Category: Politics

Bill filed to study potential impact of global warming on Texas

(Austin, TX)–Representative Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, filed legislation today to establish a global warming task force which will assess the economic and public health impacts of global warming on Texas. The bill was filed on the day when President Bush is expected to address global warming in his State of the Union address.

“For too long, there has been a bogus debate on global warming fueled by junk science,” said Rep. Burnam.

“Now, that ‘debate’ is over. Just last week ExxonMobil admitted that global warming is a real threat and that greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide contribute to the problem. It’s time the state of Texas begins to make preparations to deal with the potential fallout from this very real crisis.”

2006 was the hottest year on record in the United States. The scientific community agrees that global warming poses significant risks and dangers yet the United States continues to be the number one emitter of carbon dioxide and Texas is the number one emitting state.

“We have 600 miles of coastline in Texas. If temperatures rise enough that sea levels rise a foot or more, there could be a serious economic and health impact on the state,” said Burnam. “The state is like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. We need a plan to deal with this challenge.

“At the same time, the reality of global warming provides excellent opportunities for businesses that innovate and create solutions to these problems. My bill directs the global warming task force to investigate and prepare for the worst while seeking opportunities for businesses that do the right thing.

“I do hope, as it has been reported, that the President addresses global warming tonight. And I hope that the state of Texas will take the necessary steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for a carbon-constrained economy.”

Do conservative evangelicals regret justifying the Iraq war?

The Baptist Standard has an interesting article about how some conservative evangelicals may be changing their stance on the war in Iraq – despite justifying it with a “just war theory” before the wary began.

By Robert Marus – ABP Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (ABP)—As the number of American soldiers killed passes 3,000 and Congress debates President Bush’s latest strategy for winning the war, some Christians who supported invading Iraq in 2003 are wrestling with whether the invasion was a “just war” after all.
While most progressive evangelicals, mainline Protestant leaders and the Roman Catholic Church opposed the war prior to the March 2003 invasion, many Baptists and other conservative evangelicals justified the war in Christian theological terms.
“Military action against the Iraqi government would be a defensive action. … The human cost of not taking (then-Iraqi dictator Saddam) Hussein out and removing his government as a producer, proliferator and proponent of the use of weapons of mass destruction means we can either pay now or we can pay a lot more later,” said Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics agency, in a Sept. 2002 article published by the denomination’s news service.
Land later organized a group of prominent conservative evangelicals who signed an open letter arguing that the proposed Iraq invasion satisfied classic Christian theological criteria for justifying a war—often referred to as just war theory.

The article references a letter by Chuck Colson who wrote argued that the classical definition of the Christian just war theory should be “stretched” to accommodate a new age in which terrorism and warfare are intertwined. He concluded that “out of love of neighbor, then, Christians can and should support a pre-emptive strike” on Iraq to prevent Iraqi-based or -funded attacks on the United States or its allies.

David Gushee, a Southern Baptist ethicist and professor at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., was much more cautious about the war than many of his fellow evangelicals from its beginning.
But Gusheee has turned increasingly against it in recent months. In a Dec. 11 column published by Associated Baptist Press, he cautioned his ideological cohorts.
“The massive carnage in Iraq should serve as a permanent reminder to my fellow Christian conservatives that war is a moral-values issue,” he wrote.
“Indeed, war is a sanctity-of-life issue. Every day’s body count in Iraq should drive this point home with greater and greater urgency. Every body that turns up with holes drilled in it, every head torn apart by gunshots, every soldier whose helicopter crashes and ends his life, every veteran who will spend the rest of his or her life with three or two or one or no limbs, is a human being of immeasurable worth, made in the image of God.”

43 million

Today is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
The case was argued Dec. 13, 1971, re-argued Oct. 11, 1972 and finally decided Jan. 22, 1973.
The “right” to abortion has expanded in the decades since Roe. Many states now pay for abortions with taxpayer dollars. Thirteen states, plus DC, allow abortion at any point, right up to the day of birth. Ten states, plus DC, don’t even require that abortions be done by a doctor.
Since 1973, an estimated 43 million abortions have taken place, creating a $400-million-per-year industry.
In the time it took you to read this post, two more infants were torn from the wombs of their mothers and tossed into the trash.

