Thursday, June 28, 2007

Supporting the Troops: Beyond the Yellow Ribbon

You know what I am about sick of? The marketing catch phrase "support our troops". The warmongering neo conservative movement has used it to browbeat politicians into the fear of looking "unpatriotic". They infer the only way to support troops is to condone the way that the current administration is using them.

First I have a question. Am I supposed to support Sgt Paul Cortez who raped and killed a 14 year old Iraqis girl and then killed her family? He was the most senior of a group of 5 people that plead guilty to the crime. Am I supposed to support Cpl. Trent Thomas. He was one of 7 marines who kidnapped and executed a 52 year old Iraqis man. Am I to support the soldiers who have been found guilty of torture in Cuba? Am I to support the soldiers that covered up the Pat Tillman incident? Should I support the Army or Lt. Col. William H. Steele who is facing the death penalty for unbecoming actions?

Part of the problem is that the Army is sending more criminals to war. Just out of High school and many already have felonies for violent acts. Many are given the choice of the military or prison. What do you think their level of patriotism is? You have to think that these people probably worked plea bargains at the time of their sentencing. Many of their actual crime may have been much more disturbing. Take the part about hem getting shipped over seas out of their life story and you might not be so "supportive".

Am I to be considered "unpatriotic" for not supporting the Iraq war policy? Or, am I unpatriotic for supporting Tammy Duckworth? She ran for congress on an anti-Iraq war policy. Oh, did I mention that she was a pilot in the Army National Guard. Also she is a double amputee due to injuries suffered while in Iraq. One more thing, as she is still getting used to her new prosthetics, her husband is being sent off to Iraq to drive in a convoy.

Am I to support Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, Army First Lt. Ehren K. Watada, Mark Wilkerson , Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman, Army Specialist Suzanne Swift, or the more the 6000 troops in the army alone that have went AWOL? Many of the staunch war supporters turn on these people when they come home, after seeing the truth for themselves, and refuse to go back. They are not leaving their fellow soldiers on the battlefield. They have come back and informed their superiors that they no longer believe in the cause. There is an understanding that they will need replaced. Making a decision to descent and stand up against the military machine takes more courage then facing a firefight. The lack of support for these soldiers seems to be hypocritical.

I value and support all functional life. I am a human under the eyes of the creator. I am an American by right of birth. I understand the need for cohesiveness and commonality in the face of a determined enemy. However, a soldier that has lost faith in his cause can not hold either of those traits with any guarantee. The best way to ensure that the military personal remain committed to the cause is to make sure that the war fulfills the "Just War" criteria. Just Wars will require neither a draft nor a marketing strategy. It can not be the result faulty Intelligence being promoted. There can be no obvious evidence of anterior motives. The result can not be in direct opposition to the stated objective. The stated objective can not keep changing.

So don’t patronize me by saying I don’t support the troops. I think about what would benefit them everyday in most of my decisions. I have sought to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, have energy smart controls on my home, recycle, and opposed the waste of life caused by this war since day one. That is way more supportive then a sticker on an SUV that guzzles gas. Gas made from oil whose contributing profits go to companies that ultimately end up supporting the lunatics that intend to cause our troops harm. The "terrorists" if you prefer.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Energy Bill - More Wasted Then Saved

The Senate legislators are claiming to have passed an "energy bill". The only thing about this bill related to energy is the amount spent to make it and the amount spent to strip it of any validity.

First the bill declares "Price gouging" illegal. You mean to tell me this wasn't already against the law? If anything it took teeth out of any local law on the books. It uses the term "unconscionably excessive". Like pornography, music volume, art, comfort, style, and a million other example of abstract and ambiguous issues. What you call art, I call the result of a spilt paint can. What you call pornographic, I call art. In reality they are already charging "unconscionably excessive" prices. this is evident by their record profits and CEO Payouts. I wonder if thye have to buy their own gas?


