Several weeks ago a Duluth Fox news director caused quite a stir when he put on Facebook a derogatory, racist remark about somebody that was near his house. I don't remember if he resigned or was fired. He then said that his great-grandfather's great-grandfather was Indian or some such chain, and he claims he is Indian too. He even was admitted into an Indian journalists' group.
Come on! Just because you had an ancestor of a certain origin doesn't make you one of the group the ancestor belonged to. Many people even one generation removed from some place have none of the language or culture of where their parents came from.
My surname is Irish, but I can find no ancestor that lived in Ireland. The best I can tell is that my great-great-great grandfather, Vincent Magree, was probably born in Maryland. I am assuming that Magree is Irish because several Australians named Magree trace their ancestry back to Kilkenny.
I have great-grandparents who were born in England and Germany. I consider myself neither English or German. When I was in England and Ireland, I was called a Yank. When I was in Germany, I was called Amerikaner. Some of my ancestors born in what was then Germany may have had Polish ancestors. I do not consider myself Polish.
I consider myself an American because I was born in the U.S., had almost all of my education in the U.S., and except for some trips to Canada, never went outside the U.S. until I was 30.
So, if some ancestor long, long ago was from a certain group and some of that person's descendants claim they belong to that group, shouldn't we consider President Barack Obama a white man. His mother was a white American and a long list of her ancestors were white. Given the reasoning for people to claim Indian inheritance, then we can also say that Obama is white.
We're born here; we're Americans. End of story.
Showing posts with label Indian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indian. Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2012
Monday, August 17, 2009
Does "green energy" use too much water?
Today's Star Tribune Business section had an opinion article, "Saving droplets but losing gallons" by Samuel Lieberman.
He writes that ethanol and nuclear power consume too much water.
"[E]nergy production accounts for 39 percent of freshwater use, or 190 billion gallons per day."
and
"When it comes to thirsty energy, ethanol (2,000 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline) and nuclear power (millions of gallons of water per day) are the most prodigious users. Ethanol should be eliminated and nuclear power should be downsized, and the money and water should be reallocated to more efficient options, such as natural gas and geothermal energy."
I would assume water consumption would apply to any biomass fuel. It needs the water to grow.
But would any biofuel be that much a water consumer, whether ethanol or any other carbohydrate-based fuel. When these are burned they are converted into carbon dioxide and water. Both would be put into the atmosphere and in turn consumed by plants again. Would there be a balance point that plants would consume all the carbon dioxide that humans created and the water would turn into sufficient rain for all uses? That would make an interesting equation.
Then too the water used to cool nuclear plants would also be put back into the entire system. Would the water used in this way be hotter or cooler than the water given all in burning hydrocarbons or carbohydrates?
Possibly the problem is that the recycling is not occurring fast enough. How quickly does the water that we use get back into the watersheds that it came from? And how pure will it be?
An example of the recycling not occurring fast enough is the Himalayas. The snows of the Himalayas were once adequate to provide water to Tibet and other mountain countries as well as India and China. But no longer. Lieberman writes:
"China's recent clash with Tibet was incorrectly ascribed to human rights issues. It was about rights -- water rights. China needs access to Tibet's formerly ample surplus. Tibet's water, which comes from the Himalayas, is waning, so it is unwilling to help its thirsty neighbor."
Maybe the greatest peace activity that the U. S. can do is to have a crash project to find cheap ways to desalinate ocean water and move it far inland. If the Romans with their technology could move water from the mountains to Rome; is it such a far reach for modern technology to move water from the oceans to the mountains? I think the total human cost of not doing something like this is greater than the cost of doing it.
He writes that ethanol and nuclear power consume too much water.
"[E]nergy production accounts for 39 percent of freshwater use, or 190 billion gallons per day."
and
"When it comes to thirsty energy, ethanol (2,000 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline) and nuclear power (millions of gallons of water per day) are the most prodigious users. Ethanol should be eliminated and nuclear power should be downsized, and the money and water should be reallocated to more efficient options, such as natural gas and geothermal energy."
I would assume water consumption would apply to any biomass fuel. It needs the water to grow.
But would any biofuel be that much a water consumer, whether ethanol or any other carbohydrate-based fuel. When these are burned they are converted into carbon dioxide and water. Both would be put into the atmosphere and in turn consumed by plants again. Would there be a balance point that plants would consume all the carbon dioxide that humans created and the water would turn into sufficient rain for all uses? That would make an interesting equation.
Then too the water used to cool nuclear plants would also be put back into the entire system. Would the water used in this way be hotter or cooler than the water given all in burning hydrocarbons or carbohydrates?
Possibly the problem is that the recycling is not occurring fast enough. How quickly does the water that we use get back into the watersheds that it came from? And how pure will it be?
An example of the recycling not occurring fast enough is the Himalayas. The snows of the Himalayas were once adequate to provide water to Tibet and other mountain countries as well as India and China. But no longer. Lieberman writes:
"China's recent clash with Tibet was incorrectly ascribed to human rights issues. It was about rights -- water rights. China needs access to Tibet's formerly ample surplus. Tibet's water, which comes from the Himalayas, is waning, so it is unwilling to help its thirsty neighbor."
Maybe the greatest peace activity that the U. S. can do is to have a crash project to find cheap ways to desalinate ocean water and move it far inland. If the Romans with their technology could move water from the mountains to Rome; is it such a far reach for modern technology to move water from the oceans to the mountains? I think the total human cost of not doing something like this is greater than the cost of doing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)