I am watching the Democratic debate in Iowa (I watched the Republican one yesterday, so I thought that it's only fair that I waste another hour and a half of my life on the rest of the liars.)
Right now, the Dem-wits are talking about how democrats make The US more fiscally responsible ("Take a look at the nineties!" <--if I had a dollar for every reference to the nineties Hitlery makes...). How do they do this?
The ideas suggested so far:
-Increase taxes on the wealthy
-Look at the nineties
-Create tax cuts for big businesses
-Take the troops out of Iraq
-Look at the nineties!!!
-Military reductions
-Stop letting the Iraq war drain our military!!!
-We've gotta grow! Let's make the middle class bigger.
-Obama: "Put money back into the pockets of hard workers" (aka-- Medicare programs, Socialized Medical care etc...)
-Reforming Medicare
-Give Medicare the right to negotiate lower drug costs for companies (aka allow Big Brother to take over Medical companies)
-Check the nineties. Yep. That was my husband. I'm going to use the same policies!
-Check my proposed Socialized Medicine. It's a right for every human. Free health care. (...)
-We're overpaying HMOs!!!
-Modernize system! (how vague)
-You gotta act!! (Not vague at all. Thanks, Biden.)
-Take the money from my crack dealer. He could save a few lives. --Obama. No, he really didn't say that...but...it was fun.
-We spent $xx million on cancer! That's two months of the Iraq war. That shows how misguided and misplaced our priorities are!! (...did he just say that??)
Um..How about we get rid of House Speaker Pelosi? Who has spent ~$16,000 on flowers and ~$3million to move her office (and for the nine months she has been in office (compared to Hastert's 1.8 million(which is still a lot to me, but what do I know?)))
Fiscally responsible?! No, I think not.
(Pelosi hasn't even changed the curtains like she promised...I guess that's why her approval ratings are at 22% (lower than Bush's).
(I posted this and reread it and came back to say:
FLOWERS!!!!!!!!! 16000!!!!!!!! ON FLOWERS?!!!!)
I think we could save a few...umm...million if we get rid of the Congressional pension. Politics was NEVER meant to be a profession. Let's stop paying them for the rest of their lives. (all of them. Not just the democrats)
Instead of letting them sit up in their offices and in the Capitol without accountability, let's elect people who actually care.
Oh. No one like that is running? Shame.
Why would this moderator ask these idiots so many money questions?
...and did anyone else catch Hillary say "WHEN I'm president..." ???
I think my heart stopped briefly...
(and..go Huckabee!)
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
What these stupid legislators don't want you to know.
http://www.truthabouttoyota.com/
^ go there. (And, before you think I'm trying to pass on this message, know that I am trying to 100% disagree and call these people liars)
If you don't want to, let me explain what this is about.
There is a legislation that Congress or somebody is trying to pass that would mandate all motor companies to keep an average of 35 mpg on all vehicles.
Sounds good, right?
Let me explain why it's not.
First of all:
Of course Toyota opposes it. In fact, The Detroit Three oppose it, I'm pretty sure Honda and Nissan oppose it as well. Actually, I'm almost certain every car company opposes it. It's not just Toyota.
I'm surprised Toyota opposes it..considering Toyota has the most fuel efficient cars out there. Toyota is pretty much already at the average 35 mpg. With cars like the Prius (that gets an average of 60 mpg already, and the future models have been rumored to reach ~100 mpg) and the hybrid camry. I drive a Corolla, and I get ~40 mpg.
Wanna know why they oppose this legislation?
1. It would kill American car companies.
The American car companies have already had a hard time keeping up with Honda and Toyota. Raising the standard to 35 mpg would only hurt GM. It would force them to spend more money that they don't have. This legislation would put the last nail in the coffin for GM, Ford (who is losing $5000 per vehicle already!), Dodge, Chrysler, etc.
2. People would lose jobs.
Instead of this legislation HELPING our economy, it would cripple it. (See reason number one). People would be out of work, and the jobs won't be readily available when they do get laid off.
3. You can't force technological evolution. The car companies are slowly getting there. They will arrive there eventually. Forcing progress has never helped civilizations.
4. This average of 35 mpg also applies to BIG trucks. What about the car/motor companies that only makes/specializes in the 18 wheeler trucks? How are they going to make them to get an average of 35 mpg?!
5. There will be more fatalities on the road.
Car companies will start making their cars lighter, smaller, and...unsafer to meet the 35 mpg requirements. They will cut corners in the name of saving oil.
6. The people who drive long distances to commute, or drive a lot, most likely have already invested in smaller cars, hybrid cars, or more fuel efficient cars. The market already exists. Most of them aren't even that expensive. You can get a nice Hyundai with decent gas mileage for the cost of a used Honda or Toyota. This legislation would only increase the cost of these already fuel efficent cars. (If you think they're expensive now...!)
7. Car costs would go up. Even if the car manufacturers start cutting corners, the engines will still be more expensive to make, additional labor may be required--specialized labor, and even more plants will be built. I know how this works. I work for Toyota--where we make the engines for the Sequoia, Tundra, and Tacoma. Toyota is even making an ethanol engine in the plant effective 2008. The car companies are getting there!
8. Many cars would have to be retired--done away with. Even best selling cars like the Hummer, Lexus cars (big engines), and entire lines of trucks. This, also, would cause the loss of American jobs.
9. When this legislation passes, if they don't give the car companies a time frame to begin working, it could seriously cripple them.
Car companies can't take every single car and make it have 100 mpg overnight. There has to be research, development...You have to give TIME for development.
10. GM/Chrysler, Dodge, etc..are just now recovering from negative profits. They need time to get back on their feet.
GM was once the biggest car maker in the world. Toyota has recently replaced them.
As a capitalist, I love competition. If this bill/thing goes through, it would completely cripple competition, and Toyota would stay on top (being the closest to the average 35 mpg legislation--Toyota would be there if they drop...two car lines--Sequoia and the V8 Tundra).
So, if these legislators are really American, they would recognize the pride of GM/Ford as the biggest automakers in the world. The first automakers. AMERICAN created. Do they really want to shut down Ford and GM?
Those are questions we SHOULD be asking THEM.
^ go there. (And, before you think I'm trying to pass on this message, know that I am trying to 100% disagree and call these people liars)
If you don't want to, let me explain what this is about.
There is a legislation that Congress or somebody is trying to pass that would mandate all motor companies to keep an average of 35 mpg on all vehicles.
Sounds good, right?
Let me explain why it's not.
First of all:
Of course Toyota opposes it. In fact, The Detroit Three oppose it, I'm pretty sure Honda and Nissan oppose it as well. Actually, I'm almost certain every car company opposes it. It's not just Toyota.
I'm surprised Toyota opposes it..considering Toyota has the most fuel efficient cars out there. Toyota is pretty much already at the average 35 mpg. With cars like the Prius (that gets an average of 60 mpg already, and the future models have been rumored to reach ~100 mpg) and the hybrid camry. I drive a Corolla, and I get ~40 mpg.
Wanna know why they oppose this legislation?
1. It would kill American car companies.
The American car companies have already had a hard time keeping up with Honda and Toyota. Raising the standard to 35 mpg would only hurt GM. It would force them to spend more money that they don't have. This legislation would put the last nail in the coffin for GM, Ford (who is losing $5000 per vehicle already!), Dodge, Chrysler, etc.
2. People would lose jobs.
Instead of this legislation HELPING our economy, it would cripple it. (See reason number one). People would be out of work, and the jobs won't be readily available when they do get laid off.
3. You can't force technological evolution. The car companies are slowly getting there. They will arrive there eventually. Forcing progress has never helped civilizations.
4. This average of 35 mpg also applies to BIG trucks. What about the car/motor companies that only makes/specializes in the 18 wheeler trucks? How are they going to make them to get an average of 35 mpg?!
5. There will be more fatalities on the road.
Car companies will start making their cars lighter, smaller, and...unsafer to meet the 35 mpg requirements. They will cut corners in the name of saving oil.
6. The people who drive long distances to commute, or drive a lot, most likely have already invested in smaller cars, hybrid cars, or more fuel efficient cars. The market already exists. Most of them aren't even that expensive. You can get a nice Hyundai with decent gas mileage for the cost of a used Honda or Toyota. This legislation would only increase the cost of these already fuel efficent cars. (If you think they're expensive now...!)
7. Car costs would go up. Even if the car manufacturers start cutting corners, the engines will still be more expensive to make, additional labor may be required--specialized labor, and even more plants will be built. I know how this works. I work for Toyota--where we make the engines for the Sequoia, Tundra, and Tacoma. Toyota is even making an ethanol engine in the plant effective 2008. The car companies are getting there!
8. Many cars would have to be retired--done away with. Even best selling cars like the Hummer, Lexus cars (big engines), and entire lines of trucks. This, also, would cause the loss of American jobs.
9. When this legislation passes, if they don't give the car companies a time frame to begin working, it could seriously cripple them.
Car companies can't take every single car and make it have 100 mpg overnight. There has to be research, development...You have to give TIME for development.
10. GM/Chrysler, Dodge, etc..are just now recovering from negative profits. They need time to get back on their feet.
GM was once the biggest car maker in the world. Toyota has recently replaced them.
As a capitalist, I love competition. If this bill/thing goes through, it would completely cripple competition, and Toyota would stay on top (being the closest to the average 35 mpg legislation--Toyota would be there if they drop...two car lines--Sequoia and the V8 Tundra).
So, if these legislators are really American, they would recognize the pride of GM/Ford as the biggest automakers in the world. The first automakers. AMERICAN created. Do they really want to shut down Ford and GM?
Those are questions we SHOULD be asking THEM.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
A smoking gun? Not inside, it's not.
To all of you who smoke out there, I have a message:
Stop. It's bad for you.
Ok, that being said, I can now cheerfully acknowledge that you have been warned of the consequences of your actions, and have every right to continue to smoke as you please.
Unless, of course, I am the Decatur Alabama city council.
They have decided, in their lofty wisdom, that smoking shall not be permitted in public places.
To be more specific:
(from http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070923/week.shtml)
"Enclosed spaces frequented by the public" is vague enough to include just about anywhere short of a cow pasture or cotton field, so we can conclude that what really it boils down to is the ability to fine you if you are smoking, and they feel like it.
Apparently this bit of Orwellian small-town politics was proposed by councilman Ronny Russel, who claims he was forced to quit a job (unfortunately not his current one) because he was allergic to secondhand cigarette smoke. (I have also heard that it was because someone blew smoke on him in a restaurant, but cannot verify the accuracy of that statement)
I understand his affliction, given that I am also allergic to cigarette fumes. However, unlike him, I appreciate the liberty we enjoy as American citizens, and am rather in favor of expanding it in the face of government encroachment, as opposed to spearheading the assault on our freedoms.
If you want to smoke, you should be able to do so. For that matter, if you choose to chain smoke your way through as many packs a day as you can, go right ahead. It may not be an intelligent or healthy decision, but I don't recall the Constitution making that distinction.
I can only predict that the next step will be to ban seafood in Decatur, when one of the councilmen gets food poisoning from a bit of aged shrimp. And deus avertat they should choke on some barbecue, or we can say goodbye to Bob Gibson's and the best pork stuffed potatoes this side of heaven...
-Oak
Stop. It's bad for you.
Ok, that being said, I can now cheerfully acknowledge that you have been warned of the consequences of your actions, and have every right to continue to smoke as you please.
Unless, of course, I am the Decatur Alabama city council.
They have decided, in their lofty wisdom, that smoking shall not be permitted in public places.
To be more specific:
(from http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070923/week.shtml)
On Oct. 1, Decatur will become the largest Alabama city to ban smoking in all public places, including bars, restaurants, outdoor sporting arenas, businesses with employees and enclosed spaces frequented by the public. Decatur is just the seventh city in Alabama to do so.
"Enclosed spaces frequented by the public" is vague enough to include just about anywhere short of a cow pasture or cotton field, so we can conclude that what really it boils down to is the ability to fine you if you are smoking, and they feel like it.
