Obama assassination foiled

The ATF foiled a plot by White supremists to kill 88 black students, 14 of which by beheading in Tennessee. Their final target was to be Barack Obama.

Mr. Limbaugh is always ranting about the dangers of the radical left... but here's an example of the radical right at it's most dangerous.

Pointing the finger at John McCain is not fair, as he has done his best to quell such stirrings in his campaign.

Ever since this campaign began there have been two fears of mine: Obama getting assassinated, or McCain dying in office.

Thank goodness the Feds got to this before anything happened. Perhaps the only reason they found out was because there was a presidential candidate attached to the idea. I cringe at what might have happened had there not been.

Debating California's Prop 8

California Prop 8 seeks to add a new constitutional ammendment to the California Constitution that will say "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" and it will be known in law as the California Marriage Protection Act.

This is a subject I find myself divided on.

There's the part of me that says, yeah, there's no problem with homosexuality, they are born that way and they should not be discriminated against under the law because of it. We allow heterosexual couples to marry, we allow interracial marriages, why then shouldn't we allow homosexual couples to marry?

Then there's the part of me that just feels like, by allowing gay marriage you are condoning the practice of homosexuality. Especially difficult for me is that children will be exposed to the idea that a boy can marry a boy or a girl can marry a girl, and that's okay. I personally don't want the power of suggestion to overpower natural instincts in my children. If my children turn out to be gay on their own, the so be it, I won't love them any different.

It's not that gay marriage will be taught in schools or religious settings, because it won't. But in the eyes of the law if a child happens to innocently ask "Can a princess marry a princess?" The teacher will be required to answer yes, because that's the way it is. Thereby inducing the power of suggestion that homosexuality should be an acceptable practice for otherwise heterosexual individuals.

Then there's the part of me that really feels that this is all really a non-issue. If you are gay, be gay. What you or I or anyone else does behind closed doors is their business. Which is why I can't stand the "Gay Pride" events and parades. If we had "Straight Pride" events and parades there would be accusations of bigotry and discrimination. But if you're gay and you meet someone else that is gay, and they make you happy the way nobody else can, then sure go ahead and be together and be happy. I just don't like having it waved in my face. Just like I don't like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who come to my door to extol the virtues of their religion and why everyone else is wrong.

Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is already illegal. Given that Prop 8 would ingrain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation into the constitution, then I know that Prop 8 is wrong. How can you put something illegal into the constitution? It's nonsensical to do so. So if I could vote on it I would vote NO on Prop 8, even if I don't feel right about the whole gay marriage issue.

I think, however, that something needs to be mandated about how to broach the idea of homosexuality to youth. Children in elementary school certainly do not need to be educated about sexual orientations, they are not sexual beings (for the most part). I believe that children should be taught age appropriate sexual education. Ergo, young children are taught about inappropriate touching and such, while children around the age of 10 are taught (with parental permission) about their bodies and the changes they will experience through puberty. Once into middle school a dialogue about sex and the dangers, costs, and consequences which can arise from risky behaviour.

I would support an initiative that delays the introduction of the concepts of sexual orientation to middle or high school. This is when children are coming of age and are experiencing questions about sex and sexual orientation and when it should be taught that homosexuality is okay. That homosexuals are born that way and that it is not a matter of choice or preference. At this point they will already have leanings one way or the other and the weight of suggestion becomes lessened. Once into 9th or 10th grade the concept of sexual orientations and acceptance of both homo and heterosexuality should be introduced, because these are the kids who get beat up at school for being gay. This sort of approach would also lead to a decrease in discrimination and acts of violence against homosexuals.

My head says that homosexuality is wrong, naturally a male and a female come together in the goal of creating offspring. Until recently males and females of the human variety mated for life. Hence marriage. My head also says that homosexuality is natural, being nature instead of nurture (in most cases). My heart also tells me that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. and that it is wrong to discriminate based on the fact someone is or is not gay. Given that, the State should recognize homosexual marriages, beyond that it should be up to everyone else personally to decide whether to accept it or not on their own moral grounds.

However you feel about gay marriage, Prop 8 is wrong. Vote No on 8.

Just say no to Sak's

GOP Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin received $150,000.00 from the Republican party for a wardrobe enhancement for her and her family.

$150,000.00 of other people's money that was meant to support the Republican Party in its election campaign. If I were a Republican, and a fiscal conservative at that, and had given that money to the party in hopes my candidate would win, I would be thinking very hard about changing my vote (or not voting at all).

