Asteroid attack: Putting Earth's defences to the test - space - 23 September 2009 - New Scientist
Shared via AddThis
This article in New Scientist is mind-jarring. Until I saw Peter Garretson's (mentioned in this article as leading a Pentagon exercise to evaluate response capabilties) briefing a couple of years ago, I thought the possibility of an asteroid or large meteor striking earth and doing serious damage was primarily science fiction despite the fact that I had known about Meteor Crater in Arizona since I was a child.
There's not much use going around our daily lives panicked about the possibility of being wiped out by an asteroid collision, but we are foolish if we don't at least make what plans we can to minimize death, and look to the future for both notification of these "near earth objects" and what we might do to protect ourselves.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Asteroid Attack: Putting Earth's Defenses to the Test
It's not just science fiction. Excellent video that accompanies the article above.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Debtors Revolt Publicity Pays Off for Ann Minch
Debtors Revolt Publicity Pays Off for Ann Minch
Posted using ShareThis
Credit cards ought to be called by their right name: LOAN cards or DEBT cards. That's what we are really doing when we use them, taking out a loan and increasing our debt, but can you even imagine agreeing to a car loan at 25% interest? How about a home loan? NO WAY. But somehow, we are foolish enough to "agree" to interest rates like that on credit cards. Just using them means we "agree."
I pay off my balances every month. Never late. But today I got a letter from one of my card banks saying they were raising the interest rate on that card to over 25%. Imagine what that would mean if I didn't pay it off monthly. At even simple interest, a $100 item costs over $125 with a year's interest. Someone who runs a balance of $1000 is paying over $250 EXTRA for whatever they bought. Think what that extra $250 could buy you if you weren't paying it!
The banks are rushing to raise credit card interest rates as fast as they can before the new laws go into effect. They shot themselves in the proverbial feet by not only extending but PUSHING credit to people who could little afford it and who would be tempted to buy things they couldn't pay off, and now when they get a lot of defaults, the rest of us are paying for it.
I'm for this woman's revolt. DON'T PAY their exorbitant interest. If you use credit cards, use them wisely and pay them off monthly. If you can't pay them off, at least minimize the amount on the card and look for one that isn't charging you usurious rates. Where to find good information about better cards? Here's a reputable site that can help, and also has a lot of other excellent financial information:
bankrate.com
Posted using ShareThis
Credit cards ought to be called by their right name: LOAN cards or DEBT cards. That's what we are really doing when we use them, taking out a loan and increasing our debt, but can you even imagine agreeing to a car loan at 25% interest? How about a home loan? NO WAY. But somehow, we are foolish enough to "agree" to interest rates like that on credit cards. Just using them means we "agree."
I pay off my balances every month. Never late. But today I got a letter from one of my card banks saying they were raising the interest rate on that card to over 25%. Imagine what that would mean if I didn't pay it off monthly. At even simple interest, a $100 item costs over $125 with a year's interest. Someone who runs a balance of $1000 is paying over $250 EXTRA for whatever they bought. Think what that extra $250 could buy you if you weren't paying it!
The banks are rushing to raise credit card interest rates as fast as they can before the new laws go into effect. They shot themselves in the proverbial feet by not only extending but PUSHING credit to people who could little afford it and who would be tempted to buy things they couldn't pay off, and now when they get a lot of defaults, the rest of us are paying for it.
I'm for this woman's revolt. DON'T PAY their exorbitant interest. If you use credit cards, use them wisely and pay them off monthly. If you can't pay them off, at least minimize the amount on the card and look for one that isn't charging you usurious rates. Where to find good information about better cards? Here's a reputable site that can help, and also has a lot of other excellent financial information:
bankrate.com
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Federal appeals court to decide suit over wounded veterans -- latimes.com
Federal appeals court to decide suit over wounded veterans -- latimes.com
Posted using ShareThis
It's pathetic that our wounded and sick veterans have to resort to a lawsuit to try to get the VA to process their claims and needs in a reasonably timely fashion, but as the judge says, he can't make that happen. The injuries and other service-connected health problems that are forced upon the members of our military services are one of the consequences of wars. Our goverment always pays great lip service to taking care of them, but when it comes to actually doing it, is unprepared and doesn't have the necessary money and facilities. Of course not . . . raising taxes is seen as anathema. They need to think about that when they send people to war.
