Thursday, March 22, 2007

Bong Legally Hits 4 Jesus

The First Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District was a Supreme Court case that is still used today to determine whether a student’s first amendment rights were violated during a school punishment. During the Vietnam War, two students planned to wear armbands to school showing their disapproval of the war. The school, fearing commotion, banned the armbands before the students even had a chance to wear them at the school. Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to display their dissatisfaction anyway. In consequence for breaking the rules, the students were suspended. The students sued, and the course went all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in the Tinker’s favor, saying that public schools can only limit First Amendment rights if there is a substantial disruption. Because there was no substantial disruption the Court ruled that the Tinkers and Mr. Eckhardt could wear their armbands.

Background on Bong Hits 4 Jesus
Basically, a kid, Joseph Frederick, had a poster that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as the Olympic flame went by because he wanted to be on TV. The principal claims the poster violated the schools drug policy and suspended Mr. Frederick. Joseph and the Alaskan Civil Liberties Union sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of Frederick. They supported their decision using the Tinker case.

Joseph Frederick was under the protection of the First Amendment. The message did not cause a disruption, nor did it insult anybody (another characteristic of when your rights can be limited). He should be apologized too, and the suspension taken off his record. For First Amendment rights to be limited, they have to take at test.

• Is it offensive?
• Is it illegal?
• Does it cause a substantial disruption?

Is “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” offensive? Not really. Is it illegal? Holding up a banner is perfectly legal. Did it cause a substantial disruption? No.

The Supreme Court should rule in favor of Frederick. He did not break any school rule nor did he violate the law.
------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: This post is now featured on the Blogger News Network.



Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Deja Vu-US looks to sell arms in the Middle East

Boston Globe: US looks to sell arms in Gulf to try to contain Iran

Can we learn from the past? Obviously not.

Quick history lesson: The Taliban actually did come to power after the CIA funded Islamists in Afghanistan to fight in their proxy war against the U.S.S.R. After the soon-to-be-terrorists claimed victory, the U.S. withdrew support, but they still had the weapons and the power. The Taliban took control.

Now the U.S. going to give weapons to dictatorships and monarchies in the Middle East. Does that sound smart? We have to think in the long-term. The U.S. has NOT been doing that recently.

Usually this failure of an administration is just worrying. Its incompetence is becoming frustrating and inspiring anger. One could even call for the impeachment of Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush for obstructing justice and/or breaking the law ("enemy combatants", wiretapping, Plame, etc. etc.).

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Why?

Why?



Monday, March 19, 2007

Were the Confessions Forced?

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.: What do you make of the recent string of terrorists' confessions?

Terrorists bragging. If you were a captured terrorist, and knew you were going to be convicted, you'd probably go out as a martyr, claiming you were so great. Did some of confessions come out under pressure, or even torture? Probably.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Top 5 Things a Presidential Candidate Needs to Win

There are certain things candidates need to win elections. We all know you need to be known to win. For example, if only your mother knows your name, you’re not going to win an election. Feel free to comment on what you think a candidate needs to win, or if this list missed anything. By the way, support doesn’t count. Here they are (in no particular order):

1. A Good Iraq Strategy
Probably one of the most obvious qualities a candidate needs. Iraq is the war the U.S. is fighting (unless you include the war on terror). Would you vote for a candidate whose only plan as president would be to start a national health care plan? “Oh yeah, we’ll figure Iraq out after we finish health care. And who’s this Bin Laden guy you keep talking about???” An individual candidate’s strategy largely depends on what party they are in. For example, most Democrats would get out of there if they could. Meanwhile, many Republicans would try to fight it out.

2. A Clean Record
In the internet age, with Youtube, blogs (what are you reading right now?), and unlimited media, if you don’t have a clean record, someone’s going to find out. Take the late Senator Thomas Eagleton. He was a George McGovern’s vice presidential running mate, until someone found out that he had been hospitalized for depression. Depression probably isn’t a good quality for a vice president.

3. Charisma
After the miserable presidency of Mr. Bush, “We the people” are looking for a new and improved candidate. Once again, the internet comes into play. Candidates are scrutinized down to the tiniest nose hair (ewwwwww). Barack Obama is riding the “Charisma Wave”. We’ll see if it crashes.

4. Funding
Hillary Clinton plans to raise $100 million dollars. Most candidates are choosing not to use the Public Financing System. Without sufficient funding, candidates don’t have a chance of winning. Tom Vilsack ended his candidacy for president when he realized he wasn’t going to be able to get enough money to support his run.

5. National/International Recognition
Ever heard of Ron Paul? He’s not even a third-party candidate; He’s Republican. This quality goes hand in hand with funding. If you don’t have funding, you don’t have recognition. National recognition is important, but almost as important is international recognition. As the sole superpower, America’s interests are pretty important to the rest of the world, too. The Time Election Index shows Hillary Clinton has the most national recognition, with 95% of those polled saying they know “some” or “a great deal” about the candidate. Those polled were randomly selected registered U.S. voters.

Don't Touch Those Sanctions!

Israel: Shun new Palestinian government

A unity government formed between rival Palestinian factions was welcomed by Norway and the European Union, but Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his Cabinet on Sunday that he would not work with the new coalition. Israel called for international opposition after a Hamas leader said the group retained the
right of "resistance."


If you had a neighboring country run by terrorists, would you be willing to go along with their every whim? Norway has dropped its sanctions against this elected government controlled by terrorists. Sanctions should remain. The almost (if not) civil war in the West Bank is making life horrible for Palestinians. A new government should be elected, and until then, sanctions should remain.

Friday, March 16, 2007

The Three Problems with the Firing of the Attorneys

Boston Globe: Alberto Gonzales Should Go

IT IS customary for newly elected presidents to replace large numbers of US attorneys, especially if the new president is from a different party. It is not customary for presidents to sweep out many of their own appointees to these positions in the middle of their administration.


GDAEman has a post very similar to the two posts previous this one. In his (assuming your not a woman because of the man in GDAEman) comment here, he points out what is the problem.

yea, you're right... similar to my post. The list of abuses makes one feel like this attorney-firing incident is simply the last-straw. However, it's my understanding that what's going on is that the attorney-firing is a direct affront to the Senate because Senators traditionally nominate the US Attorney's for their state and because they are supposed to be able to confirm them.

On the last point, a provision slipped into the USA PATRIOT Act (note all CAPs) allowed the President to install US Attorneys without Senate approval.... of course, most of the senators voted for it.

Which raises another point... Congress routinely votes on big fat bills that they never read. God only knows what laws are on our books thanks to corporate lobbyists.

Thanks for the occasional visit.


The Patriot Act hasn't been mentioned a lot in news stories, but it seems to be part of the problem.

A new letter was released by the Justice Department yesterday. It essentially says "Karl Rove is wondering what's going to happen to Miers's plan to fire all the attorneys "at the beginning of Bush's 2nd term. No matter how much we all dislike Karl Rove, he wasn't a part of this conspiracy.

