Re: [Biofuel] biofuel specific?
actually you can add folders to hotmail and use the [Biofuels] tag to filter all the list mail to that folder. similar to outhouse express ;P From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] biofuel specific? Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:18:43 +0900 Hello Mike, welcome Kurt If you switch to a linux-based email system you could use procmail to filter the messages for you...otherwise I am sure you can set up filters in Microsoft Outhouse er, Outlook and numerous other clients... -Weaver Kurt uses hotmail. Could always be wrong but I don't think there's any good way to handle a mailing list with hotmail. Otherwise there's this, which is reffed at the list subscribe page: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg21651.html Best Keith Kurt Schasker wrote: Biofuelers: I have been lurking on this list for awhile, but never actually participated. I am wondering if there is some way I could filter the posts to read only those that directly related to biofuel issues? This listserve is very active, and I really do enjoy reading some of the posts, so I am not asking for, nor wanting to, have anything change on this listserve. However, this list has active threads going right now on solar energy, wind energy, converting plastics to oil, recycling, outboard motors, and hemp, just to name a few. By my definition, these ar not biofuel topics. Of course, the readers of this listserve may have different definitions. So, once again, I do not want anything changed, I just wondered if anyone knows a way I could digitally filter out the non-biofuel posts so I can read what I want? The shear volume of posts on this listserve is quite intimidating, and so, I am afraid, I often ignore this listserve as a result. Please accept my apologies, in advance, if this post is at all presumptuous or offensive. I was warned that this was a very active listserve when I first joined. It also seems that there were warnings that the topics were often far-reaching. All aspects of biofuels and their use are covered -- biodiesel, ethanol, other alternative fuels, related technologies and issues, energy issues, environment, sustainability and more. ___ 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/ _ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2 ___ 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] Organic Farming Yields as Good or Better - Study
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Organic Farming Yields as Good or Better - Study Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:18:43 +0900 See: http://journeytoforever.org/garden_organiccase.html The case for organics - http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=43040 Organic Farming Yields as Good or Better - Study Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies, all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food, she added. therein lies the problem. you'd actually have to grow food produce to make those numbers. everyone for hundreds of miles around me is growing CORN for ethanol or those stupid soybeans because nobody gives a good goddamn about food. we'll starve to death, but we'll be drowning in booze and soy sauce. _ http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-usocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507 ___ 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] Just Security
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4367 Foreign Policy In Focus | Just Security: Conclusion John Feffer, Miriam Pemberton, Erik Leaver | July 9, 2007 Editor: John Feffer Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org Albert Beveridge was a promising politician in his thirties when he stood up to speak in favor of war and the promotion of democracy to his peers in the U.S. Senate. A historian, Beveridge unabashedly called for the United States to remake the globe. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world, Beveridge proclaimed. And we will move forward to our work, not howling out regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world. Stripped of its more racist rhetoric, Beveridge's 1900 speech to justify the U.S. war and colonization of the Philippines could have been made on Capitol Hill a century later in support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the larger global war on terror. Beveridge, too, tried to make an ugly war into a necessary and uplifting venture. There are the same invocations of religious certainty and civilizing missions. The Republican senator from Indiana even had words for those who would voice skepticism about U.S. military actions. All this has aided the enemy more than climate, arms, and battle, the senator concluded. The attempt by the Bush administration to expand U.S. military power and lead in the regeneration of the world has roots in U.S. foreign policy that extend further back than even Albert Beveridge. Justifications for preemptive war to safeguard U.S. security can be found in the words of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams. The doctrine of manifest destiny helped expand the territorial limits of America. Only at the end of the 19th century, when it stretched from sea to shining sea, did the United States have to make a choice: leave well enough alone or expand overseas. Spurred on by politicians like Beveridge, the United States entered late into the colonial game. At the end of the 19th century, when the European land grab in Asia, Africa, and the Americas had been going on for some time, the United States acquired its first colonies. Thereafter, with some exceptions, the American zone of control expanded not so much through territorial acquisition as through calculated alliances, the facilitation of corporate expansion, and selected military interventions to depose opponents and secure access to key resources. Although the two major parties might bicker over any particular flexing of military muscle, the maintenance and expansion of U.S. power has been