Recently Donald Trump called for the
barring of Muslims from entering the United States. This was in
reaction to the recent attack in California by a husband and wife who
were apparently inspired by Daesh (ISIL, ISIS). He cited the
precedent set by Franklin Delano Roosevelt who ordered the interment
of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7,
1941 by the Empire of Japan. It is at heart an emotionally charged,
knee jerk reaction, to a complex problem. It is also designed to
appeal to those out there who are feeling the fear of the moment.
I have been watching the reactions to
Trump's remarks with some interest, as his standing in the polls
seems to rise ever higher. Some speculate that this will be his
undoing. Like those who disagree with him I do not believe that this
kind of action is consistent with our laws or the ideals this country
was founded upon. What happened in WWII was an overreaction in a
time of war.
Following is a clip about the
interment of Japanese Americans during WWII. I feel it might be a
good idea to refresh our memory of this event.
As you can see, while it may have taken
over 40 years, eventually cooler heads prevailed.
I doubt that giving in to fear will
allow us to prevail in what seems to me will be a long struggle
against an extreme ideology designed to appeal to the disenfranchised
or the simple copycat crazies of the world. I still believe that the
only thing that will ultimately win in the end is an alternative ideal with greater appeal. I
can think of none better than what is embodied in this statement.
“We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.”
Perhaps we need to have a little more faith in the strength and wisdom of those words.
Update:
I was going to place this article in the comments section but I realized it really deserved a place center stage in this post. It really does show the possibilities of what could be.
Parable in a ShopRite
Update:
I was going to place this article in the comments section but I realized it really deserved a place center stage in this post. It really does show the possibilities of what could be.
Parable in a ShopRite
116 comments:
As counter-intuitive as it might seem, Donald Trump's proposition very likely is legal and Constitutional. National Review (There are several things I disagree with in that article, but its point on the perhaps surprising legality of Trump's proposition is well taken, I think, as is its point about intentionally, selectively admitting persons for residence in the U.S.A. who actually want to live in a country like ours and also intentionally rejecting those who think that good Muslims ought to seek to burn this damn place to the ground.)
I have no problem with rejecting what are in fact criminal elements from any group of would be immigrants to this country.
As Andy McCarthy noted last week, Islam’s non-religious element — sharia — “involves the organization of the state, comprehensive regulation of economic and social life, rules of military engagement, and imposition of a draconian criminal code.” That program of Islamic supremacism is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, and we should strive to minimize the number of people living in our country who hold such beliefs. From Lee's article
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/donald-trump-muslim-immigration
I can agree with this. Actions that may be taken in this country that run counter to our Constitution and its set of laws are illegal, and in effect criminal. Sharia law is not recognized in this country.
It is the blanket condemnation of an entire group of people I object to.
While Congress can make any law it chooses, and has done so with regard to who may be let into this country, they have also enacted legislation against discrimination, of various flavors. Granted, this may apply to American citizens as opposed to citizens of other countries, but it is at the heart of the ideals we strive for. Being consistent with those ideals in our policies would seem to be the more correct behavior.
It looks like Trump is threatening an independent run again. I think he has let his poll numbers go to his head. But, in any case, he seems to be holding that over the heads of his Republican opponents.
"It is the blanket condemnation of an entire group of people I object to."
Whether or not I'd object depends on the group being condemned. For instance, I'm fairly well disposed to a blanket condemnation of Da'esh, or al-Qaeda or Boko Haram, just to name a couple of ‘em who'd be on my shit list.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"It looks like Trump is threatening an independent run again."
He's never withdrawn the threat--it's always been contingent on the Republicans treating him ‘fairly’ and he defines the term as he pleases. But, he's been noisier ‘bout it for a week or so now.
For instance, I'm fairly well disposed to a blanket condemnation of Da'esh, or al-Qaeda or Boko Haram, just to name a couple of ‘em who'd be on my shit list.
They would fall under my "criminal element" category within a larger group of people.
But also disturbing is the threat posed by the online appeal of a world designed to appeal to those who are looking for something they seem unable to find in the real world. That is harder to counteract.
"They would fall under my ‘criminal element’ category…"
There are cases where getting the definitions ‘right’ are important. I'm not certain this is one of those cases. If you want to think of them as a ‘criminal element’ it probably makes no difference if you're wrong. This one's gotta be settled among the Muslims themselves in the end. In the end, it's not gonna be non-Muslims who authoritatively decide who's a good Muslim and who's a criminal deviant. They're gonna havta to finally work that one out amongst themselves.
It appears that the $28,000 and change that Syad Farook and wife received here lately was a loan they took out, intending to funnel the money to Farook's mother, (which they did) leaving the lender in the lurch when they died. NBCNews
Why we don't want to get involved in France's new moves to cuddle up to Putin and Assad. Der Spiegel
Interesting Syria story here.
And, just on account of Marcus was being a little bit obnoxious the other day and then just ducked away from it when called on it….
"Saudi Arabia is already mistrusted by most Americans. In 2014,
suggests the Gallup organization, only 35 percent of Americans had
a favorable view of the country. That beats out Iran, Syria and Iraq,
but is only 1 point ahead of Russia, and behind China and Cuba (it
is also behind Venezuela’s 2013 rating)."
Politico.com
Lee, I wasn't talking about you, Lynnette or "most Americans". I thought it was obvious I was talking about your government.
