mmmurrrgh- brains!
Hope everyone enjoys a safe and fun-filled Halloween!!!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Obama's Bad Influence by Naoimi Klein
Great article by Naomi Klein here.
Of all the explanations for Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, the one that rang truest came from French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "It sets the seal on America's return to the heart of all the world's peoples." In other words, this was Europe's way of saying to America, "We love you again"—sort of like those weird "renewal of vows" ceremonies that couples have after surviving a rough patch.
Now that Europe and the United States are officially reunited, it seems worth asking: is this necessarily a good thing? The Nobel Committee, which awarded the prize specifically for Obama's embrace of "multilateral diplomacy," is evidently convinced that US engagement on the world stage is a triumph for peace and justice. I'm not so sure. After nine months in office, Obama has a clear track record as a global player. Again and again, US negotiators have chosen not to strengthen international laws and protocols but rather to weaken them, often leading other rich countries in a race to the bottom.
Let's start where the stakes are highest: climate change. During the Bush years, European politicians distinguished themselves from the United States by expressing their unshakable commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. So while the United States increased its carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels, the European Union countries reduced theirs by 2 percent. Not stellar, but clearly a case where the EU's breakup with the United States carried tangible benefits for the planet.
Flash forward to the high-stakes climate negotiations that just wrapped up in Bangkok. The talks were supposed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen this December that significantly strengthens the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the United States, the EU and the rest of the developed countries formed a unified bloc calling for Kyoto to be scrapped and replaced. Where Kyoto set clear and binding targets for emission reductions, the US plan would have each country decide how much to cut, then submit its plans to international monitoring (with nothing but wishful thinking to ensure that this all keeps the planet's temperature below catastrophic levels). And where Kyoto put the burden of responsibility squarely on the rich countries that created the climate crisis, the new plan treats all countries the same.
These kinds of weak proposals were not altogether surprising coming from the United States. What was shocking was the sudden unity of the rich world around this plan—including many countries that had previously sung the praises of Kyoto. And there were more betrayals: the EU, which had indicated it would spend $19 billion to $35 billion a year to help developing countries adapt to climate change, came to Bangkok with a much lower offer, one more in line with the US pledge of... nothing. Oxfam's Antonio Hill summed up the negotiations like this: "When the starting gun fired, it became a race to the bottom, with rich countries weakening existing commitments under the international framework."
This isn't the first time a much-celebrated return to the negotiating table has resulted in overturned tables, with hard-won international laws and conventions scattered on the floor. The United States played a similar role at the UN conference on racism in Geneva in April. After extracting all sorts of deletions from the negotiating text—no references to Israel or the Palestinians, nothing on slavery reparations, etc.—the Obama administration decided to boycott anyway, pointing to the fact that the new text "re-affirms" the document adopted in 2001 in Durban, South Africa.
It was a flimsy excuse, but there was some kind of logic to it, since the United States had never signed the original 2001 document. What made no sense was the wave of copycat withdrawals from around the rich world. Within forty-eight hours of the US announcement Italy, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland had pulled out. Unlike the United States, these governments had all signed the 2001 declaration, so they had no reason to object to a document that reaffirmed it. It didn't matter. As with the climate change negotiations, lining up behind Obama, with his impeccable reputation, was an easy way to avoid burdensome international obligations and look progressive at the same time—a service the United States was never able to provide during the Bush years.
The United States has had a similarly corrupting influence as a new member of the UN Human Rights Council. Its first big test was Judge Richard Goldstone's courageous report on Israel's Gaza onslaught, which found that war crimes had been committed by both the Israeli army and Hamas. Rather than prove its commitment to international law, the United States used its clout to smear the report as "deeply flawed" and to strong-arm the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing a supportive resolution. (The PA, which faced a furious backlash at home for caving in to US pressure, may introduce a new version.)
And then there are the G-20 summits, Obama's highest-profile multilateral engagements. When one was held in London in April, it seemed for a moment that there might be some kind of coordinated attempt to rein in transnational financial speculators and tax dodgers. Sarkozy even pledged to walk out of the summit if it failed to produce serious regulatory commitments. But the Obama administration had no interest in genuine multilateralism, advocating instead for countries to come up with their own plans (or not) and hope for the best--much like its reckless climate-change plan. Sarkozy, needless to say, did not walk anywhere but to the photo session to have his picture taken with Obama.
Of course, Obama has made some good moves on the world stage—not siding with the coup government in Honduras, supporting a UN Women's Agency... But a clear pattern has emerged: in areas where other wealthy nations were teetering between principled action and negligence, US interventions have tilted them toward negligence. If this is the new era of multilateralism, it is no prize.
Obama's Bad Influence
Published in The NationOf all the explanations for Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, the one that rang truest came from French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "It sets the seal on America's return to the heart of all the world's peoples." In other words, this was Europe's way of saying to America, "We love you again"—sort of like those weird "renewal of vows" ceremonies that couples have after surviving a rough patch.
Now that Europe and the United States are officially reunited, it seems worth asking: is this necessarily a good thing? The Nobel Committee, which awarded the prize specifically for Obama's embrace of "multilateral diplomacy," is evidently convinced that US engagement on the world stage is a triumph for peace and justice. I'm not so sure. After nine months in office, Obama has a clear track record as a global player. Again and again, US negotiators have chosen not to strengthen international laws and protocols but rather to weaken them, often leading other rich countries in a race to the bottom.
Let's start where the stakes are highest: climate change. During the Bush years, European politicians distinguished themselves from the United States by expressing their unshakable commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. So while the United States increased its carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels, the European Union countries reduced theirs by 2 percent. Not stellar, but clearly a case where the EU's breakup with the United States carried tangible benefits for the planet.
Flash forward to the high-stakes climate negotiations that just wrapped up in Bangkok. The talks were supposed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen this December that significantly strengthens the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the United States, the EU and the rest of the developed countries formed a unified bloc calling for Kyoto to be scrapped and replaced. Where Kyoto set clear and binding targets for emission reductions, the US plan would have each country decide how much to cut, then submit its plans to international monitoring (with nothing but wishful thinking to ensure that this all keeps the planet's temperature below catastrophic levels). And where Kyoto put the burden of responsibility squarely on the rich countries that created the climate crisis, the new plan treats all countries the same.
These kinds of weak proposals were not altogether surprising coming from the United States. What was shocking was the sudden unity of the rich world around this plan—including many countries that had previously sung the praises of Kyoto. And there were more betrayals: the EU, which had indicated it would spend $19 billion to $35 billion a year to help developing countries adapt to climate change, came to Bangkok with a much lower offer, one more in line with the US pledge of... nothing. Oxfam's Antonio Hill summed up the negotiations like this: "When the starting gun fired, it became a race to the bottom, with rich countries weakening existing commitments under the international framework."
This isn't the first time a much-celebrated return to the negotiating table has resulted in overturned tables, with hard-won international laws and conventions scattered on the floor. The United States played a similar role at the UN conference on racism in Geneva in April. After extracting all sorts of deletions from the negotiating text—no references to Israel or the Palestinians, nothing on slavery reparations, etc.—the Obama administration decided to boycott anyway, pointing to the fact that the new text "re-affirms" the document adopted in 2001 in Durban, South Africa.
It was a flimsy excuse, but there was some kind of logic to it, since the United States had never signed the original 2001 document. What made no sense was the wave of copycat withdrawals from around the rich world. Within forty-eight hours of the US announcement Italy, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland had pulled out. Unlike the United States, these governments had all signed the 2001 declaration, so they had no reason to object to a document that reaffirmed it. It didn't matter. As with the climate change negotiations, lining up behind Obama, with his impeccable reputation, was an easy way to avoid burdensome international obligations and look progressive at the same time—a service the United States was never able to provide during the Bush years.
The United States has had a similarly corrupting influence as a new member of the UN Human Rights Council. Its first big test was Judge Richard Goldstone's courageous report on Israel's Gaza onslaught, which found that war crimes had been committed by both the Israeli army and Hamas. Rather than prove its commitment to international law, the United States used its clout to smear the report as "deeply flawed" and to strong-arm the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing a supportive resolution. (The PA, which faced a furious backlash at home for caving in to US pressure, may introduce a new version.)
