Missing the Forest for the Tree

Due to a request from one of my most valued and respected readers I will be giving my opinion on the Arizona immigration law, known as SB 1070, that has been the latest source of controversy on Capital Hill.

There is only one issue that matters when discussing Arizona’s new immigration law – it’s illegal.  States do not have the power to make immigration laws.  To reference this point just look to Proposition 187, an anti-immigration law passed in California in 1994, which was stuck down by a federal judge.  Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School explains why Arizona’s law is illegal:

The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

This has been pointed out by numerous other legal scholars across the country too.  So debating whether the actual law is a good idea or a bad one (it’s a bad idea) is irrelevant when it’s never going to be held up.  This very well could, however, be the spark leading to a national debate on immigration reform.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I just read this news story on Fox “News” and I’m excited to say the least.  Below is an excerpt from the story.

The environmentalists allege that individual companies are responsible for climate change because they have emitted greenhouse gases during the course of their operations. Those gases, they say, have “harmed” them by fostering Hurricane Katrina, eroding the shorelines of America’s coasts and causing global warming.

Obviously, this story is slanted, but it’s about time someone did this!  I’ve wished I could do this myself – I just don’t have the knowledge, means, or resources to do it myself.  It’d be unrealistic to think that I could win, but an expert much more knowledgeable on the subject should be able to win no problem.  The problem with scientists are they have no balls.  The court of law must uphold the facts.  Science is science.  Anyone with the information should be able to walk into a court of law, present their case, back it up with expert witnesses, and win.  I’ve read of environmental scientists who have proposed the idea before, but as I said scientists have no balls and we have yet to see anyone try.

I’ll admit, linking climate change to any specific corporation may be a challenge, but hopefully this can somehow result in placing “global” restrictions on certain environmentally harmful activities.  Evnironmental (un)sustainability is the biggest problem facing humanity in the coming century.  We can either be pro-active and deal with it before it becomes a big problem or we can be forced deal with it later when it becomes a huge problem.

The reason some people don’t think humans are effecting the environment is because the changes are not easy to see, and its changes take place on a geologic time scale.  Not to mention that this is the first time in our planets history where humans are capable of effecting the environment to the degree that can potentially cause so many changes.  Human’s (and pre-human ancestors) have been around for 1-2 million years.  The thing is there have always been so little humans and so much of an environment that the environment has always been capable of absorbing our effects.  Due to an explosion in human population and technology, this has changed *dramatically* in the last 200 years.  Can anyone look at the Manhattan and tell me that humans ARE NOT changing the environment?  Are dozens of square miles of skyscrapers, factories, and buildings a natural environment?

Don’t take my word for all of this however, because as the saying goes “the truth fears no questions.”  I encourage anyone who has questions regarding human’s relationship and impacts to the environment to read up on environmental science, chemistry, and biology, find out the answers to their questions, and do so with an open mind.  Asking questions, discovering accurate information, and understanding are ENCOURAGED.  Keep in mind that if anyone (Fox News) makes you feel like it’s a good idea to not ask questions, that’s your sign to definitely ASK QUESTIONS.  Explaining human’s relationship and impacts to the environment is impossible to do in a few short paragraph’s, but is not difficult to understand after reading a few books.  So please, go ahead, read a few books, and decide for yourself on whether actions is needed now or not in order to save the environment.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

So you can vote on this poll that was on the front page of Fox “News” today.

Will Congressional Dems Ram Through A Health Care Bill?  Your options are:

• Yes. The fix is in, and American voters won’t know what hit them.
• Not sure, but it seems like it’s all moving too fast, and the Democrats don’t care that most Americans don’t want this thing.
• No. Republicans, moderate Democrats and reasonable Americans still have time to stop it – but time’s short.
• I don’t care, pass it — I’ll let Congress know how I feel come November.
• Other (post a comment)

It makes me laugh.  Even for Fox this is an amazingly slanted poll.  Not even a choice for “Yes, it should pass – and it’s a good idea to pass it.”  Could anyone imagine going to a *real* news site, such as CNN or ABC News and seeing a poll framed in such a biased manner?  Let’s take a look at this a bit more closely.

The question to the poll is “Will Congressional Dems *Ram* through a Health Care bill?  You just gotta love the biased language there.  No, the wording there isn’t intended to frame anyone’s opinion or anything…

Choice #1 – Yes. The fix is in, and American voters won’t know what hit them. Give me a break.  The money spent by insurance company’s to prevent health care reform from passing by spamming misinformation campaign’s and creating fear throughout the public is the real fix.

