Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Bush pushed a plan to fund research for hydrogen fuel cells, mainly to power vehicles. Finally, a President has stopped simply complaining about rising fuel costs and pollution and proposed a plan that would do something about it. Even if you aren’t an environmentalist, even if you think environmentalists are a little loony (as I do), you have to admit that some day this earth will run out of oil and other fossil fuels, or it will become so costly and dangerous to get at these fuel supplies that we effectively run out. Clearly, a new source of fuel is needed for our future.
But are hydrogen fuel cells the miraculous, pollution-free answer? I have one major concern that I feel needs to be researched before we start putting hydrogen fuel cells into millions of vehicles all over the world. (Please Note: I am not a climatologist nor am I a meteorologist. The theory I am about to present is based on my limited knowledge of atmospheric processes.) If you are aware how these fuel cells work, you know that the only byproduct is water. (Please see FuelCells.org for more information.) My concern is this: with moisture being exhausted by cars all over the world, the moisture content (or Dew Point) of the atmosphere would increase. At very least, this would cause more precipitation all over the world (check your Earth Science book from 8th grade for the Water Cycle). At worst, global warming would occur and get very severe. Since an excess of moisture would go into the atmosphere from these fuel cells, and it takes warmer air to hold more moisture, the atmosphere could warm up to compensate for the increase in moisture. Thus, we would have global warming from an “earth friendly” energy alternative. (Of course this would be an easy fix by containing all of the water produced by a fuel cell. And by containing all that water, you would never go thirsty on a road trip across the country.)
Hopefully during the research on the efficiency of these fuel cells, scientists will also research the negative aspects as well. This could become a great energy source as well as an endless one. Hydrogen can be harvested from water, so, in theory, you could fill up your car for a cross-country trip with your garden hose.
The Super Bowl just ended and the Raiders are making excuses. I just caught a little bit of an interview with Lincoln Kennedy. He claimed the Raiders came out flat because of “the coin toss and the ‘Star Spangled Banner’” and all of the pre-game activities. I have a little news for Mr. Kennedy, it was the freekin’ Super Bowl!!! There is more going on in a Super Bowl than the game. And, if he hadn’t been paying attention during his career, they do a coin toss and sing the National Anthem before every game! This is one reason some people hate certain teams. When they loose, they whine. When was the last time you saw a Super Bowl looser say, “Well, we just didn’t play well”? When was the last time one of the players on a loosing team admitted to making a mistake that was costly in the game? They just make excuses. “The sun was in my eyes.” “I was nervous playing in a big game.” “The coin toss confused me.” You people make millions to entertain us, quit making excuses and play the game. When you screw up, admit to it. Stop passing the buck.
Another thing I ponder every so often is why these professional athletes make so damn much money. I quit watching professional basketball when Kevin Garnett turned down a $100 million contract because it wasn’t enough money. No pro athlete deserves $100 million. You wonder why you can’t afford to bring your family to a basketball game anymore? Just look at the $100 million man. Who do you think pays his salary and the salaries of all the other multi-million dollar players? If anyone in this world deserves to get $100 million, it’s the person that cures AIDS or cancer. If someone cures multiple sclerosis, they should get $100 million. Some guy that can shoot a puck really hard or catch a ball really well does not deserve to earn $100 million for it. The person that winds up finding a cure for cancer does deserve $100 million.
So how does the general public get professional sports teams to lower their ticket prices? Simple, boycott the games. Is this realistic? I think it is possible. If we could give up major league professional sports for a year, it would make a major difference. Go to minor league games. Go see a play. Go hear a symphony. Play your own sports. But try sending a message to Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League. Stay away for one year. They’ll lower their prices, or they’ll completely loose their fans.
Mom, thanks for not aborting me. Most people that read this column on a daily basis are under 30 years old, and thus could have been aborted at any time. Say it to yourself, “Mom, thanks for not aborting me.” With tomorrow being the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I thought I’d tackle this issue that divides the country. I’m sure that many if not most of you will disagree with me, but what I want to do is tell you why I think abortion is so very wrong. There will be many more questions in this entry than answers. I don’t want to sit here and lecture you on the issue, but I do want to make people on both sides of the issue to think.
Pro-choice advocates always cry the phrase “it’s a woman’s right to choose.” After all, it’s a woman that caries a child, and a woman that gives birth. I feel it is much more complicated than this. Possibly the biggest debate within the abortion debate is “when does life begin?” Well, when does life begin? Does it begin at conception as pro-lifers argue? Is it at birth as the pro-choice crowd asserts? Can an argument be made that life doesn’t begin until one’s first memory? What is your oldest memory? How old were you? Two years old? Three? Would it be right to “abort” a two year old? Who are we to say when life begins? One thing I do know is this, if a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t have an abortion, nine months later, a child will be born. And no matter your side of the issue, abortion does end a life. It may be a life that has yet to begin, but it ends a life.
