[POLL] Who Would You Vote For In The French Elections

Don't forget to comment!

Who do you support in the upcoming French elections?
	Segolene Royal
	Nicolas Sarkozy
	Neither
pollcode.com free polls

What's the Big Deal With The Iraq Wall?

Instead of reading a post from this blog today, read this post from Iraq The Model. It has to do with the 'controversial' wall in Iraq. Omar is completely right; the wall isn't that big of a deal and it is going to be effective. Build it.

Should Pelosi Have the Power to Decide to Impeach or Not?

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.
------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to impeachment, is it up to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to decide if it's "off the table"?

No, it’s up to the will of the people. We elected her; shouldn’t we decide? But if you were to base off the House of Representatives, no. Not all reps were created equal, but all have the power to put out a bill, of impeachment or not.

Post of the Month:April

The Post of the Month for April is...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.

4 Plans That WON'T Fix Illegal Immigration

While Congress debates the best way to solve illegal immigration, blogs around the Internet are trying to find ways that will work. Illegal immigration is wrong. It has to be stopped, but there are some ideas that will not work.

1. End ALL immigration for five years
Ending immigration for even five years would be disastrous for the country. They say there is a brain drain in Iraq because of the violence, but imagine how bad it would be here. Not allowing any new minds to enter the U.S. is one of worst things you could do to the economy, especially with China and India on the rise.

2. Send the military to the border to stop the immigrants
“Let's put soldiers on the border to stop the illegals.” Sounds like a good idea, right? It's not. The army is stretched thin. We can barely get enough soldiers to Iraq. Even sending the National Guard wouldn't be right.

3. English only policies, ballots, and schools
English only policies would only alienate illegal immigrants and not encourage them to assimilate and become citizens. America is the melting pot. The fact that it is a combination of so many cultures is what makes it beautiful.

4. Build the fence!
Will the fence really be effective? Maybe it would be, but maybe it would just waste money and valuable congressional time. A fence is just a fence. It can be broken, climbed over, dug under, or be walked around. The proposed fence would supposedly have no holes. That's not even plausible.


For the best way to fix illegal immigration, see this post.

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

Email With A Global Warming Denier

This is an email exchange with writer Tim Ball who published this story denying that global warming exists. The first email is at the top, and the last email at the bottom.
--------------------------------------------


On 2/27/07, Simmons wrote:
In response to Dr. Tim Ball, http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
You want proof? Here's your proof:
http://thethoughtsontheworld.blogspot.com/2007/02/factsheet.html
Where's your proof that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas? You have no evidence while claiming people that believe global warming exists have no evidence.


On 2/27/07, Tim Ball wrote:
Would please read what I wrote. I never ever said CO2 wasn't agreenhouse gas. What I said was there is no evidence other than inthe useless computer models that it is causing climate change now orin the past. And that comment is applied to the total CO2. the human portion is so miniscule a part of the natural CO2 that it is wellwithin the error of of the estimate of how much CO2 there is in theatmosphere.I don't mind criticism, even if, as is usually the case, the person doesn't know what they are talking about. I just prefer it beaccurate and relevant.Tim Ball


On 28-Feb-07, at 12:12 PM, Simmons wrote:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKrNquElii0ORlk3ycjnb1Xrfbe3vbf1KDJBn4nHa4v1k4NXF0zcP-Ndz-jbIL3KedA48pMbsVw9wpFpL-VTOZsRkET4lEmF-BOJNRbToSG9rcWvC7t7QuizR4q5fSjhUqYHX/s320/Temp_CO2+Longterm.gif


This graph shows the carbon levels over time (in red) and temperature levels (in blue).They were taken from ice cores in Antarctica. This proves that as carbon levels varies, so does global temperature (approximately).Do you know as much about climate change as you claim?


On 2/28/07, Tim Ball wrote:
What that graph shows, as dozen of researchers have confirmed, is that the temperature changes before the CO2 not as the basic assumption of the humans causing temperature change assumes.

Here is a lot more information for you to bring yourself up to a walk on climate science.

H.L. Mencken said, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule" which surely applies to Al Gore.

Almost all politicians know little or nothing about the science of climate and climate change. This is also true of the majority of the public. Groups using this lack of understanding added to exploitation of fear have driven any consideration of the science out the window. The difference for the politician is they feel pressured to respond and they are in a position to influence policy in incredibly expensive and useless ways. If you want to read how the fear is exploited, read Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear."

