http://outmilitary.com/magazine/read/outmilitarycom-blog-dadt-news-appeals-court-tosses-gays-in-military-lawsuit_510.html
The above article is about the Log Cabin Republican group that is also a gay rights activist group, and their repeal of the DADT policy. As we all know on September 20, 2011, the infamous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was repealed on a national level. On September 29, 2011, a federal appeals court in San Francisco refused to decide on the constitutionality of the repealed policy. The reason for the decision was because the issue was already resolved. The Log Cabin group decided that this just wasn’t enough. They argue that it still leaves gay people open for discrimination in the future and don’t give justice for the fact that over 14,000 gay people were kicked out of the military during the policy’s time.
When is the ridiculousness going to stop? The policy was repealed, nothing really changed, and it’s over. How can you expect a judge to rule against a law that isn’t a law anymore? I can agree with the fact that maybe there are reparations to be made, but you have to follow the right channels and submit a new lawsuit. The other thing that always gets me fired up is the numbers people throw out about this. It always seems to get higher and higher. First it was 12,000, then it was 13,000, now it’s a staggering 14,000. And how do we even know that some of these people didn’t want to get out?
So kudos to the Log Cabin group who was trying to right a wrong and it just so happened to get fixed nationally before they could fix it locally. You did your job well; you should be happy about it and go home with your boyfriend. Have a glass of white wine before you settle down with the rubber sheets and gerbils. Then leave the rest of the fighting to your brothers and sisters who are actually serving in the fight for the freedoms that you already have.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
2 Perspectives on Global Warming
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=state-of-the-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case
It was hard for me to objectively pick which article I thought was more convincing, because I don’t need any convincing. It’s not that I don’t believe in global warming, it’s just that I don’t really care. Don’t get me wrong, I love the environment. I love the outdoors, the ocean, the forest, and the mountains. I take out my garbage and I recycle, but that’s about as far as it goes. I don’t really care if you drive a Toyota Prius or an F-350. In terms of just reading an article and picking which one I like best; I would say that I like Lindzen’s article. Biello wrote a lot random theories down on one page and there really wasn’t any cohesiveness to what he was saying. At one point he even said that we were going to have major droughts, and then followed that up by saying we were going to have major rains. So which one is it?
Lindzen’s comment on the general support of the 1.5 degree raise was interesting. He said that there was general consensus on that fact, but also said the data was poor. This is quite believable considering that amount of technology we have available now compared to that of the mid-19th century. Not only that, we have the ability to share our results almost instantaneously with other scientists around the globe. There was no such chance 200 years ago. I also likes how he smashes the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit by observing how they use a single number (1.5 degrees) to blame climate catastrophes, which are everyday occurrences.
Lindzen finalizes his article by saying that basically the IPCC are 500 year old Vikings that are using weather occurrences, that really aren’t that bad in the scope of how old the earth is, to tell of our impending doom. The one disparity I found between the two articles was that Biello used 1.5 degrees Celsius to describe global warming, while Lindzen used Fahrenheit. So for instance:
5*C = 41*F +1.5*C 6.5*C = 43.7*F ……….. (2.7*F?????)
So as you can see the numbers don’t add up. So you are left to further investigation on your own because there is no way to tell who is right about the temperature at this point. Sadly that leads me to discount Lindzen a little bit due to the fact that the IPCC report was most likely written in Celsius.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=state-of-the-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case
It was hard for me to objectively pick which article I thought was more convincing, because I don’t need any convincing. It’s not that I don’t believe in global warming, it’s just that I don’t really care. Don’t get me wrong, I love the environment. I love the outdoors, the ocean, the forest, and the mountains. I take out my garbage and I recycle, but that’s about as far as it goes. I don’t really care if you drive a Toyota Prius or an F-350. In terms of just reading an article and picking which one I like best; I would say that I like Lindzen’s article. Biello wrote a lot random theories down on one page and there really wasn’t any cohesiveness to what he was saying. At one point he even said that we were going to have major droughts, and then followed that up by saying we were going to have major rains. So which one is it?