"I was talking about your government."
This would be the same government which just concluded an agreement on nuclear inspections and restrictions with Iran, over the vehement objections and disapproval of the Saudi Arabians? Same government which won't support the Saudi approved Islamist factions fighting in Syria, but instead has spent years trying (unsuccessfully) to find somebody else to support in Syria? Same government which pulled its support from Egypt's Mubarik? Same government watched the Saudi conclude an agreement to switch new oil production to Russian technology in coöperation with Lukoil? Same government the Saudi would explicitly not sit down beside in the UN Security Council, instead rejecting its latest shot at one of the rotating Security Council seats?
Yeah, it's been moving rather slow in the right direction, especially under this last presidential term. But the long stance of cozying up to the Kingdom is still a black mark on ya'lls legacy. It's not like "radical Islamism" wasn't spread from the KSA for several decades already.
From the last thread
Lynnette: "It sounds like you guys are preparing for imminent attack..."
No, not really. I'd say we're preparing for a possible attack. Once a possibility imminently turns into a reality there's no time for any precations. We're talking about precaution here.
A precaution is by definition a believed realistic solution to a posssible future event. And when it comes to thinking about protecting ones home I guess (and this might be sexist of me in this new equal-everything paradigm) males simply have it more in them biologically to think about protecting ones home physically.
At least for me I have some sort of sub-consious idea on what the threat to my home might be. And, for the moment I feel my 32 inch baseball bat would be enough to counter most such threats. If I feel the threat-level increasing I will arm up further, in any way that I can.
"But the long stance of cozying up to the Kingdom is still a black
mark on ya'lls legacy."
The provision and protection of western energy supplies during the long Cold War is supposed to be a black mark on our legacy?
Next thing ya know Swedes will be blaming us for the collapse of communism and the disappearance of Smallpox.
On the other hand, he's moved off of the ‘are you blind’ foolishness…
Littering on the moon--pieces of refuse left all scattered about--now there's a black mark on our record!
I thought it was obvious I was talking about your government.
To refine that thought a little further, I'd take it down to the lobbyists.
Yeah, it's been moving rather slow in the right direction, especially under this last presidential term.
The irony being that perhaps the people the lobbyists work for have actually solved the problem themselves.
I noted in that article that Lee linked to that the United States will be energy independent around 2035.
I have to wonder what will happen with the countries who are so dependent upon revenue from oil sales? If the world demand for oil continues to decline, as it very likely will, they could be in a bad place.
Btw, that was a good article on Saudi Arabia, Lee.
Ex-Gitmo detainee now an Al-Qaeda leader
While detained at Guantanamo in 2003, Qosi was asked why he stayed true to bin Laden for so many years. According to JTF-GTMO, Qosi explained it was his “religious duty to defend Islam and fulfill the obligation of jihad and that the war between America and al Qaeda is a war between Islam and aggression of the infidels.”
It was Al-Qaeda that attacked us. It is Al-Qaeda's followers who will not let that fight fade into history.
"It was Al-Qaeda that attacked us."
I suspect you'll have trouble convincing him that there's any particular significance to be assigned to that fact.
According to Bloomberg, the Iranians are showing signs that they're preparing to cut their loses in Syria, which losses Bloomberg suggests they find unacceptable.
I can think of some alternate explanations for these troop movements. All of them include the proposal that the Iranians are indeed trying to limit their costs, but few of them suppose the Iranians aren't prepared to take losses when there's advantage to be had. Something's afoot.
Lynnette:
"I have to wonder what will happen with the countries who are so dependent upon revenue from oil sales? If the world demand for oil continues to decline, as it very likely will, they could be in a bad place."
What decline are you talking about? A fantasy world decline? An imaginary decline? A decline you hope is there?
There's no decline in consumption Lynnette. There might be up and down swings quarterly but the larger trend is still going upwards.
The drop in oil prices hasn't come about as a result of a decline in consumption but as a result of a glut in production, with the US shale-oil industry playing a big part.
I note that the EIA (americas premier Energy forcaster) sees a continued increas in comsumption in the short future:
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
It remains to be seen how resiliet the shale industry is. And with Iran possibly coming out of the freezer that could add a significant volume of new oil. So prices may plummet still even from todays prices, but actual consumption is bound to increase further for some time yet.
Years, decades, who knows? Not centuries though, because we will move away from oil before then either volontarily before Peak Oil or be forced to once Peak Oil hits.
"It remains to be seen how resiliet the shale industry is."
More resilient than you might think. What happens when the price drops too far is the highly leveraged producers go bankrupt (the principles having paid themselves very nicely in the duration); the investors take a bath (maybe some lenders too); then other producers (or the perhaps the principles themselves, with a little bit of straw-man cover) snap up the fracked wells at distress prices and they go back to producing without the overhead of paying off the loans.
I suspect you'll have trouble convincing him that there's any particular significance to be assigned to that fact.
I suspect you are right.
...but few of them suppose the Iranians aren't prepared to take losses when there's advantage to be had.
Perhaps the Iranians are not as happy with their Russian partners as outside appearance would suggest? Perhaps they are content to leave the bulk of the work to the Russians and bide their time? Or perhaps they are re-positioning troops to the area around Mosul?