Debunking Global Warming

In Thursday’s Daily Light:

It is amazing that so many people believe global warming is real and is caused by humans. This myth has been largely promoted by the major media that gives much attention to those who support it and very little to those who debunk it.
For example, in December, U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma chaired a “Climate Change and the Media” meeting. He said that global warming is a hoax. The meeting received almost no major media attention.
At this meeting, Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, stated, “I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.”

Confederate Nugent

This morning we ran a story on Ted Nugent’s appearance at Gov. McDreamy’s inaugural ball early this week.
Nugent showed up wearing a cut-off T-Shirt with a Confederate flag on the back.
Gary Bledsoe, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People of Texas, said the Confederate battle flag is never appropriate.
“Whenever someone sports the Confederate battle flag, many Texans will be offended, and rightly so, because of what it symbolizes the enslavement of African-Americans and more recently the symbol of hate groups and terrorists,” Bledsoe said.
Perry’s spokesman Robert Black said the governor would never try to squelch anyone’s freedom of speech.
Locally, Ellis County Republican Chairman Rusty Ballard said he didn’t have a problem with Nugent playing.
“He believes in many of the conservative issues the Republican Party does,” Ballard said. “I thought it was a great deal having him play. Nugent is a great supporter of the governor.”
Ballard said he also had no issue with Nugent’s use of the Confederate battle flag.
“The flag is a part of Texas’ history and it doesn’t represent what a lot of people have come to believe that it does,” Ballard said. “You can’t try to restrict people’s freedom of expression – especially artists. I don’t think there was any political statement being made, it was just typical Ted Nugent.”
I don’t have a problem of granting free speech as long as you’re not going to harp on someone else’s right to free speech when it offends you.
Just this week I read about people getting up in arms when the F-word was shown on TV, or when Howard Stern says something offensive but if there are threats of the government censoring them they claim freedom of speech as well.
Where do you draw the line? Can you draw the line and still grant freedom of speech?

War in Iraq – $1.2 TRILLION

Yup, you read it right. It was announced this week that the war in Iraq has cost the U.S. taxpayers $1.2 Trillion a year.

According to the Pentagon before the war began, the estimated cost for the war was in the neighborhood of $50 billion.

David Leonhardt writes in the International Herald Tribune that Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed with the estimate. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President George W. Bush fired him in part for saying so.

To put it into perspective, it would be like getting a $500 estimate for car repairs and then getting a bill for $120,000.

But what is $1.2 Trillion? Let’s write it out: $1,200,000,000,000 or 10 to the 12th power. That’s 12 zeroes to the left of the decimal point. A trillion is a million million dollars.

One trillion dollars would stretch nearly from the earth to the sun. It would take a military jet flying at the speed of sound, reeling out a roll of dollar bills behind it, 14 years before it reeled out one trillion dollar bills.

Click here to see another visual image.

Here’s another thought, let’s count to a billion. But first, let’s see how long that will take. I can count pretty fast for a while. I mumble a little, like “sev-sen” for “seventy-seven.” After a while (in the 100,000’s), it takes me a lot longer than a second for each number. If it takes me a second for each number (which is a little unrealistic), then it would take me about 24 hours to count to 86,400. I can count to a million in less than half a month. It will take me more than 30 years to count to a billion (not a trillion mind you).

At a minimum wage of $5.75, $1.2 trillion would pay the salaries of 100,334,448 Americans for a year.

The National Cancer Institutes budget is $6 billion a year. $1.2 trillion would pay that budget for the next 200 years.

On today’s market a barrel of oil (42 U.S. gallons) costs $52. Not bad but think of all the oil you could purchase with $1.2 trillion – more than 23,076,923,076.

It’s estimated that the U.S. consumes roughly 20 million barrels a day. So with that knowledge, $1.2 trillion would purchase enough oil for the U.S. to survive on for 1,153 days or 3 years at the current rate of consumption.

According to David Leonhardt, universal preschool would probably cost $50 billion a year. So would a treatment program for heart disease and diabetes.

So that estimated $20 million for 20,000 additional troops in Iraq doesn’t sound that bad now does it? How much is your protection worth?