SuperSatellite ||

Today, I got an email from a relative on the subject of the volcano eruption that occurred in Chile recently. It was accompanied by several pictures, from the ground and satellite, of the plume. There was also a simple (and unsourced) statement in it:

The amount of ash that was spewed into the atmosphere by the Chaitén Volcano, (Chile) dwarfs the amount of pollution the United States automobile industry has created since the invention of the automobile.

And that is all well and good, assuming that it is true. I have two counterpoints I want to offer. The first is directed at this example, the second will be on the topic of global warming itself. If you accept that quote as a well researched fact, there’s still the point that the quote does not put anything into context. Just because the eruption had a larger effect, does not mean that auto pollution is fine and dandy. There’s a reason we use the word “pollution” in reference to it, instead of calling it “auto environmentally friendly side effects.” Going out in LA on the highway in the middle of rush hour and breathing deeply all morning isn’t going to come much more highly recommended that breathing volcanic ash without a mask.

I can grant an eruption has widespread effects on a biosphere, no doubt. Look at Venus for an extreme case of what uncontrolled volcanism can do to a world. But, Earth built its biosphere on this planet, where volcanic eruptions were common during the early millenia of its formation. They were used as building blocks for minerals, chemical reactions, and atmospheric reinforcement. Essentially, mother nature has built in checks and balances for such natural processes. Pollution we add in on top of it is a separate matter.  It’s also not even remotely similar in substance or process.

In response to the email, I offered only one sentence: “On subjects of Global Warming, I generally defer to this guy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI.” The video is right below if you want to watch it, I can wait.

I don’t have any clue who this guy is, but I wish I did. He makes a point similar to one that I’ve tried to make for a long time. I don’t care whether or not global warming is actually occurring. That is wholly unimportant to me. What is important to me is that even if it isn’t, that is no excuse to treat the planet like our own personal toilet. It’s no excuse to refuse to change and be better at what we do. To believe that our biosphere can resist massive clear cutting, unchecked strip mining, and depletion of resources everywhere they are found is a laughable, and tragic concept. It’s on par with saying the world is flat.  If you require proof, go live in a big city, stick your head out of the window, and look to the sky.  Tell me what your stars look like at night, or what color the sky is during the day.  Then tell me that we don’t need to do anything about our behavior.

That’s why I like that video above. He makes the point well about how risk analysis should dictate how we behave on such matters. We will argue until a new era dawns if no one steps in. So what if climate change never takes place? At least if we acted, we’d have great long term benefits: better cars, more efficient alternative fuel sources, better waste disposal. These things matter. Anti-climate change people without fail eventually use that position as a way of justifying a stubborn mindset that refuses to evolve and adapt to a newer, more civilized world (or at least a more civilized world that is fighting tooth and nail to emerge).  Action is always preferable to non-action, and the results, while potentially causing short term strains, always provide greater long term benefits.  Non-action and petty political and regulatory bickering on the matter is leaving us with $4.00/gallon gasoline and $250/month heating bills.

QED.

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa.

So, yesterday I agreed to spend some time up at Pittsburg High School judging for their debate tournament. It’s something I tend to do often when I can, and it’s generally an okay time. Especially when judges’ lounges are well stocked. Being well fed and coffeed up can make a big difference in any activity. Sadly, the “Starbuck’s” coffee that was offered up was the worst coffee that I have ever had. Anywhere. Ever. I don’t know if it came straight from Starbuck’s, or if they just bought the beans and brewed it there or what, but it was downright awful. It was like drinking liquid hate.

Anyway, I wish I knew what it was, but debate now is only a shadow of what debate was when I was in high school only seven years ago. We fought tooth and nail for the rounds that we won. Now, the open teams that are breaking are on par with good novice teams of a decade ago. It makes me sad. And it isn’t new. I’ve discussed this situation with a number of people over the past years. I am being told that the new crop of novices are showing more promise than normal. Here’s hoping…

For instance, there is no such thing as an existential inherent barrier. No matter how hard you want it. You can neither prove, nor mandate through an existential problem in a debate round. Procedural or attitudinal, those are your two options. Pick one, define it, and go. Don’t make crap up just because you want to run a squirrel case. And for Buddha’s sake, signpost your damn arguments so I know where they need to flow. By the way, naming a solvency take out a “negative position,” and flowing it off case is ignorant. Flow it under Solvency and fricking run it as what it should be. The easiest way to beat a case down is straight on, full ahead attacking it. Trying fancy arguments you don’t know how to run and creating “cool” off case takeouts just frustrates me and makes you look dumb. Last but not least, the 2AC is not a place to be extending case with additional advantages. Learn the meaning of Prima Facia.

And why do people give up so easily? I’m already burning my Saturday to be there, the least they could do is give a full five minute rebuttal instead of giving up and sitting down after one. That’s the fast lane to a 4. Even if you are losing, there are points to be scored for standing up and fighting with some confidence. Who knows, maybe the other team will drop the argument and flow it to you.

The crazy part is, probably the best case that I heard was a canned case a novice team ran. When I say best, I don’t mean they were the best debaters of the day or anything. But their case idea was so nice and simple, and would create such nice clash. Send 1,000,000 additional aid workers to Africa. Simple, concise, topical. Sure, lots of attack angles for the Negative, but that makes for a good round. And the idea would be an easy one to find plenty of support on. It’s better than the Plumpynut case an open team ran. Not because the idea was horrible, but because there is no such thing as a self sustaining plan. Nice try though. You have to spend money to make money. They were also the existential inherent barrier people.

