To those that claim that Muslims are not denouncing the actions of extreme Muslims in their calls for Jihad… bunk!
Recently in a video, Adam Gadahn, an al-Qaida spokesman, encouraged Muslim living in the “miserable suburbs” of Paris, London and Detroit to take action. In the 48 minute video, Gadahn asks Muslims to plan local acts of jihad (as is used in this context, nothing more than criminal activity) as a matter of duty to their faith.
The 32 year old Adam Gadahn, born Adam Pearlman in Oregon, converted to Islam and set off for Pakistan in 1998. He is wanted by the FBI and is the first American to be indicted for treason since 1952.
How are the Muslims in Detroit (Dearborn) reacting? The publisher of the local Arab American Newspaper, Osama Siblani, says that Gadahn, “ is already receiving much more attention than he deserves.”
“This is a nutcase,” Siblani says. "I think that everyone in our community listened to this and laughed. People here are concerned about their well-being, the economic situation, putting their kids in school and bread on the table. ...They don't have time for this sick mentality from someone who dreams up something overnight."
The executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, Dawud Walid, was also quick to denounce the video. He told the Associated Press that, "I see little to no chance of such sentiment taking root in metropolitan Detroit. ...We're not a group of people who feel powerless," Walid said. "If any Muslim community has grown in civic engagement and empowerment, it would be this community. He invoked the wrong population to try and stir up."
With every episode of terrorism, or calls for it as in this case, the Muslim community does react negatively to the call for action. But the press in American either doesn’t report it, or it is a secondary story buried on the website or in the paper. The people that are the most fervently about Muslims report that the Muslim community doesn’t respond, and everyone believes them.
Sablani stated the clear issue with all of this. He says that the Muslim community is no different than every other community in America. They are more concerned about everyday issues like feeding their families and keeping their kids in school. They don’t have time to get involved in the sick calls for violence against anyone.
That sounds like mainstream America to me.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Climate change final
Who could possibly believe that climate change is a result of human activity on earth? There are arguments presented on both sides of the issue. But, over the last three blog posts we have explored the effect humans have on the environment by using fossil fuel for our primary energy source. When the simple and practical evidence is examined, it is clear that humans are affecting the climate.
What action should a Responsible Community take?
As a culture we like to think of ourselves as self reliant. If that has any meaning, it is that we depend on ourselves to take care of our needs and don’t leave others to clean up the mess.
Many conservatives in this current political cycle are complaining about the high level of debt that the country is facing. It is said that the debt will have to be paid off by our children and grandchildren because we won’t be able to in our own time. To hand our children a large debt would be wrong for our community to do.
Another example of our belief in self reliance related to the national debt is that most of us live within our means. Each month we have a budget, reducing our spending when our income falls and increasing our savings when our income is good.
If we believe in self reliance like we say, then that should also apply to the environment. Our energy usage should not deplete the available resources and should be consumed in such a way that it doesn’t have a detrimental effect on the environment. To leave a future generation without resources and an environment that makes it harder to survive would clearly be wrong.
Sustainability is a concept born of self reliance. To use no more than can be replaced in our own generation is self reliance defined. By consuming a thousand year’s worth of energy in one year and releasing more carbon than the environment can absorb is not self reliance. It is leaving our children a mess that they will not be able to be clean up in their own generation. It is one that will take many more generations to clean up, if it can be at all.
Our values, our way of life and our laws must encourage, and force if necessary, our culture, the entire human race for that matter, to a sustainable life style.
This is the responsible thing to do.
----
What action should a Responsible Community take?
As a culture we like to think of ourselves as self reliant. If that has any meaning, it is that we depend on ourselves to take care of our needs and don’t leave others to clean up the mess.
Many conservatives in this current political cycle are complaining about the high level of debt that the country is facing. It is said that the debt will have to be paid off by our children and grandchildren because we won’t be able to in our own time. To hand our children a large debt would be wrong for our community to do.
Another example of our belief in self reliance related to the national debt is that most of us live within our means. Each month we have a budget, reducing our spending when our income falls and increasing our savings when our income is good.
If we believe in self reliance like we say, then that should also apply to the environment. Our energy usage should not deplete the available resources and should be consumed in such a way that it doesn’t have a detrimental effect on the environment. To leave a future generation without resources and an environment that makes it harder to survive would clearly be wrong.
Sustainability is a concept born of self reliance. To use no more than can be replaced in our own generation is self reliance defined. By consuming a thousand year’s worth of energy in one year and releasing more carbon than the environment can absorb is not self reliance. It is leaving our children a mess that they will not be able to be clean up in their own generation. It is one that will take many more generations to clean up, if it can be at all.
Our values, our way of life and our laws must encourage, and force if necessary, our culture, the entire human race for that matter, to a sustainable life style.
This is the responsible thing to do.
----
Monday, October 25, 2010
Climate change can't possibly be happening, part three
Who could possibly believe that climate change is a result of human activity on earth? Many people are in denial or don’t want to address the issue, including all 20 republicans running for the senate.
With all the seemingly convincing arguments about climate change on both sides, it can become a confusing issue. Have you ever tried to read a scientific paper on climate change? It can be daunting for most of us.
So, in the last two blog post, the practical side of climate change and its causes have been explored. In the first blog post, “Climate change can’t possibly be happening”, the issue of using fossil fuels was explored. In conclusion, humans are using a thousand years’ worth of stored carbon each year for our energy use. That is much more carbon being released than the environment can absorb, even when you include the oceans.
In the next blog post, “Climate change can’t possibly be happening, part two”, the issue of rising carbon levels and what affect carbon has on the world’s weather. Carbon levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 60 years. The levels are the highest they have been in 17,000 years. With all that carbon in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the clear molecule is allowing light from the sun to strike the earth but is keeping the heat generated by the sun light in.
In a practical approach to climate change it is fair to ask if the average temperature of earth’s atmosphere is rising with all the release of carbon? The answer is a resounding, yes!
According the NASA, the average temperature has been on an upward trend since the 1880’s. When you look at a global picture of rising temperatures, you find that the only place that hasn’t experience a rise in temperature is a small part of the south arctic region.
This rise in temperature can also have a accelerating effect. With the average temperature of earth’s atmosphere on the rise, more snow melt will happen. Not only on the North and South Pole, but also glaciers around the world and less snow accumulation during the winter. Snow and ice reflect light back into space. This keeps the light from being absorbed by the earth. When there is less snow, more sunlight will heat the earth.
So how does this relate to the policies of a Responsible Community? In the next and final post of climate change, the response of the community will be explored.
-----
With all the seemingly convincing arguments about climate change on both sides, it can become a confusing issue. Have you ever tried to read a scientific paper on climate change? It can be daunting for most of us.
So, in the last two blog post, the practical side of climate change and its causes have been explored. In the first blog post, “Climate change can’t possibly be happening”, the issue of using fossil fuels was explored. In conclusion, humans are using a thousand years’ worth of stored carbon each year for our energy use. That is much more carbon being released than the environment can absorb, even when you include the oceans.
In the next blog post, “Climate change can’t possibly be happening, part two”, the issue of rising carbon levels and what affect carbon has on the world’s weather. Carbon levels in the atmosphere have been rising for the last 60 years. The levels are the highest they have been in 17,000 years. With all that carbon in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the clear molecule is allowing light from the sun to strike the earth but is keeping the heat generated by the sun light in.
In a practical approach to climate change it is fair to ask if the average temperature of earth’s atmosphere is rising with all the release of carbon? The answer is a resounding, yes!
According the NASA, the average temperature has been on an upward trend since the 1880’s. When you look at a global picture of rising temperatures, you find that the only place that hasn’t experience a rise in temperature is a small part of the south arctic region.
