MySpace Crime Rings?

Okay I'm not going to go on and on about how MySpace is the most awful thing to exist.  But after reading this article

 (http://cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/22/driveway.shooting.ap/index.html)

and recalling a previous one (A 13 year old girl committed suicide after being targeted by an ex-best friend's mother with insulting MySpace messages.) I think that something has to be done.  Not necessarily that cybercop needs to shut this one down, but Internet stalking, or assaulting should be made into law (details decided upon by states).  That girl's family will not get any sort of compensation from the woman (who still lives on their street) because there is no such law in existence.  This man (yea he killed the boy and deserves a manslaughter conviction) would never have been in such a situation if the bogus MySpace allegations had been dealt with.  There is no reason to shut the website down (even if I hate it), but there needs to be well-known consequences to such actions, or these events will continue to occur (reported or not).

Sweet Munchausen

Have you ever felt real inspiration, the real glorious, intrepid glow of immaculate existence?  It almost clouds your mind, but only the unexposed believe that.  The facets that inspire never cloud the thoughts of its admirers, only stimulate, encourage, beckon more and more.  Squeeze more out of you until you are so dehydrated that all you can accomplish is lying still, panting and staring about the room in a daze.  A ravenous hunger for more, just as more is bring sucked out of you.  (Ask St. Theresa) Inspiration is a parasitic kind of relationship.  It hunts, it captures, it tortures, but Munchausen leaves you alone, naked, shivering and admiring.  Thirsting for more in a lust so uncontrollable it overpowers every silent virtue.  

Inspiration is a drug.  The most potent natural stimulant, depressant, and hallucinogen anyone can find.  It's addiction lasts beyond death, it's addiction leads to premature death, its addiction becomes your only survival.

Real inspiration is so sweet, none can withstand it, none are immune to it.  There are only those that are too dank, dim, and decrepit to recognize it. To harness it.

Society's Self-Esteem Crisis

Society causes low self-esteem, this hypothesis has been proven time after time.  I am not going to bore you about how models and magazines make girls (and guys) starve and purge until they are incapable of life, that has been said too many times before and is only one example of this problem.

The high demands set on today's youth gives way to a lack of confidence in even their most successful endeavors.  By setting performance standards--whether they be academic, athletic, or work-related--so high allowing only space for disaster.  Even if a kid continually succeeds, he becomes brainwashed into thinking nothing is ever good enough.  A minuses or even A's become counterfeit when he does not think something has improved.  This may seem like a good way to foster tangible improvements in individuals, but it is actually forcing youth to critique themselves so harshly that they can no longer appreciate, or even feel accomplishment, in their successes.  Nothing becomes good enough and everything becomes a competition to be won mainly by and against themselves. 

This floundering of the current youth may be what is leading to the early, "quarter", life crises.  Not only does this affect the individual in every aspect of his life--social, professional, or academic--but it will also eventually affect his own children--beginning a new cycle of high standards and low self-esteem.

Society must own up to the problems it perpetuates in today's (and tomorrow's) youth through its insistence on perfection in every aspect of one's life.  Tolerance and openness without judgement must be upheld and encouragement towards improvement and success must be used instead of the harsh rule of achievement.

GA Tech vs VA

Who do YOU think I root for??

US generals urge climate action

The US has refused to join an international treaty to cut emissionsFormer US military leaders have called on the Bush administration to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
In a report, they say global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts.
They appear to criticise President George W Bush's refusal to join an international treaty to cut emissions.
Among the 11 authors are ex-Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan and Mr Bush's ex-Mid-East peace envoy Anthony Zinni.
The report says the US "must become a more constructive partner" with other nations to fight global warming and deal with its consequences.
It warns that over the next 30 to 40 years, there will be conflicts over water resources, as well as increased instability resulting from rising sea levels and global warming-related refugees.
"The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts.
'Pay now - or later'
Writing in the report, Gen Zinni, a former commander of US Central Command, says: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."
He adds: "We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind.
"Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
The report was issued by a Virginia-based national security think-tank, The CNA Corporation, and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals.
Climate scientists broadly endorsed the report.
But Stanford scientist Terry Root, a joint author of this month's international scientific report on the effects of global warming on life on Earth, said its timescale might be too alarmist, as some of the predicted events - while likely to occur - could take longer than 30 years to happen.

From: http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F1%2Fhi%2Fworld%2Famericas%2F6557803.stm

---------------

I'm starting to think only one person in our government doesn't realize what's going on...who could that be?

