13 scary numbers about Climate Change for the 13th

Posted from the Environmental Defence Action Fund:

35%
Increase in the global carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1992.

388.57 ppm
Average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in May 2008, a record high.

541 – 970 ppm
The projected concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2100 under a business as usual scenario where we don't dramatically reduce global warming emissions.

260 – 280 ppm
Average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before industrial emissions.

50 – 200 years
Length of time carbon dioxide stays in the earth's atmosphere before it is absorbed into carbon sinks.

1000 years
Length of time changes in the earth's surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level will remain even after carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped.

34%
Percentage that 2008's Arctic seasonal sea ice melt outpaced normal levels.

70%
Increase in the rate of Greenland's ice melt over the last five years.

1.7 days
Number of days earlier seasons are coming than 50 years ago.

1.5 million
Number of acres of forests in Colorado destroyed by the pine beetle, which is better able to survive warmer winters and is wrecking havoc in America's western forests.

$427 million
Amount spent by the oil and coal industries in the first six months of 2008 in political contributions, lobbying expenditures and advertising to oppose climate action.

0
Number of global warming bills passed by the Senate.

0
Number of global warming bills passed by the House.



See here for the full article and sources.

Stop thinking, you!

I've now seen the H.R. 1955 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 bill which just passed in the House of Reps in about every internet reading place I like to go to. And, everyone is super shocked, its dubbed the thought crime bill; many understandable references to 1984. Honestly I'm shocked that so many folks are shocked, though. I parted with my first amendment rights with the Patriot Act, just like everyone else. And I watched as the fear that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act would be used to prosecute peaceful AR activists, become a reality as the SHAC 7 and many other good folks found themselves in jail. Putting a web site up has already got people in trouble, this is hardly anything new. It's an essential dictatorships last lingering leap for finger holds into American law. I'm pretty sure it's only going to get worse. Hell, Gravel can't even go to debates now. I don't even like him, but I want him back. Keep the illusion up for folks that anyone can run for president. I do like though, how now all these ultra republican publications are getting worried about this, and totally seem to think that it is aimed at targeting them. That does get me laughing.



P.S: I don't think about any action, or inaction ever, and actually this blog is just random letters that my fingers type from time to time and I'm so a patriot and love our troops. So, you know, I don't and will never do anything this bill says I shouldn't do.

I lose stuff too, but it's never really been that bad

I can appreciate that it is generally difficult to sometimes keep track of things, particularly when you try and move a lot of stuff at once. I seem to have left a souvenir at every hotel I've stayed at (a little gift to the maids, maybe, if you will). But it is 99 percent of the time, little things that didn't really make it too high on my list of priorities. I have a few things that seem valuable to me, so I make it a point to keep track of them. Cell phone? Check. Ipod? Check. Sunny Care Bear flip-flops I found for less then a buck in LA? Check. If I had a gun, or something with the possibility to kill mass people, that would also totally make that list.

So, it really confuses me when it's revealed that, (a) about two hundred thousand things with the potential to kill people are missing, and (b) it takes about two years for this to really be realized. When this first broke, I figured that I must grossly be underestimating how much weapons are being used in the first place. Several different sources are phrasing it as thirty percent though. We don't know where almost a third of our weapons are?? I need to find a word that means even less then incompetent, because this is so far below that word. Incompetent is the word I use to describe the new waitress's ability to effectively clean dishes. I need something greater when I try and conceptualize what not knowing where this many AK-47s are means.

What makes me even more shocked, is that a lot of folks when they talk about how frustrated it makes them, center an anger not at the damage said weapons could, and probably are, doing; but that their tax dollars are being wasted. I think about money fairly often; a lot of people on tight budgets probably do. But it is a new low of the American egotistical psyche to hear about loss weapons in Iraq, and to be worried about their wallet, not about the people who are most likely being shot because we have so much shit over in Iraq, we can't keep track of it.

That's okay: I didn't want to be paid the same amount as dudes anyways

In an America where you can sue a dry cleaner to the tune of 67 million dollars for a lost pair of pants, I'm finding it impossible to conceive that similar retribution has been made virtually impossible for victims of pay discrimination.

180 days to file a claim relating to such an issue is a joke; and the plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter is the personification of this problem, as it took nineteen years before it was realized she was getting paid forty percent less then the lowest paying male supervisor (see this fantastic article).

Justice Ginsburg puts it correctly in her dissent saying, "In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination...Title VII was meant to govern real-world employment practices, and that world is what the court today ignores."

The Grossman and Brake article states, "An employer could pay a woman less than her male counterparts for her entire career, and admit that the reason for doing so is because she is female, as long as the decision to set the discriminatory wage happened at least six months earlier. This rule places untenable burdens on employees and circumvents Title VII's substantive protection against pay discrimination."

