No White Christmas

I didn't get a white Christmas this year, it's much too warm. Right now, the temperature is 12.2°C. At this time of the year, it's normally around zero.
Not that it wasn't cold in Normandy, where I spent Christmas like about every single year, but it was still much too warm for the season. I'm starting to regret having ever bought my gorgeous black winter coat, because I almost never get to wear it.

To make me feel better, though, one of the companies responsible for global warming created this great song. It turns out, it's not even a joke.

Besides global warming and my coat, the big news today is the death of Saddam Hussein. I didn't really like the guy at all, but, apart from being against the death penalty, I think his execution was a mistake that will be deeply regretted in a little while.
He was an unequaled source of information for other trials (he certainly wasn't the only bad guy in Iraq, so other trials should be coming soon), he wasn't tried yet for all the crimes he comitted, which will certainly be a sour disappointment for other victims and their families.
I don't know if this will spark more violence in Iraq; I'm no expert on that topic, and I'm not going to pretend I am. Time only will tell.

No surprise, Bush turned this in a message to keep fighting.

Finally, to keep the joy of Christmas in (not), here is a great video of the weapon that apparently will save us all (this is the excuse they constantly feed us on why we need nuclear: so the others will be scared of us). If this how I'm going to be saved, I'd rather die.

I'm Home For Christmas.

After a very hectic journey on Thursday, I finally made it back home in Lyon. Things have been a little crazy these past few days - pre-christmas hurry.
I'll be going tomorow in Normandy and will stay there for a few days. I don't know how much access to the internet I'll find - most likely none - so don't expect too many updates.


I wish you all a great Christmas.

Juliette

Happy Holidays

From Natalie Dee

Time Person of the Year

It's ME!

Texas Joke

Here is a nice new Texas joke: how about allowing blind people to hunt?
I'm all in for equality, but this is ridiculous. You have to accept at some point that nature does not let you do the same things as others. Sad, but true.

Books Are Sweet

From Natalie Dee.

Breaking News

No Christmas this year? It's starting to look like it.


Check out green-santa.com and take the pledge to save Christmas.

Nukes Again

I was going to try and write a great post about Israel and its nukes, but another blog I like did it very well already.
Enjoy:

Now Ehud Olmert has let slip in a German television interview that Israel too is a nuclear power, naming his country in a list of nuclear powers which included the US, France and Russia. The cat was well and truly out of the bag . Or rather, the cat had long since escaped from said bag, raised a family of kittens and made a fortune in the dairy industry before anyone actually admitted to having left the bag open.

Confession

I keep rambling about global warming, and how it's slowly ruining our planet. Now we've been given another freaky warning: the Arctic is going to melt. Completely. It's reported everywhere, find it on the NYT, the Independent, even Fox News admitted to it. If you want the first hand report, go here.

Now, I have a confession to make.

I

Can't

Wait.