Senate passes war spending bill with withdrawal deadline

Story Highlights• NEW: Senate passes $122 billion war spending bill with a withdrawal deadline• Senate bill sets a nonbinding goal of all combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008• House has OK'd bill with September '08 withdrawal deadline for combat troops• Bush renews veto threat for any legislation with timetable to withdraw troops


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.
In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
The vote came shortly after Bush invited all House Republicans to the White House to appear with him in a sort of pep rally to bolster his position in the continuing war policy fight.
"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded," Bush said, surrounded by Republicans on the North Portico, "and we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders." (Watch the president vow to veto any war spending bill with restrictions )
"We expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money," he said.
The Senate vote marked its boldest challenge yet to the administration's handling of a war, now in its fifth year, that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion. In a show of support for the president, most Republicans opposed the measure, unwilling to back a troop withdrawal schedule despite the conflict's widespread unpopularity.
"Surely this will embolden the enemy and it will not help our troops in any way," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama.
Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by two Republicans, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon, in voting for the measure. Opposed were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joseph Lieberman.
Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, and Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, did not vote.
The House, also run by Democrats, narrowly passed similar legislation last week. Party leaders seem determined that the final bill negotiated between the two chambers will demand some sort of timetable for winding down the war -- setting them on course for a veto showdown with the president. (View a comparison of the House and Senate war spending bills)
Reid: 'The American people wanted us to speak'
"We've spoken the words the American people wanted us to speak," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. "There must be a change of direction in the war in Iraq, the civil war in Iraq."
"The Senate and the House have held together and done what we've done," he told reporters. "It's now in his corner to do what he wants to do."
In a letter to Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid had said earlier: "This Congress is taking the responsible course and responding to needs that have been ignored by your administration and the prior Congress."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president respects the role of Congress -- and Congress should respect his.
"I think the founders of our nation had great foresight in realizing that it would be better to have one commander in chief managing a war, rather than 535 generals on Capitol Hill trying to do the same thing," she said. "They're mandating failure here."
The legislation represents the Senate's first, bold challenge of Bush's war policies since Democrats took control of Congress in January. With Senate rules allowing the minority party to insist on 60 votes to pass any bill and Democrats holding only a narrow majority, Reid previously had been unable to push through resolutions critical of the war.
This latest proposal was able to get through because Republicans said they didn't want to block an appropriations bill needed for the war.
"I think the sooner we can get this bill ... down to the president for veto, we can get serious about passing a bill that will get money to the troops," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.
Promised veto unlikely to be overridden
Democrats acknowledge they do not have enough support in Congress to override Bush's veto, but say they will continue to ratchet up the pressure until he changes course.
The looming showdown was reminiscent of the GOP-led fight with President Clinton over the 1996 budget, which caused a partial government shutdown that lasted 27 days. Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, the House speaker at the time, eventually relented but claimed victory because the bill represented a substantial savings over the previous year's spending.
Bush said the money is needed by mid-April or else the troops will begin to run out of money, but some Democrats say the real deadline is probably closer to June.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Defense Appropriations Committee Thursday that a delay in funding would have a chain reaction that could keep units in Iraq longer than planned.
If the bill is not passed by May 15, he said the Army will have to cut back on reserve training and equipment repairs, possibly delaying the formation of new Army units to relieve those deployed.
Shortly before the final vote, the Senate agreed 98-0 to add $1.5 billion for mine-resistant vehicles for Marines, and 93-0 to aid a program to track down convicted sex offenders.
Members also agreed 96-1 to prohibit funds in the bill to be used for spinach farmers. The vote was orchestrated by Republicans to target some of the extra spending added to the bill by Democrats; while the Senate bill didn't include any funding for spinach growers, the House measure contained $25 million.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

__________________________________________________________________

From CNN.com

All I have to say is Hallejuah! Bush better not screw up this one!

'Huge Win for Clean Air' in U.S. Supreme Court

From: Environmental Defense, republished on OneWorld

High Court Ruling Puts Pressure on Congress to Act on Global Warming

In Massachusetts vs. EPA , Court rules greenhouse gases are a pollutant

In separate case, Environmental Defense vs. Duke Energy, High Court also rules for environment

WASHINGTON (April 2, 2007) – The Supreme Court said today that carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases are a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and the U.S. government already has authority to regulate them. But the landmark ruling does not require the federal government to act, putting new pressure on Congress to write legislation that mandates federal action on global warming.

“It's important to remember the Court did not rule EPA has to take action on climate change, that’s why this is ultimately up to Congress. The Court did all it can, but if we’re really going to fix climate change, Congress has pass a cap on carbon pollution, and soon," said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp on the Massachusetts case.

The Environmental Protection Agency previous declared it did not have the power under the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming pollution. By a 5 to 4 margin the Court overruled that position, ordering the Agency to reconsider regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental Defense is urging Congress to put an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions and set the U.S. on the path to an 80 percent reduction from current levels by mid-century. Click here for more on this case.

In a second case, the Court ruled that industrial smokestacks and power plants must meet today's cost-effective pollution control standards when facilities are refurbished.

"This is a huge win for clean air. The Court ruled unanimously that companies have to use the latest cost effective technology to reduce pollution when they upgrade their plants. This is not a legal abstraction -- it means we'll have cleaner air and less childhood asthma,” said Krupp. “We're very proud of our work in this case -- it's going to make a real difference in people's lives." Click here for more on this case.

Environmental Defense was a plaintiff in both cases.

