been charged, huindreds 
of others or more were innocent, and the REAL perps remain free. So that 
didn't work very well. Meanwhile there were 3,192 terror attacks 
worldwide last year with 28,433 people wounded, killed or kidnapped. So 
that isn't working very well

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-10 Thread Hakan Falk



Tim,

I am a bit curious, how long have you lived in Sweden or maybe you are 
Swedish? Did you know that most of todays socialistic governance in 
Sweden, was modelled after US ideas and governance?


What do you know of Napoleonic law, other than that the Hansa and Napolean 
system was the basis for almost all national governance? Does not Napolean 
law have the strongest protection for individual property rights, this 
because a corner stone in Napolean law is the notary system.


By the way, Britain/England does not have a constitution.

Hakan

At 09:40 AM 7/10/2005, you wrote:

Hi Kim:

Kim Travis wrote:

Actually I think Canada was hijacked long before Regan, it was Trudeau 
that did it.  He took a strong independent country and put in all kinds 
of extravegant government services.


He also patriated a constitution that stripped all the rights we had under 
english common law (infinite, unless restricted by statute, precident or 
nature), and implemented a bill of rights that gave us back a few under 
a napoleonic law premise (none, unless specified).  For example, Canadians 
don't have the right to own property.


He gave the people $1.31 worth of services for every $1 we paid in 
taxes.  This went on for 17 years, since Canada has no term limits.  A 
whole generation came to adulthood and had their kids under this kind of 
greed, so when it came time to pay the piper, well you know how the rest 
of the story goes.  If you are going to ask me where I got the figures, 
frankly I no longer remember the source.  It was researched thoroughly 
back in my college days.


The government (read bureaucrats) has also looked to Sweden as an ideal 
form of socialistic governance, and have been systematically trying to 
emulate it through regulation and changes to law.  Compared to what Canada 
was when I was a young man, it's an overbearing, stifling, overregulated 
nightmare.


As to what Canada has been up to for the last 13 years, I am just a 
visitor now and then.  I live in Texas and don't follow the Canadian news 
much.  I have had lots to learn living in a new country and learning how 
to create a sustainable farm.  I was a city girl, till Texas.  I do hear 
my kids and my family B*  but I have no real knowledge of what is 
happening there anymore.


Neither do most of the people that live there, or at least they're too 
apathetic to look like they do.



At 03:59 PM 7/9/2005, chris b. wrote:

hi, kim.  perhaps my understanding of the political trajectory is more 
limited than i give myself credit for, but i've kind of had the notion 
that canada's political process was hijacked in the same way as the 
u.s.' during the reagan era (though perhaps somewhat more 
discretely?).  thanks for the confirmation.


and perhaps i'm naive in this, but it does seem to me that canadian 
society hasn't sunk quite as low as down here south of the border.

Actually, when I moved to the US, it was like a breath of fresh air.


all in all, you might call it u.s.a. /light/?  ;^,
No, Sweden light.  Canadians generally find being mistaken as Americans as 
extremely distasteful.  They're much too sophisticated and intelligent 
to be Americans.


Best regards... Tim

--
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: Fwd: [Biofuel] give up meat?



bob allen wrote:


Howdy Ken et al

Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com wrote:
I think you mean beans and grains here.  There are several traditional 
dishes where beans and grains are present. My late fathers favorite- 
beans and corn bread (he wasn't a vegetarian, but grew up dirt poor 
where meat was a luxury)


You are correct, my mistake.

Can I assume that the soy milk is supplemented with B-12 'cause it 
shouldn't be there naturally?


That is correct.

Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] meat grown in the labs....

2005-07-10 Thread Bede


Further to the current discussion...

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/83C43DC5-EB8F-4504-A9D3-4E25CE6B7F05.
htm
Meat can be 'grown' in laboratories

Laboratories using new tissue engineering technology might be able to
produce meat that is healthier for consumers and cut down on pollution
produced by factory farming.

While NASA engineers have grown fish tissue in lab dishes, no one has
seriously proposed a way to grow meat on commercial levels until now.

But a new study conducted by University of Maryland doctoral student Jason
Matheny and his colleagues describe two possible ways to do it.

Writing in the journal Tissue Engineering on Wednesday, Matheny said
scientists could grow cells from the muscle tissue of cattle, pigs, poultry
or fish in large flat sheets on thin membranes.

These sheets of cells would be grown and stretched, then removed from the
membranes and stacked to increase thickness and resemble meat.

Plan B

Using another method, scientists could grow muscle cells on small
three-dimensional beads that stretch with small changes in temperature. The
resulting tissue could be used to make processed meat such as chicken
nuggets or hamburgers.

Cultured meat could also reduce the pollution that results from raising
livestock, and you wouldn't need the drugs that are used on animals raised
for meat

Jason Matheny,
University of Maryland doctoral student
There would be a lot of benefits from cultured meat, Matheny said in a
statement. For one thing, you could control the nutrients.

Meat is high in omega-6 fatty acid, which is desirable, but not in large
amounts. Healthful omega-3 fatty acids, such as those found in walnuts and
fish oils, could be substituted.

Cultured meat could also reduce the pollution that results from raising
livestock, and you wouldn't need the drugs that are used on animals raised
for meat, Matheny said.

Perceived benefits

Raising livestock requires million of gallons of water and hundreds of acres
of land. Meat grown from tissue would bypass those requirements.

The demand for meat is increasing worldwide, Matheny said. China's meat
demand is doubling every ten years, he said.

Poultry consumption in India has
doubled in last five years

Poultry consumption in India has doubled in the last five years.