Apparently this bit of Orwellian small-town politics was proposed by councilman Ronny Russel, who claims he was forced to quit a job (unfortunately not his current one) because he was allergic to secondhand cigarette smoke. (I have also heard that it was because someone blew smoke on him in a restaurant, but cannot verify the accuracy of that statement)
I understand his affliction, given that I am also allergic to cigarette fumes. However, unlike him, I appreciate the liberty we enjoy as American citizens, and am rather in favor of expanding it in the face of government encroachment, as opposed to spearheading the assault on our freedoms.
If you want to smoke, you should be able to do so. For that matter, if you choose to chain smoke your way through as many packs a day as you can, go right ahead. It may not be an intelligent or healthy decision, but I don't recall the Constitution making that distinction.
I can only predict that the next step will be to ban seafood in Decatur, when one of the councilmen gets food poisoning from a bit of aged shrimp. And deus avertat they should choke on some barbecue, or we can say goodbye to Bob Gibson's and the best pork stuffed potatoes this side of heaven...
-Oak
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Reader assignment
I apologize for the delay in posting, we here at MC have been too busy with our lives to take a few minutes out to stir the hornet's nest, as it were. However, in the mean time, here's something to keep anyone who happens to stop by occupied:
Who do you want to be nominated (either party), and why?
Discuss...
Who do you want to be nominated (either party), and why?
Discuss...
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Martin Luther King apparently hated the Chinese? Racism?
So, they're building a MLK memorial between the Washington and Jefferson Memorials. A Chinese sculptor was hired/commissioned for the job.
Great! They're finally honoring a great man alongside other men that made this country great.
But no. That's not good enough for some people.
There is a group of people protesting, saying that King would not approve of the communist background of the artist...and a black, or at least an American should have been chosen to do the sculpture.
?!
That strikes me as a little ironic.
Does it not seem as though they're using racism, themselves...defeating the nature of this memorial?
I think that if they are the King enthusiasts that they claim, they should know the famous "I have a dream speech." I'm pretty sure King wasn't just referring to black people: he wanted people of all colors to be able to accept each other. The fact that a Chinese man is making the sculpture is greatly symbolic of how we are finally coming together and embracing each other as equals.
Something to think about:
Just because the Statue of Liberty was made by a Frenchman, does it make it any less of a National symbol? Something we associate with being American? The very thing that most of our relatives/ancestors saw as they entered a new life?
I think not.
Original story here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294589,00.html
Great! They're finally honoring a great man alongside other men that made this country great.
But no. That's not good enough for some people.
There is a group of people protesting, saying that King would not approve of the communist background of the artist...and a black, or at least an American should have been chosen to do the sculpture.
?!
That strikes me as a little ironic.
Does it not seem as though they're using racism, themselves...defeating the nature of this memorial?
I think that if they are the King enthusiasts that they claim, they should know the famous "I have a dream speech." I'm pretty sure King wasn't just referring to black people: he wanted people of all colors to be able to accept each other. The fact that a Chinese man is making the sculpture is greatly symbolic of how we are finally coming together and embracing each other as equals.
Something to think about:
Just because the Statue of Liberty was made by a Frenchman, does it make it any less of a National symbol? Something we associate with being American? The very thing that most of our relatives/ancestors saw as they entered a new life?
I think not.
Original story here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294589,00.html
Friday, August 10, 2007
The "so called Global Warmings"
(the title comes from a Bush impersonation skit by Will Ferrel.)
I thought I'd post all the relevant bits of a conversation I had on one of Wired.com's science blogs.
Some of this is just scary.... "Sensei" is me, by the way.
I have skipped (indicated by ...) some parts of the discussion that were not relevant to my conversation. I've also left out my replies to another guy who didn't quite show up prepared.
If you want to read the whole thing, it's here:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/the-next-climat.html
Note- Watch the change in the guy I'm arguing with. First he starts off with a nice ad hominem.
"Are you all really that stupid?" Then he proceeds to lay it down thick. I push back, he eventually pulls out the big credentials (maybe that works for scientists, but not for engineers, heheh), and by the end of the discussion he's going "All I'm saying is.. what if I'm right?"
Here goes:
--
"Some two-fifths still believe there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming." ...
I cannot believe what I have read in the comments section here. Are you all really that stupid? Is that even possible? I can see climate change happening on a month to month basis. You are all idiots, and should keep your comments to yourselves. Thank you for your support. ...
Parm,
Updates may be forthcoming...
I thought I'd post all the relevant bits of a conversation I had on one of Wired.com's science blogs.
Some of this is just scary.... "Sensei" is me, by the way.
I have skipped (indicated by ...) some parts of the discussion that were not relevant to my conversation. I've also left out my replies to another guy who didn't quite show up prepared.
If you want to read the whole thing, it's here:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/the-next-climat.html
Note- Watch the change in the guy I'm arguing with. First he starts off with a nice ad hominem.
"Are you all really that stupid?" Then he proceeds to lay it down thick. I push back, he eventually pulls out the big credentials (maybe that works for scientists, but not for engineers, heheh), and by the end of the discussion he's going "All I'm saying is.. what if I'm right?"
Here goes:
--
"Some two-fifths still believe there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming."
Well, at least two-fifths of us have some sense. There is indeed disagreement on this very issue, for various reasons. Yes, it's been extremely hot here this year. But it's been very cold in Germany. Global temperature averaging is still an imprecise science, and what you find depends largely on what you look for.
That being said, I personally do think the planet is getting warmer. So is Mars. I highly doubt man's contribution to Mars' warming is significant, but an observed increase in solar output intensity might just do the trick. Maybe even in both cases.
My worry is not that we will all burn to a crisp or drown within my lifetime, but that the alarmists will keep pushing to stifle all dissent (for our own good, you understand), and usher in an era of scientific dogma just as constricting and stifling as the one that caused Galileo so many problems.
I cannot believe what I have read in the comments section here. Are you all really that stupid? Is that even possible? I can see climate change happening on a month to month basis. You are all idiots, and should keep your comments to yourselves. Thank you for your support.
Parm
Dear god Parm, I really hope you are being sarcastic about the "month to month basis" comment. I can't quite tell.
Brandon Keim,
I suppose that makes you one of the three-fifths, then, eh? ;)
I am not disagreeing with *scientists*. In fact, *scientists*, taken as a whole, disagree on nearly everything, so it is impossible to disagree with all of them on any given point. Given that this is the case, I am extremely skeptical and wary of any claim that attempts to deny that.
(saying that all scientists agree with you as if that is relevant is like saying that all businessmen agree with your global economic model. But the opinion of a hotdog salesmen, businessman though he be, is not pertinent to the discussion of a global economic model. ) In the same way, the opinion of the majority of scientists is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, because it is out of their field.
And, let me point out that there was overwhelming consensus for centuries among scientists that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, that flies spontaneously generated out of rotten meat, etc.
There is a consensus among scientists about global warming. They ALL know it is happening. A very small percentage of scientists in the field of climatology disagree that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of the planetary warming we have recently been seeing (last 100 years, and instead point to the natural variability theory as a possible cause. The supposed "debate" among scientists has been created by politicians and big-oil businessmen who feel that a debate will further delay action to prevent anthropogenic emissions, and thus will allow them to continue reaping massive profits from a nasty chemical we know as gasoline. There really is no debate. You would be fooling yourself to think so. The only REAL debate, is the disagreement as to the consequences of the warming. There some opinions differ...some believe we are headed for the Apocalypse, others believe the warming will scarcely affect us. One thing is for sure...we will see some very scary weather in the next 20 years or so. As somebody once said.."May you live in interesting times". I think the future will be rather interesting.
Parm
Sensei -- shoulda said *climate* scientists. If all the hot dog salesman in the world tell me to eat beef for a while, I'll do it. And if the businessmen are selling their stocks and saying a depression is coming, I'll listen up :)
Brandon,
Ok, that makes more sense. I am aware that there is a certain number of qualified climate scientists who disagree, however, but who are marginalized because their views are not popular with the current fad.
(and yes, the scientific community most certainly is susceptible to fads. Cooling was "in" in the 70's, and anyone who denied it was marginalized. Now Warming is "in", and the same thing is happening in reverse)
Parm,
If you said that there is a consensus among scientists that climate change is occurring, I would agree with you, and with that assertion. Evidence of that is plentiful, though I would submit that one year of freak weather does not long-term global climate change make.
"There really is no debate. You would be fooling yourself to think so."
Again, the absence of debate is no proof of the veracity of a theory.
And I still maintain that there is one. I have read opinions by scientists who are not influenced or payed by either petro-business or politicians who strongly disagree that we are causing the warming, and who are even upset that attention is being diverted from dealing with the consequences of the climate change by scrambling around pretending that we can stop it by our own actions.
And no one has explained how the Mars effect is not related. If we are causing global warming, why is Mars heating up too?
Much of the perceived warming is artificial. NASA's dataset had an error in it. The error related only to U.S. temperature record, but it is still significant. NASA GISS corrected its temp record and now the current decade is cooler than the 1990s and the 1990s are cooler than the 1930s. This is a big story but has not been picked up by the media yet. Read this http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Sensei:
Mars may be heating up, but this does not have any correlation to our situation here on Earth, as solar output has been on a down-trend for several years (check out the NASA website for more info on this - They just released a study performed by their recently launched solar probe). The scientists who are denying we are causing Global Warming are saying this out of fear...and nothing else. Some people have a difficult time accepting that we have devastated our beautiful planet, have left a legacy of destruction for our children, and perhaps without intention - have caused our own long-term extinction. These are challenging concepts to grasp for those who are trying not to see what is happening.
Ron:
The current decade is the warmest on record....BY FAR. The 1990's were just slightly cooler than this decade. Believe it or not...there have been 554 ALL TIME heat records broken in North America over the past 3 years. 2005 and 2006 were the absolute hottest years since record keeping began. There is no denying this...it is a FACT..which is a word alot of people cannot grasp. For those of you that cannot understand this word...it means that your opinion is irrelevant, and the data stands. 2007 is shaping up to be ONCE AGAIN...hotter still than 2006 or 2005. Get out your sunblock and air-conditioners...you will need them.
Parm
Parm,
"The scientists who are denying we are causing Global Warming are saying this out of fear...and nothing else."
As a wise man once said, "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
Please tell me that you have not drunk the koolaid so deeply that you do not think there is any possible basis in scientific fact for questioning a theory. There is some irony in that, however. Could this be the advent of radical scientific extremism?
"Some people have a difficult time accepting that we have devastated our beautiful planet, have left a legacy of destruction for our children, and perhaps without intention - have caused our own long-term extinction."
Now that makes me worry about your objectivity a bit. I hear they have a great deal in tin foil down at Sam's Club. Feel free to panic as you like, but in a few decades when everyone is ranting about the next ice age, I will be just as skeptical as I am now.
This whole panicked tirade sounds like an insult to critical thinking skills to me.
Sensei,
You have to understand this from my perspective. I am head of Research and Development for a climatic based environmental company. I have been studying climate for almost 10 years now. I have read virtually every article written in the english language where climate change or global warming is concerned. So when I make a statement...it is not based on the type of research that most net-junkies would consider valid. I have been studying climate change for most of my adult life. It is almost a CERTAINTY that I know more about this than you do. When you have the level of education and experience I do....come back and speak to me...until you have done your homework...you don't really have an opinion on this topic. No offense intended. I simply know more about it than most people. It is my job, and my passion Sensei, not just a little hobby, or a cheap form of entertainment. When I read an article about climate change/global warming from somebody who obviously knows more than I do...I LISTEN.
Parm,
Your passion, clearly.
While I hope my previous post was not taken as personally insulting, when I read phrases like the one I mentioned:
"Some people have a difficult time accepting that we have devastated our beautiful planet, have left a legacy of destruction for our children, and perhaps without intention - have caused our own long-term extinction."