____________________________________________________________________

Well I'm glad someone in our government is finally doing something even if they just state the obvious. I actually have never seen so many obvious headlines recently: Global Warming will hurt the Tropics the Most, China and US must be the Leader in the Fight against Climate Change. Can anyone say ... duh?

Invisible Chlidren

In the spring of 2003, three guys from California, Jason Russell, Bobby Bailey, and Laren Poole, went to Africa in search of a story. They ended up in Uganda, and the story they found both disgusted and inspired them. A story where children are the weapons, and children are the victims. Children are being abducted before they even learn to read or write, and are forced to fight for a rebel army, killing others. Fear is an understatement. Thousands of children, called night commuters, commute to towns every night, with no adults, to sleep under hospitals, any place they can find safety in, and the conditions are horrible. The film these guys made exposes the 17 year long war that has been going on in Northern Uganda, and the invisible children it has created. They called it Invisible Children because most people, in countries like our own, ignore them, don't know they exist, or just don't care. All the people in Uganda want is peace in their country, and to stop living in fear. I made this group in hopes that I can get more people to CARE about what's going on in Uganda. If you merely watch the trailor for this film, I think you will be moved to HELP, at least I was. So I hope you guys will go to the website and order the video, or buy the bracelet, if you haven't already, and do all that you can to help, “Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.��? (Jason Russell)

Please don't forget about them.

Most of them are truly invisible to the rest of the world, and even to the rebels in their own country who deny their very existence, but we can change that.

and please don't say, "so? it's in Africa. that's like a whole other world." because it isn't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The top part was copied from a group on facebook...

After seeing this documentary which is both humorous and saddening, I can only be moved to let others watch it and to go to their site.. invisblechildren.com to find out ways to help their cause. The chlidren in the documentary seem adult like because they have already been through so much even though they are only around eight years old. It's one of those things you don't here about in the news everday. It's one of those things that almost makes you ashamed to be living the way you do. The way I'm going to get over my shame is to let more people now about it.

The documentary does oversimplfy the situation to a certain extent, but it is made for more youthful audiences. But then again, by leaving important questions unanswered it makes you look to find out more.

Dr. Jim Hansen’s Lecture on Climate Change

Dr. Hansen (Director, NASA Institute for Space Studies Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University) visited Washington DC Monday, February 26, 2007 to give a lecture on Climate Change at the National Press Club and American University. Author of, Dangerous Human Made Interference With Climate, his speech “Global Warming: Connecting the Dots from Causes to Solutions” delivered fascinating information about the state of our planet’s climate. Here are the main points of the speech, check it out.

The main points are:

A. Climate Sensitivity: What can be called the “Charney” or “fast feedback” climate sensitivity is now well-established: it is approximately 3C for doubled CO2 (forcing of 4 W/m2). However, some of the “boundary forcings” in this “Charney” definition are themselves variables or slow feedbacks. Indeed, the boundary forcings (surface albedo and long-lived GHGs) that are the principal mechanisms for climate change on the 100 ky time scales are in fact feedbacks on those time scales. The problem for humanity is that some of these “slow” feedbacks are not so slow – they may experience significant change this century and increase the climate response beyond that which is calculated by the typical model used in IPCC simulations. [Vegetation feedback – forests and shrubs are moving poleward, into regions that were tundra. Ice sheets are getting darker (wet) and before the century is out they could get smaller. Long-lived GHGs may provide a positive feedback, as in paleo experience, e.g., from methane hydrates.] So the effective climate sensitivity on the century and longer time scales is greater than the Charney sensitivity. We will begin to notice these additional feedbacks now, as we have entered the period of significant almost-monotonic global warming with isotherms moving poleward.

B. Dangerous Level. We do not know what long-term level of CO2 constitutes “dangerous human-made interference” (the level can be raised somewhat if we reduce other GHGs such as CH4), but it has become clear that it is not greater than about 450 ppm, and may be considerably lower. Given the fact that at least ~ one-quarter of fossil fuel CO2 emissions remains in the air “forever” (more than 500 years), and given the magnitude of the oil, gas, coal and unconventional fossil fuel reservoirs, it is follows that readily available oil and gas are going to take atmospheric CO2 to at least ~450 ppm. Thus even with responsible efforts to slow emissions, it is likely that atmospheric CO2 amounts will exceed the dangerous level, and we will need to find ways counteract the warming effect of these GHGs.

C. Responsibility. Despite the fact that China will soon exceed the U.S. in current CO2 emissions, the U.S. will continue to be primarily responsible for the human-caused climate change for many decades into the future. So, unless we begin to act responsibly, we will leave a tremendous moral burden, and perhaps a legal burden, for our children and grandchildren (and ourselves: some effects are going to be obvious soon enough). There is still time to keep GHGs at approximately or reasonably close to the “dangerous” boundary, but only if we get on a fundamentally different energy track within a decade, which requires that we begin to move “now”. If we do not stay within or close to that boundary, actions to avert irreversible effects (species extinctions, ice sheet disintegration/sea level rise) are not likely to be effective.