Writing in this month's Physics World, British physicist Alan Calvert
calculated that the animals eaten by people produce 21% of the carbon
dioxide that can be attributed to human activity.

He recommends people switch to a vegetarian diet as a way to battle global
warming.

Worldwide reduction of meat production in the pursuit of the targets set in
the Kyoto treaty seems to carry fewer political unknowns than cutting our
consumption of fossil fuels, he said in a statement.

The Kyoto treaty is a global agreement aimed at reducing production of
so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that help fuel global
warming.
Reuters



Bede Meredith
Phone +64 21 892 801
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.codesmith.info


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-10 Thread robert luis rabello


Tim Brodie wrote:



Sure.  I was speaking specifically about the event of 7 7.


	Indeed, you were.  And though you were correct in that nobody had 
specifically mentioned the events of last Thursday, we have discussed 
the overall milieu in which terrorist crimes breed MANY times in this 
forum.  Americans like me seem very reluctant to admit any culpability 
that feeds the problem, nor do we generally accept responsibility for 
civilian casualties when the blunt cudgel of our military when is 
ordered to respond with overwhelming force.  We like to see ourselves 
as the good guys and those terrible folk who kill innocent civilians 
as the bad guys, but this very polarization actually contributes 
significantly to the spread of terrorism.



Thank you. They were also military acts. I've got a sense from past 
postings that many folks say they can understand why these people commit 
these acts (without advocating them or legitimizing them).  I can't 
really understand why killing people that are truly unconnected to 
primary causes is understandable.  Perhaps I've misunderstood the gist 
of the posts.


	I define military acts as those perpetrated by nation states, 
utilizing soldiers in uniform.  (There are minor exceptions, but this 
is an adequate working definition.)  The United States military is, by 
far, the most technologically advanced and capable military machine in 
our world's history.  We spend far more on defense than any other 
nation (or, in fact, many combinations of nations!) on earth.  How can 
anyone reasonably expect an individual who feels outraged by our 
policies and utterly powerless to contend with our military might to 
stand toe to toe with such an adversary?



What do you mean by classic sense.  Do you mean, a nationality or 
uniform?  If so, then no.  However, the enemy is composed of 
cooperative individuals that embrace a common value system.


	Hence, the enemy is ill defined.  Because we cannot identify him, we 
prosecute our war in a manner than only breeds more of HIS kind. 
How can we identify the value system held by another human being?  Why 
then, do we insist on using an institution developed for the sake of 
national defense, to vent our rage against such a nebulous enemy 
wherever we think him to be?  Is this effective?  Is it even possible 
to win?




If I understand you, we've misidentified the enemy and created new enemies?


	We may not have misidentified the enemy.  Our blundering prosecution 
of him, and the means used toward that end, are creating a groundswell 
of support among people who might not have thought of us badly, had we 
behaved in a different way.  To paraphrase Sting, blowing up the 
terrorists' children only proves the terrorists right.



Somewhat.  There have been attacks prevented, such as the planned 
demolition of the Brooklyn Bridge.


	And this was accomplished by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?  Did 
preventing this attack require close air support?  Perhaps more subtle 
means were employed.  Am I correct in this?



There are things worth dying for (defensive).  There are no things worth 
murdering for (aggression).  There are things worth killing to preserve 
(defensive).  [This is an important distinction.]  We must be very 
careful to ensure that we are taking truly defensive actions.


	Such care requires careful introspection.  The policies being 
promulgated by Mr. Bush's administration REQUIRE an offensive and pre 
emptive response to terrorism, which is, by definition, aggressive. 
This is an outgrowth of the feeble, knee-jerk reactions we have 
traditionally employed as long as I can remember.  Perhaps a 
fundamentally different approach, one not involving bombs and bullets 
at all, would be cheaper and far more effective.


	If your enemy is hungry, feed him.  If your enemy is thirsty, give 
him something to drink.


	In essence, we turn an enemy into a friend by listening, by being 
fair, by cooperating.  The culture of the biofuels list promotes 
respect and cooperation in working to solve problems, even among 
people with diverse backgrounds (some very educated, some not), 
religions (we even have pagan subscribers!) languages (though we 
communicate in English, for many of us, it's at least a second 
language) and nationalities (membership is mostly non American).  This 
path is not always easy.  But in truth, the only effective response to 
violence is to avoid being violent.  The person who accepts the last 
blow is the one who ends the fight.  So let's end it!


Is my point more clear now?



All the best


To you as well, Tim!



robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


Keith said:
 I suppose you could feed it to pigs if there's some pressing reason 
not to sell it,
 but the rational thing to do is to sell it, or you risk cutting the 
profitability of a
 major segment of the farm to perhaps below economic levels. It's the 
sustainability

 aspects that will suffer first.

I suspected that profit might bear into this discussion.  And I suppose 
that rightly so.  We could probably debate profitability ad nausium 
but, there is certainly little room for loss on a family-run farm.  A 
point well made!


Why do you object to milk production? Or is it, again, that you're 
objecting to industrialised milk production?


I wouldn't say that I object to milk production at all, I am questioning 
the sustainability of the practice and also the nutritional value to 
humans.  And yes, I do most definitely object to industrialized milk 
production.  Really,  I'm just trying to understand.  Hopefully, it 
might help someone else also.


There's a calf in the first place, then the milk. No calf every year, 
no milk either. Industrial operations remove the calf after two or 
three days and feed it a commercial brew instead (often containing 
cattle blood, IIRC). No need for that, there's enough milk for the 
calf and plenty for the market as well.


Right, but I assume that we have both been on the same page for some 
while now that we are not discussing industrial operations.  We both 
agree that industrial farming will have to cease eventually.  If, in 
practice, there really is enough for the calf and still for market, then 
I MIGHT be willing to do some reconsidering.  More research on my part 
there.