By the way, just in case nobody's been paying attention…
Turkey has recently invaded Iraq and has a fairly large contingent of troops stationed just to the west of Mosul. Look like they may be getting ready to make an assault on ISIS positions in the city, or back one up at least. Iraq is finally getting around to complaining about it.
NYT
"Perhaps the Iranians are not as happy…"
Could be any of several possibilities, but it's not likely a fear of taking casualties--maybe an inclination to not take casualties when it won't affect the outcome, but they're not averse to accepting loses of Iranian lives in swap for other gains.
What decline are you talking about?
Ahh, you're right. I said "world" demand for oil when I should have said American demand. And, I suppose, you can't count on it to continue if for some reason the causes of that decline in consumption are reversed by some future administration.
Iraq is finally getting around to complaining about it.
Yeah, I saw that the other day. Nasty when your borders are just not adhered to anymore.
...they're not averse to accepting loses of Iranian lives in swap for other gains.
Yeah, we saw that in the Iran/Iraq war.
Lee: More resilient than you might think. What happens when the price drops too far is the highly leveraged producers go bankrupt (the principles having paid themselves very nicely in the duration); the investors take a bath (maybe some lenders too); then other producers (or the perhaps the principles themselves, with a little bit of straw-man cover) snap up the fracked wells at distress prices and they go back to producing without the overhead of paying off the loans."
I wasn't so much talkin' bout resiliense in price. I was thinking bout reiliense in production. It's yet to be proven how shale oil producion performs over time.
Oil falls below $36 a barrel
"Oil falls below $36 a barrel".
And the Dow-Jones promptly tanks. The stock market thinks that a failure to continue to accumulate the available supply of cash money into fewer and larger piles is a bad thing for the stock market. And, it probably is.
(Gasoline $1.67 yesterday.)
Kim-Jung-Un is claiming they've got themselves a thermonuclear bomb (‘hydrogen bomb’ in the vernacular). NBCNews Not very likely. Best I recall they haven't even gotten one of their run-of-the-mill nuclear bombs (‘atomic bombs’) to do a full detonation without fizzle.
For some reason he wants attention this week. Might wanna keep an eye on him for further shenanigans if this doesn't get him the attention he wants.
The EU is considering instituting a border force for the EU in common. They've come to the conclusion that stopping illegal immigrants at the outside edges may be preferable to trying to shut them down at the Hungarian border, well after they're well inside the EU, which is a dumb-ass alternative. Marcus and I fussed about this a few months ago; he didn't like me pointing out that waiting ‘til they got to Hungary and then shutting down the stream of refugees at that border was rather stupid, took exception to my characterization of as such, but it looks like the EU is beginning to see it my way.
And the Dow-Jones promptly tanks.
Yup. It was kind of in the cards. But what do you do? Sell everything and invest in cash?
(Gasoline $1.67 yesterday.)
I think I saw $1.76 at one store yesterday.
For some reason he wants attention this week. Might wanna keep an eye on him for further shenanigans if this doesn't get him the attention he wants.
That guy really has more hair than sense.
Gotta run and do errands. It's amazing the things you have to return before Christmas! *sigh*
Conservative pundit tells us how Trump can win the general election, not the primary--the general election--how Trump can become President.
Figure there's no chance he's gonna win with Muslims. All he has to do is win the Black vote and the Hispanic vote.
Yeah, right, like that's gonna happen.
It seems that Trump is slipping in Iowa.
How Saddam's men help Islamic State rule
Iowa is Bible Thumpers--not Trump's best audience. Lot of folks were expecting Carson to win Iowa, but he's fading fast, and Cruz is picking up the Bible Thumper contingent.
How critical is the bible thumper factor to a Trump nomination?
He is, surprisingly, generally well thought of by self-described Bible thumpers. However, he's not gonna be their first pick. First pick was gonna be Dr. Carson, whose credentials were not only that he was every bit as flagrantly unqualified to be President as was Trump, but he was also quite pious, wore his religion on his sleeve, whereas Trump is only marginally religious so far as one might notice. However, Dr. Carson has proven to be quite out of this depth when the subject becomes anything other than the world as according to Radio Right Wing, specifically, bobbling several easy questions on foreign policy (where is France, what's the difference between Hamas and hummus; how far is it from Iraq to Syria; where'd he get the crazy notion that the Chinese had troops in the fight in Syria; stuff like that) But, they'll go with The Donald if the only other alternative is to vote for somebody who might actually be qualified. But, for now they still have Cruz for backup and don't need to go with The Donald.
For accuracy… They actually self-describe as ‘Evangelicals’. They're more self-selected Bible thumpers; that would be a more accurate description; they tend to not use the term ‘Bible-thumpers’.
Lynnette: "How Saddam's men help Islamic State rule"
Interesting article. Doesn't strike me as a very pleasant place to live.
Lee: "They've come to the conclusion that stopping illegal immigrants at the outside edges may be preferable to trying to shut them down at the Hungarian border, well after they're well inside the EU, which is a dumb-ass alternative. Marcus and I fussed about this a few months ago; he didn't like me pointing out that waiting ‘til they got to Hungary and then shutting down the stream of refugees at that border was rather stupid"
Do you really believe that I would oppose controls that kept the outer EU borders closed? That was always my first choice.
