Month: June 2008

Posted on
by

A recent ice core study shows that during the last age, the Northern Hempishere briefly came out of it, before going back into it.

According to the researchers, the first abrupt warming period beginning at 14,700 years ago lasted until about 12,900 years ago, when deep-freeze conditions returned for about 1,200 years before the onset of the second sharp warming event. The two events indicate a speed in the natural climate change process never before seen in ice cores, said White, director of CU-Boulder’s Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research.

This article doesn’t address the idea of human induced climate change, but I think it’s clear a lot of the skeptics are going to point at this study and say, “Ah ha!  You see?  Nature can change very rapidly on its own.  It’s not us at all.”

I know I need to do my own further study on the issue, but this study doesn’t cut the cake for me in terms of my opinion.  I’m on the side that says we do cause it, if you wanted to know.  Besides, the study cites shifts in atmospheric circulation as the catalyst for the temperature changes (EDIT: This point is actually made unclear in the article.  I’m not sure if it is the catalyst or the other way around), and doesn’t talk about increased volume of greenhouse gases in the air.  So, the jury is still out.

Regardless, I think this study does tell us something that’s universal to climate change, be the cause an increase in greenhouse gases or atmospheric circulation.  What the above quote about doesn’t show is that the atmospheric changes may have only taken a year or two.  Whether the atmospheric changes happened before or after, one thing is clear: we’ve got to be ready.

Climate changes have been theorized to be a factor in mass human death during the Little Ice Age, so imagine what might happen if the shift is bigger this time around.  I don’t want to sound like an alarmist, but it’s pretty clear to me that human caused or not, we have to do what we can to prepare.  Even if human caused, global climate change cannot be reversed or stopped, only (possibly) slowed.  So, we’ll only be delaying the inevitable.  Humans have shown to have an amazing ability to adapt to every climate on this planet.

We (Gen-Y and beyond) need to start preparing, since we’ll be the hardest hit by anything that happens.  You know all those people in Congress? Or the guy in November who’ll be sitting in the White House?  Or the politicians in your state?  None of them will have to deal with this quite like us.  So we need to pressure them to start making plans now, or else make some of our own.

The question of whether or not humans have caused this mess are frankly irrelevant.  What we can do to be ready for what we’ll face in the future is the more important question.

Posted on
by

There’s been a lot of hoo haa recently in Congress and on some of the cable news networks about going after the speculators on the futures market.  Some say that trading oil on this market is a large contributor to the recent spike in petroleum prices, and thus, gas prices.

I’m going to be the first to admit that I don’t know a lot about the futures market myself.  I think it’s often misperceived as “this guy says oil will be $200 in four months, so watch out.”  At least, until I started doing some actual research, that was my perception.  Actually, it’s a lot more complicated than that.  Some libertarians think that Congress is frankly foolish to go after the speculators, arguing it won’t do a lot.  Tarran over at The Liberty Papers has an excellent post that should give anyone a primer on the futures market and how it affects oil prices.

I enjoyed receiving a bit of an education on the futures market, but I did notice one flaw with his post.  I’ll just cross post what I put in his comments section:

I think in the case of oil, you’re making it far too simplistic. The problem that I see is you argue that the speculators keep oil off the market to encourage more production.

The problem is that it’s not happening in this case. And until either domestic production gets ramping up again (with drilling on the continental shelf, ANWR, or whatnot), foreign producers increase their production, or both, this theory is hard to apply. I think everybody knows there’s a political aspect of it that you haven’t considered here, whether it’s the unwillingness of Congress to allow more domestic production, the war, or strained relations in the Middle East.

I think what is written here would work for a commodity not so politically embroiled. It’d be perfect in a true laissez-faire society, but in reality, it’s a lot more complicated.

Yet, after reading his explanation, and watching Jim Cramer talk about it on MSNBC’s Hardball today, I’m now very skeptical that an attack on the speculators will actually do much about the problem.

So, back to the drawing board. One that obviously needs a combination of increased domestic production of oil, advances in synthetic oil, as well as research and production of renewable fuels. Then just the consumer decide. Like I said on another blog the other day, if drilling in ANWR or on the continental shelf really does take 10 years to yield results, consumers will probably grow sick of the wait, and then be clamoring for ethanol or something else.

Speaking of ethanol, hope we see that highly touted switchgrass on the scene soon.  I’ve got a feeling Bush is getting a kickback out of suggesting it as the source, but at this point, I really don’t care.  Better than corn, and most everything else, from what I’ve been reading.

Posted on
by

Evoking fear as an emotion is apparently not a tactic reserved for Republicans in this election cycle.  Why, you ask?