This rise in temperature can also have a accelerating effect. With the average temperature of earth’s atmosphere on the rise, more snow melt will happen. Not only on the North and South Pole, but also glaciers around the world and less snow accumulation during the winter. Snow and ice reflect light back into space. This keeps the light from being absorbed by the earth. When there is less snow, more sunlight will heat the earth.
So how does this relate to the policies of a Responsible Community? In the next and final post of climate change, the response of the community will be explored.
-----
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Climate change can't possibly be happening , post 2
Who could possibly believe in climate change with all the arguments for and against? Opinion leaders and politicians are providing different points of view. The issue has become political. There needs to be a simple and practical approach to understanding the issue and what to do about it. It is the attempt of this series of post to examine the practical side.
The last post explored how more carbon is being released in the atmosphere. Carbon is trapped in plants and animals when they die and decay. That decay process, over hundreds and thousands of years produces fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. When humans first discovered they could burn fossil fuels, they only consumed less than a year’s supply. The environment could easily absorb the carbon released. Now, humans are consuming about a thousand year’s worth of fossil fuels each year. The environment can no longer absorb that much carbon. [The ocean can absorb a lot of carbon, which provides some hope for the future. But, its rate of absorption is so slow that it can’t keep up. If the ocean absorbed faster, the carbon levels would not have found the balance needed to maintain a healthy carbon level to grow plants.]
So are the levels rising? Yes. The growth in carbon levels have been rising since the turn of the last century. Even the doubters will accept that fact. Science has known this for nearly a 150 years. The levels today are as high as they have been in 17,000 years.
Here is meaning of this. Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It acts like glass panels on a greenhouse. Carbon dioxide is colorless so it allows light from the sun to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the earth. Some light is reflected off because of the angle the light strikes the upper atmosphere. Some is reflected off by clouds. But, enough light gets through to warm the earth and grow plants. The heat generated by the light is radiated back into the atmosphere. The cold of space then cools the atmosphere keeping the heat levels in balance.
But, carbon dioxide also acts like a blanket on a cold night. It reflects heat back down to the earth. This doesn’t allow the natural cooling effect to keep a balance in the atmosphere.
The carbon dioxide affect is not a guess. It is an observable and measurable process. It is fact.
So, now we know, in practical and measurable terms, that humans are burning more than a thousand year’s worth of carbon based fuels each year. We also know that carbon levels are growing in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, the primary form of carbon, acts as the glass panels on a greenhouse, allowing light to reach the earth, but trapping the heat generated by the light. All observable and measurable.
In the next post, the effect of all of this will be explored.
-----
The last post explored how more carbon is being released in the atmosphere. Carbon is trapped in plants and animals when they die and decay. That decay process, over hundreds and thousands of years produces fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. When humans first discovered they could burn fossil fuels, they only consumed less than a year’s supply. The environment could easily absorb the carbon released. Now, humans are consuming about a thousand year’s worth of fossil fuels each year. The environment can no longer absorb that much carbon. [The ocean can absorb a lot of carbon, which provides some hope for the future. But, its rate of absorption is so slow that it can’t keep up. If the ocean absorbed faster, the carbon levels would not have found the balance needed to maintain a healthy carbon level to grow plants.]
So are the levels rising? Yes. The growth in carbon levels have been rising since the turn of the last century. Even the doubters will accept that fact. Science has known this for nearly a 150 years. The levels today are as high as they have been in 17,000 years.
Here is meaning of this. Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It acts like glass panels on a greenhouse. Carbon dioxide is colorless so it allows light from the sun to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the earth. Some light is reflected off because of the angle the light strikes the upper atmosphere. Some is reflected off by clouds. But, enough light gets through to warm the earth and grow plants. The heat generated by the light is radiated back into the atmosphere. The cold of space then cools the atmosphere keeping the heat levels in balance.
But, carbon dioxide also acts like a blanket on a cold night. It reflects heat back down to the earth. This doesn’t allow the natural cooling effect to keep a balance in the atmosphere.