The three problems with the firings of these attorneys:
  • The attorneys were fired in middle of the President's administration
  • Congress was lied to about the reasons for the firings
  • These attorneys were appointed legally, but only under the illegal provisions of the Patriot Act


Thursday, March 15, 2007

Clinton Did It Normally-Bush Didnt

The argument is premised on a mistaken understanding of how the process works. When a president takes office, he or she nominates federal prosecutors at the beginning of the first term. Under normal circumstances, these U.S. Attorneys serve until the next president is sworn in.


Right wing bloggers have pounced on the fact that Bill Clinton fired all 93 attorneys at the beginning of his term. Read the quote above. Doesn't seem so bad anymore, does it? It really isn't that bad that Clinton (the Bill one) fired all of them.

And besides, the whole problem with this whole situation wasn't only the fact that these attorneys were fired for political reasons. The point is not that the attorney’s were fired, it’s that Congress and the public is being lied to about the reason behind the firings.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Is Alberto Gonzales the Source of the President's Problems?

So, the question is whether the attorney general should be fired. The answer is...yes. Will the President do it? No.

The politically biased firings of federal prosecutors, the NSA spying program and the FBI's illegal snooping are all black marks on his resume. As stated by many, including the New York Times, Mr. Gonzales seems to still believe that he is President Bush's personal lawyer. He appeases the president, telling the president his every whim is Constitutional.

Think about it. The controversies of the Bush presidency can all be traced back to him (and Cheney), excluding Iraq and Katrina. Guantanomo. Abu Ghraib (the President claims it isn't his fault, but really...). Signing statements. Torture. NSA spying. The FBI scandal. The politically charged firing of federal prosecutors. All of these are illegal and unconstitutional, a fact that Mr. Gonzales continues to deny. Alberto Gonzales is one of the biggest reasons the Bush administration is turning into a failure, if not the biggest. He should be out now.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Nuclear Power: Energy of the Future or As Bad As Fossil Fuels

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?

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


Saturday, March 10, 2007

Fox News: Libby Found Not Guilty

Fox News strikes again!


Not Fox News But Faux News

Democrats cancel Fox News debate

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Nevada Democratic Party officials said on Friday they were canceling a presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox News, following a joke chairman Roger Ailes made about Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

In a letter sent to Fox, Nevada State Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Ailes "went too far" with comments made the night before.

Fox News. Should be called "Faux News".


Thursday, March 08, 2007

Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Everyone, Even Bush, Wins

Dems propose pulling troops within 16 months

• Iraq troop pullout deadline would be triggered if conditions not met


This is an extremely good plan. Everyone wins, even Bush. To summarize the bill, troops would be pulled out in 16 months if conditions are not met. If the conditions are really bad, than the deadline would be even earlier. Bush gets a chance at his surge, but if it fails, game over. As it should be. The surge is the last chance in Iraq.


Earmarks and Term Limits

To continue yesterday's post...


Quote from a post at PoliteTalk Forums:

Earmarks should simply be forbidden. But beyond that, the only way to stop this loot-the-treasury mindset--short of our having more people run for office (and actually be elected!) who do so out of a sincere desire to perform public service, rather than as a function of career advancement--is to constitutionally mandate term limits for Senators and Congresspeople. That would at least reduce
the inclination to pander.






There's no question earmarks should be forbidden. The deficit is high enough. But term limits? How do term limits prevent earmarks?


Lobbyists are becoming a major power in Washington. Their influence over our representatives is unconstitutional.

Term limits. The phrase alone is enough to send shivers down any politician's spine. But what is their benefit? Every government is scrutinized in today's internet age. Corrupt senators are voted out anyway. What do term limits do besides inhibit good, patriotic government officials?


Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Lobbyists

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.: Will it ever be possible to wean Congress completely off pork?

Haha. Funny joke.


Tuesday, March 06, 2007

The Fake News Station and Ideologists

Griper Blade has an interesting post: Griper Blade: Propaganda and FOX News -- One and the Same.

Fox News isn't a real news station. It spits out untruthful distractions from Republican mistakes and untruthful information. Only hard-line ideologists can take it seriously. Ideologists don't take the situation seriously and propose the same solution according to their belief. Realists take a look at the situation and figure out the best solution. Which makes more sense?



Monday, March 05, 2007

How to Get More Young People to Vote

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
5 p.m.: What's the best way to increase voter turnout among young people?

The best way to increase voter turnout among young people is to talk about an issue that is important to them and have a candidate they like. Issues that will affect their generation like global warming and Iraq will bring more young people out to the polls. A likeable and charismatic candidate will also encourage more young people to go to the polls.


Sunday, March 04, 2007

Friday, March 02, 2007

The Solution to Iraq

This solution proposes the pullout of some troops, but not a complete pullout YET.

------------------------

The actual Iraq War is over. Much of the battle against insurgents is accomplished. Now our forces are stuck in the middle of a civil war. The insurgents need to be finished off and the civil war ended.

Diplomacy is the key to all of this. The Iraq Study Group Report was passed over by the "decider" as soon as it came out. 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.

The civil war is mind numbing. If the Iraqis could just get along, everyones life would be better. This is not a probable option. This point is where one must decide on whether to increase troops or partially withdraw (completely pulling out is not an option). The military is stretched too thin. Approxamitely half the American soldiers should be pulled out. ASAP. The troops that remain there should play an advisory role. Embedded in Iraqi units, they would train and aid Iraqi soldiers.

U.S. troops should take an advisory role while the government backs down and tries diplomacy. This is not our war any more. Its the Iraqis.


Hypocrisy

A decision has been made to update and redesign America's aging stockpile of nuclear weapons, even as the U.S. demands that Iran and North Korea not build up their own nuclear arsenals.
Hypocrisy.



A random (interesting) article, although it was published on Fox. Can it be trusted?
Swiss Accidentally Invade Liechtenstein

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Post of the Month: February

This month's Post of the Month honor goes to...(drumroll)...Factsheet!
Normally, it would be reposted, but because of its length (9 pages), that is unnecessary.

Post of the Month

Post of the Month is going to be a new series at Thoughts on the World. Every month, a post will be selected to be the "Post of the Month" and will be reposted. A variety of factors will be included, including how well it gets the point across, how well written it is and how much thought it provokes.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Diplomacy at Last

U.S. may embrace Iraq diplomacy critics long demanded

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - By opening the door to a high-level dialogue with Iran and Syria, the United States appears to be embracing a diplomatic strategy that its critics have long said was essential to stabilize Iraq.


Finally.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Whoops, Just Hit Some Civilians

Conflicting reports over blast in Iraqi city

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi police and a community leader said a bomb blast near a soccer field in the city of Ramadi on Tuesday killed 18 people, mostly children, but the U.S. military said it was unaware of such an attack.

Amid conflicting reports over what happened in the volatile western city, the U.S. military said its soldiers had carried out a controlled explosion in Ramadi, also near a soccer field, that slightly wounded 30 people, including nine children.


Why did they carry out a "controlled explosion" in the first place. And it injured 30 people, including 9 children? How does this happen?

-415 Points

Brutal day on Wall Street

Dow tumbles 415 points, biggest one-day point loss since 2001, as investors eye China, thwarted attack on Cheney, drop in durable orders.



