More on the Polar Bear

On December 27th, 2006, I commented on a Washington Post piece (see it here) that reported the George Dubyah Bush administration was proposing that the polar bear be added to the endangered species list due to threats to its ecosystem.

During my comments, I mentioned how it would be interesting to watch if right leaning, pro-business forces would put forth strong efforts to squelch the listing. Well, it took a few days for a response to appear in the right leaning Washington Times, but you can (see here), in a piece written by Steven Milloy, what at least some conservatives think of the proposal.

Quoting from the article:

It's a futile gesture that only signals a weakening in the administration's earlier strong stance against global warming hysteria.

Well, I take strong issue with Steven's implication that anyone worried about global warming is suffering from hysteria, however Steven does raise some reasonable questions about the proposal itself. Steven asks:

Are polar bears endangered? What would the proposal accomplish, given we already protect polar bears under several laws and treaties?

1st: Are polar bears endangered? Steven points out that there is no data proving decreases in the overall polar bear population. However he does acknowledge in a round-about offhand way that there is some evidence that the population is under stress due to changes in their ecosystem.

Steven also takes issue with the allowance of "trophy hunting" of some polar bears while it is being considered adding them to the endangered species list. As Steven reports, the polar bear is already protected under several laws and treaties, however the Steven quotes from the Fish and Wildlife Service's fact sheet on the proposed endangered listing:

Some Native communities in arctic Canada also obtain significant financial benefits from allocating a portion of their overall subsistence quota to trophy hunters from the United States and other nations.

What's the big deal Steven? While the harvesting of whales is restricted to sustainable levels, even harvesting of threatened species are allowed by some native cultures that have long depended on such harvesting through history. I would think conservatives would be praising such native communities if they tried to turn an additional profit on the number of polar bears they are allowed to harvest. Perhaps some wealthy American businessman is allowed to pull the trigger that "bags" the polar bear and make off with the head for mounting on his trophy wall while the natives get to keep the rest of the carcass and the hide for their own use. Meanwhile they also get to cash a healthy check for the "trophy" rights to the kill that garners more economically for their community then what could be realized if they kept the head of the bear for themselves. Steven has a problem with this? Sounds to me like Steven is complaining about native communities practicing good business sense. Heck, we can't have any of that now, can we?

Steven points out that the FWS proposal is grounded upon the projected threat to polar bears due to the loss of their sea-ice habitat as it melts due to global warming. He then tries to take aim at the science proving the Arctic ice cap is melting with:

No one knows exactly what's happening with Arctic sea ice, much less what the future holds. The Greenland ice melt, for example, was actually larger in 1991 than in 2005 and the Greenland ice cap is thickening.

OK, the Greenland ice cap, at its center, is increasing in thickness. Why is this happening? One reasonable explanation I have heard is that due to increased levels of water vapor in the area there is increased levels of snowfall. Glaciers are formed due to snowfall after all. As each new layer of snowfall occurs, it adds its weight to the layers of snow below it and the glacier ice results at the lower levels due to weight from the layers above. However at the outer edges of the Greenland ice cap it is melting faster then new ice is forming. There is a net loss of ice as a result. The Greenland ice cap might not disappear, that is uncertain, however it is going to decrease in size. In other areas of the Arctic, evidence of loss of Arctic ice is just overwhelming. Steven might "almost" be reasonable in saying no one knows "exactly" what is happening, however to imply that it is not certain whether or not Arctic ice is melting at a phenomenal rate in the same statement is ludicrous.

However Steven does reasonably point out that polar bears have survived what science indicates were warmer periods in their ecosystem in the past. Apparently past generations of polar bears eventually learned to adapt back then, so they could reasonably be expected to learn to adapt once again. Perhaps their overall population might dwindle somewhat as they learned to adapt, however in the past they survived in sufficient numbers to "explode" in population once favorable colder conditions occurred in their ecosystem.

2nd: What would the proposal accomplish? As Steven asks:

But even giving the proposal the benefit of the doubt, will it accomplish anything? When I asked Mr. Kempthorne that question -- noting even if the polar bear habit was shrinking because of melting ice there isn't a credible climate scientist in the world who believes anything could be done to stop the melting...

I think Steven scores a bulls eye with this question. Even if mankind slips into the yoke and really tries to pull together to turn back greenhouse gas emissions today, changes are not going to happen quickly enough to save the polar bear's ecosystem. Polar bears are going to be forced to adapt to the new environment that they experience just as many other species are that are being stressed due to global warming. Simply listing the polar bear as endangered is not going to change this.

