"The Shack"

Here is a look at Shaquille O'Neal back in 1991, when he was called "The Shack" and playing for the LSU Tigers.

Barack on Ethanol again

In the recent issue of Rolling Stone, there is an interview with Barack Obama. The interviewer, Rolling Stone editor-in-chief Jann S. Werner, asks about Obama's position on ethanol.

RS: You've been a big supporter of ethanol. But studies show it doesn't do anything to reduce global warming, it's actually a less efficient was to produce energy than gasoline, and it's contributing to growing food shortages worldwide. Are you going to continue to back it?
BO: Corn-based ethanol I see as a transitional technology. We've got to invest in alternative fuels.
RS: This one is ranked pretty bad.
BO: I understand, which is why we're going to have a transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, not using food crops as the source of energy.
RS: So you foresee this coming to an end.
BO: What I foresee is us transitioning into other ways of developing these energy sources. The fact that we had corn-based ethanol, and that industry has matured, provides us with distribution networks and infrastructure that can ultimately be used for other ethanol sources.

What to make of all of this? First of all, I had to look up "cellulosic ethanol," which is, according to wikipedia, a "biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants." Here is some more of what wikipedia has to say about cellulosic ethanol:

As of 2007, ethanol is produced mostly from sugars or starches, obtained from fruits and grains. In contrast, cellulosic ethanol is obtained from cellulose, the main component of wood, straw and much of the structure of plants. Since cellulose cannot be digested by humans, the production of cellulose does not compete with the production of food, other than conversion of land from food production to cellulose production (which has recently started to become an issue, due to rising wheat prices.) The price per ton of the raw material is thus much cheaper than grains or fruits. Moreover, since cellulose is the main component of plants, the whole plant can be harvested. This results in much better yields per acre — up to 10 tons, instead of 4 or 5 tons for the best crops of grain.

The raw material is plentiful. Cellulose is present in every plant, in the form of straw, grass, and wood. Most of these "bio-mass" products are currently discarded. It is estimated that 323 million tons of cellulose containing raw materials that could be used to create ethanol are thrown away each year. This includes 36.8 million dry tons of urban wood wastes, 90.5 million dry tons of primary mill residues, 45 million dry tons of forest residues, and 150.7 million dry tons of corn stover & wheat straw.[37] Transforming them into ethanol using efficient and cost effective hemi(cellulase) enzymes or other processes might provide as much as 30% of the current fuel consumption in the United States — and probably similar figures in other oil-importing regions like China or Europe.[citation needed]

Moreover, even land marginal for agriculture could be planted with cellulose-producing crops like switchgrass, resulting in enough production to substitute for all the current oil imports into the United States. [38]

I left the citation notation in so that you could get an idea of how much of that might actually be legit. Cellulosic ethanol actually looks decent so far. Wikipedia goes on to discuss how lots of paper, cardboard, and packaging which is sent to landfills could instead be harvested for its cellulose and turned into ethanol. This development could reduce waste sent to landfills, also a big plus. Wikipedia notes that it is estimated that cellulosic ethanol would cost about $1.90-2.25 per gallon; however, I'm not sure how many miles per gallon vehicles would achieve with that fuel.

Overall, this cellulosic ethanol is looking pretty good: reasonable to create, relatively inexpensive, and possibly reducing landfill waste. So the next important part of the equation is the green house gas effect. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

In comparison to gasoline, ethanol burns cleaner with a greater efficiency, thus putting less carbon dioxide and overall pollution in the air. Additionally, only low levels of smog are produced from combustion.[51] According to the U.S. Department of Energy, ethanol from cellulose reduces green house gas emission by 90 percent, when compared to gasoline and in comparison to corn-based ethanol which decreases emissions by 10 to 20 percent.[47]

Not too shabby. Now maybe that page in Wikipedia was written by conniving cellulosic ethanol lobbyists, but I suspect that most of that information is accurate. It appears that Barack Obama is on the right track with cellulosic ethanol, and that he is isn't really pushing corn-based ethanol after all. However, there seems to be a lot of confusion on that point among the public and media.

