Greenhouse effect: the big killer

The Washington Post reports on a WHO (World Health Organization) study according to which Earth's warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, and these numbers could double by 2030.

Climate change is apparently driving up rates of malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea throughout the world, but especially in developing countries where the problem has not been addressed and where existing conditions make it worse.

"Those most vulnerable to climate change are not the ones responsible for causing it," said the study's lead author, Jonathan Patz, a professor at the university's Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and its department of population health sciences. "Our energy-consumptive lifestyles are having lethal impacts on other people around the world, especially the poor."

The regions most at risk from climate change include the Asian and South American Pacific coasts, as well as the Indian Ocean coast and sub-Saharan Africa. That's because climate-sensitive diseases are more prevalent there and because those regions are most vulnerable to abrupt shifts in climate.

"Climate change makes it even more important to combat diseases of the poor, many of which are highly climate-sensitive," said Campbell-Lendrum, who wrote the Nature paper with Patz. "We already have good evidence that there are a series of significant risks to health, which makes it even more important to curb greenhouse gas emissions in a short period of time."

Much remains uncertain about the impact of climate change:

Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment issued a report this month outlining two possible scenarios with varying degrees of extreme weather events. In one, warming would simply strain the world's resources; the second "would involve blows to the world economy sufficiently severe to cripple the resilience that enables affluent countries to respond to catastrophes."

But what does Bush care about that? It's not like he's in a position of power that would allow him to help fix the problem of global warming (we all know he's not the real president, just a placeholder,) especially since he doesn't believe it even exists. And he'll be long gone from the White House when the economy starts suffering from the global effects on public health of the greenhouse effect.

Worst president. Ever.

Plamegate thickens, against White House's wishes

By now, with sacrificial-lamb-Libby indicted and out of the White House and with Rove still by his side, Bush was hoping the scandal would just die out. Not so fast Junior, not so fast.

One of the most famous American journalists of all time, one-half of the team of journalists who brought down Nixon's administration by fiercely and unrelentingly reporting on the Watergate scandal, Bob Woodward, has revealed that he was told about Valerie Plame's identity a whole month before Robert Novak's column first outed her.

He seems to support the administration's take that it was only mentioned to him casually and he, shockingly, holds that the outing of an undercover CIA spy in charge of WMDs during wartime isn't a big deal, and that no big consequences followed the revelation.

I beg to disagree. If he was told around the same time as other reporters were, and by a third high-level official in the White House, then the conspiracy charges pursued by special prosecutor Fitzgerald in his case against Libby are very well funded. Why? Because now we know that there were several administration officials engaged in divulging top secret information to reporters from widely distributed publications.

Furthermore, now we have a third White House official who endangered national security during a time of war. Woodward, in fact, said it wasn't Libby and it wasn't Rove, and he hasn't said who yet, although it looks like it's Hadley, the current National Security Adviser to Bush and former deputy of Rice when she held that position. This is certainly more problematic and damaging for the administration, since another one of the leakers is constantly by the president's side, advises him on national security (while having absolutely no respect for it) and enjoys the top-most level of clearance.

We'll see if he now gets subpoenaed by Fitzgerald (he stated he didn't come clean earlier because he didn't want to be subpoenaed or go to jail -- wait, I thought he said it was a casual conversation, if there was nothing serious about it, why worry? Why hide?)

In the end, this dark cloud is still hovering over the White House and it doesn't look like it will dissipate anytime soon, for our good luck (I hope at least it stays there until next year's midterm elections.)

Bush lied again

So the Pentagon admitted yesterday that, yes, they did use the lethal chemical white phosphorous as a weapon in Iraq, as they've been accused of doing, but not against civilians.

Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Falluja last November.

At the same time, they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material had been used against civilians.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is used most frequently to mark targets or obscure positions, it was used at times in Falluja as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.

"It was not used against civilians," Venable said.