Will I ever sue because of a pay discrepancy? Probably not. I like to believe, though, when ever I'm in a tough situation that the law "is on my side" and works most of the time (I know, I know; how I manage to sometimes so romanticize 'the law', even baffles me at this point) . But that romanticism is what gave me the strength to tell my boss' supervisor when I worked at the dinning hall, that they couldn't simply change the names of our foreign exchange students to something "American" because my boss couldn't pronounce their real name, and not think I would get fired. (Oh, the good ole days when I knew nothing about 'big corporation' and the ability of an employer to make you want to leave)

This takes so many steps backwards towards getting the pay gap closed. It's something that makes me struggle to find an area where the law is, in fact, "on my side" when they seem to care about an already rich guys pants over low paying workers trying to get through the every day. Yes, these two cases aren't in a direct competition at all, but the fact that the first case can exist while the second is now shut down, is extremely disheartening.

Ode to Dennis Kucinich

My eagerness and enthusiasm leading up to the first democratic debate ended up to have so many disappointing moments. I like Obama, in the sense I suppose, that I acknowledge it is probably going to be the best outcome I can reasonably hope for. More so then I even like him, is my want to really like him, which I suppose inevitably starts to complicate things. I like what I saw as an honest enthusiasm for the issues he likes to talk about, and especially his work on disclosing the stuff that the government is doing (ie being able to go online and see where exactly tax dollars are spent).

I've never really heard too many long speech segments made by him however, and I was really uncomfortable with too many of his answers for me to want to start giving him my one and only vote that I get in this whole thing. I also didn't like (on a more general note) how the candidates went out of their way to seem like they were agreeing with each other, in an attempt to, I can only fathom, try not to step on other folk's toes too early; but that was supposed to be the point of this whole exercise.

This leads to my secret candidate coming out and saving the day; Dennis Kuchinich. At this point, I'm so biased I almost can't tell people he's number one on my list without smiling. Even pushing aside the awesome work he's done for the AR movement, showing and constantly pointing out the link of how animal cruelty leads to humyn violence, recognizing the crisis our climate is in, and backing up everything he advocates by being vegan, and having a shockingly consistent voting record--breathe, yes, besides all that (the issues that I feel closest too, but understand don't hit very high on other folk's level of importance)-- I think he has an array of innovative and workable answers on many other issues such as immigration, energy, and education.

For anyone silly enough to have missed the action, you can follow along here-
www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042707-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html

It will please me immensely to put my top problems with the candidates (specifically towards Obama in general, only because he is my next "go to" person, so to speak) in list form, with how Kucunich solved the problem for me:

1. I am uneasy with how Obama seems to answer questions with "run around the issue" answers that makes no clear articulation where he stands. Or attempts to push the topic to a place where he feels more comfortable, or has more solutions.
   

MODERATOR:
Senator Obama, on this same topic, what about your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

OBAMA: You know, I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy...Now, there is a broader issue, though. And that is can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in the circumstances where they've got to anguish over these decisions.

Those are areas where I think we can all start mobilizing and move forward rather than look backwards.

Verses:

KUCINICH: But the truth of the matter is, it's possible, I believe, to take a course of action where you can get all the people of America in support of a culture of life which includes prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, universal health care, a living wage, all those things that give support to life.

a) Obama's response that we need to talk about abortion in terms of some ridiculously linking teen pregnancy issue where, "we do agree on" is atrocious. Nothing is going to be solved by side stepping to some ground deemed "safe". Debate needs to happen; there needs to be a discussion in which the harms are out in the open, where we are having a conversation about what it means when abortion is "legal" yet inaccessible to too many people, where the teen-age mothers Obama vaguely references are forced to let their fate fall into the hands of their parents, and what waiting 24 hours and listening to a stereo typed and simplified speech about abortion, really gains (personally, still searching for this last one...)

b)I'm not trying to say that Kucinich really scored too many points exactly on this particular point either, but as many have pointed out in examining the debate (talking unfortunately about other people, not him) , he won it by not losing; in this case, not pretending that it's simply a matter of stopping womyn from being in the position to make this decision in the first place.

2. I'm confused as to what Obama is actually proposing in terms of resolving the war.

OBAMA: ...there's no military solution to this. We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.

Verses:

MODERATOR: Congressman Kucinich, do you think one can be against the war and yet still fund it?

KUCINICH: No. I think it's inconsistent to tell the American people that you oppose the war and, yet, you continue to vote to fund the war. Because every time you vote to fund the war, you're reauthorizing the war all over again...Furthermore, I don't think that it's sufficient to say that if we had the information at the beginning that we would have voted differently. That information was available to everyone. And, if you made the wrong choice, we're auditioning here for president of the United States. People have to see who had the judgment and the wisdom not to go to war in the first place, and I made the choice not to go to war.

a)What is his political solution? Reading other bits from where he talks about his plan, I've gathered he wants it to obviously end, and there is a bunch of troops being pulled out; but how is troop removal a political solution? According to his web site some troops will remain to "engage in counter-terrorism" ...which sounds suspiciously like what we are doing now, only with a few less people. If he really believes the war is "dumb", why would this still be going on? I am much more ready to listen to Kucinich's 'peacekeepers' without, you know, guns and other weapons that usually make talking harder, to try and resolve things.

