The Moderate Solution To Iraq

This blog would like to publicly stand behind President George W. Bush’s expected veto of the Iraq supplemental bill. Please read below to understand. Without further ado, here is how Iraq should be dealt with *drum roll*.

Diplomacy

Unless more effort is put forth by the Bush Administration in the realm of diplomacy, a peaceful Iraq is doubtful. The Iraq Study Group really brought it front and center, but in reality the idea was passed over by the “decider” before the report was published. Bush needed to show that he was in control, and refuses to listen. He has to learn he can't have everything he wants, especially now that Democrats are in control of Congress. Serious negotiations with Iran and Syria must be immediate and unconditional. Iran announced it will attend a conference with the U.S. this week. Progress is being made, but the President still needs to commit himself to direct talks.

Militarily

According to military commanders, the surge appears to be working. There may be more American soldiers dying, but that statistic is not necessarily a sign of failure. Other statistics show declining sectarian violence, and a story in today’s New York Times reports increased cooperation between Americans and Sunnis.

The U.S. isn’t going to be, and shouldn’t be in Iraq forever. But we cannot leave until there is a relatively stabile climate in Iraq. The bill in Congress will have troop leave early next year. That is too early. For the U.S. to be successful in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole, we are going to need to be there longer. Here is how the plan should work:

• The earliest the troop pullout could begin would be mid to late 2008.
• Unless very specific conditions arise, the majority of American troops would be out of Iraq by the early 2010.
• Goals would be set my military officials and congressmen and women that, if met, would mean troops are brought home earlier. If the goals are not met, troops would stay later (but no later than 2010).

The above plan is the meat of how the Iraq situation would be handled. As can easily be seen, this plan contrasts with bill passed by Congress. The bill passed by Congress orders the troops home too soon, and therefore Thoughts on the World expresses its support for the expected presidential veto.

Iraq The Model

The single greatest influence of this plan was the blog Iraq the Model and especially this post written by Omar. A blog written by two Iraqis living through the reality of the war, they give their view on what should be happening. As Iraqis, they should be the ones really in control of what’s going on. Their opinion greatly influenced this plan.

The moderate plan

Because this plan pleases everybody, it also pleases nobody. Some will be disappointed that this post calls for a timetable, while other will complain that it doesn’t get troops out fast enough.

John Edwards Position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

BONUS ADDITION to Gays in the Military Series:

The Edwards campaign is the first campaign to respond to the question “What is your position on the “Don't ask, don't tell” policy? Should gays be allowed in the military?”

Here is his response:

Dear Simmons,

Thank you for contacting the campaign about Senator Edwards' stance on “Don't ask, don't tell.” Edwards believes that our military ought to treat all service members equally and in a way that promotes national security, without regard to their sexual orientation.

Thanks again for your question.

Sincerely,

The Edwards Team


Gays in the Military Series:

John Edwards Position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Presidential Candidates Views On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
6 Reasons Gays Should Be Allowed In The Military
[POLL] Should Gays Be Allowed in the Military

No Posts This Week

Sadly, there will be no posts starting tomorrow, Tuesday April 23 until Saturday, April 27, when normal posting will resume :(

Meanwhile, why not hop over to Polite Talk Forums and talk politics?

Or, support Thoughts on the World?

25 Everyday Things That Combat Global Warming

As part of Earth Day, here are 25 simple everyday things you can do to lower your carbon footprint that have added benefits.

