Obama, do something, would ya?

Well, I'm not exactly what one might call, a democrat. Nor am I really republican, but that's a whole different post. We'll stick with, not being a democrat, for the sake of argument today. See, I'm watching this whole thing go down in the gulf and I'm as appalled as anyone about the blame game being played between BP, Transocean and Cheney Inc...I mean Haliburton. I am by no means defending any of them. But I've got to step in an defend Mr. President on this one. If I hear one more person say "Obama should have done more!" or "Why hasn't Obama accomplished more in stopping this spill?" or "Shit, this Obama dude just let all us people and animals down here suffer." I swear, I will eat a baby seal.

People, what do you expect Obama to do? Swim down to the bottom of the ocean dressed as Aquaman, call all his fishy friends to help him plug the well?



Or maybe he could have personally taken over the role of BP's disaster management team and use his vast knowledge of off-shore oil well engineering, obtained at University of Hawaii, to devise a plan that would stop the leak!



I know, call the BP executives three times a day every day asking for an update, then he could have held the BP executive's families hostage until there was a resolution!



Or maybe fine BP an additional baggillion dollars a day for every day the hole is still leaking!

Ok, I think you get the picture. My point is, his hands are tied. Is there really something he can do, other than continue to publicly hold BP accountable for their actions, delays, and errors. Was his schedule supposed to stop because there's an oil spill? Did the wars, economy and unemployment all suddenly get resolved so that he can stand on the Louisiana coast to keep a watchful eye out over the shore line?

Grow up people.

-JB

Are we really this stupid?

Quite frankly I’m disappointed in this countries short sightedness. I get that we are a live for the moment society where we’re more than willing to spend $150 on a night out with friends, but can’t muster the energy to throw $100 each month into a retirement account. And long term planning isn’t about leaving money for your kids; it’s about eating after you quit working. However, this post isn’t about retirement or financial goals, so I won’t dwell on it. It’s about the stupidity that runs rampant in this great nation of ours and our willingness to consciously overlook the bigger picture if it means we’re right in the present.

Let me first touch on something I really don’t want to spend a lot of time with, but need to address. Guess what people, it’s February. It’s winter in North America. And that means snow. It always has and always will. Now, I get that the snow in D.C. broke a 110 year record, and it’s expected to snow in Hot-lanta and Mobile, Alabama. But all this means is that it’s winter time. This has nothing to do with disproving global warming. Let me say this again, just because it’s snowing record amounts and in place it doesn’t normally happen, does not mean that global warming is false. In fact, it proves it.

These wack-job jaggoffs in D.C. that think they can use the snow as a political tool to shoot down climate bills and “embarrass” the current administration are the same assholes that you voted into office, over and over again. These clowns are exactly what is wrong with our nation’s government and anyone that believes a word this faulkers say is exactly what is wrong with our country.
No, I’m no tree-huggin’, green party, Al Gore worshiping asshole that smoked too much dank in college to know my ass from a hole in the ground, but I do believe that there is this thing called science. And if we take two seconds to understand it, we’ll get what’s going on. And you won’t need a meteorology degree to grasp this…

First, one storm proves nothing. Yes, an extremely rare, intense snowstorm dumped feet on a region that barely gets a dusting. But did you also hear that Vancouver is trucking in and making snow for the winter Olympics? How does that play into you scheme? Or does it not count ‘cause they’re Canadian?

Next, there is this little thing that you may or may not have heard of called…El Niño (Spanish for “the niño). Here’s how this works…the surface of the Pacific Ocean warms up, causing a shift in the jet stream, developing and redirecting winter weather systems south of their typical paths. Now the intensity of this shift and size of the systems it brings increase in direct correlation with the temperature change. Meaning the warmer the surface of the ocean, the more intense the systems are. So, what this means…if we are experiencing a general warming of the earth’s climate, that would mean that the temperature of the Pacific Ocean’s surface would also increase…bringing more intense winter weather to southern regions of the country that don’t typically see more than a light flurry.

look! the northwest is hot while the southeast is cold?

One more time for Glenn Beck…global climate shift (commonly known as global warming) has caused the temperature of the earth’s surface to increase (which includes the Pacific Ocean). The warming of the ocean’s surface has and will always cause a shift in the jet stream which brings winter weather into the United States. The warmer the temperature, the more intense the weather systems…they kind we haven’t seen in 110 years, because our overall global surface temperature has increased to levels never recorded in human history due to…global climate shift (or Global Warming). Taa-Daa!!! This ain’t magic kids, it’s called science! I know you right-wing creationist don’t believe that science exists and that “God” personally controls every single thing that happens on this earth, but that’s just your own insecurities in your ability to make your own decisions and your desire to push the accountability onto something other than yourself.