Now, let's analyze this. The Italian state-run television RAI's documentary that aired a couple weeks ago accused the American military of using this chemical agent in the Fallujah battle in Iraq indiscriminately, killing men, women, children, insurgents, and innocents.

As you would expect, the Pentagon denied the allegation as long as it could, until, faced with the evidence and mounting criticism and rage, it had to admit that they did use it, but not against civilians. Now, if you've been accused of something which you deny, then admit to it, but only partially, what are the chances that the part to which you're not admitting is also true and you're just trying to cover up your tracks a little longer?

Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week that alleged the United States used white phosphorous shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Falluja offensive.

The State Department initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters," a department Web site said.

The department later said the statement had been incorrect.

I mean, at this point, is there really anyone left in this country (or the world) who believes anything at all that comes out of these people's mouths?

Vittorio's visit

This is it, tomorrow night my very best friend, Vittorio, will be here for almost two full weeks of laughing, talking, bitching, and gossiping!!

I can't wait. If you don't count a few hours last year, it's been 2 years since we've had the chance to spend some time together. So much has happened in these two years... He hasn't even seen the kids yet! I miss him all the time and really wish we lived closer.

He actually just told me he started smoking again, which disappointed and saddened me considerably. I hope that soon he'll find the will and the strength to quit again. It's a nasty vice that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Tomorrow around 7.30 pm, America get ready, a hurricane will make landfall in New York City!!

Shouldn't we be prepared to face the threat of an asteroid hitting the planet?

After all, it has happened countless times in Earth's geological past, and it will happen again. That's a mathematical certainty. And that's what a group of astronauts has realized and they decided to raise public awareness on the issue. They said:

Imagine last year's tsunami, last month's earthquake in Pakistan, and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma all rolled into one -- and then some. If nations can't handle those calamities, what's going to happen when an asteroid collides with Earth?

Apparently, there is a small asteroid already on a possible collision course with Earth, and the small discrepancy that right now puts it passing just to the side of the planet could easily be wiped out by unforeseen events:

In 30 years, there is a 1-in-5,500 chance that a smallish asteroid will land a bull's eye on our planet. At 360 yards wide, it could take out New York City and much of the surrounding area.

Fortunately, experts believe further observations of the asteroid, 99942 Apophis, will almost certainly rule out an impact in 2036. Nevertheless, it's precisely that kind of predictable and preventable threat -- and the thought of being ill-prepared for it -- that alarms the world's normally intrepid spacefarers who are calling for action.

The scientists are saying that the current technology is far enough along that an asteroid could be deflected before hitting Earth, so why not get ready? Do we really want to wait until it's too late?

"The possible consequences are way worse than your run-of-the-mill natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes. As bad as they may be, this can dwarf them."

The association created by the scientists wants NASA to expand its Spaceguard Survey, a program that discovers and tracks near-Earth objects -- asteroids and comets -- that are at least two-thirds of a mile across. So far, 807 of an estimated 1,100 of these big rocky asteroids have been discovered in the inner solar system along with 57 comets; California's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is plotting their future tracks, hoping to rule out any impact, since:

An asteroid two-thirds of a mile wide, at impact, would be enough to easily take out a good-sized European country. By comparison, an asteroid or comet believed to be six to seven miles across wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

The asteroid that could potentially pose a threat to us is called Apophis and will whiz by Earth in 2029, passing within an unnerving 18,640 miles. That's a few thousand miles closer than many communications satellites and 220,000 miles closer than the moon. Worse news is that in 2036 it will move in even closer, leading to the 1-in-5,500 chance it will strike.

Even though the asteroid will probably not hit the planet, the question is, at what point do you begin to spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in order to do something? Furthermore, are some places on the planet more dispensable than others?

The point of impact, for instance, could be inadvertently shifted from one part of the world to another by an intervening spacecraft, jeopardizing one country instead of another. Who's liable if an asteroid-deflecting mission goes awry? Indeed, who decides if such a mission is needed and how far in advance should that decision be made?