decidedly a bipartisan project. Anti-imperialists such as William Jennings Bryan, Andrew Carnegie, and Robert Taft have raised objections. But a bipartisan chorus in favor of America's global expansion has drowned out these populist, libertarian, and isolationist voices. At the end of World War II, the United States had a chance to step away from its expansionist past. Again it faced two distinct choices. There was the option of peace and international human rights presided over by the newly established United Nations and inspired by the vision of both Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. The second option was the construction of a national security state anchored in a growing military industrial complex at home and sustained by covert, militarized policies abroad. This second approach, pushed by the Truman wing of the Democratic Party and endorsed by key members of the Republican establishment, became the core of U.S. foreign policy for the latter half of the 20th century. This Cold War foreign policy rested on a fundamentally unjust division of world spoils. We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population, observed containment's architect George Kennan in 1948. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. The drive to maintain this pattern of relationships, perhaps the core misconception of U.S. foreign policy, persists to the present day. Injustice and national security, in fact, have an inverse relationship. The more injustice there is, the less security we all enjoy. In this report, we have urged the marriage of justice and security for both pragmatic and principled reasons. The timing is right. We have had three chances in the last 30 years to go down this path of greater international cooperation, and we failed each time. We are now facing a fourth opportunity. Let us hope that world history does not abide by the three strikes and you're out principle. Paths Not Taken
[Biofuel] Just Peace
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4359 Foreign Policy In Focus | Just Peace Phyllis Bennis, Emira Woods, John Feffer | July 5, 2007 Editor: John Feffer Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org Asha Hagi Elmi was horrified at what was happening in her country. A member of the Somali parliament and leading women's rights activist, Elmi watched the Ethiopian invasion in December 2006 push her country from precarious stability over the edge into catastrophe. There is no food, no shelter, no water, no medicine and people are dying every day, children are dying every day, she told a British reporter in April 2007.1 In the ensuing war among Somali insurgents, Somali clans, and Ethiopian troops, thousands have died. The fighting has also created a large-scale humanitarian crisis, with hundreds of thousands of refugees. The United States backed Ethiopia's invasion in Somalia. The U.S. military also sent AC-130 gunships to attack suspected terrorists in Somalia but instead killed 70 innocent nomadic herders.2 People are using the war on terror as a pretext to provide political and financial support, and the reality is far from that, according to Elmi. The people who were killed in Mogadishu-the civilians, the women and children, the innocent people, the elderly-are not terrorists. Resentment against Ethiopia and its U.S. backer runs high, and Somalia is now more of a failed state than ever before. Elmi urges reconciliation, not further conflict. She wants to see a comprehensive political solution that involves all the parties in Somalia, including the remnants of the Islamic Courts Union, which Ethiopia dislodged from power. Somalia is only one of several wars burning in Africa-in Sudan, Congo, Uganda, and elsewhere. Injustice fuels these conflicts. It is the injustice of borders transgressed and sovereignty ignored, of unequal access to resources, of massacres of civilians and the misuse of political power. In the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Colombia, and the 30-odd other wars raging in the world, the stated rationales for fighting-to combat terrorism, say, or to prevent nuclear proliferation-can be deceptive. Underneath these rationales lie injustices that, left unaddressed, will continue to generate war and conflict, no matter how many ceasefires are brokered. The United States is involved in many of these conflicts. It has intervened directly or through proxies like Israel and Ethiopia. It has helped fan the flames by selling billions of dollars of military hardware and by training officers and intelligence operatives. A network of more than 700 military installations scattered around the world reinforces the U.S. commitment to unilateral military force. U.S. military spending, which neared $500 billion in 2005 and will top $600 billion for 2008 with the Iraq and Afghanistan spending included, is twice that spent by our nine closest competitors combined.3 Military conflicts are never easy to resolve. But instead of causing or exacerbating these conflicts, the United States can become part of the solution. It can move from a position of conflict promotion-either tacit or otherwise-to one of conflict prevention. To secure a just peace in Somalia, throughout Africa and the Middle East, and elsewhere, the United States has to step back from its reliance on military force, invest more resources and authority into international law and the UN, and put the protection of human rights and equality for all at the heart of a new, just foreign policy. Core Misconceptions Both Democrats and Republicans have been committed to military intervention to control resources and expand U.S. military power. At the end of the 19th century, the United States embarked on building a territorial empire with seizures of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Hawaii. In the 20th century, as territorial control became less important than mercantile expansion, secure access to oil resources and the extension of U.S. military bases became the linchpins of U.S. power projection. During