The Global Warming 'Argument'

Now that Al Gore's movie and book An Inconvenient Truth is out, I've been seeing more and more questions questioning the science of Global Warming. So I thought a little background with some references is needed for those of you naysayers and undecided.

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/global%20warming). It is mostly man-made and comes from everything from factories to cars. Every single real scientific study links global warming directly to humans. (http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airairpoglobalwarming.html).

It's only certain political figures that don't want to change things for reasons easily guessable. That is why the whole developed world signed that Kyoto Treaty and why every single developed country is working to reduce their polluting of the air, water, and land.

See the new Gore movie; it has the backing of the scientific community AND GOVERNMENTAL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS:

Scientific community:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science

Government Organizations:

NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) on why Peer-Reviewed Journals are the only real scientific studies to be believed: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html

The EPA's site for KIDS: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/index.html

From NASA:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/

The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program is an important part of the U.S. Department of Energy's strategy to understand global climate change:
http://education.arm.gov/studyhall/warming.stm

http://globalchange.gov/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/climate.shtml
http://marine.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/locator?selected_topic=14&selected_region=n&selected_content=n
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

All of the above are .gov sites. That means that EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT DEALS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT IN ANY POSSIBLE WAY AGREES THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS AN ISSUE CREATED BY MAN!!! LET ME REPEAT: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS AGREES THAT WE ARE THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. NOW SERUIOUSLY, WHAT THE F*CK IS WRONG WITH YOU IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NATURAL WHEN EVEN THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT, MINUS THE PRESIDENT'S ADMINISTRATION, AGREES ON THE SAME OUTCOME?!?!?!? ARE YOU REALLY THAT F*CKING STUPID WHERE YOU WOULD BELIEVE A GROUP OF POLITICIANS OVER THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY?!??!?!?

Seriously, have you ever noticed that people who don’t believe in the fact that humans created this problem offer no real evidence what-so-ever? That is exactly what is holding us back in taking real steps in fixing this very easily fixable problem. All people like this due is try to poke holes in something that is already rock-solid in ALL REAL SCIENTIFIC (GOVERNMENT) COMMUNITIES. Hollywood, Gore, or anyone else did not make this up. It is our own government organizations, working separately, that have all come to the same conclusion. The people who don't believe offer nothing but opinions and fake studies done by non-governmental - or none-peer reviews - organizations.

It is a real problem that can be fixed with easy measures. Who are you going to believe, the scientists or the politicians?

Entry for June 30, 2006

Maybe it’s the fact that I don’t smoke pot, but I think 311 is as to rock as a nap and a cold glass of water are to a Friday night. They’re played relentlessly on radio and every time I hear them I think to myself that I can’t be the only one completely bored by this band. They are the Hootie and the Blowfish to alternative music. But then again, maybe if I smoked pot...

But they said it was all about morals!?!?!

There is nothing dumber in this world then a lower-middle to middle class Republican.

Wired for Distraction by William Kanapaux

If it turned out that an everyday household item was capable of creating permanent changes in the brains of infants and toddlers, would you keep it or toss it? What if you felt you couldn’t live without it?

A study appearing in the April issue of the journal Pediatrics has said what many have probably suspected for some time now: that TV is essentially rewiring young brains. The flashing of images, the cutting back and forth, the commercial breaks all appear to structure the developing brain so that it looks for and expects rapid-fire patterns.

The study found that for every hour of TV that children from ages 1 to 3 watched, the odds of having attention problems later in life increased by 10 percent. About 50 percent of toddlers watch three or more hours of TV a day, meaning that they have at least a 30 percent greater chance of suffering from attention deficit disorders at age 7 than do toddlers who watch no TV.
Because the human brain continues to develop throughout the early years, the neurological changes that occur from being exposed to this barrage of stimuli are thought to be permanent. By artificial means, the child’s brain is rewired to expect a higher threshold of stimulation than a book or classroom could possibly deliver.

The problem seems to have grown over the last 10 years, as computer technology has allowed for greater manipulation of visual images.

But what about those of us who may have escaped childhood relatively unscathed, at least by today’s standards? Are we being rewired, too, at some level? Have we lost our ability to concentrate?

The changes to television haven’t occurred in a vacuum but have developed alongside other advances in personal-entertainment and communication devices, and it’s difficult to imagine that our media-saturated, gadget-oriented world hasn’t hurt our ability to concentrate and interact meaningfully with our surroundings.

