Monday, October 29, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Yes, Harry Reid, there was a cause for the fires and it had nothing to do with Global Warming. Yes, Barbara Boxer, there are enough National Guard in California to handle the situation.
Guess what? California also has earthquakes. And fires are not uncommon. Fire's can be caused by downed power lines or by man. Smoky the Bear claims he has never set a forest fire by dropping his lit cigarette or leaving his campfire unattended, or on purpose.
Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith
Cpl. Jason Dunham
OK, then. Quick - who are these people?
My guess is you probably knew the latter names because of the incessant media exposure. My further guess is that unless you subscribe to military news, you never heard of the first three.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a media that extols spoiled, rich, substance abusing "celebrities" and neglects true heroes. Oliver North takes them to task in an article titled Real American Heroes.
That's all I have to say at the moment.
Update 11/05/2007. sorry about the broken link to Lt Murphy. It is now fixed.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
If you prefer a non-government view, try Iraq The Model. This site provides commentary and insight on aspects of the conflict that are not reported elsewhere. Since the bloggers are also graduate students, they have begun posting less frequently, but what they say is worth reading. Then there is Michael Yon's excellent photojournalism.
For a lighter look at the war, one of my blogging buddies has posted excerpts from another real buddy currently serving in Iraq. You will enjoy it.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Since climate is locally defined, it would appear that climate change happens every day as a matter of course. Some days it is warm, some days it rains, some days it is cold, etc. Somewhere along the line we (not me, but somebody) decided that the region in question is global. Now on any given day somewhere on the globe it is hot, somewhere else it is raining, somewhere there might be a tropical storms. How then, can we define a global climate? We have seasons in most areas of the globe. We have long nights in the winter season and long days in the summer season.
When I was in high school I learned that carbon dioxide was a life-giving gas for plants. The plants, through a process called photosynthesis, return the favor by providing oxygen. As you may recall, photosynthesis is
The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which carbohydrates
are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using light as an energy source.
Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a byproduct.
As you may also recall, most animals (including humans) depend on this oxygen stuff and the carbohydrates in plants for life. So the deal seems simple
- Plants take carbon dioxide and water and sunlight and release oxygen.
- Animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.
Using this simple scheme, plants and animals get along famously, each emitting what the other needs to breathe. Superb. What a clever arrangement. Almost like it was planned.
Now, however, carbon dioxide has become the nasty "greenhouse gas" that will result in the sea levels rising 20 or more feet next year (OK, I exaggerated a little). One other thing that happens is that salt water in the seas (lakes, rivers, etc) evaporates to become moisture in the air. Later it condenses and falls as rain. This is the water cycle. However, moisture in the air is another one of those "greenhouse" gases. And it is all man's fault.
Here's my question: If all the carbon dioxide generated by man (including that from breathing) results in less than one degree temperature rise in a century (assume for the moment this is true), would that not make for a longer growing season? And a longer growing season would mean more carbon dioxide being converted to oxygen. Would that not improve the overall quality of air? I'm just asking.
Friday, October 12, 2007
- The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. (Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Climate (accessed: October 12, 2007).) (emphasis added)
- The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region. (Climate. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Climate (accessed: October 12, 2007).)(emphasis added)
- The weather in some location averaged over some long period of time; "the dank climate of southern Wales"; "plants from a cold clime travel best in winter" (Climate. (n.d.). Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:) (emphasis added)
- The general or average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall, and wind. On Earth, climate is most affected by latitude, the tilt of the Earth's axis, the movements of the Earth's wind belts, the difference in temperatures of land and sea, and topography. Human activity, especially relating to actions relating to the depletion of the ozone layer, is also an important factor.
(The American Heritage® Science Dictionary, Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)(emphasis added)
- A region's usual weather patterns. The climate at any point on Earth is determined by things such as the general movement of the atmosphere, the proximity of the oceans, and the altitude of the location.
(The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.) (emphasis added)
Monday, October 08, 2007
Now, it is interesting to me who is leading this fight. Notice the names of the folks who voted AGAINST condemnation of MoveOn.org (previous article), and then note the names of those on the letter from Senator Reid.
Anybody surprised? Who do YOU think really "supports the troops"?
Friday, October 05, 2007
In response, Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex) sponsored an amendment expressing support for the General and condemning the personal attacks.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary
|Vote Number:||344||Vote Date:||September 20, 2007, 12:36 PM|
|Required For Majority:||3/5||Vote Result:||Amendment Agreed to|
|Amendment Number:||S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)|
|Statement of Purpose:||To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.|
You would think that would be a fairly straightforward proposition. The moveOn ad was despicable. Yet, there were 25 who voted against the resolution. Here are the names and votes. (Blue are Democrat or Independents who voted in favor of the resolution. Red are current or former Democrat Presidential candidates or Majority Leader):
Grouped By Vote Position
|Not Voting - 3|
|Biden (D-DE)||Cantwell (D-WA)||Obama (D-IL)|
Notice that two of the current crop decided not to be on record one way or the other. Also notice that the anointed President (Clinton) was just fine with the ad.