Choice #2 – Not sure, but it seems like it’s all moving too fast, and the Democrats don’t care that most Americans don’t want this thing. It’s moving too fast?  Really?  We have been having this health care debate for the PAST YEAR.  This is the slowest moving piece of legislation ever.  You know what moved too fast?  The prior administrations movement and decision to preemptively invade Iraq.  A decision which involved billions of dollars and had tens of thousands of LIVES at stake.

Choice #3 – No. Republicans, moderate Democrats and reasonable Americans still have time to stop it – but time’s short. Again, a choice framed in a way to make the fools who believe the propaganda Fox “News” spews think that health care reform is a bad thing.

Choice #4 – I don’t care, pass it — I’ll let Congress know how I feel come November. Again, another choice *assuming* that everyone thinks health care reform is a bad thing.

Choice #5 – Other.  I guess if I do support health care reform, I have to vote for this option?

Even though I know none of the sites regular readers would vote for a “Yes – it should pass” answer, it’s still pathetic for Fox to blatantly predetermine the results of a poll.  Fair and Balanced?  Right…  Framed and Pathetic is more like it.  It’s disgusting that Fox can be called a news organization when they are nothing more than a propaganda outlet for big money.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Even as we close in on the end of health care reform, Fox News still continues to blast any progress the Obama Administration makes towards improving the system.

I visit Fox News almost daily and over the past year I cannot recall one positive thing they have said about health care reform.  In almost 12 months, are you telling me that 100% of the changes the Obama Administration is proposing is bad and evil?  Other news organizations run both positive and negative articles about health care reform.  I visit the New York Times often and have had both positive and negative articles.  I visit CBS News and ABC News.  Both of those news organizations have ran both positive and negative articles about health care reform.  Same goes for CNN.  I suspect Fox News instead has an alternative agenda.  An agenda not including to report the news or to try and benefit anyone living in this country.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Google’s efforts to become a carbon neutral company just took a big step forward recently as the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved Google’s application to buy and sell energy.  This decision will make it easier for Google to obtain renewable energy to power its facilities.

Last month Google created subsidiary called Google Energy with the intent to buy and sell electricity on federally regulated markets.  While it may seem strange for an internet search company like Google to create a power company it’s not the first time a large company has done something like this.  In 2007, Wal-Mart created Texas Retail Energy in an effort to get the lowest costs of electricity for their retail stores and warehouses.

The important point to note here is that while Wal-Mart created its power company to find the lowest cost of electricity, Google created its power company to address carbon emissions and promote clean energy.  That’s not to say the added benefit of lower costing electricity was also not attractive to Google, but anyone who knows anything about Google’s founders obsession with clean, renewable energy knows this move was made in good intention towards reducing carbon emission first and foremost.  What plans does Google has down the road for Google Energy?  The answer to that questions is anyone’s guess, but I wouldn’t mind seeing Google becoming a player in the renewable energy market in the future.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

This week I came across two good news articles that show the dangers of fundamentalist religion – in this case Christianity.

Yesterday, the Texas Tribune published the results of a poll showing nearly a third of all Texans believe that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time.  Apparently the people of Texas are not familiar with radiometric dating techniques scientists use to date fossils.

Maybe there is no harm in simply having the belief that humans and dinosaurs lived together.  But what if people decide to act on these beliefs?  The New York Times ran this story last week about how the Texas State Board of Education would like to rewrite history claiming the United States of America was founded on Christian principles.

More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. This belief provides what they consider not only a theological but also, ultimately, a judicial grounding to their positions on social questions. When they proclaim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” they are not referring to the percentage of the population that ticks a certain box in a survey or census but to the country’s roots and the intent of the founders.

Again, apparently some of the people of Texas have forgot about one of our nations fundamental founding principles – the separation of church and state.  While it is true that religion is interwoven throughout our nations history, that still does not mean it was the *intent* of our founders for Christian beliefs to be the foundation for our country’s social makeup and judicial rulings.

After reading and absorbing both of these new stories I am reminded of when there were cry’s last year from Texas Gov. Rick Perry (and others)  to secede from the union.  Sadly, that might actually be a good idea.  Let them go and form their own nation around make believe history and destructive beliefs.  We can them build a wall around Texas to keep them out of the United States, just like many in Texas want to do to Mexico.  All joking aside though, I feel sorry for the children in Texas who are so deeply effected by these religious beliefs who will inevitably grow up to be stupid.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

President Obama renewed a commitment to nuclear power yesterday, pledging to build the first US nuclear power plant in three decades.  While I’m sure some Democrats, and his other supporters such as Keith Olbermann (who I usually agree with) will disagree with the move, I happen to strongly approve the decision.