But even so I don't see any reason that we can't have controls within the EU at border crossings on top of that. In fact I am pretty sure we're going to witness real border controls very close to where I live in just a few weeks. The bridge between Malmö and Copenhagen will be shut for migrants, it's just a matter off time now. This will most likely create a domino-effect where the Danes close their border to Germany. The Danes will not want to get stuck with the migrants that were attracted to these parts by Swedens irresponsible and naive politics.
Even Merkel has abandoned her previous stance that it didn't matter how many came to Germany. Too bad the idiots couldn't see this very obvious disaster coming but had to be reactive rather than proactive.
"But even so I don't see any reason that we can't have controls
within the EU at border crossings on top of that."
They weren't ‘on top of’; they were ‘instead of’. Which was then, and remains still, a dumb-ass way to do it.
$1.65
Lee: "They weren't ‘on top of’; they were ‘instead of’. Which was then, and remains still, a dumb-ass way to do it."
Agreed. The only thing even more dumb-ass would've been not to even do the 'instead of' part. Hungary did buy some time there, not a lot but some.
"The only thing even more dumb-ass would've been not to even do
the 'instead of' part."
Nope. Wrong. The EU's policy didn't change, the external borders (and Turkish complicity) weren't even looked at, until the effect of Ms. Merkel's policies began to be felt in the larger nations of France, and especially, Germany. The quickest way to get the action finally gotten was to get those folks on to the borders of Germany as efficiently and rapidly as possible. Hungary actually delayed implementation of such border controls as have been implemented by retarding the effects of the inflow from the decision center in Berlin. (Not to mention Berlin's reluctance to admit the Hungarians might actually have a point which probably delayed things at least a few more days.)
$1.74
Doesn't strike me as a very pleasant place to live.
It doesn't to me either. And, apparently, thousands of other people.
...wore his religion on his sleeve,... - with regard to Dr. Carson.
Some voters only care about one thing. Perhaps for them, this is it.
I see they reached an "historic" climate deal in Paris. *sigh* Twenty years ago it might have been a good start. Now...I'm not so sure.
"I see they reached an ‘historic’ climate deal in Paris."
I've been seeing arguments all over the board (not even counting the perennial denials about global warming, which I will not favor with a discussion). Some folks think it's a good start; some folks think it's an open disaster masquerading as attempt to deal with it. I don't have the technical expertise to know yet what I think about it. I'll have to wait for a consensus opinion to form up among those sources and persons whom I do trust on this subject.
Caption: "Marco Rubio Desperately Plays the 'Isolationist' Card"
(emphasis added)
The article is irrelevant--merely one partisan's whompin’ on the candidate not-of-his-choice who seems to be the most likely threat to his chosen one. In this case the author supports Cruz and is takin’ his shots at Rubio, but that doesn't really matter--could easily be Cruz guy takin’ shots at Trump, or Rubio guy takin’ shots at Cruz or Trump or Bush, or whatever.
The matter I was noticing is how the claim is made that the target is ‘desperate’. That seems to be the new go-to allegation; all enemies are ‘desperate’. One sees it all over FoxNewsSunday, and Radio Right Wing and I must presume from the discussions there that it's all over FoxNews not on Sundays. Obama is ‘desperate’; Hillary is ‘desperate’; climate scientists are ‘desperate’; liberals are ‘desperate’; blacks are ‘desperate’; ditto Hispanics and union leaders (but not Da’esh nor al-Qaeda; they're big and bad and confident). Now Trump thinks Cruz is ‘desperate’; and Bush thinks Cruz, Trump and Rubio are all ‘desperate’; and Chris Christie thinks they're all ‘desperate’ including Bush.
Gettin’ kinda weird over there.
This might answer that long asked question of whether or not the Baath could work with Daesh and come out on top. Apparently the answer is "no".
I don't have the technical expertise to know yet what I think about it. I'll have to wait for a consensus opinion to form up among those sources and persons whom I do trust on this subject.
I am certainly no expert. I am just thinking back to that limit on warming that they apparently are not actually going to meet, even after 2050. Anyway, what I think is of no importance. What will be, will be.
Gettin’ kinda weird over there.
Perhaps a symptom of our tendency at times to make everything extreme in order to catch people's attention.
"Apparently the answer is ‘no’."
You may be correct; however, he (the blogger) may be working from a faulty premise, i.e. that:
"If the Baathists really ran both groups there would be no fighting
between them."
I see no reason to assume that the premise is true.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Perhaps a symptom of our tendency at times to make everything
extreme…"
Don't think that's it. My guess is we got some seriously ‘desperate’ right-wingers over there, and they're simply projecting; they have made themselves believe that everybody else is as much afraid of the future as are their very own old, angry, white selves. (Recalling Lindsey Graham's 2012 observation that the Republican Party was ‘not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.’).
But that's just a guess.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"LAS VEGAS — The final Republican debate of the year featured
sharp exchanges over national security, personal insults and regular
interruptions, but in the end there were no outright winners."
Dan Baltz writing for the Washington Post
Lee: "The quickest way to get the action finally gotten was to get those folks on to the borders of Germany as efficiently and rapidly as possible. Hungary actually delayed implementation of such border controls as have been implemented by retarding the effects of the inflow from the decision center in Berlin."
So the Hungarians, despite EU protests doing the right thing which should have been done by the EU as a whole, ironically contributed to the wrong thing - that's your argument?
That's kinda like telling Texas to open the border completely just as long as the immigrant flood that would surely follow ended up in Washington and New York, to force the liberals there to accept harsher migrant policies.