Personally, I do not have a problem with polar bears being listed as an endangered species. Even if little to nothing can be done to save the polar bear, that does not preclude the listing. The ecosystem it thrives in is disappearing. While the species was able to adapt to changes in its environment in the past, this does not prove success in adaptation in the future. I think a reasonable case can be made that the polar bear truly is endangered. Even if the polar bear is capable of adapting, will the species they use as food sources also be successful in adapting? Listing the polar bear is only stating they are in danger of extinction, not that extinction is certain.

So why, really, does Steven have a problem with the proposal? Let's look at his concluding statement:

It's distressing that the Bush administration is opening the door for the all-important issue of global warming regulation to be influenced more by our embrace of a soda mascot rather than science.

Steven does not like the fact that such a listing might put pressure on our American society, and our human species, to do something about global warming. To me it is distressing that he will sometimes (although not always) resort to junk science in order to argue against it.

We Need More Troops in Iraq?

(See here) a piece written by Senator Joseph Lieberman (Dem - Connecticut) that puts forth strong components of the argument in favor of increasing our troop levels in Iraq.

First let me say that I respect Joe's opinion. While I am not a resident of Connecticut, I did strongly support Joe in his successful reelection campaign. Had I been a resident of Connecticut, I certainly would have voted for him.

However I do not always agree with everything Joe stands for, and increasing our levels of troops in Iraq is one area where I fairly strongly disagree with him.

What Joe leaves out is that, while he argues for assisting Iraqis in establishing a democratic government, the overwhelming majority of the citizens that would cast their ballots in democratic Iraqi elections want the US out of their country. Heck, a slimmer, yet still solid, majority even say it is OK for Iraqis to kill American troops.

Joe states that he thinks the war is winnable. Just what would he define as "victory" and how would he go about obtaining this victory? Well let me quote him:

To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government.

Got that? We need to not only achieve a military victory, we have to obtain a political victory as well. It would not be enough to calm things down so that a democratic government can rule, we also have to strengthen moderate political forces. Excuse me Joe, we have tried that and it has not worked. Iraqi citizens have not shown a willingness to vote for the types of people that you (or the majority of the rest of us) would support.

Now I am not exactly one who is in favor of cutting and running. I too fear the possibilities that defeat would bring about. However I seem to be in minority here in America. The tide of public opinion is rapidly turning against the war. Those who battle against us in Iraq can read the news just as well as I can. They too will realize that any increase in American troop levels are only going to be temporary. That all they have to do is not give up, bide their time, and troop levels are going to fall. Any positive changes brought about by the increased troop levels would only be temporary and would be apt to evaporate once the troop levels are decreased.

Long term troop increases are not going to happen. The American electorate voted for change when they went to the polls this past November. What kind of change are they going to see? Well Dubyah is supposedly seriously considering raising our level of involvement in Iraq. While this might make Joseph Lieberman happy, it is not going to result in anything near to what Joe would call victory. The number of troops being considered, and the increased effort this would signal, would be like throwing pebbles into the ocean. Not even a large splash and barely discernible ripples in the waves created by the aspirations of the various forces engaged in Iraq.

I still support some version of what Senator Biden (Dem - Delaware) has proposed. Some method of allowing competing forces, those that are willing to resort to violence, to fight it out while American forces remain unengaged. Once one side or the other emerges victorious from the carnage that will result, we will know who to deal with. Perhaps if either side screams for mercy we could intervene, but not until they scream so loudly that it is obvious that they will no longer target our troops while we try and protect them. I certainly feel we should already try our best to protect those portions of Iraqi society (such as the Kurds) that have shown a reluctance to resort to violence.

Should we precipitously withdraw from Iraq? Perhaps not. However we need to allow militants within Iraq to fight it out. They are itching for bloodshed, and we should not shed the blood of our own troops while trying to keep the militant forces from engaging each other.

There is more wisdom and vision in this plan then Joseph Lieberman's "pie in the sky" proposal to increase troop levels to obtain what he would describe as victory. Joe is never going to be happy with the results we could realistically be expected to obtain, so we'd NEVER withdraw, and we would have to be willing to suffer casualties to our troops so far into the future it might as well be described as eternity.

This past November, the American electorate signalled their desire for change. I do not think that Joseph Lieberman's proposes, and what George Dubyah Bush is apt to do, is what they had in mind. The American public voted AGAINST "stay the course", and Joseph would not only refuse to change our bearing, he would shovel more coal to feed the boilers while remaining on our current course.

