Repeal the 17th Amendment!

I have found a new cause, and the cause is noble!
Repeal the 17th Amendment to the United States of America Constitution!
Here is why:

• The 17th destroyed a basic, and crucial, element to bicameral legislature
• The 17th led to the raise of special interest funding and lobbyist
• The 17th removed the strength of States against the Federal Governement
• The 17th has made Senators useless, and at the same time, all powerful.
  

Dakar, you say, what is with the doomsday attitude?
I will tell you why. The 17th is causing our wonderful (and I really mean that, the US is the best so far!) country to fall victim to petty squabbles and mob rule! Let me explain.
First, the original wording of Article I, Section III of the Constitution of the United States of America:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

This means that the Legislature of each State will elect the people to become Federal Senators. In order for a regular voter to get a person into the Federal Senate, they must vote for a State Legislator and then petition that person on whom to select.
Now the wording of the 17th Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

This means that the People choose both the House of Representative and the Senate. This removes much of the difference between the two houses and essentially makes Congress have one chamber with 2 years terms and one chamber with 6 year terms. Other than that, Congress is the same in terms of mission. Keep the People happy enough to re-elect the same Congress People back into office.
Why is the 17th bad? Here is an example of what could happen under the 17th:

A popular President lies under oath (perjury) in federal testimony. This is a grand offense, one that should cause impeachment.
The public does not believe that the popular President should be punished and tells their Federal Senators not to impeach. The Federal Senators, fearing re-election, follow the whims of the people and do not impeach, allowing the popular President to escape punishment despite breaking the law.
If the Senators answered to the States, they could have done their duty and impeached if it was found that the President did in fact lie under oath.

Don't think it could happen? Read some history about President William Clinton. The President lied under oath in Federal Testimony about a relationship with an intern and was found not guilty, despite video evidence of him lying and video evidence of him admitting it.

So if we repealed the 17th what would we gain?

• The Federal Senator would be isolated from Public whim.

The Federal Senator answers only to the State Legislators that elected him. This allows the Senator to make more controversial votes in the eyes of the public, but more necessary in the eyes of the state. It also allows the Federal Senator to do what is required of them, even if the Public does not agree. It would remove Mob Rule from the Senate so it could balance the Mab Rule of the House of Representatives, just as the Original Constitution had planned.
Also:

• The State would more influence in Federal Discussions

When issues come before Congress, Representatives and Senators decide what course of action will get them re-elected in the coming race. If the people that elect them are State Legislators, then the Senate will choose to vote in a manner that best represents their states. This allows Senators to choose unpopular legislation that may benefit their home states in the end. If the State Legislature agrees with the Senator, they are in the clear as far a staying a Senator is concerned, and the States get legislation that better serves the People of their States.
Finally:

• States would become relevant again

With each State quite literally represented in the Senate, States can determine what is best for their State Residents. This allows Federal Senators to worry more about the bigger issues of a whole country, and allows States to worry about the issues of each State. Also, if the People want the Federal Government to change something or write a new national law, they most petition both their Representative and their state government. This would allow the State Legislators to become a filter to the comments and use their knowledge and experience to define and guide the Federal Senators to best legislate for the People.

My finally reason to revoke the 17th is actually one that many people know and argue about.
Lobbyists.
Revoke the 17th and lobbyist would no longer be able to 'buy' Federal Senators.
Senators can be 'bought' if you give them enough money so the Senator can run enough adds to get elected. The Senators need the money and the adds because they must convince the People that they are the best for the job.
If the People were removed from directly electing Federal Senators, what good would all those commercials be? Not much. While it would be important for the Senators to let the people know where they stand, Federal Senators would have to explain to the State Legislators why they should be elected. They would have to go to your State Capitol and stand before your State Congress and answer questions about the votes they made.
When answering those questions, what good would a lobbyist be? Very little. The Lobbyist could offer the State Senator the money, but since the State Senator lives in the same communities as the people that elected them, so it becomes very hard to explain away shady deals. And since each State Legislator represent a small group of people, the interests that that one State Legislator is concerned with may not match the concern of the lobbyist.

