The Real Culprit in Global Warming

A lot of scientists, economists, politicians, and just about everybody else has a lot to say about global warming, its causes, and what needs to be done to slow it down or reverse it.

But very few address the real culprit to global warming and fewer, if any, who do address it aren't given a second of mainstream airtime to intelligently debate the issue.

What is the culprit to global warming?

Population growth. In simple terms, there are way too many people in this world.

No, I'm not talking about the doom and gloom predictions of the seventies where people lived stacked on top of each other all starving to death because there won't be enough greenspace left to grow enough crops to feed them all.

I am talking about the effects of over six and a half billion people has on the increased energy needs to clothe, house, and feed all those hungry mouths.

While the US can boast that it has more trees today than in 1900, on a global scale, the world has lost over half of its forests. Trees absorb CO2, a major greenhouse gas. As we clear the forests for more farmland, houses, roads, firewood and...well, you get the picture. It's the same as poking pinholes in your water filter. The filter can only take so many pinholes before it starts letting dirty water get through the faucet.

Six and a half billion people running around need to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, get to work (translation - drive) and factories need to burn more energy to manufacture more clothes and food, which means more greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere.

It's time to reign in uncontrolled population growth. We could start by mandating those who are slowly unraveling the moral fabric of our society be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing. In this country alone, think of the millions of births that would be prevented to the likes of rapists, murders, theives, religious fundamentalists, serial killers, and child molestors. Expand that policy to a global scale and population growth may actually be reversed.

With less people in the world, we could reforest many areas that would no longer be needed for housing or farmland. Energy companies and factories wouldn't have to produce as much, reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.

And there will be less people on the road, which is not only good for the environment, but it would mean I might get to work on time tomorrow instead of sitting for an hour in a traffic jam.

Good night all. Time for me to duck on out of here.

The Real Culprit in Global Warming

A lot of scientists, economists, politicians, and just about everybody else has a lot to say about global warming, its causes, and what needs to be done to slow it down or reverse it.

But very few address the real culprit to global warming and fewer, if any, who do address it aren't given a second of mainstream airtime to intelligently debate the issue.

What is the culprit to global warming?

Population growth. In simple terms, there are way too many people in this world.

No, I'm not talking about the doom and gloom predictions of the seventies where people lived stacked on top of each other all starving to death because there won't be enough greenspace left to grow enough crops to feed them all.

I am talking about the effects of over six and a half billion people has on the increased energy needs to clothe, house, and feed all those hungry mouths.

While the US can boast that it has more trees today than in 1900, on a global scale, the world has lost over half of its forests. Trees absorb CO2, a major greenhouse gas. As we clear the forests for more farmland, houses, roads, firewood and...well, you get the picture. It's the same as poking pinholes in your water filter. The filter can only take so many pinholes before it starts letting dirty water get through the faucet.

Six and a half billion people running around need to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, get to work (translation - drive) and factories need to burn more energy to manufacture more clothes and food, which means more greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere.

It's time to reign in uncontrolled population growth. We could start by mandating those who are slowly unraveling the moral fabric of our society be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing. In this country alone, think of the millions of births that would be prevented to the likes of rapists, murders, theives, religious fundamentalists, serial killers, and child molestors. Expand that policy to a global scale and population growth may actually be reversed.

With less people in the world, we could reforest many areas that would no longer be needed for housing or farmland. Energy companies and factories wouldn't have to produce as much, reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.

And there will be less people on the road, which is not only good for the environment, but it would mean I might get to work on time tomorrow instead of sitting for an hour in a traffic jam.

Good night all. Time for me to duck on out of here.

I'd Rather Share the Road with a Drunk

You heard me right. I'd rather share the road with a drunk because at least a drunk is trying to drive. That's more than can be said for the makeup queen, the cell phone jabber, the old lady who barely peers above the steering wheel, the lost couple in an argument because he won't stop for directions and the map he's trying to read keeps flapping all around, the cow searching for that open bag of cookies in the back seat, the Mom yelling at her unruly kids in the backseat, or the nine out of ten zombies going to work or home from work.

And while a drunk pales in comparison to these drivers, none of them can hold a candlestick to the most fearsome road monster, the common idiot jerk, referred to as the agressive driver in professional circles.

The annoying ones are those who see the warning signs for a lane closure, but insist on speeding pass the slowed down traffic and then fully expect to be able to cut in line further ahead. The bad ones are those who weave in and out, cutting people off to get ahead. But if any of them deserve the full penalty of the law, and I mean license revocation for life, minimum ten years in jail, and possibly the death penalty is that assinine jerk who always manages to get behind me.