The next big issue is the requirement of government buildings to hurry up and replace lighting and appliances with more energy efficient. For those who haven't stepped foot into government building lately, this is already going on. I have seen everything from the CFL's to motion sensor activated lights. Government offices are run on budgets. If it really saves money there will be no need to make a law to get a bean counter to enact an efficiency policy. What they don't mention is that most of these technologies include the use of mercury switches. nobody has made plans or policies on what to do with all these new bulbs when they are disposed of. The cost and energy required to address this issue may cause a wash of the efficiency gained.

Grants, Loans, and other assistance supplied for research into fuel efficient vehicles was also passed. Who do you think is getting that money? When was the last time you did research into creating a new vehicle? Right, the auto industry got a way to get congress to give them more money. This is money to compensate for the fact that they spent all their time and marketing in the late 90's up until the last 4 yrs making bigger and fatter gas guzzler SUV's. In fact in the past the government has offered only up to $3000 in tax breaks for hybrid vehicles. However, they have been offering up to $100,000 for those who wish to buy large SUV's. How is that for encouragement.

On the other hand, lobbyist did manage to get the issues will values stripped from the bill. an estimated $32 billion that would have went to actual research firms and current programs to develop new methods to harvest renewable energy was taken from the bill. Republican leaders didn't like the fact that $29 billion of it would come from a tax on the big oil companies. That is who they are working for after all. You sure didn't contribute to their campaign.


The electric lobbyist got their way and pried the requirement of the energy producers to incorporate a mere 15% of production from renewable energy. Turns out that wouldn't look good on the balance sheet to their stock holders. if it is any consolation, they are trying to find a way to use it as long as it means they can charge more for it.

The biggest joke is that they will require a 10 MPG increase in the fleet economy by 2020. First, you can believe with the incentive just given to them by this bill they will be doing it anyway. Besides, right now the American buying public requires it. However you must realize how a "fleet" MPG rating is obtained. Using the CAFE regulations you take all the vehicles offered in your fleet, add up their MPG, and divide it by that fleet number. So if Ford offers 5 different models, that equal about 25 MPG, they only need to add some light concept car that gets 85 MPG to boost the "Fleet" rating. It doesn't matter that the new vehicle is some paper thin two seater concept car that nobody will buy. They have met their requirements. Expect to see a ford Moped in the near future.

So there you have it. Another waste of taxpayer time and money to pass a bill that rewards incompetence, Pays the wealthy, and in the end gets nothing done to solve the original problem. If a senator really wanted to do his constituents a favor he would have stood up and said, "no I will not pass this worthless bill." Instead it will turn into fluff that the politicians will use to boast that they passed a "comprehensive fuel reform bill".


“Politics: “Poli” a Latin word meaning “many”; and "tics" meaning “bloodsucking
creatures”.”

Leave Comments Here

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Scooter Libby - What He is The Fall Guy For?

Alright this is one of my "Soap Box Issues". It will be hard to make this one entertaining. So I will try to keep it short. With the sentencing of Scooter Libby and the subsequent topic of presidential pardons for him, Valerie Plame is back briefly in the spotlight.


The Valerie Plame Wilson story is a shining example of why I grew from a supporter of the current administration into an all out critic. From the first days in office the have demonstrated that they have no regard for America, the economy, democracy, or the core values of the system. From the obvious corruption of the Cheney oil executive meetings to blatant violation of constitutional rights with the wire tapping program, they have acted more like dictators then elected legislators. In this case it was done at the expense of at least two Americans who dedicated careers to improve and protect the country.


A quick recap, for those who don’t know who she is. Valerie Plame Wilson is the Ex-CIA agent. She was married to retired ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson was a highly regarded for his service which included time spent in Baghdad just before the first Gulf War. The point is that he knows his stuff. He had reliable contacts throughout the world.


Wilson was so well connected that the current Bush officials twice asked him to use his credibility to probe Nigerian officials about an unconfirmed intelligence report that claimed Niger had sold Iraq materials required to create nuclear fission, and continuing to a Nuclear weapon. (The illogical facts of this claim will have to be discussed in a future post.) Wilson, retired from government service at the time, agreed. He reported to the administration that the claims were unfounded and unlikely. A year later when Joseph Wilson watched as the administration used this unfounded intelligence to make a case for war, he wrote and op-ed piece denouncing their claim. The piece titled, "What I Didn't Find in Africa". In it he blasted the claims of the Bush propaganda machine about Iraq's nuclear capabilities.


The result was a personal attack on Joseph Wilson by destroying the career of his wife Valerie. Valerie status and depth of coverage are disputed. What is not disputed is that she was an agent, covered under the "top secret clearance" decree. She worked on issues related to determining threats from WMD. Her disclosure has never been justified.


The means by which it occurred was at the very least unorthodox. The Bush administration sent a top ranking cabinet member to meet with a journalist with a bias to usually agree with their policies, to "leak" it through the media. Even if there was a legitimate reason to declassify and expose a CIA agent with her level of clearance, their method is and never has been to do it through the media.


At the onset of the case President Bush claimed stated "anybody caught leaking the name of a CIA agent would be fired." Of course now we know that isn't true. The magnitude of his angst with the act that was implied by his statement was obviously over dramatic. Not only is Dick Cheney still working as his VP, but there is a strong belief that he will pardon Scooter Libby.


In the end the logic has to be rectified. At the time, The UN inspectors were begging for more time as they had found no evidence to back up the claims of a nuclear program. Saddam had turned over a 12,000 page document that was almost immediately condemned by the Bush administration with out the possible chance to read it, let alone compare and conduct intelligence connected to it. At the very time they were prodding and coercing the world into war with Iraq, they remained unconcerned with North Korea's threats to turn the US into a "Sea of fire". (Of course N. Korea has every right to be upset with US policies, but that is for another post.)


In the end, Joseph Wilson was right. Valerie Plames career was ended and the networks she was part of have collapsed. More then 3,500 Americans citizens have been killed, over 25,000 have been physically wounded, and all of them come back mentally effected. 75,000 Iraqis civilians directly caused by military action. It will never be known how many died to reduced conditions, lack of clean food and water, and lack of medical support. The whole Middle East has been changed, it is on fire. What if they had listened to Wilson? Who is going to pay for these Criminal acts of incompetence?


So if Scooter Libby is the "Fall Guy", this is what he is falling for. His sentence is mighty light.


"Military intelligence, Two words combined that don't make sense... Peace
Sells, But who's Buying"- Megadeath (Peace Sells)



As Always Leave your comments here

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

War On Terror?

Here is a term that has never quite added up to me. "War on Terrorism". Terrorism is a technique of persuasion. War is a state of relationships between two or more parties. What if we had a "War on diplomacy. " You could never sit down at a table and debate your case. That would be "promoting diplomacy." Oh then there would inevitably be a list of states that sponsor diplomacy. The US would certainly not be on that list.


To be more specific, Merriam-Webster define "War" as: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations. It also defines it as (a): a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism (b) : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end . In the interest of full disclosure, there are a few more but these two are the most relative to the subject matter.



To accurately define terrorism, we must break it down into it's parts. Merriam-Webster defines "Terrorism" as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. "So then what is the meaning of Terror?", you ask. Continuing the use of our source, M-W defines it as: 1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety d : an appalling person or thing; 4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands . All of the definition giver were really related.



So to have a "War" against a tactic of population coercion makes no sense. I mean last I knew we were not bombing Iraqis with puppy dogs, shooting them with silly string, and tapping on their door and politely asking them to turn themselves in if they are feeling negative thoughts against the U.S. soldiers, their differently religious minded neighbors, or their government. I am thinking that we are dropping explosive bombs, shooting with bullets, and kicking in doors and hauling off suspected insurgents. I am pretty sure these actions inspire "intense fear". With out a doubt many people would call many members of the Bush Administration "appalling people".



So can you see the paradox of the "war on terrorism". So far the approach to stop terrorism is to terrorise people. This terror has extended Afghanistan, Iraq, and even to people in our own borders. for some people the loss of freedom is a fate far scarier then one imposed by some nutcases with violent intent. It seems to me the only way to win a war on terror is through diplomacy, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, education, and patience. Man it seems like there was a leader who once taught these virtues. I think he came from the Middle East too. Jesus I think his name was. No wait that is a Spanish name isn't it?