A shift to nuclear power provides us with many benefits, despite the obvious (but probably unlikely) risks.  Mainly, it would help to lower our dependency on foreign oil and fossil fuels.  Anyone who thinks that’s not a big deal needs to re-evaluate why they think the US military is presently occupying Iraq.  The answer isn’t to defeat terrorism my friends.  The truth is to be able to sustain our current technological and economical levels we need a cheap source of energy.  All the cheap oil in the world is nearly gone.  Renewable energy such as solar is years, if not decades away from being able to take over the energy capacity that fossil fuels provide us with today, so nuclear is the unlikely candidate to help us make that transition away from fossil fuels and towards energy independence.

Another important opportunity nuclear power would provide our country with is more jobs.  We need people to design, build, operate and maintain these facilities.  Any idea that includes the benefits of creating more jobs should be considered a good idea.  Along with jobs, shifting towards nuclear energy would be temporarily good for the environment.  Our environment has sustained all the punishment it can handle from fossil fuel pollution, but since we don’t use much nuclear power our environment still has sufficient buffers for nuclear power pollution.  In the grand scheme of things the environmental benefits might be more than the energy and job benefits nuclear power provides.  If we continue to destroy the environment, it won’t matter what we do about energy independence or jobs because we won’t have an environment capable of sustaining life to begin with.

The debate on this subject has just begun, but I’m interested to see how the public response is on a push towards using more nuclear energy.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

A new CNN poll yesterday shows a majority of Americans still blame Bush for the economic crisis more than Obama.  Before I chime in and dish out some blame, let me provide a little background on some events that had led to the 2008 global economic crisis.

I’ll begin in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA).  DIDMCA abolished caps on the interest rates banks could charge on primary mortgages.  Two years later, President Reagan signed into law the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which deregulated the Savings and Loans industry, led to higher risk taking, and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Then in 1999, Phil Gramm spearheaded the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) which eventually was signed into law by President Clinton.  The GLBA repealed some of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had regulated the financial services industry.  Commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies were now allowed to consolidate, and security-based swap agreements (derivatives) became exempt from regulation.  This also led to financial institutions to engage in even higher risk taking.

Then along came the Bush Administration who encouraged everyone to go out and spend.  Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve gets credited with the assist by keeping interest rates too low for too long.  In 2004 the SEC decided it was a good idea to abolish the net capital rule, which allowed investment banks to over-leverage since there were no longer limits to the amount of debt the could take on.  This led to *insane* amounts of risk taking by the financial industry.  Welcome to the free market with no brakes on greed and corruption.

So banks began lending without regards to regulation because they knew the could just sell off their loans to Wall Street.  Wall Street packaged these loans as securities that were being rated by agencies who weren’t being regulated. When everyone started buying these securities, AIG wanted in on the profits and offered insurance on them.

We all know what happened next.  We’re living with the results of too much greed and too much corruption today.  However, this story wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t mention the consumer who took out too much debt for frivolous spending, the family who bought a home without making sure they could afford the payments, and the investor who bought the financial securities without understanding its risk.

So it’s easy to see we can’t blame Obama for the recession.  Just don’t tell that to anyone on Fox “News” who has been calling this the Obama recession since he was President-elect Obama.  The truth is, we are all at fault for *our* current economic situation.  Bankers, Wall Street, politicians, and consumers.  Each person needs to realize we are all in this together and that our actions affect other people.  We have to start making smarter long term decisions and change our behaviors or we will face another crisis like this in the near future.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

An entirely new perspective on the story of historical Jesus.  Thought provoking, paradigm shifting, and informative.  These adjectives come to mind after watching these videos.

I will not give my personal opinion on the Zeitgeist videos.  I did randomly “fact check” some of the information in the videos and I can verify the information I checked out was accurate.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Many people are skeptical of concept of global warming.  These people do not understand the potentially serious consequences our planet faces, partly thanks to a media that uses the terms “global warming” and climate change” interchangeably.  With that said, let me offer a distinction between the two terms.

• Global Warming – An increase in the average worldwide surface temperature.

• Climate Change – Changes in regional climate characteristics including temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind, and severe weather patterns.

As you can see, climate change encompasses the warming (or cooling) of surface temperatures and should be the focal point when discussing the environmental crisis we are facing.  Because the earth warms and cools at different rates, it is easy for a critic of global warming to find a region of the world where surface temperatures are actually cooling (despite the fact that average *worldwide* temperatures are rising) and use that as proof that global warming is a hoax.  Don’t be fooled!  If we talk about our environmental problems in the context of climate change,  it at least allows us to become less focused on surface temperature and more aware of the some aspects that threaten our environment.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites