Climate Change Conference Thus Far

This week's UN conference in Denmark has thus far proven to be more grueling than anticipated, demonstrating a distinct distrust of the United States by the international community and its lack of commitment to previous efforts at reigning in global warming; with President Obama arriving in Copenhagen tomorrow, those concerns should be put to rest. However, the divide between developed and developing countries, between the rich and the poor, has also defined the summit and its lack of progress up to now.

Regardless of the good intentions of any nation, funding is the variable necessary to make meaningful pledges. Without economic means, countries are unable to fund research into new technologies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to implement the changes any research already suggests. Furthermore, those countries that are developing are focusing more attention on their industrialization, becoming a part of the global trade community, and increasing internal wealth and development (as one official put it, it's difficult to choose between schools and hospitals and climate change pledges when money is scare in the developing world).

And pledges that have already been made, as a leaked document suggests, may not be enough to slow global warming within the 2C degree aimed for; in fact, projections that incorporate current pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions indicate a rise in the global temperature of 3C/5.4F.

However, Hillary Clinton has promised that the United States is willing to extend up to $100B to developing nations in order to aid in efforts at controlling and reducing emissions. The Senate demands transparency from those that would receive US dollars, and thus far it is China that is most resistant to this stipulation (surprise!).

And there is reason to be optimistic, as developing countries maintain high expectations for developed countries because they are in the best position to lead the way toward meaningful pledges and following through on them. However, the offer by the United States to aid other nations in developing climate change initiatives makes me wonder about the potential for a future international welfare system. Crazy liberal alert! Perhaps a future post on that.

GOLD!!!

December 3rd Gold hit an all time high of over $1215 per ounce. Such a high price clearly suggests that the world is going to end tomorrow so no point getting up in the morning. Well, maybe it isn't really that bad, but it is important to understand why the prices are going where they are. Gold is used in 2 primary ways. First it is used as a commodity to make jewelry and other physical things like super conductive wires in microchips. So the price of gold as a commodity goes up during times when companies are making more circuit boards or during Indian Wedding Season (One of the Largest Seasonal changes in Gold Demand). Gold is also used as global store of value in order to hedge against changes in the value of fiat currencies like the US Dollar. The dollar can change in value for any number of reasons but at the heart of the change in value is a change of what people are willing to pay on a micro basis. Once people think the price of anything will go up they are willing to pay more and visa-versa. So attitudes and the conventional wisdom do effect prices in the short and medium run.

So the change in the price of gold does not have a base in a change in the supply or demand of the commodity but in the fact that the US Dollar is weakening and the worry surrounding these changes make Gold more valuable as a store of value. So the real problem is that people are not sure about the direction America is heading. With the uncertainty in the financial and health sectors along with increased regulation in the manufacturing sector and an over all lack of a vision for the country there is little wonder why the dollar may no longer be the worlds sole reserve currency.

So what can be done? In order to get the deficit under control the best solution is to cut entitlement spending and increase taxes. I believe that Americans expect way to much from our government and you may disagree, but giving more and expecting less entitlements would certainly make the country better off. But this is an interesting gap between micro and macro economics because without some aspect of altruism the country will not be able to take out some of the risk associated with dollar moves. The Kennedy Line Rings true to me, ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