And we're not using human manure for fertilization.

Why not? With ley farming there's no need for anything extra, you'd 
use the humanure elsewhere on the farm. It's only part of an overall 
composting operation anyway, and of course ley farms do composting as 
well.


Well, I don't think that the practice is allowed in the U.S. regardless 
of its value.  I probably should have worded that point differently to 
include only the United States.


I'm still reading (and probably will be for quite a while).  Doesn't 
a lactating cow consume more water and food?



So what?


So, IF (speculating, of course) there is no net gain, then the 
additional inputs are wasted and could be better used elsewhere.  My 
question is at what point do you begin to notice diminishing returns?  
In other words, if I reduce the amount of acreage that I provide for 
grazing (because I am not taking milk from my cows) can I grow more food 
for human consumption?


Isn't that an increase in the competition for resources that you 
mentioned previous?



What competition for resources did I mention? I'm not thinking in 
terms of competition but of symbiosis, collaboration among parts of a 
whole.


here:

I said:
 You are correct, livestock definitely help us
 tend the soil but, that doesn't mean that you have to eat
 the animal for it to be beneficial to you.

You said:
 Actually it does, eat them or compete with them.

 The more you read, the more things begin to corroborate
 each other and fall into place, then it's easier. This is the place 
to start:


 Introduction to An Agricultural Testament
 http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/AT1.html
 An Agricultural Testament - Albert Howard - 1

The problem is that there are too many resources that corroborate one 
another on both sides of this debate.  Don't think that this is the 
first time that I have had this discussion.  I spent a long time (a 
really long time) making the decission of cut meat and dairy out of my 
diet.  I was also raised in a family with a long farm lineages on both 
sides.  Dairy farming is a way of life that I am fairly familiar with.


I think that our views are close enough that I can certainly accept you 
promoting your views.  I also don't think that it is irresponsible for 
me to suggest that people eat a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables and 
grains grown by local organic family farms while only consuming meat 
when an animal has outlived its usefullness.  I don't see us agreeing 
100% on this issue though.  But, if you can convince me, I'll be your 
poster child.


If our societies would just return to responsible hunting and gathering, 
we would have no need for this conversation.


Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid- limbaugh

LOL!
- Original Message - 
From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid- limbaugh

Doug,

Amazing.

Hitler would have been a guaranteed success as American talk show host.

Hakan

At 04:51 AM 7/10/2005, you wrote:

Hakan,

 Rush Limbaugh represents the views of a substantial number of Americans,
enough that we have the president and legislator we have today.  Another
broadcast celebrity here in America is Paul Harvey and some recent remarks
by him advocating slavery, genocide and the use of nuclear and biological
weapons on his program have pretty much flown under the radar.  Visit
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/weblog/archives/2005/06/paul_harvey_ah.html
to read his remarks.  Harvey makes his living as a salesman and good
salesmen do not say things that could adversely impact sales.  Harvey has
been selling for over 30 years that I'm aware of, so he is a good 
salesmen.

He was correct in believing that enough Americans wouldn't be outraged to
substantially affect sales.  He may have back-peddled, but I don't listen 
to

his programs on a regular basis, haven't done so for a long time.  Luck of
the draw that I heard that program that I did.  There are good people in
America, I have to hope they will prevail and the rest of the world allows
them enough time to do so.
Doug
 - Original Message -
From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

:
: Ryan,
:
: At 05:23 PM 7/9/2005, you wrote:
: snip
:
: What is the probability that
: they would love and be grateful to the Americans? Why are the Americans
: surprised, when the Iraqis do not love them? Is it not understandable
that
: some of the Iraqis want to kill Americans, how would you react in their
: situation?
:
: I posted that, but you only repeated a part of it. The introduction to
this
: questions was and here is what I wrote,
:
: I always think about some obvious realities, when Americans come up
: with this dreams about the future. Iraq is a country with a population
that
: to 80% consist of old people, widows and Fatherless children under 15
years
: of age. The Americans have directly or indirectly been involved in 
making
: the women widows and the children fatherless. What is the probability 
that

: they would love and be grateful to the Americans? Why are the Americans
: surprised, when the Iraqis do not love them? Is it not understandable 
that

: some of the Iraqis want to kill Americans, how would you react in their
: situation?
:
:
:
: I have brought this up to several poeple, they all just look confused,
: like they can't handle the possibility that we are the bad guys.  I use
: this example:
: If France decided that George W. Bush was a threat to them and said, 
well

: lets make a preemptive strike, then they came here and said to us, we
are
: liberating you from this oppressive government.
: You can bet on the majority of the American population picking up some
: guns and fighting the intruders.  The news would say it was our only 
hope

: for survival.  And the NRA (National Rifle Association) would have a
field day.
: Most people still cannot grasp the concept.
: 
: Here is the link to that respected talk show host.  This is the 
entire

: transcript, all of what he said.
: 
:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070705/content/rush_is_right.gu
est.html
: 
:
: I do not normally read or listen to him, because for me as a foreigner 
he
: is neither famous or a normal diet, but did it now and have the 
following

: questions.
:
: Do many Americans listen to this?
: Are you not afraid when you hear his views?
: You know that I sometimes think that Americans are a bit naive, but I 
will

: not go so far as that they belive this whacko, or do they?
:
: I did a calculation once, based on Iraqi family sizes with probable 
number

: of relatives and close friends, and draw the conclusion. That it was
almost
: impossible, or at least very rare, that any Iraqi did not knew a person
: well, that had been killed by the Americans.
:
: With this background, how likely is it that US would be welcomed and 
loved

: as liberators?
: Is not the thought or expectation of that Iraqis would love the 
Americans

a
: bit naive?
: Based on civil wars and other occupations, wouldn't it take 80 to 100
years
: before Iraq can get over this with the Americans?
: Would it not be the responsibility of any Iraqi or American, that love 
his

: family, his friends and his country, to fight an occupier?
: If you answer no to the above question, does it not make your country,
: including US, very easy to occupy and subdue?
:
: Hakan
:
:
:
: This will give you an idea of why we are so accepting of our 
governments

: lies, Hakan.
: 
: Don't get me wrong, he's very fun to listen to, but eventually I

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again




Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com wrote:

Why do you object to milk production? Or is it, again, that you're 
objecting to industrialised milk production?



