thinksinpictures's blog

Climate Change 101

Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:51:33 -0800

I might have been able to gloss over Reuters' latest ignorance-fest on global climate change if it hadn't been for the following paragraph:

Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all.

This is the stock disclaimer that you'll see in just about any article about climate change. I assume it's mandated by Rupert Murdoch and his corporate peers. It is also only the beginning of the inaccuracies that characterize this article.

Merry Christmas, Trees!

Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:34:00 -0800

Since Christmas is the time of year that we cut down trees, the Bush administration has decided to celebrate by pushing through an "administrative rewrite" of Forest Service regulations regarding habitat protection and environmental impact statements.

The first [change] drops the 25-year-old requirement that managers prepare environmental impact statements — a cornerstone of public involvement in environmental decisions — when they develop or revise management plans for individual national forests.

The new rule directs forest managers to involve the public in the planning process but leaves the "methods and timing of public involvement opportunities" up to forest officials.

The argument for such a change is based on the assertion that environmental impact statements (EISs) are so much red tape, and that they "don't get used or don't get read and are rapidly obsolete" (to quote Fred Norbury, associate deputy chief of the national forest system). This is patently false -- while EISs are almost never read by the general public due to their density and length, they are regularly pored over by private environmental interest groups seeking to delay or halt federal actions that might violate environmental statutes (such as the Endangered Species Act).

Big Bear, Dead Eagle

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:19:41 -0800

Three Forest Service employees are being sued by a would-be developer under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for doing their jobs.

[The developer's] project came to a halt last May when a federal judge in Riverside issued a preliminary injunction saying that two activist groups, Friends of Fawnskin and the Center for Biological Diversity, had demonstrated that the development had "the potential to both harass and harm the bald eagle," which is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs have shown that "a violation of the Endangered Species Act is at least likely in the future," U.S. District Judge Robert Timlin said in a written ruling.

Frank Fraley, a Los Angeles lawyer representing the Forest Service employees, said the suit against his clients was filed in retaliation.

I find it ironic that both RICO - the law under which the Forest Service employees are being sued - and the ESA - the law that they were trying to uphold - were authorized by Congress under the constitutional power of the Commerce Clause.

Study: Half of Americans Total Jerks

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:02:58 -0800

My parents don't subscribe to the L.A. Times like the rest of our civilized metropolis, but rather to the Daily News, which is a more "fair and balanced" newspaper, if you catch my meaning. As such, I usually try to avoid reading the paper while I'm home, but some mornings when I sit down at the table with my Apple Jacks™, I really need something to look at.

This morning I read that a Cornell University study showed that 44% of "Americans" favor curbing the civil rights of all Muslim Americans. I couldn't find the article on the Daily News website (which seems to be on par with the physical paper in terms of quality), but it's an AP piece, so here it is on USAToday.

The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.

Homo canadius

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:02:43 -0800

I woke up this morning to the news that activist judges in Canada's high court ruled this morning that the country's constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriage, opening the door for Canadian lawmakers to pass legislation redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. A measure like this would be a joke in America, simply a gesture by Congress to flagrantly dismiss the gay community. "Hey guys, look at this! Nobody but Dennis Kucinich wants to let you get hitched! And he's an elf! Ha!"

In Canada, well:

One top Liberal predicted the legislation should pass easily after its introduction, likely early next year. It already has the support of the 38-member Liberal cabinet and virtually all the 54 Bloc Quebecois and 19 New Democrat MPs.

Knockout

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:32:10 -0800

Pete seems to be busy lately, so I'm cross-posting a little something my journal:

Keith Olbermann's article in MSNBC presents an interesting analysis of tonight's debate. I appreciate his boxing analogy, but have to fault him for calling the final score he offers - Kerry 15, Bush 12 - a "statistical draw." Statistics have a margin of error because they are used to extrapolate conclusions about a population when you have only sampled a portion of that population. Olbermann scored each of the eighteen questions asked as well as the closing arguments, so statistics have nothing to do with the final score. It may be close, but Kerry wins.

Colorado instead of Florida

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:33:12 -0800

I'm without Internet for a while and posting from a college library, but I thought this article was interesting enough to merit a quick post.

On Nov. 2, Coloradans will be doing more than voting for president. They will also consider Amendment 36, a voter initiative that, if passed, will change the way Colorado's nine electoral votes are allocated.

Most states, including Colorado, award all of the state's electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate obtains the greatest number of votes there. Amendment 36, if passed, would divide up Colorado's electoral college votes proportionately, depending on how many votes each candidate wins. What's more, it declares unambiguously that "the popular proportional selection for presidential election is intended to apply retroactively and thus determine the manner in which our state's presidential electors are chosen and our state's electoral votes are cast for the general election of 2004."