D. Geoengineering. I doubt the feasibility/desirability of geo-engineering suggestions such as the human volcano or space mirrors. If it proves necessary to counteract past emissions, why not a more “natural” method of drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere: negative-CO2 power plants that burn biofuels (derived, e.g., from cellulostic plants)? I like this partly because it has red states coming to the rescue of (mostly coastal) blue states*, and it will be a boon to red states and farmers. CO2 can be fail-safe sequestered under ocean sediments, where it is stable, in effect putting it back where it came from. *By the way, there are white states – I live in one (Pennsylvania) and grew up in one (Iowa), (others: Minnesota, Wisconsin…) – our vote counts.

E. Other Recommendations.
(1) Moratorium on building coal-fired power plants until they include sequestration. The public needs to enforce this temporarily until the people we elect are able to do the job. Excessive worry about power plants in other countries is unwarranted: these countries will soon begin to be realize that all old-technology coal-fired power plants eventually must be bulldozed.

(2) There must be a gradually rising price on carbon emissions and it must be complemented by increased technology investment, so that consumers have choices that allow them to reduce their carbon needs. Continued rise in the carbon tax must be certain, so businesses will invest and spur innovation. Positive long-term impacts on the economy, balance of payments, energy independence, national security… Presently the government provides only chicken feed for technology development, except for coal and nuclear power. I hope that government leaders who stand in front of renewable energy facilities, trying to claim credit, do not fool the public.

(3) Incentives (carbon price) have to be complemented with energy efficiency standards. There is enough potential in efficiency to take care of increased energy needs over the next decade and more, if the government gets behind efficiency standards. Instead our government is idiotically standing in court with those who resist standards for the sake of short-term profits. (Does this have anything to do with special interests and recommendation #5 below?). Structural barriers that inhibit efficiency (e.g., regulations that result in power companies making more money if they sell more electricity, rather then if they help reduce requirements) need to be addressed.

(4) Congress should ask the National Academy of Sciences to do a prompt study on the stability of ice sheets. This topic is, I believe, the prime driver of what constitutes a “dangerous” GHG level. The matter is too urgent to wait for the necessarily slow IPCC process. A study of this sort avoids the pressures for “scientific reticence” that can affect individuals. The Academy was established by Abraham Lincoln for purposes such as this.

(5) Public Affairs offices at the science agency headquarters should be staffed by non-political professionals. A democracy is based on the premise that the public is informed, honestly informed. What would our Founding Fathers think of the Offices of Propaganda that our executive branch has installed in these agencies? Is the public even aware that when a government scientist testifies to Congress his testimony must be approved and edited by the White House? Where does the authority for this come from? Is Congress ceding authority to a unitary executive? Is this the way our democracy was intended to work?
The greatest obstacle to solving the climate crisis is the “special interests”. As long as the coffers of our elected representatives can be filled by special interests, the latter will keep calling the tunes. Until there is true campaign finance reform, the special interests will continue to make a mockery of the central proposition of our democracy, that the commonest of men should have a vote equal in weight to that of the richest, most powerful citizen.

Finally, you might look into the activity at www.stepitup07.org organized by Bill McKibben. In coordination with Earth Day Network, they are planning nationwide rallies on April 14.

To view the charts and graphs from the presentation go to the link below:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dots_feb2007.ppt

£25 fridge gadget to slash greenhouse emissions

It is made of wax, is barely three inches across and comes in any colour you like, as long as it’s black. And it could save more greenhouse gas emissions than taxes on gas guzzling cars, low energy light bulbs and wind turbines on houses combined. It is the e-cube, and it is coming soon to a fridge near you.
Invented by British engineers, the £25 gadget significantly reduces the amount of energy used by fridges and freezers, which are estimated to consume about a fifth of all domestic electricity in the UK. If one was fitted to each of the 87 million refrigeration units in Britain, carbon dioxide emissions would fall by more than 2 million tonnes a year. more on ecube here:
http://environment.guardia
n.co.uk/climatechange/stor
y/0,,2036183,00.html


Also find more info at there site:
http://www.ecubedistributi
on.com/

Gore Urges Quick Action on Global Warming

Here’s a new New York Times article about the former vice president’s latest move to change US Congress’ actions. Check out the orginal here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gore.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore, a Democratic favorite for the presidency despite pronouncements that he's not running, spoke out on his signature issue Wednesday, warning of a ''true planetary emergency'' if Congress fails to act on global warming.

In a return he described as emotional, Gore testified before House panels that it is not too late to deal with climate change ''and we have everything we need to get started.'' By turns folksy and prescriptive, he urged the Democratic-controlled Congress to adopt an immediate freeze on greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Gore's return to Congress marked the first time he had been in the Capitol since January 2001 when he was the defeated Democratic nominee still presiding over the Senate in his role as vice president.

The former vice president, who 20 years ago held the first hearings in Congress on global warming, appeared before a joint hearing by two House committees. Later in the day, he was to testify before a Senate committee that includes the current Democratic front-runner for the nomination -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. Another member is its recent past chairman, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who calls global warming the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on Americans.