I have to question your objectivity, because it's such an emotionally charged statement. (I, for one, certainly have difficulty accepting that it is a foregone conclusion that we have caused our own long-term extinction) I don't question whether or not you are well-informed on your subject, but so were many people who assured us that a global freeze was coming in the 70's. In fact, though I don't have the data to make the comparison, it is safe to conclude that at least a few of the people saying that then were more qualified than you are now. And they were totally wrong. So we have precedent for believing that even those as well qualified as you apparently are can be totally (and honestly) mistaken.
There were proposals then of spreading soot on glaciers to melt them, because of fears that too much water would be frozen up there, causing global shortages. What kind of mess would we be in now if they had done that? It would have at least exacerbated the melting that is now occurring. My argument is that taking extreme measures now would be similarly foolish.
The Vikings settled in Greenland when it had extensive forests. (one reason they named it "greenland") We have yet to even get back to the levels of those days, when the climate cycles could not have been significantly been affected by humans.
I'm honestly open to hearing people explain to me why it is that historical temperature phases do not apply in this situation, but my impression, perhaps not as well informed as yours, but perhaps not totally invalid either, is that this is something that has always been happening.
At very least, as a scientist, you should be encouraging creative and critical thinking, not proposing that people are ignorant for not accepting everything they hear reported (truthfully or not) as a consensus.
Sensei,
You seem to be well informed when it comes to climate change, and have a firm grasp of the concepts surrounding the issues. I am quite passionate, and do tend to run off at the mouth on this topic inparticular. The reason I make what would appear to be unreasonable claims about planetary warming, is that I believe we (humans) have made a rather large mistake. This may or may not be true...only time will tell. However I believe that there is an absolutely critial gas balance that has existed for eons. This balance has always been maintained throughout history. There have been times in the past in which the CO2 levels were beyond 450ppm, and as low as 250ppm. The Nitrogen, Oxygen, and residual gasses (argon, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, etc), were also kept in check by the natural processes that were also in balance. It is my opinion that we have underestimated the importance of this gas balance, which is now askew. Lets hypothesize for a minute, and say that the earth is far more sensitive to gas ratios that we may believe. Let us also say that the earth maintains corrective measures for restoring these critical gas ratios. COULD IT BE....that we are beginning to see the earth's self correcting mechanisms take hold? This does not have to be an apocalyptic situation...just simple physics. When we exceed the level of greenhouse gasses the earth can sequester..a buildup of these gasses starts taking place in the atmosphere...and the temperature starts to rise. The rise in temperature starts to melt the poles (among the other effects - drought, wind-storms, flooding, etc), the poles dump the fresh water into the ocean in the Northern Hemisphere. The fresh water starts to interfere with the Global Thermohaline Conveyor, which brings warm water up from the Southern Hemisphere...which cools in the North and sinks...completing the cycle. The buildup of fresh water prevents the cool- heavily saline water from sinking...which starts to stall the conveyor. When there is enough fresh water lost from the poles...the engine can stall. If the engine stalls...the Northern Hemisphere becomes very cold (younger dryas). These cold temperatures cause a mini ice-age..which prompts the return of snow and ice to the poles...which creates a temperature differential between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere...which starts the Global Conveyor again...which starts to heat up the Northern Hemisphere again...creating the warming and cooling trends we can see over the past 600,000 years or so. These effects can be sped up or slowed by volcanic activity, mass methane emissions from the oceans..and several other factors. I think my point is...is that we have simply underestimated the importance of this gas balance...and in MY opinion...will find out very quickly that it was a mistake. I could be wrong...but everything I have studied has shown me that not only could this be true...but it seems to be happening. Now my opinion is not the end all be all of science..But it does lend to an interesting debate does it not? The interesting thing about the recent warming trend in the past decade or so...is how much faster it is happening than scientists predicted (melting glaciers and ocean surface temperatures have increased up to 10 times as quickly as the IPCC predicted). Rather interesting. All I'm saying is...what if I'm right????
Parm
Thank you for that explanation. If I am correct, that is basically the premise that the film "The Day after Tomorrow" was following. (though they greatly sped it up for the purposes of the plot, I assume)
My response would be twofold.
1) What was it that caused CO2 levels to rise so dramatically in the past? Could some of those factors be at work today as well?
2) "COULD IT BE....that we are beginning to see the earth's self correcting mechanisms take hold? This does not have to be an apocalyptic situation...just simple physics."
That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a natural cycle that the Earth has apparently gone through many times, when human CO2 contributions were minimal. (agriculture probably had some small effect, one way or another)
So is the warming that much of the world is experiencing just a natural corrective cycle? If so, then we are panicking over something that 1) is not our fault, and 2) we can't stop, and would be foolish to try, since it's a natural corrective process?
The question, as I understand it, would be whether our contributions are sufficient to cause a more severe and abnormal climate self-correction that would be more catastrophic than a normal correction.
The problem with asking that question is that we don't really know what a normal self-correction (the kind that has occurred without any anthropogenic CO2) looks like as it's playing out in realtime, at least in terms of modern times. ("modern" meaning since we've had the ability to so carefully measure and monitor global metrics as they change)
--Updates may be forthcoming...
My Thoughts on Recent Happenings:
After taking a vacation (a little longer than expected) from writing blogs (as I usually do. I guess you can say I have a bit of Blogging Mania Disorder...or something...)....here are my thoughts on recent happenings:
If the recent bridge collapse and mine accidents are Bush's fault, then it's only fair that he gets to now take credit for the other three million + bridges that haven't fallen and the rest of the mines that haven't collapsed.
John Edwards is the reason my children will be placed in private schools.
In case you missed out on that, he was at some LBTCWROIKDSJFSLSFHSAHFH Convention. I don't know the acronym and I got a little frustrated trying to remember it. It happens. The Gay Convention. I can say things like that because I'm a libertarian. No one knows how to hate libertarians. Know why? We're right. Take a libertarian for face value. We're the only group that actually stands for freedom anymore.
Long way to say:
Edwards said: (paraphrased) that "Children in public schools need to know why some children have two mommies or two daddies! It should be taught in public schools so the children can respect and understand different lifestyles!"
I'm not for this indoctorination crap.
Just like I'm not for public schools forcing kids to take Bible classes, I am not for children being forced LBTGHFWATSDF down their throat. It's parent's responsibility to teach their children what they want their children to learn...be-it religion, eating habits, morals..etc.
And you know what? If we were to say "Okay. You can teach my children about gays...if you read a bible verse a day!" Jesse Jackson would march on that. PETA would be called up and they'd get onto the teacher for having a leather-bound Bible and then the next tsumani, typhoon, cave collapse, ManBearPig sighting will be blamed on said teacher.
Socialized Medicine.
Name one place it has worked.
Bring it.
Because.
It has never NEVER NEVER NEEEEEEVER worked ANYWHERE.
PERIOD.
EVER.
NEVER.
ANYWHERE.
Don't argue this. It HASN'T worked ANYWHERE!
Understand?
(And I'm tired of hearing about it, honestly.)
Hitlery Rodham andOsama Obama Hussein are ruining their chances at their chance at a glorious return to the White House by bickering with each other.
And then there's John Edwards that KNOWS he can't get into the White House by himself--so he's trying to gang up withHellary Hitlery Hillary.
Stupid leech.
Oh yeah. Cindy Sheehan is running againstSatan Nancy Pelosi.
I don't think I have to say anything else about that.
Ok. I think that's all. For now. Expect more later.
If the recent bridge collapse and mine accidents are Bush's fault, then it's only fair that he gets to now take credit for the other three million + bridges that haven't fallen and the rest of the mines that haven't collapsed.
John Edwards is the reason my children will be placed in private schools.
In case you missed out on that, he was at some LBTCWROIKDSJFSLSFHSAHFH Convention. I don't know the acronym and I got a little frustrated trying to remember it. It happens. The Gay Convention. I can say things like that because I'm a libertarian. No one knows how to hate libertarians. Know why? We're right. Take a libertarian for face value. We're the only group that actually stands for freedom anymore.
Long way to say:
Edwards said: (paraphrased) that "Children in public schools need to know why some children have two mommies or two daddies! It should be taught in public schools so the children can respect and understand different lifestyles!"
I'm not for this indoctorination crap.
Just like I'm not for public schools forcing kids to take Bible classes, I am not for children being forced LBTGHFWATSDF down their throat. It's parent's responsibility to teach their children what they want their children to learn...be-it religion, eating habits, morals..etc.
And you know what? If we were to say "Okay. You can teach my children about gays...if you read a bible verse a day!" Jesse Jackson would march on that. PETA would be called up and they'd get onto the teacher for having a leather-bound Bible and then the next tsumani, typhoon, cave collapse, ManBearPig sighting will be blamed on said teacher.
Socialized Medicine.
Name one place it has worked.
Bring it.
Because.
It has never NEVER NEVER NEEEEEEVER worked ANYWHERE.
PERIOD.
EVER.
NEVER.
ANYWHERE.
Don't argue this. It HASN'T worked ANYWHERE!
Understand?
(And I'm tired of hearing about it, honestly.)
Hitlery Rodham and
And then there's John Edwards that KNOWS he can't get into the White House by himself--so he's trying to gang up with
Stupid leech.
Oh yeah. Cindy Sheehan is running against
I don't think I have to say anything else about that.
Ok. I think that's all. For now. Expect more later.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Ann-imosity
I'm so witty. *snort*
It was either THAT title or "The NEW and improved Rosie vs. Donald!"
I know that a lot of people jokingly refer to Ann as a man, but I don't think it would be fair to compare her or Ms. Edwards to Donald OR Rosie...
So. Ann Coulter, right?
Apparently, recently she made another comment about..what's his name? The one she referred to as a homosexual at CPAC (the conference I went to back in March)...Oh yeah, Edwards. I completely forgot that he existed.
Her books are really good reads--and provide a lot of entertainment, but I honestly don't respect most of the stuff that comes out of her mouth.
Before you read this blog the wrong way, I do not condone her comments at all. In fact, I believe that if she were a real representative of the Christian faith as she claims, most of the things she says would...well, not be said by her. I digress:
Well, Elizabeth Edwards called a TV show to attack Ann for her "politically debasing comments." (there's your first mistake. You DO NOT attack Ann Coulter unless you're just craving some eviscerating comments.)
Ann retorted with "I won't say anything else about John Edwards except that I wish he were killed by terrorists."
Elizabeth Edwards was quick to defend her husband (oh, what a man! Let's hide behind my wife that is fighting cancer...Meanie Ann Coulter wishing I were dead!). Ms. PresidentWannaBe said:
"John's campaign is about the issues — but pundits like Ann Coulter are trying to shout him down. If they will not stop, it is up to us cut through the noise. Help us fight back — please give what you can today." (sounds like a fund raising opportunity. Just like a demon-crat) **note: I accidentally pressed the "n" key whilst I was typing that, smirked and just left it there to continue with the word**
And:
"The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it."
I agree with her about raising the dialogue. But, if she wants to be FAAAAIRRRRR(!), she should also be pointing out Bill Maher's comment about the Mr. Vice President Cheney ( something to the effect of "If Dick Cheney had been killed in a car bomb in the middle east, people wouldn't be dying needlessly in Iraq.")
What? You didn't hear about that? Oh. Yeah..I forgot. Between trying to find the story about the NY airport terrorists on page 37 in the "Times" and Nancy Pelosi pushing a bill through that allows those people in DC to take their family on a free vacation whenever they're traveling on "business" (AKA--tax payer's paying for them to do "delegations" with a five star hotel and complimentary sight seeing). You didn't hear about that either?! Oh...What about Nancy Pelosi abusing her role as third-in-line (*shudders*) to try to silence the minority (AKA the conservative vote--or as close to "conservative" as you can get in the GOP these days) to make her job easier. No? Not that either?
(I should change my major to Journalism and Poli.Sci. Don't think I haven't thought about it. The world has too many corporate lawyers anyway.)
I digress again.
"It debases political dialogue," Edwards said. "It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language." (!!!!)
So, Mr. Edwards, you can come out from behind your wife now. Let's HEAR your little platform, and then we'll shoot down anyone that disagrees with you or says something bad about you. No worries, we'll ALL play nice! What issues do you support?
What's that, Mr. Edwards? No platform?! And no, I wasn't talking about issues of magazines. Take your time on that, Mr. Edwards. It's not like the American people care. As long as you slap "Democrat" to your resume and say something about raising taxes to feed the poor and illegal immigrants, you don't NEED a platform.
So, let's look at a few things Mr. Edwards has said, shall we?
The last time I checked, a majority of working people are conservatives--that don't like paying more taxes, enjoy freedom, and don't appreciate people like Nancy Pelosi taking her spawn with her to France to compare her sunburt armpits with the French people (We call these "Surrender Conferences").
It is the DEMOCRATS that care about wealth. They RAISE the taxes and then RAISE their paychecks.
The last time I checked, Bush was the one that CUT taxes. Not increasing his own wealth.
If you want to talk about wealth, aren't you a fairly wealthy person? If you weren't so concerned about it, sell your multi-million dollar mansion and give that money to the government so they can keep 70% of it and give 25% to the poor. The other five percent is just "MIA."
It is Nancy Pelosi that shuts these working people out of the government and makes sure the non-tax payers more "say so" in the soon-to-be dictatorship.
Sorry, Mr. Edwards. You're an idiot.
Futhermore, you're ignorant.
Go buy yourself a brain and a book on the Nineties.
I think that "cliff" was created when Clinton signed NAFTA....created MLOA, ADA, and FMLA policies (and as a business major, I've had to work a lot with these policies, and let me tell you, it proves how hypocritical Al Gore is even further: there is so much paperwork involved, I think I have already killed a small rainforest on just the FMLA, ADA, and MLOA paperwork)
And let us not forget that your exalted hero's form of vengeance was to bomb an aspirin factory. No wonder they're angry with us in the middle east.
I pray that if your little Socialized Medicine thing gets passed, I have enough money to fly to Europe to get treatment.
(Someone I know asked someone they know from Canada if their Socialized Medicine thing works/is good and they replied "Oh yeah! It's great if you can afford to go to the U.S. for treatment!")
If the US gets Socialized Health Care, they better pray they don't go right off a cliff and get hurt or they won't be able to afford health care period. Especially if they have to rely on the government to pick their health care provider...or travel out of the country to get open heart surgery (or some other surgery that can't wait for the demoncrats (I'm using it now) to decide if it's worth it.
Does he not know that (these percentages may be off slightly, but I don't feel like looking it up, do it yourself) 90% of taxes is paid by the 5% "wealthy" while the people who don't pay taxes PERIOD are reaping the benefits? If that's what he's referring to, he's right.
If you pay taxes, you'll get your "tax cut" back. If you don't, you won't get anything. Geez. How dumb do you have to be to not get that?
If Edwards happened to be killed in a terrorist plot, would anyone notice anyway?I know that is incredibly insensitive to say, but really, people.
It was either THAT title or "The NEW and improved Rosie vs. Donald!"
I know that a lot of people jokingly refer to Ann as a man, but I don't think it would be fair to compare her or Ms. Edwards to Donald OR Rosie...
So. Ann Coulter, right?
Apparently, recently she made another comment about..what's his name? The one she referred to as a homosexual at CPAC (the conference I went to back in March)...Oh yeah, Edwards. I completely forgot that he existed.
Her books are really good reads--and provide a lot of entertainment, but I honestly don't respect most of the stuff that comes out of her mouth.
Before you read this blog the wrong way, I do not condone her comments at all. In fact, I believe that if she were a real representative of the Christian faith as she claims, most of the things she says would...well, not be said by her. I digress:
Well, Elizabeth Edwards called a TV show to attack Ann for her "politically debasing comments." (there's your first mistake. You DO NOT attack Ann Coulter unless you're just craving some eviscerating comments.)
Ann retorted with "I won't say anything else about John Edwards except that I wish he were killed by terrorists."
Elizabeth Edwards was quick to defend her husband (oh, what a man! Let's hide behind my wife that is fighting cancer...Meanie Ann Coulter wishing I were dead!). Ms. PresidentWannaBe said:
"John's campaign is about the issues — but pundits like Ann Coulter are trying to shout him down. If they will not stop, it is up to us cut through the noise. Help us fight back — please give what you can today." (sounds like a fund raising opportunity. Just like a demon-crat) **note: I accidentally pressed the "n" key whilst I was typing that, smirked and just left it there to continue with the word**
And:
"The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it."
I agree with her about raising the dialogue. But, if she wants to be FAAAAIRRRRR(!), she should also be pointing out Bill Maher's comment about the Mr. Vice President Cheney ( something to the effect of "If Dick Cheney had been killed in a car bomb in the middle east, people wouldn't be dying needlessly in Iraq.")
What? You didn't hear about that? Oh. Yeah..I forgot. Between trying to find the story about the NY airport terrorists on page 37 in the "Times" and Nancy Pelosi pushing a bill through that allows those people in DC to take their family on a free vacation whenever they're traveling on "business" (AKA--tax payer's paying for them to do "delegations" with a five star hotel and complimentary sight seeing). You didn't hear about that either?! Oh...What about Nancy Pelosi abusing her role as third-in-line (*shudders*) to try to silence the minority (AKA the conservative vote--or as close to "conservative" as you can get in the GOP these days) to make her job easier. No? Not that either?
(I should change my major to Journalism and Poli.Sci. Don't think I haven't thought about it. The world has too many corporate lawyers anyway.)
I digress again.
"It debases political dialogue," Edwards said. "It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language." (!!!!)
So, Mr. Edwards, you can come out from behind your wife now. Let's HEAR your little platform, and then we'll shoot down anyone that disagrees with you or says something bad about you. No worries, we'll ALL play nice! What issues do you support?
What's that, Mr. Edwards? No platform?! And no, I wasn't talking about issues of magazines. Take your time on that, Mr. Edwards. It's not like the American people care. As long as you slap "Democrat" to your resume and say something about raising taxes to feed the poor and illegal immigrants, you don't NEED a platform.
So, let's look at a few things Mr. Edwards has said, shall we?
"Working people have been shut out by this president because he valuesWait...who is being shut out?
only one thing: wealth."
John Edwards
The last time I checked, a majority of working people are conservatives--that don't like paying more taxes, enjoy freedom, and don't appreciate people like Nancy Pelosi taking her spawn with her to France to compare her sunburt armpits with the French people (We call these "Surrender Conferences").
It is the DEMOCRATS that care about wealth. They RAISE the taxes and then RAISE their paychecks.
The last time I checked, Bush was the one that CUT taxes. Not increasing his own wealth.
If you want to talk about wealth, aren't you a fairly wealthy person? If you weren't so concerned about it, sell your multi-million dollar mansion and give that money to the government so they can keep 70% of it and give 25% to the poor. The other five percent is just "MIA."
It is Nancy Pelosi that shuts these working people out of the government and makes sure the non-tax payers more "say so" in the soon-to-be dictatorship.
"They [Bush and Cheney] have led us from the edge of greatness when Bill Clinton left officeNow. That's just too easy.
to the edge of a cliff."
John Edwards
Sorry, Mr. Edwards. You're an idiot.
Futhermore, you're ignorant.
Go buy yourself a brain and a book on the Nineties.
I think that "cliff" was created when Clinton signed NAFTA....created MLOA, ADA, and FMLA policies (and as a business major, I've had to work a lot with these policies, and let me tell you, it proves how hypocritical Al Gore is even further: there is so much paperwork involved, I think I have already killed a small rainforest on just the FMLA, ADA, and MLOA paperwork)
And let us not forget that your exalted hero's form of vengeance was to bomb an aspirin factory. No wonder they're angry with us in the middle east.
"George Bush has a health care plan - pray you don't get sick."No. No. No.
John Edwards
I pray that if your little Socialized Medicine thing gets passed, I have enough money to fly to Europe to get treatment.
(Someone I know asked someone they know from Canada if their Socialized Medicine thing works/is good and they replied "Oh yeah! It's great if you can afford to go to the U.S. for treatment!")
"The issue becomes whether you believe health care is an isolated problem.The same cliff that the Republicans sent the entire country over after Clinton left office?
For those in poverty and the struggling middle class, if one thing goes wrong
- if they have a health care problem - they go right off the cliff."
John Edwards
If the US gets Socialized Health Care, they better pray they don't go right off a cliff and get hurt or they won't be able to afford health care period. Especially if they have to rely on the government to pick their health care provider...or travel out of the country to get open heart surgery (or some other surgery that can't wait for the demoncrats (I'm using it now) to decide if it's worth it.
"[There's] one America that does the work, another America that reapsYeah. Like Illegal immigrants that don't pay taxes but are somehow qualified for Medicare/Medicaid or WIC for their children.
the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that
gets the tax breaks."
John Edwards
Does he not know that (these percentages may be off slightly, but I don't feel like looking it up, do it yourself) 90% of taxes is paid by the 5% "wealthy" while the people who don't pay taxes PERIOD are reaping the benefits? If that's what he's referring to, he's right.
If you pay taxes, you'll get your "tax cut" back. If you don't, you won't get anything. Geez. How dumb do you have to be to not get that?
If Edwards happened to be killed in a terrorist plot, would anyone notice anyway?I know that is incredibly insensitive to say, but really, people.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
What I believe, exactly.
I consider my father to be the smartest person I've ever met--especially in political matters. I've often told him that he should have a talk show or write a book or run for something, to which he always responds with "They're not ready for someone like me. They'd run me out."
I'm sure quite a few of you have met him and agree with me. He is very analytical, which, I suppose, comes with being an Electrical Engineer (or just an engineer period, if you're a good one). My father has a way of explaining things to a point where you cannot disagree with him. And trust me, I don't. Not about politics. Ever.
This morning, my father and I had a very long detailed chat about everything from global warming and Al Gore's overwhelming hypocrisy to the $3,600 spa trip I discussed in a previous post. I love talking to him about politics. He is a libertarian, although he has not established himself with the party because as Dr. Bateman and my father repeatedly say "it is very dangerous to establish yourself with one party over the other." (They have an amazing explanation, but I am not very good at fully explaining it, so I will leave it to them to explain.)
And he's right. Republicans and Democrats both seem to be forming into each other. They've become the same, only separated by a few social issues, which, again, as my father says, aren't social issues just like murder is not a social issue.
In high school, I was definitely ultra conservative...and like many people, viewed myself as such just by my social issues. I hate to admit this, but I was in the environment that automatically aligned you with the GOP if you claimed Conservativity, as I did and still do, or as a Democrat if you claimed liberality.
All based on social issues.
What I have come to realize in my short time out of high school, call it maturity, or call it a real job with real taxes, but there is more to this whole political thing than so called "social issues."
I have found that I am VERY close to libertarian on an overwhelming majority of my views, but I will not claim the libertarian party because I do not 100% agree with all of their policies and "official" party stances. Just like I refuse to claim Republican anymore...and I've never claimed the Democrat-status, and never will.
I've said all this to lay out a few things that I believe--to separate me from any specific party.
I believe the government was established to provide for the common defense, build roads, and secure our borders. Nothing else.
I believe that Social Security should be privatized.
I believe that the government should reduce its size and not infringe upon anyone's beliefs, way of life, or happiness.
I believe we are taxed too much as a country.
I want the FairTax.
I believe the school system should be privatized. Get the government out of it. School should have to compete the same way I have to compete to keep my job in the future.
I also believe that utilities should be privatized.
I believe that marriage is sanctioned by religion, not the state. Marriage is an ideal created and established by religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam..etc. All of these religions (to my knowledge) do not tolerate homosexuality (and don't you dare bring up the gay priests in Christianity. If you want to bring this up, do so on another blog and I shall respond there). Why would a homosexual want to be married by something that condemns their lifestyle?