And then there are the G-20 summits, Obama's highest-profile multilateral engagements. When one was held in London in April, it seemed for a moment that there might be some kind of coordinated attempt to rein in transnational financial speculators and tax dodgers. Sarkozy even pledged to walk out of the summit if it failed to produce serious regulatory commitments. But the Obama administration had no interest in genuine multilateralism, advocating instead for countries to come up with their own plans (or not) and hope for the best--much like its reckless climate-change plan. Sarkozy, needless to say, did not walk anywhere but to the photo session to have his picture taken with Obama.
Of course, Obama has made some good moves on the world stage—not siding with the coup government in Honduras, supporting a UN Women's Agency... But a clear pattern has emerged: in areas where other wealthy nations were teetering between principled action and negligence, US interventions have tilted them toward negligence. If this is the new era of multilateralism, it is no prize.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
Very interesting article here. Can't say I didn't see this coming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2009) — The possibility that climate change might simply be a natural variation like others that have occurred throughout geologic time is dimming, according to evidence in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published October 19.
Most Complicated Eyes: Mantis Shrimp
And I thought my eyes were bad before reading this article!
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/mantis-shrimp-eyes/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/mantis-shrimp-eyes/
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Martian Dust Devils
The markings in the Martian dirt are caused by Dust Devils that lift up the red silt, leaving behind the darker colored material. Amazing!
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091021.html
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091021.html
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
SLOOH - Your Online Observatory
This looks really cool! 12 months for $49.99. And they've got a set of "Missions" for kids too, looks like these are $4.99. I just might take some time to look over the trial...
http://www.slooh.com/
http://www.slooh.com/
Saturday, October 17, 2009
South Park in Sepia
I recently took my favorite South Park photos and redid them in sepia. Here are a few of my favs:
Here is the full set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mariuccij/sets/72157622467856266/
Here is the full set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mariuccij/sets/72157622467856266/
Yoda Pumpkin Carvin!
A friend asked me to create a Yoda stencil for carving pumpkins. Or in this particular case Squash carving. Thought I'd post here in case anyone else would like to use it!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Number of Possible Multiverses may be "Humongous"
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/10/15/if-we-live-in-a-multiverse-how-many-are-there/
Keep in mind this is truly hypothetical, but extremely interesting. And yeah, I'd bet that 10^10^10^7 is a "humongous" number.
Keep in mind this is truly hypothetical, but extremely interesting. And yeah, I'd bet that 10^10^10^7 is a "humongous" number.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Hiking Devil's Lake
I was fortunate enough to have Sunday open last week, and spent it hiking around Devil's Lake. Took hundreds of pics, and it was the nicest day we've had weather-wise in a very long time. Here are some of my favorites:
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Europa Capable of Supporting Life: Richard Greenberg
Alright, WAY cool.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/10/08/europa-capable-of-supporting-life-scientist-says/
“Unmasking Europa: The Search for Life on Jupiter’s Ocean Moon.”
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/10/08/europa-capable-of-supporting-life-scientist-says/
The global ocean on Jupiter’s moon Europa contains about twice the liquid water of all the Earth’s oceans combined. New research by Richard Greenberg of the University of Arizona suggests that there may be plenty of oxygen available in that ocean to support life, a hundred times more oxygen than previously estimated.I'm definitely adding his book to my "must read" list:
....
Greenberg says that the concentrations of oxygen would be great enough to support not only microorganisms, but also “macrofauna”, that is, more complex animal-like organisms which have greater oxygen demands. The continual supply of oxygen could support roughly 3 billion kilograms of macrofauna, assuming similar oxygen demands to terrestrial fish.The good news for the question of the origin of life is that there would be a delay of a couple of billion years before the first surface oxygen reached the ocean. Without that delay, the first pre-biotic chemistry and the first primitive organic structures would be disrupted by oxidation. Oxidation is a hazard unless organisms have evolved protection from its damaging effects. A similar delay in the production of oxygen on Earth was probably essential for allowing life to get started here.
“Unmasking Europa: The Search for Life on Jupiter’s Ocean Moon.”
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Blue Stonehenge
Interesting article. It would seem a second Stonehenge has been found a little more than a mile away from the first.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/06/second-stonehenge-discovered
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/06/second-stonehenge-discovered
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Exxon's Climate-Victim Candles
I'm definitely going to see their movie when it comes out on the 7th. In the mean time, check out this hilarious prank they pulled on Exxon.
http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/vivoleum
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/yes_men_strike_/
http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/vivoleum
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/yes_men_strike_/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)