Lindzen’s comment on the general support of the 1.5 degree raise was interesting. He said that there was general consensus on that fact, but also said the data was poor. This is quite believable considering that amount of technology we have available now compared to that of the mid-19th century. Not only that, we have the ability to share our results almost instantaneously with other scientists around the globe. There was no such chance 200 years ago. I also likes how he smashes the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit by observing how they use a single number (1.5 degrees) to blame climate catastrophes, which are everyday occurrences.
Lindzen finalizes his article by saying that basically the IPCC are 500 year old Vikings that are using weather occurrences, that really aren’t that bad in the scope of how old the earth is, to tell of our impending doom. The one disparity I found between the two articles was that Biello used 1.5 degrees Celsius to describe global warming, while Lindzen used Fahrenheit. So for instance:
5*C = 41*F +1.5*C 6.5*C = 43.7*F ……….. (2.7*F?????)
So as you can see the numbers don’t add up. So you are left to further investigation on your own because there is no way to tell who is right about the temperature at this point. Sadly that leads me to discount Lindzen a little bit due to the fact that the IPCC report was most likely written in Celsius.
The Evolution of Corn
80 million acres of corn grown throughout America, the largest crop in America.
The evolution and domestication of corn and how we have moved it all over the world to fit our needs. It is evident in our landscape, our diet, and even the US federal budget.
$190 billion dollar bill that Bush signed. This is a 10 year program that would pay farmers to grow a crop that costs more to grow than they can sell it for.
Corn has steadily taken over in the US, but unlike Mexico where it has been the norm for centuries Americans eat the processed form. Beef fed animals and corn sweeteners are just a couple of ways that we use corn that aren’t healthy for us or the environment.
Pollan’s argument is logically structured, which gives the reader a history of corn in America. This appeals to logos. He then goes on to appeal to pathos by delivering information related to our health and security. Overall this is a very effective campaign against the American usage of corn in our way of life.
One of my biggest concerns personally is the national debt, and the fact that we can’t seem to fix our budget problems. The fact that there is a $190 billion dollar program out there for growing more corn than we can possibly use is upsetting to say the least. On that point alone Pollan has convinced me that there is a serious corn problem.
As far as counterargument, Pollan leaves little room for a logical retort. The question remains, what are we going to do about it? He gives us a problem, but as usual does not offer a solution. The first part of the solution for me is to cut the $190 billion dollar program. Hopefully, with the shortage of corn that would follow, the high fructose corn syrup would work itself out.
The evolution and domestication of corn and how we have moved it all over the world to fit our needs. It is evident in our landscape, our diet, and even the US federal budget.
$190 billion dollar bill that Bush signed. This is a 10 year program that would pay farmers to grow a crop that costs more to grow than they can sell it for.
Corn has steadily taken over in the US, but unlike Mexico where it has been the norm for centuries Americans eat the processed form. Beef fed animals and corn sweeteners are just a couple of ways that we use corn that aren’t healthy for us or the environment.
Pollan’s argument is logically structured, which gives the reader a history of corn in America. This appeals to logos. He then goes on to appeal to pathos by delivering information related to our health and security. Overall this is a very effective campaign against the American usage of corn in our way of life.
One of my biggest concerns personally is the national debt, and the fact that we can’t seem to fix our budget problems. The fact that there is a $190 billion dollar program out there for growing more corn than we can possibly use is upsetting to say the least. On that point alone Pollan has convinced me that there is a serious corn problem.
As far as counterargument, Pollan leaves little room for a logical retort. The question remains, what are we going to do about it? He gives us a problem, but as usual does not offer a solution. The first part of the solution for me is to cut the $190 billion dollar program. Hopefully, with the shortage of corn that would follow, the high fructose corn syrup would work itself out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)