1. When a room is not being used, turn the lights off.
2. After exercising, try taking a cool shower instead of a hot one.
3. Take public transportation or car pool as often as possible, but at your convenience.
4. If one of your lightbulbs burns out, try replacing it with a more energy-efficient light-bulb. Over the long term it will save you money through energy conservation.
5. When not using your speakers on your computer, turn them off. Also, if not using the monitor for 15 minutes or more, turn your monitor off. Save on your electric bill!
6. Buy metal tools rather than wooden ones. Not only is it good for the environment, but metal tools last longer.
7. Recycle as often as possible. Some states exchange money for recycled bottles.
8. Grow a garden, plant a tree. Add beauty while reducing carbon.
9. Warn others about the dangers of global warming.
10. When not home, turn the thermostat down (in the winter) and up (in the summer) for maybe 1 day a week.
11. Keep your car tires inflated. Save money :).
12. Take shorter showers. Showers account for 2/3 of all water heating costs.
13. Unplug unused electronics when not in use. Even when turned off, they use electricity and your money.
14. Reduce garbage however possible.
15. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner.
16. Don't use paper plates.
17. Use cloth napkins instead of paper ones.
18. Talk to your friends and family about Global Warming and what you can do.
19. Start a composte heap.
20. Start a vegetable garden.
21. Three R's: Reduce Reuse Recycle
22. Think of you own!
23. Explore alternative energy options.
24. Make sure your house is well insulated.
25. If you have one, turn the fan on during the shower. The energy loss is less than the energy saved.

Washington D.C. Voting Rights

Washington D.C. is an interesting dot on the map; smaller than Rhode Island, but undeniably an area of great importance. Not being a state, D.C. is ruled by Congress and has no representative in either the House or the Senate. Yet, it pays taxes. For that reason and others, Washington D.C. should have at least one representative in Congress.

No taxation without representation!

“American nationals”, those that live in territories of the U.S., can move freely about the country and enjoy other benefits of citizens of the insular states. The factor that separates them from everyday citizens is taxation. Nationals do not have to pay taxes and cannot vote. Residents of D.C. have to pay and also cannot vote. If the president decided to make his primary home the one in the White House, would you want him to NOT pay taxes? No, of course not. Therefore, D.C. residents pay taxes. But this is straying from the point; D.C. inhabitants pay taxes, but cannot vote.

Partisan bickering

D.C. is left-leaning. That made some right-wingers conclude this D.C. voting plan is not such a good idea after all. To compensate for the new Democratic vote, somebody came up with idea to give a right-leaning state a vote. Utah was chosen. Everybody wins!

President Bush is still promising a veto. It is “unconstitutional”, he claims. Washington D.C. is in a different class; it is not a state, but it pays taxes. The capitol of our country deserves representation if there’s going to be taxation.

Presidential Candidates Views On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

This is the final post (#3) in a series.

Sorry this post took so long. It was meant to contain e-mails back from the top 6 presidential candidates, but none have responded. Instead, this post will rely on public information.

Democrats

Hillary Rodham Clinton has not expressed her opinion of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (instituted during her husband’s presidency) outright, but has conveyed some distaste for it. When asked in an ABC interview on her position, she responded by saying “I'm going to leave that for others to conclude.” But she later clarified her stance, saying, “I do not think homosexuality is immoral.”

Barack Obama made comments that sounded suspiciously like Clinton’s. When asked if he thought homosexuality was immoral (around the time General Pace’s comments), he replied “I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow.” Just like Hillary, he explained his comments. His spokesman later said he disagrees with Pace.

John Edwards has been one of the clearest candidates, if not the clearest, on his position on “don’t ask, don’t tell”. A press release at his website explains his position. He strongly believes that the don’t ask policy is hindering our military, and that the policy should be repealed.

Republicans

Rudy Giuliani does not believe in discrimination against gays, but has no problem leaving the current policy the same. “I think the policy that we have right now, we should leave alone,” Giuliani said. “We are in a time of war.”

John McCain believes the military’s policy towards gays is “working” and that “it’s logical to leave this issue alone.” He claims some military leaders have told him the policy is working and shouldn’t be changed.

Mitt Romney, just like Giuliani and McCain, considers “don’t ask, don’t tell” acceptable. Once a supporter of gays, his believes have changed. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both believe we are at war and the situation shouldn’t be changed, and coincidentally, Romney does not wish to change the status quo.

How The Media Can Spin The News

The media has great power over how the U.S., and the world, views current events. It all depends how the media spins it. The glass can be half empty or half full according to them...

