A Memory of The 90's: Inspector Gadget

I will be starting a new little segment where I bring back some of my favorite memories from the 90's. Inspector Gadget was always one of my favorite cartoons growing up. I was always interested in Gadget's car and how it could transform into many shapes and vehicle-types depending on the situation. Take a look at this Youtube video:

The Defense of The Environment

Perhaps you've had a chance to view the new TV series Terra Nova, a fictitious show that follows a group of settlers going into the past to settle a prehistoric Earth. The frightening portion of the show is the depiction of Earth in the year 2149. There appears to be very little water, almost no plant life and air quality so poor that filtering masks are required to travel outside. While fictional, one is only left to ponder just how far fetched the idea truly is. Are humans the primary drivers of global warming and rising world temperatures or are we in the midst of a natural cycle experienced by Earth? The Committee on the Science of Climate Change (2001) responded to the question of "Are greenhouse gases causing climate change?" by writing:

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. The stated degree of confidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainty remains because of (1) the level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries, (2) the questionable ability of models to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that can be placed on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past millennium based on proxy evidence. Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years. Whether it is consistent with the change that would be expected in response to human activities is dependent upon what assumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols.

While it is agreed upon that there is much uncertainty surrounding the Earth's climate, most scientists are in agreement that the last twenty years have produced "particularly strong" observed warming events. One could assume these events coincide with the industrial rising of countries such as India and China where carbon monoxide levels are increasing at a troubling rate. The United States and other countries are also responsible with more than 18% of CO2 emissions occurring from America. Although one could argue that Earth may be in a natural warming cycle, it is undeniable that pollutants released by humans are growing at a rate that will be unsustainable for the planet if allowed to continue.

Republican candidate Rick Perry has gone on the record stating he believes that global warming is a "hoax" and that the climate has been changing "ever since the Earth was formed". While true, Perry's response plays down the argument questioning the human aspect of the warming and seems to paint the issue as something fabricated by scientists eager to make a profit off the funding of new projects. Perry's chief rival for the nomination, Mitt Romney, has distanced himself from Perry's remarks by stating: "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that".

Perry's stance is troubling because it conveys (in my opinion) a refusal to even consider the idea as plausible and downplays the idea that humans and Americans should consider what they can do to reduce global warming. For a moment, let's consider that Americans reduce greenhouse emissions and make painful lifestyle changes throughout the country that result in lost jobs, elimination of useful and effective products and an increased responsibility by every citizen to take ownership of the problem. If those such as Perry are correct and the Earth is in a natural warming state or not in one at all, then dollars and livelihoods will be affected and measures put in place will be for naught, ineffective or unnecessary. While unfortunate, those outcomes would hardly seem to be painful to swallow.

On the other hand if humans had the ability to take measures to stop the trend and do nothing, the outcomes would be painful and terrifying. Humans would watch as biological diversity slowly dies away and an increasing number of species become extinct due to inability to adapt to climate change. Sea creatures such as plankton, a nutrient source for many creatures, could be affecting by rising sea temperatures causing uncertainty over the survival of much aquatic life. Humans would cope with decreasing water supplies, proliferation of deserts and arid land and world-wide competitions for ownership of water and natural resources supplies. Rising sea levels would affect coastal communities and islands, forcing millions of people to relocate or risk being swallowed by the sea. In short, images from movies such as The Day After Tomorrow, while extreme, could become a reality for many populations throughout the world.

If the costs of being proactive are small compared to the risks of inaction, why aren't many humans concerned with global warming? Is it apathy, ignorance, conflicting beliefs or some other viewpoint that creates lack of action? For me, the risks of doing nothing far outweigh the costs of doing something. For those opposed to the idea of global warming, an eventual validation will lead to a brief "I told you so" moment and a platform for political maneuvering. A validation of global warming coupled with inaction could lead to annihilation and a plot line from Terra Nova becoming reality.

Dear 16 Year Old Me

Dear sixteen year old Ryan. You're doing a good job, you're doing well in school and are going to get into a great college and do well in life because of all your hard work. You're going to move around a lot, explore new places and new people and generally have a great time. On May 14th, your 24th birthday, the doctor is going to call you up and tell you you've been diagnosed with malignant melanoma on the top of your back.

As you sit stunned, the doctor is going to tell you that you have a great chance for recovery but he's going to need to cut a hole into your back in order to get the cancer out. As you hang up the phone and linger in a daze, you'll think of all the times that you could of put on sunscreen, but were too busy or too in a rush to do it. You'll think about how thankful you are that your mother made you go to the dermatologist in the first place to get a checkup.

As you sit on the operating table holding back tears because the pain is so great, you'll think about all the ways that you could of prevented this, how you could have been more responsible with your skin. You'll think about how lucky you are that you caught it fast and how some other people won't be so lucky, because they don't know yet. You'll think about how posting a simple video might be able to spread the message of skin awareness better and how maybe, just maybe, you'll save someone's life.

