Corn is not the answer for Biofuels and never has been.

Seek sustainability (click here)

The farming communities of the USA will understand this. The New York Times article today hasn't 'got the culture' right. The Neocons are trying to promote poverty among American farmers in exchange for off shore drilling profiteers.

I'll explain.

The reason corn is a focus for ethanol and biofuels is because that is what American farmers have traditionally grown. Feed corn. That is what makes them profits in the USA. If in Brazil they would learn that corn is not necessarily 'the cash crop' of choice.

In Brazil it is sugar cane that is the cash crop of choice for 'fueling' the motoring habits there. (click here)

This is a study from Penn State. It compares the 'conditions' that best grow Prairie Grass, see Table l. (click here). Prairie Grass grows under very dry conditions in Pennsylvania. Prairie Grass will grow in very dry conditions any place actually. If there is flooding and knowing the root systems of 'grasses' tend to 'hold the soil' it is difficult to state that Prairie Grass as a 'cash crop' would ever be a bad investment for the American farmer, especially since their feed corn crops are doing so poorly.

In regard to 'SPECIES' of grasses, there is a difference between Prairie Grass and Switchgrass. Not the same thing. Prairie Grass is far heartier under Climate Change circumstances and that brings me to my next point.

The 'Traditional Crops' of the American farmer won't be profitable to them anymore. With Climate Change evident everywhere the American Farmer HAS TO seek different crops to plant and harvest.

In regard to the 'Carbon Credit Market' for farmlands. It will become worthless if there is no crops growing there. So, basically, if the American farmer is to survive then they need to 'get their priorities straight.'

What are those priorities? Simple. Survive and make money.

The commodities markets will respond to the changing face of crop production in the USA. In other words if American farmers believe the ONLY crop they can grow to 'break into' big money for Biofuels is corn they will seek to provide that no matter how bad it might fail. But, if farmers begin to plant 'alternate' corps such as Prairie Grass, the commodity markets will follow that trend and pay as much if not more for those crops as they did for corn.

To allow American farmers to fail and remain on a 'welfare system' of cheap loans and debt ridden land is immoral. It is corrupt government and certainly is a government without insight. Compassionless is the word. Americans want their farmers to do well. We would love for Family Farms to return in greater numbers to our national landscape actually.

Farmers need to be brave and bold in 'taking' what is rightfully theirs to have. Climate Change will rob them of their land and future. They have to react to Climate Change with aggressive measures that will INCREASE the amount of CHLOROPHYLL on every acre while providing them with crops that will return much needed income to rid themselves of debt.

Crops like Prairie Grass are not necessarily JUST used for biofuels. Long before cattle populated any 'feed lots' there were huge herds of Buffalo that roamed the plains and ate exactly that. Prairie Grass. There is nothing to say the 'feed lots' of the USA have to feed corn either. There is every indication that 'succulent' corn won't be vaible crops in the USA. If feedlot cattle HAVE to have corn then it might need to be imported. But. From where?

When George Walker Bush stated in 2003, "...there is no such thing as Global Warming..." he and his administration condemned the American farmer to loss their lands. That is an interesting throught when considering those lands could be purchased by the very same folks that didn't protect the American farmer from failure due to Climate Change.

Allowing American farmers to fail in the face of Climate Change while promoting the use of off shore oil is to say that they aren't worthy of the dignity alternative crops can provide for them. A nation 'strapped' for a reasonable way out of an energy crisis due to their dependance on fossil fuels is a grateful nation when it is accompanied by heroes that continue to 'feed them' as well.

The price of food is going up. The USA has had a 'cheap food' policy for a long time. The USA and it's 'give away' economy has to realize new realities. Those realities might even lead to a far, far healthier nation as well.

I know the American farmer is capable of making 'wise' choices and being dedicated to their purpose as well. I wish them the best of luck and hope they are 'tough as nails' when deciding on a new President that will give them the opportunity they need.

They don't need to sacrifice, they need to grow crops that we all need for energy as well as a food supply. Adverse outcomes will continue to mount if a 'dust bowl' is allowed to develop. There needs to be aggressive changes and now !


