Kyoto Protocol - Article 3 continued

9. Commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I shall be established in amendments to Annex B to this Protocol, which shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 7. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall initiate the consideration of such commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period referred to in paragraph 1 above.

This is the reference in the current agreement. Article 3, Number 9. Number 9 allows for subsequent periods of intervention of the global community.

10. Any emission reduction units, or any part of an assigned amount, which a Party acquires from another Party in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 or of Article 17 shall be added to the assigned amount for the acquiring Party.

11. Any emission reduction units, or any part of an assigned amount, which a Party transfers to another Party in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 or of Article 17 shall be subtracted from the assigned amount for the transferring Party.

Countries were allowed to negotiate commitments between them so long as the long term goal remained intact. The USA could not do this? Really?

12. Any certified emission reductions which a Party acquires from another Party in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 shall be added to the assigned amount for the acquiring Party.

The United Nations was interested in survival of our planet, not the destruction of nations. Honest Injun. 

13. If the emissions of a Party included in Annex I in a commitment period are less than its assigned amount under this Article, this difference shall, on request of that Party, be added to the assigned amount for that Party for subsequent commitment periods.

Countries were suppose to improve their efforts. 

14. Each Party included in Annex I shall strive to implement the commitments mentioned in paragraph 1 above in such a way as to minimize adverse social, environmental and economic impacts on developing country Parties, particularly those identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention. In line with relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties on the implementation of those paragraphs, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session, consider what actions are necessary to minimize the adverse effects of climate change and/or the impacts of response measures on Parties referred to in those paragraphs. Among the issues to be considered shall be the establishment of funding, insurance and transfer of technology.

This was to prevent exploitation of the Third World as carbon emitters where the First World was not. In other words, no harming a Third World party from meeting their goals by instituting new oil wells or mining of coal while reducing domestic production to meet goals.

No sabotage.

The USA could easily have lead and provided sales of alternative energies to the Third World. 

Kyoto Protocol - Article 3 continued

5. The Parties included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy whose base year or period was established pursuant to decision 9/CP.2 of the Conference of the Parties at its second session shall use that base year or period for the implementation of their commitments under this Article. Any other Party included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy which has not yet submitted its first national communication under Article 12 of the Convention may also notify the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol that it intends to use an historical base year or period other than 1990 for the implementation of its commitments under this Article. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall decide on the acceptance of such notification.

The USA could have defined it's year by the first initiative of greenhouse gas reductions. The outcomes were to best that year and continue every year to 2012. The USA could not achieve that? Really? It was extreme politics and cronys that prevented USA commitments. Kyoto Protocol was not a strategy to end the USA's economy.

The problem was the USA could not increase it's emissions. Carbon dioxide reductions weren't evident in the USA until President Obama's administration and institutionalizing alternative energies and an efficient grid.

6. Taking into account Article 4, paragraph 6, of the Convention, in the implementation of their commitments under this Protocol other than those under this Article, a certain degree of flexibility shall be allowed by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol to the Parties included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy.

Kyoto Protocol had a bottom line to reduce and end greenhouse gas emissions. If the transition of markets and emissions of greenhouse gases were progressing ahead of expectations, there would be room for mitigating countries finding it difficult to make that transition. If the USA had made a commitment it could have been instrumental in assisting other countries in meeting their goals. We would have lead.

7. In the first quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment period, from 2008 to 2012, the assigned amount for each Party included in Annex I shall be equal to the percentage inscribed for it in Annex B of its aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A in 1990, or the base year or period determined in accordance with paragraph 5 above, multiplied by five. Those Parties included in Annex I for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change for the purposes of calculating their assigned amount.

8. Any Party included in Annex I may use 1995 as its base year for hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride, for the purposes of the calculation referred to in paragraph 7 above.

continued in next entry

Kyoto Protocol - Article 3

1. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

Any country could use other forms of energy including natural gas/methane. The emissions of methane into the troposphere was to be measured in CO2 equivalents to insure the overall emissions would not exceed the protocol. Methane also emits carbon dioxide. That would be counted in a country's total.

2. Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol.

At the time of Kyoto it was noted here were reductions ongoing by most of the countries. Kyoto was to commit higher reductions to push Earth back from the brink.

3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments under this Article of each Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner and reviewed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8.

Carbon sinks are vital to balancing the greenhouse gases of Earth's troposphere. The monitoring of carbon sinks to realize it's ability to maintain it's status as a sink was vital to the protocols. It isn't and wasn't or will be about tree hugging. God's green Earth has carbon sinks and they serve a purpose. 

4. Prior to the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, each Party included in Annex I shall provide, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, data to establish its level of carbon stocks in 1990 and to enable an estimate to be made of its changes in carbon stocks in subsequent years. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, decide upon modalities, rules and guidelines as to how, and which, additional human-induced activities related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the agricultural soils and the land-use change and forestry categories shall be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amounts for Parties included in Annex I, taking into account uncertainties, transparency in reporting, verifiability, the methodological work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the advice provided by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice in accordance with Article 5 and the decisions of the Conference of the Parties. Such a decision shall apply in the second and subsequent commitment periods. A Party may choose to apply such a decision on these additional human-induced activities for its first commitment period, provided that these activities have taken place since 1990.

The equation. The emission levels were not to be measured simply by emissions, but, also the status of carbon sinks and modifications of energy use for greater efficiency. This protocol was very fluid. It allowed for any effort to reduce and end greenhouse gas emissions.

The USA's NOAA continually monitors corals in the region. This is one of the realities of our corals:

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) (click here) designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals in November 2008 in four areas:

• Florida
• Puerto Rico
• St. John/ St. Thomas
• St. Croix

The USA was engaged in all the necessary practices of Kyoto. It was not difficult to make a strong commitment and keep it. 

It was the extreme politics and cronys that ended a USA commitment.

Kyoto Protocol - Article 2 continued

(iv) Research on, and promotion, development and increased use of, new and renewable forms of energy, of carbon dioxide sequestration technologies and of advanced and innovative environmentally sound technologies;

(v) Progressive reduction or phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors that run counter to the objective of the Convention and application of market instruments;

The American Republicans decided (v) was a good idea. The idea behind (v) was not to subsidize the petroleum companies while they exploited capitalism with the continued use of fossil fuels. The subsidies were suppose to allow for far less use of fossil fuels while phasing them out as much as possible that would guarantee to achieve goals of no more increase than 2 degrees Celsius.

(vi) Encouragement of appropriate reforms in relevant sectors aimed at promoting policies and measures which limit or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol;

I think that is obvious in the idea greenhouse gases were suppose to be less and less of any countries emissions.

(vii) Measures to limit and/or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in the transport sector;

The birth of Elon Musk and Tesla.

(viii) Limitation and/or reduction of methane emissions through recovery and use in waste management, as well as in the production, transport and distribution of energy;

(b) Cooperate with other such Parties to enhance the individual and combined effectiveness of their policies and measures adopted under this Article, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2(e)(i), of the Convention. To this end, these Parties shall take steps to share their experience and exchange information on such policies and measures, including developing ways of improving their comparability, transparency and effectiveness. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, consider ways to facilitate such cooperation, taking into account all relevant information.

Citizens were always suppose to be a part of the Kyoto Protocol. The words including developing ways of improving their comparability, transparency and effectiveness is the backbone of the new agreement. Countries are suppose to learn from each other in finding what works, what is benign and what makes things worse. Americans might recognize the concept by a different name of "Quality Improvement."

2. The Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization, respectively.

The US military may serve as a leader to these outcomes. It recognizes climate change as a danger to countries. It also has moved to develop fuels that are climate comparable. The USA military is not alone; Boeing has developed it's Dreamline to be more fuel efficient. The Dreamliner was not an overnight wonder, it has taken time to perfect it. 

3. The Parties included in Annex I shall strive to implement policies and measures under this Article in such a way as to minimize adverse effects, including the adverse effects of climate change, effects on international trade, and social, environmental and economic impacts on other Parties, especially developing country Parties and in particular those identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention, taking into account Article 3 of the Convention. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol may take further action, as appropriate, to promote the implementation of the provisions of this paragraph.

Haven't gotten to all those other sections yet.

4. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, if it decides that it would be beneficial to coordinate any of the policies and measures in paragraph 1(a) above, taking into account different national circumstances and potential effects, shall consider ways and means to elaborate the coordination of such policies and measures.

Kyoto was not a trap. It was a protocol that would assess the input of member countries. It was suppose to be successful.

Kyoto Protocol - Article 2

1. Each Party included in Annex I, in achieving its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3, in order to promote sustainable development, shall:

Imagine if the USA did not fail. Imagine the stability of the climate. Imagine a return to a season of tornadoes rather than occurring year round. We could be finished with this already.

(a) Implement and/or further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its national circumstances, such as:

(i) Enhancement of energy efficiency in relevant sectors of the national economy;

No one wants energy efficiency? Really? What about that wealth disparity? Are your sure energy efficiency isn't important? What's the problem less profits? Utilities are big business.

(ii) Protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, taking into account its commitments under relevant international environmental agreements; promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation;

Afforestation is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees in an area where there was no forest. 

Reforestation is the reestablishment of forest cover, either naturally (by natural seeding, coppice, or root suckers) or artificially (by direct seeding or planting).

(iii) Promotion of sustainable forms of agriculture in light of climate change considerations;

The Union of Concerned Scientists have suggestions:

Sustainable agriculture (click here) provides high yields without undermining the natural systems and resources that productivity depends on. Farmers who take a sustainable approach work efficiently with natural processes rather than ignoring or struggling against them – and use the best of current knowledge and technology to avoid the unintended consequences of industrial, chemical-based agriculture. One important result is that farmers are able to minimize their use of pesticides and fertilizers, thereby saving money and protecting future productivity, as well as the environment.

The Land Institute doesn't have suggests, they have solutions:

Have you ever wondered why (click here) prairies thrive without any human intervention? No pesticides, no fertilizer, no irrigation, and yet they come back year after year, come drought or flood. The soil remains healthy, full of nutrients and swarming with organisms.

Simply put, it’s the complexity. Living things survive by taking advantage of resources as soon as they become available. A bared patch of soil doesn’t stay that way for long. (Reserving it for just one plant species – say, corn – takes a lot of chemicals and tillage.) In time, plants and organisms colonize the area, essentially divvying up available resources....

Scientists, the Union of Concerned Scientists and organizations such as The Land Institute are consistent in their facts and approach to very important understandings about our Earth and our country.

Kyoto Protocol - Article 1 - the all too important definitions.

Kyoto Protocol was written in 1992 based in decades of climate data. The other documents in the current Paris Agreement are more recent from 2012. But, Kyoto is important to know.

For the purposes of this Protocol, the definitions contained in Article 1 of the Convention shall apply. In addition:

1. "Conference of the Parties" means the Conference of the Parties to the Convention.

2. "Convention" means the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in New York on 9 May 1992.

3. "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" means the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established in 1988 jointly by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme.

4. "Montreal Protocol" means the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, adopted in Montreal on 16 September 1987 and as subsequently adjusted and amended.

5. "Parties present and voting" means Parties present and casting an affirmative or negative vote.

6. "Party" means, unless the context otherwise indicates, a Party to this Protocol.

7. "Party included in Annex I" means a Party included in Annex I to the Convention, as may be amended, or a Party which has made a notification under Article 4, paragraph 2(g), of the Convention.

Annex 1 is a later part of the Protocol.

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The method used by the United Nations is no different than the method used in establishing law in the USA. The USA has the US Constitution as it's base document in establishing law. There are Amendments added to the US Constitution. That is the concept here with the Climate Change efforts of a global community.