The issue of the “right of the woman” comes up all the time, but what about the right of the father? Last summer, a case was tried where a man got a woman pregnant, she wanted to abort the baby and he didn’t want it aborted. The court ruled that he had no right to that child. Why does a father not have any right to his unborn child? Last time I checked, it takes two people to make a child. And what of the right of that child? I believe the issue is so much more complex than a “right to choose.”
One thing that really bothers me a lot within this issue is the blatant hypocrisy of many of the pro-chiocers. They are the same people out protesting against war saying that too many innocent people will be killed. Yet in the same breath, they promote “abortion rights.” Why don’t they defend the innocent children that are being aborted daily? Is there anyone else on earth that is as defenseless as an unborn child?
Finally, I want you to think tonight if you had been aborted. Take a new perspective on things. Don’t just react to what you see on television. Think for yourself. Anything else I can say on this topic has already been said a million times. If any of you are at all interested in reading more, look at the links to the editorials I’ve included below.
David Kupelian at World Net Daily
Rod Dreher at National Review Online
Susan Jones at NewsMax.com
In yet another reason the United States should withdraw from the United Nations altogether, a Libyan was elected to head the UN Human Rights Commission today. (UN Body Selects Libyan Over US, Human Rights Pleas) This is the same United Nations that kicked the United States off that same commission not long ago. (US thrown off UN rights body) Apparently now Libya, with leader Muammar Gadaffi, is held to higher regard than the US on human rights. Even with UN sanctions still in effect over the 1988 Pan Am flight 103 bombing, they now have the top person on the Human Rights Commission.
Am I the only one that thinks the UN has gone completely insane? They constantly condemn Israel for defending herself from murderous bombers while pushing for the formation of a Palestinian state. Despite continued violations of various UN resolutions, they continue to allow Iraq to threaten the world, yet the United States is a threat because we choose to use land mines in some areas (such as the DMZ between North and South Korea) as a means of defense. When Yassir Arafat speaks at the UN, he gets an incredibly warm welcome, yet when George Bush or Tony Blair speak, they are given merely a courtesy applause. The UN wishes to dictate what goes on in our daily lives in the US. According to them, the US is evil because it allows private citizens to own guns. Is the US evil and the Palestinian Authority and Iraq now the civilized world? The moves the UN has made recently lead one to believe so.
I also want to revisit the Iraq situation again. Today, France said nothing justifies war with Iraq. (Nothing today justifies war on Iraq: France) Nothing? Not the continued human rights violations? Not the continuing threat of biological or chemical attack? There was a special on the History Channel last night on Saddam’s torture devises. For those of you that didn’t see the show, here are a few examples of what Saddam does to force compliance of Iraq’s citizens: there is a room with piping on the ceiling that randomly drops a single drop of (I believe it was) nitric acid from dozens of "heads" on whoever is in the room; he employs rapists to go around Iraq to rape women that he believes are against him or are the loved ones of those he believes are against him; he gouges out the eyes of people’s children and grandchildren to coerce compliance. Those are just a few examples. Why then are groups like Amnesty International calling George W. Bush a warmonger and Iraq a victim? Should they not stand up for the rights of the Iraqis and demand that Saddam be removed from power?
Many people wish to wait until Iraq “really does something wrong,” i.e. launching an attack. To those people: I urge you to start a fund today to compensate the families of those that will be lost in an attack by Iraq. We know its going to happen, it’s just a matter of time. Why should we wait until our soldiers or our allies’ soldiers are killed in an attack? I’ve said it before, we cannot appease Saddam. To me, exile is not an option, as it is with many leaders. Just because he’s in another country doesn’t mean he isn’t a threat. He must either be killed or brought before the world to answer for his crimes against the Iraqi people. We’ve made enough mistakes with him in the past. As a world community, we must understand that this time he must be taken out once and for all. I hate to say it but in this case, war is more than justified, it is necessary.
All over the world today people protested against possible military action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. They see no need to eliminate this great threat by going to war. They claim there is no call for war with Iraq. They wish for peace at all costs. “Iraq hasn’t done anything wrong,” they claim. “We cannot take preemptive action,” they cry. They argue that President Bush wants to go to war not to bring an extra element of peace to the region and to the world, but to control the oil supplies in Iraq. They ignore the countless violations of resolutions passed by the United Nations, the countless times Iraq has tried to kill American and British pilots enforcing the “no-fly” zones, and the countless millions of Iraqis that Saddam Hussein has killed because they disagreed with his policies. The anti-war protesters are blind to the truth of what is happening.