However, I do believe that if they want to call themselves married, that is their prerogative. What happens in your bedroom is your business. Don't force it on me, and I will not force my religion on you. It's your life, do what you want with it. Everything is a choice.
I believe this country's biggest problem is personal responsibility.
I believe that the welfare system should be rewritten. Stop giving welfare recipients a check every time they reproduce; there will be less babies born in poverty, and less mouths to feed later down the road. Also, implement a time limit and set up a trade-school training program.
I do believe that abortion stops a beating heart. It is murder.
I do not believe that abortion should be implemented as a form of birth control. However, let me explain this the way my very wise father does: If someone is holding a gun to your head, threatening your life and you have the means to defend your life and kill them first, it is what the justice system refers to as "justifiable homicide." Just as a mother, after the doctor has determined the baby is a threat to the mother's life, should be allowed to decide whether to defend her life through justifiable homicide. If she decides to go ahead and have the baby, even though her life is in danger, that is her choice.
I believe that Hilary Clinton is not socialist or communist. She's fascist. (Look up the definitions, it's true)
She, and the rest of the democratic party, unlike socialists and communists, want there to be incentive for people to succeed..to create more money to put in their own pockets.
I believe there should be term limits for the Congress and House. Being a "politician" was never meant to be a career.
I believe that there should be no governmental pension.
I believe that labor unions don't care about the worker, only the money.
I believe there are more problems than just "Liberal vs. Conservative" or "Red vs. Blue."
We have politicians that get away with drowning people in lakes, having oral sex in the oval office, not representing the people they are obligated to serve.
I believe that I am too conservative for the Republicans and too smart for the Democrats.
I think I may have hit a trigger with quite a few people, but hey. I'm allowed to.
It says so in that little unimportant document sitting behind glass casing in DC.
Unless, of course, Nancy Pelosi has decided to rid of that, too.
I'm sure quite a few of you have met him and agree with me. He is very analytical, which, I suppose, comes with being an Electrical Engineer (or just an engineer period, if you're a good one). My father has a way of explaining things to a point where you cannot disagree with him. And trust me, I don't. Not about politics. Ever.
This morning, my father and I had a very long detailed chat about everything from global warming and Al Gore's overwhelming hypocrisy to the $3,600 spa trip I discussed in a previous post. I love talking to him about politics. He is a libertarian, although he has not established himself with the party because as Dr. Bateman and my father repeatedly say "it is very dangerous to establish yourself with one party over the other." (They have an amazing explanation, but I am not very good at fully explaining it, so I will leave it to them to explain.)
And he's right. Republicans and Democrats both seem to be forming into each other. They've become the same, only separated by a few social issues, which, again, as my father says, aren't social issues just like murder is not a social issue.
In high school, I was definitely ultra conservative...and like many people, viewed myself as such just by my social issues. I hate to admit this, but I was in the environment that automatically aligned you with the GOP if you claimed Conservativity, as I did and still do, or as a Democrat if you claimed liberality.
All based on social issues.
What I have come to realize in my short time out of high school, call it maturity, or call it a real job with real taxes, but there is more to this whole political thing than so called "social issues."
I have found that I am VERY close to libertarian on an overwhelming majority of my views, but I will not claim the libertarian party because I do not 100% agree with all of their policies and "official" party stances. Just like I refuse to claim Republican anymore...and I've never claimed the Democrat-status, and never will.
I've said all this to lay out a few things that I believe--to separate me from any specific party.
I believe the government was established to provide for the common defense, build roads, and secure our borders. Nothing else.
I believe that Social Security should be privatized.
I believe that the government should reduce its size and not infringe upon anyone's beliefs, way of life, or happiness.
I believe we are taxed too much as a country.
I want the FairTax.
I believe the school system should be privatized. Get the government out of it. School should have to compete the same way I have to compete to keep my job in the future.
I also believe that utilities should be privatized.
I believe that marriage is sanctioned by religion, not the state. Marriage is an ideal created and established by religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam..etc. All of these religions (to my knowledge) do not tolerate homosexuality (and don't you dare bring up the gay priests in Christianity. If you want to bring this up, do so on another blog and I shall respond there). Why would a homosexual want to be married by something that condemns their lifestyle?
However, I do believe that if they want to call themselves married, that is their prerogative. What happens in your bedroom is your business. Don't force it on me, and I will not force my religion on you. It's your life, do what you want with it. Everything is a choice.
I believe this country's biggest problem is personal responsibility.
I believe that the welfare system should be rewritten. Stop giving welfare recipients a check every time they reproduce; there will be less babies born in poverty, and less mouths to feed later down the road. Also, implement a time limit and set up a trade-school training program.
I do believe that abortion stops a beating heart. It is murder.
I do not believe that abortion should be implemented as a form of birth control. However, let me explain this the way my very wise father does: If someone is holding a gun to your head, threatening your life and you have the means to defend your life and kill them first, it is what the justice system refers to as "justifiable homicide." Just as a mother, after the doctor has determined the baby is a threat to the mother's life, should be allowed to decide whether to defend her life through justifiable homicide. If she decides to go ahead and have the baby, even though her life is in danger, that is her choice.
I believe that Hilary Clinton is not socialist or communist. She's fascist. (Look up the definitions, it's true)
She, and the rest of the democratic party, unlike socialists and communists, want there to be incentive for people to succeed..to create more money to put in their own pockets.
I believe there should be term limits for the Congress and House. Being a "politician" was never meant to be a career.
I believe that there should be no governmental pension.
I believe that labor unions don't care about the worker, only the money.
I believe there are more problems than just "Liberal vs. Conservative" or "Red vs. Blue."
We have politicians that get away with drowning people in lakes, having oral sex in the oval office, not representing the people they are obligated to serve.
I believe that I am too conservative for the Republicans and too smart for the Democrats.
I think I may have hit a trigger with quite a few people, but hey. I'm allowed to.
It says so in that little unimportant document sitting behind glass casing in DC.
Unless, of course, Nancy Pelosi has decided to rid of that, too.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Nuclear Angst
Alabama honor: Bush visits first new reactor to open for decades
We may be thanking God for Mississippi in most state comparison rankings, but Alabama is currently leading the way in the quest for sane and efficient power generation. President Bush will be visiting the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens on Thursday, where the Unit 1 reactor has recently been restarted. While this may not sound significant, it is the first reactor to be started in the US in 20 years.
You may be asking yourself why this is, considering that nuclear power is the most efficient power generation means available to us by far. The only by-products are hot water and small amounts of very radioactive but containable material. (Yes, this material poses an obvious and enduring health hazard until it's safely under Yucca Mtn., but not nearly as much as the lack of power infrastructure will cause in the event of a national emergency, or even just an over-stressed power grid.) Those situations involving mishaps and the threat of radiation leaks, most notably Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the Ukraine, are irrelevant at this point: Chernobyl is a nightmarish scenario that is not possible with modern US reactors, and the lessons of Three Mile Island have been well-learned and taken into consideration.
I have noted that Browns Ferry Unit 1 is the first reactor to be started in the US in 20 years, making it unit number 103 in the US as a whole. Contrast this to nuclear efforts in China:
(info from http://www.world-nuclear.org)
* Mainland China has nine nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, a further two units grid connected, four more under construction, and at least four more about to start constuction in 2007.
* Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a fivefold increase in nuclear capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.
* The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.
To summarize, China has plans to increase their nuclear power capacity by 15-20x its current level in the next 27 years.
By contrast, in the past 20 years, we have only shut down or paused the construction of plants, not opened any.
Now, lest I be accused of sinophobia, I will call attention to the fact that China only has 11 working reactors at this point, so it will take some time for them to catch up, even at the rate they are building.
However, my point is not to worry lest we be overtaken in numbers by any specific country, but that we have irresponsibly neglected to keep a robust power infrastructure in place. Remember the rolling blackouts in California? They were at least partially responsible for the referendum that kicked Gray Davis out the door and ushered in the era of the Govinator.
And it's not as if we can solve the nation's energy crunch with the ongoing boom in windmill construction either. Though they may alleviate problems in some areas, as a whole you're not going to help lighten the load on the nation without a veritable sea of them covering vast sections of the Midwest, and the energy required to create and construct said sea of windmills would make such an effort counterproductive.
In the end, nuclear power is the only option that makes sense. There are no coal-based clouds of smoke, no swirling windy blades of death, no acres of solar cells with meager power returns. Though these (coal-powered, wind-powered, solar-powered) solutions make sense in certain locations and contexts, the only technology that makes sense to use as the backbone of a heavily loaded power infrastructure in great need of shoring up is nuclear power. Even France has figured this out.
(That, or we can wait for the even cleaner and more efficient process of nuclear fusion to be perfected. But even setting aside the fact that it is the technology of the future and probably always will be, why do I have this sneaking suspicion that the drinkers of Gore-aid would find some reason to scream out against them too?)
If we continue to allow regulatory dead-locks and people who oppose the idea of power plants on principle (often the same people who think the fewer humans living and disturbing nature's tranquility the better) to prevent the responsible and practical process of increasing our grid capacity, the problems will only get more severe. Let those who complain of global warming go without air conditioning for a summer, and then decide if a few more reactors aren't worth it...
-Oak
We may be thanking God for Mississippi in most state comparison rankings, but Alabama is currently leading the way in the quest for sane and efficient power generation. President Bush will be visiting the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens on Thursday, where the Unit 1 reactor has recently been restarted. While this may not sound significant, it is the first reactor to be started in the US in 20 years.
You may be asking yourself why this is, considering that nuclear power is the most efficient power generation means available to us by far. The only by-products are hot water and small amounts of very radioactive but containable material. (Yes, this material poses an obvious and enduring health hazard until it's safely under Yucca Mtn., but not nearly as much as the lack of power infrastructure will cause in the event of a national emergency, or even just an over-stressed power grid.) Those situations involving mishaps and the threat of radiation leaks, most notably Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the Ukraine, are irrelevant at this point: Chernobyl is a nightmarish scenario that is not possible with modern US reactors, and the lessons of Three Mile Island have been well-learned and taken into consideration.
I have noted that Browns Ferry Unit 1 is the first reactor to be started in the US in 20 years, making it unit number 103 in the US as a whole. Contrast this to nuclear efforts in China:
(info from http://www.world-nuclear.org)
* Mainland China has nine nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, a further two units grid connected, four more under construction, and at least four more about to start constuction in 2007.
* Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a fivefold increase in nuclear capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.
* The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.
To summarize, China has plans to increase their nuclear power capacity by 15-20x its current level in the next 27 years.
By contrast, in the past 20 years, we have only shut down or paused the construction of plants, not opened any.
Now, lest I be accused of sinophobia, I will call attention to the fact that China only has 11 working reactors at this point, so it will take some time for them to catch up, even at the rate they are building.
However, my point is not to worry lest we be overtaken in numbers by any specific country, but that we have irresponsibly neglected to keep a robust power infrastructure in place. Remember the rolling blackouts in California? They were at least partially responsible for the referendum that kicked Gray Davis out the door and ushered in the era of the Govinator.
And it's not as if we can solve the nation's energy crunch with the ongoing boom in windmill construction either. Though they may alleviate problems in some areas, as a whole you're not going to help lighten the load on the nation without a veritable sea of them covering vast sections of the Midwest, and the energy required to create and construct said sea of windmills would make such an effort counterproductive.
In the end, nuclear power is the only option that makes sense. There are no coal-based clouds of smoke, no swirling windy blades of death, no acres of solar cells with meager power returns. Though these (coal-powered, wind-powered, solar-powered) solutions make sense in certain locations and contexts, the only technology that makes sense to use as the backbone of a heavily loaded power infrastructure in great need of shoring up is nuclear power. Even France has figured this out.
(That, or we can wait for the even cleaner and more efficient process of nuclear fusion to be perfected. But even setting aside the fact that it is the technology of the future and probably always will be, why do I have this sneaking suspicion that the drinkers of Gore-aid would find some reason to scream out against them too?)