One way of solving the potential problem of an incoming asteroid would be a nuclear-powered (to quickly get to the asteroid) spacecraft that could either land on the asteroid and apply a small but continuous force over months in order to alter its Earth-smashing course, or hover above the asteroid and use its gravity to push it aside. Any sensational last-minute asteroid crackups "Armageddon" style wouldn't work, since the pieces could wind up on a collision course with Earth themselves. The only problem with this scenario is that the technology for such an "asteroid tugboat" is on hold because of budget cuts.

One thing is certain. It's only a matter of time before planet Earth is hit again by an asteroid and I don't think we can even remotely imagine the amount of devastation it could cause to the human species and every other on this world.

New York to lose 9/11 funds

Well this sure is the right way to get those poll numbers sinking even faster, George. From Associated Press:

Congressional budget negotiators have decided to take back $125 million in Sept. 11 aid from New York, which had fought to keep the money to treat sick and injured ground zero workers, lawmakers said Tuesday.
...
The tug-of-war over the $125 million began earlier this year when the White House proposed taking the money back because the state had not yet spent it.

New York protested, saying the money was part of the $20 billion pledged by President Bush to help rebuild after the Sept. 11 attacks. Health advocates said the money is needed to treat current and future illnesses among ground zero workers.
...
Top New York fire officials recently lobbied Congress to keep the funding. Fire and police officials say they worry that many people will develop long-term lung and mental health problems from their time working on the burning pile of toxic debris at ground zero and they want to use the money to help them.

How crazy is that?! Does Bush like behind hated by the country and being considered a failure of a president? Does he actually enjoy being a lame duck less than a year into the first year of his second stolen term?

It's already reckless that Congress decided to assign the funds for terrorism prevention measures to the states evenly instead of based on a per-capita basis or on the risks of a specific state to actually be a target of terrorists. As a result, a state like Montana that would probably never even see the shadow of a terrorist within its borders, gets as much money as the state of New York, chock full of world renown landmarks that are the primary targets of any terrorist cell.

Now, however, Bush is telling the city of New York, the worst hit on 9/11, that he wants his money back. And why? Because they haven't spent it yet? That's just sick. And as usual, the news comes out just after election day, so that the Republican candidate's chances of winning aren't hurt. And Bush doesn't have to run for anything anymore, so he can rescind any promise made, screw any other Republican running in the future.

Yes, because this shines even more light on the pack of lies that this president is willing to tell his constituency in order to get what he wants. Bush promised $20 billion dollars to the city of New York and now wants them back because he doesn't agree with how they're spending the money. Sick and slimy.

This administration, and its cronies over at the Hill, are dangerous for America. Period.

Box Office still sputtering

After the end of the summer box office, the most lucrative for Hollywood, I stopped following its performance as much, because I figured movies of higher quality were certainly going to start to come out given the approaching awards season.

Think again. It's the middle of November and, although I have never been so absent from movie theaters as I've been this year in at least two decades, I know I haven't missed much. The movies offered up by the movie capital of the world have been, to put it gently, subpar. Even compared to the usual overblown and overrated blockbusters.

This past weekend, overall receipts were down 15 percent from the same weekend last year. That's a lot of money people, and it could turn 2005 into the absolute worst year on record for Hollywood.

The big question is, will the studio moguls learn anything from it? Unlikely. There is already talk of considering this year like a bump on the road, and wait and see for 2006's performance before deciding if there really is anything to worry about. That will translate into more of the same for the audience next year, and probably the one after that, since it does take at least a couple of years for a picture to go from concept to projection booth.

I wonder how many bad years in a row it will take for movies to become enthralling again. And to think that it isn't long ago that I've seen one of the most beautiful and overwhelming pictures ever, The Hours, by Stephen Daldry.