Consider the computer: Computers are often held up as the antidote to television. Yes, they both involve staring into a screen, but TV is a passive form of entertainment while the computer is based on interactivity. We click, we surf, we view, we send. The user is in control of the experience.

But that experience also encourages quick bursts of attention and the search for novelty. A user might have four or more windows opened at once—clicking back and forth among them while also writing a document (say, a technology column), checking e-mails and playing a computer game for a quick distraction from the other distractions.

Unfortunately, multi-tasking doesn’t work all that well, as anyone who’s ever tried to talk on the phone while playing solitaire can attest. That’s a skill better left to computers, which can enhance their efficiency by squeezing out every possible nanosecond from their CPU when necessary.

Human brains don’t function on binary code. Bits of information and trains of thought get lost as the mind skips from one point to the next, never quite able to focus on any given one. Long-term focus gets lost in a haze of half-formed thoughts.

And that’s the kind of world we’re encouraged to live in. Even a 30-minute trip to the local lube shop for an oil change is hardly a respite. Most often a TV blares in the corner. And with any luck, one of the news channels will be playing—its ticker tape, scroll bar and other text and graphics competing with the talking heads for screen space and the viewer’s attention.

The overall effect is one of distraction and insulation from the people around us. This effect can also be seen with game consoles such as X-Box and PS2, which demand complete attention through a steady barrage of sights and sounds. Even when other people are involved, the main interaction and focus of attention is with the machine that delivers the medium.

This effect doesn’t stop with TVs and computers. MP3 players offer the user thousands of music files to choose from. A person can block out large portions of the outside world with a never-ending stream of music with no fear that reality will creep in during a change of cassette or CD. The real world simply becomes visual imagery for the sounds and rhythms delivered to the brain.

Cell phones and wireless Internet create even more opportunities to distract and insulate us from the world that surrounds us. A trip to the coffee shop becomes a caffeinated Internet session with slightly different scenery.

So where does it leave us, other than distracted and unable to concentrate?

It’s fairly clear that our minds are quite capable of grasping new technology and using it to our advantage. But has anything really changed? We are, after all, the product of billions of years’ worth of evolution. But because of our technical prowess, we’re also as close as we’ve ever been to making our planet uninhabitable.

Global problems are complex and require a high level of attention to solve. But if as a society we are trained to seek out distraction, we are far more likely to insulate ourselves with endless entertainment than we are to engage in the difficult and daunting task of solving the world’s problems.

At the same time, those who control the source of our distractions, namely the media conglomerates and the political leaders they support, will hold greater control over a populace that demands to be entertained and wants its “information” in digestible bits. This creates a situation where a large portion of the population is ripe for manipulation, whether it be for political gain, financial gain or both.

And yet this manipulation can seem all but invisible to the one on the receiving end. Take computer games, for instance. Does a person ever control the game or does the game control the person? A person can master the game, but only because that person has mastered the rules of the game, and that game has a developer who created the rules.

This is not to say that technology in itself is bad. But if it has the power to shape our brains and our lives, then it needs to be approached with a certain level of caution. We are already undergoing an evolution of sorts. In many ways, technology has primed us for change. We think, perceive and react differently than the generations who have come before us.

But the question becomes, to what end? And do we really want to send the next generation of children headlong into that world if we’re not even sure what’s in store?

It’s enough to make you want to kill your television, if you could only remember why.

Source: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/4/708

Mango Steak

Mango Steak

2 8-12 oz steaks
½ cup minced onion
4 cups diced ripe mango
½ cup chopped cilantro
1½ cup diced red bell pepper
4 tablespoons French ginger
4 tablespoons olive oil
2 teaspoons fresh lemon juice
2 teaspoons fresh limejuice

Directions

1. Combine all ingredients (except steak) into a large ziplock bag.
2. Add steak to bag, remove as much air from bag as possible, and let marinade in the refrigerator for 30 minutes, turning the bag over at the 15 minute mark.
3. Remove steak and grill to liking (please don’t cook your steak past medium – that’s just wrong).
4. Cook marinade until it reaches 140 degrees and immediately move it to a separate serving dish.
5. Serve steak on top of ladled cooked marinade

Fun quotes I found this week...

These seemed to have some baring on life today:

"Remember always that all of us...are descended from immigrants and revolutionists."
– Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
– President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952

Also, I’ve been reading John Adams by David McCullough and this quote really struck me as wonderful:

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
– John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1780

Entry for June 11, 2006

I have a theory that Rod Stewart was created in a lab by scientists who wanted something to listen to as they rode the elevator down to their labs.