Why is it everytime I am in the fast lane doing a good fifteen or so over the limit, keeping a safe distance from the car ahead of me, this jerk manages to find me and start flashing me to get over? First, if you expect me to get over, then you get over and pass me. I'm already speeding so I don't need to go faster. Bottom line is you aren't going to go any faster than me because of the car in front of me so get over in the other lane. But if I can't go any faster because of the car in front of me, and I can't get over because of the cars next to me keeping pace, just where the Hell do you think I can move over to and just where the Hell do you think you're going to go with all those cars still in front of me?

MADD needs to expand to MAAD - Mothers Against Agressive Drivers and get these dangerous drivers off the road.

What Does Win Mean?

Well over three thousand Americans dead in Iraq. Apparently, that’s not enough so we are sending 20,000 more targets over there. Maybe with the increased targets, the insurgents will have more practice and get better at killing. We should be bringing our soldiers home, not adding to the casualty list.

Damn, that’s a liberal leftist thing to say. It might even be a quotable quote from the Democrat Party.

One thing I notice in all the debates is a lack of a “win” plan. On the left is “Bush lied to get us in the War and we need to get out” and on the right is “Bush was right to try to bring a democratic state to the Middle East and end terrorism”.

Everything since has been "Bush is wrong" or "Bush is right".

Let me be upfront. We were wrong for taking on Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, but I even had my doubts prior to our invasion. Now I know we made the wrong decision.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that we are there, made a mess of the country, and need to “win”. The question is “What does win mean?” Is ousting Sadam a win? If so, we won. How about forming a democratically elected government? If so, we won.

The bigger question is "How long do we give the new Iraqi government a chance to form a self-sustaining government?" Six more months? A year? Five years? And if the new Iraqi government turns into an iron-fisted dictatorship or theocracy, did we lose the war?

And is winning everything?

As long as we debate along partisan lines about exactly what we are doing in Iraq, we'll never win. Even if we withdraw our troops tomorrow and the new Iraqi government manages to establish a thriving democratic government in spite of us, we still lost the war.

We're there so now how do we ensure that we leave with a solid Iraqi govenment in place that will best serve the Iraqi people? Bush failed to give a clear plan. The Democrats fail even worse.

It's as bad as the War in Iraq

I'm talking about the War on Christmas. You know, that war where the rallying cry is "They're trying to take Christ out of Christmas!" Under the leadership of the ACLU, nativity scenes are being shoved in the closet and the big stores like Walmart and Target instruct their employees to say "Happy Holidays", but are never, ever to utter the word, "Christmas".

The atheists and secularists are losing and losing shamefully. Despite the well-organized, all-out effort to remove Christ from Christmas, those pesky Christians, like terrorists, pop up everywhere to drop the "Merry Christmas" bomb.

"How", you might ask, "do you know the War on Christmas is being lost?"

Let's take my typical day, today, as an example.

I stopped in an Exxon station for my donut like I do every morning. As I left, I said to the clerk, "You have a Merry Christmas."

He responded, "Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas, too."

As I walked out the door, it dawned on me that his name is Wasim and he is obviously of Mideastern decent, which means there's a good chance he isn't Christian. Considering the nature and spirit of the exchange, though, I don't think Wasim lives in fear that Exxon may fire him.

I could be wrong. If he's not around next week, maybe Exxon did fire him. Not only did he dare to speak the word, Christmas, but if he's not Christian then that means he turned on his own kind. I shudder to think what might happen to him. In addition to being fired, he might be brought to trial on charges of being a traitor and have to face the death penalty.

I thought no more of the innocent exchange until I got to work. There's about 800 employees and the CEO of the company is Jewish. Surely the War on Christmas must be experiencing victory on this battlefield.

Nope. Those pesky Christians infiltrated the company and, gasp, dared to decorate their cubes with not only secularist decorations but also Christian symbols - an angel here, the word Christmas there, and the Star of Bethlehem shining over it all. Sure, the Christian symbolism is subdued, but most certainly there.

Oh, and I lost count how many employees wished me a "Merry Christmas". That word is spoken freely and without penalty on this battlefield.

I went out to the parking garage to smoke a cigarette.

Hmmm, now there is a war being won - the War on Smokers.

But back on topic.

Like a common criminal, I went to smoke my cig in hiding. I struck up a conversation with another guy, Marc, like I do every day. "So Marc, do you know where I can get a good deal on a Christmas tree, one that I can plant after the holidays?"

"Hell if I know. I'm Jewish."

"Oh. Well, Happy Hannukah, I guess."

"I don't celebrate Hannukah, but thank you. And Merry Christmas to you."

"Thank you, but I really don't celebrate Christmas. It costs too much."

We both got a good laugh, finished our cigarettes, and went back to work. Neither one of us lost our jobs, had a scolding from our supervisors, or ended up in front of our human resources rep.

I have a feeling that my experience today is typical of almost everyone's day. The War on Christmas is being fought all around us, but no one seems to notice - or care.

