Moderatemagazine

The Great Global Warming Debate

moderatemagazine — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:12:39 +0000

The Great Global Warming Debate

Global warming, everyone agrees it’s a problem, right? Not so, says Weather Channel founder, John Coleman. Coleman, who has in recent years separated himself from his creation due to what he calls “global warming alarmism”, has decided to go as far as suing Al Gore, and other proponents of global warming, for fraud. The media, including the Weather Channel, have continuously promoted the idea that carbon emissions will bring the end of civilization, and we must “go green”. At the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, Coleman criticized the Weather Channel for telling viewers that global warming is inevitable, without presenting all the facts. He cites that China, one of the biggest carbon emitters, actually had one of its coldest winters on record in 100 years. In addition, Coleman doubts that carbon dioxide causes global warming at all, citing that ice core samples with an increase in carbon dioxide are a result and not the cause of higher temperatures, lagging behind by about 800 years. He explained that carbon dioxide makes up only about 38 out of 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, which is twice the amount it was before we started burning fossil fuels. Yet, this number is still too small to have an affect on temperature. This certainly flies in the face of global warming alarmism.

The lawsuit is being filed not only by Coleman, but fellow San Diego weather forecasters and scientists. Coleman hopes that this will bring about a public debate, once the evidence against global warming is presented along side the evidence for it. The media has continuously promoted the idea that global warming is a very real threat. I’m certainly no expert on the subject, but I do see the value in shedding some light on the evidence against global warming before taking drastic action.

Companies are now selling carbon offsets and labeling products as “green” or environmentally friendly. The fear that global warming creates is becoming big business. This fear, justified or not, will have a very real impact on our economy. Nations like China are able to keep their prices low because of the use of coal in production. If the U.S. jumps on the global warming bandwagon too soon, will we still be able to compete with nations who use cheaper forms of energy? The U.S. never signed the Kyoto Protocol for fear of what it could do to the economy. At what price do you have to give up your lifestyle? How many people would really give up their car or air-conditioning in the name of saving the planet?

This lawsuit is far bigger than just a rally against Al Gore’s pet project. It’s about the importance of scientific debate in a public forum, and the people’s right to evaluate the information for themselves. If global warming is truly happening, the evidence will stand up in court. An important part of any democracy is a free media. It’s time the U.S. media presents all the information before persuading everyone to vote in favor of legislation that could very well damage us in the long run. John Coleman is not only giving the scientific community a wake up call, but the media and the public as well. It’s time to look at all the facts before we make any decisions about global warming.

by Jennifer Keck

Rape As A War Tactic In The Democratic Republic Of Congo

moderatemagazine — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:12:16 +0000

Rape As A War Tactic In The Democratic Republic Of Congo

Rape as an act of violence—not sexual expression—has been misunderstood and dismissed by bungled pop culture pseudo-science, such as the authors of Natural History of Rape, as well as by well-intentioned but misinformed rape prevention programs. However, the significance of addressing rape as a “weapon of war” is sometimes undermined, despite its reality. For instance, in the early nineties, dozens of “rape camps” were formed in Bosnia as a eugenicist tool against Muslim women¹.

In the past decade, over five million deaths have occurred in the Congo as a result of the ongoing war. Systematic rape against women of all ages has become standard in many villages and camps, where up to 90% of the women have become victims of rape. In an interview with CBS, Anneka Van Woudenberg, senior Congo researcher at Human Rights Watch, said that “it is a way to ensure that communities accept the power and authority of that particular armed group. This is about showing terror. This is about using it as a weapon of war.” ²

Unlike supporters of rape as an act of reproductive-based survival instincts purport, these rapists often use guns, broken bottles, and machetes, among other objects in their assaults. As such, they are engaging in mass, violent demonstrations of power—not species-survival prompted behavior. In the Congo, as well as many other places throughout the world, if a woman if raped, her family, because of shame and the possibility of HIV-AIDS, often abandons her. As a result, entire families are decimated, women give birth to enemies’ babies, and thousands of women are hospitalized because of physical and psychological trauma.²

In December last year, thousands of women marched in protest³. However, last month, over 80 women were raped within two days⁴. Congolese women are extremely frustrated by the police and government forces non-reaction.

We must all acknowledge and speak out against rape as an act of violence, aggression, and domination. The shame and family loss that often accompanies rape victims’ experience should be addressed as well. Such atrocities occur, unfortunately, not only in foreign nations but in our own, as well. The adoption of rape as an institutional military tactic, however, cannot be ignored in its scope and breadth in the Congo. Please, join or donate to Run for Congo Women, speak to your family and friends about this issue, and write your representatives to address the issue internationally. Any silence regarding this crime only makes it more abhorrent.