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

There are three kinds of people in this world. I know you’ve heard that before. Everyone has their “three or two types of people,” or their four or five… But there are three, and the models for these types come neither from psychology nor ancient religion. They come from Columbia Studios and they are archetypally embodied in The Three Stooges.

The Stooges unwittingly – of course – left us a rich legacy of deft interpretations of the most primal human behavior patterns. Their short films, seen as a whole, form a tapestry in which the interactions of people as individuals, corporations, and nations are distilled into a microcosm, a pure essence of existential folly.

There are but a small percentage of Moes in any given population: perhaps five percent. There are even fewer Curlys. The vast bulk of humanity are Larrys (thought represented by male characters, the three also apply to women).

The Moe Personality
Moe is the active personality, and if not always dominant, always striving to be. Moe is the one who spurs the others into action. He devises plans to better their lot, but when his plans fail the other two suffer the consequences. But is Moe any less the fool because they follow his plans?

He is a natural manipulator, only partially because the others are waiting to be manipulated. He would want to manipulate them anyway, even if they weren’t so willing.

The Larry Personality
Larry is a born follower, a blank slate that only reacts (and slowly at that) to external stimuli. He never initiates action. He is Moe’s absolute tool, the truest “stooge”. When Moe’s abuse finally does make him angry he lashes out not at Moe, but at Curly. No matter how he suffers under Moe’s yoke he never really rebels. He argues, but gives up easily.

Were it not for the presence of his friends, Larry probably would live in peace – a dull, flat, mechanical person. Though clumsy, he is till the most employable of the three – for the other two are incapable following orders, although for different reasons.

The Curly Personality
Curly is the only likeable one, a truly rare human model. He is the holy man, the Divine Fool. He is as creative and active as Moe – but it is a spontaneous and joyous kind of creativity, no fool for the kind of plotting and scheming required by a Moe-dominated society. He is a free spirit, but correspondingly unable to function well in a world of Moes and Larrys. He, like Larry, is perpetually abused, but he intuitively understands what is happening to him and reacts far more angrily – if equally ineffectually. He is everyone’s favorite Stooge because he is the funniest; though his innate nobility and natural humility he constantly best Moe, but it is in an unconscious way and it is only apparent to the outside observer. Curly himself is hardly aware of his talents; his weakness is that he does not know his own strength and cannot trust his own luck.

In real life Culrys are usually branded by the Moes and Larrys around them as retarded, schizophrenic, maladjusted, OCD, or just plain stupid…. .whereas, in reality it is only Curly who understands the truth. Remaining cheerful through adversity, he wins battles not by fighting, but by “accidentally” unleashing “accidents” in which his enemies injure themselves.

Stooge Co-Existence
Alien to feelings of avarice or ambition, Curly is the opposite of Moe. Yet the two are drawn together by some inexplicable balancing force of nature. The Larry, are ever the in-betweeners, slug-like nonentities caught in the crossfire of cosmic dualities - yet remaining there by some herding instinct that makes being a casualty of the Moe vs. Curly battle preferable to life alone with other Larrys.

Only the existence of the blameless, bovine Larrys makes that of Moe or Curly possible. They are able to maintain their level of glandular brutality and senseless destruction only at the expense of an unquestioning, loyal worker drone whose income partially supports their excesses. Were he not there to diffuse Moe’s anger by becoming another recipient of his blows, Curly would have been killed long ago and Moe would have committed suicide out of loneliness.

The horror of it all is that the three types need each other to survive. Of all nature’s cycles of parasitic symbiosis, the one involving the three human types is the most nightmarish. It rages around us all the time spreading death and madness, yet when we see it on the screen we call it “comedy”.

I hate Jimmy Buffett

Having lived for a couple of years on a small Caribbean island, like the ones loosely described in many of Jimmy Buffett’s songs, I have really grown to despise his music and now see it for what it is: It’s music for wannabe tourists that reeks of coconut-burnt skin and blue socks with sandals while swaying off rhythm to phony island beats played by people who hate their guts and despise the day that they ever decided that they ever wanted American dollars. It’s music for people who have no idea what happens on an island once the cruise ship leaves – who pretend that they long for the sea and a cold beer, but arrive on floating palaces and suck down $7 cocktails. It is everything that island music is not: fake, soulless and paraded for those who will no participate and add to the rhythm. So please, don’t try to play me Jimmy Buffett songs and pretend that you know – because you have no fucking clue.

