Waterboarding/Geneva Conventions

So originally I was going to have this blog post to be about waterboarding, which for those of you who may not know anything about, back in around November, Congress had this sparked interest in torture, as in what constitutes as torture because well, people found about how the CIA still uses this technique as a means of getting information even though it has been banned for the military in 2005 by Congress [as said by commondreams.org].
Now 2005, that's pretty recent considering that this method of obtaining information has been around since the Middle Ages. Now based on an article I read on ABC News' website called History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding there was mention on the laws of war, better known to some, namely myself, those things that were established during the Geneva Convenions.

The point that I'm actually trying to get here, is that while reading that ABC article, what hit me was the quote that Darius Rejali, who happens to be a professor at Reed College, was ' "Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture." ' Now let's ignore the fact that a professor just made a fallacy by saying water torture is torture, [I mean come on, begging the question anyone?] and focus on the fact that he quoted laws of war, now that really made me think about the Geneva Conventions, now I'm paraphrasing here and this is all from memory, in that if a soldier sees that something is wrong and that he/she believes that is wrong, despite what his commanding officer is telling him, he is allowed to disobey. Now that sounds all good and dandy, but how well does that hold? In talking to three active duty soldiers at Ft. Lewis, who did not want their names included, they all had pretty much the same response to this, that they still have to follow whatever they are being told, I tried pushing the laws of war, and they kept pushing back that no, it does not work like that, that you could not disobey, and the person that disobeyed would be the one that suffered.

This brings me to the question: How worried should we be about this?
Being only someone that recently realized this, [I'm sure we can all name a Hollywood movie that brings this about somehow but never really truly took seriously because come on, its Hollywood] I have to wonder what exactly we don't know is going on. There is just so much that is not revealed to the public, especially to the United States public, let's face the fact, we are usually only worried about what's going on specifically with the US. Try BBC or some other countries news station and they talk about what's going on everywhere in the world, but that's another blog post.

Does Voting Really Matter?

Every four years we choose a POTUS [President of the United States] to lead, guide and represent us in upcoming events. How we come to a decision, by voting of course, for the candidate we believe shall symbolize our nation accordingly. But there is a question that tends to arise with the way over voting system is set up especially on blogs such as the one on http://montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/OPINION02/801040359/1006. This question is “is voting really necessary?” I mean, the votes of the states are determined by the electoral colleges which is the supposed “choice” of the people of the state. If that’s how it is, then why do voters even participate in the elections when the higher ups are the ones calling the shot? Voting has its ups and downs; people see these positives and negatives differently. For example, in the caucuses and primaries, candidates travel all over the United States to win the support of the voters in the elections. Besides it being a popularity contest, voters have a chance to participate in the selection of their top two leaders, on Democratic and on Republican. This can give them a sense of accomplishment because they feel as if they have done something for this country by helping elect a leader. I'm just saying that there seems to be a certain time for the public vote and that is during the months before the elections, in the primaries and caucuses. Since when it comes down to the final results, it is the electoral colleges that get that say even when their opinions come from a majority vote from the voters, a simplified statement from wikipedia. I believe that voting is a preference since there are those who feel so strongly about it and those that just don't want to deal with it.

Global Warming Hoax

We are destroying Earth. Our cars and factories are polluting the air around us; it is devastating to the ozone layer. Greenhouse gases are building, causing ice caps to melt and the world to flood.

Not quite.

Yes, the world is getting warmer. But no, this is not the end. Every climatologist will agree that Earth has been much hotter (and much colder) than it is now. Like everything else, Earth's climate goes through cycles.

The 1850s saw the end of the Little Ice Age; a terrible time that froze over the New York Harbor and killed many. It was rough; there were no heaters or electricity to keep people warm. At the same time, there were no heaters or electricity to emit greenhouse gases, but Earth was able to warm up all on its own.

By the 1930s, the temperature had risen so much that people began to worry about global warming. But then, in the1940s (when there was a drastic increase in carbon dioxide emissions), Earth began to cool again.

It cooled so much, in fact, that in the 1970s there was a global cooling scare. Mass media and scientists were convinced that Earth would freeze over and we would be faced with another ice age. Before the 1970s were even over, Earth began to warm again.

This increase in temperature did coincide with a large increase in industry. The American economy has grown by 150 per cent and automobile traffic by 143 per cent. But, during this same period of economic flux, air pollutants declined by 29 percent, toxic emission by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide by 65 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 percent.

While America, after China, emits the most carbon dioxide, no one could compete with the amount of carbon dioxide released by earthquakes and volcanoes. Human activities contribute less than one percent of the total carbon atmospheric mass.

Not that carbon dioxide is such a bad guy anyway. Every living entity on this Earth requires it to live. With out carbon dioxide there is no photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis there is no food and there is no us. With the increase of carbon dioxide also came the increase of wheat in Australia (the third largest “polluter” in the world.)

Despite the hype that human pollutants are destroying the atmosphere, we are fueled and heated by an outside source: the sun. During the Little Ice Age of 1645 – 1715, there were very few occurrences of sunspots. A sunspot is a cooler, darker spot on the sun’s surface, which usually occur in clusters. It has been suggested that the sun is one per cent cooler when there are no spots.

Starting this year, it is predicted that solar storms will increase and peak in 2012. The cycle is predicted to be 30 to 50 percent stronger than last. This implies that our temperature increase on Earth has nothing to do with humans and the greenhouse gases we emit. Also, Mars is experiencing global warming as we speak. There are no cars on Mars. Some would hope that no human is arrogant enough to believe that our pollution is affecting Mars as well.