I wouldn't say that I object to milk production at all, I am 
questioning the sustainability of the practice and also the 
nutritional value to humans.  And yes, I do most definitely object to 
industrialized milk production.  Really,  I'm just trying to 
understand.  Hopefully, it might help someone else also.


I should add that as mammals ourselves there is nothing that bovine milk 
provides to us that we cannot get directly from other foods or 
manufacture ourselves.


Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-10 Thread r

If we assume that the human body knows what it needs, then if human milk 
is the most appropriate to feed humans, how come we are drinking cow 
milk instead of human milk?   How about industrialized human milk 
production?  That should help to cure/prevent a fair amount of diseases 
prevalent in our societies?


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com wrote:

Why do you object to milk production? Or is it, again, that you're 
objecting to industrialised milk production?




I wouldn't say that I object to milk production at all, I am 
questioning the sustainability of the practice and also the 
nutritional value to humans.  And yes, I do most definitely object to 
industrialized milk production.  Really,  I'm just trying to 
understand.  Hopefully, it might help someone else also.



I should add that as mammals ourselves there is nothing that bovine 
milk provides to us that we cannot get directly from other foods or 
manufacture ourselves.


Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: Fwd: [Biofuel] give up meat?




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

even so, a few years ago i started cutting way back on my meat intake on the 
recommendation of my doctor.  i enjoy it just as much as ever, but have found 
that i am now eating a much greater amount of vegetables, and considerably 
less fat intake.  this without any conscious effort in that regard.  i simply cut 
back on the meat, and the rest happened quite on its own. . . .




It does happen on its own.  You begin to look for other alternatives and 
suddenly you realize that the Earth's food diversity is truly amazing.  I would 
guess that you have ventured out into new vegetables and that can only mean a 
greater variety of vitamins and minerals.

Take care,
Ken


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

i'm far from convinced that it was al queda, or even arab/islamist terrorists 
of any stripe.

-chris b.

In a message dated 7/9/05 11:43:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 I find it fascinating that virtually nothing has been said in this forum 

about London.  Lots of argument about what each person thinks their 

unimpeachable sources of information say.  Nothing about the current 

event that demonstrates the face of this evil, and the nature of the 

value systems that executed these actions. 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


r wrote:

If we assume that the human body knows what it needs, then if human 
milk is the most appropriate to feed humans, how come we are drinking 
cow milk instead of human milk?   How about industrialized human milk 
production?  That should help to cure/prevent a fair amount of 
diseases prevalent in our societies?


I don't really see the need for any milk in the human body with the 
exception of the millk of a woman to feed her child.


Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

2005-07-10 Thread Hans Reuchlin

Yes, and yes..

However, there remains one problem, the covert actions of governments, i.e.
regime change(or the facilitation thereof) in far away countries..
One country comes to mind, Venezuela.
With it's oil riches, and firebrand president Chavez( hey, they tried to
oust him short of killing him), this country is soo nice, people are nice,
no civil war, etc.and lot's of money being spent on schools, clinics,
infrastructure etc.
In the eyes of Washington a complete heretic and pathetic display of
emotion... caring for 85% of the population, instaed of tax breaks for the 5
ruling families??
I know that should things go bad in the Middle East, regime change in
Venezuela is on the short list.
Just have a bad feeling, having travelled there a lot, running into
backpackers with a skewed story and a perverse interest in snorkling at
the end of the airfield in Los Roques.
One passed himself off as a teacher in computer sciences; I asked him if he
was PC or MAC, and couldn't awnser the question.. My read, stupid seal..
And then there is Nigeria, propped up by us.

Just a rant and rave..

h
- Original Message -
From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


 Tim Brodie wrote:


  Sure.  I was speaking specifically about the event of 7 7.

 Indeed, you were.  And though you were correct in that nobody had
 specifically mentioned the events of last Thursday, we have discussed
 the overall milieu in which terrorist crimes breed MANY times in this
 forum.  Americans like me seem very reluctant to admit any culpability
 that feeds the problem, nor do we generally accept responsibility for
 civilian casualties when the blunt cudgel of our military when is
 ordered to respond with overwhelming force.  We like to see ourselves
 as the good guys and those terrible folk who kill innocent civilians
 as the bad guys, but this very polarization actually contributes
 significantly to the spread of terrorism.


  Thank you. They were also military acts. I've got a sense from past
  postings that many folks say they can understand why these people commit
  these acts (without advocating them or legitimizing them).  I can't
  really understand why killing people that are truly unconnected to
  primary causes is understandable.  Perhaps I've misunderstood the gist
  of the posts.

 I define military acts as those perpetrated by nation states,
 utilizing soldiers in uniform.  (There are minor exceptions, but this
 is an adequate working definition.)  The United States military is, by
 far, the most technologically advanced and capable military machine in
 our world's history.  We spend far more on defense than any other
 nation (or, in fact, many combinations of nations!) on earth.  How can
 anyone reasonably expect an individual who feels outraged by our
 policies and utterly powerless to contend with our military might to
 stand toe to toe with such an adversary?