The carbon dioxide affect is not a guess. It is an observable and measurable process. It is fact.
So, now we know, in practical and measurable terms, that humans are burning more than a thousand year’s worth of carbon based fuels each year. We also know that carbon levels are growing in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, the primary form of carbon, acts as the glass panels on a greenhouse, allowing light to reach the earth, but trapping the heat generated by the light. All observable and measurable.
In the next post, the effect of all of this will be explored.
-----
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Climate change can't possibly be happening
Who could possibly believe that climate change, if it is happening at all, is a result of humans? Many people are in denial including all 20 of the Republicans that are running for a senate seat this election. They are for various reason, saying that it is not a problem or it isn’t even happening. The candidates are tapping right in to the angry crowd that wants to do away with all government regulation without regard to the consequences.
Most of the scientific evidence is beyond most of us to grapple with. Then there are those that tear the evidence apart and deny it. Additionally, how about the hype that was created when all those emails from the science community about making adjustments in the numbers to fit the theory surfaced?
While all of the above can be addressed on an point by point basis, let’s take a look at a common sense approach to all of this with a practical explanation of climate change.
Now, keep in mind, this is a little geeky. It may take a few moments for it to make sense, but this is the best explanation about climate change available.
When humans evolved, the species became very adoptable to many different environments because of our intelligence and creativity. We were able to learn about things around us and apply them to our own needs. One of the things we learned was how to make fire. With all the old wood lying around on the forest floor, during the cold months, we could burn them to provide the energy we needed to keep warm.
At the beginning, there were very few humans and the only wood that was burned was already dead. Since our impact was low, the forest easily absorbed the carbon that was released. The earth was in balance because we were releasing less than a year’s worth of carbon. In a year of growth in the forest, all of it could be absorbed.
This went on for many thousands of years. But, leading up to the industrial revolution, we discovered coal, oil and other materials could be burnt to provide the energy we needed. This process that makes coal and oil traps many generations of carbon from the plants and animals that make up the material. When it is burned, the carbon is released into the atmosphere not just from one year, but many.
By the industrial revolution, we had found many more needs for energy than just keeping warm. Also, the numbers of humans had grown dramatically. Now, our energy needs exceeded what was laying on the forest floor. We were burning hundreds of years of material to supply the energy needs of a single year. All of this carbon release was now beyond what could be absorbed by the environment.
Today, it is estimated that humans consume a thousand years of energy in coal, oil and other materials each year. This of course, is well beyond the ability of the earth to absorb all the carbon released. Even when you consider not only the forest but also the other plant life in the oceans.
Since we have released such large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere it is holding much more carbon then it can absorb.
In the next post, the carbon in the air will be discussed.
-----
Most of the scientific evidence is beyond most of us to grapple with. Then there are those that tear the evidence apart and deny it. Additionally, how about the hype that was created when all those emails from the science community about making adjustments in the numbers to fit the theory surfaced?
While all of the above can be addressed on an point by point basis, let’s take a look at a common sense approach to all of this with a practical explanation of climate change.
Now, keep in mind, this is a little geeky. It may take a few moments for it to make sense, but this is the best explanation about climate change available.
When humans evolved, the species became very adoptable to many different environments because of our intelligence and creativity. We were able to learn about things around us and apply them to our own needs. One of the things we learned was how to make fire. With all the old wood lying around on the forest floor, during the cold months, we could burn them to provide the energy we needed to keep warm.
At the beginning, there were very few humans and the only wood that was burned was already dead. Since our impact was low, the forest easily absorbed the carbon that was released. The earth was in balance because we were releasing less than a year’s worth of carbon. In a year of growth in the forest, all of it could be absorbed.
This went on for many thousands of years. But, leading up to the industrial revolution, we discovered coal, oil and other materials could be burnt to provide the energy we needed. This process that makes coal and oil traps many generations of carbon from the plants and animals that make up the material. When it is burned, the carbon is released into the atmosphere not just from one year, but many.
By the industrial revolution, we had found many more needs for energy than just keeping warm. Also, the numbers of humans had grown dramatically. Now, our energy needs exceeded what was laying on the forest floor. We were burning hundreds of years of material to supply the energy needs of a single year. All of this carbon release was now beyond what could be absorbed by the environment.
Today, it is estimated that humans consume a thousand years of energy in coal, oil and other materials each year. This of course, is well beyond the ability of the earth to absorb all the carbon released. Even when you consider not only the forest but also the other plant life in the oceans.
Since we have released such large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere it is holding much more carbon then it can absorb.
In the next post, the carbon in the air will be discussed.
-----
Friday, October 15, 2010
Stolen Valor Act is Constitutional
As Mark Scott so often said, “A is A”. That is, if you don’t tell the truth, it is a lie. Pure and simple. So, tell me the community doesn’t have the right to expect that if you say you have won the The Congressional Medal of Honor that you really have.
The federal appeals court in California and a federal district court in Denver don’t think so. They have both ruled that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional. The act states that if you claim an honor from the military that you don’t have, you can be prosecuted. The courts ruled that it is a free speech issue and the individual can’t be convicted.
Without the law there are many ways to prosecute someone that tells such a lie. On written documents or in court it is perjury. If you say so on an employment application and get the job because of it, or if you are given money based on the lie, you have committed fraud. If in all of the above situations you stated a political opinion, something that is squarely protected, you would not be held accountable legal. So why can’t you be held accountable for making the claim when it is clearly a lie.
Many are suggesting that this case will make its way to the Supreme Court because of the importance of free speech. But, no right is absolute. Saying you are a war hero is not an opinion or a complaint that demands redress from the government. It is an outright lie that can’t be defended.
-----
The federal appeals court in California and a federal district court in Denver don’t think so. They have both ruled that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional. The act states that if you claim an honor from the military that you don’t have, you can be prosecuted. The courts ruled that it is a free speech issue and the individual can’t be convicted.
Without the law there are many ways to prosecute someone that tells such a lie. On written documents or in court it is perjury. If you say so on an employment application and get the job because of it, or if you are given money based on the lie, you have committed fraud. If in all of the above situations you stated a political opinion, something that is squarely protected, you would not be held accountable legal. So why can’t you be held accountable for making the claim when it is clearly a lie.
Many are suggesting that this case will make its way to the Supreme Court because of the importance of free speech. But, no right is absolute. Saying you are a war hero is not an opinion or a complaint that demands redress from the government. It is an outright lie that can’t be defended.
-----
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Responsibilities of the individual and the community during umemployment
In the real world, every community has a problem with unemployment and job creation. But, the recent Nobel prize winners for economics may provide a view that helps us understand the scope of the problem. Some of what they say supports action that a Responsible Community should take with those that are unemployed.
Three men, Peter Diamond, Dale Mortenson and Chris Pissarides, were awarded the 2010 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. Their work was on why buyers and sellers in various markets have trouble finding each other.
Full disclosure: I am not an economist and have not read the full breadth of their work. On the practical side, what has been read makes sense.
According to theory, unemployment should always be at zero. But, in reality, even in an economy that is humming, unemployment can be as higher as 5 % and be considered full employment. This reason for this is that a percent of people are always leaving one job to take another. This activity is the continuous adjustment in the market place of the mix of jobs, wages, training and the employment pool. (And, yes, there are those individuals that find difficulty in find a permanent job, often because of their own personal issues.)
But the real problem is when the unemployment levels are higher. That means, on the community level, individuals can’t find jobs that they are qualified for or business wont hire individuals at the pay scale that the individual needs or wants.
The trio suggest that unemployment insurance provided by the community makes it more difficult for the market to work. If workers are getting enough from unemployment insurance to maintain, they will be reluctant to take any job. On the other side, business will need to increase the pay scale or benefits to make the job more enticing to people that are on unemployment.