Ever since the end of what is now termed in the media as the “First Gulf War,” Iraq has violated U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution. They’ve fired on our aircraft and our allies’ aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone included in the resolution ending the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq has expelled weapons’ inspectors time and time again, another violation of U.N. resolutions. More and more evidence is being presented linking Iraq with terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. A war with Iraq would be an expansion of the war on terror that has been waged since 9-11. Should Iraq slip a chemical or biological agent to a terrorist organization, the consequences in an American city such as New York or Chicago would be devastating. It could make 9-11 look like a minor event.
Just having Iraq in violation of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War is enough evidence to go back in and mop things up. But they are a clear and present danger to the safety and stability to the world, yet another reason to change the regime in Baghdad. I feel that war is a horrible thing, but sometimes it is necessary. I posed this question to a friend one day that is opposed to war with Iraq, “If you could kill Hitler before he started World War II, knowing what he was about to do in World War II, would you kill him?” His answer startled me. He said “no” because “you never really know what someone is going to do.” Along with many others that want to appease Saddam, he wouldn’t have taken Hitler out of command before he started World War II, before he killed 6 Million Jews and other “undesirables.”
Sometimes, in order to secure peace for our future, wars must be fought. Strength must be displayed to deter people like Saddam Hussein from overrunning the world with their tyrannical, dictatorial regimes. Allowing these murderous madmen to continue to rule unchecked by the civilized world is not an option.
President Bush today came out against the policy of the University of Michigan in their acceptance practices in regard to minorities. There will soon be a case argued in front of the US Supreme Court regarding the Constitutionality of that system. Watching NBC Nightly News tonight (I’ve got to cite my sources, right?), they briefly explained the admission process. (You can also find more information at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75586,00.html.) On a 150 point scale, 20 points are automatically given to minority applicants, while a perfect SAT score gets one only 12 points on the scale.
I applaud President Bush for actually taking a stand on this issue. It would have been very easy for him to just sit around and let this case run its course without him offering his opinion. While he has yet to come out completely against affirmative action, I feel this is a step in the right direction to get the so called “reverse discrimination” issue in the forefront. If you’ve looked at my Things I Dislike page, you’ll notice I have “Affirmative Action” on there. There are many reasons I feel affirmative action today is absolutely abhorrent. Other than the fact that these programs mandate elevating one person over another based on race, these programs benefit two-thirds of the population (Source). Essentially, everyone benefits from one form of affirmative action or another except for me and three guys in Montana.
Many horrible things have happened in the past, and wanting to make up for them is a natural feeling. But giving one person an advantage over another based solely on race is not right. It is not progress. It is just shifting the discrimination from one group to another.
Yesterday in Israel, the latest in a long line of murderous bombings killed more than 20 innocent people waiting at a bus stop in Tel Aviv. Of course the Palestinians claim that they need to do this in defense and in retaliation for Israel’s “occupation” of “their” land. There is no state of Palestine, nor has there ever been a state of Palestine. When Israel became a state in 1948, they were immediately invaded by surrounding nations in an effort to destroy the newfound state. The Israelis were able to fight off the invasion. (If you want any more information on the history of Israel, just go to the library and look it up in any encyclopedia.) Other wars in the past have given Israel control of other areas of land, such as the West Bank. In an effort to bring peace to the region, Israel has given up control of areas of land to the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the violence has continued.
I don’t want to give you a history lesson here, but I needed to establish at least a bit of background information for those of you that aren’t all that aware of the history of the region. As I said, there is no state of Palestine nor do I believe there ever should be as long as the Palestinians use the tactics they are continuing to use. President Bush has been highly hypocritical on the Israeli situation. On September 11, 2001, freedom hating radical Muslims attacked the United States, killing approximately 3,000 people. Since then, the US, along with a coalition of other countries such as Great Britain, has gone to war against these hate driven killers. But for some reason, President Bush has told Israel to back off on the Palestinian terrorists. Bush wishes to reward those murderers by giving them a country. He feels it will stop the attacks. He is wrong. The motivation behind these attacks is not independence for Palestine; the attacks are intended to destroy Israel.
