There are other options than bailing out the big three

Biofuels not to blame for high food prices, report

19th November 2008

Biofuels were not to blame for high crop and food prices during 2008, according to the president and CEO of Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO), Jim Greenwood.

Greenwood said, ‘American consumers should not be fooled by ongoing attempts to misplace blame for this year’s rise in food prices on biofuels. The evidence before consumers is clear: crop prices have fallen dramatically in the past few months as oil and gas prices have declined. A barrel of oil cost $140 in July but is currently less than $65. Similarly, a bushel of corn that was more than $7.50 back in July is now less than $4, even while production of biofuels and other food, feed and fibre demands have all remained consistent.’

Greenwood went onto add that agricultural technology was continually working towards increasing crop yields, resulting in greater biofuels feedstock growth on less land and labeled advanced biofuels as an opportunity for tremendous growth.

‘The nation’s current goal of producing and using 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022 is a tremendous opportunity for jobs and growth. A 2007 U.S. Department of Commerce report projects that this amount of cellulosic ethanol would replace 4.1 per cent of U.S. oil imports, keeping $8.4bn in the US. economy rather than sending it overseas. It also shows that producing this amount of cellulosic ethanol could add $12.6bn dollars to US consumers’ pockets. Production of advanced biofuels could increase US gross domestic product by $4.7bn and, importantly, would add more than 20,000 jobs to rural economies,’ Greenwood added.

BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the US and in more than 30 other nations.

Copyright © 2008 newnet

Tags: bail out, energy policy

Jon Huntsman – For President?

by Phil

Wednesday evening, I spotted a very interesting posting by Jonathon Martin in his blog on Politico. The headline read: Add to the 2012 prospect list: Jon Huntsman.

This peaked immediate interest (for obvious reasons) and Martin makes a strong case for Jon Huntsman – something I have been bantering about for weeks.

Huntsman, 48, cuts an impressive figure and has a fascinating personal and political story to tell, including the sort of foreign policy background most governors lack. The scion of a prominent Mormon family, he served as U.S. ambassador to Singapore for Bush 41 when he was in his early 30s, did trade stints in the Commerce Department and was a deputy U.S. trade representative under the current Bush, overseeing trade with Africa and Asia.  

The two-term Governor is an impressive figure. But Martin points out that his pedigree isn’t the only thing that puts him in the Presidential mix for 2012.

As any Utah governor would be, Huntsman is in line with the GOP base on social issues.  But he takes a more centrist tack on the environment, and had some blunt words for his party on an issue he believes is hurting them with younger voters.

“We as Republicans can’t shy away from speaking the word ‘environment,’ and we shouldn’t shy away from speaking the words ‘climate change,’” Huntsman told reporters at a press conference this afternoon.  “When you’ve got a body of science that already is rendering certain judgements about what is happening in our world, for us to shy away, say it doesn’t matter as an issue, I think is foolhardy, it’s short-sighted and it’s bound to do us damage in the longer-term.”

Huntsman also talked fluently about education, energy and health care, making the case, as many of his fellow governors have, that the GOP needs to come up with practical solutions on such day-to-day concerns.

Huntsman represents the sensible faction of the new GOP. The side that George F. Will so fondly deemed the “ABP Republicans” (Anyone But Palin). He’s pretty impressive, especially by Republican standards. There is no denying that Huntsman has done a superb job as Governor. I like Jon Huntsman, and I voted for him twice. I like him because he’s a true moderate and he takes business seriously without giving too much.

He’s worked for more modern liquor laws in Utah, but he’s stayed out of the messier moral issues. He’s not a moral police man – he’s more of a statesman. I like his international ties and his stance on the environment, and although he found himself on the wrong side of the school vouchers issue, that was not a huge deal for me.
 
The key with him is his ability to manage. He reduced the state budget BEFORE the shortfalls started rolling in. He knew we were having an economic downturn, so he reduced spending prior to the bottom dropping out on the State. That’s pretty gutsy, and quite intelligent. He understands the role of government, and he also understands the role of ACTUAL budgeting. He’s not like the rest of the GOP morons who spend like drunken sailors…he’s smart and he runs the budget like a family does. No money? No buy!