the Cold War, the justification for U.S. military expansion overseas changed to combating communism. Washington expended enormous resources in its failed attempt to stop Southeast Asia's dominoes from toppling in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. It propped up dictators against communist-backed insurgencies threatening authoritarian allies and supported guerrilla forces against governments in Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. After the Cold War ended, the United States continued to use existing regional conflicts as pretexts for war, engaging in direct and indirect military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Haiti, Sudan, Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo, Somalia, and Lebanon. Ending U.S. military interventions will require a full-scale reversal of the imperial trajectory embedded so deeply in U.S. foreign policy. This applies to the prudent imperialism of President Jimmy Carter's 1980
[Biofuel] Just Counter-Terrorism
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4360 Foreign Policy In Focus | Just Counter-Terrorism John Feffer, John Gershman | July 5, 2007 Editor: John Feffer Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org Back in September 2002, Maher Arar was passing through JFK airport in New York. He was expecting a simple transit. A Syrian-born Canadian citizen and wireless technology consultant, Arar was traveling home to Ottawa after a vacation with his family in Tunis. The stopover in New York was the best deal he could get with his frequent flyer miles. He had no inkling of what would happen next. He didn't know that he would spend the next ten months being tortured in a secret jail. At the airport immigration line, U.S. officials pulled Arar aside. They fingerprinted and photographed him. They didn't let him make any phone calls. They didn't let him contact a lawyer. Interrogated about his connections to another Syrian-born Canadian, a bewildered Arar did his best to answer the questions. The authorities were not satisfied. They transferred him to New York's Metropolitan Detention Center where he spent more than a week. Then, based on evidence that they would not share with him, U.S. immigration officials informed Arar that he would be deported to Syria. He objected that he was a Canadian citizen, that the United States couldn't just send him to another country, particularly not Syria, where they might well torture him. Heedless, U.S. officials loaded him onto a private plane and flew him to Jordan, where he was beaten before being driven across the border into Syria. In Syria, Arar was imprisoned in a cell that was just large enough for him to stand. He was repeatedly tortured and forced to sign a false confession. Only as a result of outside pressure-by his wife, by human rights organizations, by the Canadian consulate-was he finally released and returned home. Two years later, a Canadian Commission of Inquiry cleared Arar of all charges of terrorism. Yet the United States still bars him from visiting the country. An innocent man caught up in the machinery of fear created by the U.S. global war on terror, Arar will bear the scars of his experience for the rest of his life.1 Maher Arar's story illustrates the key problems with the Bush administration's approach to terrorism and how it has defied legal standards at all levels. In the United States, the administration suspended key civil liberties. It imprisoned over 5,000 foreign nationals, subjected 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants to fingerprinting and registration, sent 30,000 national security letters every year to U.S. businesses demanding information about their customers, and justified the large-scale, warrantless wiretapping of citizens.2 It denied the right of habeas corpus to both American and non-American detainees and plans to continue to restrict the legal rights of terrorism suspects by trying them in military tribunals rather than civilian courts. At the international level, the administration rationalized the use of torture and rendition. It presided over gross human rights violations in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Camp Delta at Guantanamo, Cuba, a series of rendition sites in Europe, and elsewhere. At the geopolitical level, it broke international law by pursuing a preventive war against Iraq. It failed to capitalize on the international goodwill directed at Washington after September 11 by brokering a broad, multilateral effort against terrorism. Instead, the United States ignored promising overtures from longstanding adversaries, rejected the advice of previously close allies, and set dangerous precedents that will haunt U.S. foreign policy for decades. Through it all, American policymakers either relied on or hid behind the excuse of faulty intelligence, which contributed to the failures to track the September 11 perpetrators prior to the attacks and continued to entrap innocent victims like Maher Arar in the post-September 11 era. The global war on terror has been going on now for over six years. Its emphasis on military responses-in Afghanistan and Iraq-has only swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations. The erosion of civil liberties has undermined democracy at home and raised serious doubts abroad about U.S. credibility. The failure to put adequate funds into homeland security-particularly port and border protection-has put too great a burden on local governments. The hostility to international mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court has weakened the very institutions that can properly address terrorist organizations. And the refusal to address the root causes of terrorism-economic inequality, repressive regimes, foreign occupation-has ensured that the conditions continue to flourish that produce if not the terrorists themselves then the communities of anger and alienation that support terrorist organizations. A just counter-terrorism policy would shift the focus away