Well, today the House passed an amendment to the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence (FISA) Act of 1975.  Among the bills big points are an end to the warrantless wiretapping that has been such a scandal for the Bush administration for the past couple of years.  All requests must go through the FISA court.  However, the controversial section of the bill calls for retroactive immunity for telecom companies that cooperated with the administration since 2001.  The bill also gives investigators the ability to pursue broader warrants, so that they won’t have to request one per target.

I think overall the bill is probably the best either side is ever going to get.  I’m a little torn on the immunity for the telecoms.  I don’t think that they were acting with the nefarious intentions some liberals would have you believe.  Yet, do I feel my privacy had the ability to be targeted unnecessarily?  Anyone really should, given the past revelations about instances of wiretapping U.S. citizens.  My concern does not come from having anything to hide, because I don’t.  Yet, I expect a certain level of privacy and non-invasion from my government, and knowing that it could have been at risk is a little alarming, given the “all for the best” attitude coming from this administration.

So, I support this bill pretty full heartily.  Yet, there are some that won’t be happy until there is never any wiretapping.  Take this poster that smacks more of Rovian fear mongering rather than concern about civil liberties from a group of liberals.

The ad is, frankly speaking, despicable.  In a time the same group would tear apart the Bush administration for using similar tactics, doing so themselves is pretty low.  I definitely think it will only serve to discredit Democrats (even if that’s not necessarily their target) and has the potential to harm Obama, who is already being smeared as a far-left socialist by the Republicans (even though he’s turning that perception around).

To the groups behind this ad: wise up.  Didn’t you notice the attempts at fear by the Bush admin. are part of what got your party elected in 2006?  Don’t stoop to the same tactics because you want to spite Rep. Hoyer.

Posted on
by

As I noted a few articles ago, I’ve kinda been ignoring John McCain in favor of covering the end of the Democratic primaries.  But, with those over, and things somewhat quiet elsewhere, the time seems ripe to go back to him.

John McCain, who I’ve always respected and liked a lot more than some other Republican candidates, is frankly starting to disappoint me.  He’s been increasingly shedding his maverick image, at least on the issues of the Iraq war and detainee treatment.

The John McCain of old bucked the Bush administration on detainee treatment.  But, apparently not John McCain, Republican nominee.  He has this thing wrapped up, and he is pandering to the far right on these issues.  Of course, it’s not entirely surprising.  He was one of the cheerleaders of the Military Commissions Act.  He also has to look tough on terrorism toward the base.

Yet, I’d argue that he can still look tough without pandering to the far right.  He can still call for negotiations on our own tough terms (with which I’d agree), and even a presence in Iraq until the Iraqis can effectively take control of military operations themselves (which they are starting to do very well) without compromising his positions on detainee treatment.

I think it looks bad to Independents and conservative Democrats when a candidate who seemed to enshrine human rights for our detainees is seemingly backtracking on this by the day.  The same guy who says our military shouldn’t torture is willing to reserve this right for organizations like the CIA, which I think sends mixed messages to voters.

In short, John McCain needs to decide where he stands on these issues.  It’s important to his electoral future.  I’d argue for a return to his maverick positions.  It may anger some of the base and the far right, but McCain needs the widespread support if he wishes to win in November.

More to come on all the nominees, including John McCain.

Posted on
by

Man oh man, there’s a bunch of things I want to talk about this week, but first one of the foremost issues in my mind as of this point.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (and in this case you may have been), the Associated Press wants to charge people for using excerpts of their content.

The Associated Press, having already announced its intention to harass bloggers who publish snippets as short as 39 words from AP stories, has now published a web form through which intimidated parties can give the AP money in return for “permission” to publish as few as five words.

At the heart of the debate is the age old concept of fair use.  Copyright law in the U.S. protects fair use.  Basically it says that someone can’t go suing you just for using small portions of their works.  For example, you can claim all rights reserved on everything you write, but people still have the right quote small excerpts of that work.  Fair use law is really murky as there are not set concrete limits as to what exactly can be quoted or copied.

Continue reading →

Posted on
by

For the fourth time in my life, I will be moving in the next month and a half.  Not too far from my current home, so for any of my friends who come across this, don’t worry.  Times are tough, and to try and save some money, my family is combining business and residence into one building.  Hopefully, with some subdivision, it will turn in to a profit making venture, and more so once they decide to retire.  For my family, it’ll be newer, since we last moved nine years ago.  For me, it’ll just be a bigger version of my semesterly move to college.

Every once in a while, I’ll highlight the trials and tribulations of moving.  Today was “get ready for new carpet day” day.  We’ll be replacing the carpets upstairs, which are pretty old, and were here when we moved in.  So, up the old carpets went, where they’ll be replaced with new ones this week.

