Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Things New and Not so New
—And Serious FunIt's hard to believe that this is the 265 th time I have written this column. We're entering our 23 rd year! Thanks for continuing to read The Light Connection ( TLC ). Thanks also for mentioning to our advertisers that you saw them here. That makes a difference to us and we appreciate your support.
It's really been great through the years for me to meet so many people, and to hear how they have gained from reading TLC. Having people thank me for doing what I enjoy or just say hello is always appreciated.
I never really anticipated that when I started in 1985. Not many jobs give you the ability to explore so many different, interesting subjects and get thanked for it. So thank you.
I also never anticipated writing as much as I have or where it has led me. What started as my personal journey, connecting myself and TLC readers with new ideas, groups, seminars, teachers, authors, and etc., has led me to at least two new places that I'm excited about right now.
One is better ways to serve TLC readers and improve what we do. I have some ideas in mind and ways I want to expand—and catch up—but, I need more help. Specifically, we need someone who can keep our advertising records and keep the office flowing more efficiently. The people who are doing it are doing fine, but would be even better with time to focus on other things.
I'm also discovering that I am enjoying writing more than I used to and would like to have more freedom to choose what to write about. I've always had many great choices, but I'm interested in finding out more about specific topics that don't come through the door as often. That means I also need to spend more time researching, which I could probably use some help with too.
There are just too many strange things going on today for me to ignore. Look at our new energy bill for instance. You know, the ground-breaking, energy-efficient one. Congress has decided they want to use biofuels and catch up with Brazil, who uses ethanol made from sugar cane. It's very abundant there, and ethanol provides 40% of Brazil's fuel for cars and light trucks. Some in Congress have said that if Brazil can do it, we can.
We can't—unless, of course, global warming is a conscious scheme to allow us to grow sugar cane in Maine. Just don't tell the corn growers.
Sugar cane just doesn't grow here like it does in Brazil. There are alternative ways to make biofuel, such as using switch grass and mustard seeds, but none are that effective, yet.
This past November's cover of National Geographic featured biofuels. They said this: If you use sugar cane to make ethanol, that process uses one gallon of petroleum/gasoline to make eight gallons of ethanol.
If you use corn to make ethanol (the most common method in the US) that process uses one gallon of gas to make 1.3 gallons of ethanol. Soybeans use one gallon of gas to make 2.5 gallons of biofuel.
So it takes one gallon of petroleum to make 1.3 gallons or 8 gallons for every gallon of biofuel, depending on the method. Choices, choices.
Congress must have cancelled their subscription to National Geographic because the new energy bill greatly expands corn ethanol. Insanely so. They have thrown a few crumbs or grains towards alternatives, and also some towards big oil, to compensate them for their “loss.” Like much of the farm bill, however, it helps the large producers the most—especially corn growers. Ethanol processing plants, that could be obsolete already, are being built through out the Midwest and more are planned.
Where is the sense in this? Like most of the bills that have come from this Administration, and this Congress, the sense is calculated in cents—lots of them.
Prescription healthcare for the elderly? Where ever you look there appears a corporate winner. That isn't bad by itself, but when they—and political campaign chests—are consistently the only winners, that makes us/US the losers.
Now it may it sound like I'm getting serious here. The truth is, I just have too much fun contemplating things like this not to do it more often. I normally write this column the day—or night— before we go to press, so I'm just not having as much fun as I want.
The news is full of fun. Have you listened?
Oh, noooo! It not raining. We need to destroy valleys and ecosystems to build more dams to catch all that rain that's not falling.
And then.
Oh, noooo! It's raining. It's flooding. There's erosion and maybe mudslides! The runoff is toxic and bad for the ocean. We can't handle all this water. What to do, what to do?
It's too insane not to enjoy it. What's the alternative? Take them seriously? Congress says they passed an energy-efficient bill. That's laughable—and laughter helps maintain our sanity.
So what difference would it make if we caught rainwater—each of us, where we live? Contrary to popular opinion, Nature may be providing us with a lot that we aren't taking full advantage of. What if our homes were more efficient and provided more of our basic needs, such as electricity? I want to spend more time exploring questions like that and finding out.
In truth, of course, while it may be fun for me to contemplate such things, they ultimately point to serious and important issues.
War is serious, but we're winning now, right? I heard former President Bill Clinton on The David Letterman Show say that we basically flooded Bhagdad, the most violent area, with troops. In doing so we have ignored the rest of the country. The same strategy applied to the rest of the country might require five times the troops. We don't have that many.
What's also true is that Iran's leadership has been encouraging their fellow Shiite Muslims in Iraq to stop fighting. That began not long after Iran's leader visited the US. Could someone have been negotiating with a terrorist regime? Behind the President's back? Nah. Forget the Iranian prisoners that were just released, violence must be down because our troops are winning. We stayed the course.
That reminds me to congratulate the Chargers who just won their division and made the playoffs. Most people consider the best team right now to be the New England Patriots, who eliminated the Chargers from the playoffs last year and greatly improved over the off-season.
The Patriots were also caught this year stealing signals from their opponent's coaches during a game, as opposing coaches sent in their defensive plays. One spy filmed while the other had binoculars and was on a headset talking to the Patriot's offensive coaches before they sent in plays.
NFL leadership caught the spys during a game, investigated and then fined the Patriots. Then destroyed the evidence. Destroying evidence?
It made me wonder what kind of a Patriot would think they have to act like that? And who would respect them if they “won?” What would they win? What kind of leadership would tamper with evidence? Or lie?
This is an important time—one to contemplate and have some serious fun with.
Happy New Year & have a great month,
Steve