[Biofuel] Just Security Budget
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4362 Foreign Policy In Focus | Just Security Budget John Cavanagh, Anita Dancs, Miriam Pemberton | July 5, 2007 Editor: John Feffer Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org As the Berlin Wall was torn down and the world celebrated the end of the Cold War in 1989, several military experts and U.S. generals suggested that the United States could slash its defense budget significantly and without jeopardizing the country security in any way. I've been maintaining for some time now that our defense budget could safely and modestly be cut to one-half what it was in the later days of the Cold War, argued former CIA director William Colby in 1993. At the time, the military budget stood at $300 billion.1 Fourteen years later the Cold War is long over, but the U.S. military budget has doubled not halved. Colby's observation remains more timely than ever. Researchers at the Institute for Policy Studies and the National Priorities Project have examined the Pentagon's 2008 budget requests of over $650 billion and have identified cuts of over $213 billion that can be made with no sacrifice to our security. Indeed, this reduction of about one-third of our military spending would make the United States and the world safer and more secure. Many of these cuts could begin immediately with the elimination of weapons systems that are redundant and economically inefficient. The United States could also save money by ending military and militarized assistance to other countries. We could significantly reduce other areas of the budget by ending the occupation of Iraq, closing many of the military bases abroad, and reducing the number of personnel afloat in non-U.S. waters. In the transition from an overly militarized foreign policy to a Just Security foreign policy, a portion of the funds cut from the defense budget would be needed to help former military personnel move into the civilian labor force. Some of the demobilized personnel can help the United States shift from fossil fuel dependency to a new Green economy. Other savings can be applied to turning a different, less militarized face to the world by increasing foreign aid, expanding U.S. diplomatic efforts, and better securing the country from terrorism. Yet, all of these suggested new expenditures together are far less than the savings from the proposed cuts. Hence, a true Just Security budget could save valuable financial resources for the vital health, education, and infrastructure needs of the United States. In this section, we outline the $213 billion in cuts from the current defense budget request of the Bush administration for 2008 fiscal year. More savings can be achieved in future years as further military bases abroad are closed, and the overall national security strategy shifts to more cooperative engagement. Then, we outline $50 billion in additional non-military spending, in such areas as development assistance, clean energy, and non-proliferation, as well as key underfunded homeland security protections. Most of the savings in a Just Security Budget would come from three sources: the Iraq War, unnecessary overseas bases, and obsolete weapons systems. We offer a brief explanation of each of the proposed cuts below, a time line for that set of cuts, and why each would leave the United States more safe and secure. Proposed Cuts We recommend reducing the proposed military budget by one-third. With the following cuts of $213 billion, the United States would still retain the largest military in the world. The United States would still spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries, including the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and China. The remaining $442.3 billion military budget would primarily cover the pay and benefits of the one million-plus strong U.S. military, operating and maintenance costs of those troops and their U.S. home bases, and for tanks, planes, ships and other equipment that are critical to a strong military. Iraq War ($99.1 billion) This report argues that the war in Iraq is illegal, immoral, and counterproductive, making the United States and the world less secure. A fraction of this proposed $99.1 billion could be used to bring the U.S. troops and military contractors home. A larger amount would be needed as part of a National Security Adjustment Act to help those troops transition into civilian life. The model of this kind of transition is the post-World War II U.S. effort (through the GI Bill and other measures). As with U.S. troops currently stationed on U.S. bases overseas, the troops brought home from Iraq would need substantial resources to readjust and to retrain for the sorts of jobs we outline in the just climate portion of this report. That section highlights the proposals of the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, environmental, civil rights and other groups that has outlined investments of tens of
Re: [Biofuel] Magic Compost Enhancer
Mike Weaver wrote: Foxfire. Used to be my bible - are they still around? -Weaver At this point we all have seen where Keith directed us to where can find the foxfire volumes as pdf files and pointed us to http://www.librum.us/pdfs/index.htm where there may be other interesting material, tnx Keith. As for the volumes being the bible, I don't know enough to be sure about that. Volume five's appearance at the book store coincided with my begging interest in Blacksmithing. The concept was compelling enough that I would have bought the other volumes if they would have appeared on the shelf, they didn't so I have only volume five 5 in paperback. For me the foxfire series are more history than anything else, they do make a decent reference in regards to some technical details. I wished all areas of the country picked up on the concept and created their own foxfire like projects. In regards to foxfire itself visit www.foxfire.org Doug, N0LKK ___ 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/