3. You've got to be able to defend what you're doing, and why you are doing it; and then stick with it.

MODERATOR:
You've promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals. Aren't you practicing the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?

OBAMA: Well, not all, (emphasis added) we have thousands of donors. This donor engaged in some ethical (sic) behavior and I have denounced it. But I have a track record of bringing people around this new kind of politics, since I was in the state legislature.

Verses:

MODERATOR: "show of hands" question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?Let's try Congressman Kucinich. Why is your hand not up?

KUCINICH: Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, the United States participating in the chemical weapons convention, the biological weapons convention, the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty.

a)Direct questions need direct answers for me to believe what they are saying. I don't like fancy footwork that aims to distract from what is being discussed.

4. Seriously: Edwards spends $400 on his haircuts?

(even Kucinich couldn't resolve this problem, however)

A campaign I can believe in

I get side tracked whenever I do debate work. Seriously sidetracked. An impossibly smart freshman turned up to cut cards with me today (which I won't, won't, won't keep calling him the New Kid), and I ended up not actually using the computer I was in front of, but talking to him about the topic, and all sorts of debate-ish things--but not actually work, at all. So I still haven't even decided which case I would really like to do, but shockingly just thinking pessimistically about reasons it should stay the same. Go neg.

My class was only thirty minutes, because apparently our teacher is the chief of staff for Marc Coppola, and has readily admitted to us that keeping his job after September 12th is more important then class. Mark one up for honesty, at least. This meant I could go to the library and restart my task of researching and working for debate. So in one of my articles, that was trying to talk about abortion, it mentioned off handedly the Unity08 party. Which I remembered hearing about again only in passing, and decided this was a worthy side track to wander to.

I'm oddly into and for it. While I was (am?) reasonably satisfied with being a democrat, maybe especially so as I was for once in a type of situation where I am not in an abnormally large minority; I really like Unity's stance on politics in general, and on more issues then I ever found in the dem camp. I think it will give me a much more optimistic point of view over the whole procedure, instead of negatively just always thinking that government is corrupt and it does a lot of shady shit, and that it is always going to be that way. Perhaps too optimistic, but I think it will work out. I wish they would bump gun control and gay rights up a little bit in terms of what they view as priorities, but I also think a lot of issues are important.

http://www.unity08.com/

So, to sum everything up for everybody I guess; don't be surprised if you get an email demanding you sign up for the campaign. Hey, I got a free bumper sticker for it.

To nuke or not to nuke?? Apparently it's a question...

I saw some of this circulating yesterday, but I was too much in WTF mode to say anything productive and just vent disparagingly about the newest news update.

from:
http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=36124

"one option still on the table is the use of tactical nuclear weapons to ensure
the destruction of well-protected Iranian nuclear facilities. "

This takes eye for an eye justice to new levels. Shit, they have nuclear facilities; how do we get rid of them? I know-- we'll use our nuclear missiles on them. This sounds so counter intuitive and utterly ridiculous, even for this government, that I have to take it with a little skepticism.

Too many people are coming out and saying that this isn't an option they are pursuing, for me to start adding this to my daily worries. Even if it was something they were considering, they aren't going to be dropping any nukes any time soon with about a million statements saying using them would be, ahem... "nuts" (oh Mr. Straw, you're such a tricky linguist).

from:
http://http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/hersh.access/index.html?section=cnn_latest

"BLITZER: So your sources have concluded basically that the diplomatic
option as it's going forward is not necessarily going to work?
HERSH: That's the fear. The fear is that we're back to the pre-Iraqi invasion game when we went through the U.N. exercise. The fear is that the White House, there's
some people in the White House who aren't really, no matter what happens
diplomatically, they don't believe Iran's going to give up its ambitions."

Ironic that the word fear appears in every sentence of his answer? I think not. I think this a huge part of the problem. On top of the possible threat of nuclear weapons and the histaria that creates, we have the man who has been the front runner of these reports, adding more baggage to the claim. I feel like all he is saying is: In case you didn't get the message--be afraid. Not only is your government contemplating nukes but some of them want to use them.

Obviously I'm anti this administration. To an obscene degree. Even when I try to say to myself, hey it's not that bad; I find myself being proved wrong. But to say that there are people in the White House who want, and who will, use nuclear weapons on Iran regardless of what Iran does is ridiculous. Even the worst person in the administration, has the knowledge of what sort of public backlash using nukes would create, and they would not create this frivously. If for nothing else, nobody wants bad press, and this would be the epitome of that.

I really had a decent amount of respect for Seymour Hersh's writing and reporting abilities, but these types of answers bother me to no end. I don't think it is helpful at all to start making comparisons between past events and what is happening now, similarly to how I don't think it's cool that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being compared to Hitler (http://www.todayonline.com/articles/111736.asp). No two events are the same and when we start mixing the two different events we start changing what is happening presently. There can not be two Hitlers, and we cannot recreate the political environment pre-Iraqi invasion.