Real article: Gunman kills 32 in worst US shooting rampage
Glass half full: Bullied student takes revenge on his bullies
Glass half empty: Student massacres 32 and self in worst U.S. shooting rampage ever

Real article: Students angered by manifesto
Glass half full: Students irritated by manifesto
Glass half empty: Students outraged by media glamorizing mass murderer

Real article: Fighting flares again in Mogadishu
Glass half full: Mogadishu fighting, but not as bad as Iraq
Glass half empty: Missiles fly in Mogadishu; 12 dead

Real article: Arabs form Israel 'contact group'
Glass half full: Arabs begin attempts to find a peaceful Israeli-Palestinian solution
Glass half empty: Arabs declare conditions must be met before talks with Israel begin

Real article: Al Gore's green home improvements
Glass half full: Al Gore helps slow global warming
Glass half empty: Al Gore lives up to his ‘green’ speeches

Real article: Alberto Gonzales--Candor?
Glass half full: Alberto Gonzales admits some mistakes were made
Glass half empty: Alberto Gonzales maintains position that it wasn’t his fault for firings

Real article: Preacher's wife convicted of his killing
Glass half full: ‘Abused wife’ convicted
Glass half empty: Murderer convicted

Real article: Reid: 'This War Is Lost'
Glass half full: Senate majority leader says the Iraq war can only be won diplomatically
Glass half empty: Democratic majority leader declares defeat

Real article: Iran tells U.S. it has no details on ex-FBI agent
Glass half full: Iran aids in search for American but has no new details
Glass half empty: Ex-FBI agent missing in Iran; Iran doesn’t know where

Real article: Sen. McCain (R-AZ) Jokes About Bombing Iran in Campaign Stop
Glass half full: McCain jokes around on campaign trail
Glass half empty: McCain makes references to bombing Iran

It all depends on how you look at it...

The Wind Power and Solar Power Combination

Part 4 in a series.

Wind power is much like solar power; it’s a renewable resource, it’s pollution free during use, it can be stored locally, etc. But that means it also has many of the same disadvantages that solar power has—it’s not always there, during construction it may require fossil fuels, etc. But wind power and solar power combined together could be extremely useful.

Usually when the sun is shining, it’s not very windy. When the sun isn’t shining, generally it is windy.

Think about it. During storms when the sun is covered up (see picture), it is usually very windy. If wind power and solar power were united, energy could be produced almost continuously. One way this could be accomplished is by putting solar panels in the same area as wind turbines. Because of the massive size of wind turbines, they take up great swaths of land. The land in between the turbines should be used for agricultural purpose, some people have suggested. Instead, imagine putting solar panels in between them. The power produced would be enough to fuel many houses.

Wind power does have its disadvantages.

• Is it sunny or windy more often? Probably sunny.
• Some people find wind turbines “ugly”.
• The amount of wind can’t be accurately predicted.
• The wind isn’t constantly blowing.
• Wind turbines need some form of energy to be produced. Sometimes fossil fuels are used.


Overall, wind power combined with solar is promising. But once again, as said in 5 Reasons Solar Power Works, all alternative energy sources have to be combined with other energies to realistically power the world.

More Alternative Energy Series:

Top 5 Reasons Geothermal Energy Works
What's So Special About Hydropower / Hydroelectricity?
Another Look at Nuclear Power: Nuclear Waste
The Wind Power and Solar Power Combination
5 Reasons Solar Power Works
Nuclear Power: Energy of the Future or As Bad As Fossil Fuels
The Temporary Solution: Coal
How Corn Ethanol is Bad

American Bloggers for Inclusive Debates

Thoughts on the World hasn't joined many blogrolls, but American Bloggers For Inclusive Debates is a little different. We should have fair debates; Candidates should be able to state their position on the issues without having to raise millions of dollars.

Some Thoughts on the Politicization of Virginia Tech and Gun Control

Just in case you haven't noticed (if you are reading this you probably have), the "massacre" at Virginia Tech has become politicized. "More gun control!" the Democrats scream. "Less gun control!" shriek the Republicans.

Gun control advocates argue that if there was a stricter system, Cho Seung-Hui, the killer, wouldn't have gotten his hands on any weapons. Meanwhile, gun control critics claim that everyone has the right to bear arms under the Constitution, and people will be able to protect themselves if they have weapons.