I'm waiting to hear what our President has to say about it. My prediction is that I am going to be disappointed in what I hear. But what the heck, I spoke out against invading Iraq in the first place and I was disappointed back then as well. I'm starting to get a thick skin. My prediction? George is going to signal some type of increased effort to turn the tide in Iraq. He is not going to engage in any change that will yield anything more then a temporary delay in the outcome.

What George Dubyah Bush is going to announce in his much anticipated speech might make Joseph Lieberman happy, but I am going to be left shaking my head. That's my prediction.

Naming the Next Generation of Aircraft Carriers

(See here) where there is an effort afoot to name America's next generation of Aircraft carriers the "Ford class".

Jerry Ford himself described him as being "a Ford not a Lincoln" but some think he should have the honor of having an entire class of aircraft carriers named after him.

While the Sullivan brothers from WWII only get a destroyer named after them, and all of these brothers gave the supreme sacrifice, Jerry Ford gets an entire class of ships named after him?

Just what did Jerry Ford do that entitles him to such an honor? The man was the first American President to lose a war for crying out loud! We seek to honor that?

An entire class of behemoth warships do not deserve to be named after Jerry Ford, and Jerry Ford does not deserve the honor. I did some checking. John Paul Jones is already taken. However Thomas Jefferson is available since the decommissioning of SSBN 618.

If Republicans insist on naming an aircraft carrier after a mediocre President, who was not even elected, who did little to distinguish himself in the service of America while President (he did not even know Eastern Europe was dominated by the USSR during his term), then let them settle on doing "the dirty deed" after the class is named.

The naming of major warships after recent politicians has gone too far. We already have the Ronald Reagan, the Jimmy Carter and the George H W Bush. Stick to naming highways and bridges after recent politicos if you want, but limit the names of warships to American heroes that every American can agree upon.

CVN-78 needs to be named after someone who's name rings louder then Jerry Ford. Thomas Jefferson gets my vote.

Global Warming and Polar Bears

(See here) a Washington Post piece written by Juliet Eilperin that reports the George Dubyah Bush administration is proposing listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Did anyone else feel the earthquake? I could have sworn I felt the earth move under my feet as I read Juliet's piece.

No big deal? Think about it, what steps have been taken to protect the Spotted Owl species in America's Northwest because it is listed as endangered?

Why do I bring up the comparison to the Spotted Owl? For a number of reasons. (See here) where Don Libby gives a fairly comprehensive yet condensed summation of what is at stake. As Don puts it:

The Spotted Owl is what ecologists call an "indicator species" or an "umbrella species": since this species occupies a niche that fairly high-up in the food chain, it is a good measure of what is happening to all the species below it in the whole ecosystem. When biologists say "the Spotted Owl is threatened" they mean the whole ecosystem that makes up the Spotted Owl's habitat is threatened. Since the law does not recognize "endangered ecosystems" but only recognizes "endangered species," a single species must be demonstrably threatened in order to take legal action to preserve it.

The polar bear is also high up the food chain, and the only thing that is going to save it in its natural environment is to save its ecosystem. The Dubyah administration is going to be handing ammunition to the environmentalists to be used in the courts to force something be done about global warming. Think about the Spotted Owl. The entire timber industry in the Northwest has been forced to change how it conducts business (and the timber industry might say nearly run them totally out of business) due to the need to protect the Spotted Owl.

My guess is there is going to be a lot of pressure, both public and behind the scenes, to get the Dubyah administration to withdraw this proposal. The WP piece indicates the only reason this step is being taken, at least at this moment in time, is in order to meet the deadline of a legal settlement.

Personally, I think it is rather doubtful that much can be done to save the polar bear. Even if mankind as a whole makes an honest and real attempt to roll back global warming due to greenhouse gases, the polar ice is going to continue to melt for the foreseeable future and the polar ecosystem is going to change dramatically.

However, perhaps if real action is taken, some remnants of supporting habitat might be saved for the polar bear. It will indeed be incredible if this action turned out to be "the straw that broke the camels back" and forced US society to change to alter global warming.

I am giving this listing too much importance? Think about it. Environmentalists are going to be willing to take corporations to court with donated legal expertise and unlimited donated funding from those who wish to "save the world" as well as the poor polar bear. Corporate enterprises are going to have to factor in the expense of endless legal action if they do not take steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Many are going to come to the conclusion that in the long run it will be cheaper to start doing something, start doing enough to keep the environmentalists placated then it will be to fight it out in the courts.

As I said, this morning I could almost swear I felt the earth move under my feet. It might have been my imagination or it might have been the real thing. We'll have to wait and see if the corporate business interests prove capable of influencing the Dubyah administration to shelve the proposal or not.

