World News Korner

Here are the highlights.

1. We're already feeling the impacts of climate change. Glaciers are already shrinking, changing the courses of rivers and altering water supplies downstream. Species from grizzly bears to flowers have shifted their ranges and behavior. Wheat and maize yields may have dropped.
2. Heat waves and wildfires are major threats in North America. Europe faces freshwater shortages, and Asia can expect more severe flooding from extreme storms. In North America, major threats include heat waves and wildfires, which can cause death and damage to ecosystems and property. The report names athletes and outdoor workers as particularly at risk from heat-related illnesses.
3. Globally, food sources will become unpredictable, even as population booms. Especially in poor countries, diminished crop production will likely lead to increased malnutrition, which already affects nearly 900 million people worldwide. Some of the world's most important staples—maize, wheat, and rice—are at risk. The ocean will also be a less reliable source of food, with important fish resources in the tropics either moving north or going extinct, while ocean acidification eats away at shelled critters (like oysters) and coral. Shrinking supplies and rising prices will cause food insecurity, which can exacerbate preexisting social tensions and lead to conflict.
4. Coastal communities will increasingly get hammered by flooding and erosion. Tides are already rising in the US and around the world. As polar ice continues to melt and warm water expands, sea level rise will expose major metropolitan areas, military installations, farming regions, small island nations, and other ocean-side places to increased damage from hurricanes and other extreme storms. Sea level rise brings with it risks of "death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods," the report says.
5. We'll see an increase in climate refugees and, possibly, climate-related violence. The report warns that both extreme weather events and longer-term changes in climate can lead to the displacement of vulnerable populations, especially in developing parts of the world. Climate change might also "indirectly increase" the risks of civil wars and international conflicts by exacerbating poverty and competition for resources.
6. Climate change is expected to make people less healthy. According to the report, we can expect climate change to have a negative impact on health in many parts of the world, especially poorer countries. Why? Heat waves and fires will cause injury, disease and death. Decreased food production will mean more malnutrition. And food- and water-borne diseases will make more people sick.
7. We don't know how much adaptation is going to cost. The damage we're doing to the planet means that human beings are going to have to adapt to the changing climate. But that costs money. Unfortunately, studies that estimate the global cost of climate adaptation "are characterized by shortcomings in data, methods, and coverage," according to the IPCC.
8. There's still time to reduce the impacts of global warming...if we cut our emissions. Here's the good news: The IPCC says that the impacts of climate change—and the costs of adaptation—will be "reduced substantially" if we cut our emissions of greenhouse gases.

There are many who think that the damage is too far along and that nothing can be done to stop the inevitable.

Others don't believe there is any problem at all and that these findings are just the imaginative ravings of liberal Chicken Little's.

However there is still time, and if we really start to address the situation with the seriousness it deserves, and focus the scientific community into solving the problems with the same zeal they show for improving computers, we could very well see things turn around to the point that the most troubling predictions will not come to pass.

And in fact some of the recent breakthroughs in renewable energy research have been amazing.

The clock is ticking, so the question remains, are we doing enough, fast enough?

Sadly I don't yet think that we are.

(Source.)

Source

Courtesy of Liberals Unite:

Obamacare? Are you nuts?

All the dialog used in this hilarious video was lifted verbatim from the comments sections of conservative web sites.

I saw the end coming a mile away. Still pretty satisfying though.

I sometimes fantasize about something similar happening to some of the more aggressive anti-Obamacare trolls on Fox News or in the Republican party.

Source

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

An alliance of food activists and anti-regulation libertarians is battling to legalize raw, unpasteurized milk, despite warnings from health officials about the rising toll of illnesses affecting adults and children alike.

As the popularity of raw milk has grown, so too have associated outbreaks. They have nearly doubled over the past five years, with eight out of 10 cases occurring in states that have legalized sales of the unpasteurized product, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Public health officials have also documented how pathogens in raw milk have produced kidney failure in more than a dozen cases and paralysis in at least two.

But distrust of government and a thirst for the milk have helped fuel the movement to do away with federal and state restrictions despite the warnings. In states where raw milk remains banned, black and “gray” markets have emerged for enthusiasts seeking “moonshine milk” in the belief that bacteria-killing heat from pasteurization also kills powerful enzymes and eliminates other properties that can cure allergies, asthma and even autism.

During this legislative session, 40 bills have been introduced in 23 state capitals, all seeking to legalize unpasteurized milk within state borders.

It is illegal for raw milk dairy farmers to sell and transport their product across state lines — a ban the FDA is charged with enforcing. But every day, thousands of gallon-sized glass jars filled with raw milk move from state to state, arriving at consumers’ front doors through co-ops, buyers clubs and from friends and relatives who sometimes pack the milk in dry ice and ship it via FedEx.

Consumers pay as much as $12 a gallon for raw milk from cows and goats.

Yeah what's a little paralysis and a few stomach parasites when you can stick it to the government?

Gee and to think that Lois Pasteur spent all of those years working to keep milk from killing people, only to have his efforts rejected by a bunch of self destructive idiots who think that anything the government touches immediately takes away their freedom on contact.

Source

I was really bummed last week that my favorite addictive television experience was taking a break until next fall.

However tonight my second favorite addictive television experience returns so I don't have to resort to anything extreme like starting a relationship, taking up stamp collecting, or cleaning my house to fill the gap.

And fortunately I have almost completely recovered from last season's "Red Wedding," an episode so shocking that it damn near traumatized many of its long time viewers.

Besides, I am sure that after last season's culling that most of my favorite characters are safe this time around. Right?

Yeah, I don't believe that either.