Dow industrials plunge more than 500

The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 500 points today before gaining some of it back. The Dow dropped 546.02, or 4.3 percent, to 12,086.06 before recovering some ground. It was down 360.42, or 2.85 percent, at 12,271.84 with about a half hour of trading left.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Attack Plans

Pentagon Reportedly Developing Iran Attack Plan

Would be more surprised if they didn't. Hopefully, the military has a contingency plan for all cases.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

The Debate Continues

The debate at PoliteTalk Forums continues. Is it ever prudent to submit to blackmail? (Specifically North Korea).

There was an earlier post detailing the first response to the debate.

The rest can be read here.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Father/Daughter Republican Talk

From Political Grind

FATHER/DAUGHTER TALK

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt hat her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She s so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican
Party.”

Monday, February 19, 2007

Democracy or Stability?

At a speech in Egypt, Rice famously said, "For 60 years, my country, the United states, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region ... and we achieved neither." Unfortunately, the epitaph for her work in this Administration will be a perverse twist on that logic: since 9/11, our country has pursued democracy at the expense of stability--and we lost both.
STEPHEN E. PHILLIPS
New York City

--A letter to Time Magazine

Sunday, February 18, 2007

North Koreans Agree to Disarm

Here's why the deal with North Korea can only be good (in response to a thread at PoliteTalk.com):

There's nothing wrong with buying out North Korea's disarmament. By ending a repressive regime's tyranny through energy assistance, the free world doubly gains. The suffering peoples of North Korea can live a better life, and there is a couple less nukes (in the hands of loony toon) in the world. The governments that agreed to participate lose some oil, maybe some money, but is that really too big of a price?

In this specific case one might worry that North Korea will double cross the world (again) and not give up it's nuclear ambition. At least we tried. At least Bush stopped being such a hard-liner and gave in to talks. At least Bush almost did something right for a change.

What's to lose ?

You can read the whole thread here.

President Bush's Approval Rating


*Note: It may not be visible, but if clicked, it will go to the source and be visible.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Factsheet

Cross-posted with Thoughts on Global Warming.

Wondering why there's been so little posting lately? Below is a BIG factsheet about global warming, the atmosphere and other facts about Earth. This is was not made by anyone else or for anyone else. This is a Thoughts on Global Warming/Thoughts on the World exclusive.

--------------------------------------------------------

The Troposphere, the Stratosphere, the Mesosphere, and the Thermosphere make up the atmosphere of the Earth. The Troposphere exists from the surface of the Earth to 15 kilometers above the surface of the Earth. The temperature ranges from 15 degrees Celsius at the surface to negative 60 degrees Celsius at the top of this layer. Life exists at this level. The greenhouse effect, natural and enhanced, takes place here, as does the weather. Above the Troposphere is the Stratosphere. Temperatures rise from negative 60 degrees Celsius at the bottom of the Stratosphere to zero degrees Celsius at the top of the Stratosphere. The Stratosphere occurs from 15 kilometers above the surface of the Earth to 50 kilometers above the surface. The ozone layer, which protects Earth from harmful ultra-violet radiation, exists in this layer. The layer above the Stratosphere is the Mesosphere, which ranges from 50 kilometers above the surface of the Earth to 85 kilometers above the surface. The temperature sinks from 0 degrees Celsius to negative 70 degrees. This layer protects Earth from meteoroids. This is the first layer that meteorites encounter that is dense enough to create enough friction to burn up meteoroids before they get to the surface. The layer above the Mesosphere exists from 85 kilometers above the surface to 600 kilometers, where it melts off into space. It is known as the Thermosphere. Temperatures here can reach up to 2,000 degrees Celsius, and most satellites are in the Thermosphere. Throughout all of these layers, the further one is from the planet, the less the pressure and density is.

As mentioned previously, pressure and density consistently decrease throughout the layers. Pressure is strongest closest to the Earth, in the Troposphere. This is because there are three layers above it pushing down on it. The Stratosphere has the second greatest pressure because it has two layers pushing down on it, and et cetera. Density is also greatest in the Troposphere, second greatest in the Stratosphere, third greatest in the Mesosphere, and least great in the Thermosphere. The Troposphere is densest because of gravity. Gravity is stronger closer to the Earth, and consequently more matter is pulled down closer to the Earth, making the closest layer to the surface the densest. Temperature is unlike pressure and density. It varies from layer to layer. In the Troposphere, temperature lowers when ascending. But after entering the Stratosphere, temperatures begin to rise. This is caused by the ozone layer. The ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet radiation originating from the sun. When absorbed, the ozone molecules (O3) release heat, heating the layer. But in the Mesosphere, temperatures begin to drop again as it is further from the Earth. Oppositely, the Thermosphere warms up instead of cooling down. Sun strikes nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the Thermosphere first. The oxygen and nitrogen molecules convert energy from sun into heat.

The majority of the pure dry atmosphere is nitrogen (N2), at 78.084 percent of the atmosphere. Oxygen (02) is 20.946 percent of the atmosphere, and Argon makes up 0.9340 percent. None of these gases are greenhouse gases, but carbon dioxide (CO2), which makes up 0.0383 percent of the atmosphere, is. Neon (Ne) makes up 0.00182 percent of the atmosphere; Helium (He) is 0.00053 percent; Krypton (Kr) is 0.00012 percent; Xenon (Xe) is 0.00009 percent; Hydrogen (H2) is 0.00005 percent. Neither neon, nor helium, nor krypton, nor xenon, nor hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide (N2O), which makes up 0.00005 percent of the atmosphere, is a greenhouse gas, as is methane (CH4), which is 0.00002 percent of the atmosphere.

Energy from the sun travels to Earth as electromagnetic waves. It first encounters the atmosphere. Some infrared radiation and most ultraviolet radiation are reflected by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of the rays are reflected by clouds, gases, or dust particles. The energy that gets past the atmosphere next encounters Earth’s surface. Some of it is reflected back into the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed. When the surface is heated, it radiates some of the energy back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This radiation cannot escape back into space. Instead, much of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. These gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane make life on Earth possible through this effect. This process by which gases hold heat in the air is called the greenhouse effect.




Energy from the sun enters Earth’s atmosphere, and while some is reflected, some energy gets through. Some of that energy is reflected by the surface, and some is absorbed by the surface. That heats the surface. When heated, it is reemitted back into the atmosphere, and absorbed and kept in by greenhouse gases. This is known as the greenhouse effect.


