I actually do think you can get into a steady state where the amount of carbon that you dump into the air is equal to the amount that you pull out of the air in the process of growing the plants used to produce the ethanol.

How about this situation... (these numbers are all made up of course but I think the logic makes sense, but only works because the energy usage does NOT change):

Imagine an island with:

• 1 car that absolutely must be used by the people on the island to drive exactly the same distance each year, and for that they need 100 gallons of ethanol.

• The islanders have a tractor that burns 100 gallons of ethanol per year and all they use it for is to plow, plant, and harvest some type of grass that they get the ethanol from.

• The 100 acres of grass that they grow produce the full 200 gallons of ethanol needed each year.

• SO each year the amount of carbon they spew into the air is the same, and it comes from only the burning of the ethanol derived from the grass. ALL of the carbon that is emitted by burning the ethanol must be coming from somewhere - that being the carbon dioxide that the grass pulled out of the air when it grew.

• This neglects fertilizer and things like that, and that may be where the logic breaks down. Oh, that and the fact that WE use more energy every year - that one is always the gotcha for every resource problem.

I personally think we will end up with a mix of energy sources and that would seem like a very good idea - diversifying our energy sources in case of any calamities (like drought/hail/pests killing the grass and leaving us with nothing).

@Rutherford the Brave - this link points to a site I found that is the best source I have found yet for info on biofuels:

http://gas2.org/

In particular there is a very interesting chart (click on my signature to go directly to the chart) on that site that shows a side-by-side comparison for various biofuels based on:

• water & other resources used

• CO2 released per unit of energy created

• acreage needed to provide 1/2 of US fuel needs

I have no idea how they find that some biofuels actually have negative CO2 emissions. Anyway according to the chart, algae looks like the best choice, and elsewhere on the site this link:

http://gas2.org/2008/03/29/first-algae-biodiesel-plant-goes-online-april-1-2008/#more-289

tells about an algae plant on-line since April 2008 in Texas - how did this not get more press since it is seems so much more promising than corn?.

I fully support lifting the embargo on Cuba and normalizing relations. It is laughable that any government official would even try to explain how we need to maintain these sanctions when we buy every product imaginable from China, the biggest Communist nation in the world.

I think the arguments referencing colonialism/exploitation issues probably would ring true as far as Cubans are concerned, so I doubt that they would be thrilled with the idea of growing our fuel. Let's just start with baby steps like allowing easier travel. The type of travelers who would be willing to go first can start the process of building normal relations at a person-to-person level.

I kind of like that idea, but would prefer to see it available to citizens not just before the politician takes office but anytime before the next schedule election. Its too easy to bullshit your way into office...ease right into the machine and serve up business as usual...then when the next election draws near (and past misdeeds have faded from the public eye) you play the re-election game.

Because the press and legislators seem to be perfectly willing to abdicate (pervert?) their power, it makes me think that some additional tool ought to be given to the electorate to remove federal politicians from office anytime.

I know this kind of goes against the idea of a representative democracy, but it sure seems like a lot of people are losing faith in the current system. Clearly what we have now is not serving the best interests of citizens. It really seems like the change we need is to the game, and not just a new team on the playing field.

The thing that always makes me reject this idea is the knowledge that it would be giving even more power to the same electorate that elected (pretty close anyways) Bush twice.

There are a few other snags with the idea of giving citizens some way to call a no-confidence vote:

• It puts a lot of power in the hands of the electorate

• It could be hijacked by special interests to force government to do their bidding

• It could allow a small press-saavy group to manipulate popular opinion in the press and influence the outcome

You know how your driver's license shows whether or not you need corrective lenses? Maybe we need an additional item on there that shows whether or not you are qualified to use the phone while driving. I am actually semi-serious. During the on the road driving test they could check you out and see if you are capable of the multi-tasking that is required.

I will probably get crucified for this...

But when I drove a taxi I had one of those small note pads stuck to the windshields with a suction cup. And while driving down the road, I would be holding the 2 way microphone in one hand and jotting down the address of my next dispatched call with the other:

"get susie @ 13975 W 25th pl, building J, apt 209".

I honestly NEVER had a crash while doing this and I did this A LOT (7 years of driving).

Some people CAN talk and drive at the same time, and some people can't even handle just driving, let alone talking and driving.