However, I don’t think the GOP will be ready for a serious run for the Whitehouse in four years. The walk through the wilderness is going to take at least eight. In two years, the Mormon issue will still be a caustic one, especially with the Prop 8 blowback. He will get killed by the newly empowered environmentalists because he used to run a chemicals company, and there’s no denying that his resume was padded by a father who was a generous donor to the Reagan campaign. The son of a billionaire Mormon chemical magnate that has had life pretty much handed to him on a silver platter will have a hard time relating to every “Joe the Plumber” that Republicans seem to be so hot and bothered over.

None of this is fair, but that’s politics.

He’s already stated that he won’t return for a third term as Utah’s Governor. Could it be a run at the Presidency? Could be. My hope is that he has designs on taking over for Orrin Hatch when he retires in four years.

Until then, at least we have a Governor who won’t have to borrow money from the RNC for shopping sprees.

Tags: Add new tag

BOYCOTT THE MORMONS!

- By Chad

So the “BOYCOTT UTAH” cries have begun. The protests against the LDS church are raging. This is laughably ineffective, and it’s such a waste of time – unless you’re trying to make fools of yourselves and counter-productivity is your goal. Here is what I take issue with:

1. I don’t like protesters, in general. I mean, there’s decent protests and then there are silly, time wasting, angry, counter-productive protests like the one I’m seeing in the news. There’s a right way to go about making changes, and there are wrong ways – this shows their true rainbow of colors and it’s not that pretty. So, you didn’t like the outcome of a democratic vote in favor for the opposite of what you wanted, all this vote means is that you have a ways to go to gain mainstream acceptance to the point, when the time comes, you can raise enough counter money to push your own ballot measure to have the amendment changed or removed through another democratic vote.

Here’s a free tip to the protesters: When the day comes that you would like to use democracy (instead of throwing fits) to get what you want, you REALLY want the indifference of those who opposed you to increase – and these protests… not so helpful.

2. So why the LDS church? They weren’t the only donors. There aren’t the only people who voted (there are not 5 million Mormons in California), 70% of African Americans also opposed you – so why the Mormons specifically? First off, we’re an easy target. Not too many other religions will jump to support the LDS Church, and I don’t think gays will take their protests to the inner-cities (just a hunch). Correct me if I err, but I never realized the LDS church had that much influence on the African American community. Since that last sentence was sarcasm, I honestly don’t believe the LDS church does have the influence on the African American communities to cause 70% of them to vote in favor of Prop 8. You may want to consider that two separate groups, and if you think you’re being effective protesting at the Mormon temples, you’ll probably be just as effective in the inner-cities and should plan some protests there. Unless black people scare you more than Mormons, which, then, you are racists. See what I did there?

A major reason the LDS Church is targeted is that the Mormons were the biggest donors to the pro-prop8 cause – not the Church itself, but by-golly, you get some Mormons behind a cause and they run with it.

So the Mormons donated a ton of money, and because of that, Proposition 8 passed, right? Here’s some problems then:
A) I guess that means that the Mormons care more about you not getting married than you do about getting married, if the gays didn’t raise as much money. You may just need to care more about it.
B) If the gays did raise that much money, then it was a fair battle and the amount of donations really should cancel each other out as far as a level playing field. Then you only have to fault your own marketing strategy which would require you to protest at the anti-prop8 headquarters for doing a lousy job.

To sum up: Either You don’t care as much about marriage as the Mormons, or, you just weren’t as effective in arguing your case. Either way, you only have yourselves to blame for dropping that ball and not making it significant enough.

Nobody likes a sore loser.

It’s kind of sad, really. The worst part about it?:  The bulk of the anger and protests are directed at the Mormons. Not because it somehow hurts the Mormons, but it’s a very ineffective people to protest to. Have you seen that commercial where the referee was being screamed at by a coach on the sideline, yet the ref had a deadpan face and all that screaming didn’t phase him? The Mormon church is pretty much like that ref. The LDS Church is used to the protests, the bashing, the mud slings, the smears – have you ever been to an LDS General Conference? Protesters are nothing new to them – you’re not going to make a dent.