  What do you mean by classic sense.  Do you mean, a nationality or
  uniform?  If so, then no.  However, the enemy is composed of
  cooperative individuals that embrace a common value system.

 Hence, the enemy is ill defined.  Because we cannot identify him, we
 prosecute our war in a manner than only breeds more of HIS kind.
 How can we identify the value system held by another human being?  Why
 then, do we insist on using an institution developed for the sake of
 national defense, to vent our rage against such a nebulous enemy
 wherever we think him to be?  Is this effective?  Is it even possible
 to win?


  If I understand you, we've misidentified the enemy and created new
enemies?

 We may not have misidentified the enemy.  Our blundering prosecution
 of him, and the means used toward that end, are creating a groundswell
 of support among people who might not have thought of us badly, had we
 behaved in a different way.  To paraphrase Sting, blowing up the
 terrorists' children only proves the terrorists right.


  Somewhat.  There have been attacks prevented, such as the planned
  demolition of the Brooklyn Bridge.

 And this was accomplished by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?  Did
 preventing this attack require close air support?  Perhaps more subtle
 means were employed.  Am I correct in this?


  There are things worth dying for (defensive).  There are no things worth
  murdering for (aggression).  There are things worth killing to preserve
  (defensive).  [This is an important distinction.]  We must be very
  careful to ensure that we are taking truly defensive actions.

 Such care requires careful introspection.  The policies being
 promulgated by Mr. Bush's administration REQUIRE an offensive and pre
 emptive response to terrorism, which is, by definition, aggressive.
 This is an outgrowth of the feeble, knee-jerk reactions we have
 traditionally employed as long as I can remember.  Perhaps a
 fundamentally different approach, one

[Biofuel] biodiesel and WVO in all liquid cooled Diesel

2005-07-10 Thread Richard Rovinsky

I believe you need to ask someone who knows more about biodiesel
and the equipment you are powering with it.  Of course, the
safe answer given by anyone who doesn't know will be no. 
Investigate their knowledge of biodiesel before asking that
question.  I think the real answer is...it depends.  What is
biodiesel specifically?  What tests has it passed?
Chemically speaking, diesel is diesel is diesel once it is
processed.  The quality of the processes used to generate a
quality product is what you should be investigating, I believe. 
Any additional byproducts included in the biodiesel may be cause
for precautions (due diligence in investigation followed by
appropriate courses of action).
  Since there are so many sources and levels of care taken to
make it, they may be right in some cases.  Are you planning use
it in cold weather, where it might become too thick?  So, you
may need to blend it with dinodiesel.  
  Has the biodiesel you plan to use been tested to meet any
automovitive quality tests for purity, contaminants,
particle/size?  You may need to test your Biodiesel to be sure,
otherwise, you may just take a chance.  
  From what I understand, biodiesel will generally act as a
solvent and release any accumulations of dinodiesel residue that
may have built up in the tanks of older equipment, and so you
may need to inspect and change filters more often, initially. 
Hope this provides some food for thought.  
   Richard

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Biodiesel Tax Credits

2005-07-10 Thread Richard Rovinsky

Catherine, 
  I am no tax expert, but I can tell you this...short answer: 
You aren't going to get a tax credit for biodiesel if you aren't
already paying tax on biodiesel.  Does that make sense?  

  Long answer:
  As I see it, being able to produce biodiesel averts road use
taxes, currently close to 30% for dinodiesel.  Farmers are able
to use heating oil as diesel on their farm-use-only equipment,
so they aren't required to pay road use tax, on the order of 75
cents per gallon savings as compared to the local truck stop
price.

  I am sure blending it for sale at the local retailers would
entail some taxation, but do you think the bureacracy wants to
incentivize the use of biodiesel?  Sure, there are cleaner air
merits with biodiesel, but it isn't exactly available everywhere
is it?  I think they feel it is small potatoes compared to the
dinodiesel industry.  If they could find a way to detect it's
production whereever it is produced, they would probably tax it.
  I'm happy it is going to fly under their radar for now.
  Richard

Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:32:05 -0500
From: Bill Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Biofuel] Biodiesel Tax Credits
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about federal tax
credits for 
biodiesel use?  

Thanks!

Catherine Jones



__ 
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Hybrid Diesel

2005-07-10 Thread KinsleyForPrez08


Gustl,

Which is why I didn't join the Libertarian Party, or any party for that 
matter.  Everytime I look up a particular political party, I find something 
that I don't agree with.  I think I will just stay an independent, as I have 
for the last 17 years.  I voted for Badnarik in the last election because he 
seemed like a better choice than Candidate R or Candidate D.


On unions, it seems like the Government has enacted enough labor laws that 
the unions no longer seem useful.  There are more federal and state laws 
today (119 in PA stick in my mind from a recent HR seminar I went to) that 
protect the individual worker, but none that protect the employers.  I am 
not saying that unions aren't worthy endeavors, but the Government has taken 
away much of their power.  Nowadays, unions are really just good for 
negotiating rates and benefits and keeping senior members employed.  I think 
many of those labor laws should be scrapped, and more power put back into 
the hands of the individuals, or groups of individuals (i.e., unions).


Thanks for the info!

Earl Kinsley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are 
free.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

- Original Message - 
From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 7:13 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [Biofuel] Hybrid Diesel


Hallo Friends,

Saturday, 09 July, 2005, 21:49:44, you wrote:

1an Unfortunately  voting  Libertarian had nothing to do with getting
1an rid of these extreemists...