In reality, you have to look somewhere in the middle. Yes, currently under the Constitution it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." But letting anyone, anywhere buy guns anytime would be a big mistake. Allowing everyone to carry guns would only cause more violence and deaths, not protect anyone. But it is the right of the people to carry weapons, and that right cannot be impeded upon.

------------------------------------------------------------
On a separate note, Thoughts on the World is has been accepted as part of the Political Grind Network.

Fuel My Blog Logo Competition

Here's Thoughts on the World entry into the Fuel My Blog logo competition.

Virginia Tech Shooting

Thoughts on the World would like to express its condolences to the friends and family of all those who are somewhat connected to the shootings at Virginia Tech today.

6 Reasons Gays Should Be Allowed In The Military

As part 2 in the ongoing Gays in the Military Series, today we'll have a look at why gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

1. People who say they shouldn't be allowed give reasons that are wrong.
People who believe gays shouldn't be allowed in the military (who shall be known from now on as "bigots") have essentially two reasons that homosexuals should be banned from the Army: They are immoral and/or disrupt soldiers from carrying out their duties. First of all, being homosexual is not immoral; saying it’s immoral is bigotry. Secondly, gays don't interfere with the military's everyday functioning. For more elaboration, see numbers 2 and 6.

2. They don’t affect other soldiers
As mentioned previously, homosexual soldiers do NOT affect other soldiers. They can go about their daily military activities, just like everyone else. Should women be barred from service because they distract male soldiers? No, of course not, that would be sexist! Then why isn't stopping homosexuals from joining the military, homophobic? If women don't disrupt the military, why would gays?

3. There was no problem before the 1990s
Throughout the Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, The Korean War, and The Vietnam War, and The First Gulf War, homosexuals served in the army without major problems. Why couldn’t they now?

4. It creates a loophole for those wishing to leave the army
If a soldier, suffering under heavy stress, wishes to stop participating in an unpopular war (Iraq), "Don't ask, don't tell" creates a way in which deserters can get out of the army. If a soldier appears to admit that he or she is not heterosexual, they can be discharged.

5. The army needs more soldiers
As a more practical approach towards the situation, you could look at this way: The army needs more soldiers. How can the army go about achieving this? Allowing gays to enlist.

6. “All men are created equal”
This line may not be law, but it is the symbol of American justice. Homosexuals are just like everyone else; they were born equal too. It is about time we live up to our promise.

Gays in the Military Series:

[POLL] Should Gays Be Allowed in the Military
6 Reasons Gays Should Be Allowed In The Military

[POLL] Should Gays Be Allowed in the Military

As part of the new Gays in the Military Series, a poll has been launched to get your opinion on whether those who are homosexual should be allowed in the military

Don't forget to comment.

Should Gays be in the military?
	Yes
	No
	Maybe
	Not sure
	Other
pollcode.com free polls

Why Bushs Approval Ratings Have Dropped And What He Can Do To Fix Them

This is President Bush’s approval ratings (thank you Wikipedia) over the course of his two terms.

Summary

President Bush started as a moderately accepted president. At the start of his term, more people had no opinion on him than disliked him; that says something. Then dissatisfaction grew, up to September 11, 2001 when they spiked, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. His approval ratings spiked, almost hitting 90% approval. Since then, it has dropped, and only gone back up for no more than four months at a time.

Analysis

April 2004 was the first time disapproval ratings crossed approval ratings. Let’s investigate what happened around that time period.

April 4 – Muqtada al-Sadr leads an uprising in Najaf, Sadr City and Basra.
April 28 – Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is revealed.

These aren’t major events. By this time, the President’s approval ratings were just sliding, not from one specific event. President Bush has become less like as the number of scandals mount; WMDs in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, signing statements, Scooter Libby, FBI national letters, NSA spying, firing of the attorneys, a stretched military, etc.