Which brings up another good point: Fighting fire with fire is probably not effective in this case. I have yet to hear a homosexual behind a microphone saying, “I have a dream that, one day, Mormons and homosexuals will sit down at a table together…” – That’s not the kind of protests I’m seeing. It makes me sick, and should make African Americans everywhere sick, to compare their plight to that of the blacks. I think it would be wise to drop that comparison if you want the indifference of the 70% of African American supporters to increase, too.

The other comparison that is pretty stupid? The comparison to the anti-polygamy movement the Mormons had to face.
A) “Non-Traditional” Marriage: To compare your battle with that of the Mormon’s battle with the government over polygamy as both being “Non-Traditional marriages”, is a loose and bogus comparison. Do you think, in some countries, that muslims who are legally allowed to marry 12 year old girls is wrong, or is it nothing more than a “Non-tradional marriage”? What about Hillbillies that marry their first cousins? That sounds like “Non-Traditional marriage” – “Non-Traditional marriage” is a loose term and carries no weight, let alone any vague comparison to other forms of “Non-Traditional” marriages. I don’t think you want to compare yourselves to some of those “non-traditional” marriages. In fact, there probably is nothing MORE traditional than polygamy. Have you read the bible? Have you studied the histories of ancient, even some modern, societies? Polygamy wasn’t unusual.

B) There was never a vote to strip polygamy or not. The Mormons had no choice. The government intervened and told them, “Stop polygamy or else…”. No democratic vote was ever introduced to allow Mormons the opportunity to democratically oppose it. It was a case where the government, not the people, chose to interfere with religious freedom, which is also what the homosexuals are trying to do – without the success of a democratic election to back them up, they are trying to remove religion’s right to declare that homosexuality is sin and not allowed in their definition of marriage. If you don’t like it, do it the democratic way this country set up, don’t just try to FORCE the issue. You lost. Pick yourselves up, wipe of the dust, and try again.

C) Religiously speaking, Incest was once necessary, right? Otherwise, how did Adam and Eve’s kids multiply? At one point in time the Lord said that it was no longer necessary and a sin if you did it. So that was over. Over the centuries after, polygamy was introduced and sometimes commanded. This continued to move the purposes of God forward – the first big commandment of “Multiply and replenish the earth”. Not to get into too much detail, you are free to look it up in a sex education book, but this commandment required a man and a woman, or a man and many woman would work, and work much faster. When polygamy was introduced by Joseph Smith, it was unpopular and unwanted. Sure, to those who think marriage is all about sex, it may sound fun – but I assure you, there are other reasons for getting married and easier ways to just have sex with multiple women. There was responsibility and care given to those families, widowed women who needed land, and to “multiply and replenish” as well. Often times, natural and external circumstances will be methods God uses as revelation. When polygamy was done, it was made known. It is now a sin because it is no longer necessary. To compare homosexuality to polygamy is absurd.

There are many people who love each other and don’t get married. MANY people. So what’s the problem? Why do you want it so bad? Marriage used to be primarily a responsibility – love only made it easier, but it wasn’t “first comes love, then comes marriage”, usually it was “First comes marriage, then comes love, if you’re lucky”. That got lost in the clouds over time. So, don’t tell me you have the right to marry just because you “love” each other. Love is not the root of  “traditional” marriage, either. If it’s simply to further your cause for mainstream acceptance, you need to go about it in a better way than throwing fits. That’s counter-productive. You can’t FORCE acceptance. There are better forms of persuasion, but it’s not going to happen by somehow forcing religions to change their core morals. You can’t do that because they believe their morals are dictated by God, not by homosexuals. You have to find a civil compromise, or you have to keep trying the right way, not by balking at and stomping on the democratic voice of 5 million people. The first time this issue came up in 2000, it was voted in favor of marriage between a man and a woman by 61%. This time it was 52%. At this rate, you may succeed – But don’t expect those who believe opposite not to fight you on it. And remember: You only solidify, even increase, the feelings against it by you behavior when you lose.

