Nice alternative fuel article. I hope they can think of a catchy name for their not-so-new fuel.

There are a lot of bio-mass projects that would wean us off of fossil fuels, not just ethanol. Even old french fries and other trash can contribute to vehicle fuels. Right now corn ethanol is the admin's darling, though, and that's where the subsidies are alloted.

It would even better if we would work to reduce our use of fuel, but that seems like a tired old argument that noone listens to any more.

The letter from the soldier-brother was spot on, thanks. I also served as a soldier, but never saw combat or death on that gig. My MOS was such that the possibility of firing another M-15 once stationed was next to zero. We need to implement some kind of national service so that our citizenry will start to have a stake/at least give a damn about what policies are exacted by our leaders.

'We need to implement some kind of national service so that our citizenry will start to have a stake'

You mean slavery?

RE: the "bogus cancer stats" from Giuliani-- I have no interest in defending Mr. Giuliani, but I would postulate that Giuliani's stats are no more misleading than the "factcheck.org" article. There is no mention in the article nor in any of the cherry-picked quotes they use as to what defines prostate cancer in the UK vs. in the US. Anyone who knows anything about prostate cancer knows that it, far more than any other major cancer, is one that you will find more and more of the more you look for it. There are plenty of studies showing this, as the people from NIH & ACS undoubtedly know. Why's there an 82% survival rate in the US? Primarily because we find, through screening and through biopsy of men with prostatitis, TONS of cases of "prostate cancer" that, if ignored, would kill us when we reached about, say, 150 years old. We are great at "curing" or "watchfully waiting" in such cases. The real question is how good is our cure rate compared with the British system when dealing with prostate cancers of equivalent grade & stage. Giuliani's stats aren't bogus; it's likely just that the British don't find nearly as many non-life-threatening prostate cancers as we do.

You mean slavery?

So mandatory military service during WWII was slavery? It's a good thing there weren't so many right-wing asshats back then or we may have never defeated our enemy. It's obvious you never served your country except in this new right-wing version of shopping at Home Depot and filling you gas tank. America salutes you.

Oh, good grief: M-16. and Syngas's comment. Enjoy your privileged life while it lasts, baby.

Actually, in a way I agree with Syngas. There's no way we could implement a national service policy simply because it would be far too expsensive and I don't think this generation of kids, these so-called "millenials," are up to the task. A millenial's Mommy and Daddy would vote against any policy that would press their little darlings into any kind mandatory service.

Personally, I think the better alternative is to encourage kids not to enlist. At least not for the fucking Wal-Mart-like peanuts kids make as enlisted servicemembers. Let's just create more private contracting military outfits like Blackwater and dispense with the massive lie that we even have a "citizen-based" military any more, because we don't and our kids in the military are getting fucked up for shit wages while the Blackwater mercs are making out like bandits on the same government dime.

If kids are dumb enough to enlist, at least pay them more to make it worth losing a limb or life for such stupidity. And let's stop kidding ourselves national service is "patriotic." It isn't any more, at least not while the other 99% of the citizenry has no connection to our uniformed servicemembers. It's plain stupid to enlist and enlisting has long ago lost any connection with true "partiotism." Now it's just a very dangerous job not worth the sacrifice for the shit wages the military pays.