If we continue to allow regulatory dead-locks and people who oppose the idea of power plants on principle (often the same people who think the fewer humans living and disturbing nature's tranquility the better) to prevent the responsible and practical process of increasing our grid capacity, the problems will only get more severe. Let those who complain of global warming go without air conditioning for a summer, and then decide if a few more reactors aren't worth it...
-Oak
Monday, June 18, 2007
Pay more taxes so I can go to a spa.
While the Madison County School board is out promoting their sales-tax increase (by sending threatening letters home with children saying that the education of the Madison County younger generation will suffer if the sales tax legislation does not pass. You know, the usual propaganda approach that these lovely teacher unions take), they decided to take a retreat...to "get away from their cell phones and family to get to know each person on the school board...as a character building activity." They decide to spend $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) to go to a spa. I shall outline my thinking on this in numerical form...so I don't mix thoughts and jump around.
1. They don't have enough money to fix falling ceiling tiles and broken A/Cs in the county/city high schools, but they have enough money to spend $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) on a spa trip? I say forget the sales tax increase. Let's put everything set aside for these little trips...for their food...for anything that comes on the tax payer's tab BACK where they say it should go: the schools.
I was talking to one of my friends whose grandfather was on the schoolboard when her father was in grade school. Back then, the school board people had other jobs and didn't have three or four personal secretaries. Being active in his son's educational experience was his duty...a hobby. He wanted to make sure the school system was looking out for his son, not getting matching Brazillian bikini waxes and complimentary facials with your fellow school board pals.
2. I say we take 20% out of the school board's salary and make them pay for their little excursions. You don't have to be best friends to be on a school board. In fact, I'd prefer you NOT be...that eradicates any "special treatment" (no pun intended) and favoritism. Also, I think that if we take enough out of their paycheck, they'll actually have to care about the work they're doing to be interested in it...not to use the system for a spa trip.
3. I have a problem with the "get away from family and hang up cell phones."
Just turn your cell phone off during meetings. How hard is that? (Yes, I know, coming from me...) But if the education of the children is REALLY that important to them (I think
I hit something here. *note to self, harp on this later*) , they can sacrifice replying to a text message for an hour-ish. I bet it didn't take them an hour to decide to go on that spa trip. I bet it took them less than that to think about putting it on the Madison County taxpayers' tab. And even less time for them to say "Hey, let's just increase the sales tax and it'll break us even so we can do this again next year!" (Or month.)
4. $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) is a lot of money to me. It's not an insane amount, but it would be nice to have $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) to go to a spa with...or pay for college with. For my apartment. To invest. In fact, let me steal money from you, and I'll take a few of my close friends on a "character building" adventure to a spa to discuss the future of the Madison County educational system. (How much talking can you get in during a spa trip, anyway? I don't know about you, but when I'm relaxing, I don't want to talk about stressful issues like forcing taxes on people so they can pick up my tab.)
5. "Character building." COME ON. Don't we want to elect people that have character already?
6. I think that whomever is elected to a school board position should have a child in one of the schools. I don't personally know any of the Madison County schoolboard, but from what I see in Morgan County's are men and women with sons and daughters that have long graduated. Also, I see too many incumbents. Too many people have been riding the tax payer's money for too long. Why? It's an easy check. Just go to the meetings, pretend you care about the kids, and you get a couple secretaries and a spa trip out of it. Sign me up! I think the education boards are too "stacked."
Get rid of the useless positions, cut some of their pay, cut the trips, and maybe, just maybe, the surrounding high schools will be able to afford their new ceiling tiles and A/C units.
1. They don't have enough money to fix falling ceiling tiles and broken A/Cs in the county/city high schools, but they have enough money to spend $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) on a spa trip? I say forget the sales tax increase. Let's put everything set aside for these little trips...for their food...for anything that comes on the tax payer's tab BACK where they say it should go: the schools.
I was talking to one of my friends whose grandfather was on the schoolboard when her father was in grade school. Back then, the school board people had other jobs and didn't have three or four personal secretaries. Being active in his son's educational experience was his duty...a hobby. He wanted to make sure the school system was looking out for his son, not getting matching Brazillian bikini waxes and complimentary facials with your fellow school board pals.
2. I say we take 20% out of the school board's salary and make them pay for their little excursions. You don't have to be best friends to be on a school board. In fact, I'd prefer you NOT be...that eradicates any "special treatment" (no pun intended) and favoritism. Also, I think that if we take enough out of their paycheck, they'll actually have to care about the work they're doing to be interested in it...not to use the system for a spa trip.
3. I have a problem with the "get away from family and hang up cell phones."
Just turn your cell phone off during meetings. How hard is that? (Yes, I know, coming from me...) But if the education of the children is REALLY that important to them (I think
I hit something here. *note to self, harp on this later*) , they can sacrifice replying to a text message for an hour-ish. I bet it didn't take them an hour to decide to go on that spa trip. I bet it took them less than that to think about putting it on the Madison County taxpayers' tab. And even less time for them to say "Hey, let's just increase the sales tax and it'll break us even so we can do this again next year!" (Or month.)
4. $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) is a lot of money to me. It's not an insane amount, but it would be nice to have $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) to go to a spa with...or pay for college with. For my apartment. To invest. In fact, let me steal money from you, and I'll take a few of my close friends on a "character building" adventure to a spa to discuss the future of the Madison County educational system. (How much talking can you get in during a spa trip, anyway? I don't know about you, but when I'm relaxing, I don't want to talk about stressful issues like forcing taxes on people so they can pick up my tab.)
5. "Character building." COME ON. Don't we want to elect people that have character already?
6. I think that whomever is elected to a school board position should have a child in one of the schools. I don't personally know any of the Madison County schoolboard, but from what I see in Morgan County's are men and women with sons and daughters that have long graduated. Also, I see too many incumbents. Too many people have been riding the tax payer's money for too long. Why? It's an easy check. Just go to the meetings, pretend you care about the kids, and you get a couple secretaries and a spa trip out of it. Sign me up! I think the education boards are too "stacked."
Get rid of the useless positions, cut some of their pay, cut the trips, and maybe, just maybe, the surrounding high schools will be able to afford their new ceiling tiles and A/C units.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Oops. Retraction.
It was page Thirty-SEVEN (37), not Thirty (30).
My bad.
Not that it disproves my point at all.
(I knew it was page thirty seven (37) for a few days after I wrote that blog, I was just too lazy to fix it.)
My bad.
Not that it disproves my point at all.
(I knew it was page thirty seven (37) for a few days after I wrote that blog, I was just too lazy to fix it.)
Monday, June 04, 2007
Page Thirty (30)
So. The New York Times published an article about the terrorist plot that was avoided.
It was on page thirty (30). As in the back half of the magazine.
So, in case you didn't hear about it because it was buried in an overly liberal exaltation of Paris Hilton's great example of reporting to jail early:
Four (4) men have been confirmed as suspects in a terrorist plot against the JFK airport in New York. They were going to blow up one of the main fuel lines that also supplies other airports...creating a nice little chain reaction, taking lots of lives, and in their own words "killing JFK for the second time."
(What the New York Times didn't tell you: these men were Muslim. Yeah, like the terrorists that blew up the WTC. Long beards, like hiding in caves. You know the type.)
(And. Let me stop right here for a second. WHAT? JFK Airport is in New York? And their own LITTLE magazine can't make this HUGE story front page? They just blow it off as "Oh, yeah right like they could do something like that. It was ill planned! It was infeasible for these men to do that! They weren't secretive enough about it!" Right. That's what the really left wing (insert: idiots) would've said before 9/11 if the terrorists had been caught the day before. Oh. WAIT. 9/11. Wasn't that in New York, too? Am I wrong? Or...if someone tries to hit your city twice (2 xs) with blowing stuff up, and you're in charge of reporting the news...wouldn't you make sure EVERYONE knew? Wouldn't you be the slightest bit PISSED? Would you NOT hide the story on page THIRTY (30) in your reporting-device?! Furthermore, would you not be proud that your city avoided a second (2nd) "9/11"? That our (the United States of America) intelligence has increased that much that we are able to avert these kinds of activities from happening? "No. We're more excited that Paris Hilton's in jail. We don't care that four (4) Islam extremists tried to blow up our city for the second time and kill our already dying air-travel market!" Wasn't JFK a democrat? Is he not their sainted, sanctified hero!? If someone wants to kill your hero a second time, would you not be, again, pissed? What the heck does Uncle *hiccup* Ted have to say about this?!)
Now, that was a really long parenthetical. I bet I gave the averted attack at JFK more attention than the Times, though.
I know, I know: "Whitney, you're ridiculous. There's no way the Times thinks that Paris Hilton going to jail is more important than the JFK almost-bombing!"
No. I know they don't think that. They're scared. They're cowardly. They're BAD journalists.
They're afraid to give Bush ANY credibility. They're scared that he may be somewhat RIGHT about those people (x^z) in the middle east. They're TERRIFIED that Bush may be vindicated about his "horrid wire tapping!".
And they should be.
They should be scared as hell. Because when a democrat gets into office (and I HATE that I said "when," but I've lost faith in the GOP), the Democrat party will realize that you can't just sit down and "negotiate" with these people. They don't want to roast marshmellows and sing "Kumbaya" (to paraphrase the great Sean Hannity's speech I heard live in DC at CPAC). They want to kill us. And if we let the donkies (insert: asses) have their way, they will.
Why these crazy evangelical, closeminded liberals don't want to do anything about it, I don't understand.
It was on page thirty (30). As in the back half of the magazine.
So, in case you didn't hear about it because it was buried in an overly liberal exaltation of Paris Hilton's great example of reporting to jail early:
Four (4) men have been confirmed as suspects in a terrorist plot against the JFK airport in New York. They were going to blow up one of the main fuel lines that also supplies other airports...creating a nice little chain reaction, taking lots of lives, and in their own words "killing JFK for the second time."
(What the New York Times didn't tell you: these men were Muslim. Yeah, like the terrorists that blew up the WTC. Long beards, like hiding in caves. You know the type.)
(And. Let me stop right here for a second. WHAT? JFK Airport is in New York? And their own LITTLE magazine can't make this HUGE story front page? They just blow it off as "Oh, yeah right like they could do something like that. It was ill planned! It was infeasible for these men to do that! They weren't secretive enough about it!" Right. That's what the really left wing (insert: idiots) would've said before 9/11 if the terrorists had been caught the day before. Oh. WAIT. 9/11. Wasn't that in New York, too? Am I wrong? Or...if someone tries to hit your city twice (2 xs) with blowing stuff up, and you're in charge of reporting the news...wouldn't you make sure EVERYONE knew? Wouldn't you be the slightest bit PISSED? Would you NOT hide the story on page THIRTY (30) in your reporting-device?! Furthermore, would you not be proud that your city avoided a second (2nd) "9/11"? That our (the United States of America) intelligence has increased that much that we are able to avert these kinds of activities from happening? "No. We're more excited that Paris Hilton's in jail. We don't care that four (4) Islam extremists tried to blow up our city for the second time and kill our already dying air-travel market!" Wasn't JFK a democrat? Is he not their sainted, sanctified hero!? If someone wants to kill your hero a second time, would you not be, again, pissed? What the heck does Uncle *hiccup* Ted have to say about this?!)
Now, that was a really long parenthetical. I bet I gave the averted attack at JFK more attention than the Times, though.
I know, I know: "Whitney, you're ridiculous. There's no way the Times thinks that Paris Hilton going to jail is more important than the JFK almost-bombing!"
No. I know they don't think that. They're scared. They're cowardly. They're BAD journalists.
They're afraid to give Bush ANY credibility. They're scared that he may be somewhat RIGHT about those people (x^z) in the middle east. They're TERRIFIED that Bush may be vindicated about his "horrid wire tapping!".
And they should be.