Keeping the paragraph above in mind, it is difficult for the community to encourage an electrician to take the first job offered, which may be at McDonalds cooking fast food. It would make it more difficult for him to get a job that he is trained for and not provide the income necessary to maintain a lifestyle built on higher wages. From the community’s point of view, it is a waste of resources for the training and experience invested in the electrician to cook fast food.
Part of the answer is the expectations the community has on the return on investment from the unemployment insurance provided. As stated in a blog earlier this year, “Require a return on investment from unemployment”, in the short run, a community should provide enough income to allow an individual to maintain a portion of the lifestyle they have. This allows time for him to find a job in the field that he is trained to do without taking the first job offered. For that investment, the community needs to make it clear there are expectations of return. If after a short period of time the individual is not employed, the system needs to hold them accountable. Make an evaluation of their life and skills. Find markets that can employ them. Train them for their new jobs. Help them move if necessary to those markets. In return for the community’s investment, the unemployed individual needs to do also help themselves by cooperating with the community on all of the above and more. If not, they should be dropped from the program.
We formed communities to help each other in times of crisis. The community needs to help individuals through times of unemployment. No one in the community benefits when individuals and families lose their savings and even their homes when unemployed. But, to continuously keep supporting individuals that are not fully engage in their future is against the rules of success of the individual, the community and as the winners of the Nobel prize point out, the markets.
-----
Three men, Peter Diamond, Dale Mortenson and Chris Pissarides, were awarded the 2010 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. Their work was on why buyers and sellers in various markets have trouble finding each other.
Full disclosure: I am not an economist and have not read the full breadth of their work. On the practical side, what has been read makes sense.
According to theory, unemployment should always be at zero. But, in reality, even in an economy that is humming, unemployment can be as higher as 5 % and be considered full employment. This reason for this is that a percent of people are always leaving one job to take another. This activity is the continuous adjustment in the market place of the mix of jobs, wages, training and the employment pool. (And, yes, there are those individuals that find difficulty in find a permanent job, often because of their own personal issues.)
But the real problem is when the unemployment levels are higher. That means, on the community level, individuals can’t find jobs that they are qualified for or business wont hire individuals at the pay scale that the individual needs or wants.
The trio suggest that unemployment insurance provided by the community makes it more difficult for the market to work. If workers are getting enough from unemployment insurance to maintain, they will be reluctant to take any job. On the other side, business will need to increase the pay scale or benefits to make the job more enticing to people that are on unemployment.
Keeping the paragraph above in mind, it is difficult for the community to encourage an electrician to take the first job offered, which may be at McDonalds cooking fast food. It would make it more difficult for him to get a job that he is trained for and not provide the income necessary to maintain a lifestyle built on higher wages. From the community’s point of view, it is a waste of resources for the training and experience invested in the electrician to cook fast food.
Part of the answer is the expectations the community has on the return on investment from the unemployment insurance provided. As stated in a blog earlier this year, “Require a return on investment from unemployment”, in the short run, a community should provide enough income to allow an individual to maintain a portion of the lifestyle they have. This allows time for him to find a job in the field that he is trained to do without taking the first job offered. For that investment, the community needs to make it clear there are expectations of return. If after a short period of time the individual is not employed, the system needs to hold them accountable. Make an evaluation of their life and skills. Find markets that can employ them. Train them for their new jobs. Help them move if necessary to those markets. In return for the community’s investment, the unemployed individual needs to do also help themselves by cooperating with the community on all of the above and more. If not, they should be dropped from the program.
We formed communities to help each other in times of crisis. The community needs to help individuals through times of unemployment. No one in the community benefits when individuals and families lose their savings and even their homes when unemployed. But, to continuously keep supporting individuals that are not fully engage in their future is against the rules of success of the individual, the community and as the winners of the Nobel prize point out, the markets.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)