Corn plants in Blairstown, Iowa, were pounded by hail recently and perpetual rains for weeks. (click here)

Energy Balance / Life Cycle Inventory for Ethanol, Biodiesel and Petroleum Fuels (click here)

..."Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 34-percent energy gain." A similar study done in 1995 indicated only a 1.24 energy ratio. The increase is accounted for by an increase in corn yields and greater efficiencies in the ethanol production process. As a result, energy efficiency in the production of ethanol is increasing....


Mixed Prairie Grasses like the original settlers of the West found as 'sod.'

...it's not monoculture crops like corn, soybeans or even switchgrass, but rather the "sea of grass" that fell to the plow in the 19th century that harbors a bright hope for the 21st. Mixtures of native perennial grasses and other flowering plants require little energy or fertilizer to turn into fuel, yield up to 238 percent more usable energy per acre than any single species and can even lower atmospheric carbon dioxide by storing it in their roots or in soil....

...In their previous study, Tilman and his colleagues calculated the energy outputs of ethanol and soy biodiesel and compared those numbers to the inputs of energy-mostly from fossil fuels-necessary to produce them. An input of 100 units of energy will yield 125 units from ethanol and 193 from biodiesel. In the new paper, Tilman, Hill and Lehman calculated that mixed prairie grasses, if converted to synthetic fuels by the right means, would yield 809 units....

Who does McCain listen to? Lieberman. Lieberman states "Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda." Al Qaeda doesn't train extremists?

The Blunderers of all Blunderers (...I am not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran...that would include taking military action to stop them...I would leave that to the Generals, but, I think a lot can be done from the air..."(click here). Right. But, leaving it up to the generals is the way to go? That is what Bush says all the time, but, he doesn't listen to his generals so much as shows them the front door.

The Bush/Cheney and Proposed McCain blundering CONFIRMED

While the press won't necessarily level opinon with the writing, what is UNDISCLOSED in a lot of the reporting of the circumstances is the 'FACT' that al Qaeda forces are very fluid and will move throughout the world with ease to support their international infrastructure. Hence why a nation's benevolent sovereignty is more important than any aspect of conventional warfare.

They can call it Taliban I suppose, but, to note with this increase in violence in Afghanistan is the change in authority in Pakistan. The Taliban and al Qaeda aren't feeling secure in Pakistan as they used to be. In recent months, Musharraf is being deposed of his power. Rightfully so. We need TRUE allies in Pakistan and not a Coup Government that allows tribal areas in the mountains to harbor al Qaeda and Taliban while they were nutured back to health to secure the residence of Osama bin Laden.

What is still not discussed is the fact that while Iraq is quieter due to so many deaths, injuries and impoverishment of civilians, the 'actual' 'war theater' in total isn't any quieter. The casualities and events have simply moved from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Bush has no victory in Iraq to tout. He has movement out of the country of 'elements' that would seek action elsewhere.

Iran needs to be involved in Iraq. It is the only way there will be enough security in the region to stop the violence. That would mean a Shi'ite presence in the country and the Sunni nations outside of Iraq don't want that, but, at the same instance the Sunni countries are not willing to commit to security forces to bolster the Iraqi forces either. The LACK of diplomacy is everywhere and exceptionally noted with the continued instability of Iraq now five years out.

I have said this before and still believe it years later, the provinces of Iraq need to secure their own borders along with assistance from 'ethnic' peacekeeper forces. In other words, The Sunnis of the region need to assist An Albar to secure their province. Iran needs to assist southern Iraq to provide stability to cities such as Basra and the Kurds need to be assisted by Western nations to nuture their already existing democracy. I think the ONLY aspect to this is still some interest by all the provinces in the remaining oil wealth of Iraq, which is probably marginal. In general, oil is diminishing in its global supply.

I have confidence in Arab leaders to work with Iraq to stop the killing and civil unrest within that country. The American experience there is simply hideous and outrageous. It has been nothing but a comedy of errors accompanied by retirement of most Generals that were in the ranks at the beginning of the Iraq invasion. In five years there has been a parade of retiring generals in the USA as like none other. From my point of view it is due to lack of respect by the Executive Branch and the abject failure of any strategy to stop the violence without destroying the lives of the Iraqis.

See, the 'powers that be' with the Republican influence in the USA still view Iraq as a 'strategic theater' to the West's national security directives.

That is a lie.

The West has plenty of places in the Middle East that can serve as 'ready' forces if there are issues regarding further involvement. The ONLY strategic importance for Iraq is as a springboard into another tragic invasion into Iran. That can't happen.