What you can do:

-Run for Congo Women addresses the crisis on an international level. You can donate or sponsor a woman. Upcoming run dates are:

*Tempe/Phoenix, AZ 10K Run (or Walk), Tempe, AZ — Sunday, October 18, 2009

*Morrison, CO 5K and 10K, Morrison, CO — Saturday, September 19, 2009

*Portland, OR 3 or 9 Mile Run (or Walk), Portland, OR — Sunday, September 19, 2009

-View their video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeEbnBMET2g

-View the CBS video here http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/11/60minutes/main3701249.shtml

by Amanda Mills

References:

Removing The Gag: The End Of The Mexico City Policy

moderatemagazine — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:57:35 +0000

Removing The Gag: The End Of The Mexico City Policy

On January 23^rd, newly inaugurated President Barack Obama lifted the Mexico City Policy, also known as the ‘Global Gag Rule’, which banned federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions. This policy actually has a long history. It was established in 1984 by Ronald Regan, when it earned its name at the United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City. Then it was repealed by Bill Clinton in 1993, and signed back into force by George W. Bush his first day in office in 2001.

Obama criticized the policy for being “excessively broad” and that it has “undermined efforts to promote safe and efficient voluntary family planning programs in foreign counties. Even so, abortion can’t be funded with U.S. tax dollars overseas because of the 1973 the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. The difference is organizations that provide or council women about abortion can continue to do so with their own funds, while receiving assistance for other programs. Lifting the Mexico City Policy is an imperfect attempt to appease both pro-life and pro-choice voters without really pleasing either.

Whether pro-life or pro-choice, it’s important to recognize that women in the poorest parts of the world have very limited choices when it comes to healthcare. Poverty and unplanned pregnancy are often intertwined, leading women to bear children they are unable to care for and seeking dangerous illegal abortions. Limiting access to healthcare and education causes more women to die needlessly during childbirth and increases the spread of HIV/AIDS. The International Planned Parenthood Federation estimated that it lost about $100 million dollars in funding during the Bush administration, which could have prevented 36 million pregnancies and 15 million abortions. Voluntary access to birth control is one of the best ways to prevent abortion in the developing world. It also helps prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS since people are given more options and are educated about how to protect themselves.

Unfortunately for Obama, he is between a rock and a hard place on this controversial issue. While he waited until the day after the pro-life March for Life protest in Washington, D.C., pro-life Congressmen as well as voters criticized his decision. At the same time, pro-choice activists are hoping Obama will do more in the way of promoting access to family planning. Ultimately, women with the fewest choices will be at the mercy of U.S. politics when it comes to the abortion debate.

by Jennifer Keck

Outsourcing America

moderatemagazine — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:52:39 +0000

Outsourcing America

According to a press release in September of 2008, Sears, Roebuck & Co. has signed a deal with the U.S. Army to launch the Army First Infantry Division clothing collection. This will be the first time the U.S. Army has officially licensed its insignias. Part of the proceeds of the clothing sales will be used to support military programs for military personnel and their families.

The clothing will display the insignia of the legendary First Infantry Division, or “The Big Red One” as it came to be known. This proud division was the first to hit the shores during the United States invasion of Normandy during World War II.

The clothing line will increase the exposure of the U.S. Army as well as add to Sears’ military program. Sears sponsors a “Heroes at Home” program, which provides home renovations to military families and has been promoted through biannual marketing efforts.

So with a company that has a history of supporting the military and employees that serve in the reserves entering a relationship with the Army to sell Army merchandise, this should make Veteran’s everywhere smile, right?

Wrong. Veterans groups all around the country have voiced major displeasure over the new line of clothes calling the clothing line a “disgrace” among other more colorful descriptions. So what is all the displeasure about?

“Made in China,” pointed out a veteran. It’s true. Right above a patch identifying the proud Army division is a small patch confirming the clothing is made in China. Veterans were quick to point out that Americans are losing jobs, and instead of supporting our country, Sears chose to outsource to a communist country. A spokesperson from Sears tried to explain by stating, “It is cost-prohibitive to offer clothing solely manufactured in the United States.”

It is true that most manufacturers sell a large supply of products that are made in China. However, when “All-American” appears on the name-brand label, a company should probably take steps to ensure that it is All-American. When questioned, the Army responded that it can’t tell manufacturers where to make their products, but there just seems to be something patriotic and necessary about the U.S. Army brand being made in America. You wouldn’t want an American Flag made in Russia, and you don’t want your U.S. Army merchandise made in China. For a company that supports the military as much as Sears does, this would seem to have been one gaffe that could have been avoided if just a little more thought had put into it. To date, Sears does not appear inclined to make any changes.

Veterans groups have definitely made their opinions on this issue well known. Time will only tell if the general public finds the act of an “All-American” product being made in China as distasteful.

By Kelly Wier