My Gems

This picture was taken on November 25, 2006, during our yearly "Foliage Trip."

It was a beautiful day.

Revenge is so sweet

From Tom Toles:

Scary news

Just read this from The Guardian:

The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

That's insane, but not too surprising. The Bush administration probably feels like attacking Iran is their only way to still be relevant and keep doing what they want without restraints.

Right now, with a Congress run by the opposition, their leeway is quite limited, but if there were another war, a new threat to scare the American people, than they could have free rein again.

Let's just hope that whoever is in a position to stop this from happening, on both fronts, American and Iranian, do all they can to prevent it. I can't even imagine how bad things would get otherwise.

One last thing, how can Bush even think of starting another war based on his own will when he's about to leave office? He probably figures the next President will be a Democrat, so who cares if he leaves him (or her) with a pile of shit to clean up?

Aah, the hubris.

This is one for the history books

The Italian government has approved a bill that would recognize gay couples, similar to other civil unions existing in Europe, although not as strong.

Naturally, the Vatican strongly opposes the measure, which now goes to the Parliament for approval, facing an uphill hill, especially in the Senate, where the government's majority is razor thin.

From Raw Story:

Italy's government approved a bill Thursday granting new rights to de facto couples, including those of the same sex, in spite of strong opposition from the Vatican and resistance from Catholic lawmakers within its supporting centre-left coalition. Cabinet ministers unanimously agreed to the decision during an extraordinary cabinet meeting in Rome, Vannino Chiti, the minister responsible for relations with parliament, told reporters.

The bill, which must now be approved by parliament, allows de facto couples to make their relationship official by notifying their local registrar's office.
[...]
Thursday's decision was described as "historic" by left-wing leaders, coming more than 26 years after legislation on de facto couples was first submitted to parliament.

"For the first time in our country, people in a steady relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are granted important rights," said Piero Fassino, head of the Left Democrats.
[...]
Catholic Italy is one of the few European Union countries that has yet to grant any rights to gay couples. Thursday's bill introduces so-called "civil pacts of solidarity" (PACS), along the line of similar legislation adopted by France in 1999.

PACS are "contracts" drawn up between two individuals who are in a stable relationship. Those who subscribe them enjoy greater rights and responsibilities, but less so than marriage.
[...]
The bill can expect a rough ride through parliament. While Prodi can rely on a comfortable majority in the lower house, he commands only a razor-thin majority in the Senate.

More from Yahoo:

The Church and the Vatican see the planned legislation as an attack on the concept of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, while two-thirds of Italians favor the measure, according to a poll carried out last month.

To satisfy all components of the ruling coalition, the new legislation will result in far less robust civil unions, or PACS, than those that exist elsewhere in Europe.

Whether the bill will pass as is, altered, or not at all, this is really a historic occurrence for gays living in Italy.

And it's also surprisingly refreshing to see that a strong majority of the population favors same-sex unions in spite of the strong opposition from the Church.

Thank you Mr. Prodi.

The New 7 Wonders of the World - update

I forgot to mention that the winners will be announced during the Official Declaration ceremony in Lisbon, Portugal on Saturday, July 7, 2007 (that is, 07.07.07).

Also, when I registered to vote I found out that you are actually allowed to vote for seven, not one, candidates, so here are my picks:

• Acropolis, Athens, Greece
• Angkor, Cambodia
• Colosseum, Rome, Italy
• Machu Picchu, Peru
• Neuschwanstein Castle, Schwangau, Germany
• Pyramids of Giza, Egypt
• Taj Mahal, Agra, India

I'm glad I was able to vote for the only Italian candidate as well as my favorite, Cambodia's Angkor.

Finally, this is the list of the Ancient Seven Wonders of the World:

• Colossus of Rhodes
• Great Pyramid of Giza
• Hanging Gardens of Babylon
• Lighthouse of Alexandria
• Mausoleum of Maussollos at Halicarnassus
• Statue of Zeus at Olympia
• Temple of Artemis at Ephesus

According to Wikipedia, all but the Pyramids at Giza have been destroyed. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Statue of Zeus at Olympia by fires (the first, unfortunately, was actually arson), the other four by earthquakes.

If the Pyramids of Giza were to win in the current contest they'd be the only Ancient Wonder of the World to make it into the New Wonders list, and deservedly so. Call them ancient, and they are, but they more than stood the test of time.

Which wonder did you vote for?

The New 7 Wonders of the World

Would you like to have a saying in what should end up on the new list of the seven wonders of the world, a list that will probably be around for decades or centuries to come? Then head to the website where you can cast your vote.

This is the list of the finalists after hundreds of entries were narrowed down to just 21:

• Acropolis, Athens, Greece
• Alhambra, Granada, Spain
• Angkor, Cambodia
• The Pyramid at Chichén Itzá, Mexico
• Christ Redeemer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
• Colosseum, Rome, Italy
• Easter Island Statues, Chile
• Eiffel Tower, Paris, France
• Great Wall, China
• Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey
• Kiyomizu Temple, Kyoto, Japan
• Kremlin/St. Basil, Moscow, Russia
• Machu Picchu, Peru
• Neuschwanstein Castle, Schwangau, Germany
• Petra, Jordan
• Pyramids of Giza, Egypt
• Statue of Liberty, New York, USA
• Stonehenge, United Kingdom
• Sydney Opera House, Australia
• Taj Mahal, Agra, India
• Timbuktu, Mali

And this is a quick look at them (go to the website and click on each finalist to see bigger pictures and read some information about them before you cast your vote).


Despite the fact that there is a candidate from Italy, Rome's Colosseum, and I'd love to vote for it, since I believe it should win, I decided to vote for Cambodia's Angkor, just for the sheer beauty and complexity of it.

It is extraordinary.

Candidates I hope will not win are just four, New York's Statue of Libery, Paris' Eiffel Tower, Rio de Janeiro's Christ Redeemer, and Sydney's Opera House. I believe they're all beautiful but they don't hold a candle to any of the other entries.

Anyway, make your choice, vote, and then come back and post your vote in the comments!!

The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine.

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled last year that the state did have a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. That was bad enough, but the fact that they argued that the state interest in limiting marriage was because only heterosexuals could procreate was ridiculous.

So now, a group fighting for marriage equality, will focus a spotlight on the issue by trying to ensure that only those marriages that strictly meet such a definition can be considered valid:

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
[...]
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

Brilliant.

And this is the reasoning behind the effort:

"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Absolutely brilliant.

It was about time that someone decided to fight back using the same tools our enemies use against us. This should definitely put in perspective how totally absurd the link between marriage and procreation really is. If we can't get married because we can't have kids, then why should they be allowed to do so?

Their attack is multi pronged as well:

The group plans three initiatives to raise discussion about the ruling, according to their website: "The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony."

Again, absolutely brilliant.

Can you imagine if there were laws like that on the books?!

This situation reminds me of the fight to make abortion legal, when someone said, if men could get pregnant, the right to abortion would be in the Constitution.

The situation is similar in that, if the law stated, as can be logically concluded from the same-sex opponents' arguments, that heterosexuals couldn't get married unless they had a child, couldn't divorce once they had a child, or were automatically considered married once they had a child, they'd be changing the law in a heartbeat, believe me.

The Moon's fate

This article talks about the possible demise of both the Earth and the Moon in a very distant future, some 5 billion years from now, when the Sun will have run out of fuel and will swell up into a red giant, encompassing most or all the rocky planets before exploding or imploding.

It's a very interesting article, and the theories of what will happen are fascinating, but I was mostly amazed by this:

The Moon is now moving away from Earth and by then will be in an orbit that's about 40 percent larger than today.
[...]
Today, the Moon is on average 239,000 miles (385,000 kilometers) away.
[...]
The Moon is being pushed away from Earth by 1.6 inches (4 centimeters) per year and our planet's rotation is slowing.
[...]
The drag caused by the Sun's extended atmosphere will cause the Moon's orbit to decay. The Moon will swing ever closer to Earth until it reaches a point 11,470 miles (18,470 kilometers) above our planet, a point termed the Roche limit.

'Reaching the Roche limit means that the gravity holding it [the Moon] together is weaker than the tidal forces acting to pull it apart,' Willson said.

The Moon will be torn to pieces and every crater, mountain, valley, footprint and flag will be scattered to form a spectacular 23,000-mile-diameter (37,000-kilometer) Saturn-like ring of debris above Earth's equator.

Extraordinary.

Imagine how much bigger the Moon will look to those still alive when our satellite is over 20 times closer to the planet. Immense. There would probably be no more "night" at all, since the sun's light reflected off the Moon's surface would be so strong, night would look like day.

Republicans: Stop thinking about gay sex

A great editorial that totally deserves mentioning on this blog and should be passed around to anyone who pontificates on the evilness of same-sex marriages and the sacredness of heterosexual marriages.