In  order  to  be  absolutely fair and consistent I need to be equally
hostile to all political parties including the Libertarians.

I have been in a discussion with my wife's nephew who is a heavy duty,
factory  owning, dyed-in-the-wool capitalist and a staunch Libertarian
as well.  In order to understand his thinking I have recently read the
Libertarian  party  platform  and  have  concluded  that they would be
closer  to the truth if they changed the party name to Licensecarian
because  while they use the word responsibility quite a lot in their
platform I find little evidence of any substance there.

There  is  a lot of talk about individual rights but very little about
the  rights  of society as a whole. One interesting example is that of
the  unions. Individuals have the right to form a union but as soon as
they  do  they  have  no  right  to  do what a union is intended to do
because  the  owner  of  a corporation or business or whatever has the
right  to refuse to recognize the union thus making it a futile effort
in  the first place. You may form an orchestra but you may not play.
That  kind  of thought is built in to the platform throughout. Sort of
Ayn  Randish  on  steroids and gone psychotic. All lettuce and no meat
and  potatoes  let  alone  beans and grains. To give with one hand and
take  away  with  the  other  is to do nothing. Social responsibility?
Nice  concept  but  MY  rights as an individual are paramount.  Shove
off.  No thank you. We are our brothers (and sisters) keepers.

Happy Happy,

Gustl
--
Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns.

We can't change the winds but we can adjust our sails.

The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope,
soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones,
without signposts.
C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen,
daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht
gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden.

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't
hear the music.
George Carlin

The best portion of a good man's life -
His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love.
William Wordsworth



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


Tim Brodie,

 The choice of the word fascinating was in reference to traffic
 on this list, not about the horror of the events of London.

I think you'll find that most people on this list are rather well 
grounded and don't get too knotted up in sensationalism and table talk. 
As I mentioned, most would rather go to the root of the problem and 
spend their energies there rather than round robin at the local watering 
hole.


 Sorry, I have to disagree with your view.  The evaluation of a value 
system
 is in the examination of its fruit.  Many societies in this world are 
oppressive
 places and downright evil places to live; ask any woman or minority 
living there.


Feel free to disagree. But you'd be doing so with blinders. Take a look 
at the value system that you might care to use as the benchmark and then 
look at the fruit. A vast amount of the harvest is completely unedible 
in what is supposed to be a civil society. Iraq and many nations in the 
Arabian region are indeed fruit of a century of meddling on the part of 
the US and Europe, primarily Britain.


 OK, I'll think about this and try to find the context of these 
statements.

 By the way, my experience on taking moral stands is that people call you
 a religious nut and classify you as unfit to lead or foolish or 
ignorant, etc.
 Who are you to foist your religious view on them? is commonly said 
or implied.


Morals aren't predicated upon religion. They're predicated upon social 
reason. Just because some overlap or are duplicate between the pious and 
the laymen doesn't mean that ownership belongs to one or the other. It 
belongs to all.


 Hmmm.  So if anywhere in our collective past there was evil done,
 we are not free to address any other evil?  I suppose our guilt means
 we should roll over and take our penance?  How does the possible
 death of my children in an airplane crash into an office tower make
 retribution for the actions of a past President (if indeed there is the
 complicity you charge)?

Tim. I didn't say that. What I did imply is that it makes a great deal 
of sense to examine the foundation before thinking about the roof. What 
I also implied is that the overwhelming tendency is towards foregoing 
the contribution of the past and how it contributes to the present, 
opting instead only to focus on the immediate. While that is a common 
human trait, it is within our capacity to address our own shortcomings 
every bit as readily as we flock to and rail against the shortcomings of 
others.


 Ah, thanks Todd.  There's a good quote to answer Keith's question..

There's a difference between acknowledging reality in all its facets and 
trying to justify actions. If you really wish to think about 
justification, please, by all means, rationalize and justify the 
behavior of the United States over the past century relative to Arab 
relations. That's a perfect place to start..., at the beginning.


Maybe what needs to be done is stop justifying and start acknowledging.

 I for one continue to work diligently at the betterment and peace of 
all people.


Is that why you were so willing in your last post to jump on one evil 
without giving the first thought to the evil that predicated it and 
leads to its propigation?


 I've tried to begin that conversation about justice earlier,
 but it wasn't considered worthy of discussion.

Start with honesty. Without it there will never be justice.

 I think that evil at the core is what is being addressed here.
 The bombs, bloodletting, shortened lives and lost futures is what
 we'd all like to prevent, even if it seems to be so simple as
 de-evolving and choosing alternative and softer paths.

 I don't know what you mean by this.

Sure you do. The purpose of this list is to lend towards an alternative 
and softer path, not the hardcore, destructive path of present regimes.


 There is no concord
 possible between good and evil.

Yet rather odd that one cannot exist without the other. Even more 
peculiar is what some dictate as good, despite it's inherantly 
destructive outcome. Good cannot be universally applied, much less 
anyone's interpretation of good.


 From whence do you get your standard to classify some people as 
assholes?  Perhaps in their value system they are completely justified.


Of the latter I have no doubt. Never the less, that doesn't somehow 
magically make their judgement any more sound or the consequences 
thereof any less destructive. Take a look at the fruit. From this they 
can be judged, or at least be discerned as an asshole or not.


 How will attempting to appease terrorists by modifying our behavior
 (and thus legitimizing their actions) help?  Or perhaps I'm missing 
your point?


Oh, you're missing the point entirely Master Brodie. Intentionally I 
tend to think, especially after you caught the point so readily 
earlier in your response.