Friday, June 15, 2007

Freedom: By Definition

This Idea is one I will return to often. It is the issue at the core of being American.


"Freedom". This word was the catchword of the president’s address to the G8 Summit this week. It is an ominous word that is spoke and everybody gets a warm fuzzy feeling. The actual visions and meaning is various from person to person as well as culture to culture. To exemplify this point, I want you to close your eyes and picture a dog. Picture the dog’s color, hair length, and demeanor. Did you picture a saliva dripping Rottweiler, with dark short hair, snarling grin, coiled ready to spring, and larger then your average teenager. Most of you didn’t. Most people would have envisioned something smaller, cuter, and friendlier when thinking of a dog. The same can be said about the way that the Bush administration and their vision of freedom. They didn’t understand many Iraqis idea of freedom would be the freedom to take revenge and kill their neighbors. Freedom of religion to them would mean a religion that is considered repressive to women. Freedom of speech would mean to that ability to preach hatred of the American presence and inciting violence. The right to bear arms would the used to arm the militias against the troops.


Freedom as an ideology is unpredictable and not definable. According to m-w.com "Freedom" the word there are many definitions. Most of them say what freedom is not. Others talk about freedom in a negative sense. The only raw kind of definitive definition is (the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action). By that definition we are not free in this country. I think that they would be more accurate to have written it as that absence of necessity or coercion by others, or constraint in choice from others. We are all bound by our biological needs of food, Shelter, oxygen, ect. In this country we have a necessity for a phone, transportation, digital entertainment, and many other things that we could actually survive without. Because of these "sudo needs", existence in this country isn’t "free" and the very need for money creates a reduction in freedom.


A reduction in freedom is another important concept. Freedom is not a light switch. It is not an off or on thing. It exists on variable scales that exist on a variable scale on an individual level. You can drive down the road "non-coerced" at 75 MPH on the highways in some states. Yet in others that would get you pulled over and ticketed in other states. Some states allow you to gamble freely, however other states it is strictly forbidden. (Well at least in the strictest sense of the word. This is the source of a future topic.) If your choice is to gamble, you freedom is restricted in some places, while in some places you remain free to do your will.

If you want to experience true freedom, get a sailboat and a fishing pole and head out to sea. You have wind for power and a way to feed yourself. The rules of the boat are your own. That is freedom.
Many people confuse freedom with democracy. I know I have a few teachers that read this blog. I have always envisioned teaching students the freedom and democracy difference like this. Have them all gather in a circle with their arms outstretched and fingertips touching. Then have them take one step back with their arms still outstretched. The circle is wide with plenty of space between them. That is freedom. Then having them return to the state where they were touching their fingertips again, I would have them take a step forward and lock wrists. Their head, elbows, legs and other parts are free. Where they touch the other people is where democracy is required. In a society, freedom is the activities and choices you are allowed to make that do not infringe upon the freedoms and choices of other in the society. Democracy is the way to address the issues that arise when two or more participants’ choices are in conflict or effect the others. The last thing I would have the students do is move as rapidly as possible, with palms still locked on wrists, out and around the school’s flag pole and back to class. I would inspire them to beat some time. They would experience the difficulties of moving when choices are to be made together. There are so many variations to this exercise including changing group sizes, electing leaders, and forcing time constraints.

William O. Douglas, "a former Supreme Court Justice and free speech advocate, had this to say about protecting freedom. "As night fall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness"

As usual you can Leave Comments Here

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Plans Of Insanity- Give Our Enemies Guns

This week’s post was going to be about Scooter Libby and weather he got more, less, or what he deserved. The implications of what the issue means outside of the man himself was on deck. The Idea of this blog is to discuss the deeper meaning of the Issues. If you want the news there are 20 different version on the television. Likewise there are thousands of opinion driven commentary blogs that will suit your needs. I usually like news to age for a week or so to really let a story to work out the detail. This Morning however, I couldn’t believe my ears. One of the top news stories on all of the stations was that the US officials were talking with Sunni insurgents to help them fight al-Qaeda.



What?!! The details of the plan include supplying them with weapons, ammo, and other supplies. They are to promise that they would not use the weapons against the US. Of course they are using their intelligence to determined which insurgents haven’t been killing Americans. We know how well the US intelligence record is. They couldn’t find a gun for all the smoke. The Iraqi government is opposed to this action.


All right, let’s see if I got this right. First, the Bush administration couldn’t wait for the UN inspectors to find evidence of WMD and had to invade Iraq. The goal was to remove the Sunni dominated government and stop the weapons program. When no weapons were found they bolstered that Saddam was "a bad man." He had used chemical weapons against Kurdish and Shiite tribes that had tried to kill him. Now when they say, "He", what they mean is his Sunni militia forces. The US blows into town destroying the entire infrastructure and security required in order to run a modern city. They basically set up an environment that holds down the Sunnis. The Shiite brimming with decades of repression and destitution found leaders that would rise up in the power void. The Shiite leaders offered the people the things that the US did not. Security, resources, direction, and a chance to get revenge were all theirs for the taking. Next the news reading public in the gained a realization that the US is now in a power struggle with the likes of people such as Moqtada al-Sadr, and other powerful Shiite clerics. Everyday the streets were filled with Sunni bodies, and then Shiite bodies in retaliation. Both of them hate "the occupiers". Understaffed and under educated about the ways of the region, the US was too busy trying to referee the onslaught of the civil war. This has left, to this point, the borders wide open with countries who would love to see the US fail. That allows adding to the mix the influx of al-Qaeda. I think that sums up the events so far.


Now the US wants to arm the Sunnis they removed from office. Their plan is to trust that they will not kill their sworn enemies, the US soldiers, or government officials. They are expecting that the Sunni insurgency will turn their aggression on al-Qaeda, which is mostly made up of a radical sect of Sunni Arabs from Saudi Arabia. I don’t get it! Wouldn’t it have just been easier to leave the Sunnis in charge of Iraq under the direction of the compliant Saddam Hussein? They were doing a great job of keeping al-Qaeda out before the US invaded according to the CIA. Why would we have "created a central front" only to hand it over to them?


In this country if you supply a service with a level of incompetence that leads to the death or injury of a customer, you can be held liable for criminal charges. This includes services that are render with bad or misleading intelligence. Ask the executives of ENRON. It is called negligence. The US government is paid to protect each and every one of its citizens. It is also paid to wisely invest our money. It is not allowed to use the resources for the individuals in charge for their own personal gain. How is there not enough evidence to prove much of this against the administration? Certainly we can offer immunity to many of the senators who dropped the ball on their job and "didn’t read the intelligence reports." Start with Mrs. "I want to run a country when I can’t even run a family" Clinton. In exchange they will testify against key perpetrators.



If somebody has any Idea how this is a good idea please post an explanation comment here.

Saturday, June 2, 2007

Global Warming- Not Just Science It's Also a Diet Plan

Now I am not a chemist, astroligist, physicists, or even an ex-vice president. I do know a lot of science. Most of it useless. Some is good stuff though. I am not bad at putting it into terms average people understand, sometimes. Here is my best attempt to describe "global warming". Along the way you could also pick up some tips to help shed a few pounds too.


First you have to grasp a few difficult physics concepts that I will try my best to simplify. The first of which is that hot objects loose their heat faster then cooler object. It is called the "Mpemba effect". You can prove this, and it is handy to know when having a party, by filling an ice tray with your hottest tap water and then fill another ice tray with your coldest tap water. Check the status of the Ice every 2 or three minutes. I know that would be the difficult part. Only slightly more exciting then watching paint dry would be watching water freeze. As a testament to my oddity I have performed this task. What you will find is that hot water freezes faster then cold water. Why? Because I just said hot objects loose heat at a faster rate then cooler objects. Remember the old train story problems in algebra class? "train 'A' left the station... Train 'B' Left at some faster rate, how long before 'B' Catches 'A'? Well hot water gets to freezing faster then cold water. That is the law and the proof is in the ice tray. I am trying to keep this simple. Follow the link if you are more curious.



The second difficult concept that needs to be simplified is the one that states that Planets are near a state known as "equilibrium". No no, it is not out on the left coast or in the Middle East and we don’t have to ban it or bomb it. Equilibrium is a situation where heat absorbed by a planet equals the heat lost to the coldness of space. Our bodies can be used as examples of this concept. Although, we regulate our heat in different ways and have our own internal heat source, this is still a good way if not a better way to explain how the earth works. No matter how cold or how hot it is around us, we give off or absorb enough heat to keep our bodies at 98.5 degrees. If we were the only heat source in a room, eventually everything in that room would be 98.5 degrees.


Concept three, is actually the first law of thermodynamics. It is also known as "energy conservation". It states that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." Unless you are a quantum physicist you can not argue with that fact. And since it is a law, we must obey it. (Here is your first dieting tip comes into play.) What it means to the rest of us is that when you sit up in the morning you use energy which is manifest in the rise in your temperature ever so slightly, that heat is absorbed by the surrounding air. That will raise the heat level in your house that could be the final straw that tips the scale and turns on your air conditioner. Then a whole slew of "give and take" happens in the way of energy exchange. All this happened just because you got out of bed in the morning. Imagine what happens when you walk to the stove to light the burner to cook the egg which you move your arms to feed your face to give you energy which you will use to wash the dishes when you are done. "I’ll never know why she swallowed that fly." Everything you do has an energy cost and earning and cost associated with it. Dieting is easy. Simply spend more energy then you consume. Consumable energy you know as calories.


Two more and then we will tie it all together. The fourth concept is the greenhouse effect. It is actually a few ideas rolled into one. However, let us simplify. The greenhouse effect is s situation that occurs allowing us to have beautiful Bohemian beaches. That is because we have a layer of gasses that work like a blanket to cover the earth. With out that blanket the whole world would be something like 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Remember that we said objects that hotter loose heat faster then objects that are colder. So let us say that you are sleeping in your bedroom and your bedroom is 72 degrees and you body is, of course 98.5 degrees. If stop producing heat, you died, you too would eventually reach 72 degrees. (That is how on CSI they know how long a body has been dead.) However, you are still alive and you long to stay at 98.5 degrees with as little effort as possible. I mean you are trying to sleep right? That is what goes on in my bedroom anyway. And that is about it. So you put a blanket over you. A blanket that was on the bed that was in that room that was 72 degrees all day long. Going back to objects trying to obtain equilibrium, what did we learn? Right the blanket is also 72 degrees. So why would we put a 72 degree blanket on our body that we are trying to keep at 98.5 degrees? Man great questions you guys are asking today class!! The answer is you are looking to recreate the greenhouse effect. You are a body hotter then the object it is acting upon, the blanket. The blanket is cooler so it is what? Right loosing heat slower then your body. That means the blanket is actually raising in temperature because heat is coming from your body faster then heat is leaving the blanket to the outside air. So the blanket is heating up.




Got that? Good. Because the next thing is going to blow your mind. The blanket doesn’t just loose heat only to the outside room. Like a log from a fire, it "radiates" heat in all directions. That includes the direction in which your body lies. So the heat energy is reflected right back down towards your body. If you stay snuggled under that blanket long enough the temperature exchange between you and your blanket will be about 98.5 degrees.


The last concept that is related to the blanket idea is that the earth has an atmosphere. This atmosphere is made up of gasses. But for ease of understanding think of these gasses like a cotton fabric of a blanket. They create a layer that can be heated and cooled. Much like a fabric blanket, if you want to warm up faster or keep warmer, simply add more layers. If you remove layers then a cooling effect will occur. The list of gasses that are trapped between earth and space by gravity are called "greenhouse gasses". We have heard much of them over the years. There is a two part special properties of this type of gas. It lets heat in the form of visible light, (try to get a tan when there is no visible light.) to reach the earth, while at the same time greenhouse gasses do not let non-visible infrared light (also a heat source) pass back through. infrared light is often reflected back off the earths surface. This light energy turns into heat that warms the blanket covering the earth.


