Krebs Cast #41: Gaming, Global Warming, and Being Out
Krebs Cast #41
Krebs Cast Page
My weekend
Getting a Nintendo DS at midnight and the resulting convergence of nerdiness.
Thanks to Kevin at Hypoxic for donating to Jeff and my's AIDS walk group, The Gayborhoodies. Also thank you to Tony and Flip, your donations are incredibly generous!!
Check out Dan's blog and his AIDS Walk effort. Research costs money and NIH budgets have been slashed for obvious reasons war.
Ignore cuntservative wackos, they thrive off of liberal attention.
Reaction to An Inconvenient Truth.
Searching For Happiness
A message from JW Richard from Mandrake Society Radio.
I learned to stutter by MikeyPod.
Getting Out from The Violence by one of my personal super heroes, Gay Prof.
ERRATA: We are not at 380ppm of CO2 this year, we have been OVER 380ppm for the past century. Data here.
Krebs Cast Page
206-600-KREB
posted by Adam at 10:02 AM
10 Comments:
I think Blogspot just ate my comment I just posted as I don't see it here. Well I will not retype that all over again but I wanted to say I agreed with your caller at the end of this show. We here in the community I live in, Clevland Heights, had a domestic partnership law that my partner and I were registered under, up until the last presidential election when all of Ohio voted against the gay marriage law, thus making our registration null and void...but it (the domestic partner law) was started by straight people with in my community who saw the need for gay people to be protected and what not. That was the gist of my post...you have to start small to end big.
The other comment I was going to make and which brought me back here to realize my first comment never showed up was, I have more or less always been out at any job I have held. Usually quite hesitantly when first getting the job because usually in the interview process when the future employer sees my resume and all the places I have lived the question is, "Why did you move here?" or "Wow you sure lived in a lot of places, why is that?" At first I would stumble around the question but I have now grown comfortable enough to say "Partner got a promotion at work and his job brought us here." Usually they are a little surprised but it usually ends up with me getting the job :) Anyway, I get the same reaction when people ask if I am married...and yes I tell them to a wonderful person named..." The hesitate at first and then they tip toe around it for a couple of days until they realize it's not such a bad thing to talk about it. In this job and the last one I had, I have a framed picture of John on my desk for all the world to see and that usually stops the new people or anyone who comes to my cubicle from asking..."are those flowers for your wife" or "did you and your wife have a good weekend?"
I have yet to have a bad experience at work because of my sexuality...usually it is embraced and my partner has always been welcomed to any work function.
This was a nice cast, you geek. As for gay marriage being about people not thinking were building up communities, I don't think that's really it. Be it anal sex, sex between women, whatever, I still believe that this is what it is all about. Why else are most of the supporters of the marriage amendment "religious" groups who "know" that homosexuality is wrong and evil? Hell, it's just barely become legal to practice sodomy in all 50 states. People don't want to sanction it. I know many religious people who love gay people, and for them, it is like saying, being gay is okay, which they don't believe. It is important to be out. But just like being someone who is out and "straight" acting, and never mentions anything about his sexuality, I don't believe this has nearly as much as an impact about being visible about what we do. The people who are on the edge (like many in the democratic party) are doing it more for political reasons in my opinion, than really a firm moral oppostion to gay marriage.
Aaaw - Thanks for calling me a superhero. It's mostly because of all that spandex I wear, isn't it?
Oh, and I forgot to mention: I always tell the truth, except when I lie. ;-)
Just want to say Hi, I am a new reader and podcast listener since my blogger friend Bruce was on your podcast the other day. Have gone thru your archives and like your style, I am a new fan. Hopefully by July I want to have a podcast up in conjunction with my blog and website, but it seems like a lot of work and I am not very tech literate yet. You do a great job, and will be listening and posting often....GG
Actually, Epilonious, according to measurements made in previous years, the US was responsible for the largest chunk of CO2 emissions and per capita we were the largest emitters of CO2 in 2000 as well. We were among the lowest emitters per gross domestic product but that just means we produce and use more energy than other nations more efficiently. Bottom line though, we are one of the largest perps.
Global Warming Facts and Our Future
1998 CO2 Emissions per capita Note here that two of the three largest contributors per capita, Australia and the US, are also the two nations that have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Historic CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Comustion, 1900-1999
Please note that CO2 emission data from previous years are relevant due to the half life of atmospheric CO2 being 38 years. Half life is the time that it takes for a molecule to degrade by half. i.e. if you have 1g of atmospheric CO2 it will take 38 years for it to degrade to 0.5g.