The writer, Jeff Stevens, is reporting about the introduction by a state lawmaker of a proposed amendment to the New Mexico State Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and he's none too pleased, but not because he's for or against it, but simply because he feels it's "a colossal waste of time" and resources.

First, he makes the simple and obvious point that Republicans are obsessed with gays (simply because they can use them to win votes at the polls by firing up their religion-crazed base):

It seems to me Republicans spend more time thinking about gay sex than any other group of people in the known world even more so than gay people trying to find other gay people with whom to have sex.

He then ponders whether there are any other more pressing issues that should be debated and tackled before worrying whether gays can marry or not:

Evidently, every New Mexican makes a decent living wage. No child will go to bed tonight with an empty stomach, because they are all well fed. For that matter, no child will go to bed with an empty mind because our education system is tops in the world.

Evidently our streets are free of drugs. Every New Mexican has a job and can feed their families with a $5.15 minimum wage. Our roads are the best in the nation. Everyone in the state has access to affordable health care.

We can only assume such is the case, because Vaughn isn't seeking to amend the Constitution to solve any of those problems. No. The most important item on her agenda is to make sure that gay people can't marry one another in the state of New Mexico.

This, in and of itself, is a great argument, but he also counters the amendment to ban same-sex marriage with a different, more practical one:

How about instead we pass a constitutional amendment that defines a family as a group of people who love one another and don't do harm to each other. That way it would be unconstitutional for people to verbally and physically abuse their own.

But this is the best part of his rebuttal:

Or since, by her own admission, the Bible is the basis for Vaughn's desire to constitutionally define marriage, let's take that definition directly from the Bible.

"Therefore what God has put together, let man not separate." That passage can be found in Mathew 19:16 and if my ability to divine what the author had in mind is worth anything, under that definition, divorce. folks, would be unconstitutional.

We all know that won't work because, church and state issues aside, applying the Bible to modern society doesn't work. The Bible hasn't changed in 1,500 years but the world has.

What a wise and effective argument. His conclusion is astoundingly simple and self evident: the Bible hasn't changed in 1,500 years, but the world has. We see this everyday with our own eyes, and yet, there are people who insist on expecting us to live by it by the letter. That's crazy.

And let's not forget Mr. Stevens' other good point: have all more pressing problems, like health care and poverty, been solved or should we worry about those first?

How much does what you eat pollute the environment?

That's the question that people in Britain will be able to answer if plans go through to add such information to the labels of foods in that country:

Last week Tesco announced it would introduce labels on its products, detailing their carbon footprint. The information, it said, would go beyond the mere question of food miles - how far the produce has been transported - to include indirect greenhouse emissions given off during its production and processing.
[...]
In principle, the concept is easy. A so-called "life-cycle analysis" tots up the energy used to extract raw materials and turn them into products. The greater the energy use, the greater the carbon footprint, and the worse for the environment a product is. Tesco says such information would allow consumers to shop according to their environmental conscience. As demand for more damaging products falls, the thinking goes, so will the stocking of that product.

Naturally there are issues that will need to be resolved:

The problems start in deciding exactly what emissions should be counted. Direct carbon use is easy to measure, but indirect emissions are far more difficult. Should supermarkets include the electricity used to refrigerate products in their stores? What about the fuel in the tractors on a farm thousands of miles away? And if you think the answer is obvious, what about the fuel in the cars the farmworkers drive to get to work? "Boundaries are hugely difficult and, of course, the boundaries may not be in this country," says Dr Boardman. Some experts even argue the audited supply chain should extend as far as the ultimate source of energy - the sun.

But I think that this is a very interesting concept.

H5N1 hits Africa

The first human fatality of the African continent has been recorded in Nigeria, and it doesn't look good for the prospects of containment successfully enforced in other countries:

A 22-year-old woman from Lagos, Nigeria, who died on 16 January was infected with the H5N1 virus, the World Health Organisation confirmed

Professor Angus Nicoll, head of the avian flu division of the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, in Stockholm, said: "This [Nigeria] is the most populous country in Africa. It has got H5N1 in poultry and it must be a candidate for a pandemic to emerge. The most disturbing thing is that the possibility of the Nigerian government controlling this must be slim."

On the other hand, there might be good news regarding the spread of the virus to humans:

Some scientists argue that with each passing year the likelihood of its mutating to create a pandemic strain that would sweep the world killing millions of people are diminishing. If it was going to mutate it would have done so by now, they say.

But not everyone agrees:

Others argue that as the avian virus becomes more widespread in the bird and human population, the chances of it mixing and mutating with a human virus to create a pandemic strain increase - and that that likelihood is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa.