Several public opinion polls show Gore among the top three in the presidential race, although he has said he has no plans to seek the presidency again. In 2000, he won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush when the Supreme Court ruled for the Republican in the disputed election.

Polls consistently place Gore, the non-candidate, third behind Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama -- ahead of John Edwards and other declared candidates -- and indicate that much of his support comes from Democrats who would otherwise back the New York senator.

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avert a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants -- a major source of industrial carbon dioxide -- that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases.

He said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information. He also advocated tougher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks.

''There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis,'' he said. ''Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination.''

Gore gained international recognition with his Oscar-winning documentary, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' as perhaps the leading spokesman on dealing with global warming.

A former congressman and senator from Tennessee, Gore received a friendly reception from Democrats in Congress. As he spoke, his wife, Tipper, sat behind him, listening intently and laughing occasionally at lighter-hearted exchanges.

''Welcome back, welcome home,'' said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But several Republicans sharply questioned Gore's recommendations.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a former chairman of the House energy committee, questioned scientific evidence from Gore's popular film and said cutting carbon dioxide emissions would ''provide little benefit at a huge cost,'' particularly to major coal-producing and coal-burning states.

''A lot of those recommendations are more regulations and more taxation,'' said former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., though he added that he agrees with Gore that the scientific debate on climate change is over. ''I think we can find answers to use the coal energy, to use the natural gas we have.''

Gore said the climate issue should not be a partisan or political issue. He said he saw a limited role for nuclear power, which the Bush administration has promoted, because the plants are expensive to build and ''only come in one size: extra large.''

He rejected the contention by opponents of quick action on global warming that the United States should only impose mandatory controls on greenhouse gases if China, India and other rapidly developing nations agree to do the same.

''The best way and the only way to get China and India on board is for the U.S. to demonstrate real leadership,'' Gore said. ''As the world's largest economy and the greatest superpower, we are uniquely situated to tackle a problem of this magnitude,'' he said.

Gore favors a ''cap-and-trade'' program for the U.S. economy, not just specific sectors such as electricity or manufacturing, which would set an overall limit on warming emissions but allow industry to meet the target by trading pollution allowances.

Congress has nearly a dozen bills before it that call for reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

World Governments Adopting Bright Idea

From Australia to Russia, energy-efficient light bulbs are gaining political traction around the globe. Introduced decades ago, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are now being promoted and even mandated by governments concerned about rising energy costs and climate change. According to a 2006 International Energy Agency (IEA) report, lighting absorbs nearly one-fifth of global electricity generation, more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations and about the same amount produced from natural gas.

Australia will be the first country to ban the inefficient incandescent bulbs, with a complete phase out planned by 2009. “By that stage you simply won’t be able to buy incandescent lightbulbs, because they won’t meet the energy standard,” said environment minister Malcolm Turnbull. Australians are among the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters per capita, and the country has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. But severe drought in the country has led to rising environmental concern. According to Turnbull, the new law will reduce Australia’s current emissions by 800,000 tons by 2012 and will simultaneously cut household lighting costs 66 percent.

Lawmakers in California, New Jersey, the United Kingdom, Canada, and a growing number of other locales hope to follow Australia’s lead. Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty estimates that a ban of the energy-sucking incandescents would save enough energy to shut down one coal-fired power plant, according to the Toronto Globe and Mail. European bulb makers announced March 1 that they would work together to promote energy-efficient lighting to European consumers, including light emitting diodes, or LEDs, which can save even more energy than CFLs. The European Lamp Companies Federation, with includes General Electric, Siemens, and Royal Philips Electronics, said it plans to promote “public incentives to encourage consumers to purchase more efficient products and [set] performance standards that will eliminate the least efficient products from the market.”

Even Russia, a country with huge oil and gas reserves, is beginning to promote CFL bulbs, though “It’s all about conserving energy supplies and nothing to do with the environment,” according to Igor Bashmakov, head of the independent Center for Energy Efficiency. But the nationwide billboard campaign to promote energy-saving bulbs may not need a climate-change angle to be effective. As Moscow resident Nastya Meshkova observed, “It’s important to save energy, and if it’s going to save my energy bill of course I'll do it.” The IEA reports that a global switch to efficient lighting systems would cut the world’s electricity bill by nearly one-tenth.

This story was produced by Eye on Earth, a joint project of the Worldwatch Institute and the blue moon fund. View the complete archive of Eye on Earth stories, or contact Staff Writer Alana Herro at aherro [AT] worldwatch [DOT] org with your questions, comments, and story ideas.

'I Wish the U.S Government Had Asked': A Conversation with Baghdad

WASHINGTON, Mar 18 (OneWorld) - On the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Dr. Rashad Zidan, one of the country's leading women and civil society leaders, discusses sectarian divisions, the role of women, media portrayals, and much more.

The questions were submitted by readers of the OneWorld Web site throughout the month of February.