The most common greenhouse gas is water vapor (H2O). The second most common gas is carbon dioxide. Methane, another greenhouse gas, is 60 times as effective of a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide; a methane molecule absorbs 60 times as much energy as a carbon dioxide molecule. Nitrous oxide, also a greenhouse gas, is 270 times as effective as CO2. This is misleading; neither methane nor nitrous oxide is the biggest cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Carbon is .934% of the atmosphere. To be more effective, the gas multiplied by how many more times it is effective has to be greater than the amount of carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Methane is .00002 percent of the atmosphere, and 60 times as effective as CO2. .00002 multiplied by 60 is NOT greater than .934. Neither is .00005 multiplied by 270, how much nitrous oxide there is and how effective of a greenhouse gas it is.
The greenhouse effect is a natural effect. Respiration of plants and animals, volcanic eruptions, decomposition of organic matter, wild fires, and the passing of gas by animals, particularly cows, are all causes of the greenhouse effect. When plants and animals breathe, they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions release methane. All organic matter contains carbon dioxide. When it decomposes, carbon seeps out. Wild fires break down plants and animals, freeing the carbon all at once. Flatulence contains methane, a greenhouse gas 60 times as effective as CO2. These natural causes all release greenhouse gases. But now, because of humans, there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect. As human populations have spiked, so has the need for meat. Because of this, there are more and more cows being bred. Cows eat all day. By eating grass, not only are they killing plants that could be taking in carbon dioxide, but also grass makes them release more methane. Another reason for the enhanced greenhouse effect is cars. Cars release huge amounts of CO2. Clear cutting forests and burning fossil fuels like coal also contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect.


The carbon cycle. Carbon moves along the land, oceans, atmosphere and the planet's interior. Oceans, fossils and fossil fuels, dead organisms, waste products, decaying organism, photosynthesis, respiration, and factory emissions cycle it along.
There are two parts to the carbon cycle. One operates over shorter time scales (days to years), while the other over longer time scales (thousands of years). This cycle takes place as carbon is moved along the land, oceans, atmosphere, and Earth’s interior.

Biology is an important factor in the movement of carbon into and out of the atmosphere. Through photosynthesis, green plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and use it to make food. Plants “burn” the food through cellular respiration. Cellular respiration releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Once these plants die, they return the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Sometimes the plants get eaten instead of dieing. The carbon is then released back into the atmosphere through the animal’s respiration. Animals also play a part. During animal respiration, carbon is put in the atmosphere. When animals die, the carbon that was in them is released into the atmosphere. Another example of the short term carbon cycle is seasons.

Photosynthesis and cellular respiration also play a part in the long-term cycling of carbon. Land plants help make soil, leading to the slow removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In the oceans, certain single-celled plants and animals convert carbon into shells made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). When the shelled creatures or plants die, their shells eventually decompose, releasing CO2 back into the cycle. They can find their way out through volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges or other ways. If a plant creates more food than its cellular respiration, organic matter gradually gathers. Over millions of years, this buildup can become coal and oil. The coal and oil sits undergrounds for hundreds or thousands of years. Carbon dioxide is held in plants. Consequently, wild fires or when forests are cleared for farming, carbon is released into the atmosphere. Ocean temperature also plays a part in the carbon cycle. Cold ocean waters remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Cold, downward-moving currents—such as those found in the North Atlantic—absorb carbon and transfer it deep in the ocean. Warm waters cause the surface to release CO2. Upward moving currents—such as those in the tropics—bring carbon dioxide up from the depths and release it into the atmosphere.

Cars have radically changed the carbon cycle. Most cars run on gas, which is created from a fossil fuel, oil. When it is burned for energy, carbon dioxide is released into the air. Essentially, cars take CO2 in the ground and put it in the atmosphere. That creates more work for plants and oceans taking carbon out of the atmosphere.


A long term view: Temperature and carbon dioxide levels of the last 450,000 years worldwide. As can be seen, temperature generally follows the level of carbon. In the top right corner, the current amount of carbon dioxide can be seen. It is at unprecedented levels. The temperature is expected to follow.





A short term view: Carbon dioxide levels of Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Over the last 40 years, carbon dioxide levels have steadily increased.

Climate has changed many times throughout all of history. One cause of this is continental drift. Continents slowly move around the surface of the Earth. Not only does the position of a continent affect its own climate, it affects the whole world. On a global scale, continents can change the currents and routes of oceans and global winds. When continents collide, they sometimes create mountains. These mountains change climate by blocking winds. Another natural cause of climate change is volcanoes. When volcanoes spew out ash and carbon, they strengthen the greenhouse effect. In the early stage of Earth’s history, there were thousands of volcanoes. They had a huge impact on the climate. The sun also has a huge impact on the weather of Earth. The sun doesn’t always produce the same amount of energy, causing the amount of energy in and around the Earth to vary. The variation in solar output is primarily based on cycles of sunspot activity. Sunspots are dark areas of magnetic disturbance on the sun’s exterior. It has been proved that when there are more, bigger sunspots, the sun’s energy output is highest. This occurs about every 11 years. Bolides, such as comets or asteroids, can also have a huge impact on the atmosphere and environment. If one were to fall on land, a dust cloud would rise and possibly block out the sun. Following wildfires caused by the hot temperatures, most creatures would be killed off by the dark bolide winter. Another effect would be the nitric and nitrous acids released. The acids would destroy the ozone layer. The axis of the Earth wobbles, and wobbling can change the climate. It wobbles through a complete revolution every 26,000 years, an event known as the precession of the equinoxes. The angle of the tilt of the axis compared to the plane of orbit also makes a big difference in global weather. When the angle is smaller, sunlight strikes various points on Earth more evenly and seasonal differences are smaller. When the angle is larger, the seasons are more pronounced. Glaciers are more common when the Earth’s tilt is at a smaller angle. The orbit around the sun also is a factor in worldwide climate. When the orbit is more circular, there is less a more equal amount of the levels of solar energy received by different parts of the Earth than when the orbit is elliptical. Additionally, a more elliptical orbit means the summers and winters are longer, and springs and falls are shorter.

As mentioned previously, in the short term, seasons are part of what controls the climate. Also in the short term, photosynthesis and cellular respiration have an effect on short term climate. So does decaying organisms. When organisms decay, they free carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels hold CO2 in the earth. When factories or cars burn them, they release carbon back into the atmosphere. Oceans also play a part. Cold waters absorb CO2 and put it at the bottom of the ocean. Warm waters take CO2 and put it back in the atmosphere.
Climate change in the last 100 years differs from previous climate changes. There has been no asteroid, continents have barely moved, volcanoes are less active now than they were 2 billion years ago, Earth’s orbit and its axis has not varied hugely, and the sun remains in the same pattern it has been going in for billions of years. The major change has been the level of carbon. And it’s caused by humans. Ever since the industrial age, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been spiking. This can be seen on long-term carbon graph. Temperature is also rising. 1996 was the hottest year on record. If nothing is done, the level of carbon may continue increasing. Venus, Earth’s planetary neighbor, is very similar to Earth in size and other attributes. One major difference is the level of carbon. The level of carbon on Venus is 100 times the level it is on Earth. Because of this, Venus is extremely hot. If that happened on Earth, life would be eliminated.

The Industrial Revolution brought new technology to the world, with an expensive price. The machines used since the Industrial Revolution have put massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because carbon is a greenhouse gas, when there’s more of it in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is stronger. More heat is trapped, and the climate is hotter. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect. Cars and factories are major causes of the enhanced effect. The enhanced greenhouse effect is a stronger, human influenced, greenhouse effect. It is causing global warming.