The underlying thrust of the argument of climate change is that it is being caused by humans and specifically our production of CO2. This is a vehicle being used to undermine the successful way of life we have produced that has enhanced the length and quality of life in every country that has tried it. People like Maurice Strong are the heart o ftis battle. He said, "Isn't the problem with the planet the industrialized societies? Isn't it our job to eliminate them?" This man organized the Rio Conference and was amajor player at the UN from which sprang the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the sole source of evidence for global policy on climate change. They could not attack energy because too many people would protest so CO2, the byproduct of what fuels our societies and produced by those nasty evil energy companies. I am not here to defend them or anyone else. What I want is the scientific truth and everything I know shows CO2 is not the cause of global warming or climate change.
Consider the following

When I began my climate studies the consensus was impending doom because of another ice age. In a book titled, "The Cooling" by Lowell Ponte (1976) wrote,
"It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species." Change the seventh word to warming and we are hearing the same unjustified hysteria today. A more important change is the switch from global warming to climate change. Why? Because the world has cooled since 1998 while atmospheric and human CO2 has increased in direct contradiction to the theory. So we spend billions when a large section of climate scientists anticipate a much colder world by 2030.

A common problem with this entire issue of climate change is confusion between pollution and global warming or climate change.. Despite attempts to muddy the water, for example by the Canadian government listing CO2 as a toxic substance, global warming and climate change are not about pollution. Questioning the climate science does not mean there is not a recognition of or concern about clean air and water and a healthier environment.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occurring gas without which there would be no life on earth. Indeed. it is reasonable to argue that reducing CO2 is a negative move. Some salient points about CO2

1. It is at 385 ppm (bottom right side of diagram) at the lowest level in 600 million years.



Notice there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature at any point.
Research by Sherwood and Craig Idso at http://www.co2science.org/ shows most plants function best between 1000 and 1200 ppm. Commercial greenhouses are pumping these amount in and achieving four times better growth and yield with significantly less water use. This suggests the plants have evolved to that level and our now CO2 'starved.'

2. Concern that temperatures will rise with increasing CO2 are cancelled by a couple of important facts. First, the ice core covering 420,000 years shows that temperature in creases before CO2. This is in complete contradiction to the assumption that an increase in CO2 due to human will cause an increase in temperature.

3. Even if CO2 doubles or triples there is an upper limit to the amount of temperature increase that can occur because of its role as a greenhouse gas. This upper limit is set at 1.5°C, but some like Richard Lindzen believe it is less. The reason for this upper limit is because the atmosphere is close to saturation for CO2 now so any further increase will not increase its ability to 'trap' heat. A good analogy is painting a window with black paint to block the sunlight. the firsts coat achieves 98% reduction. Any subsequent coats achieve dramatically less reduction.

4. They get around this last problem in the computer models by assuming with no scientific justification a 'positive' feedback. A positive feedback in climate science means one that enhances a trend, while a negative feedback stops or reverses the trend. They assume the increase in temperature will result in increased evaporation, which will cause more heat to be trapped and temperatures to continue to rise. In fact, the amount of increased evaporation is negligible compared to the total amount already in the atmosphere. Wtaer Vapor is by far the most abundant greeenhouse gas being 95% by volume. CO2 is less than 4% by volume and the human portion of that is about 0.4%. In additon, the increased water vapour is more likely to increase cloud cover which will act as a negative feedback blocking the sun and causing cooling.

5. In Canada, from 1997 to 2006 the Auditor General reports Environment Canada pent $6 billion dollars on climate change with no results or effect whatsoever. During that same period while pollution levels declined they failed to meet their own targets and they certainly could have declined more rapidly if the $6 billion was properly spent on pollution.