Lee: "I've been seeing arguments all over the board (not even counting the perennial denials about global warming, which I will not favor with a discussion). [...] I'll have to wait for a consensus opinion to form up among those sources and persons whom I do trust on this subject.
So all in all your mind is made up and you have decided on whom not to even listen to and now you just wait to see what arguments you're supposed to run with once they have been decided for you. How very open minded of you.
"That's kinda like telling Texas to open the border completely just as
long as the immigrant flood that would surely follow ended up in
Washington and New York…"
Nope, more like lettin’ through Texas and Oklahoma and then trying to stop ‘em at the border between Oklahoma and Kansas, on the assumption they'll just sit there and starve to death quiet like.
"So all in all your mind is made up and you have decided on whom
not to even listen to…"
I've certainly decided to not listen to those clowns who're still pushing the argument that global warming is a liberal hoax, the purpose of which is to destroy the capitalist system (often with a reference to ex-commies thrown in for good measure). Yep; I'm definite on that one.
"…now you just wait to see what arguments you're supposed to run
with once they have been decided for you."
I've looked at this subject long enough to know there are some sources I trust more than others and whom I'll probably lean towards believin’ when the technical arguments become contradictory and incompatible. You can claim that's closed minded if you wish. I figure it's merely a matter of having learned who to trust and who's more likely to lie to me to advance their own predetermined position on the subject. I think that's a good thing to know.
"If the Baathists really ran both groups there would be no fighting
between them."
I see no reason to assume that the premise is true.
Interesting thought. I hadn't considered that. Certainly there is no reason that some members of a group would necessarily agree or want to work with each other.
I've certainly decided to not listen to those clowns who're still pushing the argument that global warming is a liberal hoax, the purpose of which is to destroy the capitalist system (often with a reference to ex-commies thrown in for good measure).
Those that make that argument miss the point that if climate change is real and advances to the point of doing irreversible harm to the planet then in all likelihood a capitalist type of system may be a thing of the past anyway. Human civilization has developed in a Goldilocks environment on this planet. Take that away and governmental structures will be the least of our worries.
" Take that away [the Goldilocks environment] and governmental
structures will be the least of our worries."
I tend to disagree. Capitalists have managed so far to externalize the costs of pollution and enviromental degradation because there's been no means of making them accountable, and there's always been ‘more’ enviroment somewhere to exploit. Well, we've run out of ‘more’ virgin environment to exploit, but we've also advanced technically to the point where we can begin to force the capitalists to bear the costs of pollution and environmental degradation, to price that in. ‘Cause we can now account, at least roughly, for the costs. I'm a capitalist at heart; I can the system can handle it. (Cap and trade can be made to work, for just one instance.)
"I think the system can handle it."
Worth a look I think:
"The time may be coming for Turkey to make a choice between its
‘surface policy’ of support for the global coalition against IS, and its
‘hidden policy’ of taking out Assad, breaking the PKK and PYD, and
promoting a fundamentalist Sunni Islam that matches the orientation of
the Justice and Development Party (AKP). This ‘hidden policy,’ however,
is hard to hide, and is more like an open secret."
Al-Monitor
It would seem that the US administration has backed off on its call for Assad's ouster. Like his "red lines" before, Obama has apparently reconsidered his position. No doubt Putin is pleased. Just as no doubt the anti-Assad forces are not.
That article was worth a read, Lee. It certainly illustrates the complexity of the situation in the region due to opposing factions on the ground.
With the US shelving the goal of getting rid of Assad it will make Turkey's position even more isolated.
"It would seem that the US administration has backed off on its call
for Assad's ouster."
I'm not certain to what, specifically, you refer. But, it's been the U.S. position for a long time that Assad didn't necessarily have leave power before negotiations take place--we just wanted him to know that we weren't going to be negotiating on the terms under which he remained in power. Rather, the negotiations would include the terms under which he would leave power. In the end, he's gotta go (the Sunni majority will never again accept him), but maybe not necessarily go up front. Some folks are claiming that's a retreat from the position that Assad's gotta go, but it's not really. It's a question of when he's gotta go, whether he has to resign before negotiations begin, or whether he can negotiate terms for his leaving. And the Obama administration has never been of the opinion that whole Syrian government should be ejected and replaced wholesale--rather just Assad's gotta go (and the controlling clique he leads, of course, but he's part and parcel of that). But, that's neither a retreat from the Obama administration's prior position, nor is it a new clarification. Lotta folks would like to pretend otherwise for political reasons, but it is neither a retreat nor is it new.
Lee: "I've certainly decided to not listen to those clowns who're still pushing the argument that global warming is a liberal hoax, the purpose of which is to destroy the capitalist system (often with a reference to ex-commies thrown in for good measure). Yep; I'm definite on that one."
There are idiots in the "denier camp" for sure. But there are also sane voices questioning the climate hysteria that's been put forth. And lots of idiots in the true believer camp.
For instance the idea that we should not eat meat because cows contribute to climate change - in my mind that's just absurd.
Yes a cow emmitts greenhouse gas. But where did the Coal in that gas come from? From the grass the cow ate. After all it's not like the cow was sucking oil from a straw. The cow ate grass, and that grass absorbed the Coal while growing. And that grass would have decomposed and emmitted CO2 in any case. How is it any worse just because it passed through the belly of a cow? And in the next year the new grass on the field the cow ate from will suck up as much coal when it grows.
A cow is a renewable entity. It has NO impact on the climate if we eat cows. The only thing bad that can be said about eating cows is about the added fossil fuels that get the cow to the dinner plate. And that argument can be used for lettuce as well
To burn gas, coal and oil for energy is what we should be debating. And I am not yet convinced the limits for that will be rising temperatures, but rather recourse depletion and pollution.
I will however keep my mind open enough to hold the possibility of rising temperatures as a possible threat. But I need much more solid evidence to completely buy into it.
1977 was the warmest christmas in sweden so far. 2010 was the christmas in 100 years with the most snow. How can that be if the climate is steadily warming?
A second question: the past Ice ages and warm periods - how did they come about when there were no humans burning oil?
How can you be sure that Earth isn't bound to go through another Ice age and that human imposed warming isn't actuallly a good thing which might offset an Ice age catastrophe?
This is interesting. I believe it would be unconstitutional in the US:
http://www.infowars.com/ex-stasi-agent-hired-to-censor-xenophobic-facebook-posts/
Would it? Is my question to ya'll yanks.
Do spend the time to view the film clip at the end.
"And that grass would have decomposed and emmitted CO2 in any
case."
You wanna field that one Lynnette? It'll just piss ‘im off if I do it.
"But I need much more solid evidence to completely buy into it."
There is a non-historical record contained in fossil ice found in both poles and many glacial environments (Greenland, for instance; tiny air bubbles trapped in the ice). Every time greenhouse gas levels have spiked over today's levels, significant global warming soon followed. Maybe you should look into those findings. I believe the Antarctic ice records go back several hundred thousand years and cover several eras of warming. In fact, Antarctic ice supposedly goes back about a million and a half years in some places (although they've not yet cored that part deeply enough to get readings back that far)
I'm open to any intelligent arguments as to why this time should be different.
And, yes, that would almost certainly be figured to be un-Constitutional. To be criminally actionable the speech has to be calculated to provoke fairly immediate violence. (Standard is, would a ‘reasonable man’ expect the language to provoke immediate violence against a known person or persons, or something like that--I'd have to look up the exact language, but that's the gist of it I think.)
"And that grass would have decomposed and emmitted CO2 in any case."
Unlike animals, which breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, a plant's CO2 emission during decomposition is split between atmospheric release and storage in the soil.
The carbon cycle
Carbon stored in plants that are not eaten by animals eventually decomposes after the plants die, and is either released into the atmosphere or stored in the soil.
In any case I don't believe that the human activity of raising cattle and consuming a thick, juicy steak is as harmful to the environment as is our consumption of fossil fuels.
A second question: the past Ice ages and warm periods - how did they come about when there were no humans burning oil?
The Earth has always gone through periods of warming and cooling caused by natural sources. The issue here is that it is human activity that has sped up the process, putting at risk the moderate climate that humans have been able to survive in.
1977 was the warmest christmas in sweden so far. 2010 was the christmas in 100 years with the most snow. How can that be if the climate is steadily warming?
Global warming will lead to global climate change. That change will affect regions of the world differently. Some will experience greater precipitation and others will experience greater drought at different time periods.
How can you be sure that Earth isn't bound to go through another Ice age and that human imposed warming isn't actuallly a good thing which might offset an Ice age catastrophe?
My guess is that Earth will evntually go through another Ice age. It seems that it is a pendulum that swings between warming and cooling (an Ice age) periods.
Hmmm...so much for that nap I was thinking about taking. lol!
If this is true it's very bad. A Norweigan newspaper claim intel that says at least 272 trained terrorists from Daesh have infiltrated into Europe and are awaiting orders to attack (300 trained but 28 dies in Syria en route). 150 more are being trained for the same purpose. I link to the english version of the article:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/12/17/nyheter/terror/utenriks/is/den_islamske_stat/42440508/
How many were involved in the Paris attacks? Likely around 10 in all. Imagine what a couple of hundred could do.
Note that this is a regular norwegian tabloid. Now tabloids are often sensationalist in their reporting but do not outright lie. It's not a conspiracy blog or something along those lines.
Lynnette: "Carbon stored in plants that are not eaten by animals eventually decomposes after the plants die, and is either released into the atmosphere or stored in the soil."
And the carbon a cow eats, while eating grass, is also released into the athmosphere by exhalation and farts, but also returned to the soil in the form of manure.
Point is: the cow cannot, CANNOT, emitt more coal than it ate. And if the following season sees the pasture renew itself it will suck up as much coal all over again.
The cow is thus a renewable entity. Lee seems to have issues with this but he's yet to explain himself.
One strip of bacon has more calories than two heads of lettuce. Still the veggie-fanatics who constitute a very vocal minority in the "climate change"- gang wants us to eat more lettuce.
For anyone reading this in the US there's a 20/20 special on tonight at 9:00 on Channel 5(ABC) about Iraqi Christians and Daesh.
And the carbon a cow eats, while eating grass, is also released into the athmosphere by exhalation and farts, but also returned to the soil in the form of manure.
As someone just reminded me cow flatulence actually produces methane which is a stronger greenhouse gas than is CO2.