Jeffrey Allen: At the big anti-war protest in Washington DC last week I saw a sign that said "71% of Iraqi people want the U.S. to leave by September." Do you think that's true? What do most Iraqi people want the United States government to do?

Rashad Zidan: I wish the U.S government had asked most Iraqi people this question before the invasion. This number was taken from an American poll done in September 2006 and I think the percentage of Iraqis who feel this way is really greater. In Iraq, the population is about 25 million, and no more than 1 million supports the occupation. This war has destroyed the infrastructure of our country. It has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, producing huge numbers of widows and orphans with no one to take care of them. It has dissolved the Iraqi army, opening the border to all types of insurgents armed with heavy weapons, training criminals and militias who are above the law. In the face of the misery of our daily lives, what can ordinary Iraqi people say to the American occupiers?

Joe T.: Do you believe that the main problem is civil war? Or, is there something else going on that keeps security from becoming a reality in Iraq?

Rashad Zidan: From the first day of the occupation, we started hearing these strange words, such as majority, minority, ethnic division, sectarian war, etc. We did not understand them because this was not the way that we thought of our country. The occupation served to separate people, to divide them into groups and pit these groups against each other. First, weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda were given as excuses for invading our country. Now civil war is used as an excuse for the occupiers to stay.

Donna M.: How can the woman of Iraq claim to be keeping their families together, when the male population of the Middle East does not allow "HER" to have any say in family matters. It is and has always been a totally male dominated and controlled society. The women of Iraq do not have any freedom of doing or saying anything that goes against her husband. If a woman chose to leave a husband who was supporting insurgents, what would she do...is divorce an option for her, will she be allowed the custody of the children?

Rashad Zidan: Despite what you see in the American press, before the invasion Iraqi women had genuine equality before the law in our country. In Islamic jurisprudence, a woman is viewed with absolute equality to a man since a millennium and half. Unfortunately, in many Islamic countries this equality has not been respected. But in Iraq for decades well-educated women clearly understood their rights and worked hard to maintain them. In Iraq, we had very good national legislation in this respect, a fact that was highlighted by a UNDP study in 1994.

Since the beginning of the occupation and in the absence of national authority, new sources of authority have sprung up, such as tribal leaders, religious leaders, militias, etc. This has resulted in the deterioration of human rights in general and of women's rights in particular. We are trying hard now to make the Parliament reinstate the previous legislation concerning women's equality.

But beyond even the legal status of women, the chaos and violence that reign in Iraq right now because of the occupying forces, the militias, and the insurgents makes women's lives in our country miserable. We don't even have the freedom to walk out our doors with our children with the faith that we will make it home alive.

Dolphi D.: Dr. Zidan, it is gratifying to know that the society that you have founded works to help the distressed women of Iraq in the most basic way by providing healthcare, finance, education for children, literacy and development of income earning skills.

Do you face resistance from any segment of the society or from the authorities?

Your association with CODEPINK and your efforts to expose the conditions of Iraqi women to the public in the U.S. might be viewed with suspicion and distaste by many in Iraq. How is the response in the U.S. and how is the reaction of the cross-section of Iraqi press?

Most of the women in Iraq have lost their men, brothers and sons to ongoing wars, violence and political oppression spanning one full generation. They have seen the days of somewhat affluent living and comforts tapering down to utter penury, hardships and menial work. They have become used to lack of civic facilities, public utilities, healthcare and lack of lifesaving medicines. The intimate personal views of women who have gone through such harrowing experiences in a generation on matters like war, governance, society, women's role, religion and Western culture would be quite insightful. Can you shed some light on it?

Rashad Zidan: Through my organization we are trying hard to help as many people as we can. We do not engage in politics, but are concerned with the practical task of trying to improve the lives of widows and orphans. There are now more than 1.5 million widows created by this war and the authorities do not want the world to know about this horrifying fact so this creates some pressure on me not to speak up. As for working with CODEPINK, we have a message to spread and we are grateful to everyone who helps us get the word out. When I was in the United States last year I was amazed by the number of people who expressed their sympathy for the victims of this war.

Victoria O.: Rashad Zidan, I believe that whatever good left is in the world it is in people like you. So may you always be safe and protected by your angels.

I also wanted to address an issue that perplexes me. I am a student in the United States, I see that even in my "luxury" life the rich are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer in the world. I also understand that your people and innocent women and children are suffering and the government is slow to act, but fast to act on terrorist attacks. But, my real concern is the media. We know that the media is a very powerful tool to gain the attention of the world. After the 9/11 attack on the US, the whole world had a chance to see what devastating act it was. But as years came, they also saw the grievances and horrors of war.

I remember the images on television when I was a student, it was nighttime in Iraq and bombs flew strewn across your skies. The problem I have is that the media does not report on what could be, rather it reports on what horror it is. And what you do for Iraqi people is what could be. It is optimistic work. So why do you think the media in Iraq and in the US does not do more to report the injustices you say Iraq is facing? Why does it not report what good work you are doing? Why does the media overlook people as yourself doing justice to help the plight of women and instead choose to report on the number of soldiers killed and the reports on the trial of Saddam Hussein and his advisors?