And this reinforces the worrisomeness of the African death:

Professor Koos Van der Velden, chairman of the European Influenza Surveillance Scheme, said: "I sense the public is fed up with the all the warnings about H5N1, when they see the pandemic has not happened. But the threat is still there and the chances are higher that it will start in a part of the world which is most heavily populated and where the systems of government are weak."

And that place could very well be Nigeria...

Kids will be taught in school about global warming

But more than that, they'll be taught how their behaviors and actions can influence it and make a difference. I think this is a wonderful idea, and should be implemented in every school, worldwide, since we all participate in the production of greenhouses gases and we all breathe the same polluted air:

The plans, to be published on Monday, will ensure that, for the first time, issues such as climate change and global warming are at the heart of the school timetable. Pupils will also be taught to understand their responsibilities as consumers - and weigh up whether they should avoid travel by air to reduce CO2 emissions and shun food produce imported from the other side of the world because of its impact on pollution.
[...]
Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, said urgent action needed to be taken to avoid the worst-case scenarios and that educating children about the dangers of climate change was vital. "Children have a dual role as consumers and influencers," he said. "Educating them about the impact of getting an extra pair of trainers for fashion's sake is as important as the pressure they put on their parents not to buy a gas-guzzling family car."
[...]
Mr Johnson said: "It is inconceivable that young people growing up today should not be taught about issues like climate change - it has enormous relevance to their lives. Children not only learn about our future, they shape it."

And these are the very useful and current new topics that children will study:

* Climate change - the impact on pupils, the UK and the rest of world.

* Children's responsibilities - whether to travel by aeroplane or buy food from the other side of the world, and the impact of purchasing a gas-guzzling car or buying new clothes or trainers.

* The impact of the south Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.

* Sustainable development - the importance of recycling waste products and saving energy.

* Global warming - impact of rising sea temperatures and melting ice caps.

* Fieldwork projects - such as studying ways to regenerate east London during preparations for the 2012 Olympics.

* Learning to examine individuals' carbon footprints, and what they can contribute in the fight to preserve the planet's resources.

The UK is leading again on this issue. Well done.

Humanity guilty as charged

Yes, it's official, and no government (yes, I mean you Bush administration) can hide behind any excuses anymore. The leading international network of climate change scientists has released a report that clearly shows how human beings are responsible for much of the global warming we already feel and that will be felt for, get ready for this, centuries to come.

From the International Herald Tribune:

In a bleak and powerful assesment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate change scientists concluded for the first time Friday that global warming was "unequivocal" and that human activity was "very likely" to blame. The warming will continue for hundreds of years, they predicted.

The scientists, members of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, said that new science had also allowed them to conclude that the warming caused by human activity was probably influencing other aspects of climate change, including a rise in the number of heat waves, extreme storms and droughts, as well as ocean warming and wind patterns.
[...]
The ripple effect of warming has devastating implications for humans that will continue for centuries even if carbon emissions could be stabilized at 2000 levels, because the gases persist for years. In fact, the impact that carbon emissions have on climate has increased 20 percent in the last 15 years, Solomon said.
[...]
The report warns that heat waves, droughts and intense storms will continue to become more frequent.

I guess this was just a formality that is needed to spur wimpy and backpedaling governments to take action and make hard political decisions, since I had already figured we were responsible for much of global warming. The question is, will the nations of the world step up to the plate and do something about it?

More from The New York Times:

The summary added a new chemical consequence of the buildup of carbon dioxide to the list of mainly climatic and biological impacts foreseen in its previous reports: a drop in the pH of seawater as oceans absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid when partly dissolved. Marine biologists have said that could imperil some kinds of corals and plankton.
[...]
But there would be more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a situation many earth scientists say poses an unacceptable risk.

Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling as a foregone conclusion sometime after midcentury unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive quest for expanded and improved nonpolluting energy options.
[...]
But a broad array of scientists, including authors of the report and independent experts, said the latest analysis was the most sobering view yet of a century of transition — after thousands of years of relatively stable climate conditions — to a new norm of continual change.

Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.
[...]
“The implications of global warming over the coming decades for our industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, biological diversity and even geopolitics are massive,” he said. “This new report should spur policymakers to get off the fence and put strong and effective policies in place to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.”

All things considered, I feel bad for the planet, but at least I won't be around to see the worst of the effects on the climate, the world, and its inhabitants. My kids, on the other hand, won't be so lucky, and my grandkids especially will be forced to live in a world that is much less hospitable than the one we live in.

Them, I feel bad for most of all.