Stock tip: Might not be a bad time to put money into interests that have strong positions in renewable or at least greenhouse gas friendly energy sources. My understanding is that many of these interests have already been run up in price, however they still will be apt to benefit from this occurrence. It might not be a bad time to go short on the electrical generating corporations that made decisions to invest large sums in new electrical capacity based on old style, coal fired, steam generating plants. Even if the proposal on polar bears is swept under the rug, the public awareness generated by the proposal is apt to make these good investment steps in the long term.

Satellite Radio

A couple months ago, I finally made the jump to satellite radio. I had been waiting for prices to come down and when equipment prices hit rock bottom, I made the leap.

One rather humorous note. All the "good deals" were sold out, so I ended up paying a rather (for me) high price for the equipment anyway.

Which of the two services (XM and Sirius) did I choose? No contest. Sirius, in my opinion, by far offers the better value. Now I wish to qualify my statement about best value. I am a serious talk radio junkie as well as being a sports fan. I also have only a narrowly focused interest in music.

First a plug, the one I came up with on my own (and I am left wondering why the marketing boys and girls at Sirius have not come up with this on their own): Sirius radio for Serious radio listeners!

Sirius has two channels of National Public Radio. Sure, XM has a Public Radio channel and has Bob Edwards on the weekend, however it does not contain NPR and as far as I am concerned, NPR is the caviar of talk radio. Now NPR is a little bit left of center, so I do appreciate that Sirius has two channels devoted to the FOX network, FOX news and FOX talk, so I can get my fix of "hearing the other side" there.

I do wish to point out that while I now spend most of my time listening to Sirius, principally because I am lazy, I am still motivated to scan the broadcast band on occasion. While Sirius has two channels of NPR, they do not include NPR's "All Things Considered" or "Morning Edition" programs. I am hopeful that at some point these programs are included in the content Sirius offers. Until then, when the time of day comes for them to be broadcast, and I am in an area apt to have an Public Radio outlet in the market, I often turn off my satellite radio and commence scanning the broadcast band. I also am often motivated to search for an American Family Radio broadcast so that I can hear Dr Dobson's group's take on news events. While Sirius does have a channel labeled "Christian Talk" I find its content to be extremely mediocre.

As for my music interests, as I said it is very narrow. I spend most of my listening time with talk radio, however at the end of the day, when I am trying to wind down, I tune in to one of the Christian music channels. I prefer the "Spirit" channel, though on occasion tune in to "Revolution". I still prefer the playlist contained on the commercially available, listener supported KLOVE network (with honorable mention going to SPIRIT ONE) however Sirius's Spirit channel is not bad. No matter where I stop anywhere in the nation for the night, I can find the Sirius Spirit channel and get my dose of music praising Jesus.

As for sports coverage, Sirius leads hands down. Sirius has the NFL, NBA, and NHL. Starting January 1st, 2007 Sirius will be the outlet for NASCAR, having wrestled this coverage away from XM. Sure I was pissed off during the World Series when I could not even tune in to listen to my St Louis Cardinals whoop up on the Detroit Tigers (since XM has baseball), however I am impressed with my ability to tune in to coverage of the play-by-play of my Washington Redskins. During the games, I find myself shifting back and forth to hear about coverage of critical plays from both the Redskins' broadcast network and the network of their opponents since both are offered simultaneously.

As for my equipment recommendations? I would advise people to try and get a satellite ready radio for their truck or automobile. If you have a broadcast radio that is satellite ready, you can hook up your satellite radio receiver by wire and avoid a tremendous amount of aggravation. However if you do not have a satellite ready broadcast radio you need to shop carefully for your satellite radio that will rebroadcast to the FM dial. I have heard that some of the new "bargain" satellite radios are limited in the number of frequencies they have available. I have heard that some are restricted to a single frequency. This could be a major problem depending on which part of the country you are in. If you happen to be passing through a commercial market that contains a strong broadcast station on that frequency, the interference from the broadcast station will make it intolerable to listen to your satellite signal. This problem will be most common in markets with a crowded broadcast spectrum such as most of the major metropolitan areas. If your satellite receiver has a broad spectrum of frequencies to rebroadcast to (like mine does) you should be able to find a clear channel. However if your selection of frequencies is limited you are going to be annoyed. You're better off spending the few extra dollars necessary to increase the availability of rebroadcast frequency options.

That is my take on satellite radio. From my understanding, satellite radio has not won wide scale acceptance within the consumer market. Satellite radio, as a "must have", is limited to those such as truck drivers and travelling salesmen who frequently travel. There are rumors that XM and Sirius might merge. The market is broad enough to support one service, however it might be too limited for two competing outlets to remain profitable.

