What the hell is up with the cast from The Sopranos?

It is interesting how life sometimes mirrors fiction. I was looking at the news this week and read about Lilloo Brancato Jr.’s murder acquittal and was thinking about the fact that this is not the first time I have seen someone in the news from The Sopranos lately. Here is a quick rundown of what has been going on since the show began a few years ago:

In 2008 John Costelloe was found dead, apparently of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Lilloo Brancato Jr. was acquitted of the murder of a police officer, but found guilty of the lesser charge of attempted burglary for a botched robbery involving drugs 3 years ago. . (One might also note that he was arrested a few years ago for heroin possession.) Also Joe Pantoliano spoke out about depression while promoting an organization he founded two years ago to address the stigma attached to mental illness. His group is called: “No Kidding, Me Too!”.

This was all preceeded by the arrest of John Ventimiglia on charges of DUI and cocaine possession in 2006 and the arrest of Louis Gross same year for assaulting a Manhattan merchant.

In 2005 Vincent Pastore plead guilty to assaulting his girlfriend. Not to be outdone, Louis Gross found himself in trouble with the law for breaking and entering.

In 2002, Robert Iler, who plays Tony Soprano’s son plead guilty to robbing tourists.

Possibly most interesting, Tony Sirico, who played Paulie Gualtieri has been reported to have been an associate of the Colombo crime family prior to working as an actor. While that is not a proven fact, it is well known that he has a record including 28 arrests and served 13 months in prison for felony weapons possession.

So I have to ask myself once more: “What the hell is up with the cast of the Sopranos”.
Read more!

Global Warming: WHAT THE F*CK IS GEORGE W. BUSH THINKING, OR IS HE THINKING AT ALL???

The United Nations Climate Change Conference began this week on Monday. This two week meeting is the thirteenth conference to be held by the 192 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change and is the third meeting by the 176 parties of the Kyoto Protocol. Of key importance in this conference is the negotiation of standards on climate change for the post 2012 period which marks the expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol.

"The scientific debate has been conclusively laid to rest by the latest scientific findings from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - climate change is unequivocal and accelerating" noted the Indonesian Environmental Minister and President of the conference, Rachmat Witoelar.

Of particular note the new Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd and his team were sworn in the same day this conference began. Putting global warming and other environmental concerns at the forefront of his list of priorities, Rudd signed the Kyoto Protocol that day reversing the decision of the former conservative party that has controlled Australia the last eleven years.

Yet in spite of this good news the United Nations acknowledged that this is not enough. They went on to add that no meaningful agreement can be reached without the participation of the United States, the last of the world’s industrial powers to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. "There is no doubt that the U.S. has to play a key role in the post-2012 agreement," noted Artur Runge-Metzger, the European Union’s climate chief. "I think what the rest of the world would like to see is a credible effort, a credible commitment from the side of the U.S. to resolving this major challenge."

The key stated objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." The United States' ratification of this treaty is vital to its success as the USA is the world’s largest carbon emitter and contributor of roughly 25% of the world’s greenhouse gasses. The USA is rated as an Annex I country (like the European Union) and as such the USA would be expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% less than 1990 levels.

To me at least this hardly seems unrealistic in the face of the consequences if we do not make a meaningful effort at compliance. As noted above, the reality of climate change is both “unequivocal and accelerating”. In the United States alone we have seen radical shifts in normal weather patterns the last few years that can only be attributed to the effects of global warming. Flooding in some areas, droughts in others, erosion, hurricanes, and more such weather events are becoming more common every year.

All this begs the question: WHAT THE F*CK IS GEORGE BUSH THINKING? Or maybe the better question is WHEN IN THE HELL IS HE GOING TO BEGIN USING HIS BRAIN??? To put this into perspective let us look for a moment to just one example of the effects of global warming on the United States.

At the end of June of this year leading researchers in North Carolina issued a report noting that the coastline of that state would continue to experience significant loss in land area during the course of the next 30 to 75 years due to the effects of projected changes in climate (global warming). Those findings appeared in the report “Measuring the Impacts of Climate Change on North Carolina Coastal Resources” which assessed the impact of rising sea levels on property values, recreation, and quality of life issues. The study was conducted jointly by researchers from Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, University of North Carolina Wilmington and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Among other things this study found that:

• North Carolina’s coastal topography makes it especially vulnerable to sea level rise and hurricanes;


• That the impact is both economic and ecologic;


• The expected one- to three-foot rise in sea level along four North Carolina coastal counties could mean billions of dollars in private property losses over the next 75 years;


• Recreational fishing and beach trips will also become vulnerable to increased erosion from sea level rise and expected hurricanes.

The thing to consider here is that this is just one study dealing with one small portion of the United States. To frame this issue in a more complete international context one need merely look to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In accordance with current research, global sea levels are expected to rise significantly the next 25 to 75 years with the IPCC’s estimates places sea levels at 1 to more than 2 feet (0.3 to more than 0.61 meters) within that time frame.

Looking to costs to North Carolina alone business interruption losses from hurricanes could increase by as much as $157 million per weather/storm event by 2080. In that same time frame it is estimated that 14 of 17 recreational beaches could, without adaptation, see erosion all the way to the roads which would eliminate the possibility for beach recreation in those areas. Recreational economic losses the next 75 years for southern North Carolina beaches are estimated in the range of $3.9 billion. Losses in property value in just four key counties are projected to reach $6.9 billion.

