gods
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Chertoff: 100 Percent Scanning Impossible
12/4/2008
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
A congressional mandate that requires 100 percent of cargo originating outside the United States be scanned before it reaches U.S. ports is "not possible," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday.
"You are not going to get 100 percent because you can't make every other country do that," Chertoff said in remarks made at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"And when people in Congress go 'how dare you say you're not going to do 100 percent,' I feel like saying 'well what do you want me to do? Promise we'll invade every country that doesn't allow us to scan?'"
The requirement that all incoming cargo be screened in foreign ports by 2012 was contained in homeland security law enacted in 2007.
Chertoff has frequently wrangled with Democratic lawmakers over its implementation, but said in his written remarks that the issue will be something that incoming DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano will need to address with Congress.
"It will be the next secretary," he said. "Maybe even the one after that."
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
A congressional mandate that requires 100 percent of cargo originating outside the United States be scanned before it reaches U.S. ports is "not possible," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday.
"You are not going to get 100 percent because you can't make every other country do that," Chertoff said in remarks made at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"And when people in Congress go 'how dare you say you're not going to do 100 percent,' I feel like saying 'well what do you want me to do? Promise we'll invade every country that doesn't allow us to scan?'"
The requirement that all incoming cargo be screened in foreign ports by 2012 was contained in homeland security law enacted in 2007.
Chertoff has frequently wrangled with Democratic lawmakers over its implementation, but said in his written remarks that the issue will be something that incoming DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano will need to address with Congress.
"It will be the next secretary," he said. "Maybe even the one after that."
Chertoff: 100 Percent Scanning Impossible
12/4/2008
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
A congressional mandate that requires 100 percent of cargo originating outside the United States be scanned before it reaches U.S. ports is "not possible," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday.
"You are not going to get 100 percent because you can't make every other country do that," Chertoff said in remarks made at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"And when people in Congress go 'how dare you say you're not going to do 100 percent,' I feel like saying 'well what do you want me to do? Promise we'll invade every country that doesn't allow us to scan?'"
The requirement that all incoming cargo be screened in foreign ports by 2012 was contained in homeland security law enacted in 2007.
Chertoff has frequently wrangled with Democratic lawmakers over its implementation, but said in his written remarks that the issue will be something that incoming DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano will need to address with Congress.
"It will be the next secretary," he said. "Maybe even the one after that."
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
A congressional mandate that requires 100 percent of cargo originating outside the United States be scanned before it reaches U.S. ports is "not possible," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday.
"You are not going to get 100 percent because you can't make every other country do that," Chertoff said in remarks made at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"And when people in Congress go 'how dare you say you're not going to do 100 percent,' I feel like saying 'well what do you want me to do? Promise we'll invade every country that doesn't allow us to scan?'"
The requirement that all incoming cargo be screened in foreign ports by 2012 was contained in homeland security law enacted in 2007.
Chertoff has frequently wrangled with Democratic lawmakers over its implementation, but said in his written remarks that the issue will be something that incoming DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano will need to address with Congress.
"It will be the next secretary," he said. "Maybe even the one after that."
Chertoff: 100 Percent Scanning Impossible
12/4/2008
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
A congressional mandate that requires 100 percent of cargo originating outside the United States be scanned before it reaches U.S. ports is "not possible," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday.
"You are not going to get 100 percent because you can't make every other country do that," Chertoff said in remarks made at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"And when people in Congress go 'how dare you say you're not going to do 100 percent,' I feel like saying 'well what do you want me to do? Promise we'll invade every country that doesn't allow us to scan?'"
The requirement that all incoming cargo be screened in foreign ports by 2012 was contained in homeland security law enacted in 2007.
Chertoff has frequently wrangled with Democratic lawmakers over its implementation, but said in his written remarks that the issue will be something that incoming DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano will need to address with Congress.
"It will be the next secretary," he said. "Maybe even the one after that."
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
A congressional mandate that requires 100 percent of cargo originating outside the United States be scanned before it reaches U.S. ports is "not possible," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday.
"You are not going to get 100 percent because you can't make every other country do that," Chertoff said in remarks made at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"And when people in Congress go 'how dare you say you're not going to do 100 percent,' I feel like saying 'well what do you want me to do? Promise we'll invade every country that doesn't allow us to scan?'"
The requirement that all incoming cargo be screened in foreign ports by 2012 was contained in homeland security law enacted in 2007.
Chertoff has frequently wrangled with Democratic lawmakers over its implementation, but said in his written remarks that the issue will be something that incoming DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano will need to address with Congress.
"It will be the next secretary," he said. "Maybe even the one after that."
TSA to screen international cargo
"12/3/2008
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
The Transportation Security Administration's cargo screening mandates will now apply to international cargo as well, the agency said.