Remove the 17th, and right a wrong that has been self sustaining for almost 100 years. Give the States back their power to control the Federal Government. Give your Federal Senators the room to do their job. And give yourself Federal Senators that you deserve!

Down with the 17th, this is my cause!

New Biofuel Source! It Will Save the World!

Yes, I am being sarcastic. I am tired of every new biofuels source being proclaimed as the savior of the oil crisis.
However, this story does contain some good elements for showing how new ideas can improve on old mantras. Mainly, if you can get a better biofuels plant, you can get a better biofuel.
Jatropha curcas is a plant from the tropics and has many useful properties for the biofuels market. It is also used by low income farmers in the tropics for fuel in their lanterns. This alone should make people take notice, as if it wasn't efficient, the farmers would not use it.
Positive aspects of the plant include:

• A 50 year life span for reduced planting costs.
  
• Drought resistance to lower watering needs
• Can grow in sandy soil, expanding growing area into otherwise marginal crop lands.
• Yields up to 10 times more usable fuel per acre than our current savior, corn.
  

This plant seem to have many reasons to be considered a savior of the biofuels camp. One small problem for the United States is that it prefers to grow in tropical and subtropical settings, limiting the growing area inside of the country. It is possible the hydroponics and green houses could enlarge the growing regions.
While I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon and call this plant a miracle, it is a promising step in a better direction than corn. Maybe some selective breeding will produce higher yields and more tolerate plants. Biofuels is promising, but lets not start swearing of the black stuff just yet.
We still have quite a ways to go, and lot more plants to grow.

The Collapse of Suburbia

Have you heard the news? Look here. Suburbia is collapsing.
Why? Well, there are many reasons apparently.

• Lending Crisis has caused home prices to go down
  
• Fuel Prices have risen
  
• Price of City Living has gone up

Each of these things individually might have been survivable, but with all three striking at once, the whole system is falling apart.
The lending crisis has caused the value of homes to fall and the cost of holding on to them to go up. This combination has strained many budgets and caused a swath of families to foreclose. As these families move out their homes are left behind, unsellable due to the current market, and begin to deteriorate. This deterioration brings with it lower home values for surrounding lots as well as havens for criminals, whether they be simple teenagers looking for some 'fun' or hard core criminals looking for hideouts. The cycle feeds upon itself and causes a subdivision to fall apart.
Fuel prices have also struck blows against the far outreaches of suburbia, eating the appeal of the suburbs using the same reasons why the suburbs were so popular to begin with. That appeal was distance from the city, the size of your car, and the square footage of living space. Now it costs too much to drive. Commutes in Washington D.C. Metro Area commonly exceed one hour each way. Now that hour equates to significant amounts of money burning off into the atmosphere. Going to work is getting expensive. SUV's, the de-facto car of Suburbia, only compounds the rising cost of gasoline. And large square footage homes cost ever increasing amounts of money to maintain, heat and cool.
Finally, the cost of living has gone up for those in the city. This causes low income families to have to move outward, away from the inflated costs. But as these families move out, they form low income communities, with statistically higher rates of crime and lower land values.
How do we solve all of this?
Well, some parts we cannot solve. The housing/mortgage crisis was of our own doing. It is gonna fix itself when the 'bubble' has finally let all of its air out. While many families may get displaced, these families were most likely living beyond their means and were unprepared for any change in routine.
As for the deterioration of communities? People need to start looking out for more than just themselves, as everyone effects everyone else. If a neighboring house has a yard full of waist high grass and bushes the thickness of the Amazon, we need to help out and cut that ourselves. While it is gonna take some time out of our day, in the end it help keep the community looking nice. If there is evidence of criminal activity nearby, do not ignore it, be proactive and stop the spread. Work a little outside your 'Suburbia Safety Bubble' and you might be surprised.
City living has always been somewhat expensive and the current rise in prices should surprise no one. However, better programs for low income housing should be pushed and/or landlords need to cut their rent prices to a lower percent of profit margin.
So Suburbia is collapsing, they say. I disagree. Suburbia is just finally growing up.