Rashad Zidan: One of the major problems in the world is the lack of neutral, balanced, and trustworthy media. When I was in the United States last year I saw that some of the news stations report only what the government wants people to hear, not what is really happening.

The work I do shows the tragic part of the invasion: the widows, the orphans, the handicapped, and the victims of chemical weapons. If the people of the United States really saw what their government has done in Iraq, they would put a stop to this war. So it is too dangerous to show this on the evening news.

I also saw in the United States many people who protested against the war. They wanted everyone to know how many U.S. soldiers have died and how the people of Iraq are suffering. These people have big hearts, compassionate viewpoints, and human motivations.

Judith Baker: If the American Congress would follow your advice, what would you tell them to do?

Rashad Zidan: I would say to the American Congress, your war has destroyed my country. You need to repair what you have ruined and then leave us alone. Don't lie to your people. However you try to hide the truth, it will shine as a rising sun.

Gavin R.: It seems like most of the mass media-generated conversation within the United States about the United States-led coalition involvement in Iraq tends to be expressed and/or understood in very polarized, partisan terms, as if the situation is either all-bad/avoidable or generally worthwhile/unavoidable in theory, if admittedly problematic in execution. There seems to be a consensus that the results so far are not as positive as originally anticipated, due, in part, to an unrealistic expectation regarding the response of the mass of the Iraqi people to "liberation" from Saddam's totalitarian regime.

There are frequent references in the media to the Iraqi people, generally represented as either victims of the struggle between coalition forces and the insurgents, and who fear the premature departure of the occupying forces, or nominal accessories to the insurgents by not standing up to or openly condemning the violence of the insurgents (who want the occupying forces to leave as soon as possible).

Is the Iraqi population as ideologically fragmented as the American population about this, or is there a consensus (one way or the other - or in some as-yet unarticulated other direction) about the fall of Saddam, the attempt to establish democracy, the attempt to assist in recreating schools and other infrastructure, etc?

Rashad Zidan: I can't tell you what all Iraqi people think. But I can tell you that even those who wanted to be rid of Saddam Hussein's regime are horrified by what our daily lives are like now. Effective and systematic state government has disappeared. What is left is the sectarian government supported by militias. There is no security, there is no safety, and there is certainly no democracy.

Melissa F.: I really admire your efforts and dedication. I hear so many different things regarding the war and it is sometimes difficult to understand what the people of Iraq do want and need. We get such limited information from the media that seems to cater more and more to one agenda or another.

The US has had a history of pulling out and abandoning ship and leaving people in desperate circumstances. Politics aside, what concerns me is when people here in America are led to believe that all of the people "over there" hate and want to harm us. I think this is such a dangerous belief and one that has been sold to them over time. When we see things as black and white we overlook that while women do need help with education, healthcare and economically (especially after losing husbands and family), they are not unhappy with their culture in general and that as human beings, we all want the very same things.

I am a photographer that really believes images have a way of expressing emotion and stories that help people to understand. I have done a lot of work looking at rituals and religions of different cultures in an effort to show how similar we all are and that other beliefs are no threat to anyone. I would like to focus more on women's issues and am often disturbed by the belief that all women have it bad because they are from a Muslim culture which I find far from the truth. I would like to see greater understanding and an embracing of our differences rather than a fear of them. I would really like to work on some stories about women that are making a difference and have the ability to show the reality of the hardships being faced as well as what is important to them about their culture.

From what I can tell, the Iraqi people would like to know when control and responsibility of their own country will be returned to them while knowing that they will be supported through this transition. Please advise of any stories or opportunities that may provide an opportunity to show the people of America what the Iraqi people would like them to understand about their culture and their current hardships.

I know I found the Muslim culture to be very peaceful, welcoming and kind. I would like others to experience this and be able to look at what crises are being faced without shutting down to the fact that we all experience trauma and heartbreak in much the same way.

Rashad Zidan: Last year after I returned from the US, I was explaining in a meeting sponsored by my society about some of the special events I came across during my trip. One of them was the story of two American parents who lost their son in the war. I met them in North Carolina. After the meeting, one of the other Iraqi women in our group came to me and started to tell me how sorrowful she was for those parents. She added, "I can feel their pain because I also lost my son when the Americans bombed my house." We feel pain in the same way.

Gael M.: I think of you often and hope you and your family are well. I am so sad about what is happening in Baghdad. I hope your parents and brother are managing. We say everyday, to whomever will listen, that the troops must come home starting immediately. I know that Bush is saying the very opposite and this is a grave problem for us. We are trying everything we know to end the occupation. Most people, including generals, diplomats, elected officials, and Iraqis know Bush's policy is wrong. I hope you are telling everyone there that we are committed Americans who are working hard for peace in Iraq. Our numbers are growing and we are growing angrier. The members of the House have been presenting their positions on Iraq and their opinion about Bush's "surge" and sending more troops. Most are against it, but many want the war to continue. So we will continue our protests.