Even then, I fault the negative team for not trying to attack it from a more generic malnutrition angle. These kids need to work on some critical thinking skills in a big way.

All told, it ends up sorta frustrating, but I’m glad the kids do it anyway. Debate teaches very valuable skills that come in handy in college and work. I guess I’m just a sucker for the torment, heh.

So this past day, I have been sitting at my computer like normal.  I watch funny videos, read friends’ blogs, and keep up with the news.  It’s this latter part which has me most riled up at the moment.  The following two articles came out of the woodwork today.  They are by no means the first ones, nor do I expect them to be the last.  However, I feel the need to provide a spot of momentary reflection on them all the same.

IL School District to Monitor Student Blogs
Student Faces Expulsion for Blog Post

With that out of the way, I shall continue.  MySpace is one of many blogging-oriented, socialization sites.  Without repeating too many things that have been said already, I think it’s important to note, and pass on several things.  First, one should not have to lie about their age to keep their profile and data confidential from prying eyes.  Tom, take note, an additional layer of security is well deserved there.  But at the same time it is a shame that people feel it is necessary to actively hunt out information and use it against them.  Two, if you happen to be someone prowling for information on students, potential employees, or current ones, keep in mind that people’s private and professional live are two entirely different things.  Most people know how to keep them separate.  All the same, it is important for us as users to employ a bit of common sense.  Don’t be specific about people or particular activities in public posts.  Keep things limited to your friends where appropriate.  We must temper ourselves, show intelligence and understanding ourselves before people outside will buy in.  But why should you have to worry that voicing a particular political opinion on something might keep you from getting a job somewhere?  Such things you want to air publicly, but anymore, it is getting more and more risky to do so.  Stupidity breeds contempt.

But most importantly, as emphasized in the articles above, schools have no right to police sites like MySpace, Xanga, LiveJournal, etc, for things students post that are non-threatening.  I agree, that outright, or clearly implied threats are one matter, but literally trying to control what a student can say, off campus, after hours, is insane.  A line is being crossed, and people are allowing it to be crossed.  This is no different from if a school tried to say that a student couldn’t post the same thing in a Letter to the Editor in a newspaper.  All that is different is the medium.

Everyone as users has a responsibility to protect the rights of the rest of the community.  To stand up and point out that if a line is crossed over there, it won’t be long before another is crossed over here.  How long before colleges, companies, city governments, etc decide to follow the same suit?  Who decides what is “inappropriate?”  Everyone is so afraid of the internet, that they don’t realize they have handed over the keys to the Kingdom to lawyers.  We dish out what 1st Amendment rights we have left for that little bit of piece of mind, and it makes me sick.

Be aware of what having a public internet presence means, but also be active in defining how that can be used.  Protect your rights, but more importantly, know your rights!  And just because you might disagree with how someone executes those rights, know that your ability to disagree is granted under the same freedom.  Pass this on, and attach your name, first and last, to the list below.  Show that you aren’t afraid to stand up for what you believe in.

“To speak his thoughts is every freeman’s right, in peace and war, in council and in fight.” ~ HOMER

First on the chopping block, I direct your ever-keen eye to the halls of Slashdot.  Go read that posting, the accompanying article, and some of the comments.  I see no reason to reiterate most of what was already said on /. since most of the readers cover the important bases. But I do feel the need to join the chorus voicing it’s concern on the matter.  Essentially what the Attorney General is saying is that the 1st amendment is a great right, so long as it doesn’t embarrass or inconvenience the Federal Government, in which case they can prosecute journalists to stop them from printing things.  While he says it applies to “classified” things, I see no reason that that really creates a legal brightline, especially given some of the silly things that are classified (or not occasionally).  And that just creates a qualification to keep press from printing anything.  Don’t want it out, classify it.  Then if it’s leaked, prosecute whoever mentions it.  So, put on the tinfoil hats and be prepared to kiss goodbye the days of free press, if the AG has his way that is (since he gets to trump the Constitution whenever it suits him, right?).  I would love nothing more than to see Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine claw and dig their decayed asses out of their graves and put the definitive undead beatdown on Gonzales.  “I got yer freedom of press right here, bitch!”

This next bit sorta surprised me at first.  I have a newfound respect for, of all people, the Dixie Chicks.  Yeah, I know right?  That’s about as expected as Bush getting up on stage in a skirt and singing I’m a Little Teapot.  Which I would pay to see.  But their music is much more tolerable of late, and the news attention they’ve gotten since their new album came out has really put them in a new light with me.  I remember when the deal came down about their comments on Bush.  I didn’t think much of it at the time.  Now though, I’ve realized that they are really making  good point: just because they are famous artists, they should be allowed to have and stand by an opinion.  The media treats them like they should busy themselves with placating to the public and be good, conforming artists.  I tend to be of the mind that they have earned a soapbox to stand on, and if they want to use it, more power to them.  In fact, those that have that kind of power have an obligation to do so I think.  And it’s not like the blindly patriot, overly drunk, and often divorced country singers are fooling anyone.  Yeah you love Bush and America.  You love them because you love your paychecks, you sold-out bastards.  Let’s see you stand tall and be that unshakable when a Democrat is back in office.