Have you ever that ridiculous statistic dropped in conversation about how the US is only approximately 4% of the world population, but we use 30% of its resources?

Ignoring, if you can, the obvious, glaring error of that statement (like what qualifies as a resource? how do you attach a number to that? who came up with that?), I just did a quick statistical comparison for fun. According to the Wikipedia listing of countries, ranked by GDP (adjusted to current USD), the World has a total GDP of $44,433,002 (in millions of USD). Ignoring the EU listing, since that is a group of countries, the US comes in first with $12,485,725 million USD. That means the the US produces approximately 28% of the total world output. Hmm, 30% resource input, 28% output … what do they want, perfect efficiency??

To put that in perspective, the next country on the list, Japan, comes in at $4,571,314 million USD. That is approximately 10% of the total world output. The second country in total rankings, next in line, and we produce 3 times more than them. The UK? 5% world output, ranked 5th. We produce almost 6 times as much as the UK.

So, given these facts, I think it is fair to assume that we should get 30% (or what ridiculous number it is) of the worlds resources, given that we produce that much!

The modern War on Terror is facing a unique and monumental challenge at the moment: how to handle terrorists that are captured. With the recent resurfacing of the debate and the compromise today between three Republican senators and the White House, I am beginning to worry what interrogation techniques we will have left.

In English class today, we were given a New York Times article on the meeting of the senators and the White House, and asked, among other things, to give our response to whether the US should change it’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions. I replied that we shouldn’t, for good reason: we don’t need to. The Geneva Convention does not apply to the current detainees. If you doubt this, here are direct quotes straight from the Conventions: (more…)

Hey all,
I know I promised a second piece on nuclear power soon. Unfortunately, soon may be a little longer than I thought. The end of the school year is coming out of no where, and exams are just beginning to rear their ugly head. So, it looks to me like it will be postponed. However, I have chosen to do my IB Extended Essay on this topic, so when it does come around, you can be assured it well be very well researched and written, hopefully ;-).

Thanks for the patience!

Dave

I decided to write a little piece on nuclear power. Turned out to not be so little. I hope you will bear with me. Here is the introduction, just the basic way a nuclear reactor works. Part 2, coming soon, covers Chernobyl.

Nuclear Power; The words themselves bring to mind a seemingly failed promise of unlimited energy, along with still fresh images of smoldering meltdowns and radiation spills. Yet, despite this climate of fear surrounding it, nuclear power is still the most viable source of energy for the developed nations of a world entering the 21^st century. The idea of inexpensive, abundant energy to meet and exceed the growing demands of an increasingly energy dependant world is not simply a fantasy to dream about; it is a reality, made so by nuclear energy.

This report intends to inform readers of the facts about nuclear power, and dispel the common legends surrounding it. Through nuclear power, America can lessen its dependence of foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and guarantee a reliably source of energy for future generations. Despite the common perception, nuclear power is a viable, attractive option. Instead of relying of the whim of foreign oil companies for our energy needs, nuclear power can be harnessed to allow America to control its own energy destiny. Rather than continue to contribute to pollution through tradition fossil-fuel energy sources, nuclear power can provide a zero-emissions solution. Finally, with abundant supplies of nuclear fuel, nuclear energy offers the tantalizing promise of dependability for this and future generations. (more…)

Excerpt from my 10th grade Government Cases final exam paper, on the Roe vs. Wade case:

The Roe vs. Wade ruling is one of the most controversial cases in recent American judicial history. Both passionate supporters and passionate opponents for abortion have emerged to fight this battle. But amid this uproar over the morality of abortion, the critical role of the Supreme Court has been misdirected. The focus of the case should not be whether abortion is moral; the case should focus on the constitutionality the Texas statutes that proscribed abortion. That is the purpose of judicial review; however, many fail to see this and simply assume that the controversy behind Roe vs. Wade is the same as the controversy behind abortion. Both pro-abortionists and their opponents should be opposed to this decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade was based on the whim of 9 men in black robes and was completely unconstitutional, and the Court overstepped its bounds in fabricating such a result. (more…)