I send you and your family my very best wishes and look forward to the day when I will meet them.

Rashad Zidan: Sometimes human beings can't expect that major things come from small things. Thank you for the work that you do as a messenger for peace and truth. Thank you for your support and compassion for the people of Iraq. GOD BLESS YOU and All PEACE MAKERS.

Emanuel Patsurakis: Hi, I would like to ask you what kind of problems women face in Iraq and if those problems are found in every region of the country. Are those problems provoked by the conflict or they have existed prior to the US occupation? In your opinion, what should be done in Iraq in order to better deal with problems that affect social groups like children and women under the current situation? What do you think would be the consequences of a US withdrawal from the country for Iraqi women and children? Keep up the good work.

Rashad Zidan: I believe that the occupation is the main source of the violence. Ending the occupation by setting a timetable for withdrawal will eventually help stop the violence. We also need fair compensation for those affected by military operations: widows, orphans, the handicapped, workers, farmers, previous militants, etc. This kind of assistance will absorb hate and violence. We need a quick, clean and transparent rebuilding of our infrastructure. We need a balanced national reconciliation process with the full respect of the law for all. And one final point: there should be an education program in the United States for all children to teach them to respect other religions and peoples so this kind of war doesn't happen again.

Katie Gresham: First of all I have to let you know how much of an inspiration you are to women and youth worldwide. Not everyone in a war torn country will be able to pick up pieces of optimism and hope to create an organization as wonderful as yours successfully.

Many college students in the United States are against the escalation of the war and even more are upset by the horrible effects of war found in Iraq. How can college students, who may not be able to donate, help your effort? What advice would you give to a college student in an influential country, like the US, in order to incite change in their country's policy? I do not believe that a lack of passion is the problem, simply a lack of knowledge on how to help and enough optimism to think that one can make a difference.

Thank you for giving today's youth an example to follow and work towards.

Rashad Zidan: My first advice is to read history to find the truth. The war in Iraq is not the first time the United States has caused this kind of destruction. Violence breeds violence. This "War on Terrorism" is only creating more terrorists.

Money is not the only kind of help that you can give. You can also offer advice, supporting words, and speaking to others. The prophet Mohammed said, "If you see something wrong, try to change it with your hands. If you can't, then try to change it with your words. If you can't remember in your mind that it is still wrong so you will never think it is right." This is an important lesson for your people to learn. "Treat others in the way you would like to be treated." Hate injustice, occupation, the killing of civilians that causes only blood and tears.

Alexandra B.: I am interested in your opinion of Irshad Manji and her book "The Trouble with Islam Today."

Rashad Zidan: Sorry I have no idea about this book. I would be very interested in reading it.

Lys Anzia: Dr. Zidan, thank you for taking my question I am currently putting a syndicate radio show together about today's women of the world and women's Islamic dress for WINGS - Women's International News Gathering Service. I know this may be a sensitive subject, but your place as a woman doctor in Iraqi society would bring great insight to a greater western education on this topic. If it would be alright could I ask you how you feel most of the women that you know in Iraq currently feel about wearing or not wearing the hijab? Thanks for any insight and/or feelings on this.

Rashad Zidan: There are many different ways of being a practicing Muslim. For myself, I have worn the hijab since I was in secondary school. This manner of dress places less emphasis on a woman's physical attributes and more on the work of her hands, her mind and her soul. The hijab did not represent a problem during my studies in college or during my work in different hospitals. It did not represent a problem when I got married, when I took my children to the playground, or when I drove my car. It was my choice. Since the start of the occupation illegal authorities within Iraq are trying to impose this way of dress on schoolgirls and women for religious reasons. I believe this is incorrect. Women should be able to choose what they wear and not forced to dress in a certain way.

From us.oneworld.net

unknown

As the thin shields rise into the blinding light, the dizzy, weak yet unpainful and unwanted clouds twist around capturing everything in their path. The light sears into an invisible target-uncontrolable, unstoppable. Every muscle, tendon, vein writhes with such force that the limbs seperate from the whole. It is unfathomable, unpredictable and furthermore it is unnoticable. A slight furrow of the brow on the outside, a storm so great it can destroy all things good on the inside. without warning, without purpose, but not without effect.

Fcuked up

This is a crazy fucked up world we live in and you never know when its going to run out. Its scary and hard. You would never believe the amount of things that people go through and when it happens to you, you'll never believe that you'll get through it. Life is the most ridiculous, indescribable thing i've ever come into contact with.. and if you don't see that yet.. you just wait. When you have to make the decision to be strong and cling on to one thread to get you through. You come out stronger than anyone you've known and stronger than you ever thought possible. Strength, time and adaptation. Who knew that natural things could make you evolve so much.

It feels impossible to live sometimes but after you clamp on and dont let yourself let go it ends up being on of the greatest things youve ever experienced. You end up stronger, and wiser. you end up braver and more able to weather the hard times. So cling to something. Mine was going to college.