Posted using ShareThis
It's pathetic that our wounded and sick veterans have to resort to a lawsuit to try to get the VA to process their claims and needs in a reasonably timely fashion, but as the judge says, he can't make that happen. The injuries and other service-connected health problems that are forced upon the members of our military services are one of the consequences of wars. Our goverment always pays great lip service to taking care of them, but when it comes to actually doing it, is unprepared and doesn't have the necessary money and facilities. Of course not . . . raising taxes is seen as anathema. They need to think about that when they send people to war.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Disgusted with the media
I'm thoroughly fed up with the media, and this evening, especially with television news. We have an entire world of important stories and issues and what do they spend hours and hours on? Again? Serena Williams and someone else's outbursts on the tennis court. Congressman Wilson's outburst during Obama's health care speech. And several other rude bloopers. On and on about apologies, and what should be done, and censures, fines, etc. This is ridiculous tempest-in-a-teapot journalism. Not one of these incidents is worth spending more than two minutes on. Instead, we are subjected to endless "reports" and discussions about them instead of anything actually important or substantive. Same with the death of Michael Jackson.
Come on people, get on with it. REPORT on something worth caring about and worth educating us about.
Come on people, get on with it. REPORT on something worth caring about and worth educating us about.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Free Press Calls on Obama Administration to Resist Extremism in the Media
WASHINGTON -- Van Jones, an adviser to the Obama administration and a former Free Press board member, resigned from his White House post after being ruthlessly attacked for weeks in a smear campaign started by Fox News pundit Glenn Beck. Beck, who has also called President Obama a "racist," targeted Jones for his background in environmental and civil rights activism.
Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, issued the following statement:
"Most Americans want affordable health care, good schools and clean air. But if you watch Glenn Beck’s show, you would think the opposite is true: that the only proponents of these ideas are socialist, anti-American radicals operating out of the White House basement.
"At Free Press, our focus is on structural media policy, not on media content. But we take this extraordinary step because what’s happening is so poisonous to American political discourse.
"That Fox News Channel lets Beck use its media megaphone to stir up hatred and fear of others is repulsive, divisive and beyond all common sense or decency. By giving Beck a nightly platform for such McCarthy-esque witch hunts and smear campaigns, the national news network undermines our democracy. But Fox News is not alone. Unfortunately, this kind of rant is endemic to a media system that cares about ratings far more than about the truth.
"Beck has a First Amendment right to stoke prejudice, and we do not and will not support efforts to silence him. This is not about censorship; it’s about sanity. Our leaders have a responsibility to condemn fear mongering in all its forms, defend those who are unfairly attacked, and support a more diverse media system that provides alternative voices to the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other extremists. The lesson from the shameful McCarthy era that culminated in 1954 is that we must confront the politics of personal attack with decency, reason and a commitment to more political speech, not less.
"It's time for our elected officials -- from the White House to local town halls -- to join people across the country in a stand against agents of fear and misinformation."
Posted using ShareThis
Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, issued the following statement:
"Most Americans want affordable health care, good schools and clean air. But if you watch Glenn Beck’s show, you would think the opposite is true: that the only proponents of these ideas are socialist, anti-American radicals operating out of the White House basement.
"At Free Press, our focus is on structural media policy, not on media content. But we take this extraordinary step because what’s happening is so poisonous to American political discourse.
"That Fox News Channel lets Beck use its media megaphone to stir up hatred and fear of others is repulsive, divisive and beyond all common sense or decency. By giving Beck a nightly platform for such McCarthy-esque witch hunts and smear campaigns, the national news network undermines our democracy. But Fox News is not alone. Unfortunately, this kind of rant is endemic to a media system that cares about ratings far more than about the truth.