Continuing wrongful behavior only perpetuates wrongful responses. Either 
a gut check and a different path is in

Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again

My mother and grandfather swear by this stuff.  I have no affiliation with 
this site, it was on google.  I haven't taken any of this colostrum, but my 
grandfather and his girlfriend say it saved their lives.  I am not sure of 
the valitidy of this, as we see in America, advertising can create a 
wonderdrug...barefoot coral calcium for example.  all over the tv, it was 
the hottest fad in living forever, now it is top shelf in the back.


This just came to mind when you mentioned the diseases.

Ryan
- Original Message - 
From: r [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pimentel is at it again


If we assume that the human body knows what it needs, then if human milk 
is the most appropriate to feed humans, how come we are drinking cow milk 
instead of human milk?   How about industrialized human milk production? 
That should help to cure/prevent a fair amount of diseases prevalent in 
our societies?


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Ken Dunn - CountyEarth.com wrote:

Why do you object to milk production? Or is it, again, that you're 
objecting to industrialised milk production?




I wouldn't say that I object to milk production at all, I am questioning 
the sustainability of the practice and also the nutritional value to 
humans.  And yes, I do most definitely object to industrialized milk 
production.  Really,  I'm just trying to understand.  Hopefully, it 
might help someone else also.



I should add that as mammals ourselves there is nothing that bovine milk 
provides to us that we cannot get directly from other foods or 
manufacture ourselves.


Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/






___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

We don't teach history in schools any more.  We teach dates to be tested.  I 
honestly can't remember much from Social Studies class.  I just memorized 
and tested and forgot...but it got me through school.

Ryan
- Original Message - 
From: Garth  Kim Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

Greetings,
I think we both missed the biggest change that happened during his reign, 
History was replaced with Social Studies.  Now the people have no idea 
what has been done before or where they have been as a people.  They are 
doomed to repeat it.  sad.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 02:40 AM 7/10/2005, you wrote:

Hi Kim:

Kim Travis wrote:

Actually I think Canada was hijacked long before Regan, it was Trudeau 
that did it.  He took a strong independent country and put in all kinds 
of extravegant government services.

He also patriated a constitution that stripped all the rights we had under 
english common law (infinite, unless restricted by statute, precident or 
nature), and implemented a bill of rights that gave us back a few under 
a napoleonic law premise (none, unless specified).  For example, Canadians 
don't have the right to own property.

He gave the people $1.31 worth of services for every $1 we paid in taxes. 
This went on for 17 years, since Canada has no term limits.  A whole 
generation came to adulthood and had their kids under this kind of greed, 
so when it came time to pay the piper, well you know how the rest of the 
story goes.  If you are going to ask me where I got the figures, frankly 
I no longer remember the source.  It was researched thoroughly back in my 
college days.

The government (read bureaucrats) has also looked to Sweden as an ideal 
form of socialistic governance, and have been systematically trying to 
emulate it through regulation and changes to law.  Compared to what Canada 
was when I was a young man, it's an overbearing, stifling, overregulated 
nightmare.

As to what Canada has been up to for the last 13 years, I am just a 
visitor now and then.  I live in Texas and don't follow the Canadian news 
much.  I have had lots to learn living in a new country and learning how 
to create a sustainable farm.  I was a city girl, till Texas.  I do hear 
my kids and my family B*  but I have no real knowledge of what is 
happening there anymore.

Neither do most of the people that live there, or at least they're too 
apathetic to look like they do.

At 03:59 PM 7/9/2005, chris b. wrote:

hi, kim.  perhaps my understanding of the political trajectory is more 
limited than i give myself credit for, but i've kind of had the notion 
that canada's political process was hijacked in the same way as the 
u.s.' during the reagan era (though perhaps somewhat more discretely?). 
thanks for the confirmation.

and perhaps i'm naive in this, but it does seem to me that canadian 
society hasn't sunk quite as low as down here south of the border.

Actually, when I moved to the US, it was like a breath of fresh air.

all in all, you might call it u.s.a. /light/?  ;^,
No, Sweden light.  Canadians generally find being mistaken as Americans as 
extremely distasteful.  They're much too sophisticated and intelligent 
to be Americans.

Best regards... Tim

--
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] give up meat?

hi, ken.  sorry, did it sound like i was suggesting that non-meat/non-animal 
protein sources are hard to find?  that wasn't my intention.  they are, in 
fact and as you say, plentiful.  though it is best to make sure you're getting 
the full complement of amino acids.  this requires a bit of investigation and 
planning.

here is my original post:

ryan,

if you want to eliminate meat from your diet, then you need to find another 
way of
getting the protein meat provides.   there aren't many 'veggies' (at least, 
as i
understand the word) which contain much protein.  the primary non-animal 
protein
sources are cereals/grains, potatoes, beans (like black, pinto, soy), and 
the right kinds
of corn (maize) when properly prepared.   for the most part, none of these 
is sufficient
in and of itself, since they do not contain the complete amino acid set 
required for the
human diet.

-chris b.

best regards,

-chris b.

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid


Rather tidy qualifier here Mr. Brodie,

 By all means we should look to fixing the causes, if it is legitimate 
for us to do so.


Always nice to leave enough wiggle room as to justify irresponsibility.

Would you care to give me 10:1 odds were I  to guess as to who gets 
assigned to determine legitimacy?


 Will you continue the questions past the events to human
 value systems, and their fruit?

Will you include value systems and their role in fruit yielded?

Todd Swearingen


Tim Brodie wrote:


Hi Keith:

Keith Addison wrote:

Lots of argument about what each person thinks their unimpeachable 
sources of information say.



Who are you quoting please? I can't find that word used in the 
discussions, let alone in that context.



