Friday, October 26, 2007
Headlines
Bush is considering air strikes again Kurdish rebels in order to please the Ottoman Empire, which just approved an invasion of Kurd controlled Iraq. Such a nice situation we are in. Maybe we won't make a whole new slew of America hating insurgents. But hey, maybe it's the way we are handling it that is making things so darn poopy. Bush's Special Envoy to Turkey thinks so. He just resigned in protest because he was so frustrated that the Bush administration lack of diplomacy efforts. But he just forgot that diplomacy IS bombs. Silly envoy.
Chicken Little says: The ice is melting, the ice is melting!!! Oh shit, it is.
Yup, that's actual NASA satellite imagery folks.
The Lt. Gov of CA called out Bush for his disastrous record on dealing with disasters. He pointed out (as did the state leaders after Katrina and the midwest tornadoes) that the absence of National Guard troops and equipment greatly hampers their ability to deal with disasters. He apparently forgot that they are busy dealing with Bush's disaster.
Bush is apparently not content with trying to deny poor kids access to healthcare, but now he wants to take away funding for helping low income people heat their homes. A program that annually costs about what one week of Iraq does is apparently just too much of a burden for taxpayers. I guess Bush figures that illness isn't an efficient enough killer of children, so he intends to freeze the lil' fuckers.
Even Fox News had to report that just 2 months ago, we had a 70% chance to get Osama, but didn't because of, according to a Col. Hunt, "incompetence" among "our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders." Dead or Alive indeed.
The estimated cost for the Iraq occupation if continued for the next 10 years is... $2.4 t-t-trillion. Bush's spokesperson says they are not concerned with how much it costs. Isn't that nice, after selling it as only costing $50 billion we now find out it will check in at, oh, about 50 times that. And they don't care.
Scientists have denounced the "evisceration" of a CDC report on the potential health effects of global warming by the White House as "frustrating," "terrible" and "appalling." The edits reduced the initial report from 14 pages to only 6, and removed essentially any mention of potential health concerns. Dana Petrino remarked that the White House was simply trying to increase the focus on potential health benefits of global warming. She then ad-libbed how warming would help reduce cold related health concerns. A stance that wasn't even in the report, which actually did not find that there were any benefits at all. In fact it reported that any benefit from reduced cold would be outweighed by increasing heat related issues.
But you all have to remember that the scientists do not really understand the science here, the White House does. You see, political inculcation allows for true understanding. Years of education, specialization and study do not.
Chicken Little says: The ice is melting, the ice is melting!!! Oh shit, it is.
Yup, that's actual NASA satellite imagery folks.
The Lt. Gov of CA called out Bush for his disastrous record on dealing with disasters. He pointed out (as did the state leaders after Katrina and the midwest tornadoes) that the absence of National Guard troops and equipment greatly hampers their ability to deal with disasters. He apparently forgot that they are busy dealing with Bush's disaster.
Bush is apparently not content with trying to deny poor kids access to healthcare, but now he wants to take away funding for helping low income people heat their homes. A program that annually costs about what one week of Iraq does is apparently just too much of a burden for taxpayers. I guess Bush figures that illness isn't an efficient enough killer of children, so he intends to freeze the lil' fuckers.
Even Fox News had to report that just 2 months ago, we had a 70% chance to get Osama, but didn't because of, according to a Col. Hunt, "incompetence" among "our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders." Dead or Alive indeed.
The estimated cost for the Iraq occupation if continued for the next 10 years is... $2.4 t-t-trillion. Bush's spokesperson says they are not concerned with how much it costs. Isn't that nice, after selling it as only costing $50 billion we now find out it will check in at, oh, about 50 times that. And they don't care.
Scientists have denounced the "evisceration" of a CDC report on the potential health effects of global warming by the White House as "frustrating," "terrible" and "appalling." The edits reduced the initial report from 14 pages to only 6, and removed essentially any mention of potential health concerns. Dana Petrino remarked that the White House was simply trying to increase the focus on potential health benefits of global warming. She then ad-libbed how warming would help reduce cold related health concerns. A stance that wasn't even in the report, which actually did not find that there were any benefits at all. In fact it reported that any benefit from reduced cold would be outweighed by increasing heat related issues.
But you all have to remember that the scientists do not really understand the science here, the White House does. You see, political inculcation allows for true understanding. Years of education, specialization and study do not.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Why They Fight
This is some information on a documentary that is being shown to US troops in Iraq to help them explain what the insurgency really is. I think a lot of people that live here need to see it too.
Here is some info on it's screening to troops.
The trailer and more info can be found here.
Here is some info on it's screening to troops.
The trailer and more info can be found here.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Social Programs
I was thinking about what the ultimate reasons for our presence in Iraq are. It's to make our lives better, right? To make us safer, to make us wealthier and more secure. So, it's basically a social program. Just like the SCHIP program. Right?
Except, SCHIP, which costs a tiny fraction of what the occupation of Iraq does and would provide benefits to significantly more people than have benefited from our Iraq endeavor is treated with contempt by conservatives. And I really don't get that.
We're spending hundreds of times more, sacrificing thousands of lives, negatively impacting tens of thousands more for mercurial benefits that even if achieved will benefit far fewer than providing health care to needy children. Why?
Why do conservatives only seem to be willing to spend money on threats that come from overseas and can be bombed? Why do accidents and illness not matter to them?
I have to say that only reason I can think of is that there are loads of wealthy Americans that stand to make billions off of Iraq, and as a result they are completely willing to spend hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars in order to provide for them.
It's basically a social program, just for rich people. Take money (and livelihood and lives) from poor people and give it to rich people.
Except, SCHIP, which costs a tiny fraction of what the occupation of Iraq does and would provide benefits to significantly more people than have benefited from our Iraq endeavor is treated with contempt by conservatives. And I really don't get that.
We're spending hundreds of times more, sacrificing thousands of lives, negatively impacting tens of thousands more for mercurial benefits that even if achieved will benefit far fewer than providing health care to needy children. Why?
Why do conservatives only seem to be willing to spend money on threats that come from overseas and can be bombed? Why do accidents and illness not matter to them?
I have to say that only reason I can think of is that there are loads of wealthy Americans that stand to make billions off of Iraq, and as a result they are completely willing to spend hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars in order to provide for them.
It's basically a social program, just for rich people. Take money (and livelihood and lives) from poor people and give it to rich people.
Global Warming
Response from Justin, who for some reason refuses to post. Hmph.
That sure is a nice little rhetorical hackjob by Stossel.
First, a few words about his credibility on such exposes:
He has ties to the global warming denying (and industry funded) CEI, which went about defending him when he cited imaginary scientific studies in order to bash organic foods. He has "investigated" numerous pet issues of the CEI over the years and, shockingly, has found that they are dead right on every issue!
Both CEI and Stossel have used research out of context in deliberate attempts to mislead the public about issues concerning climate change and basically anything else he and they want to portray as they see them.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html
So, basically, take anything he reports with a giant grain of salt. He is a fervent libertarian and perceives science's conclusions that we need to regulate our industry to reduce our pollution as nothing but the boogy man of "socialism."
Now I'll respond to what he's actually reported on as either errors or exaggerations on the part of Gore and the IPCC.
Take note that he has nothing at all to say about the IPCC findings other than attempt to smear them as being lackeys for evil socialist governments. All he can do is attempt to imply they are not objective. Which I find hilarious coming from him.
But this article, written by scientists, does a good job of showing how hollow all Stossel's criticisms are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/
And here is some info on the various "impartial experts" that Stossel has on his piece:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/oct/20/102000626.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
It is also notable that NONE of the experts used in this piece have ANY peer-reviewed research that proves their assertions. What they are espousing is simply their own personal opinions, nothing more.
I will leave you with some actual scientific conclusions and analysis, but that will likely not do anything, because believing the considered (and peer reviewed) findings of the people that actually study and understand this stuff is apparently not as good as going with your gut (and the free-market ideologue with the spotty record of journalistic integrity and accuracy who happens to have a gut just like you).
But don't let fact that EVERY major scientific body in the US whose member's expertise pertains to the matter have issued statements congruent with the IPCC conclusions influence your viewpoint.
Conclusions aren't made on rational input, they are made on emotions and ideological fundamentals.
I recommend to all of you that if you become injured or sick, don't go to see a doctor or anything crazy like that. Go boil some chicken bones and mix them with pig blood and toss them up in the air, then read their position to figure out what is wrong with you and what you should do. Or maybe just pray.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5524/2011a
Finnigan, Dan and anyone else who is swayed by such uninformed tripe as Stossel's work, the site I cited earlier is written by climate researchers that take the time to break down the science used and also critique the reports that one might stumble upon searching the interwebs. I've included an article from Nature that discusses it and corroborates their credentials. It is a great place to go and gain a better understanding of what the state of the science really is and what sort of methods are employed in this kind of research.
The fact that a group of scientists were so fed up with the twisted sensationalism and misleading media coverage of their research that they felt compelled to create a website (in their free time) to provide rebuttals to the punditry and spin that attempted to twist or discredit their conclusions should illuminate how distorted this issue has become outside of scientific circles.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7020/full/432937a.html
To all:
If you are actually serious about trying to understand the state of climate science I am very happy to provide sources and information to anyone who asks. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have been reading journals and publications for the last 10 years, and I found that the question was overwhelmingly resolved long ago. I'm not sure, but I might be able to give you something a little more substantial than a 20/20 piece.
The simple fact is that the vast, VAST, VAST preponderance of data shows that we are at least significantly contributing to the observed warming, that the warming will only increase and that the effects of this warming will be very deleterious to the industrialized world. The case for action regarding our energy policies is completely justified based on the research and has been for quite some time. Not to mention that aside from purely environmental considerations, our present energy policies are placing us in increasingly precarious economic situations as well as exacerbate global security issues in a number of different ways.
The debate should be over what to do about this, not whether it is really happening. That is a question for the researchers, we can only act on their findings. We face enough questions created by their conclusions to occupy our mental energies.
That sure is a nice little rhetorical hackjob by Stossel.
First, a few words about his credibility on such exposes:
He has ties to the global warming denying (and industry funded) CEI, which went about defending him when he cited imaginary scientific studies in order to bash organic foods. He has "investigated" numerous pet issues of the CEI over the years and, shockingly, has found that they are dead right on every issue!
Both CEI and Stossel have used research out of context in deliberate attempts to mislead the public about issues concerning climate change and basically anything else he and they want to portray as they see them.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html
So, basically, take anything he reports with a giant grain of salt. He is a fervent libertarian and perceives science's conclusions that we need to regulate our industry to reduce our pollution as nothing but the boogy man of "socialism."
Now I'll respond to what he's actually reported on as either errors or exaggerations on the part of Gore and the IPCC.
Take note that he has nothing at all to say about the IPCC findings other than attempt to smear them as being lackeys for evil socialist governments. All he can do is attempt to imply they are not objective. Which I find hilarious coming from him.
But this article, written by scientists, does a good job of showing how hollow all Stossel's criticisms are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/
And here is some info on the various "impartial experts" that Stossel has on his piece:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/oct/20/102000626.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
It is also notable that NONE of the experts used in this piece have ANY peer-reviewed research that proves their assertions. What they are espousing is simply their own personal opinions, nothing more.
I will leave you with some actual scientific conclusions and analysis, but that will likely not do anything, because believing the considered (and peer reviewed) findings of the people that actually study and understand this stuff is apparently not as good as going with your gut (and the free-market ideologue with the spotty record of journalistic integrity and accuracy who happens to have a gut just like you).
But don't let fact that EVERY major scientific body in the US whose member's expertise pertains to the matter have issued statements congruent with the IPCC conclusions influence your viewpoint.
Conclusions aren't made on rational input, they are made on emotions and ideological fundamentals.
I recommend to all of you that if you become injured or sick, don't go to see a doctor or anything crazy like that. Go boil some chicken bones and mix them with pig blood and toss them up in the air, then read their position to figure out what is wrong with you and what you should do. Or maybe just pray.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5524/2011a
Finnigan, Dan and anyone else who is swayed by such uninformed tripe as Stossel's work, the site I cited earlier is written by climate researchers that take the time to break down the science used and also critique the reports that one might stumble upon searching the interwebs. I've included an article from Nature that discusses it and corroborates their credentials. It is a great place to go and gain a better understanding of what the state of the science really is and what sort of methods are employed in this kind of research.
The fact that a group of scientists were so fed up with the twisted sensationalism and misleading media coverage of their research that they felt compelled to create a website (in their free time) to provide rebuttals to the punditry and spin that attempted to twist or discredit their conclusions should illuminate how distorted this issue has become outside of scientific circles.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7020/full/432937a.html
To all:
If you are actually serious about trying to understand the state of climate science I am very happy to provide sources and information to anyone who asks. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have been reading journals and publications for the last 10 years, and I found that the question was overwhelmingly resolved long ago. I'm not sure, but I might be able to give you something a little more substantial than a 20/20 piece.
The simple fact is that the vast, VAST, VAST preponderance of data shows that we are at least significantly contributing to the observed warming, that the warming will only increase and that the effects of this warming will be very deleterious to the industrialized world. The case for action regarding our energy policies is completely justified based on the research and has been for quite some time. Not to mention that aside from purely environmental considerations, our present energy policies are placing us in increasingly precarious economic situations as well as exacerbate global security issues in a number of different ways.