The requirements, that 50 percent of cargo shipped on passenger airlines be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent screened by August 2010, had initially only been required for flights originating at U.S. airports.
Ed Kelly, the TSA's air cargo manager speaking last month at The International Air Cargo Association's forum in Kuala Lumpur, said the agency will now screen international inbound cargo as well."
I'd love to see how this is going to work
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
The Transportation Security Administration's cargo screening mandates will now apply to international cargo as well, the agency said.
The requirements, that 50 percent of cargo shipped on passenger airlines be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent screened by August 2010, had initially only been required for flights originating at U.S. airports.
Ed Kelly, the TSA's air cargo manager speaking last month at The International Air Cargo Association's forum in Kuala Lumpur, said the agency will now screen international inbound cargo as well."
I'd love to see how this is going to work
TSA to screen international cargo
"12/3/2008
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
The Transportation Security Administration's cargo screening mandates will now apply to international cargo as well, the agency said.
The requirements, that 50 percent of cargo shipped on passenger airlines be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent screened by August 2010, had initially only been required for flights originating at U.S. airports.
Ed Kelly, the TSA's air cargo manager speaking last month at The International Air Cargo Association's forum in Kuala Lumpur, said the agency will now screen international inbound cargo as well."
I'd love to see how this is going to work
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
The Transportation Security Administration's cargo screening mandates will now apply to international cargo as well, the agency said.
The requirements, that 50 percent of cargo shipped on passenger airlines be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent screened by August 2010, had initially only been required for flights originating at U.S. airports.
Ed Kelly, the TSA's air cargo manager speaking last month at The International Air Cargo Association's forum in Kuala Lumpur, said the agency will now screen international inbound cargo as well."
I'd love to see how this is going to work
TSA to screen international cargo
"12/3/2008
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
The Transportation Security Administration's cargo screening mandates will now apply to international cargo as well, the agency said.
The requirements, that 50 percent of cargo shipped on passenger airlines be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent screened by August 2010, had initially only been required for flights originating at U.S. airports.
Ed Kelly, the TSA's air cargo manager speaking last month at The International Air Cargo Association's forum in Kuala Lumpur, said the agency will now screen international inbound cargo as well."
I'd love to see how this is going to work
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
The Transportation Security Administration's cargo screening mandates will now apply to international cargo as well, the agency said.
The requirements, that 50 percent of cargo shipped on passenger airlines be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent screened by August 2010, had initially only been required for flights originating at U.S. airports.
Ed Kelly, the TSA's air cargo manager speaking last month at The International Air Cargo Association's forum in Kuala Lumpur, said the agency will now screen international inbound cargo as well."
I'd love to see how this is going to work
TSA to screen international cargo
"12/3/2008
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
The Transportation Security Administration's cargo screening mandates will now apply to international cargo as well, the agency said.
The requirements, that 50 percent of cargo shipped on passenger airlines be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent screened by August 2010, had initially only been required for flights originating at U.S. airports.
Ed Kelly, the TSA's air cargo manager speaking last month at The International Air Cargo Association's forum in Kuala Lumpur, said the agency will now screen international inbound cargo as well."
I'd love to see how this is going to work
Ari Natter
Associate Editor
The Transportation Security Administration's cargo screening mandates will now apply to international cargo as well, the agency said.
The requirements, that 50 percent of cargo shipped on passenger airlines be screened by February 2009 and 100 percent screened by August 2010, had initially only been required for flights originating at U.S. airports.
Ed Kelly, the TSA's air cargo manager speaking last month at The International Air Cargo Association's forum in Kuala Lumpur, said the agency will now screen international inbound cargo as well."
I'd love to see how this is going to work
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The Importance of One Vote
If you think that your vote won't make a difference, please consider the following:
1. In 1645, one vote gave Oliver Cromwell control of England.
2. In 1649, one vote literally cost King Charles I of England his head. The vote to behead him was 67 against and 68 for — the ax fell thanks to one vote.
3. In 1714, one vote placed King George I on the throne of England and restored the monarchy.
4. In 1776, one vote gave America the English language instead of German (at least according to folk lore.)
5. In 1800, the electoral college met in the respective states to cast their two votes for President. At that time, the U.S. Constitution provided the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would become President and the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes would become Vice President. When the results of the electoral college votes were opened by both houses of Congress, there was a tie vote for President between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. That threw the election of President into the House of Representatives where Thomas Jefferson was elected our third president by a one vote margin.
6. In 1824, none of the four Presidential candidates received an electoral majority. The election was again thrown into the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams defeated front runner Andrew Jackson by one vote to become the nation's 6th president. Andrew Jackson received the majority of the nation's popular vote.
7. In 1844 in the backwoods area of Switzerland County, Indiana on election day, a farmer named Freeman Clark lay seriously ill in bed. He begged his sons to carry him to the county seat so he could vote for David Kelso to become a state senator. David Kelso had defended old Freeman Clark on a murder charge and obtained his acquittal. The old farmer Freeman Clark got to vote for Kelso but Clark died on his way back home. Kelso won the election by one vote. Both Freeman Clark and David Kelso were long-time Andrew Jackson supporters.
8. In 1844 when the new Indiana senate convened, Democrats had a majority of one — counting David Kelso. At that time, state senates had the task of electing the states' United States Senator. The Indiana Senate Democrats held a caucus where it developed a majority of the party delegation favored a man who would vote against the annexation of Texas if elected to the U.S. Senate. David Kelso refused to vote for the Democratic Party choice and a deadlock resulted between the Democratic and Whig candidates. This continued for days. Finally, Kelso made his move. He proposed a new candidate: Edward A. Hannigan. In his party caucus, Kelso notified his Democratic associates he would bolt and vote with the Whigs — thus electing a Whig to the Senate — unless the Democrats supported Hannigan. The Democrats felt constrained to accept Hannigan who was then elected as Indiana's U.S. Senator by one vote — that of David Kelso.
9. In 1845, Texas was admitted to the union as a state by one vote — that of Edward A. Hannigan from Indiana. The 1844 and 1845 excerpts on the series of single votes leading to Texas statehood are from the book, Magnificent Destiny.
10. In 1846, a one vote margin in the U.S. Senate approved President Polk's request for a Declaration of War against Mexico.
11. In 1850, California was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.
12. In 1859, Oregon was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.
13. The Alaska Purchase of 1867 was ratified by just one vote — paving the way for the eventual annexation of America's largest state in 1958.
14. In 1868, one vote in the U.S. Senate saved President Andrew Johnson from impeachment.
15. In 1875, a one vote margin changed France from a monarchy to a republic.
16. In 1875, Florida's U.S. Senators were still elected by the state Legislature. Democrat Charles W. Jones of Pensacola was elected by the U.S. Senate by a majority of one vote.
17. In 1876, no presidential contender received a majority of electoral votes so the determination of the country's president was again thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives. By a one vote margin, Rutherford B. Hayes became the new U.S. president. When Tilden's party protested the tabulation and demanded a recount, Congress established a 15-member electoral commission to again count the electoral votes and declare the result. By an eight to seven margin — again, one vote — the commission affirmed the count and gave the election and presidency to Hayes.
18. In 1885, two members of the Florida House of Representatives waged a friendly but close contest for Speaker of the House. Robert W. Davis of Green Cove Springs defeated Gen. Ernest Yonge of Pensacola by one vote.
19. In 1889, by a one vote margin, Washington was admitted to statehood with the union.
20. In 1890, by a one vote margin, Idaho became a state.
21. In 1916, if presidential hopeful Charles E. Hughes had received one additional vote in each of California's precincts, he would have defeated President Woodrow Wilson's re-election bid.
22. On November 8, 1923, members of the then recently-formed revolutionary political party met to elect a leader in a Munich, Germany beer hall. By a majority of one vote, they chose an ex-soldier named Adolph Hitler to become the NAZI Party leader.
23. In 1940, the vote taken by the French parliament to maintain its status as a republic failed by a margin of one vote.
24. In 1941, the Selective Service Act (the draft) was saved by a one vote margin — just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
25. In 1948, a Texas convention voted for Lyndon B. Johnson over ex-Governor Coke Stevens in a contested Senatorial election. Lyndon Johnson because U.S. Senator by a one vote margin.
26. In 1948, if Thomas E. Dewey had gotten one vote more per precinct in Ohio and California, the presidential election would have been thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives where Dewey enjoyed more support than his rival — incumbent Harry Truman. As it was, Dewey was expected to win the general election by a landslide so most Republicans stayed home. Only 51.5 percent of the electorate voted. Truman defeated Dewey.
27. In a 1955 city election in Huron, Ohio, the mayor was elected to office by one vote.
28. In a 1959 city election, mayors of both Rose Creek and Odin, Minnesota were elected to their respective offices by one vote.
29. In the 1960 presidential election, an additional one vote per precinct in Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Texas may have altered the course of America's modern history by denying John F. Kennedy the presidency and placing Richard Nixon in the White House eight years earlier.
30. In 1962, the governors of Maine, Rhode Island, and North Dakota were all elected by a margin of one vote per precinct.
31. In 1984, a Monroe County, Florida commissioner was elected by one vote.
32. In 1994, the U.S. House of Representatives enacted a law banning specific classes of assault weapons. The vote was initially tied but one member changed his vote to approve the ban.
33. Bills proposing amendment to the U. S. Constitution require a 2/3's vote of each House in order to be approved. When the balanced budget amendment bill came before the U.S. Senate in March, 1995, the measure failed by one vote — Mark Hatfield, Republican from Oregon, was the sole Republican failing to vote with other members of the Republican Party which was the majority party of the U.S. Senators. When it became apparent the measure would fail, Senate Republican Whip Bob Dole changed his vote to enable him to bring the matter back up under parliamentary rules for a vote in the future.
1. In 1645, one vote gave Oliver Cromwell control of England.
2. In 1649, one vote literally cost King Charles I of England his head. The vote to behead him was 67 against and 68 for — the ax fell thanks to one vote.
3. In 1714, one vote placed King George I on the throne of England and restored the monarchy.
4. In 1776, one vote gave America the English language instead of German (at least according to folk lore.)
5. In 1800, the electoral college met in the respective states to cast their two votes for President. At that time, the U.S. Constitution provided the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would become President and the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes would become Vice President. When the results of the electoral college votes were opened by both houses of Congress, there was a tie vote for President between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. That threw the election of President into the House of Representatives where Thomas Jefferson was elected our third president by a one vote margin.
6. In 1824, none of the four Presidential candidates received an electoral majority. The election was again thrown into the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams defeated front runner Andrew Jackson by one vote to become the nation's 6th president. Andrew Jackson received the majority of the nation's popular vote.
7. In 1844 in the backwoods area of Switzerland County, Indiana on election day, a farmer named Freeman Clark lay seriously ill in bed. He begged his sons to carry him to the county seat so he could vote for David Kelso to become a state senator. David Kelso had defended old Freeman Clark on a murder charge and obtained his acquittal. The old farmer Freeman Clark got to vote for Kelso but Clark died on his way back home. Kelso won the election by one vote. Both Freeman Clark and David Kelso were long-time Andrew Jackson supporters.
8. In 1844 when the new Indiana senate convened, Democrats had a majority of one — counting David Kelso. At that time, state senates had the task of electing the states' United States Senator. The Indiana Senate Democrats held a caucus where it developed a majority of the party delegation favored a man who would vote against the annexation of Texas if elected to the U.S. Senate. David Kelso refused to vote for the Democratic Party choice and a deadlock resulted between the Democratic and Whig candidates. This continued for days. Finally, Kelso made his move. He proposed a new candidate: Edward A. Hannigan. In his party caucus, Kelso notified his Democratic associates he would bolt and vote with the Whigs — thus electing a Whig to the Senate — unless the Democrats supported Hannigan. The Democrats felt constrained to accept Hannigan who was then elected as Indiana's U.S. Senator by one vote — that of David Kelso.
9. In 1845, Texas was admitted to the union as a state by one vote — that of Edward A. Hannigan from Indiana. The 1844 and 1845 excerpts on the series of single votes leading to Texas statehood are from the book, Magnificent Destiny.
10. In 1846, a one vote margin in the U.S. Senate approved President Polk's request for a Declaration of War against Mexico.
11. In 1850, California was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.
12. In 1859, Oregon was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.
13. The Alaska Purchase of 1867 was ratified by just one vote — paving the way for the eventual annexation of America's largest state in 1958.
14. In 1868, one vote in the U.S. Senate saved President Andrew Johnson from impeachment.
15. In 1875, a one vote margin changed France from a monarchy to a republic.
16. In 1875, Florida's U.S. Senators were still elected by the state Legislature. Democrat Charles W. Jones of Pensacola was elected by the U.S. Senate by a majority of one vote.
17. In 1876, no presidential contender received a majority of electoral votes so the determination of the country's president was again thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives. By a one vote margin, Rutherford B. Hayes became the new U.S. president. When Tilden's party protested the tabulation and demanded a recount, Congress established a 15-member electoral commission to again count the electoral votes and declare the result. By an eight to seven margin — again, one vote — the commission affirmed the count and gave the election and presidency to Hayes.
18. In 1885, two members of the Florida House of Representatives waged a friendly but close contest for Speaker of the House. Robert W. Davis of Green Cove Springs defeated Gen. Ernest Yonge of Pensacola by one vote.
19. In 1889, by a one vote margin, Washington was admitted to statehood with the union.
20. In 1890, by a one vote margin, Idaho became a state.
21. In 1916, if presidential hopeful Charles E. Hughes had received one additional vote in each of California's precincts, he would have defeated President Woodrow Wilson's re-election bid.
22. On November 8, 1923, members of the then recently-formed revolutionary political party met to elect a leader in a Munich, Germany beer hall. By a majority of one vote, they chose an ex-soldier named Adolph Hitler to become the NAZI Party leader.
23. In 1940, the vote taken by the French parliament to maintain its status as a republic failed by a margin of one vote.
24. In 1941, the Selective Service Act (the draft) was saved by a one vote margin — just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
25. In 1948, a Texas convention voted for Lyndon B. Johnson over ex-Governor Coke Stevens in a contested Senatorial election. Lyndon Johnson because U.S. Senator by a one vote margin.
26. In 1948, if Thomas E. Dewey had gotten one vote more per precinct in Ohio and California, the presidential election would have been thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives where Dewey enjoyed more support than his rival — incumbent Harry Truman. As it was, Dewey was expected to win the general election by a landslide so most Republicans stayed home. Only 51.5 percent of the electorate voted. Truman defeated Dewey.
27. In a 1955 city election in Huron, Ohio, the mayor was elected to office by one vote.
28. In a 1959 city election, mayors of both Rose Creek and Odin, Minnesota were elected to their respective offices by one vote.
29. In the 1960 presidential election, an additional one vote per precinct in Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Texas may have altered the course of America's modern history by denying John F. Kennedy the presidency and placing Richard Nixon in the White House eight years earlier.
30. In 1962, the governors of Maine, Rhode Island, and North Dakota were all elected by a margin of one vote per precinct.
31. In 1984, a Monroe County, Florida commissioner was elected by one vote.
32. In 1994, the U.S. House of Representatives enacted a law banning specific classes of assault weapons. The vote was initially tied but one member changed his vote to approve the ban.
33. Bills proposing amendment to the U. S. Constitution require a 2/3's vote of each House in order to be approved. When the balanced budget amendment bill came before the U.S. Senate in March, 1995, the measure failed by one vote — Mark Hatfield, Republican from Oregon, was the sole Republican failing to vote with other members of the Republican Party which was the majority party of the U.S. Senators. When it became apparent the measure would fail, Senate Republican Whip Bob Dole changed his vote to enable him to bring the matter back up under parliamentary rules for a vote in the future.
Monday, November 03, 2008
EU, TSA agree on screening standards
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 (UPI) -- The U.S. Transportation Security Administration and the European Union announced an agreement that establishes a common set of air cargo screening standards.
The TSA signed the air cargo screening agreement with the EU Directorate General for Energy and Transport. Officials say the deal outlines a set of consistent screening standards for air cargo in passenger aircraft, the TSA reported.
The agreement is part of an effort to develop a shared set of technical standards for airport security authorities in the United States and Europe and strengthen threat detection capabilities.
"By synchronizing the way that air cargo is secured on both sides of the Atlantic (Ocean), we're taking another potential vulnerability off the table for terrorists," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement.
"I commend our European Union partners on their commitment to this landmark agreement."
The TSA signed the air cargo screening agreement with the EU Directorate General for Energy and Transport. Officials say the deal outlines a set of consistent screening standards for air cargo in passenger aircraft, the TSA reported.
The agreement is part of an effort to develop a shared set of technical standards for airport security authorities in the United States and Europe and strengthen threat detection capabilities.
"By synchronizing the way that air cargo is secured on both sides of the Atlantic (Ocean), we're taking another potential vulnerability off the table for terrorists," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement.
"I commend our European Union partners on their commitment to this landmark agreement."
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Monday, July 03, 2006
Politics (like religion) and science do not mix well.
This is a comment on "Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming."
read it here
"Global Warming" is not a correct description of what is going on, the more accurate descriptive phrase is "climate change."
The Earth's climate is, however, always in a process of change. It has been much colder than it is now, and it has also been much warmer.
The questions to ask are what extent is climate change anthropogenic (man-made), and what --if anything -- should be done about it.
The answer to the first question is "we don't really know."
I always treat with skepticism any report of climate change that fails to acknowledge the Little Ice Age. This was a roughly 400-year-long cycle of temperature decrease that affected the Northern Hemisphere from the 1300s to about 1850.
It is important to note that prior to the Little Ice Age, commercial vinyards operated in Northern England, Greenland was covered in meadows suitable for grazing sheep, and dwarf palm trees could be found in Germany (which had a climate much like Portugal today.)
The Little Ice Age put an end to this, and indeed the Greenland colony was abandoned. Today, there are ruins of farms underneath the ice in Greenland. It may interest some to learn that the Thames river started to freeze over in this period, and New York harbour used to freeze over often in winter -- allowing people to skate from Manhatten to Staten Island. (The last time it did so was 1818).
The Little Ice Age came to an end around 1850, and temperatures began to rise. They still haven't reached the levels they were 800 years ago.
When sheep can graze in Greenland, and commercial wine can be made in England, then temperatures will be back to normal historical levels.
Kyoto was cooked up after the success of the CFC ban in the 1980s. CFCs were dangerous to the ozone layer, and have been effectively elimininated. With CFCs banned, CO2 became the next crusade.
But unlike CFCs, CO2 is a natural component of Earth's atmosphere, and has fluctuated to levels much higher than they are now.
Indeed, in the times of Ancient Greeks, certain warm-climate birds and animals (including lions) had ranges more northerly than they do now.
CO2 is not a poison. It is essential for plantlife.
Rather than spend billions of dollars on Kyoto, I would rather direct resources to containing noxious pollutants (like lead, sulpher dioxide etc) and conserving wildlife habitat.
Pollution that causes smog and poisons water is the important issue, not fluxuations in CO2.
BTW.... What is seldom mentioned in this scaremongering is that water vapour in Earth's atmosphere is responsible for about 90% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for roughly 5% of the efct, and various other gasses account for the rest.
Humans are responsible for roughly 1% of water vapour emissions (the rest is evaporated off the oceans). CO2 emissions from natural sources (biomass decay, vulcanism etc.) exceed anthropogenic emissions.
In all humans are likely responsible for no more than 2-4% of the greenhouse effect. Meaning, if we shut down everything tomorrow and went back to the Middle Ages, 96-98% of the greenhouse effect would still be occuring.
What we need is scientific evaluation of climate change, not political grandstanding.
read it here
"Global Warming" is not a correct description of what is going on, the more accurate descriptive phrase is "climate change."
The Earth's climate is, however, always in a process of change. It has been much colder than it is now, and it has also been much warmer.
The questions to ask are what extent is climate change anthropogenic (man-made), and what --if anything -- should be done about it.
The answer to the first question is "we don't really know."
I always treat with skepticism any report of climate change that fails to acknowledge the Little Ice Age. This was a roughly 400-year-long cycle of temperature decrease that affected the Northern Hemisphere from the 1300s to about 1850.
It is important to note that prior to the Little Ice Age, commercial vinyards operated in Northern England, Greenland was covered in meadows suitable for grazing sheep, and dwarf palm trees could be found in Germany (which had a climate much like Portugal today.)
The Little Ice Age put an end to this, and indeed the Greenland colony was abandoned. Today, there are ruins of farms underneath the ice in Greenland. It may interest some to learn that the Thames river started to freeze over in this period, and New York harbour used to freeze over often in winter -- allowing people to skate from Manhatten to Staten Island. (The last time it did so was 1818).
The Little Ice Age came to an end around 1850, and temperatures began to rise. They still haven't reached the levels they were 800 years ago.
When sheep can graze in Greenland, and commercial wine can be made in England, then temperatures will be back to normal historical levels.
Kyoto was cooked up after the success of the CFC ban in the 1980s. CFCs were dangerous to the ozone layer, and have been effectively elimininated. With CFCs banned, CO2 became the next crusade.
But unlike CFCs, CO2 is a natural component of Earth's atmosphere, and has fluctuated to levels much higher than they are now.
Indeed, in the times of Ancient Greeks, certain warm-climate birds and animals (including lions) had ranges more northerly than they do now.
CO2 is not a poison. It is essential for plantlife.
Rather than spend billions of dollars on Kyoto, I would rather direct resources to containing noxious pollutants (like lead, sulpher dioxide etc) and conserving wildlife habitat.
Pollution that causes smog and poisons water is the important issue, not fluxuations in CO2.
BTW.... What is seldom mentioned in this scaremongering is that water vapour in Earth's atmosphere is responsible for about 90% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for roughly 5% of the efct, and various other gasses account for the rest.
Humans are responsible for roughly 1% of water vapour emissions (the rest is evaporated off the oceans). CO2 emissions from natural sources (biomass decay, vulcanism etc.) exceed anthropogenic emissions.
In all humans are likely responsible for no more than 2-4% of the greenhouse effect. Meaning, if we shut down everything tomorrow and went back to the Middle Ages, 96-98% of the greenhouse effect would still be occuring.
What we need is scientific evaluation of climate change, not political grandstanding.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Friday, June 16, 2006
Stern Fan Attacks O&A Producer During 'Walk Over'
A Howard Stern fan approached Opie & Anthony during the XM "Walk Over" on today's show. The Stern fan first came up to the microphone and said, "This is Opie and Anthony's whole audience here? I just wanna say, uhm, Howard Stern has a huge cock and I love him."
The Stern fan then continued and was allowed to say his anti-O&A/pro-Stern comments on the air (calling O&A "douchebags"). There was some back and forth - where the unnamed Stern fan claimed Opie & Anthony steal "a lot shit [from Stern]" - Anthony responded with "steal a lot of shit? Yeah, like his radio stations!"
At that point the Stern fan then threw Ben Sparks against a wall and was subdued by "Club Soda Kenny" and "Master Po" who pinned the Stern fan down and made him apologize on air. His alleged reason for the attack was that Ben Sparks (Opie & Anthony's Producer) spit on him. He was held until the NYPD came.
"Alright, that worked out well... that was the best walk yet!" Anthony said afterwards.
The whole incident was caught on video
http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/Stern_fan_Attacks_OnA.mp3
Friday, May 26, 2006
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Rush already several songs into new album
http://www.therockradio.com/2006/05/rush-already-several-songs-into-new.html
Work has begun in earnest on a new Rush album. Singer-bassist Geddy Lee and guitarist Alex Lifeson recently flew from Toronto to the mountains of Quebec to visit drummer and lyricist Neil Peart, who had sent them lyrics a few months ago. Peart wrote on his official neilpeart.com website, "There were five song sketches -- guitar, vocals, and drum machine -- and I liked them all. I also noticed those songs already seemed to have a sort of unity, a stylistic approach of chord structures, rhythms, and vocal delivery that I could only describe as 'spiritual.'" Peart didn't explain what he meant by "spiritual," but he did say, "It was wonderful that after 30 years of working together, we could still find different paths to explore together." Peart also wrote, "I'm going to spend the month of May in Toronto, where we have rented a small studio. It will be great to have the opportunity to work together on those songs, and hopefully some new ones, too... Lately I've been getting all inspired about 'hitting things with sticks.'"
There's no word on when the album might come out, but Lifeson previously told us that he expected it sooner rather than later: "Hopefully we'll be done by summer -- I mean, all of us are really hoping that we'll be done by summer. I think the juices are starting to flow, and there's an excitement about getting back to work."
Work has begun in earnest on a new Rush album. Singer-bassist Geddy Lee and guitarist Alex Lifeson recently flew from Toronto to the mountains of Quebec to visit drummer and lyricist Neil Peart, who had sent them lyrics a few months ago. Peart wrote on his official neilpeart.com website, "There were five song sketches -- guitar, vocals, and drum machine -- and I liked them all. I also noticed those songs already seemed to have a sort of unity, a stylistic approach of chord structures, rhythms, and vocal delivery that I could only describe as 'spiritual.'" Peart didn't explain what he meant by "spiritual," but he did say, "It was wonderful that after 30 years of working together, we could still find different paths to explore together." Peart also wrote, "I'm going to spend the month of May in Toronto, where we have rented a small studio. It will be great to have the opportunity to work together on those songs, and hopefully some new ones, too... Lately I've been getting all inspired about 'hitting things with sticks.'"
There's no word on when the album might come out, but Lifeson previously told us that he expected it sooner rather than later: "Hopefully we'll be done by summer -- I mean, all of us are really hoping that we'll be done by summer. I think the juices are starting to flow, and there's an excitement about getting back to work."
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
We need new technology, not cheap labor
During the current debate over immigration, how many times have you heard someone arguing that the U.S. economy depends on low-skilled immigrant labor?
Well, don't believe those open-borders proponents - those who argue, in effect, that the United States has to run itself like a Third World country. The vision of a rich elite ruling over a poor mob may appeal to some, but it's not the American Way.
Asked specifically about illegal immigrants, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donahue told USA Today last month, "We absolutely need these workers." A similar view comes from Tom Hensley, chief financial officer for a Gainesville, Ga. factory farm, who tells The Washington Post: "Absent Hispanic workers, we could not process chicken."
Gee, how did people back in merry olde England manage to feed themselves? Where did chicken soup come from, way back when?
The answer, of course, is that our ancestors did it, and they did it more easily as they began to figure out how to substitute technology for labor. That's also how a country moves from low skills and low wages to high skills and high wages.
That's the path America took on its way to becoming a great power. In agriculture, the big breakthrough came in 1831, with the invention of the McCormick Reaper. Mass-produced in Chicago, the reaper enabled two men to cut as much grain in a day as a dozen or more men using traditional reaping hooks. As a result, labor was freed up to work in factories, accelerating the Industrial Revolution - and the American Dream.
Yet, it's noteworthy that the reaper and similar productivity enhancing inventions came to the American North, not the South. In slave-holding Dixie, where labor was free - if you don't count flogging and lynching and putting down bloody uprisings as costs - there was little incentive to develop labor-saving technology. The low-tech status quo seemed quite OK to plantation owners.
But then came the Civil War. All of a sudden those Yankee factories that made farm machinery started making war machinery; the Confederates were overwhelmed by Union troops and their ever-improving rifles and railroads.
The lesson is this: The same technological advances that make a country rich also make it militarily powerful; the engine of prosperity can always be converted into the arsenal of democracy. Moreover, using technology instead of "labor" reduces a country's casualties; one shudders to think about American losses if we had fought World War II without the Higgins boat, the B-17 and, of course, the A-bomb.
So now, back to the present. Those who say that we need open borders so that the country can be flooded with tens of millions of low-skilled workers have a vision not dissimilar to that of past slave owners: Why bother with technology when cheap labor does the job?
But, in fact, four-fifths of the farming in this country is already done with machines. And what of the rest? What of apple-picking and chicken-processing? Well, it's time for another dose of technology. But you needn't take my word for it. Go to the Web site of the University of Illinois and look up the robotics work of Prof. Tony Grift; he and his colleagues have built harvesting "agbots" for as little as $150 each. And that's before mass production.
Many similar programs exist across the U.S., although, of course, they are neglected. So long as labor is cheap, there's no incentive for food producers to invest in productivity-improving technology. Which is to say, for as long as the border is open, complacent agribusiness will want to turn much of America into a Third World country, filled with Third World people. It worked for Mississippi, right?
The better answer is to close the border and upgrade our labor-saving technology. In the short run there will be extra costs, but in the long run new industries will bloom, making us richer and stronger.
James P. Pinkerton's e-mail address is pinkerto@ix.netcom.com.
from newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin134700321apr13,0,1160034.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
Well, don't believe those open-borders proponents - those who argue, in effect, that the United States has to run itself like a Third World country. The vision of a rich elite ruling over a poor mob may appeal to some, but it's not the American Way.
Asked specifically about illegal immigrants, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donahue told USA Today last month, "We absolutely need these workers." A similar view comes from Tom Hensley, chief financial officer for a Gainesville, Ga. factory farm, who tells The Washington Post: "Absent Hispanic workers, we could not process chicken."
Gee, how did people back in merry olde England manage to feed themselves? Where did chicken soup come from, way back when?
The answer, of course, is that our ancestors did it, and they did it more easily as they began to figure out how to substitute technology for labor. That's also how a country moves from low skills and low wages to high skills and high wages.
That's the path America took on its way to becoming a great power. In agriculture, the big breakthrough came in 1831, with the invention of the McCormick Reaper. Mass-produced in Chicago, the reaper enabled two men to cut as much grain in a day as a dozen or more men using traditional reaping hooks. As a result, labor was freed up to work in factories, accelerating the Industrial Revolution - and the American Dream.
Yet, it's noteworthy that the reaper and similar productivity enhancing inventions came to the American North, not the South. In slave-holding Dixie, where labor was free - if you don't count flogging and lynching and putting down bloody uprisings as costs - there was little incentive to develop labor-saving technology. The low-tech status quo seemed quite OK to plantation owners.
But then came the Civil War. All of a sudden those Yankee factories that made farm machinery started making war machinery; the Confederates were overwhelmed by Union troops and their ever-improving rifles and railroads.
The lesson is this: The same technological advances that make a country rich also make it militarily powerful; the engine of prosperity can always be converted into the arsenal of democracy. Moreover, using technology instead of "labor" reduces a country's casualties; one shudders to think about American losses if we had fought World War II without the Higgins boat, the B-17 and, of course, the A-bomb.
So now, back to the present. Those who say that we need open borders so that the country can be flooded with tens of millions of low-skilled workers have a vision not dissimilar to that of past slave owners: Why bother with technology when cheap labor does the job?
But, in fact, four-fifths of the farming in this country is already done with machines. And what of the rest? What of apple-picking and chicken-processing? Well, it's time for another dose of technology. But you needn't take my word for it. Go to the Web site of the University of Illinois and look up the robotics work of Prof. Tony Grift; he and his colleagues have built harvesting "agbots" for as little as $150 each. And that's before mass production.
Many similar programs exist across the U.S., although, of course, they are neglected. So long as labor is cheap, there's no incentive for food producers to invest in productivity-improving technology. Which is to say, for as long as the border is open, complacent agribusiness will want to turn much of America into a Third World country, filled with Third World people. It worked for Mississippi, right?
The better answer is to close the border and upgrade our labor-saving technology. In the short run there will be extra costs, but in the long run new industries will bloom, making us richer and stronger.
James P. Pinkerton's e-mail address is pinkerto@ix.netcom.com.
from newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin134700321apr13,0,1160034.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Monday, April 03, 2006
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Monday, March 20, 2006
Long Island
It has become increasingly difficult to live on Long Island. House prices, child care, and taxes make life here nearly unbearable. I don't know who will inherit this island, but i doubt it'll be my children. Who can afford it?
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Friday, March 10, 2006
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Previous Posts
- gods
- Chertoff: 100 Percent Scanning Impossible
- Chertoff: 100 Percent Scanning Impossible
- Chertoff: 100 Percent Scanning Impossible
- TSA to screen international cargo
- TSA to screen international cargo
- TSA to screen international cargo
- TSA to screen international cargo
- Exoplanets finally come into view
- I can see me using this alot
Archives
- November 2003
- December 2003
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
Today's Wisdom fom Master Ninja
Less than Six Degrees of Seperation
Useful Stuff
Useless Stuff
Funny Stuff
Distractions
Email me