Greenhouse Gases
And when biomass decomposes it also emitts methane. You have probably heard of the dangers of the permafrost thawing and the soil releasing large amounts of CO2 and methane. Guess what the source is. That's right, decomposed biomass that's been stored for ages in the frozen ground.
"And that grass would have decomposed and emmitted CO2 in any
case."
Marcus @ Thu Dec 17, 11:36:00 am ↑
And when biomass decomposes it also emitts methane.
Which happens more quickly?
"Which happens more quickly?"
Whether the biomass decomposes quickly or slowly is not necessarily the primary consideration. Biomass decomp in a dry environment tends to result in CO2. In a wet environment it tends to result in CH4 (methane). This explains why primary natural methane sources include wetlands and the permafrost.
It's fairly common knowledge that the inside of a cow is a wet environment. You may draw your conclusions from there and probably get it right.
However, folks gotta eat. And CO2 is a bigger problem overall than is CH4, and easier solved. We've got a long way to go, so it makes sense to go after the low-hanging fruit first. That'll give us more time to make it all the way to where we need to go (assuming we're gonna get there, or even near there).
Furthermore, I've not seen any final results data for the combined systemic global warming effect of preferring a full veggie diet to my own carnivorous diet (Not to mention that one can produce meat on ground and in environments not suitable for the cultivation of vegetables), so I remain unconvinced that's an area that needs addressed just yet.
But, it does help, when trying to figure out what's what in this sometimes contested field, if one at least knows to differentiate CH4 from CO2, and why that should be done. Otherwise one will end up like Marcus, waiting for someone else to tell him what to believe. (And probably listening most to the guy whose story he likes best rather than figuring out who's got the right story.)
Marcus: "A cow is a renewable entity. It has NO impact on the climate if we eat cows."
Cows produce methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. You say the grass that would otherwise have been eaten by cows will decompose anyway to produce greenhouse gases. But methanogens are anaerobic microbes (actually archaea rather than bacteria) which don't live in aerated soil. So you get methane emissions from anaerobic decomposition in wetlands (and thawing former wetlands like the Arctic tundra), but normal decomposition in soils will only yield CO2.
In the US a little over a third of methane emissions come from gut fermentation in cows and manure management, a little under a third is from oil and natural gas extraction, a fifth from decomposition in land fills, and a tenth from coal mining. Wetlands are not a significant contributor.
Hey, Petes, nice to see you again. :)
Busy day today...baking cookies, wrapping presents and miscellaneous other tasks...
According to Mustafa Akyol, a Muslim author and Op-Ed writer for the New York Times, an Islamic Reformation, something that might parallel the European, Christian Reformation of the late Middle Ages, is at least possible.
This is one of the first articles I've seen that suggests any solid basis for that, so I thought I'd point it out.
That was a very interesting Op Ed piece, Lee. I have always said that those who claim to be religious and yet are putting themselves in judgement of others are in fact usurping God's place. They themselves are the apostates. I am rather glad to see that someone else has also come to the same conclusion.
I suspect that there are many, many people in the Middle East who are opposed to Daesh. Looking at the numbers of refugees fleeing to Europe makes this rather obvious. It will take a combination of things to defeat them. While the religious schism within Islam is an important factor, religion is not always a factor for the recruits who are being drawn into this fight on Daesh's side. I don't think it has much to do with the ex-Ba'athists' motivation, for instance. It could be a start, though, to healing some of the rift within Middle Eastern society.
Well, one of the things he doesn't bother to mention is that it's a principle of Islamic interpretation that when there are contradictions in the holy texts, the later stuff tends to overrule the earlier stuff to the extent that they cannot be reconciled. (There may be more contradictions in the Islamic scriptures than in the Christian scriptures; perhaps that's because there's more Islamic scripture; perhaps it's another reason.)
Unfortunately, the earlier Muhammad was easier to get along with than the later day Muhammad. The stuff about there being ‘no compulsion in religion’ for instance comes from the earlier, Medina Muhammad. The stuff about taking the sword to the kafir comes from the later, Mecca Muhammad.
So, finding a non exclusivist Islam may be a little harder than he lets on. But, just about any religion can accommodate itself to reality when the alternative is the obliteration of the religion itself, and the very real prospect that the religion's holy men will have to give up being holy men and find honest work.
You probably recall that I've said before that I expect to see the American Republican Party die in my lifetime. The disparate coalition conceived by Nixon and forged by Reagan is dissolving as ‘the base’ slowly discovers they've been had. There will either be a schism, or the party will damn itself to the status of a regional party unable to win nationally.
This guy takes up that theme in ‘The Atlantic’ (like many Atlantic pieces, it is fairly long) In any piece this long there's bound to be some stuff with which I disagree, but he's got it mostly right I think. (And, it's good to see somebody else finally picking up on that theory for publication; I don't feel out there so all alone with that prediction now.)
The NYT, which has apparently not been paying attention to Obama administration policy on Syria, and may still be clueless so far as that goes, has finally awakened to the subject in general and has noticed that the recent UN Security Council vote, setting out a path towards peace in Syria, is probably just a fantasy reduced to paper.
OK, I will listen to Pete here (since when it comes to these scientifical things he usually knows what he's talking about and I have some, or even quite a lot of respect for his writings on such mattters):
Pete: "In the US a little over a third of methane emissions come from gut fermentation in cows and manure management*, a little under a third is from oil and natural gas extraction, a fifth from decomposition in land fills, and a tenth from coal mining."
