Wow--very well said, Jim. The big-farm lobby has long had a lot of clout, and because half the corn crop now goes to ethanol at inflated prices, they have even more money and influence. May I quote myself? "When money talks, 'free speech' walks." Bill Witt BTW, following Donna Buell's lead, I've stopped buying ethanol-gas. Even on a simple calculation of pump prices vs. mileage differences, regular unleaded is a better deal than ethanol. (Consider: mpg is about 10% less with ethanol, so to drive the same distance, you have to buy 10% more fuel. Another way of stating that is that the 'mileage surtax' on ethanol, at $3.50/gallon, is about 35 cents. Typically, the difference in pump price is 7 to 10 cents, with regular unleaded *nominally *higher priced. But the *effective *difference in price-per-gallon vs. efficiency-per-gallon is a 28-cents-per-gallon advantage for regular unleaded. On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Redmond, Jim <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Working with the flooding on the Missouri River this past year, our > Sierra Missouri River activist network has been undercut by an organized > farm lobby that respects truth and science hardly at all. Missouri and > Iowa floodplain farmers even deny the cause of the flooding, instead > claiming a conspiracy between the Corps and environmentalists. If > twenty years ago the Corps and other scientists had heeded environmental > critics and worked toward a functioning floodplian, we would not have seen > this billion dollar disaster. The valley and its residents remain under the > threat of similar floods in the future as the farm lobby has beaten the > Army Corps into submission through the recent appropriations bill. > > > > Unless the public wises up to corngrowers and the bureau, taxpayer dollars > are going to rebuild a flood control system that led to the disaster we had > in 2011. > > The harvest of 2011 at last puts to rest one of their most compelling > hoodwinks: more than half the harvest went straight to the ethanol > refineries. They are no longer committed to feeding the world, just making > a profit. Of course they will continue to claim they must abuse the earth > to feed the world. > > > > Jim Redmond > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements [ > [log in to unmask]] on behalf of William Witt [ > [log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2012 8:49 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: DM Register--thank you Francis Thicke > > How about a contest? Can anyone document an example of Iowa Farm > Bureau lobbying where they *weren't *trying to hoodwink the public? > > We could probably offer a prize of, oh, $10,000--confident that no one > will collect. > > BW > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Phyllis Mains <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> ** >> Farm Bureau trying to 'hoodwink' the public >> >> Iowa Farm Bureau President Craig Hill’s argument against linking >> conservation compliance to crop insurance subsidies is based on a fallacy >> (“Farmers’ Concerns Are Not Imaginary,” Feb. 5). >> >> The centerpiece of Hill’s argument against conservation compliance is >> that it would make fixing a gulley on a no-till field disruptive of field >> operations because it “requires prior Natural Resources Conservation >> Service approval, which is often a two- or three-day process.” That sounded >> incorrect to me, so I checked with an NRCS official, and he concurred that >> it is simply not true that prior approval is needed to fix a gulley on a >> no-till field. >> >> The Farm Bureau should simply acknowledge that they would like to receive >> federal subsidies without obligation for conservation, rather than try to >> hoodwink the public with a disingenuous argument. >> >> — Francis Thicke, Fairfield >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To >> unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: >> [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv >> Lists support site for more information: >> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To > unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: > [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv > Lists support site for more information: > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List > Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To > unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: > [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv > Lists support site for more information: > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List > Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp