Save Ourselves

 I definitely agree with my classmate, Brenda Castro, about global warming and the dangers it presents. For over 150 years we have been studying temperature levels; we are even able to drill in ice caps and study Carbon Dioxide levels back 600,000 years. Human greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Solar activity also warms or cools the planet by increasing or decreasing the amount of radiation reaching the Earth’s atmosphere and surface. Volcanic activity generally cools the planet over short timeframes by releasing sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere, which block sunlight and reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. However, unlike many greenhouse gases, aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere quickly, mostly after just 1-2 years. Thus the main volcanic impact on long-term temperature changes occur when there is an extended period of particularly high or low volcanic activity. Earlier this year the carbon dioxide levels reached 400 ppm (parts per million), which is double what it was 150 years ago.
Now that took eight sentences to explain and you pretty much get an idea that global warming is caused by man and there is no other way to explain it. Unfortunately this is a time that will be known as the Oil Age. It is the richest industry the earth has ever seen and with that wealth comes power. Jim Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, is a republican from Oklahoma and his biggest doners are from the oil and gas industry, which basically means he could give a crap less about the Environment. It doesn't really matter how much we explain the simple concept of global warming, because they will continue to believe that if you can bring a snowball on the Senate floor, then obviously global warming can't exist.
I do have faith that the change is coming. Maybe if we changed the slogan from "Save The Planet" to "Save Ourselves" it would have more of an impact.

Armed & Dangerous

Marco Rubio said in an interview recently that "god's rule" supersedes constitutional law and that Americans should ignore these laws that would go against "god's rule." Now I know that politicians have to do what they have to do to get the support from their base to win elections. I know that they will pretty much say and do anything to make that happen. What I don't understand is how completely oblivious they are to the danger in this type of rhetoric. Not only in the sense that it goes against everything the constitution stands for, but also the ACTUAL danger it presents. Some people are ignorant to the true meaning of "separation of church and state" and why that's important. And some people are crazy enough to take up arms and act on these types of irrational statements. Colorado Springs just had an act of domestic terrorism when a man walked in to a Planned Parenthood and opened fire. The motive of the case is unknown at this time, but I can speculate and say that it was an act of violence from a right-wing pro-lifer. I can speculate on this because it has happened before by right-wing pro-lifers: Army of God, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2009. These acts of domestic terrorism are the product of the anti-abortion movements of not only the groups that enact this violence, but also the type rhetoric from politicians like Marco Rubio that basically give these people the license to kill and maim. When your representatives say something like, "hey, don't pay any attention to the constitution or the vision that our founding fathers had that made this country great, just ignore all of that," it can plant a seed that grows and that is what we are seeing today with these senseless killings.
In this particular case Marco Rubio was referring to same-sex marriage, but taken out of context you can see how these statements can be very dangerous and irresponsible. Republicans often speak unkindly about Planned Parenthood, but I seriously doubt this maniac in Colorado Springs knew that abortions only account for 3% of what Planned Parenthood actually does. It's really sad when politicians can motivate these mouth-breathers, who also happen to be armed & dangerous.

More Troops In Syria. And Then What?

Although I agree with my class mate, Stephane Coker's, position on the fact that something more need to be done to stop the growing global threat that is IS, I do not believe in the opinion that President Obama is appearing weak to our enemies. Whether he increased ground troops to 30,000+ in Syria (which he just sent 3,000+ "advisors" to Iraq) it would not matter to the enemy. Death does not scare them. The West is weak to them regardless. In 2009 I was a part of a 30,000 troop insurgency in Afghanistan, which the majority went to the southeast region of the country, and for the most part the mission did nothing. It led to more soldier deaths in a 6 month period than the entirety of the campaign up to that point. There were 3 Medal of Honor recipients and their campaigns occurred between June and November 2009. It was the equivalent of sticking a branch in a beehive and shaking it. You stir up more recruits and actually make the force stronger, you CANNOT eradicate these forces by sheer bombs and troops. We did not eradicate all of the German, Italian, and Japanese people on the way to our victory in World War II. What we did do was make them surrender. The IS, Al-Queda, and Taliban will never surrender.
So what do we do? Well it takes a global effort and it is extremely delicate. It's not as easy as just saying, "Our president is weak and we need more bombs and troops." It takes a global effort from a growing core of allies. I don't have the answers, but as you can see we have had thousands of troops, tanks, air raids, drone strikes, and lives spent, and the result has been nil in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Wrong Side Of History?

"The wrong side of history" seems to be a saying thrown around a lot by President Barrack Obama. Whether he’s talking about Vladimir Putin and Ukraine, or Muammar Gaddafi and Libya, or same sex marriage, he always seems to squeeze it into a speech. But I think there is a larger point to be made about this adage. Some people don't know that they’re on any side of history. In fact some people don't know they're making history at all. I feel like if people knew, or cared, about the decisions being made in congress, things would be vastly different than what we are seeing today. If logic and reason ruled all, we would be seeing parties coming together to get even the most straightforward laws passed, like basic gun control or drug reform. The "war on drugs" could be a great place to start. We imprison 22% of the world’s prison population, and a large portion of the crimes are drug violations. Three strike rules have many people doing life sentences for minor drug offenses. As far as gun control, there are many ways we could try to reel in some of the loose guns on the street. Back ground checks for ALL people who purchase a gun, no loop holes like gun shows and internet outlets, and a national gun registry are great ways to crack down on illegal weapons and keeping them from entering the wrong hands. Of course none of this can happen if you have massive amounts of money flowing in to Washington. Private prisons will continue to push for harder drug laws. The NRA, who protect the weapons manufacturers, will continue to influence politicians who preach that they are only looking out for their constituent’s 2^nd amendment rights. All the way down to the companies that own the phone outlets that prisoners use to call home, which cost upwards of fourteen dollars a minute. They all have their hands in the politician’s pocket, if they tried to look for dignity, they would come back with a nub and a note that said, “Look elsewhere.” Where does history come in to play when you have this level of mass corruption? When I hear about George Washington’s foresight, understanding that the decisions he is making would resonate all through this country’s future, it makes me wonder where our current politician’s ideals lie. I heard a politician describe his time as a Senator once as a “service to his country,” and I thought this was bizarre because I’ve never thought of a Senator as a service member. I know they’re technically service members, but I see the way they behave in congress and it seems that it is all for personal gain. They serve a couple of years in congress then work for Meryl Lynch for a hefty pay raise, or work for some other corporation and shift seamlessly into another position in the administration; it all seems very strange.

When Alexander Stephens, Williams Jennings Bryan, and Strom Thurman made their mark in history, they probably didn’t know it was a skid mark. They were simply doing what they thought was the greater good. Who’s to say what history will tell of our generation of politicians. We’d like to think that we know what is right and wrong; but far in the future there is a group of students sitting around a textbook going, “How could you not see that that was a bad idea?!?”

Word of the Day: Consistency

Say what you want about Donald Trump, but he speaks his mind, for good or ill. In the Media Matters blog, "Donald Trump accidentally demolishes Fox News Benghazi narrative," Eric Boehlert writes about Donald Trumps comments on George W. Bush's responsibility of 9/11 and and the hypocrisy of Fox News. Boehlert makes the point that if you are going to charge the leadership with neglect, be consistent with your outrage. If you are going to be angry about four dead Americans in Libya 3 years ago, which is a tragedy of course, you must be outraged at George W. Bush and his complacency before 9/11 that led to 3,000+ deaths in NYC, or the misinformation that lead to a long, expensive, costly war in Iraq. How about Ronald Reagan and the multiple attacks in Beirut in 1983 and 1984 that killed hundreds of Americans. All we are saying is be consistent.
 Last week Trump was on Fox and Friends; they questioned him about Benghazi and he went on a tirade about George Bush's responsibility of 9/11 and the Iraq War. What they don't realize about Trump is that he couldn't care less about the Fox talking points; he follows his own script, or lack thereof. You can literally see Brian Kilmeade's head beginning to explode as Trump is saying absolute blasphemy, basically saying that George W. Bush is responsible for the tragedy that happened on 9/11. The best part is, Trump is kind of right. Bush did get a report during a daily brief on August 6th, 2001, 36 days before 9/11, that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were plotting a terrorist attack. Whether or not Trump knew any of this is anyone's guess, but at least he is saying this on Fox News and ruffling some feathers.
Jeb Bush can defend his brother all he wants, and Fox News can defend the Republican party all they want, but facts are facts. When it comes to Fox News, and sources of the like, facts seem to be elusive. News organizations shouldn't pick and choose who to point their outrage machine at; If you are outraged about Barrack Obama landing a deal with Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons, then you should also be outraged about Ronald Reagan selling actual weapons to Iranians in the 1980's. Consistency is the word of the day.

Do you believe in magic?

TAX CUTS!! This seems to be the go-to term used by Republicans and it has been for a while. In the USA Today editorial, "Tax cut snake oil: Our view", the author seems to think that reducing taxes on middle America and for the wealthy will lead to bigger deficits and more debt. I tend to agree. The author argues that if you reduce tax revenue and avoid responsible budgeting, it forces the government to cut from "big-ticket spending programs", like Defense and Social Security. The Tax Foundation has found that Donald Trumps tax plan will "...increase the deficit by more than $10 trillion over 10 years." This has happened before in Kansas and Louisiana. Massive tax cuts in these states have brought down the national job growth averages, and the lost revenue has destroyed the budget, forcing cuts in education and other important programs. As usual, Republicans ignoring cold hard facts. Trickle down economics doesn't work and any economist worth anything will tell you the same. Just because billionaires make more from lower taxes doesn't mean they will magically start hiring people and create this elusive "growth" that everyone seems to be looking for. Ronald Reagan did it in '81 and George Bush did it in '01, and guess what. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. 

Joe Biden may not run, but doners would love him to.

The Huffington Post said today that Democratic Party fundraisers have sent a letter encouraging the hesitant Vice President to make a 2016 run for the presidency. Although doners urge him to run, he doesn't seem to indicate that he interested at all. The letter stated that the Obama/Biden presidency was a "spectacular success", which seems to be a real stretch of the word "spectacular", and with over 50 doner signatures you can really see the enthusiasm. It makes me wonder what they want out of his presidency? Why wouldn't they be as enthusiastic for Bernie Sanders who IS running and is surging in the polls ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire. Maybe it's because he is not taking corporate hand outs and won't do their bidding, but that is a story for another time.

All in all, I like Joe Biden. He seems honest. He would be, by far, the most qualified candidate. He is 75 which would make him the oldest president and he has dealt with a lot in his life. I just feel like it would be a lot of the same, make the rich richer and continue deleting the middle class. That I can't abide.