Oh yah one more concept. Not really a concept as much as a factoid. Energy exists in two forms. It is either "potential energy" or "kinetic energy". Potential energy is exactly as it sounds. It has potential to be used to do something. My wife will tell you I am full of potential energy. Kinetic energy is energy in use. Once it starts moving shifting from form to form (hope you are not dyslectic) it is considered "kinetic". A battery, a tank of gas, water at the top of a fall, and of course fat cells are forms of potential energy. A moving drum beating bunny, a speeding motorcycle, a turning water wheel, and a jogger are example of energy in motion, kinetic energy. Fat cells are biological batteries. If you want less fat you must turn that potential energy into kinetic energy.


Oh yah, what is a "form" you ask? Energy exists in many forms. Heat, light, electrical, chemical, and mechanical are some of the most common. Heat can be used to boil water. The water could be used to force a steam engine’s wheel. That wheel could be used to turn an electrical generator. That generator could have a light plugged into it. This is kinetic energy shifting forms.


Alright, and that is the reason why we have global warming thanks. Have a nice day.


Oh OK, for those of you who might be a little slow I will tie it all together for you. First lets refresh what we just learned. First when two objects are touching, the hotter one will get cooler at a rate faster then the cooler one. Second we learned that an object that doesn’t produce its own heat will eventually become the same temperature as the surrounding room until it releases exactly the same amount of heat it takes in. We learned that the French fries you just ate created enough energy to power your legs for a 10k race. We learned if you want to stay cool while running off those fries, you had better run naked. If you wear cloths, the heat created by your fat cells turning into kinetic energy will be partially reflected back onto your body. I don’t want to see your fat egg and french-fry eating ass naked. So wear some cool cloths. It is a good thing that you sweat to cool down instead. We learned that the earth is snuggled nicely in a blanket of its own that keeps the earth warm and lets you bask on a beach and show off that new bikini you got after running off those French fries. Seeex-see. We learned that the reality of your new wardrobe exist in you having more kinetic energy then potential energy. Last but not least we learned that if my wife was efficient she would let me attach an electrical generator instead of a motor to her treadmill and she could produce her own cup of morning coffee as she takes her jog. In this way she would change her potential "fat" energy to Bio-Mechanical, to mechanical, to electrical, to heat, and back to potential again.



So that is what we learned. How does this make the glob warmer you say? Remember how I said that we humans "regulate" our heat. We do this by breathing, sweating, and moving. The earth doesn’t have these regulatory measures. It must rely on simple physics to get rid of its heat energy. Now remember I said "as long as the object didn’t have it’s own internal hat source it would remain at a constant temperature?" Sure you do. Well the earth’s core is molten rock that often erupts in volcanoes. If that isn’t bad enough, it has us. We are sucking up potential energy in the form of crude oil from the ground, coal from the mines, and natural gas from the crust. Then we are turning that into heat energy. If that isn’t bad enough in itself, when we burn these sources of potential energy they create greenhouse gasses that add layers of blanketing to the earth’s atmosphere. These gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. So the sun is still heating us. Now billions of motors, millions of factories, and trillions of burners are adding not only heat, but layers of blanketing to the earth simultaneously. How could the globe not get warmer.


You will hear stupid things about cow farts, and eating meat causing global warming. I mean there is a case for carbon dioxide taking hundreds of years to dissipate. But the science enters the realm of theology I meant theory. Lots of calculations and graphic assumptions have to be made to rectify that logic. There are too many factors. Just know that if we people learn to use energy sources that are not sucked from the Earth’s surface innards like a McDonald's chocolate shake, we will win the battle of the bulge. Energy coming from wind, water, and solar are the most effective combatants.


On the other hand, I haven’t seen the Al Gore movie, but all the dangers of the Earth’s temperatures rising are real. We are seeing some of the effects already. It is not some "cycle" that the earth goes through. The earth does go through a cycle, however it happens every 23,000 years. I have a friend who just came back from the South Pole. When I presented that idea to him. He said that, "we have seen changes that usually takes thousands of years happen over the course of a few decades." If the cycle has sped up that much we need to start making other living arrangements on another planet. Like a top towards the end of its run it would signal we are about to spin out of control.


Well, that is it. Now you know. Tell all your friends to stop eating french-fries. and start running naked in the winter time.

Counter text

New counter