As a side note, I just wanted to point out that George W. Bush actually advocated the use of cellulosic ethanol a few years ago in his State of the Union address in 2006:
"We must also change how we power our automobiles... We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."

At the time, I had never heard of switchgrass and had no idea what he was talking about. I'm not sure what has actually become of these promises. Apparently the US government has begun funding cellulosic ethanol production projects, but I have doubts that it is on track to reach goals by 2012.

Taking on the Telecoms

The city of Wilson, NC is taking on the telecoms, installing it's own fiber optic cables to offer it's citizens broadband. While you don't have to read the whole article, it's worth at least scanning. I hope this idea spreads to other municipalities.

Say it ain't so, Barack

Muslim voters feel snubbed by Obama
My impression from this article is that many Muslims want to support Obama, but he or his campaign is declining their help out of fear of being associated with Islam. The article points out that he has done a few nice things and made some apologies, but I expect better out of Obama. He is supposed to be a leader, not a panderer. Lots of Americans are wrongly suspicious of anything or anyone connect to Islam. We need a real leader to step up and work to end this prejudice rather than shy away. When his website says that his being called a Muslim is a smear, that wording in itself is offensive to Muslims. If he is campaigning on unity, he needs to walk the walk.

Kudos to Jon Stewart for making fun of Obama for his recent fumblings, like his new campaign logo and the public campaign finance rejection.


It's good to see Stewart is still trying to be a straight shooter. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with publicly financed campaigns, and I wish Obama would explain himself a little better on that issue. Had he said this and explained himself from the get-go rather than changing his mind after having a record fund-raising campaign in the primaries, it wouldn't be an issue. All of the clips of Democrats defending Obama's decision also fail to give explanation of why he declined public finance or explain how his decision is "reforming" public finance.

After a little research, perhaps this is why Obama has turned down public funding, although I still wish he would clarify it a bit more:
"Mr Obama's clear financial advantage over Mr McCain is offset in part by the resources of the Republican National Committee, which has far more money in the bank than the Democratic National Committee. Both national parties can spend money on behalf of the presidential candidates outside of public funding laws."

And lastly, for this post anyway, I'm a little bit concerned about Obama's close ties to ethanol, as written about in the NY Times. This may be an issue to follow more closely in the future as I'm not sure Obama has actually done anything wrong so far, though he appears to support corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel. I'm not entirely familiar with the economics and science behind this issue, but it seems to me that corn-based ethanol is not particularly efficient and may have played a role in the global rise in food prices this past year. Paul Krugman has written about the problems with corn-based ethanol. Sugarcane-based ethanol seems to be much more efficient, but currently all sugarcane ethanol imports are tariffed to protect American corn ethanol. McCain has the exact opposite stance on corn-based ethanol and wants to lift the tariffs on sugarcane ethanol. Although I'm still trying to make sense of all of this, I think that McCain may have a good point.

Unemployment

"Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would extend unemployment benefits to all Americans for three months. One can only hope they’ll regret this decision after November." – Will Durst

from: http://laughlines.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/15-lobster-tails-in-his-pants/

"Straight Talk Express"

Obama and Foreign Affairs

From Thomas Friedman:
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats’ nomination of Obama as their candidate for president has done more to improve America’s image abroad — an image dented by the Iraq war, President Bush’s invocation of a post-9/11 “crusade,” Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the xenophobic opposition to Dubai Ports World managing U.S. harbors — than the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years.

I realize that that is just his opinion, but I tend to think it is accurate. I would modify it by adding that I think that Hillary Clinton's campaign has also helped generate tons of interest too, and to have Hillary and Obama going punch-for-punch for the nomination has just been a perfect storm. I have spent time in Latin America and Asia during this election cycle, and I could not have possibly foreseen the incredible foreign interest in the American primaries. Usually Americans don't even pay attention to their own primaries, and only half of them even bother to vote in their own elections. But this year, not only do Americans care, people all over the world care. Doctors in Nicaragua were telling me about how they just had to check the television to see who won Texas and Ohio before they went to bed. When Obama won the North Carolina primary, that was front-page news in Japan's leading national newspapers, like the Yomiuri Shimbun. Even middle-school kids at my girlfriend's school follow the campaign, though many seem to think that the election is between Clinton and Obama and may not even realize that McCain is also running. The basic point is that this election, particularly the Democratic primaries, has generated astounding interest in US politics, and based on my conversations with folks abroad, I think it has greatly helped the image of the US.