Israel has been the victim of one attack after another by Palestinian terrorists. For some reason, when Israel retaliates for these attacks, the world condemns them for it. The UN seems to not recognize the sovereignty of Israel by passing resolutions condemning any action done by Israel to attempt to prevent the next attack and defend her homeland. If the Palestinians want a state, let them raise an army and fight Israel in a declared war. No one should be rewarded for terrorist acts. After September 11th, did anyone in the United States say that we should bow down to the terrorists and dissolve our democracy? Did we try to appease them so they wouldn’t do it again? Did we give them parts of our land to try and broker peace? No, we went to war to end the threat. Recently, the FBI said that through the war on terror, over 100 attacks have been prevented. When Israel goes on the offensive in an effort to stop future bombings, many condemn those actions.
I feel little sympathy for the Palestinians. Israel fights only in defense. Many of the methods employed by Israel are radical, but they are faced with a radical enemy bent on the destruction of all of Israel. Put yourself in the shoes of those that are affected every day by these bombings and attacks. Would you give up your land in exchange for peace when you know it wouldn’t work?
In North Dakota there is a big movement to keep young people with college degrees in the state. A recent resolution to give tax breaks to 20-somethings was overwhelmingly shot down. I agree that the resolution should’ve been shot down, but no matter how foolish it was, it was the first instance in this state of someone coming up with an idea to keep young, educated people in North Dakota. Governor John Hoven made it an issue in the 2000 campaign and he got my vote because of it. Unfortunately, in his two years in office, he has done everything possible to continue to drive the youth from this state. Money has been continually sent into small towns and agriculture. Is a 25 year old with a degree in computer science from NDSU going to move to Barney, ND to work at the livestock feed store? I think not.
If this state and others in the same situation are serious about keeping educated youth, there must be a dramatic shift in policy. Rather than putting emphasis only on rural areas and agriculture, focus must be made on more “urban” areas. Looking only at North Dakota now, the state must invest in areas such as Bismarck, Grand Forks, and Fargo. The state must look at the strengths of each area and work with that. Narrowing in on Fargo, it has the best infrastructure in place to attract educated 20-somethings, but there is more that needs to be done. Of course there must be jobs available for people to make a living. In addition however, there must be entertainment for people when they aren’t working. Again, looking at Fargo, the city has a good start. Fargo has a minor league professional baseball team, the F-M Redhawks, that is successful during the summer months. Fargo has a wonderful symphony that performs concerts every month or so during the fall and winter. There are several art galleries in town to peruse should the urge strike. But to say there is an abundance of activities in the city would be a downright lie. You can only go to so many restaurants and bars. There are no minor league professional sports most of the year. The 3 or 4 months during the summer that the Northern League plays is the extent of it. There are college sports at NDSU, Concordia College and Minnesota State, Moorhead, but the caliber and competition just isn’t quite as exciting as it would be with higher level sports. Fargo has had other minor league teams, but none of them have survived due to lack of attendance. The FM Beez, a CBA team, generally got 600-800 people a game in an arena that could hold 6,000-8,000. The arts community in Fargo has a start as well, especially with the Fargo-Moorhead Symphony, various Jazz groups, and several art galleries, but there is room to expand.
My proposal for Fargo would be this: North Dakota State University has strong Mechanical and Electrical Engineering programs. NDSU has already been somewhat successful in attracting research projects to campus and the city of Fargo. This needs to grow. Look at the other majors that are strong at NDSU, as well as the strengths of Minnesota State University Moorhead and Concordia College and attract firms that would use graduates from the strong programs. This creates jobs locally for those graduating, rather than forcing them to move to places such as Minneapolis. As for entertainment, I feel Fargo would benefit from a large performing arts center. Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a community roughly the same size as Fargo, has the Washington Pavilion that is able to attract nationally known acts. (The Washington Pavilion contains a large theater (1800 seats), a small art gallery, a small theater (400 seats), and a science museum.) Fargo lacks a center that is adequate to house the acts that the Washington Pavilion is able to attract. For families, Fargo should also look into a science museum. If you’ve ever been to the Science Museum of Minnesota, you know how popular these museums are. Fargo should also try and figure out why the Redhawks are so successful, and teams like the Beez were so unsuccessful. If that can be done, and problems can be remedied, the city should try and attract another minor league basketball team and maybe a minor league hockey team. The key to success for a city’s entertainment has got to be diversity. Arts, sports, and recreation have to be made available to everyone or they won’t come to your city.
The future needs to be thought of if North Dakota expects to survive. The state can’t simply keep complaining about loosing youth and do nothing about it. The focus needs to be shifted from solely agriculture and rural North Dakota, to rural and urban North Dakota. I’m not suggesting ignoring the rural parts of the state, but the leaders must understand that the future does not lie in farming; it lies in industry and commerce in places like Fargo.