Seriously.
I know this is terrible for a thousand good reasons, from the polar bears losing their homes to the rising of the oceans thingy.
But from an International Law point of view, it's absolutely fascinating.
Look at a map from a North Pole point of view.
All the straits you don't see when you look at a normal planisphere are available.
Canada has a bunch of little islands (well, not so little, but that's not the point here).
So far, the sea between these islands has always been frozen. Very few people have tried crossing it with ice-breakers, and even fewer have survived the experience.
However, if these places become ice-free, we'll be facing a lot of problems.
This will open a route for commerce that has never been available before. It will create new choke points, and new straits will have to be regulated.
So far, the main choke points in the world are the Panama Canal, Gibraltar Strait, Suez Canal and Malacca Strait.
The melting of the ice would make the Bering Strait (between Alaska and Russia) a major choke point.
Choke points are essential strategically. Gibraltar is currently controlled by Britain, which is contested by Spain and Morocco. Suez is controlled by Egypt, but was created by France and Britain, and those two fought a lot before giving it up. Malacca isn't really controlled by anyone, so it's infested with pirates. Panama is controlled by... Panama, with a lot of lobbying from the US.
Using the Bering Strait would mean opening a new era on commerce. The Strait is too wide to be really controlled by anyone (the territorial sea is limited to a maximum of 12 marine miles), but you can be sure that both the US and Russia will make sure pirates don't use it as a new area of profit. Since this would be the first time both the US and Russia have the means geographically to control a choke point, they also could start contesting the 12 miles law.
The 12 miles law is actually a custom much appreciated by the States. The general idea is that any State is free to create a territorial sea of a maximum of 12 miles from the lowest tide line, in which it can use its power of sovereign state as if it was land. The only exception to this is the "peaceful transit" rule that states that any ship can go through the territorial sea peacefully, without stopping, at a fast speed.
This is a written in the Montego Bay Convention of Law of the Sea, which is unfortunately not ratified by the US (and I'm not sure about Russia).
They have to follow the rule, though, since it is also a custom, which is in International Law, the first source of law, and has to be followed by everyone.
The problem with custom, though, is that it's created by the States themselves, according to what they think they have to do and what they do. So, if both US and Russia start behaving differently, we might have a change in Law of the Sea.

Second thing that is fascinating is how Canada will react.
All the islands on the north of the country are currently frozen, and no one has even contested Canada's sovereignty over the ice in between these islands, since there isn't much you can do with it anyway.
However, these too could become a route for commerce, as well as fishing areas (when fish find their way over there anyway).
Many possibilities:
1) The islands are considered to close to one antoher for the sea in between to be international. Canada therefore gets complete sovereignty by having them considered part of the territory, as they would for closed bays etc.
2) The islands are too far apart and the sea in between becomes international sea, according to Montego Bay. However, most of these islands are less than 400 marine miles apart, therefore Canada can create an Exclusive Economic Zone, and therefore swaps the fisheries rights, and the exploitation of all the oil that can be lying under there.
3) Almost anything goes: Montego Bay could be questioned if the situation changes completely. Customs change according to times, and by 2040, many things on this planet will have changed.

I

Can't

Wait.

Myanmar

I got bored with The Onion lately. They used to have very satirical byt to-the-point article, that showed hidden truthes, but recent articles had centered on the various topics of masturbating, fat guys, etc., making me wonder whether the reins of this otherwise awesome newspaper had been handed to a bunch of high-school pre-teens.
I was wrong. They have an absolutely awesome article today that points the finger to Myanmar.
Now, I know better than adding someone to The List on the basis of an onion article, but if I find anything in the news, he'll get this honor at least.

Too Much Laws? I Think So Too

It looks like I'm not the only one to get lost in all the law available. Well, this article is about Britain's law, but it certainly applies to other fields.

We need to live by more than a short code like the Ten Commandments, but if you were asked by a child why we need a criminal code ranging over 11,000 different wrongs, could you give a satisfactory answer?

Add to that the European Law, International Law, and things soon go completely insane. This is a point valid in about any country in the world - or if it doesn't apply to a country, point me in the right direction, and I'll go study law over there.

In his book Utopia, published in 1516, Thomas More, later to be Lord Chancellor, wrote of a world with a minimal legal code, and where all law was simple enough for any citizen to be able to interpret it without any expertise.

I can find only one flaw in More's world: no need for jurists anymore. I'd find myself without a job market once University is done. But I suppose that's a flaw I could live with, I could always find something else to do.
However, maybe this is the point: could there be a general conspiracy to make law impossible to comprehend, so we would need lawyer to help us out, and therefore keep the jobs of the lawmakers (most of which come from law school in the first place)?
OK, this theory is a little far-fetched, but I think deep down (very deep down) there might be some truce to it.

Today it would take the average adult, assuming mortality could be suspended, over 400 years to read all the law applicable in Britain. And even legal academics would say that would be a weary waste of a long life.

Couldn't agree more.