Intelligent Design...... Not so intelligent

In the course of American history the teaching of the theory of evolution has been a forum for heated discussion. In the historic Supreme Court case Epperson v Arkansas the court ruled that it is unconstitutional to forbid the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools. This ruling nullified laws in several states which forbade the teachings. Creationists, determined to enhance their religious agenda, have created a new “theory.” This theory is called intelligent design and once again the issue has penetrated the scientific world. The theory of intelligent design recognizes an “intelligent agent” who designed all things on earth. This premise has no scientific fact, and the arguments created by its advocates are logically unsound.
Science, as defined by Webster Dictionary, is the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. Given that definition, teaching intelligent design in a science class is inherently against the basic principles of science. Scientific theories can be tested. The theory of evolution is a theory that can be tested. In tests in the 1990s scientists found that changes in DNA Sequences lead to a species to evolve. For example, when a group of white moths was placed in an environment not conducive to its survival the white moths DNA changed so that the moth would turn black. In a study in 2003, scientists reversed evolution in yeasts. By being able to control the evolutionary process scientists have proven, in at least some way, that the theory of evolution has merit.
On the contrary, the theory of intelligent design is not testable. One major component of a scientific theory is that it must be able to go through the scientific method. The scientific method is defined by Webster’s dictionary as principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Intelligent design is not able to go through this process. What would the control group be? How could one test a theory that cannot provide evidence that a “higher being” exists? There are seven steps in the scientific method. The fourth step is: test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. How would one do this when testing intelligent design? Pray?
Yet another problem with intelligent design is that its arguments are loaded with logical fallacies. The principles of intelligent design is in itself question begging. When one states that there is an “intelligent agent” it does not answer the question of who is that agent, where is that agent? The inductive reasoning used to come to the conclusion of intelligent design is fallacious. Intelligent design advocates also use other fallacies such as: appeals to belief, appeals to common practice, bandwagon fallacies, and poisoning the well fallacies. For example, when arguing in support of intelligent design many will say most people believe in a higher power. This is an example of an appeal to common practice, an appeal to belief, and a bandwagon fallacy. Advocates also “poison the well” when they attack scientists who do not believe in a higher power and try to damage their character. The arguments in favor of intelligent design are illogical.
Should Intelligent design be taught in a science classroom with Darwin’s theory of evolution. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Intelligent design should be offered as an elective in schools. This is an attractive way to add skepticism to theories of science. If intelligent design were to be taught as an optional elective rather than a requirement in a science class; it would be perfectly reasonable to teach this in any school. It is inherently wrong to force into science classes the agendas of neo-conservative Christian fundamentalists.

Cory's Note

One of our readers (Cory) asked if he could post an article. Being an inclusive group we of course were happy to include other comments! Here is Cory's note.

I'll preface this post with an quick explanation. This is my informal call to arms. I am curious what other feel about this idea in principle and execution and would love to talk further on the subject at both levels.

We are on a precipice of government. As the two sides of traditional government become more factionalized and polarized a growing gap begins to form. So we have entered a stage where both sides continue to pluck elections from this gap without a strong grasp on it. In a chicken or the egg type scenario, politics have also become simplified nowadays for the majority of America.. You have a position, they have an opposing position. The political landscape has been carved up with buzzwords and controversial issues. With this as our base, we have two options. Continue to struggle within this framework to make the best of what we have or decide that the status quo will just not do anymore. Option one, we can try to refocus the current parties with invigorated youth and some change can and has happened. You cannot doubt that the Obama election was on the backs of motivated youth and the idea of hope. However, his election seems more like a blip on the screen than a trend especially if this year’s election results carry over to the mid-terms as many predict. Furthermore, the ideals that Obama ran on have not become the platform of the Democrats and don’t look like they will. So we are left with the other option, move outside the status quo. Estimates have the 2008 population of around 63 million people between the ages of 15 and 30. Obama won with 66 million votes. Now obviously everyone of those 63 million won’t vote and if they did, the white house isn’t won on direct votes, but the sentiment of this is still there. The over 60 voting block, highly sought after and highly influencial is at 54 million estimate in 2008. Now obviously these are not registered voting numbers, but that is because I am talking about more than elections. I am also talking about public opinion, public sway, and control of the public dialogue. We are quickly inheriting the country. The good, the bad and everything in between. We can use the same tactics to solve new problems or we can come up with something new. Justin brings up a great point about a return to civic duty and virtue. We need not so much a return, but a 21st century interpretation of civic virtue and duty. How this happens and what it looks like we can soon to decide or let slip away. We exist in a world where everything is instant, everyone is connected, and everything can be known with one click, yet we are still fumbling to implement this to a full scale on the political front. How is it that the world seems more connected and informed about the happenings on TMZ than that off CNN? I see more about Tiger Wood’s 9 affairs, than the Nobel Prize winners and their speeches(Obama aside). So let’s take this ability of connectivity and flip it on its head. Connectivity is our solution to the 21st centuries problems. Sharing information, knowledge, ideas, and so much more, our generation can tackle what lies ahead. We just need to focus our connectivity towards the right things. Let’s for a moment, escape the labels of right wing, left wing, democrat, republican, independent and apply the label Invested in America’s Future. Let’s take politics away from the issues and bring it back to doing what is right and best for the country. My idea is just that, a group of ideas. A place that promotes dialogue, connectivity, sharing, debate, and consensus. We were given a system of checks and balances not so one side could dominate for a while and then another, but so that only the truly good ideas would rise to the top, while all others fell to the way side. We are smart, well-educated, well-informed, and connected. This should be our charge and that is where we can succeed.