Opinion

The public is always ready to forgive, unless you push it (excluding racist, sexist remarks—see Imus). If President Bush will apologize and change his stances, negotiating and compromising he can still redeem his presidency. Otherwise, he will wallow in approval ratings in the 30s, and his legacy will be ascertained.

UPDATE: It sounds like most people believe the president won't be able to fully recover ever. It seems that the president won't be completely approved of, but if he starts changing and becomes less of "my way or highway" politician, his approval ratings will go up, but not to the point where he is seen as a success.

Regime Change In Iran-A Dangerous Venture

MiddleXeast writes about why the U.S. should promote democracy in Iran.

Summary

MiddleXeast essentially says: to achieve victory in Iraq and the Middle East and to end Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. may want to have as a goal regime change in Iran.

Analysis

Be careful, X; endorsing regime change can be dangerous, especially in Iran. You forgot to mention that the CIA successfully orchestrated a coup in the 1950s. The democratically elected government was "exchanged" for the current, theocratic dictatorship. It may have served the interests of the world at the time, but in the long run, it turned out to be one of the greatest mistakes of the 20th century. Look where we are now.

You are proposing that the current theocracy be overthrown for a democracy. But there will always be unintended consequences. Who can say the "revolution" will not just turn in to another civil war? That is not likely to happen, but there could be a lesser version of that.

By aiding those seeking to alter the Iranian government, the U.S. would be aiding revolutionaries. The downside of aiding revolutionaries is that of extremists emerging because of them (Sunni terrorists are already being aided by the U.S. in their struggle against Iran, according to ABC News). More terrorists would emerge, spreading weapons, fueling hatred, and doing a lot of harm.

Opinion

To get rid of Ayatollah Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts, the U.S. would have to take things slowly and very carefully, if they were to even attempt to "democratize" Iran. There is support in Iran for a democratic government because of multiple grievances, but to actually convince the people of Iran to somehow make their country into a democracy would be where the difficulty lays, not with convincing the public. Making a democracy of Iraq was/is difficult, so why wouldn’t altering Iran be?

The U.S. should hope for democracy in Iran, but be careful while doing so. No one wants an additional front on the war on terrorism. And the U.S. shouldn’t be actively (read: militarily or financially) taking part of the revolution, only promoting and assisting by means of organization and by giving them “legal benefits”. A democratic Iran should be something we all hope for, but shouldn’t be assisted or expected.

Don't Punish Owners of Gas Guzzlers

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 7:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a good idea to penalize drivers who buy gas-guzzling vehicles?

No matter how disastrous global warming will be, punishing those who buy Hummers and other similar cars would not be the right thing to do. Instead, how about the gas guzzlers are never made, much less sold. The U.S. could decrease its dependency on foreign oil, slow global warming, and save money on gas. If owners of Hummers were punished, only more money would be wasted.

Does it Matter if a Presidential Candidate Has Military Experience?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 7:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
How much does it matter to you if a presidential candidate has military experience?

Having military expertise is an added bonus, but not a necessity. To run for president, one has to be 35 years old. That would mean that the only candidates with military experience would have fought in Vietnam, or MAYBE in the First Gulf War. The war we are fighting today is a different type of war; it's a war against insurgents and terrorists, not armed forces in uniform.

How Iran Violated The Geneva Convention

There is a post at Political Grind that deals with the recent Iran-British Sailor situation, and how Iran did not follow the rules set out by the Geneva Convention. It was written by none other than yours truly :)!

5 Reasons Solar Power Works

When most people think about solar power powering everybody’s everyday needs (say that 10 times fast), they are imagining centuries in to the future. Many people believe solar power is unreasonable; it could be cloudy, it doesn’t produce enough energy, etc. But they’re wrong. Here are five reasons why:


1. It never runs out
Solar power is essentially infinite, so it never runs out, unlike fossil fuels. The amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the amount of energy the world uses in fossil fuels each year.

2. It’s pollution free during use
Converting solar energy into usable energy gives off no pollution.

3. It can (but doesn’t have to) be used locally
Not only can solar power can be produced and used locally, saving transportation costs and emissions, but also it can be used nationally if an area with little power needs more power (see #4).