They should be scared as hell. Because when a democrat gets into office (and I HATE that I said "when," but I've lost faith in the GOP), the Democrat party will realize that you can't just sit down and "negotiate" with these people. They don't want to roast marshmellows and sing "Kumbaya" (to paraphrase the great Sean Hannity's speech I heard live in DC at CPAC). They want to kill us. And if we let the donkies (insert: asses) have their way, they will.
Why these crazy evangelical, closeminded liberals don't want to do anything about it, I don't understand.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
What Liberal Media?
After watching the press conference in the Rose Garden with Tony Blair and President Bush today, I decided that people (aka the evangelical left) have no common courtesy and are just rude. Instead of focusing on the loss of a great leader for Britain, and asking questions about the new leadership (there were a few questions like this), I found most of them to be disrespectful and just feeding more material to Jon Stewart.
I don't even agree with everything Bush has done. He calls himself a "conservative," but has run the country as a liberal--adding new programs to the government, increasing its size--unlike a true conservative. However, this man is still our President. He has to make decisions that I couldn't dream of making. See how much he has aged since he has been in office? I'm sure he hasn't had it completely easy.
Most people that I've talked to that "hate" Bush give me reasons such as "He's stupid." Wow. Okay. Great reasoning. Half of America is stupid. We give our attention to Paris Hilton going to jail, Ho-hand snorting more cocaine, and whether or not Brangelina will stay together. More people vote for American Idol than the President. And they're the ones complaining?
Among the questions Bush was asked was "Do you blame yourself for the demise of Tony Blair?"
I think that Bush handled himself really well with these borderline accusative statements.
I was really impressed with Tony Blair's closing statements, saying "..the easiest way to get people to like you is to speak out against America. You get a round of applause. Speak out against the president..." (Bush in the background "You get a standing ovation.")
He spoke of defending the values that England and America share (moralistically and democracy, itself). Blair also said that "...in the end, politics is really a public service...the choices that we make are hard."
I can't help but feel that a lot of politicians have lost sight of their positions being a "public service." For example: Ted Kennedy (had to mention him somewhere. Tradition. The Public Service he does is to drink most of the beer to spare someone else from drinking that same bottle.) Less jokingly: Nancy Pelosi; national traitor and democracy killer. Why do I call her this? Pelosi is threatening to take away minority power--to silence them so she can push her bills through (I guess the minority didn't like the curtains?). If a GOP or any other party candidate were to try to silence the Dem vote, the media would have a field day!
What was actually said:
In other news...anyone else notice that Jesse Jackson looks like a cross between a Boston terrier and Brain from "Pinky and the Brain"? And he's just as annoying.
I don't even agree with everything Bush has done. He calls himself a "conservative," but has run the country as a liberal--adding new programs to the government, increasing its size--unlike a true conservative. However, this man is still our President. He has to make decisions that I couldn't dream of making. See how much he has aged since he has been in office? I'm sure he hasn't had it completely easy.
Most people that I've talked to that "hate" Bush give me reasons such as "He's stupid." Wow. Okay. Great reasoning. Half of America is stupid. We give our attention to Paris Hilton going to jail, Ho-hand snorting more cocaine, and whether or not Brangelina will stay together. More people vote for American Idol than the President. And they're the ones complaining?
Among the questions Bush was asked was "Do you blame yourself for the demise of Tony Blair?"
I think that Bush handled himself really well with these borderline accusative statements.
I was really impressed with Tony Blair's closing statements, saying "..the easiest way to get people to like you is to speak out against America. You get a round of applause. Speak out against the president..." (Bush in the background "You get a standing ovation.")
He spoke of defending the values that England and America share (moralistically and democracy, itself). Blair also said that "...in the end, politics is really a public service...the choices that we make are hard."
I can't help but feel that a lot of politicians have lost sight of their positions being a "public service." For example: Ted Kennedy (had to mention him somewhere. Tradition. The Public Service he does is to drink most of the beer to spare someone else from drinking that same bottle.) Less jokingly: Nancy Pelosi; national traitor and democracy killer. Why do I call her this? Pelosi is threatening to take away minority power--to silence them so she can push her bills through (I guess the minority didn't like the curtains?). If a GOP or any other party candidate were to try to silence the Dem vote, the media would have a field day!
What was actually said:
PRIME MIN, BLAIR: And so, you know, yes, of course it's like -- anybody who's sitting there advising a politician in, you know, any part of Europe today, if you want to get the easiest round of applause, then get up and attack America, you get a round of applause; you attack the president, you get a --PRESIDENT BUSH: Standing ovation. (Laughter.)
PRIME MIN. BLAIR: Yeah. (Laughs.) And that's -- that's fine, if everyone wants to do that. But when all of that is cleared away, you're left with something very, very simple, fundamental and clear, that that battle for values is still going on.
And you know, you can debate about the mistakes and the issues, and you can debate about Iraq, whether we should have done this or we should have done that, but actually what is happening in Iraq today is that our enemy is fighting us.
And therefore, if what happens when our enemy fights us is that we drift away from our friends, that we kind of make the little accommodations so that we don't escape some of the difficulty and the responsibility and occasionally opprobrium of decision-making, if we do that, our enemy takes heart from that. They watch that; they watch what we're doing the whole time. They ask, "Are these guys standing up for what they believe; or if we carry on, is their will going to diminish and they're going to give up because it's just too difficult, because the public opinion's too difficult or the opinion polls tell them it's too difficult."
Now that is the decision of leadership, and it's not just a decision for me and him, it's a decision for everybody who's engaged in politics. And people run down politics and say it's all, you know, just a series of positions and attitudes and sound bites, and occasionally even lies and all the rest of it. Actually, what politics is in the end, when it's done in the right way, when people stand up for what they believe, is it's about public service, and there's nothing to be ashamed of in that. And the fact is, the decisions are difficult; of course they're difficult. And we took a decision that we thought was very difficult.
Bush was asked whether he thought he’d hurt Blair politically. He didn’t say no.
REPORTER -- however inadvertently, you once said that you would like Tony Blair to stay for the duration of your presidency. He's not doing that. PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.REPORTER: Do you think you're partly to blame for that?
PRESIDENT BUSH: (Laughs.) I haven't polled the Labor Conference. But, could be! (Laughs.)
The question is, am I to blame for his leaving? I don't know.
In other news...anyone else notice that Jesse Jackson looks like a cross between a Boston terrier and Brain from "Pinky and the Brain"? And he's just as annoying.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Hen hao de Olympics
In a controversial move that most people are by now aware of, Beijing was selected to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. Supposedly, the Communist regime's notorious list of human rights violations that continue to this day should have prevented this from occurring, but as we all know, money and influence trump ethics in the world of global politics, and this is exactly what happened.
If Communists are good at anything, it's presentation. They know how to use image and propaganda to their full extents, and China is no exception. Already the city is undergoing campaigns to clean up the pollution, teach the taxicab drivers English, and even curb the ubiquitous habit of spitting on the streets. There are also stories of "undesirables" being kept away from the Olympic grounds. The Beijing presented to the world next year will be a cleaned-up, gilded, larger-than-life version of the best China has to offer. Expect the next Olympics to be the most impressive yet. China is looking to secure their new reputation as an emerging world power, and the international spotlight of the Olympics is the perfect opportunity. Stories of the impressive main event constructions are already circulating, and this is only the beginning.
When the world tunes in to watch the Olympics next year, will they fall for the theatrics and facade? I, for one, am already bracing myself for the fawning coverage that I have come to expect of the mainstream media. They will do China's self-promotion work for them, for free, just as they did for the Soviets. Going along with China's giant Olympic-shaped image marketing campaign, they will swallow the bait and infer that this is the true face of China.
We know differently.
The persecution of Christians and other religious groups continues. Though in some areas this has lessened, new reports of abused and arrested church leaders and house church members come in weekly. The internet is strictly censored, and websites that criticize the government are shut down and their writers arrested or silenced. Hundreds of missiles are aimed at Taiwan, a fledgling democracy over whom China has no real legal claim to ownership. The Chinese Army has even suggested that nuclear weapons would not be ruled out as an option if the US chose to intervene in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Though the deluge of foreign investment has weakened if not destroyed the Communist economic principles used by Mao to wipe out millions of Chinese through famine and poverty, it has not weakened the government's grip on the nation, and China increasingly looks less Communist and more Fascist as time goes by.
It seems destined that China will rise to be the foremost economic power in the world eventually, though India is not far behind, due if nothing else to its massive population.
The US has many options on the table at this point, but has chosen to forgo these in favor of courting China's vast potential markets. Corporations such as Google and Yahoo have chosen to give in to the Communist government's demands for state censorship, in exchange for access to a rapidly growing percentage of Chinese internet users. These compromises will surely come back to haunt us.
I will be following the Olympic preparations with interest. The spectacle will be impressive, no doubt, but don't forget to keep in mind that the spin-machine is churning overtime.
China has a responsibility to use its growing power and influence wisely and peacefully. This is a responsibility it has shown little intent to keep.
Now the question is, what, if any, will our response be? That may be decided by the choice of our next president. And I'm still waiting on a candidate I can vote for...
If Communists are good at anything, it's presentation. They know how to use image and propaganda to their full extents, and China is no exception. Already the city is undergoing campaigns to clean up the pollution, teach the taxicab drivers English, and even curb the ubiquitous habit of spitting on the streets. There are also stories of "undesirables" being kept away from the Olympic grounds. The Beijing presented to the world next year will be a cleaned-up, gilded, larger-than-life version of the best China has to offer. Expect the next Olympics to be the most impressive yet. China is looking to secure their new reputation as an emerging world power, and the international spotlight of the Olympics is the perfect opportunity. Stories of the impressive main event constructions are already circulating, and this is only the beginning.
When the world tunes in to watch the Olympics next year, will they fall for the theatrics and facade? I, for one, am already bracing myself for the fawning coverage that I have come to expect of the mainstream media. They will do China's self-promotion work for them, for free, just as they did for the Soviets. Going along with China's giant Olympic-shaped image marketing campaign, they will swallow the bait and infer that this is the true face of China.
We know differently.
The persecution of Christians and other religious groups continues. Though in some areas this has lessened, new reports of abused and arrested church leaders and house church members come in weekly. The internet is strictly censored, and websites that criticize the government are shut down and their writers arrested or silenced. Hundreds of missiles are aimed at Taiwan, a fledgling democracy over whom China has no real legal claim to ownership. The Chinese Army has even suggested that nuclear weapons would not be ruled out as an option if the US chose to intervene in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Though the deluge of foreign investment has weakened if not destroyed the Communist economic principles used by Mao to wipe out millions of Chinese through famine and poverty, it has not weakened the government's grip on the nation, and China increasingly looks less Communist and more Fascist as time goes by.
It seems destined that China will rise to be the foremost economic power in the world eventually, though India is not far behind, due if nothing else to its massive population.
The US has many options on the table at this point, but has chosen to forgo these in favor of courting China's vast potential markets. Corporations such as Google and Yahoo have chosen to give in to the Communist government's demands for state censorship, in exchange for access to a rapidly growing percentage of Chinese internet users. These compromises will surely come back to haunt us.
I will be following the Olympic preparations with interest. The spectacle will be impressive, no doubt, but don't forget to keep in mind that the spin-machine is churning overtime.
China has a responsibility to use its growing power and influence wisely and peacefully. This is a responsibility it has shown little intent to keep.
Now the question is, what, if any, will our response be? That may be decided by the choice of our next president. And I'm still waiting on a candidate I can vote for...
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Ecco the dolphin got caught in the tuna nets...
Ok, sadly he did not, and probably roams free in Al Gore's sinus cavities.
However, the increasing pitch of the environmentalist hysteria proceeding from those vasty depths is by no means decreased on account of the blockage...
All joking aside, let's look at the issue here.
Breaking down the argument, we have two basic options.
Either a) the climate on a global scale is changing significantly, or b) it is not.
Let's choose a), although not all scientists agree with that statement.
We have two more choices now.
Either a) this climate change is normal, or b) it is abnormal.
Let's choose b) although we're now getting to growing numbers of scientists that disagree.