It was not so fun to have to move most of my stuff out of the room.  Still, I guess better to do it now than wait to get it all downstairs closer to moving day.  At least now half the job is done.

The first casualty of moving was my desk.  Actually, the carpet was the first, the desk the second.  Still, it was been a good desk.  It moved with me from my first house, so it was with me for some time.

Anyway, more to come in coming weeks…

Posted on
by

Rest in peace, Tim Russert.  I didn’t see a whole lot of his reporting, but he seemed a pretty good journalist to me.  That, and getting accused of bias from both sides of the aisle means you must be doing something right!

So sad to die so young, though. 🙁

Posted on
by

And here I thought I was going to return to McCain today!  Though he won’t entirely be off the hook.  See why later.

As most ought to know by now, the Supreme Court today ruled 5-4 that detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba must be allowed to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.  That cherished right of those finding themselves on the wrong side of the law, to challenge the legitimacy of their imprisonment, has for several years been the subject of debate as to whether it can be applied to non-citizens and enemy combatants.

The ruling today basically says that those being held in Guantanamo Bay must be allowed access to habeas corpus rights, because the Military Commissions Act did not provide an alternative for those held to challenge their detention.  Note that it does not say that habeas corpus must be allowed, just that there has to be an alternative.  It also does not end military commissions.

Most conservatives seem to have decried the ruling as a win for the terrorists, while most liberals have lauded it as a win for justice.

Personally, I think it’s a good ruling.  Call me a terrorist sympathizer if you wish, but the idea of holding somebody indefinitely without an ability to challenge their detention just seems…well, there is no other word for it…un-American.

Here in the United States of America, we cherish our right to be able to challenge our detention, to have lawyers, and to expect that we’ll be fairly heard in court.  Yet, while the Bush administration tries to tell us that terrorists are enemies of freedom and democracy, they would seemingly send mixed messages by telling their detainees that they will be held indefinitely?  I thought we were supposed to be telling those in the Middle East that this kind of behavior is wrong.  Behavior only practiced by the likes of dictators and tyrants.

No, I’m not calling the government a tyrant or a dictatorship.  I believe that many of the people held at Guantanamo Bay probably have a good reason to be there.  Then again, like in the civilian justice system, some simply should not be there.  They might be innocent; caught up in the midst of a war going on around them, or the charges against them simply are not enough to have them held at Guantanamo.  Then again, those that do need to be there need to be charged and sentenced.  Yet, as of today, only three of the trials have gotten anywhere, and among them, two people were acquitted, and one was sent back to his native Australia to serve out a reduced sentence.

So, the detainees deserve the right to challenge their detention, and if the DoD is not going to provide an alternative to habeas corpus, they need something.  Given that the administration is on its last months, and given the they already have an opposition to this kind of thing, I don’t think they’d have time or will to set up an alternative, though I’m sure they’ll try.  I’m guessing Republicans in Congress will also make an attempt, though I doubt it’ll get through the Democratic majority.  So, habeas corpus is likely to be the law of detainee challenge from here on out.

So, what’s the political fallout from this for our two major Presidential contenders?  It might impact John McCain’s chances in a slight to moderately negative way, since he was a pretty vocal proponent of the Military Commissions Act.  People might see this ruling as a rebuff to his attempts to get it passed, and view him as not knowing the right ways to conduct the detention of detainees.  I don’t say it’ll impact him in a big way since I think a lot of people have already made up their mind on whether or not he’s been right on the conduct of detainee treatment.  Then again, those of who’ve been following McCain know he’s been swapping back and forth in his positions on this subject quicker than John Kerry can flip-flop on voting for war funding.

On the opposite side, it’ll also impact Obama’s chances slightly to moderately, given that most of the negative from McCain will probably become a positive for Obama.  He’s always been against the banning of habeas rights for detainees, so it might serve as a slight bump to him.

As for the Bush administration, this is a pretty big blow for them.  Their entire argument for detainees not allowing access to civilian courts has just been destroyed, and I think it will be a signal to future presidents to not hold enemy combatants in this way again.  I don’t think we’ll see future terrorists being held as POws, as that would severely limit how they could be questioned.  I suspect we could see the normal extradition process being used, after which they could be tried in a U.S. court.  Of course, this might not work if the country in question were unfriendly to us.  So, I have no certain answer of how enemy combatant situations might be done in the future.

All in all, I think the ruling is for the best of the U.S.  Freedom to question your detention is a paramount tenet of the U.S. judicial system, and it is hypocritical to deny it to someone just because they’re an enemy combatant.  Though there is good reason to charge a lot of the people in Guantanamo, holding them indefinitely without having a way to find out who should actually be there is wrong.