Last night I had the absolute weirdest dream I’ve ever had and I think I’m going to tell you about it. I’ll add some information for those of you that aren’t from around here and thus don’t know of the locations I’m talking about. Most of the people that appeared in my dream were in marching band this year, so unless you were in marching band with me, you wouldn’t know the people, and therefore I won’t even include their names. Oh, one more thing, any mental health experts out there that are reading this and identify a major mental problem, please let me know.
My dream started at a party in the T-Lot. (The T-Lot is a large parking lot on the south side of NDSU.) It had the feel of an end of the year party and there were a lot of people there. The only problem was that the T-Lot wasn’t the T-Lot, it was a large lake that was frozen over. While the party went on, the ice started to break up, so the party ended early so everyone had a chance to get off the ice. As I was leaving, I ran into a friend and asked if he was going to Coaches. (Coaches is a sports bar and restaurant in Moorhead. The marching band goes there after all the games.) He wasn’t aware that anyone was going, so to confirm what I was saying I turned around and saw another person from marching band. She said that everyone was going to congratulate everyone that was getting married. (As far as I know, no one in marching band has any plans to get married in the near future.)
Here’s where it starts to get a little weird. I was sitting at Coaches with a bunch of other marching band people and we all had drinks. Even those that were underage had drinks. When the waitress came by, I asked for a menu. When I did this, the girl sitting across from me said “Oh, thank God” as though she wanted to eat, but didn’t want to be the only one eating. When I got the menu, it wasn’t a Coaches menu, it was a Paradiso menu. (Paradiso is a Mexican restaurant in, among other locations, Fargo.) In the menu was a dish of Horse meat seasoned with four Chinese spices. Under the menu entry, it said in order to get the dish, you couldn’t be a student and you had to be 21 since it was dribbled with sherry and lit on fire at the table. I asked the waitress if I could get one even though I was a student since I was 21. She said yes, but didn’t recommend it.
When I got the dish, I expected a big fire to be lit so joking around I was holding back the people sitting next to me. The fire was very disappointing. But in addition to my horse meat dish, I also got two steaks on two separate plates flanking the plate which contained my horse meat. I recall that the horse meat didn’t taste good, but it didn’t taste too bad either. I don’t remember anything after this, so this is the end of my dream.
I know, I’m messed up in the head. But we can’t exactly control our dreams. Seriously, if you know this is some indication of me being really messed up, please let me know. I know I’m a bit odd at times, but if I have a real excuse for the way I act…….. Anyway, good night, and I’ll talk to you later.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) recently said that he would introduce legislation making military service compulsory for all Americans. First, I want to say I do not disagree with the basic idea of mandatory military service, but the logistics behind it are nearly impossible. For one, this would usher in a massive change in this country. Today, most of America’s youth start exploring colleges when they are 14 years old. They begin thinking about what they wish to do with their lives, and where they wish to go to school to learn that trade. Should military service become compulsory, either there would have to be an exemption for those older than 14, or there would be an immediate drop in college enrolment.
This brings up another issue. Should everyone be required to enter in to military service for 4 years, colleges would see no incoming freshman for the 4 year turnover period. For example, if this were to go in to effect in 2004 with the first enlistees, those people would not be able to enter college until at least 2008. Colleges would go bankrupt all over the nation, and there would be few colleges left for the thousands of recently discharged soldiers.
Another problem with this issue is cost. How much would taxes have to be raised in order to pay for such a massive armed forces? We already spend billions on our armed forces, and it has been scaled down significantly since the Cold War. Those in our armed forces currently are also greatly underpaid. Many with families to support are living in poverty. I think we need to take care of the men and women in service today rather than flooding the armed forces with millions of new recruits that we simply can’t afford to pay for.
When asked to elaborate, Rep. Rangel said he wanted to reinstitute the draft. Essentially he proposed two different plans in his one interview. The draft randomly selected people to be in the military. Compulsory service would be for everyone. Which brings up yet another question, would this compulsory service be only for men, as was the draft, or would women be included as well? If just men are included, we need to look again at the college situation. For four years, all of the incoming freshman would be women. After that, the incoming freshmen would be men around 22 years old, and women around 18 years old. (This “problem” would be in the eye of the beholder however.)
Rep. Rangel obviously didn’t think through his plan before he decided to go on MSNBC to promote it. It is yet another example of a democrat proposing a new program without considering the consequences and cost. If this actually comes up in congress in the next session, make sure to contact your Congressman to let them know of your concerns.
Dates Index: 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 15 | 18 | 20 | 21 | 26 | 28 |