The Politics of FEAR – somehow, I’m not scared.

- By Chad

“Fear is the opposite of faith”

I believe political neutrality is vital to objective reasoning when it comes to political decisions we make. Too many Latter-Day Saints don’t really side with the church on political neutrality (not that the church has asked for that) and most of their loyalties lie within the Republican party. Sometimes saying anything contrary to the Republican or Democratic party automatically puts you in the “if you’re not with us, then you’re against us” category. I think getting sucked into the extremely divisive precepts of each party is dangerous, but especially right now, I want to tackle the Republican party, since most LDS, in Utah and other places, are affiliated with them.

Obama got a few more votes than past Democrats in this state, but the margin was still quite large. It’s not surprising, but I think some of the thought behind the decision to vote for McCain instead of Obama is wrong.

An NBC News exit poll showed 20% of Americans are concerned, and 24% are scared. On the flip side 24% were optimistic and 30% were excited. Where do you lie? And what drew you to that conclusion?

Certainly many conservative moral principles that are held by myself and other Latter-Day Saints are within the Republican party, but not all of them. The Church said that good can be found in both parties, and I believe that.

So, if you voted for McCain, was it out of hope and faith for what he could accomplish, or was it out of fear and concern over what Obama might do to this country? Fear and Faith will often lead us to action, but faith leads us to the right action where fear will often take us the wrong route.

I think in the last general conference there was a lot discussed on faith, and hope, and looking forward to the future without despair or discouragement. I think, in contrast, this political contest was filled with a lot of the same “politics of fear” that we are used to, but it’s been worse than I have ever seen it, and it’s almost been one sided.

Here’s how “Politics of Fear” works:
Political races draw a lot on emotion, and they play heavily on the fact that politics have virtually the same effect as cocaine on the brain. But the details are “boring” to the general public. Few people want to watch a documentary, but people love to see dramatic recreations. I don’t want to hear your boring details on recovering the economy, I want to hear the dramatic effect the economy is having. There is little logic and a ton of emotion that goes into politics because logic doesn’t excite passions. Hope in change was really on Obama’s side because of the fear all of us are already experiencing. Most people want change and will cling to that. McCain didn’t have that luxury. He had to battle that, and the greatest thing to oppose hope is fear.  Obama had a great potential story – the first black man to be elected president. That is some pathos that’s hard for Repubs to overcome. But fear could take it away. Fear draws the opposing emotion. Fear of the unknown is perfect in Obama’s case. Take it. Run with it.

I, along with many other people I know, were grateful that it wasn’t Hillary Clinton in the White House – but it wasn’t because Hillary was getting smeared over and over by Obama that she lost, it’s because we knew what she was like and Democrats didn’t like it. Yet, she used “fear” against Obama, and this is where the “fear” tactics began and it shifted into the Republican party full speed. I would watch the two campaigns closely. I would watch the speeches and the debates. I would listen to the analysis of both parties on MSNBC and FOX News for a little balance. I saw the same things. This is what I saw:

There seemed to be an 80/20 rule with the campaigns. With Obama’s it was 80% hope and 20% fear: Mostly fear of having another 4 years like the last 8, and a little Keating 5, and Palin becoming president fear. With McCain it was 80% fear and 20% hope (at best). I’m not going to fault McCain on all of it. There were some things that were off limits and he stuck to it, for the most part. Obama’s lack of military experience and Jeremiah Wright were two things off limits. But the other things he brought up such as this fear of his past associations and fears of socialism ended up creating a monster that quickly got out of control. All of a sudden people took hold of that fear and ran with it. The Republican base that he was appealing to with those tactics was embarrassing and sickening, yet it worked for the most part. Emails about Obama’s “terrorist ties” and his “Marxism/Communism” and him being “Muslim”, as if that was a dirty word, were rampant. They’ve drug Obama’s name and character through the mud, calling him a “Terrorist” and “Baby Killer”. I heard that over and over from several different Republicans. When you looked at the rallies the two parties held, one the atmosphere was positive and hopeful, the other was angry and doubtful. Shouts of “Kill him!” were heard, people talking about how mad they were and how scared they were from the McCain rallies. McCain, to his credit, did try to stop some of this near the end, but it was already out of control.