I'm guilty of reading between the lines.  One group quotes Limbaugh 
and the other Chomsky.  When either source is question, the advocates 
get emotionally defensive.  The implication is that both sources are 
above reproach, even if statements are made to the contrary (ie, I've 
checked on him in case A, B, C, so I'm sure he's fine on D).

[snip]

You're talking the language of blame. As recent history has shown 
rather loudly, it's this kind of thinking that lashes out, desperate 
to find someone to punish, oblivious to all else, such as the reasons 
for the attack, the long chains of cause and consequence that have 
brought us all to London as you call it, which stretch back 
sometimes to not quite what you might expect. That's what a lynch mob 
does. So we must lash out again, maybe at altogether the wrong target 
again, and set in motion more chains of causes and consequences that 
bring us to more London's, just as it's brought us to other places 
and dates. It's called sowing dragon's teeth. Osama bin Laden is 
exactly a dragon's tooth.



This is not what I'm advocating at all.  I'm stating that the proper 
response to a terrorist is no negotiation with or acquiescence to 
their demands.  By all means we should look to fixing the causes, if 
it is legitimate for us to do so.


What happens if our search leads us to understand that the value 
system(s) held by the oppressed people are the cause of their 
oppression and poverty.  Does this mean we have the right to work to 
change the value systems of the oppressed?


Rather than raise a lynch mob it makes much more sense to find out 
just what happened and trace it back to its causes - who, what, 
where, when, why and how (a good reporter answers all those questions 
in the first 25 words). But where there's lots of blame-talk flying 
around raising such questions can get a person accused of attempting 
to justify the crime, being soft on terrorists.



Will you continue the questions past the events to human value 
systems, and their fruit?  Most don't seem to have the stomach for 
it.  They like to speak of tolerance and love, and shy back from 
causal links to the actual values held by the majorities in those 
societies.



Anyway, how would you make certain that they're the right perps?



Some are caught, some are killed in attempts, some admit to their 
complicity, some are caught through intercessory investigation, etc.


The picture that's emerging in other posts is that none of the perps 
imprisoned were perps anyway, only a andlful have been charged, 
huindreds of others or more were innocent, and the REAL perps remain 
free. So that didn't work very well. Meanwhile there were 3,192 
terror attacks worldwide last year with 28,433 people wounded, killed 
or kidnapped. So that isn't working very well either.



Better some success and many thousands of lives saved, than doing 
nothing because we don't have a better plan.  I'm all for a better plan.


Anyway, the Brits are coping with it, as one would expect, they're 
tough and level-headed folk. *They* know that there's a hell of a lot 
more to London than just London.



And I'm very thankful for their stedfastness through it all.


What do you think of Spain's response to Madrid?



It's been a while, but my assessment at the time was that I would 
never have rolled over like they did.  However, there is a large 
Muslim population in Spain, so I would expect it was the politically 
expedient thing to do.  Not the right thing.


Best regards... Tim



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] give up meat?


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

hi, ken.  sorry, did it sound like i was suggesting that non-meat/non-animal 
protein sources are hard to find?  that wasn't my intention.  


Well that is what I got out of it but.

they are, in 
fact and as you say, plentiful.  though it is best to make sure you're getting 
the full complement of amino acids. 


you are quite right still the same.

Other than making sure that I take in variety, I have stopped thinking 
about it.  My doctor can't tell the difference.  I don't know whether 
that's good or bad.


Take care,
Ken

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid

yeah, and now rushie et al are about to go to irak on their truth tour to 
tell the side of the war that the media i afraid to. (i know, it's hard to 
make sense of that for me, too)

-chris b.
---BeginMessage---

well said keith, I can't believe he gets around the whole world with this.

Ryan

- Original Message - 
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid



Hi Hakan and all

snip

Here is the link to that respected talk show host.  This is the entire 
transcript, all of what he said.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070705/content/rush_is_r 
ight.guest.html


I do not normally read or listen to him, because for me as a foreigner he 
is neither famous or a normal diet, but did it now and have the following 
questions.


Do many Americans listen to this?
Are you not afraid when you hear his views?


I sure am.

You know that I sometimes think that Americans are a bit naive, but I will 
not go so far as that they belive this whacko, or do they?


FWIW, Rush Limbaugh is featured every day on American forces radio 
stations at US military bases, at least in Japan, I suppose elsewhere too. 
So is Paul Harvey, who Doug just mentioned. I like Todd's term 
limbaughtomized. Your brain has to be not all present and correct to 
listen to that stuff and go on thinking all is well and good. IMNSHO.


Best

Keith


I did a calculation once, based on Iraqi family sizes with probable number 
of relatives and close friends, and draw the conclusion. That it was 
almost impossible, or at least very rare, that any Iraqi did not knew a 
person well, that had been killed by the Americans.


With this background, how likely is it that US would be welcomed and loved 
as liberators?
Is not the thought or expectation of that Iraqis would love the Americans 
a bit naive?
Based on civil wars and other occupations, wouldn't it take 80 to 100 
years before Iraq can get over this with the Americans?
Would it not be the responsibility of any Iraqi or American, that love his 
family, his friends and his country, to fight an occupier?
If you answer no to the above question, does it not make your country, 
including US, very easy to occupy and subdue?


Hakan



This will give you an idea of why we are so accepting of our governments 
lies, Hakan.


Don't get me wrong, he's very fun to listen to, but eventually I have to 
turn it off and form my own opinion.
If you surf the site, you will notice a veeery conservative bias. Again, 
no problem with this, I just don't agree.  Without left we can have no 
right. The problem is when they get out of balance, yin and yang.


Happy Day to all
Ryan



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/






___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

---End Message---
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Terrorism defined