Yesterday, I saw a story on BBC about Hurricane Lane with a picture like the story here. (The BBC story has been updated and that picture is gone.) When I first saw the picture (prior to reading the story), I wondered if Hurricane Lane could cross Mexico and enter the Gulf of Mexico. If it did, would it officially become an Atlantic storm at that point and get a new name (Hurricane Isaac)?

Now, as it turns out, it won't, but do Pacific Hurricanes (or tropical storms) ever cross to the Alantic?

On a related note, I'm wondering if CSU's decision to reduce their predictions might have been premature. Since we're already at 8/4/1, it wouldn't take much for that to pass the 13/5/2 modified prediction and make their earlier 15/7/3 or even 17/9/5 prediction more accurate. Of course, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to hurricanes, tropical storms, and their predictions.

I just drove down from Charlottesville to Atlanta (about 540 miles) in my year-old Civic Hybrid (OK, it's actually a little over 13 months old). This is my first drive of over 200 miles in this car and will end up adding 33% to the total miles driven on it so far!

The last time I made this drive was in my old Civic, and it required almost 2 full tanks. I'd fill up my car, drive from Charlottesville, VA to Huntersville, NC (just outside of Charlotte), and be almost on empty. At that point, I'd fill up the car again and that'd get me into Atlanta with just a little to spare.

This time, however, I was able to drive the entire way on one tank of gas! To be fair, there are two reasons for this. First of all, the new Civic has a slightly larger gas tank. Secondly, I averaged 46.9 mpg - yes, with the air conditioning running. I still have a little over a gallon of gas left in the car!

Anyways, next time someone says something like, oh, the Hybrids are great in the city, but on the highway they aren't really that good, mention this journal entry.

First of all, for everyone who hasn't watched Steven Colbert at the Correspondents' Dinner, you are neglecting your civic duties, as well as a hilarious jab at the president, MSM (and Fox News), Justice Scalia, et al.

I was reminded of Steven Colbert when I saw this bit on ABC News about hybrid bears. Alas, they are not human/bear hybrids, but polar bear/grizzly bear hybrid(s). Nevertheless, an interesting find.

OK, so this story is not meant to be funny.

But, search for the phrase "flesh-eating rabbits". 'Nuf said.

"In my opinion, this decision is unconstitutional," Luskin told MSNBC.com in a telephone interview. "The government has no business telling people how they should perceive evolution and religion."

Casey Luskin is an attorney for the Discovery Institute, a group that is a proponent of ID. What I find humorous about this statement is that it was "the government" (i.e., school board) that was telling people how they should perceive evolution and religion by stating that evolution is "just" a theory.

Evidently, you're not a PATRIOT if you think we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Much like Pombo and Crapo, his arguments would be more persuasive if his past activities weren't so telling. (OK, not really.)

I've always prided myself on not being a party man, either Democrat or Republican. (Or Green, Libertarian, etc.) However, the Republicans seem to be doing their best to make me an anti-party man, at least. I don't really mean that - if a good local Republican demonstrated a true love of the environment and was reasonable on other issues as well, I'd still consider voting for him or her.

I don't understand why more Democrats don't expose these issues. Is it that they think that most Americans are really that callous about the environment? Are most Americans really that callous about the environment? Are most humans that callous about the environment? If so (on any of these), how do we fix it?

I wish! Actually, Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Cal.) has crafted a bill called the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, which has already passed the House and is on its way to the Senate. We need to do everything we can to defeat this Act. This Act is worse for endangered species than the Clear Skies Initiative was for clear skies. The Sierra Club has written an excellent piece describing both where Pombo's money comes from and why this bill's name is a misnomer.

Here's one interesting excerpt (of many):

Pombo has a peculiar notion of whale recovery. For years, he has avidly promoted the resumption of commercial whaling, a position opposed by 78 percent of the U.S. public (as well as by the Bush administration). Pombo has been a keynote speaker at meetings of the World Council of Whalers, an organization whose Web site provides recipes for Filet of Whale With Mushroom Sauce and Whale Pie.

Here's a "conservative" sound bite that I think makes a lot of sense:

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

Unfortunately, many conservatives (not all, and maybe not even most) use this sound bite as an excuse to do nothing. The reasoning goes something like this: "I shouldn't give him a 'fish' because I should 'teach him to fish', but I don't have time to 'teach him to fish', so I'll do nothing instead."

So, going along with my "true conversative" idea from my last post, here's my "true conservative" sound bite replacement:

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life. However, if you don't have time to teach a man to fish, it's better that he eats for a day than he starves to death before you can teach him to fish.

With all of this stuff like Friends of Science, the USA PATRIOT act, and the Clear Skies Initiative, I've been thinking more and more about becoming a conservative.