Beyond this,

1. I am concerned about the fact that large segments of society, social, political and economic, are being bullied into silence by a small group of extremists even in the land of the free. They have stolen the moral high ground so that anyone who dares to question is accused of not caring about the planet, the environment or the future of the children. People are also silenced by not wanting to show their lack of understanding of what is a very complex subject. Both fear and lack of understanding are being exploited
2. The credibility of science is in jeopardy. My concern is when the public realize the extent to which they have been misled, sadly deliberately in many cases, they will not believe anything they are told and real issues will not be dealt with. I wrote an article with the title "What happens when Chicken Little cries Wolf?" to summarize the problem

A few sources you can follow include our own web page at,

http://www.nrsp.com/

I also helped set up and remain an advisor behind the scenes for Friends of Science at

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Two other sites I recommend include a more scientific one at with much material on the global average annual temperature

http://www.co2science.org/

If you want more in depth discussion about the manipulation of data visit the site of Steve McInytyre who exposed the "hockey stick" fraud. You will find extensive discussion here on the latest "adjustments to the temperature record, which, in my opinion border on malfeasance.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

and a more general one at

http://www.junkscience.com/

You can use the links provided on these sites to lead you to other material
Here are ten excellent newspaper articles with good information.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=17fad0e2-6f6b-41f3-bdd8-8e9eeb015777&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0

I hope this helps you understand what is happening as fear and lack of understanding among people and politicians is exploited and we are driven toward terrible and unnecessary policies that divert from the real issues like clean air and clean water.

I am concerned about several things but two in particular.
1. I am concerned about the fact that large segments of society, social, political and economic, are being bullied into silence by a small group of extremists even in the land of the free. They have stolen the moral high ground so that anyone who dares to question is accused of not caring about the planet, the environment or the future of the children. People are also silenced by not wanting to show their lack of understanding of what is a very complex subject. Both fear and lack of understanding are being exploited
2. The credibility of science is in jeopardy. My concern is when the public realize the extent to which they have been misled, sadly deliberately in many cases, they will not believe anything they are told and real issues will not be dealt with. I wrote an article with the title "What happens when Chicken Little cries Wolf?" to summarize the problem.
Why have senior scientists continued to deny the evidence?
Tolstoi had a comment on this conundrum.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Regards

Tim Ball

On 2/28/07, Simmons wrote:

The graph does not show that temperature changes before CO2. That is just plain wrong.

In response to "global cooling" (which all global warming deniers consistently bring up): Science and technology has evolved so much since the 40s. First of all, computers. There has been so many advances, they're countless.

Your graph is absolutely incorrect. In the other graph, if one looks closely in the top right corner, one can see a red spike with no temperature following behind it. This is proof that temperature doesn't follow CO2 and and that CO2 levels are spiking.

In respond to your factual claim that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas: you're right. Water vapor accounts for 67% of the natural greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is responsible for 60% of the enhanced greenhouse effect (which you don't believe exists). That can be seen here (PDF).

Why do you continue to deny the evidence and scientist consensus?

State, National Governments And Health Care

The Constitution currently does not give the federal government the right to have a universal health care program. It specifically says in the 10th Amendment that any rights not stated in the Constitution belong to city and state government. There would need to be an amendment before Hillary OR John Edwards could start their health care plans.

There's no way new taxes are going to be enough for a national health care plan.

States should have their own health care plans, not the federal government.

Don't misunderstand; everyone should have health care. It's just that currently the government can't legally do it, and they won't have enough money to do it.

Global Warming--The Truth Revealed

Based on yesterday's Global Warming poll, it looks like some people need to catch up on the facts.

Here’s a short summary of what’s happening in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide molecules have 3 atoms: 1 carbon, 2 oxygen. This makes it a greenhouse gas. Gases with 3 molecules or more are greenhouse gases. Why do they have to have 3 atoms, you ask? 3 atoms make them just big enough to block stop radiation from leaving the atmosphere. To explain this, you need to know about the greenhouse effect.

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.

There is no question, even among global warming doubters, that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. CO2 is the biggest cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect, or man made global warming. Global warming doubters will say, “What about water vapor, the most common greenhouse gas?!” It is true that water vapor is the biggest cause of the natural greenhouse effect. Why doesn’t water vapor contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect? Because of saturation. The air can only hold so much water. There is always the same amount of water on Earth because of this and because of the water cycle. Therefore, water vapor always contributes the same amount to the greenhouse effect no matter what.

More can be found at Thoughts on the World and a lot more can be found here.

The Real Deal For Iraq

The real deal for Iraq should be somewhere in the middle of the moderate Democrats plans and the moderate Republicans plans.