The debate should be over what to do about this, not whether it is really happening. That is a question for the researchers, we can only act on their findings. We face enough questions created by their conclusions to occupy our mental energies.
Give Me A Break - Global Warming
From Anonymous Poster who does not wish to publish his/her beliefs before such a vast audience.
My first attempt
Sorry I've been incommunicado. The combination of work, applying to new jobs, and of course all things weddings have kept me from participating actively. Anyways, here are just a few things for everyone:
For Justin:
I read as much as I could of your lost email. However, I did not read each of the articles that you inserted. I assume that they all have a the same theme though - stress on the troops, low morale.
Now the articles that I read (both news and opinion) don't seem to reflect the same attitudes from the troops that the Guardian, NY Times, and LA Times do. I don't know why that is. Also the independent inbedded journalist like Yon, Totten, Smith, and others always seem to be with units that have no morale problems (in fact usually quite the opposite). I'm not disputing the NY Times or the LA Times, but there seems to be a disconnect between the people that I read and rely on and the people that you read and rely on. Perhaps it partly has to do with the significant changes that occurred all over the country over the last three months. Even some more mainstream news sources seem to be reporting on it:
Reuters -- http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Newsweek -- http://www.newsweek.com/id/57358
For Rachel:
I am so sorry that I never responded to your wonderful post on interrogations. I really did intend on doing so, and then it kind of got lost behind.
I first meant to ask if you took excerpts from the paper you wrote about interrogations? Whether you did or not I would love to read it sometime.
Anyways I had an interesting conversation with a person I know who works with a former Guantanamo Bay interrogator. This guy worked at Gitmo for most of the War on Islamofascism (I wonder if you like that name better than War on Terror). As you can guess he never thought that anything that he or his colleagues did could be considered torture. He also said, interestingly enough, that most of the al-Qaida prisoners at Gitmo had been trained to overcome interrogation tactics during their time at training camps in Afghanistan. And that their goal after being captured was to use the US justice system as a mouthpiece to garner support from other extremist (and this was supposed to be done in American courtrooms). The idea that the US would hold them indefinitely, and not allow them court appearances did not occur to them, and in many ways threw a wrench into their plans (that is holding them as any other country would, for the duration of the conflict).
The other curious thing that was relayed to me was the way that interrogations are conducted now after all the brew-ha-ha over perceived torture. The guy said that under the old system they gathered some of the most valuable information ever collected from any source, and that they had a very high rate of successful interrogations. And that once prisoners let their guard down, they tend to give up huge amounts of info, as if they wanted to brag about their accomplishments to someone. The guy said that normally their hardest task is figuring out what is real and what is bravado.
But now they operate very differently. Today if they want to interrogate a prisoner they have to go to the prisoners cell and ask the prisoner if he wants to talk to them. If the prisoner refuses then they just leave the prisoner be. So basically we can't get any information from anyone anymore. This one particular guy quit because he was fed up with the situation (and he apparently claims that many other trained interrogators are also quiting).
This brings up my questions for you. If stress and duress techniques are no longer acceptable to you, then how would you conduct interrogations of prisoners in the future? Which sorts of techniques, if any, would you approve of, and how would you square the need for intelligence, and the desire to treat these unlawful combatants properly? And how would you want a potential Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama administration to tackle this issue?
There is so much more from the last email you sent about this that I would like to discuss, but it'll have to wait until next time.
For the environmentalists:
Do you guys remember my old roommate Anthony? Anthony graduated from Johns Hopkins with a masters in Environmental Policy. He and I had constant (constructive) arguments about all things political, all the time. However when it came to questions of the environment I normally gave way to him, since he knew so much about it. The only time that I ever really challenged him is when we switched from talking about the circumstances of environmental problems to what should the government do about those problems?
My concern is more about the effects of environmental policy on the American economy, and less about the affects of global warming on the earth. That's not because I don't take global warming seriously, because I do. But I just don't want us to do something that will inhibit economic growth for a science that seems to change rather frequently.
Also the politics global warming seem to me to have more to do with positioning, than it does with science. The Kyoto Treaty, for instance:
Normally Democrats liked to beat up Republicans over not Kyoto, saying something like Bush has "refused to sign Kyoto." However, Bush refused to sign Kyoto for a very good reason: he can't. The previous President already signed Kyoto, however he never sent it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it would fail. There are differing constitutional rationales behind this. Some say that the Senate can take it up an time it wants to, while others say that the President actually has to send it over. Either way Harry Reid isn't clamoring to get going with it. He knows that every Democratic Senator would see their union support running for the hills if he brought the treaty up for a vote.
