191–200 of 248 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why doesn’t another state move its primary up? It seems like an easy way to get more influence?
Both major political parties have passed rules that any state the precedes Iowa and New Hampshire will have their number of delegates (aka votes) cut to 1. That is, if they try, their votes literally won't count (except as a tie breaker).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iowa has the first primary every year in the US[1]. Iowa produces more corn than any state[2] while being 32nd in population. Corn is very important to people in Iowa and as long as the first two facts remain the same, corn will continue to be highly subsidized and supported in other ways by the US government. [1] https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-sche... [2] https://www.cropprophet.com/us-corn-…
So, rather than a banana republic, it's a corn state?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar with the artificial battle front between organic vs conventional/industrial, where each side claims the solution to sustainable food production, but no common ground is allowed. By the way, not all children's books are equally naive. We've recently found a nice one [1] (in German) which shows small- and large-scale farms side-by-side, in a brutally honest way (including butchering). [1] https://www.amazon.com…
This looks like a great book! Getting back to refreshing my dormant German, have any other good books like this? - Thanks!
In case you just want to practice German with media for children, I always recommend "Die Sendung mit der Maus" [1]. It's a mix of short animated stories with "how it's made" features, where they go filming in factories etc.
Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…
I can agree with doing away with or changing the subsidies, but the rest of your comment, unilaterally declaring meat to be bad, corn syrup to be universally bad, and for some reason declaring that "organic" whatever that means today, makes something better somehow, is just a bunch of today's talking points.
They didn't.
> corn syrup to be universally bad
The research is still out about whether HFC is processed differently in the body. What isn't really up for debate is the pervasiveness of HFC in everything. Because it's subsidized and so cheap, it excess has made it a cheap raw material that's found in just about everything from Tomato Sauce to Bread.
Too much sugar in your diet is bad, and so it isn't much of a stretch to say that having a ridiculously cheap source of sugar that's being added as filler to every imaginable product is probably not great for us.
> and for some reason declaring that "organic" whatever that means today, makes something better somehow
I think the op was trying to say that corn is a hearty crop that grows fine on it's own without a lot of petrochemical fertilizers.
You're jumping to a lot of conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both major political parties have passed rules that any state the precedes Iowa and New Hampshire will have their number of delegates (aka votes) cut to 1. That is, if they try, their votes literally won't count (except as a tie breaker).
We just need a big state to try it: if California or Texas tries it that rule will get repealed very quickly.
Corn in the US is mostly used for harmful purposes. It's used for producing fodder for intensive cattle farming (which of course produces lots of CO2). It's used for biofuel production, which as the article observes releases more CO2 than that it saves. And it's used for producing corn syrup which is an ingredient that nobody needs in their diet. The rest, which would be usage for e.g. corn bread or other staples of…
I hate to be that guy, but the only reliable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to drastically reduce emissions. Switching to biofuel doesn't fix climate change because biofuel is still terrible. Switching to electric cars doesn't fix climate change because electric power is still terrible (not to mention all the damage from lithium mining, manufacturing and battery replacements). The only solution is to make…
Spot on. By reducing the size and weight of the cars we use gives more than relying on magic new innovations. We use 2000kg cars to drive around a If we with the snap of a finger replaced all the coal and oil and gas we use with wind and solar power plants I'm not convinced that would be much better. Not maybe worse, but not better. Wind mills everywhere, solar plants covering huge areas of land and a lot of metals a…
For example, you can't even make a car without a rear view camera now and sell it in the US. Why? Is looking out the back window really that challenging?
Some counterpoints: - Ethanol effectively helps spread carbon emissions across a larger area. It significantly cleans the air around large cities, I guess at the expense of more emissions in rural areas? But then again I'd guess most of those rural areas are not super concerned about carbon emissions and are very supportive of corn subsidies. - Of the three goals of adding ethanol to gasoline, it seems like 2 of 3 of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can agree with doing away with or changing the subsidies, but the rest of your comment, unilaterally declaring meat to be bad, corn syrup to be universally bad, and for some reason declaring that "organic" whatever that means today, makes something better somehow, is just a bunch of today's talking points.
> unilaterally declaring meat to be bad They didn't. > corn syrup to be universally bad The research is still out about whether HFC is processed differently in the body. What isn't really up for debate is the pervasiveness of HFC in everything. Because it's subsidized and so cheap, it excess has made it a cheap raw material that's found in just about everything from Tomato Sauce to Bread. Too much sugar in your diet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Kill the subsidies and that whole industry slowly dies. That would be a good thing. For you, maybe. Not for the millions of rural Americans whose livelihood depends on agriculture subsidies. There's a reason why we have the Senate, a place where Nebraska has the same power as California. It's exactly for situations like this. The US is a massive country full of competing interests, and our founders knew that eventua…
Industries and business absolutely have to be allowed to die if they are no longer necessary and desired by the market. If not, you're just kicking the can down the road. Give them a UBI if you are so concerned. Don't prop up zombie industries.
The defense industry would like to have a word with you. There are certain industries that the government props up solely to maintain the capability in times of crisis. I would argue that ensuring an adequate capacity to generate a self sufficient food supply is important enough to meet that bar.