We have witnessed this past week the destruction of the 'vent' for North Korea's nuclear reactor. There were no bombs or troop level increases. As a matter of fact, last year the number of American troops in South Korea dropped significantly. If we are too be successful in 'good faith' negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear facility and its dismantling, we need to leave Iraq and concede the Iranian importance to the "Nation Shia" and its population now 'in existence' in Southern Iraq. I never once heard Iran state al Sadr was a threat to them. I think he is going to school in Iran, isn't he? To become perhaps an Ayatollah. That was his only hurdle I believe. Lack of proper theological education.

But, the point is that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda IS THE ONLY REAL THREAT to any terrorist attacks and currently and much to their credit, Saudi Arabia has a strategy that keeps such elements under control. So does Jordan. The attacks in Amman were by Iraqis, not Jordanians. Such an example of 'exported anarchy' from Iraq due to the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Halliburton War should not go unnoticed either.

I thought for sure, the Amman attacks would result in a 'regional commitment' and 'regional infrastructure' that would work for the Arab nations, including Iraq, but the Republican Political Agenda proved 'too much' for such diplomacy to be successful. The only diplomacy Bush is interested in is harassing his Saudi family for more oil.

We don't belong in Iraq.

We never did.


David Wood, national security correspondent for The Sun, has reported on war and conflict from around the world since 1977. He recently won the Headliner Award for his Iraq coverage.

Afghanistan: casualties again outpace Iraq (click here)
Three Special Forces soldiers were killed Sunday in Afghanistan, helping to raise the monthly U.S. and allied death toll there to at least 45.
June will be the second month in which more coalition troops were killed by insurgents in Afghanistan than in Iraq, where the death toll in June reached 31 coalition troops. The dead included 27 Americans in Afghanistan, 29 Americans in Iraq.
In Washington, anger is rising at the rising death toll and the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan. Ike Skelton, the venerable Democrat who chairs the House Armed Services Committee delivered a blistering letter Monday to Secretary of Defense Gates, charging that the Bush administration has no comprehensive strategy for saving Afghanistan.
"I am deeply troubled that the Taliban has reportedly coalesced into a resilient insurgency,'' wrote Skelton, referring to a gloomy Pentagon report on Afghanistan released last week.
"There is no well-coordinated comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan," he fumed.
"In many instances, there are no performance indicators or measures of progress, no timetable for achieving goals, and no long-term budget. ''
The three soldiers were killed in Khosrow-E Sofla, Afghanistan, when their vehicle rolled into a canal, according to a Defense Department statement.


"Kandahar in June"
A huge umbrella is seen on a main road on the outskirts of the city in Kandahar, south of Kabul, Afghanistan on Friday June 27, 2008. Kandahar was one of the main strong hold of the Taliban regime, kicked out of the power in late 2001 by US forces. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)

The good General Magnus forgets that when George Walker Bush wants 'NO TIMELINE' for Iraq and the Republican "Political Timeline" is more important he should NOT speak out of turn like this. Did General Magnus first get permission to do so? Probably not. Shame on General Magnus for placing doubt on Georgie's War Stategy. Bad General. Bad General. Bad, bad General.

..."At what point do U.S. combat forces, and in particular the Marine Corps, shift from what is a dramatically improved security situation in Iraq to one that needs to be dramatically improved in Afghanistan?" Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, said recently in an interview at the Pentagon.
At least 45 international troops — including at least 27 U.S. and 13 British servicemembers — died in Afghanistan in June, the deadliest month since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, according to an Associated Press count.
In Iraq, at least 31 international troops died in June, including 29 Americans, according to the AP....

Pentagon: Taliban a resilient force in Afghanistan (click here)
By LOLITA C. BALDOR – 3 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new Pentagon report says the Taliban has regrouped after its initial fall from power in Afghanistan. The new report offers a rather dim view of progress in the nearly 7-year-old war, declaring that the Taliban has "coalesced into a resilient insurgency."
Noting that insurgent violence continues to climb, the report said that despite efforts to capture and kill key leaders, the Taliban is likely to "maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008."
At the same time, the Afghan Army and national police are progressing slowly, and still lack the trainers they need.
The report was released Friday along with a separate plan for the development of Afghan security forces. They are the first two comprehensive reports done by the Pentagon evaluating progress in Afghanistan.