A Vote for Less Transparent Government

I know this is going to sound crazy but I long for the days when major decisions came out of smoke filled back rooms. Many of America's best decisions have come out of these smoke filled rooms like the selection of Lincoln to be the republican nominee for president. The reason smoke filled back rooms are so important is that they let our legislatures compromise. Without compromise we see complete deadlock like we are experiencing now.

The issue comes down to a more philosophical debate about the role our legislatures play once they are elected. Should our legislatures be delegates of the people or their trustees? Delegates respond directly to the will of their constituents. So what ever a majority of the people want a member to do they will do since they want to get their votes in the next election. If this were completely true it would be easy to determine how members would act. Simply take an opinion poll and you would know how they would act. However when a member of congress acts as a trustee they act as they themselves would without taking the peoples will on an issue directly into account. So by being elected the people chose the ideas he ran on so he should make his own best judgement on an issue.

The conventional wisdom is that as people have more oversight the members will take on more of a delegate roll which is good because the will of the people will be exercised. The problem is that members are so scared of alienating potential voters that they do not act. If we had more trust in our legislatures and did not exercise as much oversight members would be able to act more like trustees and get more done. If members couldn't be blamed for compromise to the same extent, they may be more apt to compromise.

While i do understand wanting our government to be accountable to its people like the founders wanted. I also think the founders would acknowledge that while they did not want to count solely on the altruism of members to make good decisions there must be some level of trust by the people in their government or the government wont survive.

What's at Stake in Copenhagen

While President Obama attends U.N. summit of on climate change in Copenhagen, it is becoming more and more apparent that the divided interests of Americans- between keeping their job or finding one, determining whom to trust with their money, and whether or not they can or should get a swine flu vaccination- are steering them away from concern for the long-term effects of greenhouse gases and global warming. Not only that, but certain global warming-deniers are creating a circus atmosphere in Washington, DC in what is being called "climategate."

After illegally obtaining emails and documents from a British research institute (UEACRU), deniers are not only ignoring the fact that they've broken the law, but are targeting climate scientists around the world who support global warming initiatives. As if this weren't enough of a faux scandal, they're even demanding thatAl Gore lose his Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth.

The reason the email leak has received so much attention is because the language of the emails, privately sent between scientists, suggests the fabrication of statistics--though it is being argued that the tone is being misconstrued and misinterpreted by individuals looking for an anti-environmental smear campaign platform.

However, the agency was responsible for the data that was included in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment that has served as the basis for most of the regulatory legislative proposals since its publication. Obviously, if there was legitimate concern that this body invented statistics, it would be a big problem. But this isn't the case. "Climategate" is just another red herring to distract and detract the global community from the real dangers of reckless pollution and greenhouse gases.

And it appears to be working, in conjunction with the overwhelming concern most Americans have for the economy. In an interview on NPR, Ed Maibach, Director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, had this to say:

I think there's two big things going on. Number one is the economy. It's been in shambles for quite some time now and psychologists tell us that there's such a thing as a limited pool of worry, finite pool of worry -we can only worry about so many things at any one time. And most people that I know are fairly worried about the economy, so it tends to have the effect of forcing their concern about other issues further from top of mind.

The second thing that's absolutely going on right now is this is a highly contested issue. There's a battle raging in Congress right now about passing climate legislation, and lots of people, lots of organizations are vying for the hearts and minds of the public to influence them in one direction or the other.