Entry for May 29, 2006

I haven’t been to one of those warehouse clubs in awhile and I was amazed to see everything that had changed since my last visit. Where there was a once good deal in almost everything is now either cheaper, lower quality versions of good quality merchandise sold elsewhere or stuff sold in such bulk that you fail to realize that it’s the same price as other stores who don’t require such large purchases. The only truly good bargains were milk, gas, and tires. Everything else broke down to the same cost per ounce, serving and article as the same things in smaller packages or quantities at other stores that don’t require a membership and a human-drawn oxcart to buy a box of cereal.

So the question I posed to myself when I was leaving empty handed was, “Did something change or was I just caught up in the ‘it’s bigger therefore it’s better’ hype?”. And of that, I do not know. It is my hope that over the last couple of years the market has adjusted a bit and the prices are now fairly identical across the board. But in all reality, I probably just never did the math. Either way, I will not be returning to any membership based club unless my yearly intake of milk, gas, and tires increases to a level high enough so offset the savings with the $35 yearly membership fee.

Wasn't that commandment an option?

I was reading the news this morning and came across an article about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice receiving an honorary degree from Jesuit Boston College University this week and that struck me as kind of odd. I mean, here is a school steeped in religious doctrine and they are honoring someone who now holds the position for the continued war and subsequent justification of such war in Iraq.

Now I’m not religious in any way, but I know that "Thou shall not murder" or “לֹא תִרְצַח” is probably open to all sorts of interpretation such as, "Sure, but what if we think that they might, maybe one day harm us? Wouldn't even Jesus kill all of them in the name of pre-emptive justice?" I mean, suuuure if you want to get technical about it (like the church) murder and killing people is wrong. But why not shower these people who killed in our name as heroes now that the war has been justified through the finding of Weapons of.... Osama... The connection between al-Qaeda and... ....ok, so there was no real justification to killing all of those people. But still, who the hell wants to admit they were wrong. It's not like Jesus ever taught humility.

Lincoln: "Public opinion in this country is everything"

This morning I am angry on the behalf of the Republicans. I am not a Republican, nor would I gleefully side with today’s average elected Democrat – although I would probably agree with more historical Democrat agenda then the Republicans. That being said, I am very upset on behalf of the voting Republicans. What the fuck happened to the elected Republican leaders values, beliefs and responsibility? The president's approval rating is hovering around 30% and the leaders in the House and Senate are surely not much higher. And here it is at another election year and instead of running on smaller government, fewer taxes/debt, and more states rights they’ve had to drag up loser issues like flag burning and gay marriage, again. This is so insulting that I feel for the Republican voters out there.

Arthur Gordon once said "Some people confuse acceptance with apathy, but there's all the difference in the world. Apathy fails to distinguish between what can and what cannot be helped; acceptance makes that distinction. Apathy paralyzes the will-to-action; acceptance frees it by relieving it of impossible burdens.” This is where I believe that most Republican voters have gone. They’ve learned to accept the fact that their team will stay in charge as long as they also accept the fact that some changes in their core principles will have to evaporate into memory.

What they are left with is a country that has spent more money then ever before, created a climate of ever-weakening states rights, more intrusion from our national government and a slow dissolve of our Checks and Balances. This is not what they believed that they were voting for and this saddens me. It’s one thing to back a candidate knowing that there is no way that they can deliver on all of their campaign promise – but it’s another to back a candidate only to find out that they are going to do the exact opposite of what they said AND to simultaneously realize that this person is your only party option.

So this fall as the average Republican listens to his elected leaders talk about the knowingly dead issues of gay marriage amendments, flag burning and obscenity legislation they will also have to ponder whether or not it’s better to sit this election out in the name of what is best for the country. Because let’s face it, as rare as it is finding a fiscally conservative Republican walking the halls of the House or Senate, it’s equally rare to find one of these representatives that believes that their core isn’t stupid and accepting enough to take their crap election year politics sales pitches – and that is a sad state of affairs for all of us.

Nothing is more Nouveau Riche then a BMW

First of all, a few disclaimers: I understand that we live in a time of plenty in this country. I understand that those generations that came before you worked hard so that you could have the “best” things in life. And yes, I understand that you now want the “best” things in life. Now that that has been said, let’s move on.