Global warming is the gradual rise of the temperature on Earth. Greenhouse gases have amassed in the atmosphere. These gases led to the enhanced greenhouse effect, which in turn led to global warming. The effects can already be seen. Recently, a portion of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off Antarctica and melted. Other parts of Antarctica have been melting, as has another one of the world’s biggest ice block: Greenland. 1997 was the hottest year in the world on record. 2006 was hottest year in the United States. Droughts are increasingly common around the world. Global warming is having real and serious consequences.


The Goldilocks principle is the story of three planets: Venus, Earth and Mars. Venus has massive amounts of carbon; 96.5 percent of its atmosphere is carbon dioxide. It has an atmosphere and a greenhouse effect. And because there is so much CO2, the average temperature is 477 degrees Celsius. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature would be -46 degrees. Then there’s the Earth. The carbon dioxide is currently .934 percent. The average temperature is 15 degrees. With an enhanced greenhouse effect, the temperature would be 33 degrees higher; a steaming 48 degrees Celsius. Mars is the opposite of Venus. Mars is 95% CO2, but has no atmosphere, therefore no greenhouse effect. Mars’s average temperature is -47 degrees. Without greenhouse gases, the temperature would be -104 degrees Celsius. Earth could end up like either of these planets, but because of global warming, the more likely candidate would be Venus.


Cars are a major contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect. When burning fossil fuels, they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There are a large number of cars already, but the amount is growing. With India and China’s booming economy, additional middle and lower class are buying cars. And it’s not just India and China. Some of the cars that are being bought are less fuel efficient, and most of the less fuel efficient cars are SUVs. Not just thriving in the U.S., they are pumping out CO2 in developing countries too.


Contrary to popular belief, cars and factories are not the only origins of global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect. Deforestation is another way humans are putting carbon in the atmosphere. When trees are cut down for farming, they slowly decompose and leak carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Sometimes farmers will burn trees to get them out of the way. This puts the CO2 out there even faster. By burning, the CO2 doesn’t seep out, but bursts. Either way a farmer does it, they still get rid of trees. Trees also take carbon dioxide out of the air. Deforestation is doubly harmful. As unlikely as it sounds, cow flatulence is a huge problem. Human population has risen rapidly in the last 100 years, and so has the demand for meat. Extra cows are being bred. The only thing cows do all day is eat. Cows eat grass, which is a green plant. Green plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Cows also pass gas a lot. Gas is composed of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. This methane is part of the enhanced greenhouse effect.


- The 2005 estimated U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are 6,008.6 million metric tons.
- The change in carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. since 1990 is 20.4 percent.
- The effects of global warming can already be seen:
- The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
- The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
- Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
- Most of the United States has already warmed, in some areas by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, no state in the lower 48 states experienced below average temperatures in 2002. The last three five-year periods are the three warmest on record.
- September 2001 to February 2002 was the second driest six-month period on record for the Northeast.
- Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts each got more than double their normal monthly rainfall in June 1998.
- In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1500 deaths in India.
- According to NASA, the polar ice cap is now melting at the alarming rate of nine percent per decade. Arctic ice thickness has decreased 40 percent since the 1960s.
- Global sea level has already risen by four to eight inches in the past century. Scientists' best estimate is that sea level will rise by an additional 19 inches by 2100, and perhaps by as much as 37 inches.




Monday, February 12, 2007

Email to Cafferty File

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
How much do Russian President Vladimir Putin's comments about America's global role matter?

What he actually said isn't very important. It's what his comment says about American influence. Since the Iraq War, America's global influence has steadily decreased. Now even Russia's "president" is standing up to us. Look what the government has left the next generation...

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Public Financing System Cap Raise

Just in 2004, George W. Bush was the only candidate (correct that if it’s wrong) that decided not to use the public financing system. In the upcoming presidential race, Mrs. Clinton has already decided to opt out of the system. Most candidates are expected to follow. This outdated system needs to be updated.

Under the current system, candidates must limit total campaign spending of private of private and public funds for all primary elections to about $45 million if they choose to follow the system. The federal government will match up to $250 of an individual’s total contributions to an eligible candidate, up to a maximum of roughly $19 million. In the general election, a campaign may become eligible for of $74 million, as long as the campaign agrees to not accept private contributions.

Source: http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/documents/how_pub_fi_works.pdf


Most serious contenders this election plan to raise $100,000,000 for the primary, well above the $45,000,000 the Public Financing System allows. Something has to be changed.

There is no question that the $45 million limit must be raised. The question is how much. Many candidates plan to raise $100 million. To be wooed, they need more. In a new law, $125,000,000 should the spending limit for presidential candidates.

As seen with the existing arrangement, the success of a set limit degrades over time. A new limit will have to be dynamic. One possible option is a percent increase over time. Every four years, the limit raises four percent. This is a simple, effective solution. A more precise solution could be a limit based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Starting at $125 million, the cap would vary based on inflation. While more complicated, this takes in account the strength of the dollar.

Either option, one thing has to be recognized: to stop corruption and special interest groups, the cap on fundraising in the Public Financing System has to be changed.

Thirsty?

Bad news isn't wine. It doesn't improve with age.


-Colin Powell

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

A Logical Solution

Another quote from Polite Talk forums:




Assumptions:

1) Gay People are overwhelmingly in favor of their right to marry.

2) Gay People would marry other gay people.

3) Regardless of law, non-gay People would marry someone of the opposite sex.




Deductions:

1) Overwhelmingly, people opposed to a right to gay marriage would not choose to marry someone of the same sex.

2) No one who does not wish to marry someone of the same sex could be forced to.

3) A Legal right to gay marriage would have a positive individual effect on those who would exercise that right.

4) A Legal right to gay marriage would have no negative individual effects on those who would choose not to exercise that right.




Analysis:

1) Noting the absence of negative individual effects on detractors, it follows that the reasons for opposing such a right are largely abstract. Examples include varying degrees of religious opposition, and to a lesser extent, the simple desire to impose one's will on others.

2) Noting the overwhelmingbelieff in religion that humans have free will and one's final judgement is made on an individual basis, it follows that regardless of whether or not gay marriage is an abomination or a sin, the judgement of those who choose to exercise that right could in no way affect anyone who don't.

3) Noting the overwhelming belief among people that "I am entitled to equal rights," it follows that the imposition of anyone's will on another constitutes a double standard.




Conclusions:

1) Any Religious Judgement is between the individual and his/her God, and therefore no one's business but theirs. Ergot, the validity of religious arguments is dissolved.

2) Hypocrites aside, the overwhelming majority of the people believe fairness and equality of opportunity are the cornerstones of a democracy.




Solutions:

There are two solutions that would make the situation both fair and equal in opportunity:

1) Make it an inalienable legal right for anyone to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender.

-or-

2) Make it a crime for anyone to marry a person to whom he or she is sexually or physically attracted.I say, let them eat (wedding) cake.



Now, conservatives and die-hard believers, please explain why gay marriage is bad.

Monday, February 05, 2007

What Most People Don't Get

PoliteTalk.com:

His post reminds me of something I heard a couple of months ago by former Muslim
and former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat. He said that (and I paraphrase): For
Westerners, anything moral or good is anything that tends to enhance or promote
life. Anything immoral or bad is anything that tends to impede or diminish life.