Tomorrow we discuss the rise and fall of Toyota and why it shouldn’t be a surprise.

-JB

Save the world!!!!!

Ok, so I just finished this book, "saving the world at work: What Companies and Individuals Can Do to Go Beyond Making a Profit to Making a Difference" by Tim Sanders. I would highly recommend this book to anyone that gets off on buzz words about saving the environment.

Don't get me wrong, his stories were all great, it really does remind you of some of the very simple ways we can all make a difference with out going out of our way. But his writing style tends to be a little dry.

And I found it very disturbing that in a book, printed on paper with oil based ink, he discussing paper reduction and never once mentioned any efforts the book's publisher has made to reduce their carbon footprint or increase their use of recycled paper. Now I won't mention their name here until I have done a little research (to date I have seen no positive or negative information regarding said publishers environmental record), maybe they are taking the proper steps and I just haven't heard. But I got the book at a meet and greet with the author and I'll tell you what, he gave out probably 100 copies, all printed on paper with oil based inks...now would it have not made more ecological sense to have given out digital copies of the book? Or gone with an environmentally friendly publisher? The one positive thing I can say is that the book was printed in the US.

Now on to the meat...I have the solution to our consistently increasing carbon emissions, land fill growth, pillaging of our natural resources and general destruction of our planet. You won't like it, in fact I have not heard one environmentalist discuss it. Ask yourself this one question and you might just figure out the answer too...

What is the single most contributor to the destruction of our environment?

Nope not carbon emissions.

Not unregulated usage of non-renewable resources.

Sure isn't non-recyclable waste.

Give up yet? It's people. Us. We are the main cause of all of the environmental challenges facing us today. It is our own arrogance that has brought us to this point. And how exactly do I propose correcting this? Very simply put, population control.

Before you get all pissy let me explain. Take a look at the Census Bureau's Population Clock. At the time I wrote this sentence the estimated world population was 6,767,773,587. Now if this planet were designed to support that many people, would there be excessive famine or drought or carbon emissions deteriorating our ozone layer? Would we be running out of the very things that keep us alive? Survival techniques teach us to huddle in a group when stranded, the shard body heat of multiple people will help delay hypothermia and warm the air temp around us. Could it be that having 6.77 billion people has assisted in increasing the atmospheric temperature? Now I am not a scientist, and have no data to back this, but if we want to reduce our carbon footprint as a species maybe we should slow our growth?

When the grey wolf population had subsided in Michigan and the whitetail deer had lost their primary natural predator the Department of Natural Resources had to think fast to control the population of deer. The idea was the natural habitat could not support unbridled population growth. Are we too damn arrogant to see that maybe our natural habitat is trying to tell us something? When deer population gets too big diseases transfer more rapidly, tuberculosis kills many deer, hoof and mouth, starvation etc...sound familiar, wide spread disease (Cholera and AIDS epidemics), sever droughts (American southwest), flooding, temperature increases, do I really need to continue?

Now I am not suggesting killing off millions of people. But I am suggesting that we begin implementing a control mechanism for future population growth. Based on the current average birth rate for the globe of 20.3 births per 1000 people annually (which is down), over the course of one month there are 11,447,508 people born into this world. Regulate the population by limiting the number of kids a family can have. Instead of giving families tax deductions for each child, give them a tax deduction for the first and tax penalties for any after. Make them pay into the system like we are proposing to tax corporate carbon emissions. So a "family" like the Duggars would get one tax deduction and then pay some sort of luxury tax on the other 17 children they have. What gives them the right to have 17 kids when there are children around the corner from their home that need a safe, supportive family. Have one of your own to satisfy the "desire" or "instinct" to be a parent and then if you really really really want another we can give tax credits for adoption. But irresponsible parents that have children they can't afford, instead of buying a $7 box of condoms should not be rewarded for having kids. Their kids should be given to someone that can't have kids and they should be sterilized. The average cost in the US of a child's first year is $10,000. I'm not exactly sure, but I believe tying the tubes costs the same...and it's a one time out lay. So stop having unprotected sex for one year, and every dollar you would spend on a child should go in to a pot and when you have money for the surgery, GET IT! Or maybe in extreme cases the Department of Population could just pay for it.

This is a sure fire way to reduce the human impact on climate change, decrease unemployment and help create safe homes for children in bad situations (look at the Jolie adoptions, those kids won the lottery). And we need the world to stand behind this, it won't work if it's just us.

By the way the population of the world increased by 4,547 people since I put the link to the population clock in.

Good night.