McCain lost. I think he lost graciously. I thought his speech was well written and positive. He looked visibly embarrassed and upset when hearing the boos and jeers when mentioning Obama and unifying behind him. I think he knows that it got out of hand. It’s hard to create so much doubt and fear in the minds of people and then turn around afterword and say, “Well, I lost, oh well, let’s get behind this guy and support him during his presidency”, when people are already afraid of the man because of the political race you ran. If you actually believed any of those things, wouldn’t you say, “America, we should be concerned”, after losing?

I don’t know if the Republicans really stepped back and saw this. Some I have talked to saw it clearly. You know what the Republicans reminded me of? The Anti-Mormons from past to present. They would accuse Joseph Smith of being a terrorist, they would point out his “charisma” as a characteristic of satan. Charisma can be both a positive and a negative attribute that should never be used as an identifier of a person’s goodness or darkness. The fear tactics and smears that the Republicans were shouting from the rooftops reminded me of the fear tactics and smears – the twists of truth into lies – that Anti-Mormons are known for doing. I’m sure many of these extreme right-wing evangelical “Christians” took a page out of that same book for this campaign and it showed. Yet, as Latter-Day Saints, who have been subject to this kind of rhetoric since the Church was formed, how many of us bought into it? How many got sucked into the same fear that has been used against us for so long?

Phil, who writes for Utah voices, did bring up a good point that stuck with me. Mitt Romney was rejected by the Republican party for very similar reasons. He was a victim of this himself and it just carried over. Most people honestly believe he would have won because the economy was such a hot topic. I think if it was Romney or Ron Paul, this campaign would have had a different tone and Republicans may have retained the white house. But the psychos of the Republican party got loose. Romney wasn’t rejected because of his politics or his lack of qualifications vs McCain, he got rejected because he wasn’t “Christian” enough for the party’s base. We can analyze more later, but Huckabee really set that fire and stayed in the race long enough to make sure Romney got out. How should you feel about your undying loyalty to the party that rejects you for not being “Christian” enough? How should you feel about those same people who use the same tactics and methods against Obama, who usually took the high road during the campaign?

Now we can introduce the debate of Democrat vs Republican here, but as far as I’m concerned, neither party has the capacity or capability to really make positive change in this country. I have faith in my Church, I have little to none in our politics. Obama doesn’t concern me any more than McCain did – Obama actually concerns me less. For all the whacked out, psycho, extreme, obnoxious nut jobs that the far-left has – Obama didn’t seem to attract those people to his rallies. If he did, they were tame. On the other hand, it seems like the whacked out, psycho, extreme, obnoxious nut jobs the far-right has, which I never really thought were as many until now, sure were at the McCain rallies in droves. Their ignorance and fear-mongering spread like wildfire and created an even wider gulf between the two parties in this nation. This division is the opposite of unity, that fear is the opposite of faith, and that behavior is opposite of a Latter-Day Saint.

Weather you agree with the Democratic positions on anything, or not, is beside the point in this. After all, there were three states that had pro-family initiatives on the ballot this election, all three states voted in favor of marriage between a man and a woman. The two largest of those three states, Florida and California, also voted for Obama. Maybe this country isn’t set to go to “Hell in a hand-basket” quite yet, after all.

I don’t think Obama is as bad as you may believe. I think he is a good person with a sincere heart. Maybe I’ve been duped. Time will tell, of course, but maybe we should try to have a little faith instead of fear. Maybe change, in this case, is a good thing. What’s the worse that could happen? The economy tanks, we spend our means warring in foreign lands, we lose our homes and our jobs? Too late, people. Let’s give this a shot for 4 years and if it continues the downward spiral, maybe the extreme right-wing will wake up, get practical and put Mitt Romney or Ron Paul on the ticket.