So, if a third of methane in the US comes from cows it stands to reason it will be a much smaller portion globally, since the US is a large beef producer. So globally, what percentage of methane does the cattle industry account for?
Second, how big a factor in greenhouse gasses is methane? Sure it's more potent than CO2 but is it large enough to matter? Because even if Methane is 20 times as potent it's not that relevant if CO2 is a million times more common, right?
Also on a side note it takes about 10 years for Methane to break down into CO2 and water as far as I've read. So it's not like that Methane will be there forever.
Myself I find it VERY hard to believe that ranching and beef consumption would have a big enough impact on Global Warming that we should worry about it. It would take VERY solid evidence before I believed that. It's on par with saying the dinousaurs went extinct because they farted so much they changed the climate and died off (or maybe that's how they died?).
*BTW, here in Sweden we have high grade facilites that uses manure in combination with food waste to rot it in a closed environment and produce bio-gas. This we drive city buses on in my own home town. It's operational today. So in effect the manure that you saw as a source of emmissions is used to create a propellant that actually replaces fossil fuels and thus reduces CO2 emmissions. How 'bout that?
"…if CO2 is a million times more common…"
Any chance you want to bet on that being anywhere close to correct?
[Lynnette]: In any case I don't believe that the human activity of raising cattle and consuming a thick, juicy steak is as harmful to the environment as is our consumption of fossil fuels.
After this discussion I might have to rethink this statement I made earlier.
From my United States Environmental Protection Agency link I posted earlier:
...CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
Because even if Methane is 20 times as potent it's not that relevant if CO2 is a million times more common, right?
So in effect the manure that you saw as a source of emmissions is used to create a propellant that actually replaces fossil fuels and thus reduces CO2 emmissions. How 'bout that?
Hmmm...well, it looks like someone felt that finding a productive use for manure, and reducing methane emissions at the same time, was a rather good idea.
Marcus,
What is Swedish Glog?
Lynnette, since it's around Christmas I assume you're asking about the popular drink Glögg. It's sort of a very sweet "wine" that comes both with alcohol and without that we drink in Sweden around Christmas. The traditional way is to serve it with almonds and raisins in it and gingerbread cookies on the side. I take it a step futher and have a yearly glögg-party where I also serve an extended cheese tray and invite the whole family.
Lee: "Any chance you want to bet on that being anywhere close to correct?"
I just threw that out there. I'll be waiting for Pete to respond to that if he feels there's a don't-eat-cow point to be made. You noted that I wrote:
"since when it comes to these scientifical things he [PeteS] usually knows what he's talking about"
That was about Pete, not you Lee. I will listen to his points on scientific matters and I will believe him until I can prove him wrong, if I can prove him wrong.
You? I believe I already know much more than you and if you say something I am not on board with already I'll just Google (which is where I'll assume you got your intel to begin with). Not quite the authority I see Pete as.
"I will listen to his points on scientific matters…"
I suspect that's why he engages in jargon-babble. It works with folks like you.
It's sort of a very sweet "wine" that comes both with alcohol and without that we drink in Sweden around Christmas.
Thanks, Marcus.
We have a Swedish bakery here that is selling that. One of my co-workers had just stopped there in search of Christmas treats. :) They have the type of bread her Grandmother used to make...Limpa (spelling?).
Apparently you forget that I am the one who first noticed you weren't up to speed on the fact that grass didn't convert to CO2 inside a cow. Simply put, hydrogen is highly reactive, even more than oxygen; but, there is very little free hydrogen in the atmosphere, and it doesn't last very long when it does appear. So, freed-up carbon usually reacts with the most reactive element it can find, the one that it can find in the atmosphere, oxygen. Thus the preference for making CO2. In environments where there is little free oxygen (saturated environments) the oxygen has to be freed up from the hydrogen before it's available for combination with the carbon, but this frees up hydrogen as well, and the carbon tends to combine with the more reactive hydrogen (also twice as prevalent) in preference to combining with the freed-up oxygen.
It's fairly simple chemistry. Living organisms tend to go for utilizing the least energy expensive means of acquiring their energy--hence the preference for oxygen combinations in environments where free oxygen already exists. No jargon-babble to impress you with however, nor any need to look up how to spell archaea.
jargon-babble
Git off ma' barn!
Lynnette: "Thanks, Marcus.
We have a Swedish bakery here that is selling that. One of my co-workers had just stopped there in search of Christmas treats. :) They have the type of bread her Grandmother used to make...Limpa (spelling?)."
I forgot one crucial thing: it should be served heated. You pour it in a pan and close to boil it and then pour it in a cup and (voulontarily) put some raisins and/or almonds in the cup also and then sip it and eat the almonds and raisins as you go. With gingerbread cookies on the side.
Do not try to drink Glögg cold. Then it's just plain nasty.
Lynnette "Limpa" litterally translates into "loaf". It's a loaf of bread. The word might have taken on another meaning "over there" but the proper meaning is just a loaf.
Interesting. I'll have to ask my co-worker if she realized that. She just called it "Limpa" bread as if that was a kind of bread rather than the size. Although the people at the bakery should know that because the woman is actually from Malmo. In any case it's a type of rye bread.
lol! I'll remember that about Glogg if I ever try it. Some things do taste different if they are not served at the right temperature.
Post a Comment