Palestinian Refugees

(See here) an israelinsider piece that seeks to describe all Palestinian refugees as willingly abandoning their homes during the 1948 conflict that brought about the existence of the state of Israel. There is some truth in what they communicate, however, the Israeli forces are not bereft of fault in what happened.

(See here) a description of Israeli actions in the 1948 war. Seems the Israeli forces did not completely engage in purity of arms during the struggle. I will critique this account as also being far too one sided. The account described in the israelinsider really did happen. Arabs were encouraged to get out of the way of the invading Arab armies. The Arab armies were going to drive the Jews into the sea.

However not all the Arabs in Palestine followed the call to evacuate, and Israeli forces were all too willing to force those who did not flee willingly to flee at the point of a bayonet.

Which account will you believe? Is it a case of black and white? Or, as often is the case, are there shades of grey that must be dealt with?

I am all too willing to condemn the actions of suicide bombers. However I understand that the cause of these suicide bombers is not without merit. Efforts by those such as the publisher of israelinsider at revisionist history do not serve them well.

Much blame can be laid at the feet of the enemies of Israel. However, it is not as if Israel is blameless herself.

Even today, Israeli right wing extremists seek to exert their will because they think they are "God's Chosen People". They have a right to the land because it was promised to them by God and the Palestinians have no right to this same land.

Of course Hamas is no better. They claim even the land within the "green line". They think the existence of Israel in any fashion is an abomination. Once land is conquered by Islam it is forever Islamic. Compromise is not an option.

Do you see what we as an American People face in the Middle East? We face extremists unwilling to compromise on the basis of religion. God tells them to kill their opponents. They can get into heaven not "despite" the fact they killed, but "because" they killed.

How do we achieve peace in the Middle East? First we "Christians" stop being hypocrates. We stop allowing Orthodox Jews to lead us down the path of hypocrisy. Clear enough?

Perhaps once we stop "allowing" the Jews in Israel the right to be "correct" due to religion, the Palestinians might be willing to lay aside their religion as well for the sake of that which is reasonable. However, as long as we are unreasonable, I do not think it is wrong for them to be unreasonable.

Suicide bombers are wrong. It is never OK to kill in the name of God. However, pay attention to what Peace Now says the Orthodox Jews do in the name of God.

Orthodox Jews will describe the Jewish members of Peace Now as "self hating Jews". I will describe myself as loving the Jews who belong to Peace Now and hating the damn Jews who seek to engage in a holocaust against Moslems. I do not hate all Jews, I only hate the evil ones.

Israel has a right to exist, but so does Palestine.

Go Puny

When it comes to Iraq, it seems there are three options being considered. I have heard these options described as "Go big", "Go long" and "Go home".

My understanding of how these options are being considered follows:

Go big: Increase the number of troops involved in the Iraq occupation so as to quickly bring about a favorable outcome.

Go long: Decrease the number of troops involved in the Iraq so as to enable a long term involvement in the occupation of Iraq and hopefully bring about a favorable outcome.

Go home: Give up and just bring the troops home.

Now for my understanding of what George Dubyah Bush is leaning towards:

Seems Dubyah is leaning towards "Go big". He knows that if the occupation is not successful by the end of his term, that the next President is going to find a way to extricate us from the occupation. The only option he has to save his legacy is to throw more fuel into the fire and hope in the two years he has left, something good will come of it. "Go long" is not going to happen, so the only real two options he has are "Go big" and "Go home". "Go home" would force him to admit mistake and failure, and he is not going to do that, so "Go big" is what we are going to see.

Now as I see it:

Dubyah's vision of "Go big" I describe as being "Go puny". The effort required to obtain Dubyah's definition of victory is not going to happen with the "surge" of a few thousand troops for a limited period of time. In reality, "Go massive" is what would be required to obtain victory. George Dubyah Bush does not possess the leadership qualities needed to lead the American People and the world community into the effort required for "Go massive" so we are going to end up with "Go puny". We are going to settle for a short term increase of a few thousand troops in Iraq. We are going to throw more kindling into the fire and the result is not going to last any longer then kindling in the fireplace.

Dubyah thought he might obtain favorable public support and opinion by replacing Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. However in my opinion this is like cutting off your little finger when your whole hand suffers from cancer. Donald never took any action without it being approved by Dubyah. The fault does not lie with Donald Rumsfeld, the buck stops in the Oval Office.

America should never have engaged herself in the War in Iraq. The same fool who got us involved is now going to make the decisions on how to bring about the best outcome now that we are engaged. Did the damn fool suddenly become a wise man? I think not.