4. It can be stored and used later
When the sun’s not out, stored energy can be used. Storing energy is more expensive, but still just as useful.

5. When combined with other technologies, solar power could be even more useful.

From Time:
In the developing world, LEDs paired with solar panels could provide a cheap, sustainable light source that doesn't need a traditional power grid.

From CNN:Solar-powered sensors monitor traffic flow

Combined with other technology, solar power could be used for small but important jobs. Solar powered cars (see picture) are even a possibility, even if their use would be limited.


In reality, solar power may not provide enough energy for ALL of our energy needs. But it could provide be a large percentage energy source. Coupled with nuclear power, wind power and water power, we could stop global warming. And as an added bonus, the U.S. with lose its dependency on foreign oil.

More Alternative Energy Series:
Nuclear Power: Energy of the Future or As Bad As Fossil Fuels
The Temporary Solution: Coal
Ethanol

Coming soon...Wind Power

More Alternative Energy Series:

Top 5 Reasons Geothermal Energy Works
What's So Special About Hydropower / Hydroelectricity?
Another Look at Nuclear Power: Nuclear Waste
The Wind Power and Solar Power Combination
5 Reasons Solar Power Works
Nuclear Power: Energy of the Future or As Bad As Fossil Fuels
The Temporary Solution: Coal
How Corn Ethanol is Bad

North Korea Nuclear Deadline Approaching

The media has completely forgotten about North Korea. The deadline is only seven days away and there's been very little reporting on the subject. On a separate note, they have obliterated Scooter Libby from their mind also.

How Time-An Administration's Epic Collapse-Got It Wrong

An Administration's Epic Collapse

The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

This story hits the nail on the head, excluding one paragraph: the one dealing with the U.S. Attorney purge.

Compared with Iraq and Walter Reed, the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is a relatively minor matter. It is true that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, but they are political appointees of a special sort. They are partisans, obviously, but must appear to be above politics--not working to influence elections, for example--if public faith in the impartiality of the justice system is to be maintained. Once again Karl Rove's operation has corrupted a policy area--like national security--that should be off-limits to political operators.

As this blog has noted, the real scandal of the purge was the Patriot Act connection. But besides that, it's an excellent article.

The Global War on Global Warming

Suddenly, global warming deniers have begun to strike back. Anonymous comments, even on this blog, claim learned scientists do not know what they are talking about.

Tim Ball is 100% correct. Deal with it.

-Anonymous


Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) - Warming Is A Weather Channel Conspiracy



This (mostly) right wing conspiracy is slowly eroding away at people’s confidence. “When you’ve been taught something for so long, whether it’s right or not, you begin to feel like its right.”

People don’t want the climate to change. We’re comfortable with what we have right now. But people like Senator Inhofe need to understand the seriousness of the situation (by the way, Imhofe has received campaign contributions from energy and oil companies). Our style of life could change drastically, in the next century.

Don’t think it won’t affect you. The next century means the next 15 years. The next 50 years. If you’re 30 now, you’ll probably still be alive when worst of the effects begin to hit. But it can be prevented. Changes need to be immediate at have maximum impact, before people like Senator Inhofe destroy our way of life.

And please don’t start yelling “fear monger!” in the comments section.

Other examples of people not looking at the facts:
Global Warming Is Not Caused By Humans...
FOXNews.com - Global Warming or Just Hot Air?
FOXNews.com - The Greenhouse Myth
http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/
More to come (maybe)

Preemptive War and Iraq

Pre-emptive war is criticized too often by the majority of the world. If you know the enemy is going to attack you, why not hit them first?

But in Iraq, there is no public evidence suggesting the government thought the U.S. was in Hussein's cross-hairs.

The defense always is, EVERYONE thought they had WMDs. Well, everyone SUPPOSEDLY thought Saddam had WMDs. Was evidence (as little as possible) that they might not have nukes suppressed? Probably, and not just in the U.S. Everyone wants to make pure evil dictators look as vile as possible.

Should Schools Stop Teaching the Holocaust to Avoid Offending Muslim Students?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 7:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
7 p.m.: Should schools drop the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils?

First of all, how does the Holocaust offend Muslims? If Wikipedia is correct, Hitler was Christian. Second, what about Jews' and Gypsies' feelings? If we don’t teach about this grave injustice, it could happen again. Wouldn’t many Americans be offended if the Revolutionary War wasn’t taught in out schools? The Holocaust is just as important to humanities history as the Revolutionary War was to our history. Please pick a better question next time, Jack.

Should Bush Stop Supporting Gonzales?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 7:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
5 p.m.: Is President Bush making a mistake by continuing to support Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?

Alberto Gonzales is one of the least intelligent things President Bush has ever done. “Enemy combatants”, continued support of Gitmo, signing statements, and finally, the politicization of everything including attorneys. Bush’s support is just one more example of his stubbornness.

Pelosi In Syria

100th Post!

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 7:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
4 p.m.: Should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be visiting Syria, a state that sponsors terrorism, over the objections of the White House?

Diplomacy was one of the recommendations the Iraq Study Group valued the highest. Working with Syria is one of the best ways to solve the crises in the Middle East. The Executive Branch cannot decide where the members of the Legislative Branch travel.

Technorati Faves/Link Exchange

If you wish to exchange links or faves, please just send an e-mail or comment.

Members:
Thoughts on Global Warming
i Thought, therefore i Blog
BetaBlogger for Dummies
Life in the Fast Lane
Mina's Musings
http://easiestspanish.blogspot.com/
Compassionate Council
Islam Online

Post of the Month: March - Nuclear Power

The Post of the Month for March is.... Nuclear Power: Energy of the Future or As Bad As Fossil Fuels? Don't worry those who are waiting, Solar Power is coming soon!
---------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Nuclear Power is the controlled use of nuclear reactions to release energy for work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity. Human use of nuclear power to do significant useful work is currently limited to nuclear fission and radioactive decay. Nuclear energy is produced when a fissile material, such as uranium-235 (235U), is concentrated such that nuclear fissionb takes place in a controlled chain reaction and creates heat — which is used to boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine. The turbine can be used for mechanical work and also to generate electricity. Nuclear power is used to power most military submarines and aircraft carriers and provides 7% of the world's energy and 15.7% of the world's electricity.

Nuclear power: Its opponents decry it as the most dangerous power source on Earth. But is it really that bad?


Nuclear Accidents
“We’re all gonna die!” they say. “Remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island!” Opponents of nuclear power claim nuclear power plants aren’t safe; there could be an explosion or waste could leak out, they say. Besides Chernobyl, only ~213 people have died from a nuclear accident. Meanwhile, diesel exhaust causes 21,000 deaths a year, asthma, and cancer according to a report by the Clean Air Task Force. Nuclear power is not dangerous to the public. Most of the fears regarding nuclear power are overblown.


Nuclear Power: Just As Bad As Fossil Fuels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_Power_Plant_Cattenom.jpg

Uh-oh, more science! Creationists cover your eyes! Nuclear power works like this: Nuclear fission produces heat, which is used to boil water to create steam and drive a steam turbine.
Steam is water vapor, the most common greenhouse gas on Earth. So, do nuclear power plants contribute to global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect? The simple answer is no.

The air can only hold so much water. This is called “saturation”. Water vapor contributes to 60% of the natural greenhouse effect. Because the atmosphere can only hold so much water, water vapor does not contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Therefore, nuclear power does not directly contribute to global warming. Indirectly, it does. For example,
electric generators used in nuclear power plants require gasoline.


So, Is Nuclear Power Good or Bad?
Nuclear power, if used carefully, could power most of the world’s energy needs. Of course, it wouldn’t be able to power all needs (i.e. cars). France can be a role model—80% of energy consumed there is nuclear. In contrast, 20% of energy consumed in the U.S. is nuclear. Nuclear energy, along with other non-fossil fuels could power the future.

What do you think?

Related articles:
The Temporary Solution: Coal
Ethanol

Coming Soon:
Part 4:Solar and Wind Power