"Beck has a First Amendment right to stoke prejudice, and we do not and will not support efforts to silence him. This is not about censorship; it’s about sanity. Our leaders have a responsibility to condemn fear mongering in all its forms, defend those who are unfairly attacked, and support a more diverse media system that provides alternative voices to the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other extremists. The lesson from the shameful McCarthy era that culminated in 1954 is that we must confront the politics of personal attack with decency, reason and a commitment to more political speech, not less.
"It's time for our elected officials -- from the White House to local town halls -- to join people across the country in a stand against agents of fear and misinformation."
Posted using ShareThis
Thought-Provoking New York Times article on military members blogging and using social networks
Should our military members be allowed to use social networking like Facebook and MySpace? Should they be allowed to blog? This is an interesting conundrum for the military. Fascinating New York Times article.
This was posted on Facebook by the DAV but for those who don't subscribe there I'm passing it along. Years ago when I was a military wife, I wrote a column in a German newspaper. I did submit the columns to an army public affairs officer for review before publication, but I didn't realize until sometime after I started that my columns were making it into the briefing books of the main army Europe command. No one ever tried to stop me, though I also never wrote anything detrimental to the army, the US, or OPSEC (for you civilians, that's Operation Security, referring to the need to keep sensitive information about military operations close-hold, not that I had any knowledge of anything OPSEC sensitive in the first place). I know people who are currently serving our country who use social networking and blog on them, and I wonder how they will be affected. I, for one, WANT to be able to read what the troops have to say.
The issue of freedom of speech is complicated when it comes to the military, who often give up some of the freedoms they fight for.
BTW, I believe the blog mentioned in the beginning of this article is by invitation only and not for the general internet public. If that's not correct, I apologize.
Some military bloggers do cloak their identities, as do some civilian bloggers.
This was posted on Facebook by the DAV but for those who don't subscribe there I'm passing it along. Years ago when I was a military wife, I wrote a column in a German newspaper. I did submit the columns to an army public affairs officer for review before publication, but I didn't realize until sometime after I started that my columns were making it into the briefing books of the main army Europe command. No one ever tried to stop me, though I also never wrote anything detrimental to the army, the US, or OPSEC (for you civilians, that's Operation Security, referring to the need to keep sensitive information about military operations close-hold, not that I had any knowledge of anything OPSEC sensitive in the first place). I know people who are currently serving our country who use social networking and blog on them, and I wonder how they will be affected. I, for one, WANT to be able to read what the troops have to say.
The issue of freedom of speech is complicated when it comes to the military, who often give up some of the freedoms they fight for.
BTW, I believe the blog mentioned in the beginning of this article is by invitation only and not for the general internet public. If that's not correct, I apologize.
Some military bloggers do cloak their identities, as do some civilian bloggers.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Bravo Laura Bush!
Just yesterday I said that I wished that Laura Bush, as a former school librarian and educator, would come out in support of President Obama's address to school students and today she did. Bravo, Laura. Her husband, President George W. Bush, addressed school students, too, as did President Reagan. It's terrific that presidents engage our young people.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Text of the president's education speech
Bravo!
Text of the president's education speech
and here are the lesson plans from the Department of Education website. Look for the "Classroom Activities" box and you can download them in either PDF or MS Word format.
Text of the president's education speech
and here are the lesson plans from the Department of Education website. Look for the "Classroom Activities" box and you can download them in either PDF or MS Word format.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Gibbs: Resistance to Obama school speech just plain ’silly’ | csmonitor.com
Gibbs: Resistance to Obama school speech just plain ’silly’ | csmonitor.com
Posted using ShareThis
Now I know too many people in our country have totally taken leave of their senses. When the President of the United States can't give a back-to-school speech encouraging kids to learn, study and stay in school without people getting upset, we have reached a new and foolish low. Those that say the President is playing politics with this ought to go look in the mirror and feel ashamed. We should be thankful we have a president that cares enough about the kids in our country to express these thoughts to them.