Source

Courtesy of Mother Jones:

It is perhaps too easy to forget how many times this has happened. The horrific mass murder at a movie theater in Colorado in July 2012, another at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that August, another at a manufacturer in Minneapolis that September—and then the unthinkable nightmare at a Connecticut elementary school that December—were some of the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades. Since 1982, there have been at least 67 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Thirty of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006. Seven of them took place in 2012, and another five occurred in 2013, including in Santa Monica, California, and at the Washington Navy Yard. We've gathered detailed data on the cases and mapped them below, including information on the shooters' profiles, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed.*

Weapons: Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines. Just as Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to slaughter students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle, when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. In Newtown, Connecticut, Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle as he massacred 20 school children and six adults.

The killers: More than half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings; the other 30 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings. Forty four of the killers were white males. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) The average age of the killers was 35, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old. (See Jonesboro, Ark., in 1998.) A majority were mentally troubled—and many displayed signs of it before setting out to kill.

The article provides numerous links so that there sources can be checked, as well as a very troubling map of the various locations of the shootings.

In my mind the findings of this study demonstrate a number of objective truths.

Almost all shooters are men.

The vast majority of them use weapons that were obtained legally, putting to rest the NRA contention that stricter gun laws will not reduce the killings.

And most of the killers were mentally troubled, though in some cases the severity of their illness was not yet known.

To my mind, while it is reasonable to address the mental illness piece, and of course more attention to that problem in this country should always be welcome, the quickest fix is to dramatically reduce the easy access to guns, through background checks, mandatory registration, and the restriction of certain types of firearms.

We should especially reduce access to the kinds of military style assault weapons which seem to be favored among those who want to kill a large number of people as quickly as possible. There is really NO logical reason why anybody who is NOT a member of the military or law enforcement should want or need anything like that.

In Australia they found that the number of gun deaths dropped 59%, and the number of suicides went down 65%, in the decade following the introduction of strict laws on gun control.

There is no doubt that something needs to be done, and it needs to be done quickly.

I am tired of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms trumping every other right in this country. We also have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and ALL of those are placed in jeopardy when we live in a country where mentally unbalanced people have easy access to weapons designed specifically for the taking of human life.

Source

So this morning I was looking around for something interesting to post, and after finding nothing that really caught my eye I decided to bop on over to crazy town and see what Brancy had posted.

What I read there quite literally made me incredibly uneasy, to the point of being somewhat shocked.

I actually read it twice because I found it so hard to believe.

Here is what was posted:

This is so precious:

“The 10 best hours of my life,” is how Lindsey Dennis describes her short time with Sophia Kyla, born last fall. Lindsey and husband Kevin found out at the 20th week of her pregnancy that Sophia had a brain disorder that is 100 percent fatal. Their heartbreak has been eased by an organization run by volunteers called, Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep, whose mottos is “Providing the gift of remembrance photography for parents suffering the loss of a baby.”

“As a more intense grieving began for us, having photos of Sophie when she was alive and well just meant the world to us,” Kevin explains.

What a wonderful organization and a perfect way to celebrate life — no matter how short.

So to be clear this woman went through nine months of pregnancy just to have ten hours of watching her newborn suffer as its little body slowly died.

And they then had the experience documented through photographs so that they could relive it over and over again.

I don't think I have ever heard of anything so selfish and macabre in my life.

At twenty weeks they could have chosen to protect their child from future suffering by aborting the pregnancy. But instead they are so aggressively "pro-life" that in their minds it was better to give birth to a child who will never have a chance at life, then to allow the pregnancy to terminate with no pain for the fetus.

As a parent learning that your child had no hope of survival is without a doubt the most painful thing one can imagine, but your decision about what to do next should focus on protecting that child from unnecessary hardship and NOT on your own ideological sensibilities.

It seems the rallying cry of the anti-abortion movement is "To give birth at all cost," but that seems incredibly myopic and unreasonable.

Maybe I am simply not seeing this clearly, so if anybody has a different opinion please share. Because, to be honest, I am unable in this case to see both sides of the issue.

Source

Courtesy of WBTV:

An Illinois couple is questioning People magazine's decision to reject a photo they sent in for a contest.

"I don't think there is anything more beautiful than a woman holding a handgun," Bob Ferris said.

Those feelings are the reason why one day last summer, when's Bob's wife Sandra came home from church looking especially fetching, he grabbed his camera and his .45-caliber Colt and started taking photos.

"That was my husband's idea," Sandra Ferris said.

So was entering the picture he took in a contest called "Real Beauty at Every Age", sponsored by People magazine.

"It just so happens that the photo I liked the best has her holding a .45 automatic. I didn't think they'd reject the photo," Bob Ferris said.

"Bob's wife Sandra came home from church looking especially fetching, he grabbed his camera and his .45-caliber Colt and started taking photos." There is literally so many things wrong with that sentence that I almost don't know where to start.

Bob then sent in another picture of his wife, also holding a gun and it too was rejected.

Bob sent in a third photo, this one sans firearms, and it was accepted.

This, to Bob, meant that was an attack on his rights.

You know, the "right to take a picture of your wife holding a handgun and having it accepted by a magazine for a beauty contest." I believe it is listed right after the amendment stating that "you CAN teach Creationism in public schools," and that "Christianity is America's official government sponsored religion."

You know amendments that only Right Wingers can see.

Of course most of us recognize that not everybody in America believes that happiness is a warm gun, or that holding a .45 caliber handgun makes a woman all that more attractive.

These people are gun fetishists and they need to recognize that they represent a small segment of the population, just like the BDSM community and the Furries.

I would imagine that People magazine would have just as likely rejected a photo of a woman in full on bondage gear or dressed up like a giant panda bear.

This is not about the 2nd Amendment, and only the MOST extreme gun nut would think that it was.

And that is a statement that I cannot believe even needs to be made.

Source