Okmyung “Paul” Bin from East Carolina University’s Department of Economics studied the impact of rising sea levels on North Carolina property values. “The amount of developed property along the North Carolina coastline has steadily increased over the last several decades due to a strong preference for coastal locations,” Bin said. “The number of building permits in Carolina Beach during the last four years alone exceeds the number of permits issued over the previous 20 years, and the average selling price for residential properties in Wrightsville Beach has increased more than 200 percent since 2001. This growth, coupled with soaring property values in North Carolina, has created greater vulnerability to rising sea levels.”

So again, one has to ask WHAT THE F*CK IS GEORGE BUSH THINKING? Of course in all fairness we cannot put all the blame on George II, the boy king. In his eight years in office Sir Bill (Clinton) failed to even bring the matter of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol before congress for consideration for ratification. The thing that gets me though it that Boy George has managed to ignore even domestic policy and law regarding global warming.

Just this year he received a healthy spanking from no less than the highest court in the land. On Monday, April 2nd of 2007 the Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and that its stated reasons for not doing so were inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA and Bush administration have argued against the EPA's assertion of its authority noting a number of reasons: that it would hinder the President's ability "to negotiate with 'key developing nations' to reduce emissions", that it would in fact be too small a step in addressing concerns of global warming, and that voluntary regulation is preferable. In ruling against these assertions, the court went on to rebuke President Bush by noting that:" while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."

And it is not like there is an absence of mounting pressure at the grassroots level to address this issue because there is every indication that this is a subject of serious concern. Of particular interest to myself is KyotoUSA. On their website found at www.kyotousa.org they refer to themselves as “an all volunteer, grassroots organization that encourages U.S. cities and their residents to reduce the global warming greenhouse gas emissions for which they are responsible.”

On February 16th, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol became law for the 141 countries that had ratified it to date. On that very same day Seattle Mayor Gregg Nickels launched the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action. Two years later, The U.S. Conference of Mayors launched the Mayors Climate Protection Center to administer and track the agreement and by November 1, 2007, there were more than 710 signatories to that Agreement.

Under this Agreement, participating cities committed to take the following actions:

• To strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns;


• To urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and


• To urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system.

So to me a simple man, the question remains the same: WHAT THE F*CK IS GEORGE BUSH THINKING????? Or maybe is he thinking at all remains the key question. Or maybe what the hell were we thinking when we allowed this tyrant to steal two elections? WHAT THE F*CK ARE WE THINKING AND WHY ARE THE FRENCH THE ONLY ONES WHO GET TO STORM THE BASTILLE??? I always heard they were sissies. So what does that make us?

p.s. I hope you take not offence my French friends. It is called American satire, deal with it. Please!!!

Sources and further reading:

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/
http://www.kyotousa.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/bali.climatechange
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm

Read more!

Bush, the EPA and the Environment: NEW HOPE?

On Monday, April 2nd of 2007 the Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and that its stated reasons for not doing so were inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA and Bush administration have argued against the EPA’s assertion of its authority noting a number of reasons: that it would hinder the President’s ability “to negotiate with 'key developing nations' to reduce emissions”, that it would in fact be too small a step in addressing concerns of global warming, and that voluntary regulation is preferable. In ruling against these assertions, the court went on to rebuke President Bush by noting that:” while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."

The relevant portion of the Clean Air Act in this decision reads as follows:

“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time
revise)in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgement cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare…”

The court looked to this act and went on to note that the Clean Air Act "and common sense...demand regulatory action to prevent harm, even if the regulator is less than certain that harm is otherwise inevitable."

In looking to its authority to hear the case the court stated the following regarding injuries:

"The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. ...a
number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms,
including the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover
extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes [and] the accelerated
rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few
thousand years ...."

The EPA's main defense for its inaction seemed to be that any attempt at regulation would be futile as there are many other countries contributing to global warming ("because predicted increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing nations, particularly China and India, are likely to offset any marginal domestic decrease”). The court failed to agree with this assertion noting that: "Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop. ... They instead whittle away at them over time, refining their preferred approach as circumstances change and as they develop a more-nuanced understanding of how best to proceed." The court went on to note that:

"To put this in perspective: Considering just emissions from the
transportation sector, which represents less than one-third of this country's
total carbon dioxide emissions, the United States would still rank as the
third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, outpaced only by the
European Union and China. Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle
emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations and
hence, according to petitioners, to global warming."

The EPA itself argued that "a number of voluntary executive branch programs already provide an effective response to the threat of global warming, that regulating greenhouse gases might impair the President's ability to negotiate with 'key developing nations' to reduce emissions, and that curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect 'an inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate change issue". In looking to at these arguments the court stated that "EPA has been charged with protecting the public's 'health' and 'welfare' ...." and went on to add that: "EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate."

In its concluding findings the court held that

“Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these
policy judgments, it is evident they have nothing to do with whether greenhouse
gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a
reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment....If the
scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a
reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming,
EPA must say so. That EPA would prefer not to regulate greenhouse gases because
of some residual uncertainty....is irrelevant. The statutory question is whether
sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding. In short, EPA has
offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse
gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore
'arbitrary, capricious, ...or otherwise not in accordance with law'.... We hold
... the EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."

This decision is a resounding defeat to the Bush administration’s policy of complacency and laissez faire governmental policy when it comes to the environment. As the court duly noted, the EPA has been entrusted to look after the health and welfare of the country, its citizens, and the environment. This opinion sends a clear signal to the lower courts and legislatures that no longer is it acceptable for agencies to stand idly by while the future of the citizens of this country and indeed the world live in peril. Courts and legislatures nationwide have awaited this decision in anticipation of the application of its finding to their own affairs. And now they can move boldly into the twenty-first century with both clarity and authority.

Read more!