OT Hydrogen economy, not? - Page 9

 

Vaughn Simon wrote:


rafts.

It's nuts isn't it ?

If the USA would normalise relations with Cuba (hopefully extracting some 'human
rights' issues into the bargain) it could be a fantastic bonus for the entire
region.

Graham

 

The thing is that, if I have this stright, the US policy is that, if you
come out of the ocean and set you foot (literally) on dry US land, you're
automatically accepted into the US, but if ther eis an intermediary (such
as your cruise ship), it's "adios".  I guess it's a way of rewarding the
travails of the crossing, but that's just a guess on my part...

I do think it's stupid to be X-billion (or is it X-trillion now?) dollars
in debt to China (so as to fund the Iraq thing), yet stomp on Cuba, esp.
since there is no Soviet Union any more, and hell, don't we trade with
North Viet Nam?, plus, Castro is pretty much out of office (isn't he as old
as the hills by now?)

IMO, it's just a Habit.  I remember th eBerlin Wal going up, but even I
think it's a recidivist policy.

 

     We are getting some legendary thread drift here, but yes, I believe you
have that right.  It is called the "wet foot/dry foot policy".  The helluvit is,
these particular Cubans did not seem to be making for the US, at least not
directly.  We believe that Mexico was their immediate goal.

   The basic policy towards Cuba has been maintained by both US political
parties over the decades because the Cuban-American community wants it that way,
and they vote.

 Vaughn

 

Mexico ain't exactly an immigrant's paradise, either...from any angle, I
think it is a human tragedy.


I personally don't understand how that policy will be relevant when Castro
and the Old Guard die.  I guess people want to see them punished, but it
seems to me that the people being punished are the ordinary people.  As it
is, the US has no leverage for inducing Cuba to release political prisoners
and improve its human rights policies - it's not like we're going to invade
them, so ther is neither carrot, nor stick.

I'm sure there is more to it than I know - I just think it's very sad.

 
<BIG SNIP of previously quoted material to edit for space>


  Not that this is "health food", but I am easily "rubbed the wrong way"
by anyone and everyone saying, implying, hinting, whatever that HFCS is
outright poison but sucrose or even raw cane sugar or "brown sugar" is
"wholesome" or something along those lines.
  Most "high fructose corn syrup" is HFCS-55, meaning sugar content
breaking down to 55% fructose and the other 45% glucose.
  Latter are all generally 48-51% glucose 48-51% fructose as far as
calorie content goes.

  Along with this, I see all-too-much the anti-carbers saying how carbs in
general and glucose make people overeat by being remaining hungry by
stimulating production of insulin, while also saying that fructose causes
people to overeat due to being remaining hungry from lack of insulin
production stimulus!  That makes me think along lines of one having one's
cake after eating it?


  The low-carb advocates still advocate sausage!  Not that I advocate
sausage due to high calorie density, mostly from fat, and due to sausage
usually having little other than fat and water!

  Not that I favor processed foods!


  Certainly I think that if there was a way to put sausage (more
realistically fats in general) usefully into a car's fuel tank as opposed
to into human gigestion systems, then the world would be a better place!

 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)