What else would she use other people's money (tax dollars for example) for? Does this open her up for bribery? What else is Palin willing to do?

The moral of the story: Just say no to Sak's.

Global warming

There are some of us out there, that still doubt that man has any effect whatsoever on the Earth's climate. I know these people exist because my roommate is an example of one.

I will start off by saying this:

• Climate change happens (Fact).
• Climate change has always happened and will continue to happen (Fact).
• The Earth has been much cooler in the past and much warmer in the past (Fact).

Graph of climate changes since Pleistocene time based on Vostok ice cores; source: UNEP


A cursory glance at the original graphs of Vostok ice cores and you will note that they only go to 1950. Afterwards they are supplemented by observations. Looking up to the end of the graphs on the left, one could easily say that we are in a warm period, nothing special is happening. If you observe the previous 4 high temperature peaks, they are just that: peaks. Around 1950 it's a plateau. Temperatures are not decreasing as they should.

Observations of the graphs on the right, show that arouond 1850 CO2 and Global mean temperature variations shoot upwards at a rate which is astoundingly high.

But wait, the Confederate Yankee claims that "The highest temperatures, as recorded via the chemical record of deep-core Greenland glaciers, were during the height of the Roman Empire. Obviously, this was due to Nero's fiddling while Rome burned fossil fuels."


We then go on to extoll the virtues of the actual stability of the climate over the last 90,000 years.

This is somewhat silly to say based on the fact that over the last 90,000 years we have had countless glacial and interglacial periods, which have been quite pronounced. Another thing to note is that this graph doesn't actually make it to 2000. This is a condensed portion of the ice core graph above that only goes to 1950. It does not include the data gathered over the past 60 years showing a rapid upswing in global temperatures. The temperature shown, based on UNEP data, should be 3/4 to 1 degree higher, that would put current temperatures at the top of or off of the chart there. Exceeding Nero's fiddle playing fossil fuel extravaganza.

Also when you compare to oxygen isotope ratios (see below), that temperatures now are higher than they have been. Also, there is a marked downward trend until roughly the 1850s, followed by a steep increase.

Also, the presumptions made in the preparation of the document that the Confederate Yankee are based on a one page document by Richard S. Courtney DipPhil in which he states:

• There is no correlation between (greenhouse gases) and global temperature.

Are you kidding me? CO2, Methane, and other greenhouse gases ALL show a direct correlation with global temperatures. The corellation in some cases is delayed as the cause needs to pre-date the effect.

• Change to global carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all scales.

Duh. So perhaps cranking billions of tons of it into the atmosphere is a bad idea.

• Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide

Yes it has. See above UNEP plot.

• Same as previous

Same as previous

• The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the (anthropogenic global warming) theory is absent.

It is? Could have fooled me.

At any rate, the earth is warmer than it has been. We're currently in a pretty warm period of the Earth's history already. However, I don't believe you can refute the evidence that pumping greenhouse gases like CO2 into the atmosphere is exacerbating an already existing system. Not only are we increasing the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, but by deforestation for agriculture, lumber harvesting and other practices, we are actually decreasing the planet's ability to remove the excess CO2.

The following chart is a ratio of O18/O16 plotted versus time. An increasing ratio (More O18), indicates cooler tempeatures and a decreasing ratio (Less O18) indicates warmer. This shows a similar pattern to all the others. Look at T=0 though. It shoots off the chart, and indicates far warmer temperatures than in past peaks over the past 1000 years.

O18 ratios are slightly better indicators of global temperature because they rely on the temperature of ocean water. Since the majority of the planet is covered by water.

But as my friend so aptly put it: "(Global warming) misses the point of the whole eco movement." If everyone lived the way we do in North America, there would be no debate on whether the "Global Warming" phenomenon is anthropogenic. It would be obvious that it is. We would all also likely asphyxiate from the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Short of that we would run out of food and natural resources very quickly. Not to mention the mounds of garbage with nowhere to go.

Whatever you believe on the issue, we do need to develop sustainable alterantives to our current lifestyles. This includes using less fossil fuel, designing more eco-friendly materials, chemicals, and solvents. More efficient infrastructure and means of travel. Because in the end we do have to live here, and so do our children and their children. It is not fair to them to give them a world of asthma, emphysema, lung and other cancers, CPD, and other breathing disorders, rivers and oceans too polluted to swim or fish in, and land and groundwater too contaminated to grow food or to get drinking water from.