Posted using ShareThis
Now I know too many people in our country have totally taken leave of their senses. When the President of the United States can't give a back-to-school speech encouraging kids to learn, study and stay in school without people getting upset, we have reached a new and foolish low. Those that say the President is playing politics with this ought to go look in the mirror and feel ashamed. We should be thankful we have a president that cares enough about the kids in our country to express these thoughts to them.
Lack of data hinders prevention efforts | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star
Lack of data hinders prevention efforts | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star
Posted using ShareThis
Posted using ShareThis
A 2008 Congressional Research Service Report on the issue put it bluntly: "There is no nationwide system for surveillance of suicide specifically among veterans."How can the rising numbers of suicides among our military veterans be prevented? It's terrible enough that they suffer in war, are sent away from their families, and deal with PTSD and injury, but then to die by their own hand because of their suffering, how terrible for them, their families, for all of us.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Why so scared of the "public option"?
The fear of the so-called public option for universal health care is ridiculous. Medicare is a public option. I don't see seniors out campaigning to get rid of Medicare, complaining of rationed care or not being able to choose a doctor. Instead I know people who are anxious to become 65 so they can have Medicare.
Instead of I know people who have employer-sponsored or other private health care plans that require them to use only network doctors (not much doctor choice there!) or the plan either doesn't cover them or covers only a small percentage of the cost.
Instead I know people whose medical insurance plans don't cover needed services or only allow so many visits for a particular condition. Talk about rationed care!
The idea that the health insurance companies (translate, "big business" in it for huge profits) either could or would "do things better" is nonsense. They've had YEARS to do it better and haven't made the effort. Too much money in business as usual. They are behind the campaign to get rid of a public option because they are scared they will not have profits as high as they do now. People might begin to see through the smoke screen.
The idea that government is always a bad choice is also foolish. I don't see the public screaming that we should get out of national defense (the military), law enforcement (from the FBI to the courts, from local police to state troopers) because private enterprise can do it better. I don't see the public screaming to replace the federal highway system (federally administered but contracted to contractors) with a hodgepodge of business interests.
From what I have seen, my friends and relatives on Medicare have more choice of doctors and hospitals and less rationing of care than those on many of the private plans sponsored by employers.
My family has had federal health care insurance for over 40 years due to military service. Whatever problems we've had weren't the result of the insurance, and we are very grateful for the health care we have received. We have a choice of three plans with varying copay and deductible arrangements. One is an HMO plan.
We are extremely thankful that we have not had to fear a lack of affordable medical care or going broke because of a family illness or injury. We would like to see that kind of security and freedom extended to everyone in our country.
Instead of I know people who have employer-sponsored or other private health care plans that require them to use only network doctors (not much doctor choice there!) or the plan either doesn't cover them or covers only a small percentage of the cost.
Instead I know people whose medical insurance plans don't cover needed services or only allow so many visits for a particular condition. Talk about rationed care!
The idea that the health insurance companies (translate, "big business" in it for huge profits) either could or would "do things better" is nonsense. They've had YEARS to do it better and haven't made the effort. Too much money in business as usual. They are behind the campaign to get rid of a public option because they are scared they will not have profits as high as they do now. People might begin to see through the smoke screen.
The idea that government is always a bad choice is also foolish. I don't see the public screaming that we should get out of national defense (the military), law enforcement (from the FBI to the courts, from local police to state troopers) because private enterprise can do it better. I don't see the public screaming to replace the federal highway system (federally administered but contracted to contractors) with a hodgepodge of business interests.
From what I have seen, my friends and relatives on Medicare have more choice of doctors and hospitals and less rationing of care than those on many of the private plans sponsored by employers.
My family has had federal health care insurance for over 40 years due to military service. Whatever problems we've had weren't the result of the insurance, and we are very grateful for the health care we have received. We have a choice of three plans with varying copay and deductible arrangements. One is an HMO plan.
We are extremely thankful that we have not had to fear a lack of affordable medical care or going broke because of a family illness or injury. We would like to see that kind of security and freedom extended to everyone in our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