Breathing Again

My two exams of the week are done, I did good, and I can have a life again.
Feels good.
Comments went wild this week (well, wild for a small blog like mine, at least.)
I figure I'll answer them, I might as well try to keep the little traffic I have.
I'm not sure if the first comment was actually addressed to me or to another commenter, but just in case, I'll assume it was for me:

"hypocrisy of the average SUV driver" hows that then??? i drive an suv due to transportation purposes, space of the vehicle (got dogs & kids) saftey etc tec, dont tell me you do not drive a car?? if you do then its a case pot & kettle

I do not own a car. I almost never fly planes (like once every two years). For Christmas, I'm going to go back home by train, a nice total of 10 hours of it. it would be less than two if I took a plane. I'm going to get myself a few good books, and that will be ten hours well spent.

Just found.....NO. Just turned on my PC to post a comment to you YES. found you a wihile a go but been too busy to do anything about it, i dont surf 24/7 do you?? if so get a life

Lately, I've been surfing quite a lot, for two reasons:
1) I read many newspapers on-line (and I really mean MANY. Like 20 a day or so), because a student in political science has to stay informed if he/she wants to understand anything at all in class. I'm also news addicted.
2) I've been studying for exams, but I can't do that 24/7, unless I want to blow up. If I go out, I know I won't study at all for the rest of the day, so my pause usually consists of a nice hot chocolate with some surfing.

Indeed, I didn't have a life lately. I'm planning on getting one as soon as tomorrow. Going for a day at the beach... by train. Ancona sounds like a nice place.

The trolls have stopped trolling the GP forum, after realising themselves they went too far. I'm glad to see all hope is not lost after all, and that the complete stupidity was just a short-trm intelligence lost. i don't know if the war is over or if it's just a truce. I'm hoping for the former. Time will tell.

They've Found It

It took them longer than I thought.

Pink Floyd

Absolutely amazing video

Procrastination

I'll try to change my topic a little, since it looks like lately, I've only rambled about Greenpeace and Global Warming.
Actually, global warming is the least of my problems right now. I'm facing a very bad case of procrastination, meaning that I have to study two entire books in the lapse of 48 hours if I want to have a chance at my exams.
Well, according to the people I talked to tonight at a birthday party (it was more of a birthday crash, actually, but see: procrastination!), these exams should be a thousand times easier than the ones I had in France last year, but I don't trust the people who tell me: "I heard that..."
So namely, I have International Law (my favorite) on Monday and European Law (my second favorite) on Tuesday, then ten days before the next one (gotta love the Italian system).
Since they're my favorites, according to a high probability all college students experiment, they're the ones I'm good at.
Except my competitive side is kicking in, and I don't want to be good, I want to be the best.
There is a reason for that: the general political science/ international law field of studies is a very competitive one. Many candidates, few jobs. I really can't picture myself doing anything else, except maybe sailing, so if I ever want to get a job in these fields, I've got to beat everyone.
Therefore, I've got to be extremely good at these exams.
And that won't happen as long as I procrastinate - or, as it's called these days, as long as I blog.

Two greats posts from blogs I like:
Beppe Grillo, Italian extraordinaire on the danger of bicycles.
Greg Mankiw, economist extraordinaire on the Pigou tax, again and again.

How To Be a Troll

Today's post is about trolling.
If you don't like web forums, you probably don't know what internet-trolls are. Basically, they're low-IQ disturbers who come on a perfectly nice website where people are having a perfectly nice conversation and start randomly making fun of people, with a particular pick for the ones who are not very good at comebacks.
They like to make jokes about poop, piss and they make fun of the admins when they're punished for disturbing.

Yes, this is third grade.

We had a very nice experiment of this yesterday on the Greenpeace forum. Namely, a bunch of guys coming from this forum of gas-guzzlers/ global-warming terrorists. They still think they outsmarted us, they don't know yet they've been busted. I'd gloat about out-smarting them, but really, there is not much to be proud of considering who I up against. I wonder how long it takes for their brains to process the fact that I have a website too, and therefore how long it takes before they troll me.