I'm not saying we should all go live in trees. But we do need to do our part at reducing our impact on the world around us. Because we have to live here, as do future generations.

World prefers Obama, America oblivious

Globally, Barack Obama holds a 4-to-1 lead on John McCain. In Canada 67% support Obama, while only 22% support John McCain. Saudi Arabia prefers Obama 50% to 19%, UK 60%-15% for Obama, Japan 66% to 15%. France 64%-4%.

On the other hand, McCain holds a small lead in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Lao at 25%-24%. McCain also leads in the Phillipines 28%-20%.

Meanwhile, back in America, where none of that matters to anyone, Barack Obama now holds a 52%-42% lead among likely voters, and a 52% to 41% lead among registered voters.

McCain won't go silently in to the night either, he's going kicking and screaming accusing Obama of being a socialist. (Hey, socio-democracy isn't that bad, most other first-world countries seem to have figured it out; Just ask Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, the UK...).

And Good on Colin Powell this week for rejecting the "He's an arab" claim as a reason to vote for McCain. So what if he was/is? Is it wrong to be Muslim in America? Recent polls actually suggest that American's look down their noses at atheists more than Muslims. So what's the problem. What if he was protestant, or Jewish, or goodness, Hindu! Who frickin cares. When it comes right down to it Barack Obama is an American and he loves his country the same as everyone else. Same goes for Muslim Americans, Jewish Americans, Asian Americans and on down the line.

Two weeks from now, barring recounts, which will inevitably occur in some states, we will know the outcome and whether all this polling really means squat.

What $700 Billion could do for me:

I'm not a big bank, nor a wall street type. I'm not a homeowner, or a person foreclosed. I'm a member of what we would call the middle-class, struggling to get by. Fact is, unless you're rich, you're living paycheque to paycheque, just like everybody else. Meanwhile, you sit back and watch helplessly as congress debates how much money to give to the banks to stimulate the economy. 700,000,000,000.00 dollars. SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION dollars that will come off the backs of the taxpayer.

Lets go into why I'm living paycheque to paycheque.

I spend:

$400 dollars/month to send one kid to school

$500-700 / month for daycare for the other

$360.00 per month on one credit card

$200.00 per month on the other

$1020.00 per month on rent

$350.00 per month on a car payment

then there's groceries, car insurance, life insurance, and other miscellaneous expenses.

There are 144,354,117 (est. 2008; CIA) people between the ages of 16 and 49 in the United States. If we assume that two-thirds of those people are married and do or do not have kids, that gives us 96,717,259 married people aged 18-49. This in turn translates to 48,358,630 couples. If we divide $700,000,000,000.00 by 48,358,630. That turns out to be $14,475.18 per couple.

Now, what would $14,475.18 do for someone like me? It would pay off my credit cards, saving me approximately $560.00 per month, or 6,720.00 per year. Did I mention my second car just died?

Now, let's say I have a home loan that I can't afford because... oh... my credit cards are maxed out... or I have car payments on top of it, or I have other loans. An extra $500-600 per month may be enough to keep me in my home, or to allow me to downgrade to a smaller home while somebody who is now more able to pay can buy up my property.

Now, there's always the problem that people are going to take that money and blow it all on liquor, guns, and cheap hookers, but in the end, it's their own money anyways (being a taxpayer). However, I see that percentage of people being very small, with the more responsible people using it to pay off debt or to invest for their futures or their children's futures.

Regardless, you are pumping money back into the financial sector, just indirectly, by issuing a refund. That money will find it's way back into the banks and into wall street and would unclog the credit markets by allowing people to afford to pay for their loans.

Aha! You say. But what about the people over the age of 50. Frankly, the boomers are all reaching retirement age and are about to drain social security so there will be no money left for the younger generations. Persons over the age of 50 are also more established in society, they own their homes, have a couple of vehicles they own, their kids have moved out... in essence, they have fewer expenses.

This could be expanded to persons who are unmarried, with children, or who are aged 50-60, provided you establish a system where persons over a certain income level do not receive the entire benefit or any at all dependant on income.

At any rate, I'll go back home tonight and dine on Kraft Dinner and Hot Pockets, while big bankers and CEOs can go home to their mansions in their Ferarris and have their chefs prepare lobster and filet mignon.

Just a thought.