Cellulosic Ethanol

President Bush introduced the idea back maybe 10 years ago.  Back then the greenies were pushing ethanol (drinking alcohol) as a motor fuel, it was supposed to save the planet.  For some reason the carbon dioxide created by burning alcohol didn't contribute to Global Warming, where as the carbon dioxide from gasoline did. 
   Anyhow the greenies convinced Congress to require motor fuel to contain 10% ethanol.  Trouble is, you have to make ethanol from corn, which is food, which is responsible for the drastic rise in food prices since the ethanol mandate took effect.
  And so, some greenie claimed that you could make ethanol from waste, the chaff from wheat, the cobs from corn, brush clippings, wood and woody plants.  And the Bush administration tried.  Congress added a mandate to add "cellulosic ethanol" to motor fuel.  Only nobody has been able to make ethanol from garden trimmings yet, so EPA is raising the price of gasoline by fining oil companies for not adding cellulosic ethanol of which there is none to be had.
   And, I doubt that there ever will be any cellulosic ethanol.  Cellulose (wood) is the result of a billion years of plants evolving a material that is inedible to animals.   And it works.  I may have deer eating my vegetables, but you don't see 'em eating the siding off my house.  Or the cord wood off my woodpile.  Inedible to animals means no digestive juices or stomach acids can turn wood into sugar.  And the animals have been evolving digestive juices and stomach acids for as long as the plants have been evolving inedible wood.  This says to me that wood, and woody plant stems cannot be turned into sugar, or alcohol, by anything.  The plants have won.  With the exception of termites, no animal can eat wood.  Which is a good thing, if wood were edible, there would be no forests.  Animals would eat the trees right down to the ground. 

Plastic ScotchBrite vs Brillo

Believe it or not, ScotchBrite plastic pads cut thru baked on crud better than Brillo.  It also polishes rust off iron castings better than steel wool.  Surprising that plastic cuts better than steel, but there you have it. 

Media Shield law same-same as a Title of Nobility

I'm against the "Shield Law" thing..  All men are created equal, which means newsies don't get special privileges at law that ordinary citizens do not enjoy.  Also, a federal shield law is half way toward a federal license to do journalism.  Next they will say publishing anything political is a violation of the election laws unless you are a federally recongnized (licensed) newsie.  And then they pull licences for their political opponents (Fox). 
   Plus I don't see any reason why newsies should not be required to testify in court, and even reveal their sources in serious (felony) cases.  Newsies are citizens too (really, they are) and when their testimony could put a school shooter, a child molester, a mafia don, or a crooked politician in jail, they ought to testify. 

So what is Putin trying to do?

Two weeks ago,  Obama was about to take a big hit when Congress rejected his call for Authorization for the Use of Military Force,  21st century jargon meaning declaration of war.  Then, in response to an unplanned remark by John Kerry at a news conference in Europe, Putin jumps up and sells a face saving compromise to the world.  Syria will turn its chemical weapons over to a neutral party and the US won't do missile or air strikes on Syria.  The Americans love the idea, the Administration loves the idea 'cause now they don't have to suffer Congressional defeat, Congress loves it because they don't have to be mean to Obama, the voters love it because they never wanted to get mixed up in Syria at all.  Talk about a win-win.  Everybody in America wins.
   What's in it for Putin?  Sure,  he gets a lot of favorable publicity, and gets to write an Op-Ed in the NY Times,  but  all this is kinda light weight stuff.  Old Joe Stalin would not have been impressed unless the deal brought more land under Russian sovereignty,  more countries into the Soviet block, or destroyed enemy armies in battle.  I don't see that happening here. 
  I think Putin would have done better to leave Obama hoist by his own petard (big mouth).  Had Putin done nothing, Congress would have voted down (or trash canned) the authorization for the use of military force.  That's a big hit.  Obama would have either backed off on Syria, or pressed on without Congressional approval, neither of which would have come out well for Obama.
   Far as I can see, Putin bailed Obama out of a deep deep hole.
   I wonder why. 

I love my cable company

Time Warner that is.  The have the charming habit of hiking my cable bill, just be cause they can.  This month they hiked it up $7.  Just because they can.  Or so they think.
   The telephone company, good old bankrupt Fairpoint, has recently installed a DSL booster on Three Mile Hill, which brings DSL to my house.  I could  take DSL broadband ($29.95) and satellite TV ($32) and only pay $61 to get TV and broadband.  As of this month's rate hikes, I'm paying $60 to get the same services from Time Warner. 

What caused Great Depression 2.0

According to The Economist that is.

1.Banks made risky, in some cases ridiculous loans and mortgages because the risky loans paid high interest rates.  When the risky loans defaulted, the banks were stuck.

2,  Regulators like the Federal Reserve failed to crack down on risky loans 'cause every one was making so much money doing it.

3.  Low interest rates, caused by a lot of thrifty savers in China 9 ( the savings glut) drove down world wide interest rates.  The Economist thinks this was a bad thing because investors looking for a better rate of return invested in "dodgy"  (clever British-ism that) securities.  In my view low interest rates are a good thing because it makes it easier for consumers to finance houses, cars, vacations, whatever, which is good for sales.  

4.  Banks and investors lost "trust" in one another.  They began to worry about "counterparties" (borrowers) defaulting, and so began to refuse to lend to the riskier of them.  Another way of stating this, is banks and investors finally wised up a little bit and began to evaluate the risk in what they were doing.

5. Letting Lehman Brothers go bankrupt.  This scared the bejesus out of  everybody in finance, causing them to stop lending.  " Non financial companies, unable to rely on being able to borrow to pay suppliers or workers, froze spending..."   This is pure imagination.  "Non financial companies"  (manufacturers for example)  never borrow to meet payroll.  They make payroll from sales revenue.  If sales dry up, they lay off workers.  They never borrow to pay suppliers, they just pay them late.  Ideally you can turn parts into product and sell the product within the 45 days you have to make good on a purchase order.  If it takes longer, the supplier gets paid later.  If sales dry up, you stop ordering parts.
  As far as I am concerned, they should have let some more companies go bankrupt.  Each bankruptcy teaches finance weenies that when they are not careful, they too can loose their jobs. 

6.  Letting the PIGs (Portugal, Italy, Greece) run up such huge current account debts, otherwise known as borrowing.   Nobody ( including the Economist) understood that joining the Euro means you can no longer print money to pay your debts.  Used to be a Greece could print a lot of money, the value of the money would fall, and so the amount of borrowing was automatically kept within sane limits.  Once they went on the Euro, they could no longer print their own money, and when the loans came due, they could not pay them. 

Negotiated settlement in Syria

You hear 'em talking about it.  But it won't work.  Assad knows that he has to win, or he is dead.  Just like Hosni Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qaddafi, all dead.  In a spot that that, is a man likely to cut a deal with his enemies?  He might, maybe, go along with giving up his poison gas, but he isn't going share power with Al Quada.