And from Friedman once more:
Yes, all of this Obama-mania is excessive and will inevitably be punctured should he win the presidency and start making tough calls or big mistakes. For now, though, what it reveals is how much many foreigners, after all the acrimony of the Bush years, still hunger for the “idea of America” — this open, optimistic, and, indeed, revolutionary, place so radically different from their own societies.
...
I have no idea whether Obama will win in November. Whether he does or doesn’t, though, the mere fact of his nomination has done something very important. We’ve surprised ourselves and surprised the world and, in so doing, reminded everyone that we are still a country of new beginnings.

Debt Culture

David Brooks had a very informative piece about the growing debt culture in America, from lottery tickets to credit cards. I'm very glad to see someone addressing the issue that so many Americans are falling into greater and greater debt. There are serious consequences. I first learned about debt from playing SimCity2000 as a kid and going way into debt and being kicked out of my mayor's office (aka losing the game). After that, I almost never took out a loan in that game ever again, and frankly, I've been very cautious about loans ever since. Brooks makes several good points about how our government has facilitated this transfer to debt culture, and some of the causes. Here is one excerpt:
Second, the transformation has led to a stark financial polarization. On the one hand, there is what the report calls the investor class. It has tax-deferred savings plans, as well as an army of financial advisers. On the other hand, there is the lottery class, people with little access to 401(k)’s or financial planning but plenty of access to payday lenders, credit cards and lottery agents.

Democratic Nomination

Now that Barack Obama has clinched the nomination, I have a few closing thoughts and comments on the Democratic race. One, I am glad that Hillary Clinton stuck in the race till the end. I wasn't particularly happy with the way she carried herself at points (good article on her candidacy), like claiming she had won the popular vote when Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. But, I'm glad that every state, and even territories that can't vote for president, actually got to vote and have it matter.

I like the fact that the primaries are spaced out and it allows a lot of time for candidates to campaign in each state, and not just the swing states. A lot of people got to see candidates and go to rallies who would have otherwise never had the chance, and I think that this greater level of involvement in government is a huge plus. However, I hate the fact that some states always have their primaries first, and they have a greater weight in determining the winner. I think a lottery system would be a major help in democratizing the process.

I thought that Gail Collins made some very nice points about Hillary Clinton's candidacy in her recent op-ed piece. In particular, I liked this section:
So many battles against prejudice are won when people get used to seeing women and minorities in roles that only white men had held before. By the end of those 54 primaries and caucuses, Hillary had made a woman running for president seem normal.

I believe that the next woman who runs for president will have a much easier path thanks to Clinton. She did put up with a lot of unnecessary crap from the media. I couldn't believe how many professionals made pantsuits jokes. I don't think I heard any jokes about how the male candidates dressed or looked. But she kept going. The next woman to run will have a clearer idea of what to expect and how to overcome obstacles.

People begged Clinton to drop out. I would have appreciated it if she were more modest about her chances of winning once it was pretty clear that she was likely to lose. The degree in which she believes in herself is admirable, although it perhaps borders on delusional. But I do appreciate her sticking in the race and giving every primary and caucus a meaning when so many others wanted her to quit, which would have been the less democratic option.

I don't think that she was the best candidate for president, but I think that it was very important for her to run and establish the normalcy of women going toe-to-toe with male candidates for the presidency. Hopefully it will soon be normal to have female presidents too.

Blockbuster

The Blockbuster Living History Museum:

Historic ‘Blockbuster’ Store Offers Glimpse Of How Movies Were Rented In The Past
Thanks to Laugh Lines.

Numnah

http://view.break.com/512138