My personal, very unprofessional opinion is that it is normal, the earth has always gone through up and down cycles of heat and cold, and need I bring forth the 'Vikings settling Greenland' reminder? But we'll set aside my own views for the moment.
We have yet two more choices.
Either a) this abnormal climate change has been brought about by humans, or b) other causes
There are very good arguments that the sun is actually the cause of warming temperatures, based on the fact that the other planets seem to be warming up too. (some scientists set this aside as a coincidence. And facts that contradict their previously determined theories would necessarily be coincidence, wouldn't they? Put it down to random error, like in freshman physics lab)
But we'll set these issues aside, and choose a). We're still on track with the loudest voices coming out of Washington, Europe, (except for a brilliant interview with the President of Czechoslovakia that I will post here shortly) and with the snide editors of online magazines like Wired.com. And who wants to endure their scorn? I mean honestly...
So, diligently setting aside objections at every point like good minions, without asking tricky questions with logic or historical perspectives (and who needs history? We have vitriolic message boards on facebook groups with misspelled titles!) we've arrived at the conclusion that humans are causing drastic climate change.
This could still be true, by the way, based on our process here. All the objections raised along the way could be specious, or even malicious. Distractions made by evil people who want to burn Mother Earth with cigarette butts they fling from their SUVs.
And we still even have stubborn holdouts, who think that climate change will actually be GOOD for humans. More carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures leading to a longer growing season and more healthy plant-life. They obviously haven't been working on reducing their carbon footprint, or they would know how much money it takes to cover the guilt of their emissions.
And now we come to two of the most ancient and common motives in the world.
Money, and power. (or, for you politicians, "oxygen" and "water")
How might these two suspiciously capitalist topics be related to the fight to save the planet from ignorant people who don't see that an endangered rodent is infinitely more valuable than a baby?
Think it over for a moment. A global problem takes more than any one country to fight. It takes the world's money, the world's commitment. Obviously greedy, individualistic nations can never be expected to solve the problem. They're too busy trying to preserve outdated notions like national identities or their economies. Or in the case of developing nations, develop an economy in the first place. No, to solve this problem it is clear that we must turn to a global organization, conveniently represented by the UN. In fact, the UN has graciously offered to tackle the problem of human-induced catastrophic climate change. All it asks for in return is a global tax to fund the initiative. Not so much to ask for, right? Our politicians contribute a portion of the money our (polluting, remember) taxpayers would just spend on something terrible like Remingtons, meat, or Tahoes anyway.
Granted, this means drastically increasing the UN's leverage at the expense of our sovereignty, but what's a little freedom in exchange for security? That's been our gambit since 9/11, right?
-Oak
However, the increasing pitch of the environmentalist hysteria proceeding from those vasty depths is by no means decreased on account of the blockage...
All joking aside, let's look at the issue here.
Breaking down the argument, we have two basic options.
Either a) the climate on a global scale is changing significantly, or b) it is not.
Let's choose a), although not all scientists agree with that statement.
We have two more choices now.
Either a) this climate change is normal, or b) it is abnormal.
Let's choose b) although we're now getting to growing numbers of scientists that disagree.
My personal, very unprofessional opinion is that it is normal, the earth has always gone through up and down cycles of heat and cold, and need I bring forth the 'Vikings settling Greenland' reminder? But we'll set aside my own views for the moment.
We have yet two more choices.
Either a) this abnormal climate change has been brought about by humans, or b) other causes
There are very good arguments that the sun is actually the cause of warming temperatures, based on the fact that the other planets seem to be warming up too. (some scientists set this aside as a coincidence. And facts that contradict their previously determined theories would necessarily be coincidence, wouldn't they? Put it down to random error, like in freshman physics lab)
But we'll set these issues aside, and choose a). We're still on track with the loudest voices coming out of Washington, Europe, (except for a brilliant interview with the President of Czechoslovakia that I will post here shortly) and with the snide editors of online magazines like Wired.com. And who wants to endure their scorn? I mean honestly...
So, diligently setting aside objections at every point like good minions, without asking tricky questions with logic or historical perspectives (and who needs history? We have vitriolic message boards on facebook groups with misspelled titles!) we've arrived at the conclusion that humans are causing drastic climate change.
This could still be true, by the way, based on our process here. All the objections raised along the way could be specious, or even malicious. Distractions made by evil people who want to burn Mother Earth with cigarette butts they fling from their SUVs.
And we still even have stubborn holdouts, who think that climate change will actually be GOOD for humans. More carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures leading to a longer growing season and more healthy plant-life. They obviously haven't been working on reducing their carbon footprint, or they would know how much money it takes to cover the guilt of their emissions.
And now we come to two of the most ancient and common motives in the world.
Money, and power. (or, for you politicians, "oxygen" and "water")
How might these two suspiciously capitalist topics be related to the fight to save the planet from ignorant people who don't see that an endangered rodent is infinitely more valuable than a baby?
Think it over for a moment. A global problem takes more than any one country to fight. It takes the world's money, the world's commitment. Obviously greedy, individualistic nations can never be expected to solve the problem. They're too busy trying to preserve outdated notions like national identities or their economies. Or in the case of developing nations, develop an economy in the first place. No, to solve this problem it is clear that we must turn to a global organization, conveniently represented by the UN. In fact, the UN has graciously offered to tackle the problem of human-induced catastrophic climate change. All it asks for in return is a global tax to fund the initiative. Not so much to ask for, right? Our politicians contribute a portion of the money our (polluting, remember) taxpayers would just spend on something terrible like Remingtons, meat, or Tahoes anyway.
Granted, this means drastically increasing the UN's leverage at the expense of our sovereignty, but what's a little freedom in exchange for security? That's been our gambit since 9/11, right?
-Oak
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The new Materialism
Some of you may have noticed a growing trend among the scientific community.
In some ways, it has been subtle, and in others, much less so.
This is one of the less subtle declarations, but is a good illustration of the point.
Our scientists are increasingly religious these days, it seems. But not in the traditional sense.
More and more, they give their allegiance to an idea, and demand the same from all of their colleagues. The idea is this: a blind, unquestioning, dogmatic faith in Science.
While it is commonly acknowledged that there are things that science can explain, but domains in which it cannot pass, I have increasingly noticed that these domains are brushed aside as irrelevant or nonexistent.
There is a growing chorus behind the words of Carl Sagan:
"The Universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be”
You can see it in the growing aggressiveness of atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who calls fellow atheists to spread their faith and counteract the societally damaging influence of religion in general and Christianity in specific. And he is far from alone in his views.
Secular Humanists grow increasingly strident in their criticism and mockery of antediluvian notions such as Creationism or a personal God, and they aren't keeping it to themselves much these days. While some of their comments (often disrespectful to the point of blasphemy, and very much intentionally so) are infuriating, sadly the responses of Christians are often no less frustrating in their ignorance.
Which leads to another observation. So many Christians are ill-prepared to deal with real skepticism and intellectual antagonism, often due to the ridiculous straw-men of other views presented for attack by a watered-down Christian culture.
If we believe that the Bible and our Faith can truly withstand the attacks of arrogant skeptics and dodgy post-modernists alike, why do we feel the need to shield them from all questions?
We claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If we really believe this, then we know that it can withstand every criticism and accusation thrown against it.
This being the case, why not try it? Take a stand, stop pandering and disguising and watering down our faith, and unapologetically proclaim what we believe, wrestling with both our hearts and our minds against those who seek to discredit the Truth we hold, yet loving them and praying for God to open their minds?
This leads to an unfortunate observation on the church in America. (I specify the American church because I do not know the state of churches in other countries and cultures. Perhaps they are as badly off as we are, perhaps not.)
We tend to form two camps:
The first camp feels that intellectual arguments are not our business, and that we should just love and accept our enemies as they are.
The second camp feels that intellectual arguments are indeed our business, and that we should tear down our opponents who assault our faith at every opportunity.
In my opinion, which is by no means authoritative, both camps are wrong.
Without a strong intellectual knowledge and defense of our faith, we are left exposed for both the accusations and the false teachings of the enemy, and can neither repel the first nor guard against the second.
However, without loving our enemies, we disobey the second great commandment and forget what is our primary goal: Not to defeat our opponents arguments, but to bring them to a relationship with Christ. If our arguments can serve this purpose, by all means let us proceed, but without our true objective in sight, argument is fruitless and leads only to division.
So, if we are to halt our culture's slide into a Roman-style decay and fall, and cause God to be glorified to a greater extent in both our nation and the world, we will need both strengths.
Both love and knowledge are necessary and crucial in our quest for God's glory.
Remember the words of Christ: "be wise as serpents, and gentle as doves".
At present, we tend to be one or the other. Let us follow His command and be both.
In some ways, it has been subtle, and in others, much less so.
This is one of the less subtle declarations, but is a good illustration of the point.
Our scientists are increasingly religious these days, it seems. But not in the traditional sense.
More and more, they give their allegiance to an idea, and demand the same from all of their colleagues. The idea is this: a blind, unquestioning, dogmatic faith in Science.
While it is commonly acknowledged that there are things that science can explain, but domains in which it cannot pass, I have increasingly noticed that these domains are brushed aside as irrelevant or nonexistent.
There is a growing chorus behind the words of Carl Sagan:
"The Universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be”
You can see it in the growing aggressiveness of atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who calls fellow atheists to spread their faith and counteract the societally damaging influence of religion in general and Christianity in specific. And he is far from alone in his views.
Secular Humanists grow increasingly strident in their criticism and mockery of antediluvian notions such as Creationism or a personal God, and they aren't keeping it to themselves much these days. While some of their comments (often disrespectful to the point of blasphemy, and very much intentionally so) are infuriating, sadly the responses of Christians are often no less frustrating in their ignorance.
Which leads to another observation. So many Christians are ill-prepared to deal with real skepticism and intellectual antagonism, often due to the ridiculous straw-men of other views presented for attack by a watered-down Christian culture.
If we believe that the Bible and our Faith can truly withstand the attacks of arrogant skeptics and dodgy post-modernists alike, why do we feel the need to shield them from all questions?
We claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If we really believe this, then we know that it can withstand every criticism and accusation thrown against it.
This being the case, why not try it? Take a stand, stop pandering and disguising and watering down our faith, and unapologetically proclaim what we believe, wrestling with both our hearts and our minds against those who seek to discredit the Truth we hold, yet loving them and praying for God to open their minds?
This leads to an unfortunate observation on the church in America. (I specify the American church because I do not know the state of churches in other countries and cultures. Perhaps they are as badly off as we are, perhaps not.)
We tend to form two camps:
The first camp feels that intellectual arguments are not our business, and that we should just love and accept our enemies as they are.
The second camp feels that intellectual arguments are indeed our business, and that we should tear down our opponents who assault our faith at every opportunity.
In my opinion, which is by no means authoritative, both camps are wrong.
Without a strong intellectual knowledge and defense of our faith, we are left exposed for both the accusations and the false teachings of the enemy, and can neither repel the first nor guard against the second.
However, without loving our enemies, we disobey the second great commandment and forget what is our primary goal: Not to defeat our opponents arguments, but to bring them to a relationship with Christ. If our arguments can serve this purpose, by all means let us proceed, but without our true objective in sight, argument is fruitless and leads only to division.
So, if we are to halt our culture's slide into a Roman-style decay and fall, and cause God to be glorified to a greater extent in both our nation and the world, we will need both strengths.
Both love and knowledge are necessary and crucial in our quest for God's glory.
Remember the words of Christ: "be wise as serpents, and gentle as doves".
At present, we tend to be one or the other. Let us follow His command and be both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Sensei,
The stat pointed to two-fifths of the public believing that scientists disagree about global warming -- i.e., two-fifths believed not in a climate fact, but in a policy fact. And it's just not true. It's fine if you disagree with scientists that the planet is warming, but it's important to understand that you are *disagreeing with scientists*. The scientific consensus in favor of global warming is overwhelming. To believe there's "a lot of disagreement" is like believing that up is down.