Great cast, I am glad to hear your views on the global warming issues and I agree that it is very important that it really is how cities are developed in the future, that is going to make the difference. You being a former Phoenician you know that this city is probably the worst when it comes to Public transport. I might just try the biking to work thing sometime, I am about 5 miles from work, but every now and again it might not be a bad thing. Lord known’s I could use the exercise! Then again so could a lot of other Americans. Maybe I might start that in the winter though :) I think Global warming started in Arizona, it’s HOT here :)
Ok so I guess I was confused about what R.W. Richards was saying and I guess I got the "Assimilation" thing out of that comment too. I shouldn’t have to "Blend" in with the neighborhood. I guess I get kind of get worked up when we have to "prove" I am worthy of being a citizen. Worthy of being just like the "all Americans”. Last I checked I was born in this country and should have all the same rights as my fellow man. I’m not sure why our government is putting so much emphasis on Marriage when it is clearly a Church based union. Im talking civil union with my partner. A union that gives me the same rights as a man and woman when it comes to legal issues. We spend YEARS with a person then to find out later in life we have no more rights than our next door neighbor when it comes to any life ending or Illness arrangements for our loved ones. The fact is, I don’t have any say when my neighbor or coworker for that matter decides to get married or divorced. Why would I? Its not my business, but America wants to make ours their business. We can try all day long to make homosexuals look like stellar citizens but just like straight people we have our bad seeds. Even so they are no less eligible for the basic right of an American. Until we have the same fundamental right we will never see much in the line of equality. Believe me I contribute to America and there should be no questions when it comes to that. Having a child is not a symbol of a steady home or tax paying citizen. I am not knocking R.W.'s view, I just not seeing it very clearly. I did however like the way you explained it from your point of view, let’s just hope that is what the meaning was behind the comment. Thanks Adam for another great cast! Smooches from Phoenix!
Jimmi
Adam: How is this half-life of CO2 determined?
(As I've understood it, half-life generally applies only to the degradation of radioactive elements, but if I am wrong, I think I understand how you are using this term).
38 years seems like an unreasonably long time.
Would it be more logical to look at CO2 output vs. removal of CO2 (via mostly natural processes such as growth of flora, solidification of carbon solids, etc.)
One would think that there should be some sort of a threshold for which we could achieve a (stable) equilibrium of CO2 production and "removal" from the environment.
For example, compare our current 6 Bn. population and our domestic feed animals breathing, burning hydrocarbon/fuels, eating McMeals, plastic consumption/waste, etc...
We were 4 Bn. a short thirty years ago, and only 2 Bn. about 1930.
1 Bn. souls at the start of the Industrial Revolution approx. 1800... (the discovery of fossil fuels was what really put the spark in our population growth, it seems).
My question boils down to this: Is that 38 year half life a fixed thing, or can it be reduced proportionately to our infusion of CO2 into the atmosphere?
The idea being, if we drastically reduced our output and re-forested as much land as possible, could we work toward equalizing the CO2 balance?
I think it comes down to our ecological footprint: balancing out our want/desire for a reasonable standard of living with the population, along with how to keep the planet from vomiting us out of its ecosystem.
Americans take up a "footprint" of about 22 acres per person (compared to something like 2 acres per capita for a hunter-gather society, or 5-6 or developing/third world nations
Just a quick note to say "Great Show." I saw An Inconvenient Truth this past weekend and was stunned at the damage we have done to the planet in such a short amount of time. I sat on the bus today nodding in agrrement to everything you were saying.
Seeker: This half life is determined by the ability of CO2 to react with other chemicals around it. That is why I specified atmospheric half life.
So yes, It may be possible to react away the CO2 by changing the content of the atmosphere but that is illogical and leaves room for other antagonistic effects on the environment. The logical solution is to pour less CO2, and other greenhouse gases that can react to form more CO2, into the air.
You are correct by saying that half-life is typically used to refer to the decay of radioactive nuclides. The term can also be used to describe chemical half life, or the amount of time that it takes for half of any given amount of substance to react. With that in mind if you flood the atmosphere with more and more CO2 the conditions for reaction are less and less and the half life will increase.
The number of 38 years is an estimate made in 1997 by a researcher given the then current composition of the atmosphere. I should have been more clear that it is not a constant, my fault. This number is determined by taking measurements of CO2 in a given system of reactivity over time. The atmosphere can and will change so this number is not constant.
"The idea being, if we drastically reduced our output and re-forested as much land as possible, could we work toward equalizing the CO2 balance?"
Yes, that is the idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home