Reading both forums made me very sad for humanity as a whole. I keep trying to save the planet, but sometimes, I wonder if we really deserve it.
Then I remember it's not for the current human residents I'm doing it, but rather for the future generations, so they can have a chance at appreciating this planet.

26 years

Too Busy to Write, Thanks YouTube!

Quote of the day

Confucius said: Between blogging and studying, you have to choose.
My choice is done, see you next week, after the exams.

Green Rant of the Day

Nothing annoys me more than people who refuse to admit they're screwing up the planet. The ideal method for this is saying, "OK, I'm doing this or that which is bad, but look, I have a thousand perfect excuses for this, and you can't tell me they're wrong because you don't know every little detail about my life, and I needed my car to go back home because I had to re-write my essay because my dog ate it and look! a bird."
This is the sort of conversation I'm currently having on the Greenpeace forum with two guys who refuse to admit that their SUV might just damage the environment, and who keep telling me that since other people are worse than them, they refuse t be the ones to make an effort. You can find those two conversations here and here. I am juliettelucie on that forum, just so it's clear.
The anti-SUV British campaign they are refering to is, I believe, the one I mentioned previously here.
The conversation is turning slightly heated, because I feel this is an extremely important issue, and they obviously don't. I feel like I'm seen as some sort of hippy by them, which, if you know me, know that it's not true. They have also called me a fascist for trying to impose my lifestyle on them (?????).
I just don't understand how some people can be so intent on keeping a way of life that we perfectly know is hurting others. I've never asked anyone to go back to the stone-age, goodness knows I'd never survive there either. It is a question of whether our lifestyle is sustainable, or if we are screwing up the planet and leaving the consequences for the next generation to deal with.
We currently are chocking the planet by using up the ressources Gaia offers us way beyond what is sustainable.

I went to spend the afternoon by the sea, in Rimini, and there again, i saw the damage human beings are doing. The beach there is a garbage dumping place - or at least, it looks like it. It is beyond me why you would want to go spend your vacation in a place where there is no nature left - but then, who am I to judge?
I just wish people would stop being selfish and look a little beyond their home comfort to see the damage they're doing, be it by driving unnecessarely, dumping garbage everywhere, not recycling etc.

Again, I'm not asking for a return to the stone-age, just for a little more responsibilty on everyone's part.

Why should we wait to run out of oil to get out of the oil-age? We didn't get out of the stone-age because we ran out of stones!
Beppe Grillo, Italian comedian.

1000

I just hit 1000 visits. Thank you to all my readers.

From Married to the Sea

Global Warming Press Review

In most newspapers, the environment section is hidden as a sub-topic in "Science." So, when you're looking for news on Global Warming, you also read all about the Mars expeditions and such.
It doesn't bother me so much, since I enjoy reading about science, but I do think it shouldn't be so hard to dig an article about of of today's main challenged. Just sayin'.

Anyway, in big green news today, we have the first time global warming has been put on trial. The State of Massachusetts has dug a piece of legislation 30 years old and is attacking the Bush administration in the Supreme Court. Smart move, on their part. The Supreme Court decision could be historical: it's the first time a case about Global Warming is ever heard. The argument is really interesting to hear. Note how the case is founded on the fact that car related carbon-emissions are not big enough to make an impact, and not, as the Bush administration has been suggesting for years, on the fact that Global Warming is not human caused.

At the same time, I found two pretty scary cases of changes in nature caused by global warming. The first is the disappearing of megafauna in Australia. The mere idea of having Australia without kangaroos is pretty weird. They're like a symbol of the country! Also, it proves that global warming is a problem on a much bigger scale than anything we've ever seen before: it endangers species on a superior scale from hunting. That's pretty bad.
The secong is the flood risks in India. I don't know if you've seen The Day After Tomorrow, but there is a scene at the beginning where Dennis Quaid is at a convention on climate change in India, and it starts snowing. This article reminded me of that.

Finally, I found out yet another way to use up less fuel: don't use the toilet in planes. Not kidding you.