Out of Copenhagen, though, several options may emerge, similar to and different from the Kyoto summit in 1997. The world's most highly developed countries, United States included, didn't have to do much more than tacitly agree to pay attention to global warming after the Kyoto summit; the US Senate never even ratified the pact.

But President Obama is taking a more proactive approach using what is now being referred to as a "Pledge and Review" method. Obama may promise to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 17% (according to 2005 levels) by 2020, and other countries would make similar promises with individual timetables and goals. However, developing countries are resisting pressure to make their goals legally binding, and the US will not agree to a treaty that is not binding internationally.

It remains to be seen what will emerge from Copenhagen, but here's to hoping that "going green" isn't a passing fad, and that the global community will reassert responsibility for the long-term consequences of pollution and curb global warming.

South Dakota and Abortion

For the past few years the right wing in South Dakota has been attempting to outlaw abortion. While the attempts have mainly failed, the state continues to attempt to force a Supreme Court showdown on abortion.
There is no question that South Dakota’s law is unconstitutional. It disregards a constitutional right upheld by the Supreme Court seven times. In 1973 the constitutional right of privacy protecting a woman’s right to choose an abortion. South Dakota’s law strikes down a constitutional right and puts into jeopardy the system of which we live under.
There is a right to personal privacy in the Constitution. South Dakota’s law ignores constitutional precedent created and upheld by the Supreme Court, including the three key cases: Griswold V Connecticut in 1965, Roe V Wade in 1972, and Planned Parenthood V Casey in 1992. Griswold V Connecticut in 1965 was the first Supreme Court case to outline the right to privacy embodied in the Constitution. In it the Supreme Court decided that the guarantees in the Bill of rights embodied a right to privacy. The Supreme Court’s opinion asserts that the existence of a "right of privacy" is bolstered by the Ninth Amendment's protection of rights not detailed in the Constitution, and that the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause embodied those same rights. Furthermore, The Supreme Court held that the first, third, and fourth amendments also guarantee that right. The precedent set by Griswold alone is enough to declare South Dakota’s law unconstitutional.
In addition, the South Dakota legislature ignored Supreme Court precedent in Roe V Wade as well; a landmark Supreme Court decision that upheld a constitutional right to the same privacy rights as Griswold V Connecticut. In Roe, the Supreme Court held that the fourteenth amendment protected a right to privacy, and that the state had no vested interest in outlawing the termination of a pregnancy during the first trimester.
South Dakota ignored judicial precedent a third time when they disregarded the decision in Planned Parenthood V Casey in 1992; which once again upheld Roe, and ignored precedent another four times when the court upheld Roe in Akron V Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Bellotti V Baird, Hodgson V Minnesota, and Lambert V Wickland..
South Dakota’s reckless policy of ignoring Supreme Court decisions undermines judicial authority outlined in the constitution. The Supreme Court has the authority to review laws and declare them unconstitutional. South Dakota’s legislature dismisses judicial authority substantiated in article three sections one and two of the Constitution, which vests all judicial power in the Supreme Court. It also discounts the landmark case Marbury V Madison which holds that “the Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and that an act of legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” Marbury V Madison grants to the Supreme Court the power to review any act of legislature and determine if it is constitutional. By determining that the Constitution embodies a right to privacy including the right to reproductive freedom is not an example of the Supreme Court overstepping its power, that power is granted to it by the Constitution and the precedent of judicial review outlined in Marbury V Madison. South Dakota’s legislature is overstepping its power when it ignores Supreme Court Precedent; South Dakota’s law attacks a constitutional right upheld seven times by the Supreme Court and clearly violates the constitutional right to privacy.