What I mean by that, of course, is redefining "conservative" to mean what I already believe - not changing what I believe to become what others think convervative means. For one thing, I think "conservative" means "conservationist". They sound alike, don't they?

I think this might work since as you've no doubt heard - no one ever went broke or lost an election by underestimating the population's intelligence!

Who's with me?

With DeLay's indictment, we now have the following three major Republican's with either criminal indictments or with indictments likely: DeLay, Frist, and Rove. If there are some others you believe belong on this list let me know. Anyways, all of this talk about these indictments being a product of "blatant political partisanship", I am reminded of the vast right-wing conspiracy claims that were bandied about (at least by Hillary) back when Clinton was on the hot seat.

So, here's a multiple choice poll. These indictments differ from Clinton's because:

• They don't directly involve Bush. Bush is whiter than snow!
• These charges are more serious than perjury involving fellatio.
• These charges are less serious.
• This really is a vast left-wing conspiracy.
• There really was a vast right-wing conspiracy.
• Trick question! There's no difference!
• Other (please specify)

Someone was talking to me about how upset they were that everyone was blaming Bush for our current environmental problems. After this very insightful person explained the reasons for being upset, I decided I agree.

There are two components here. (1) Bush is not at fault for our current environmental problems. (2) That he is being blamed for them is a bad thing. (If you're a Democrat - or just anti-Bush - the second component does not necessarily follow from the first.)

Wait, hear me (us) out.

First of all, Bush is not at fault for our current environmental problems. He is (partly) at fault for our future environmental problems, but not our current ones. It has taken us decades, if not centuries, to get where we are today.

Secondly, by blaming Bush, it gives people an excuse to ignore the ways that they (we) themselves (ourselves) are contributing to the problem. Replacing Bush with an environmentally friendly president, while a good idea, won't magically solve all our problems. We need to take other steps, such as driving more fuel efficient (and less polluting) cars, walking or riding a bike when we can instead of driving, following the 3 R's (reduce, reuse, recycle), and educating those that we can.

P.S. I'm not blaming Rita or Katrina on our environmental problems. Hurricanes happen, and they always have. Things could have been done to prepare N.O. better, and many people share the blame for that, but that's a completely different (and I'm declaring off-topic) topic.

While reading this month's Scientific American, I saw a review on a book describing the uneasy relationship that the Republican party has with science. Attached to this review was a photograph of President Bush receiving an honorary doctorate from Louisiana State University. Not just any honorary doctorate, mind you, but an honorary doctorate in science. I kid you not. He's also received an honorary doctorate (in law, at least) from Concordia.

But science. Wow. That'd be like giving an honorary degree in English to ... well, President Bush. How has President Bush contributed to the field of science - apart from so clearly illustrating the need for a solid education in the sciences?

It seems to me that there are a lot of liberals who think that faith is a four letter word. (Don't get me wrong, there are a lot who don't.)

So, I could get in to how science actually does require some faith. Faith that our senses are consistently portraying the outside world with at least a certain degree of fidelity. Faith that other scientists aren't part of an elaborate hoax. Faith that we even have senses and aren't part of someone else's simulation, etc.

However, it occurs to me that there is a whole other type of faith that many liberals tend to cling to. (For the record, I consider myself more liberal than conservative, but would probably best be described as a radical moderate.)

The faith I refer to is the faith that a fetus is not a human being and does not have the rights therewith associated.

In the American judicial system, we are innocent until proven guilty. This philosophy also colors my pro-life position. Until someone can convince me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fetus shouldn't have the rights afforded to other humans, I think his/her right to life trumps his/her mother's right to reproductive choice. What are the results of applying this tenet to my pro-life point-of-view?

1. I'm willing to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a 16 or 32-cell embryo is not a "human". Obviously and unfortunately, there is not a strict line where beyond a reasonable doubt crosses into reasonable doubt.
2. If the mother's life is in jeopardy, then it seems reasonable to put her life above the possible life that is growing in her.
3. This is not about the mother "accepting responsbility" for her actions, but is about the life of the fetus. Many pro-lifers weaken their position, IMO, by alluding to how the mother made bad decisions and needs to live with the consequences, etc., etc.
4. The fetus isn't responsible for the consequences surrounding its creation. If it is a product of rape and/or incest, this is not the fault of the fetus, and accordingly it does not deserve the death penalty for the sins of its father.

Obviously, "reasonable doubt" is going to vary from person to person, and I'm arguing from a personal point-of-view and not a legal point-of-view. That is, I'm not advocating enforcing my view points on others. However, I have yet to meet anyone who can claim beyond his or her own reasonable doubt that a six-month old fetus is fundamentally different from a 2 day old baby, in ways other than depending on the womb for life. (Technically, of course, it is possible that the six-month old fetus could live outside the womb.)