In the current bill, the troop pullout is attached to funding. They should be separate bills. Congress has the ability to stop a war, and it doesn't have to be through funding. It's happened before: Vietnam.

Reading the previous paragraph, one could correctly guess that the Real Deal involves the pullout of American troops from Iraq. Troops shouldn't and can't be pulled out immediately; That's just not smart. But, as even the President has said, our commitment should not be open ended. The plan would include a major force reduction by the middle and end of 2009. Not a complete withdrawal; a force of at least 10,000 would need to remain stationed there, if not more.

So you're beginning to think this sounds exactly like the troop plan that's already a bill. Here's where it's different: Congress (with the president's approval, of course) can decide to extend the time until the pull out or begin the pull out earlier based on certain conditions. These conditions would be based on casualty rates, causes of casualties, amount of Iraqi civilian deaths, and whatever else Congress deems necessary. The more success, the earlier troops would be pulled out. This is the opposite of the Pelosi Plan. But not only this, if the war begins to go extremely badly, the troops would be pulled out earlier. The definition of extremely would be dictated by the number of U.S. casualties. And if Iraqi civilian deaths increased, while American deaths remained the same or lowered, Congress would have the option of extending the pullout date.
------------------------------------------------
Or something like that. This was basically a rough draft, an idea that's been swishing around. The plan's not complete yet.

Maybe not even like that at all. Being sick doesn't allow you write very good posts ;).

UPDATE: This Boston Globe editorial says it much more clearly.

[POLL] Is Global Warming Real?

Don't forget to comment.

Do you believe Global Warming is real and or caused by humans?
	It's real and caused by humans
	It's real, but it's not caused by humans
	The Earth isn't warming
	Not sure
pollcode.com free polls

Bush Is Finally Doing It Right In Iran

For once, the Bush Administration (note: without Rumsfeld) may actually be doing something right. Sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and military pressure are all pushing the right buttons.

The push for sanctions at the U.N. shows that the world is united against Iran’s nuclear program. Of course the sanctions will never make life horrible, but will be an annoyance.

Militarily, things have gone well too. The United States has sent two aircraft carriers and is conducting war games in Iran’s backyard. The constant repetition of “no option can be taken off the table” will start to worry Iran eventually, if it isn’t already. Last month there was constant attention by the media and by blogs on the possibility of a war with Iran. That’s probably getting them a little freaked out too.

But the most important thing is that the U.S. must NOT go to war with Iran. The results would be disastrous. Increased hatred by ordinary Arabs and Persians would lead to more terrorism. And the hatred wouldn’t just be from the Middle East; Europe wouldn’t be happy either. The British hostage problem has changed the situation slightly, but not enough to justify a war.

As middleXeast calls it, "coercive diplomacy" should be the Administration's plan for dealing with Iran.

The United States must be prepared to take the lead and synthesizes these three options into a coercive diplomacy, in which the threat and use of force re treated as integral part to diplomatic bargaining.

If Iran is dealed with correctly, President Bush's approval ratings could spike. But depending how it turns out, Bush might just be adding another F to his report card.

Everyone has the Right to Bear Arms

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.: Why does a senator need to carry a loaded gun?

They probably don't, but under the Second Amendment you are allowed to. Just because you're a senator doesn't mean you don't have 2nd Amendment rights.

Even Some Republicans Want Bush Impeached

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.: What does it mean if Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is using the word "impeachment" when it comes to President Bush?

It means even some Republicans are picking up on the views of many Americans; The Bush Administration has failed "We The People". Even if it's only because he's going to run for president, at least one more Republican is listening.

UK Has Trackers on its Boats

British troops 'confessed' to incursion, Iran says

This story just gets more and more preposterous.

If the boats were in Iranian waters, the U.K .would know. They have trackers on their ships, as does the U.S. But if the British don't come out with some evidence soon, they'll essentially be saying that Iran is correct.

The U.K. has to come out with some evidence supporting its claim. If it doesn't, Iran has to come out with some evidence besides "We tortured the troops until they confessed".

What Is The IRS's Problem?

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's your biggest beef about the Internal Revenue Service?

The tax code is too complicated, causing loopholes. The code should be simplified, taxing every dollar you make, whether you donate it or not. It's simple things like that; Things that could be taken away and cause everybody a bit less trouble.