Secondly, for those of you that don’t know, Nouveau Riche is a French term, usually derogatory, to describe persons who acquire wealth within their generation, and spend it conspicuously. The implication is that, being of lower- or middle-class origin, these individuals lack the taste to properly use wealth. Frankly, I could care less about your pedigree and overall elegance as long as you can carry yourself in a respectful manner – which very few of our recent generation seem to be able to do.

The warning:

Stop it, just stop it. You aren’t fooling anyone. You are not part of the mega-rich and you are not “old money”. Old money won’t speak to you; old money doesn’t like you. To them, you are nothing more then a snotnosed little brat with a maxed out credit card and no class. The only time Prada, BMW, Gucci, Rolex… will bring you respect is when you are dealing with another Nouveau Riche child. And yes, I’m talking to you.

But I digress to explain.

Old money has been here for a long time and is very comfortable in its daily rituals. It doesn’t feel the need to flash “bling”. It knows that it has money and doesn’t aim to buy the “best” of everything. Instead, it buys what it likes and doesn’t think another thing of it. It’s only the Nouveau Riche who would ever seek out that which someone else has deemed the “best” as the actual “best” and flaunt in lieu of class. What you buy, wear, travel in and display does not make you cool or add in any meaningful way to your level of standing in society. So when you try to act rich your lack of urbanity shines through and you appear, to everyone who is not your lesser, as someone who has a little bit of money and spends it on shiny things to amuse their little mind.

And now I’ll regress.

My parents did a wonderful job of instilling a sense of self-pride and refinement in me at a very young age. I value respect, civility and real substance over impressing you. I do not feel the need to buy things to increase my standing or pretend that I was not born into a different class then I was. And for that I thank them and hope that your own children see through your parade of distractions to the substance and class that still lurk down deep in your soul.

So the shit has hit the fan, and I'm glad

Alright, so Kela has finally received her marching orders and they are sending us Saginaw, Michigan for 76 months for her clinical rotations. The good news is that we now have a plan; the bad news is that the plan sucks. We now have 12 weeks to work our asses off in the Atlanta
area and raise $14,000 so that we can relocated across the country (again) to complete Kela's medical education. So from here on out I will be working as many hours as possible as a prostitute, day laborer and indentured servant. Kela will be back (again) at her Grandfather's doctors office shlepping in the
same job that she did in high school. Those of you willing to donate to the 'Pay For Kela's School Fund'; can send money through PayPal:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood

“Remember what Bilbo used to say: It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”

I’ve come to the conclusion, during the course of my short life, that he who dares nothing, need hope for nothing. I see my path, but I don't know where it leads. Not knowing where I'm going is what inspires me to travel it. And now that paths lie ahead of me in directions of varying adventures I see only the future in each bearing. I have the same fears, concerns and worries as always accompanies any first step – but a nervous need for adventure and success that will not let me pause. It is on new paths where you learn who you are and where you are heading. I can only hope that this next path reveals enough to keep my feet beneath me. Now is the time to plan, pack and progress – movement is afoot.

Entry for May 03, 2006

Boredom is an insult to the imagination.

Have you ever taken one of those goofy love tests?

I was tricked into this one: http://gud.us/lovetest.php?page=537458 and got a good laugh, so I thought I would share. Enjoy.

Can someone please name this song?

Here is the link http://brian.hamilton.youaremighty.com/

What I know:
It’s not from Carmina Burana
It’s not from the Omen
It sounds Russian to me – but I’m not really sure.

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

I can’t believe I’m responding to this question

I post quite a bit on Yahoo Answers and got barraged with questions when I posted a description as to the process of evolution as a theory on the same level as gravity (let’s hope there aren’t still people arguing that gravity doesn’t really exist). Here was the brunt of his argument: If we evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?

So let me post this publicly, just in case someone else who can both read and thinks that this is a valid question might see it.

Because we all came from the common ancestor. It’s like wolves and dogs. Dogs evolved from wolves, but we still have wolves. Not everything has to evolve into the same thing (or at the same rate). So wolves in one place in the world can evolve close to where they’ve been for millions of years, and wolves with human interaction can evolve into the mutts we have in the house.

There, enough of that. I can’t believe we still have people so intellectually lazy on this planet. At this rate we will may actually start to devolve.

I really need a vacation...

...with some time to read what I want to read while not caring what those sounds coming from my laptop are warning me about..