The Administration's Season of Woe

Though perhaps not experiencing the worst week of publicity this holiday season, the Obama Administration is presently hitting more than a few bumps in the road since the House's passage of the Healthcare Omnibus Bill. Between the bill's stalling in the Senate, the kerfluffle over the security breach at the White House last week, the whispering in the press of ineffective governance, Afghanistan, and the ill-timed Climate Change summit in Copenhagen, and of course the economy, the luster of early 2009 for President Obama has appeared to wear off. Perhaps with expectations set so high, it would be impossible for any presidential administration to live up to them-- regardless, benefiting from Great Expectations, the reality is falling far short, even to much of the President's base. Gallup's tracking of his approval rating in office and on specific issues is beginning to approach what Rasmussen Reports' polls (using likely voters rather than registered) began to note late this summer, what I like to call the X of Woe: Initially high "strongly favorable" polling being replaced with a higher "strongly unfavorable" polling-- meaning more respondents strongly disapprove of the President's performance than strongly approve. Gallup, though not quite at the X, has the President hovering around 50%, implying his political capital is not quite what it once was.

Meanwhile, the retirement of 2 moderate Democrats in KS-3 and TN-8 districts, both GOP leaning in voting trends, have some analysts concerned that these may be the spearpoint of a cycle of Democratic retirements -- both these incumbents were fairly safe despite their conservative districts (Tenn 8 went for McCain by double digits and Kansas 3 is...well, in Kansas) and offer Republicans strong pick-up opportunities, if more blue dog Democrats begin to peel away after this session and as primaries approach, this could very much complicate legislative matters for the remainder of this Congressional term for other Democrats in moderate to conservative districts reading the tea-leaves-- well, beyond the Alan Grayson's of the world, anyway.

The Copenhagen Climate summit has been complicated by the growing scandal stemming from "Climategate E-mails" from East Anglia University, implying academic dishonesty, blackballing of skeptics, and generally very greaseball mechanizations by leading Climate Change advocates-- red meat for the Global warming skeptics, and generally ignored by the Big 3 networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) but oddly enough, not by Jon Stewart. The blowback over this growing issue will likely reflect on any global-warming related summits in the short term, and any agreements signed on to will be tainted...

Which getting to tainted, I come to my next mishap of this past week or so for the Administration, what must have been inevitable finally took place -- a Big Speech fell kind of flat. The final (after extended deliberation and declining poll numbers-- The President's approval rating on Afghanistan was down to 35%) decision and speech on the next aspect of the Afghan War took place at West Point on Tuesday. It did not go particularly well, judging by the fact that even Democratic strategists were expressing their discomfort with it. The plan itself, the 30,000 additional troops (not popular with the anti-war left) and the time-table (not popular with the hawks) was still received lukewarm by the middle. How the war will turn out, or even the President's confidence in its prosecution (he did not use the term Victory, once in reference to either it or Iraq-- preferring milestones for Iraq-- a war largely considered won. Even though his "audience" was one of West Point cadets and members of the Armed Service) is uncertain, and I will go over my view of Afghanistan in a subsequent post-- but regardless, it did not instill confidence in these policies.

So overall, it's been a rough week for the President and his agenda-- following a perceived fruitless trip to Asia. With new unemployment figures coming out tomorrow, the economy could provide further problems-- not aided by today's job summit that did not particularly focus on creating jobs. The initial optimism that greated Obama's assumption to the office appears to have waned, and if solid accomplishments and popular policies do not begin to appear shortly, the present powers in Washington will be in serious jeopardy. The Republicans will likely not need to continually harken back to Ronald Reagan to get back into the swing of things.

Riding the Economic Roller Coaster

This graph shows Monthly Mortgage reset rates for different types of adjustable rate mortgages. This graph is the reason why Banks have not been lending. This graph is the reason why the federal reserve activated the printing press in order to monetize the debt. Many people have heard about the sub prime mortgage crisis but another crisis of equal proportion could be near. Option adjustable mortgages are similar to sub prime mortgages in the fact that the borrower is paying low monthly payments because they are only paying for the interest on the mortgage without immediately paying for any of the principal. The resets are when the banks finally include payments of principal into the monthly loan payment. With higher payments and no down payment for something that is worth less, do we really believe that people are going to stay in their homes. In some cases people would have to be crazy to stay in their homes especially if they lived in Florida, Nevada, or California which have seen the largest decreases in house values. With up to 40 Billion dollars every month being lost in resets, and not all of the resets will file for foreclosure, but the option arms have a high foreclosure rate. So if you ask me if I think the stock market is going to be higher or lower in a year, this graph has my answer.