That's probably because there is no War on Christmas. Most people run around wondering if they can get off work early and if they can beat the crowds at the stores to finish their last minute Christmas shopping. They're making a list of last minute gifts they need to pick up and wondering if someone will be giving them the gifts they really want. Christmas morning, on the way to Church, they'll think about Jesus, but all the time building up to that genuine moment of Christmas celebration, the Christian aspect of the holiday is AWOL in most peoples' minds.

Of course, there are exceptions. There are people who live and breath Jesus. They're the ones who see the War on Christmas and they are the soldiers fighting the War. Hey, all the power to them. I wish them the best, and a Merry Christmas.

And I'm sure their daughter, Carrie, will be a big hit at her senior prom some day.

For the rest of us, another Christmas will soon be upon us and gone. Then we can shed all our compassion and goodwill to men and pick on the smokers, again. That war hasn't been won - yet.

I Hate America

That's the common theme I've heard since I was a kid. No, no one outright says, "I hate America", but listen to them long enough and you have to wonder what they like about America if America is so wrong.

The laundry list is long. Americans are rude overseas. American foreign policy has screwed up more countries than it's helped. American support of Israel created the Mideast turmoil. American news caters to the lowest common denominator - short blips of what the news people think Americans want to hear because their attention span is much too short to grasp anything more complex. Americans are the biggest global polluters and largest consumers of natural resources. American military is guilty of condoned human rights abuses. Americans still sentence criminals to that barabric practice of the death penalty. Americans can't feed their own poor, but the rich keep getting richer. Americans think their culture is the only one that counts and don't care to respect other cultures.

Americans [fill in the blank here].

For Americans being the rude, bumbling oafs they are, one glaring point stands out: Americans don't go around bashing every little detail of another country's people and culture. (Ok, maybe the French, but France isn't a real country.)

Why do so many people in other countries find it perfectly acceptable to criticize anything American? In fact, without living in this country, isn't it rude for non-Americans to be criticizing every little aspect of American life? For the life of me I can never figure out how a foreigner can say "The average American has no clue or doesn't care or is too uninformed or..." when odds are that foreigner probably has never even talked to an average American.

Yup, never talked to an average American. How do I know that? Simple. The foreigner is always quick to point out how rude and arrogant the average American is. Who makes it a point to talk to rude, arrogant people?

I sure don't, which is why I don't talk to foreigners. Maybe some day they'll learn to respect other cultures, including the American culture.

Is This a Fair Comparison?

Somone once said the difference between Muslim extremists and Christian extremists is one is 90% physically violent and 10% psychologically violent and the other is 90% psychologically violent and 10% physically violent.

We can guess which is which.

Sure, Christians don't fly planes into buildings, but remember, it was a Christian who committed the second largest terrorist attack against this country resulting in the second largest number of deaths on American soil - second only to 9/11.

And, of course, some Christians have called for the assasination of a foreign president, bombed abortion clinics, killed abortion doctors, alienated the "heathens" by demanding their "born again" conversion else burn in Hell, strive to enshrine parts of their religion in law, and have gone all out to demonize the second largest religion in the world - Islam.

In comparison, some Muslims have called for the assasination of an author, bombed just about anything, killed those who oppose Islam, alienated the "infidels" by demanding their complete acceptance of Islam else face a fatwah, make their religion the law of the land, and have gone all out to demonize anything Western or Jewish.

So how accurate is the comparison?

A Group Gone Too Far?

Or maybe outlived it's usefulness?

Prior to 1980, the laws and attitudes towards drunk driving were lax - almost as if drunk driving was an acceptable fact of life. But 1980 saw the formation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Through their efforts, public awareness was raised, laws were toughened, and drunk driving deaths took a nose dive.

Over the last few years, the decline has plateaued, remaining at around 13,000 deaths per year due to drunk driving.

MADD has decided to take a more agressive path to get that number declining again, preferably to zero. They are calling for a breathalyzer in every vehicle for every person convicted of a DUI, even first-time offenders. To start the car, the driver has to breathe into a tube and if he's over the legal limit, the car won't start.

Sounds noble until you consider a few things. First, such a device would mean that a 120-pound woman who drinks two glasses of wine during a two-hour dinner won't be able to get her car started. Second, the device can be rigged to require the driver to blow in the tube periodically during a course of a trip to ensure he didn't enter the vehicle sober and then started drinking or had a sober friend blow in the tube to begin with. And third, everything in this country is set on precedence. Rumors (and I emphsize rumors) are being whispered that the ultimate goal of this program is to require this device in every newly manufactured vehicle as "standard equipment". Not only that, but there is equipment that can monitor every movement in the car as well as the air quality, and if alcohol is suspected, the car can shut down.

I don't know about you, but I don't need Big Brother in my car. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off of the road, but I draw the line at requiring equipment in my car that presumes I'm guilty before I start the engine.