Time for an update

Well, after being ramrodded into Google's blog system when trying to sign into my blogger account, the first thing I'm obliged to say is that I don't appreciate having my blog forced into the folds of Google's global internet hegemony. If it makes me so angry to have my choices shoved down my throat like that, I could always just relocate to another blogging service, and probably will before my time on earth is done. That is, if there are any blog sites remaining in the tubes that don't have Google's hooks in them.

Now, an important Ron Paul update:
He's introduced several pieces of legislation recently that merit your consideration.
HJ Res 23 (2/7/07): Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

HR 1009 (2/13/07): To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude Hemp from the definition of marijuana.

Next up we have Rep. Ron Paul's floor speech during the Iraq escalation debate (2/14/07):

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.

We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.

We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?
(video link)

What more can be said, except Vote for Ron Paul for President, 2008!

Daily Minutia Update:
What would Jesus do? The builder of a church in Macon Georgia has drawn protests from property owners because of the negative impact the church will have on property values due to commercial development in the area. So the only logical way for the builder to force property owners into accepting God's work is to threaten to build an hispanic gay nightclub instead. What would Jesus do, indeed. Is this really how God operates?

On to more exciting news: The Virgin Earth Challenge is a challenge to develop and demonstrate the ability to remove significant levels of CO2 from the atmosphere. The prize is a whopping $25 million reward for the first group to demonstrate a commercially viable design which will remove at least 1 billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year for at least ten years without harmful effects.

I don't know about that 1 billion tons thing, but there is a company out there who claims to be able to capture CO2 at the source and break it down into its carbon and oxygen components. GS-CleanTech, a subsidiary of Greenshift, offers the technology primarily to ethanol plants, who produce astonishingly high levels of CO2 during the fermentation process. From their website:

GS CleanTech’s C0₂ Bioreactor is an enclosed structure with the ability to convert a concentrated supply of C0₂ into oxygen and biomass. The biomass can then be converted into fuel through traditional means.

Should GS-CleanTech accept the Virgin Earth Challenge? If their technology can meet the judges' requirements, you'll likely see their stock hit the moon! I'm not aware of other companies touting this technology. Tell me in the comments if you've heard or seen any others advancing these kinds of claims.