Bad news for Bush and the GOP

Robert Novak is a very conservative journalist (the one that first outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to the world) and this is his take on last Tuesday's election results:

This morning, columnist Bob Novak wrote of congressional Republicans fearing for next year's elections after Tuesday's losses, "The antidote to avoid that fate is to keep as far away from President Bush as possible, a lesson underlined by the president's failed election rescue mission for former Virginia state Attorney General Kilgore. The consequences may be profound. As his approval rating dipped, Bush increasingly has been treated in Congress as a lame duck. Tuesday's Virginia outcome increases the propensity of Republican senators and House members not only to avoid their president on the campaign trail but also to ignore his legislative proposals." [Chicago Sun-Times, Novak Column, 11/10/05]

Schadenfreude.

Bush disregarded CIA warnings that there were no Al Qaeda-Iraq links

Now that the Democrats have forced the GOP's hand in the Senate to finish the so-called Part II of their investigation into whether the Bush administration lied to the Congress and the country to go to war in Iraq, more and more evidence of Bush's deceptions are coming out.

This is from today's CNN:

A January 2003 CIA report raised doubts about claims that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons -- dramatic assertions that were repeated weeks later by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.
...
The CIA report appears to support a recently declassified document that revealed the Defense Intelligence Agency thought in February 2002 that the source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was lying to interrogators.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, this week released the DIA report in alleging the administration cited faulty intelligence to argue for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
...
The document obtained by CNN was provided recently to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who have been pressing for an investigation into the ways in which the Bush administration used intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war.

In January and February 2003 President Bush and Powell each made dramatic assertions that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and argued for military action to prevent Baghdad from providing its suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

I'd like to know what Powell thinks of this evidence now surfacing that implicates him as well as the president, even though he was probably just reluctantly following orders. One thing is sure, he lost all his credibility here. It would have been smarter of him to quit, rather than go in front of the UN and lie for Bush and his minions, especially since he probably knew (or suspected) that the intelligence was faulty, and he could have used his sources in the Pentagon to find out if he was right.

This doesn't look good for Bush or the GOP at large. If more evidence comes out that he lied, next year the Democrats might really take back Congress, and then, what's going to stop them from impeaching Bush and Cheney?

The White House lied to the public according to the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee

Former Senator Bob Graham, who was still in office when the war preparation was undergoing, has come out publicly with his criticism of the White House saying:

"This was one of the most reprehensible and damaging breaches of American security in modern times," said Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the fall of 2002, when the administration made its case for war against Iraq.
...
Asked directly if White House officials lied to the public about Iraq intelligence, Graham said "yes."

He said the administration suppressed "all the nuance" and internal disagreement among intelligence agencies over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, then exaggerated the threat and covered up their activities.
...
Graham said Friday he was "suspicious" about the intelligence reports on the Iraqi threat he saw during the fall of 2002.

He voted against the war resolution, saying Iraq would drain resources from the war on terrorism.

"The administration did not want the best judgment of the intelligence community," Graham said.

"This was an administration that wanted to be blind going into this war. They did not want to have the most credible assessment of what was the reality of the case for war and the consequences of war."

Since he voted not to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq I tend to believe him and his version of the facts, also because in the end, he was right.

And not having voted to authorize the current oil-war, he has even more credibility then, say, Hillary Clinton, for a 2008 presidential run, for which he's considered a potential candidate.

He also had this to say about the Plame-scandal:

"It's impossible to believe that Scooter Libby would have done this on his own, but rather this was part of a larger conspiracy to attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson," Graham said.

Graham called on Cheney to "defend and explain himself" in the wake of the indictment of Cheney's top aide, Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case.

So Mr. Vice President, what did you know and when, and what was your role in the leak?

PS: it looks like the Democrats have finally realized that the public is fed up with the Iraq debacle and that it is finally waking up to this administration's shrewdness when it comes to getting what they want. The public is with us and, hopefully, we'll be able to take Congress back next year and the White House in 3 more. Keep your fingers crossed...