And besides its better to leave the matter unresolved so that you can use it to beat up a Republican President and Republican Senators. Until the science gets really firm, the politicians are going to play around with the policy to suit their political goals (Al Gore included).
T
For Justin:
I read as much as I could of your lost email. However, I did not read each of the articles that you inserted. I assume that they all have a the same theme though - stress on the troops, low morale.
Now the articles that I read (both news and opinion) don't seem to reflect the same attitudes from the troops that the Guardian, NY Times, and LA Times do. I don't know why that is. Also the independent inbedded journalist like Yon, Totten, Smith, and others always seem to be with units that have no morale problems (in fact usually quite the opposite). I'm not disputing the NY Times or the LA Times, but there seems to be a disconnect between the people that I read and rely on and the people that you read and rely on. Perhaps it partly has to do with the significant changes that occurred all over the country over the last three months. Even some more mainstream news sources seem to be reporting on it:
Reuters -- http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Newsweek -- http://www.newsweek.com/id/57358
For Rachel:
I am so sorry that I never responded to your wonderful post on interrogations. I really did intend on doing so, and then it kind of got lost behind.
I first meant to ask if you took excerpts from the paper you wrote about interrogations? Whether you did or not I would love to read it sometime.
Anyways I had an interesting conversation with a person I know who works with a former Guantanamo Bay interrogator. This guy worked at Gitmo for most of the War on Islamofascism (I wonder if you like that name better than War on Terror). As you can guess he never thought that anything that he or his colleagues did could be considered torture. He also said, interestingly enough, that most of the al-Qaida prisoners at Gitmo had been trained to overcome interrogation tactics during their time at training camps in Afghanistan. And that their goal after being captured was to use the US justice system as a mouthpiece to garner support from other extremist (and this was supposed to be done in American courtrooms). The idea that the US would hold them indefinitely, and not allow them court appearances did not occur to them, and in many ways threw a wrench into their plans (that is holding them as any other country would, for the duration of the conflict).
The other curious thing that was relayed to me was the way that interrogations are conducted now after all the brew-ha-ha over perceived torture. The guy said that under the old system they gathered some of the most valuable information ever collected from any source, and that they had a very high rate of successful interrogations. And that once prisoners let their guard down, they tend to give up huge amounts of info, as if they wanted to brag about their accomplishments to someone. The guy said that normally their hardest task is figuring out what is real and what is bravado.
But now they operate very differently. Today if they want to interrogate a prisoner they have to go to the prisoners cell and ask the prisoner if he wants to talk to them. If the prisoner refuses then they just leave the prisoner be. So basically we can't get any information from anyone anymore. This one particular guy quit because he was fed up with the situation (and he apparently claims that many other trained interrogators are also quiting).
This brings up my questions for you. If stress and duress techniques are no longer acceptable to you, then how would you conduct interrogations of prisoners in the future? Which sorts of techniques, if any, would you approve of, and how would you square the need for intelligence, and the desire to treat these unlawful combatants properly? And how would you want a potential Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama administration to tackle this issue?
There is so much more from the last email you sent about this that I would like to discuss, but it'll have to wait until next time.
For the environmentalists:
Do you guys remember my old roommate Anthony? Anthony graduated from Johns Hopkins with a masters in Environmental Policy. He and I had constant (constructive) arguments about all things political, all the time. However when it came to questions of the environment I normally gave way to him, since he knew so much about it. The only time that I ever really challenged him is when we switched from talking about the circumstances of environmental problems to what should the government do about those problems?
My concern is more about the effects of environmental policy on the American economy, and less about the affects of global warming on the earth. That's not because I don't take global warming seriously, because I do. But I just don't want us to do something that will inhibit economic growth for a science that seems to change rather frequently.
Also the politics global warming seem to me to have more to do with positioning, than it does with science. The Kyoto Treaty, for instance:
Normally Democrats liked to beat up Republicans over not Kyoto, saying something like Bush has "refused to sign Kyoto." However, Bush refused to sign Kyoto for a very good reason: he can't. The previous President already signed Kyoto, however he never sent it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it would fail. There are differing constitutional rationales behind this. Some say that the Senate can take it up an time it wants to, while others say that the President actually has to send it over. Either way Harry Reid isn't clamoring to get going with it. He knows that every Democratic Senator would see their union support running for the hills if he brought the treaty up for a vote.
And besides its better to leave the matter unresolved so that you can use it to beat up a Republican President and Republican Senators. Until the science gets really firm, the politicians are going to play around with the policy to suit their political goals (Al Gore included).
T
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