In Islam, morality or goodness is anything that tends to enhance or
promote Islam and the spread of Islam. Anything immoral or bad is anything that
tends to impede or diminish Islam or the spread of Islam.

Very different
philosophies and I don't think too many Americans seem to understand that he is
very correct.

Politetalk Forums: Iraq: Your Solution?

Politetalk forums: Iraq: Your Solution?

The actual Iraq War is over. Much of the battle against insurgents is accomplished. Now our forces are stuck in the middle of a civil war. The insurgents need to be finished off and the civil war ended.

Diplomacy is the key to all of this. The Iraq Study Group was passed over by the "decider" as soon as it came out. 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.

The civil war is mind numbing. If the Iraqis could just get along, everyones lives would be better. This is not possible. At this point, one must decide on whether or not to increase troops (pulling out is not an option). The military is stretched too thin. The troop levels should remain the same; the surge in troops already in Iraq taken out. The troops that remain there should play an advisory role. Embedded in Iraqi units, they would train and aid Iraqi soldiers.

U.S. troops should take an advisory role while the government backs down and tries diplomacy. This is not our war any more. Its the Iraqis.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

The Temporary Solution: Clean Coal

Cross-posted with Thoughts on Global Warming.

Via CNN: Coal, the clean energy of the future?


Coal contains anywhere from 25 to 90 percent carbon, which combines with oxygen when burned to release energy. This process emits a host of noxious chemicals, such as carbon dioxide, sulfur, nitrogen oxide and mercury. Yet carbon in coal can also be used to strip oxygen from water, producing clean-burning hydrogen gas. FutureGen will liberate hydrogen by heating finely ground coal in a high-pressure, pure-oxygen environment, a process known as gasification and a
turbine will burn the resulting hydrogen gas to produce electricity. As for emissions, the plant will pump the CO2 underground while the other pollutants are converted to an inert solid and buried.



Experts agree that the whole notion of trapping carbon is less a long-term solution and more a good stopgap. "Carbon sequestration you can do for 50 or 100 years," Friedmann says. "You do it until you have other options besides burning coal -- which we kind of don't right now."

Also:

Energy Department Teams With Consortium to Build Model 'Clean-Coal' Plant



Clean coal energy is currently the best energy alternative. As discussed previously, ethanol is less efficient than it appears. There’s nothing wrong at all with nuclear power, but much of the public opposes it because of the “danger.” Nuclear power would be and actually is the best alternative energy, but too much of the population believes it has “safety concerns”. Gasoline, obviously, doesn’t work efficiently. Right now, coal is the best energy alternative.

How clean coal works is explained in the article. If you actually read to end, you can see “Experts agree that the whole notion of trapping carbon is less a long-term solution and more a good stopgap.” Right now, humanity needs a stopgap. An experimental fusion reactor is being built. If workable, it could be the new commonly used energy. As ethanol machinery progresses, more machines will be built that use wood chips, tires and other waste instead of corn to produce ethanol. Make no mistake: coal is a temporary solution.

Coming Soon... Part 3: What’s wrong with nuclear 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

Friday, February 02, 2007

How Corn Ethanol is Bad

Cross posted on Thoughts on Global Warming:

President Bush has been touting ethanol as one of the best, if not the best alternative to gasoline. It doesn’t produce as much carbon dioxide. It can be made in America, using American made\grown resources like corn. That quality is not a bonus, it’s a weakness.

For ethanol to be productive as a fuel, it MUST be made with agricultural waste. By using good corn, you’re being counterproductive. Using corn for ethanol misuses perfectly good food that could be used to feed people. Second, it increases the price of corn. Third, it ravages the soil where it is grown. Fourth, last but definitely not least, it’s not nearly as efficient as politicians would have you think. Corn is grown on farms. Farms don’t pick themselves. Gasoline powered machines fertilize, water and pick the corn plants. The gasoline used drastically lessens the effectiveness of corn ethanol. David Pimentel of Cornell and Tad Patzek of UC, Berkeley, calculate that producing a gallon of corn ethanol consumes 29% more fossil fuel energy than the ethanol saves. Adding to this waste, one has to burn 1.5 gallons of ethanol to go as far as a gallon of gasoline would go.

Coming soon… Part 2: Coal, the clean energy of the future?

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

Sister Blog

Thoughts on the World now has a baby sister blog! Some Thoughts on Global Warming posts will also be featured on this blog.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

"Leader" Email with Glenn Greenwald

It makes much more sense that you call him "Leader" because of his extremist supporters. You are correct about that. But you didn't make that clear in your article.
----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Greenwald
To: Simmons
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:47 PM
Subject: Re:
Capitalizing "Leader" has nothing to do with the President. It has to do with how his supporters speak of him and the theories they defend regarding his powers. I'm sorry you worked yourself into such a frenzy over nothing.

----- Original Message -----
From: Simmons
To: Glenn Greenwald
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:31 PM
No, this comment is not made by a conservative\republican or even someone who supports President Bush:By capitalizing "Leader", not only do you make the U.S. sound like a dictatorship, you show your BLIND hatred for President Bush. You probably don't even have a good reason why Bush is a bad "Leader". Of course he has made many mistakes, too many mistakes, but the way you present your opinions it appears you don't even know what they are or why they are mistakes. Many of your insights are brilliant, but when the topic changes to Bush, you sound like a 3rd grader repeating their parent's political beliefs.
-- Simmons
http://thethoughtsontheworld.blogspot.com/

Whoops!

Cartoon Network admits ad campaign set off suspicious-package alerts that shut down Boston
Wow...

Monday, January 29, 2007

Ceasefire

Hamas, Fatah agree ceasefire: minister

GAZA (Reuters) - Rival Palestinian factions agreed a ceasefire in Gaza effective from 3 a.m. (0100 GMT) on Tuesday, Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar said. Zahar, speaking after talks between Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of
Hamas and a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, said the two sides
had agreed to take all gunmen off the streets of Gaza and remove checkpoints.


Peace at last. Peace is the only way forward. Fighting will get everyone nowhere.

The Surge Begins

100 militants captured near Najaf according to the U.S., Iraqi forces also report 200-300 dead

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - In its first full statement on what Iraqi officials called a major battle with a messianic cult south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said on Monday that 100 militants were captured in the operation.
It made no mention of Iraqi officials' accounts of 200-300 cult followers killed in nearly 24 hours of fighting near the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf.



And the surge begins.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Iraq War Philosophy

http://phil157.blogspot.com/2007/01/lecture-notes-wk-2.html
If the text is copied into blogger, it won't show "1." or "2." or "A." or etc.

It's lecture notes from a course.

It states philosophy for going/not going to war with Iraq. The ideas, questions, and conclusions are a must-read

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Life in Iraq



This picture is so saddening. Think about it; too often do we just pass it by, accept it as life. The media has changed how people think of things. Imagine the pain he's experiencing. Imagine the pain his family will or already is experiencing. His life will never be the same. It is so horrible.


Friday, January 26, 2007

Unknown Unknowns

There are known knowns; there things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns--the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld, philosopher

Bush's Reform

Recently, more and more often Bush has been admitting mistakes and being more conciliatory. In his surge speech, President Bush admitted mistakes in Iraq. Earlier this week, he agreed to let a special court monitor his wiretapping program. In the State of the Union, he backed down on global warming, and is beginning to address it. The Reform started when Bush fired Rumsfeld. Not only did this get rid of a hard-liner, it itself was a reform. Anyone else notice Cheney has been pretty quiet recently? Cheney and Rumsfeld were a major part of the problem. Now that Rumsfeld is gone and Cheney is being less of an extremist, the Reform has begun and there’s a much higher probability this presidency can be salvaged.

UPDATE:
Bush: “I'm the decision-maker.” Sound familiar? When calls for Rumsfeld to be fired where echoing around the country, the President said basically this exact same thing. Then he gave in. While talking about his surge plan, he said this. And he’ll probably at least partially give in on this topic too. Eventually. President Bush has a need to show that he is in control. He will often try to show that he is in control, but will ultimately concede and fail miserably. He hasn’t listened to the Iraq Study Group, (temporarily) refused to fire Rumsfeld, and has extended presidential power many times. His attempts to show that he is in control are endless. He has to learn to accept that he can’t always have what he wants. With Democrats in control of Congress conciliation is required now more then ever.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Bulls-Eye

“The President listened too much to the Vice President…Of course, the President bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.”

Sen. John McCain to Politico.com

Exactly.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Romney vs. Romney

Moderate Mitt, the man who ran for governor, debates Mitt2008
The different views of Mitt Romney.

Summary of State of the Union 2007

Here’s a little outline of the State of the Union speech last night.

But first, some analysis.

If you actually listened last night (some people “boycotted”), most of it sounded like a shopping list.

Most of the time, Bush states his goal, but not how he’s going to do it. He knows his destination, but it looks like Mapquest is down.

Most of this is proposals, but some of it is ideas that have been put into effect that the media hasn’t reported much of.
-------------------------------------------------
I. Economy
A. Federal Deficit
- Plan for it to be gone in 5 years
B. Earmarks
- Cut in half this session
C. Renew Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
II. Education
A. Students should be able to switch schools/Superintendents should be able to fix schools
B. More money for struggling students
C. Reauthorize No Child Left Behind
III. Healthcare
A. Standard Tax Deduction
- Families with health insurance will pay no income taxes or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income
- Single households with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes for $7,500 of their income
B. States that provide everyone with basic health insurance should get extra federal money
C. Expand Health Savings account
D. Association of Health Planning
E. Price transparency
F. Medical liability reform
IV. Immigration
A. Temporary worker program
B. “Without Amnesty”
V. Energy
A. Alternative Energy
- Ethanol, clean coal
B. Reduce gas usage by 20% in 10 years
C. Mandatory Fuel Standard
D. Double the capacity of the strategic petroleum reserves
VI. Judges
A. “Give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor”
VII. Terrorism\Iraq
A. What’s happened with terrorism since 9/11
B. Surge
C. Bipartisan special advisory council on the war on terror
D. Volunteer civilian reserve Corps.
VIII. Africa\AIDS
A. Funding for people with AIDS
B. Millennium Challenge Account

The full text of his speech can be found here.

E-mail

Last year Bush's approval rating wasn't 28%. Fox probably won't, but CNN and some other less conservative stations probably will show the SOTU. Well, "We the People", are just going to have to hope 2008 comes soon.
----- Original Message -----
From: *****************
To: worldthoughts@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:55 PM
Not one network was brave enough to show the protestors outside of the White House during Bush's last speech; Do you think anyone will be brave enough tonight? "We the People" should have a say in war that is costing millions an hour,
and bankrupting the USA don't you think? I'm protesting by tuning OUT tonight at 9pm.

*****
********

$0.01

GDAEman notes something interesting:
http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2007/01/team-bush-theyre-iving-it-away.html

This is funny and revealing.

The price says it all:

Team Bush : Leadership Lessons from the Bush White House

(Hardcover)

by Donald F. Kettl61 used & new available from $0.01

http://www.amazon.com/Team-Bush-Leadership-Lessons-White/dp/0071416331

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Militarization--in Space and in China

There hasn’t been a lot of blog activity on China’s anti-satellite (ASAT) test. There isn’t a lot to say about it, but it’s not as simple as it seems at first glance.

First of all, the destroyed satellite is now hundreds of pieces of space junk. This poses a problem not only to other satellites, but also manned and unmanned spacecraft. This is the immediate concern. However, there are much more serious implications.

The U.S. hasn’t tested anti-satellite weapons in over 20 years. And the main reason isn’t space rubble. If there’s another arms race, who knows what would happen. Maybe this time, democracy and freedom wouldn’t triumph. Although Bush asserts the rights to “freedom of action in space,” the U.S. doesn’t want a militarized space. 25% of satellites in space are American, commercial or military. Attacks on satellites would blind the military and bleed the economy. But wait, there’s more.

The warnings to China not to militarize space have an extra message that the media hasn’t been reporting. Basically: We don’t want a war, stop arming yourself.

The media hasn’t been reporting this, and it should be reported more. China may be the most powerful country soon. Don’t forget, China is ruled by a single-party Communist government. Chinese militarization and space militarization are both dangerous. Together, there could be problems…

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Wiretapping

Administration to let court monitor domestic spying

This was an extremely smart political and legal move. This backs up the Administration legally, because they have to get a warrant for wiretapping. Politically, challengers can't do anything, because he has legal rights to do it. And, they can still wiretap on most people they want to. It's a special court that will be monitoring the domestic spying. Don't think they will be ultra-restrictive; They will give out most of the warrants requested.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Military Looking at Financial Records

Instead of a long post, here's a link to a long post on Poliblogger about the Pentagon viewing the banking and credit records of hundreds of people. It says everything needed to be said.

Take an especially careful look at #2. "The Military Can’t (and Shouldn’t) Do Everything". The military doesn't need to do everything. It's already stretched too thin. There are other agencies to do that. The military is needed in Iraq, not in banks.

For everything else, see the Poliblogger post.

Obama, Presidential Race

Reuters: Obama wades into 2008 White House race

So, Obama has finally entered the race. He has a lot of support right now, along with McCain on the Republican side. It doesn’t matter yet.

First of all, candidate’s opinions haven’t been totally expressed yet. Most of the candidates are at least partially running on personality (Obama). And even their true personalities don’t come out except under situations where they think no one is watching (“Macaca” moment).

Secondly, candidates haven’t had the chance to mess up yet. The prime example, of course, is Howard Dean.

But most importantly, situations will change. Especially Iraq. McCain has been a prime proponent of the surge in Iraq. If this fails, it will probably send him to the bottom of the polls. If it works wonderfully, his popularity will skyrocket. That’s just an example. Something big could happen, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, another Israeli war, perhaps this time with Syria or Iran rather than Hezbollah. Would the election be the same? Of course not.

Surplus? Since When?

Iran, China exploit U.S. military surplus supermarket
Since when has there been surplus? Wasn't the Army and Marines requesting more money to repair equipment?

Monday, January 15, 2007

Surge in Diplomacy

Finally! An article about the surge. (Sorry how long it took.)

Courtesy Boston Globe




Take a look at this comparison of Bush’s plan and the Iraq Study Group’s report. Analyze it. Don’t over analyze it. What do you notice? Most of Bush’s plan does NOT do what the Study Group recommends. Bush plans an increase in troops in Iraq. The report says “We do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence.” Bush didn’t propose direct talks with Iran or Syria. The report says a “new diplomatic offensive … should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran and Syria among them.”

This doesn’t mean a surge is the wrong thing to do. The Iraq Study Group is not God, and the Iraq Study Group Report the Bible/Quran/Torah/etc. The report says don’t withdraw right away, or stay the course, or increase the number of troops, or divide the country into different regions. It doesn’t say what to do with the troops right now. It says staying the course is unacceptable, but what is supposed to be done militarily? It doesn’t say.

The level of troops should remain the same. The diplomacy and what the troops are doing is what should be done differently. Valiant coalition forces should play a supporting role to the Iraqi army and police, and should help rebuild communities in Iraq, unlike what former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld believed. President Bush should begin talks with Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries. Diplomacy is where the Iraq Study Group’s report should be referenced.

For now, with the surge already beginning, we’ll just have to be optimistic and hopeful. But diplomatic action can still be taken. It needs to be taken.

Not Again...

Botched hanging in Iraq arouses Arab suspicions

Déjà vu anybody?

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Iran War?

The American people, and I assume the Congress, expect the president to do what is necessary to protect our forces.

-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in response to if she believes the president has constitutional authority to pursue across the border into Iran or Syria

Glenn Greenwald recently published an article about the expansion of the Iraq war, and how it’s leading to a war with Iran. The Iranians detained recently, how Iran is supplying terrorists in Iraq, how the U.S. is going to stop the supplying (“We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria”), etc. are some of the reasons he gives to support that Bush is preparing for a war. All of that is true, but does not mean that there will be a war. Maybe Bush is just getting more confrontational. Also, his article states that the Iranians who were “kidnapped” were “kidnapped” out of the Iranian embassy. They weren’t. They were detained from a consulate, which is a lesser form of an embassy, but isn’t an embassy. All of this true, there will be no war. The key reason there won’t be a war yet is that the army is stretched too thin. Even with the proposed enlargement, it will be at least a couple of years before the expansion is complete. Unless Iran outright attacks the U.S. and claims responsibility, instead of just supplying weapons, there will be no war.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Upgrade!

Upgraded blog :)

American Embassy in Greece Attack

Via CNN: Leftist Group Claims Responsibility for Attacks on the American Embassy in Greece

At least there were no casualties. A group called the Revolutionary Struggle has claimed responsibility. They say they are the heir to November 17, a Marxist terrorist group. N17, as they were sometimes called, disliked the U.S. backed military government in Greece. But unlike in N17's time, Greece is ruled by a democratic government. Their problem is with America, and "American Globalization." Ironically, the only thing the U.S. is exporting nowadays is democracy, not any products. They have a problem with saying how their ruled?

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Who Voted Against Minimum Wage Increase?

Via CNN: The Democratic-controlled House votes 315-116 to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

Who voted against it and why? That's a really good way for politicians to get votes...Except from big company execs

E-mail to the Cafferty File

This is actually yesterday's 5:00 Cafferty File question. Posting was temporarily down yesterday.
************************************************

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
Should the United States launch attacks on al Qaeda members in Somalia?

If given permission by Somalia and the U.S. has sufficient intel on where the terrorists are, attacks should be carried out. Not only does it show U.S. power in region, it shows that America can still exert its influence when it needs to. Still, it must be carrid out with exact precision; The United States does NOT need another war on its hands.

Monday, January 08, 2007

U.S. Bombs Al-Qaeda Militants in Somalia

U.S. Bombs Al-Qaeda Militants in Somalia
Good, or bad?

Good:

  • Al Qaeda militants possibly dead
  • Shows U.S. influence and capability in the region and world
Bad:
  • The U.S. does NOT need another war on its hands
  • There will most likely be some civilian casualties, leading to calls for Jihad

E-mail to the Cafferty File

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
A top U.S. commander in Iraq says it might take another "two or three years" to gain the upper hand in the war. Are you willing to wait that long?

To put it simply: yes. If anything can be salvaged from this disastrously handled war, three years doesn't seem that long. Lebanon is being over run by Hezbollah; without it, democracy will deteriorate even more quickly than it is now (no thanks to the Iraq war). And, as the general said, if the American people have hope, they will be more supportive of the war.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Troop Surge?

This week, President Bush is expected to announce a new policy of a surge of troops in Iraq. Not agreeing with or disagreeing with, if this is his plan, there are some things Bush has to realize. If he does do this, and only if he does do this, he can't just send in a couple thousand troops. He has to send in a lot. 25,000 to 30,000 would be best. And it has to be sustainable. If this goes on for only six months, and then the number of troops is reduced to the current number, the only success will be weakening Iraq’s forces. That’s different then if after six months U.S. forces begin to withdraw all troops. That would be a complete change of course. Sustainable and many. If the Bush Administration chooses a troop surge, they are key.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

The First 100 Hours

House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi and her top aides have outlined a full agenda for Democrats' first 100 legislative hours in power, starting after members of the 110th Congress are sworn in today. Pelosi has vowed to complete work on those items before President Bush delivers his State of the Union address on Jan. 23.

Today and tomorrow

Ethics and lobbying reform, including ban on gifts and travel paid for by lobbying organizations, and a requirement that all privately funded travel be pre-approved by the House Ethics Committee.

Earmark reform, including a requirement that House members publicly acknowledge special projects they are seeking.

"Pay-as-you-go" budgeting, requiring any increase in spending to be offset with a revenue enhancement or budget cut.

Week of Jan. 8

Enact 9/11 Commission recommendations, including enhanced cargo screening and ensuring better communication among first responders to emergencies.

Increase the federal minimum wage, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.

Expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, overriding the president's restrictions on such funding.

Permit Medicare to negotiate with drug companies, to bring potentially lower prices to program participants.

Week of Jan. 15

Cut student loan interest rates in half.

Repeal tax cuts for big oil companies, to create a pool to fund renewable energy initiatives.

Monday, January 01, 2007

Hussein's Execution

There wasn't enough time to publish the article on Saddam's execution before the execution, especially because it was still during the holidays. So instead of typing up a long version of the opinion, here's a short version. Of course, the ex-dictator has already been executed, so the article is almost pointless to read, but...
---------------------------------------------------------------

If the death of Saddam Hussein was the birth of a new Iraq, then Iraq was born premature. Let's make this clear: Iraqi courts ruled Hussein should be executed for his crimes in Dujail, so when the time is right, Saddam should be executed. The time wasn't right. Hussein wasn't convicted for and didn't even start the trial for some of his worst crimes, such as the murders of over 100,000 Kurds. Everyone effected in some way by his cruelness is probably still happy about his death, but wouldn't you be a bit happier if you knew that the Iraqi courts recognized the slaughter of your family and friends?