The Tea Party Blues

A couple of posts ago, I ranted and raved (which I have a tendency to do) about how the Tea Party was fringe and non-relevant. Boy was I wrong (as happens from time to time, or all the time!). As I write this post, Christine O'Donnell has defeated Mike Castle in Delaware for the Republican Senate nomination. For those that don't know, I lived in Delaware for four years and Mike Castle is as much of a favorite son as you can be. What's even more shocking is that O'Donnell had the "perennial candidate" syndrome where she was always on the ballot for something but never seemed to get any traction.

To get back onto a little more of a philosophical note, I think 2010 has been the season of tea for several different reasons. For starters, the most involved and dedicated voters (especially in the primaries) are arguably the "hard-core" partisans and ideologues. For Republicans this means ultra-conservative partisans dominate the process, and for Democrats it's progressive and liberals. What has been different in this season is that Democrats have been more lenient to their moderate members while Republicans have brought the hammer down on them with force. For examples, I use Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who survived a left-wing primary challenger and Mike Castle/Lisa Murkowski, two arguably moderate Republicans who were shocked by tea party upstarts.

To summarize the conversation so far, one could argue that the Republican tent is getting smaller while the Democrat tent is for most purposes staying the same. Republicans are demanding ideological purity while it is common knowledge that most Americans are moderates/independents. Does this help the party? You can argue both sides effectively but you can't argue the fact that it makes Democrats more competitive in many races where they were all but written off. The larger question is what does it mean for the future of the Republican party? Does it move right and assimilate the tea party-ers into its base, or do two separate factions develop that threaten to virtually hand the races to Democrats?

I've been on the record saying that moderate candidates are good for America. This means people like Mike Castle, Scott Brown, Tom Kean, Claire McCaskill, John Warner and Jon Tester. You can argue that I've named all liberal politicians here, but if you check their voting records you will find that they buck their party more than most for the good of their constituents (and to save their hides!). It isn't about being Republican or Democrat, it is about being able to go against your party and vote for your people. You can call that a RINO if you want, but I call it a moderate.

High Fructose: Nah I'll Just Take Sugar

Are you eating something right now? If so, stop eating it and turn it around and look at the nutritional label on the back of the product. Does it say "High Fructose Corn Syrup" on the back? You may have just noticed it and are now thinking to yourself "WTF is this?!?!?!". HFCs are literally syrups from corn that have undergone processing to convert themselves into a sweetener used in commercial products. If the light bulb went off in your head and you are saying "ahh sugar!", turn the light bulb off, it is not sugar!!!

So what is the problem with HFCs? Well first off all, in lab tests, rodents that consumed HFCs gained more weight than rodents given just 10% sucrose with the same caloric content. Now, another light bulb should be going off in your head, haven't obesity rates been drastically increasing in western civilization over the last 20 years? While it is very much speculation, it does lead one to wonder whether there is correlation between the two figures.

An additional group of rodents were tested, this time being allowed to eat as much as they wanted (of an HFC based product) but being restricted to a sedentary lifestyle, which would emulate that of many Americans. Within just four weeks, the animals showed signs of Type-II Diabetes and and fatty liver disease. An obviously disturbing discovery.

So should you throw out all you products containing HFCs out the window? Probably not, but it is always good to be mindful of exactly what you are eating and how it can effect your body. My recommendation would be to seek out all natural products that use cane sugar or other naturally occurring sweeteners. While many sugars are not good for you at all, perhaps those with a naturally occurring makeup, may be better for you in the long run.

The "Tea Party": Fringe and Non-Relevant

The "Tea Party" movement has been dominating news lately after the passage of the health care reform bill. One might think the movement would be protesting the bill with candid well-thought argument and discussion in newspaper editorials, online blogs and through radio shows. However, the "Tea Party", already bordering on irrelevance and questionable effectiveness, has decided to set its members loose on Democratic representatives who voted for the health care bill.

What a bunch of cowards! The T.P movement will forever be branded as a fringe and radical collection of characters after their actions. If they want to bring about change in Washington, they should do it at the polls and not with their fists. What's worse is some in the movement such as Sarah Palin seem to think it's a good idea to fan the flames of hate.

My words of warning are to remember that the political winds can shift on a dime and those who spark conservative rage should be careful to avoid the liberal push-back that will inevitably follow. Those who were so quick to plant the bullseye on others, may eventually find themselves in the cross hairs of karma.

Republican Moderates: Good For the Nation

I've gone on the record as saying moderates are a good thing for both parties. For the Democratic Party you have Ben Nelson and to a lesser extent; Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman who occasionally cross party lines on legislation. For the Republicans, the only moderates seemingly left were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine. With Scott Brown's election, it seems being a moderate New England Republican is trendy again.

Some conservatives view this as a sellout on the part of Brown. I don't necessarily think that is the case. Brown's only responsibilities are to the Massachusetts people; if he believes a piece of legislation is something they'd support, he should be under no obligation to conservatives or "tea-party-nistas". Now if we could only wrangle up Lincoln Chafee to come back to the Senate and we would be set!

I think bipartisan legislation can only be accomplished through moderates who are willing to cross party lines for something they believe in. People like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid may make a lot of noise and show, but in the end, it is in the hands of moderates that true groundbreaking legislation rests.