My Flip-flop Bookmark

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:33:32 -0800

In a recent article Peter wrote about the labelling of Bush's quote about the war on terrorism being unwinnable. Despite having called it a flip-flop myself, I agree with what he said, and would go further to say that both sides need to lay off the lame jargon and get down to the business of making shit better. I don't even like the phrase "flip-flop." It just sounds dumb.

All the same, I'm offering up a link to an article dealing with both Kerry and Bush's changes of heart.

The Little President that Couldn't

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:34:40 -0800

Another double post, because I just like to so much.

George W. Bush, a man who, by his own admission, has never made a mistake, admitted to a couple "miscalculations" this week. The one that I'm interesting in addressing here is something that came up on NBC's The Today Show.

When asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."

That's right, Bush just said that we can't win his war on terror.

Shower Sandals/Campaign Scandals

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:35:25 -0800

Another double post from my site. Just trying to keep things lively around here.

I ask every customer I deal with at REI if they found everything they came in for. A good portion of the customers that I pose this question to have some 'clever' response, usually that they were hoping to find some made-up item, such as a backpack which reduces the weight of the things packed in it, or a tent that is larger on the inside than it is on the outside. I always try to laugh and give the customer the impression that they are the first person to make such a witty request.

Swingers

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:35:55 -0800

Due to the late lack of activity on the site (due almost in full, I believe, to Pete's move up to Maine and new job), I've decided to post here something from my site. This was written a number of days ago, but it elicited a nice set of responses, so maybe it'll garner some interest over here as well:

There was a lot of talk after the Democratic convention about what was happening to Kerry and Bush in the polls. The argument over whether Kerry got the expected bounce or not didn't really interest me, but what does interest me is where the shifts in the polls come from: swing voters. This article from shortly after the convention offers specifics about the issues that a few undecided voters are thinking about, but even after reading it, I still can't figure out who these people are.

Bush: "Democracy Blows!"

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:37:14 -0800

One of the enigmatic poot's favorite sayings is "read some Plato, democracy blows." Well, apparently Bush has been catching up on his political philosophy and has found himself to be a fan of Plato:

[The Department of Homeland Security] last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place.

Because both the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Justice Dept. are cabinet-level departments under the executive branch, this is effectively one limb of the Bush administration asking another limb to give Bush the power to end democracy in America if a terrorist attack were to take place.

A Fishy Ultimatum

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:37:20 -0800

A while back I wrote a piece detailing the Bush administration's effort to loosen environmental restrictions by declaring salmon in hatcheries should be included in the count that determines their status on the endangered species list.

At the time I wondered how Bush Co. could possibly get away with something as preposterous. Theoretically there are teams of science advisors, specializing in all kinds of different areas and conducting study after study in their field, all with the intent of informing policy decisions. Now I know.

Assault Weapons Ban Sunset

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:37:42 -0800

As I have done before, I'm posting this here but not on my personal journal, simply because I don't feel like writing something long and biting, but I think people should be aware.

No surprises here: there is a site dedicated to preventing the 1994 assault weapons bans from being renewed when it expires in 11 weeks. Of specific interest to me was the Why Would Anyone Want to Own One? section. It occured to me as I read the essay on this page that with only the sightest of modification it could easily be changed to Why These Weapons are so Horrifically Dangerous.

Terrorism Justifies Censorship

Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:39:21 -0800

The following is double posted on my journal and here.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to read that people have had very strong reactions to the beheading videos of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and Kim Sun Il. I myself haven't been able to watch the videos (notwithstanding the fact that my current internet connection isn't good enough to even consider downloading any video), but I understand that all three of the videos are horrific. I am surprised (perhaps more than I should be) to read an article from the Los Angeles Times (sign up free or view the article on Yahoo) that suggests it would be acceptable to limit distribution of the videos because of their content.

I won't deny that private web hosts have the right to ban any content that they want. I also won't debate that news broadcasts shouldn't show the most graphic portions of these videos. I do however take extreme exception to the following:

"Any news outlet — or any private individual, for that matter — who makes available footage of the actual beheadings is, to my mind, an accessory to the crime itself," says Kunkel, dean of journalism at the University of Maryland. "Those are the individuals who are essentially finishing the work of the terrorists, by delivering their grisly 'message.'"

The implication that by view these videos people help the terrorists is reminiscent of claims from shortly after the September 11th attacks that if you drive an SUV or smoke marijuana then 'the terrorists have won.' I don't necessarily advocate either practice, but it's worth noting that both claims are patently false.