Kyoto Protocol was never regarded as an insignificant document. It was developed by scientists knowledgeable in the sciences of climate. Their findings were accumulated over decades. Their findings are all facts that reveal a logical progression of global warming induced by anthropogenic gases emitted/dumped into Earth's troposphere.

The Parties to this Protocol,

Being Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, hereinafter referred to as "the Convention",

In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2,

Recalling the provisions of the Convention,

Being guided by Article 3 of the Convention,

Pursuant to the Berlin Mandate adopted by decision 1/CP.1 of the

Conference of the Parties to the Convention at its first session,

Have agreed as follows:

It's like to point out how the climate documents of the United Nations uses verbs, action verbs to be exact, in the sentences of their agreements.

In pursuit, Recalling, Emphasizing, Being guided by, Pursuant, etc. The climate agreements were always intended to be a matter of action, not war, not a record such as the Nuremburg Trials or a book of laws. From the beginning of these documents it was clear the agreements were about action to stem and end the pollution of greenhouse gases.

The Kyoto Protocol is the basic document of the subsequent agreements. It is best to review Kyoto to reduce confusion.

Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol: consideration of commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention 

We are one country among a globe of 196 countries. We have allies we have to answer to as well as partners in other United Nations Conventions. 

The USA has failed to honor the commitment to the countries that are allies and partners. THE USA HAS FAILED it's allies and partners. Additionally, it has not only failed to honor the ESTABLISHED brevity of climate change of it's own scientists, it has turned to values of war and profit completely absent of concern to environmental dangers.

The policies of the USA are important policies. They often have impact on global conditions and outcomes. The policy of the USA regarding global climate change caused by greenhouse gases has been absent in a sea of countries doing their level best to stem the danger.

It is unconscionable the USA isn't a leader at a time and in a method the entire community of nations needs it's leadership. The global community is experiencing drastic changes in climate and their citizens sometimes die of the effects.

March 20, 2011
By Wynn Parry

The intense heat wave (click here) that centered on western Russia last summer was truly a record breaker. It surpassed even 2003's scorcher in western and central Europe — which has been blamed for 70,000 deaths. And together, both of these mega heat waves have secured a place in the 500-year weather history of Europe, according to a new analysis.

The researchers also looked ahead, and found that a variety of different climate models predict an increase in mega heat waves similar to these in the 21st century for two regions within Europe.

From late July until the second week in August 2010, record heat settled across 772,204 square miles (2 million square kilometers) in Russia and Eastern Europe. In Moscow, the daytime temperatures reached 101 degrees Fahrenheit (38.2 degrees Celsius), in Kiev, nights reached 77 F (25 C), crops were destroyed, fires swept across western Russia, and preliminary estimates now put the Russian death toll at 55,000.  

70,000 dead in France and Europe in 2003.

55,000 dead in Eastern Europe and Russia in 2010. 

Wildfires that griped Australia hopeless to end the flames.

The USA didn't even blink. Those deaths were never acknowledged by the USA. It was passed off as unfortunate. These were allies. Russia is a valuable partner to many initiatives in the global community.

The USA has expressed itself as a country without a conscience.

This continues Decision 1/CP.17

Decisiom 1/CMP 7 is yet another document incorporated into the Paris Agreement.

Noting decision 1/CMP.7, (click here)

Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its sixteenth session

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, 

Recalling Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol, 

See next entry:

Also recalling Article 20, paragraph 2, and Article 21, paragraph 7, of the Kyoto Protocol, 

Further recalling decisions 1/CMP.1, 1/CMP.5 and 1/CMP.6, 

Noting with appreciation the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol, 

Noting also the importance of developing a comprehensive global response to the problem of climate change, 

Recognizing the importance of ensuring the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol, 

The documents validating climate change and it's needed intervention by countries is rather extensive. It goes back decades. This might take awhile.

continued in next entry...

Recalling decision 1/CP.17 on the establishment of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action

15 March 2012

Conference of the Parties
Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011 

Addendum 

Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session 

Decision 1/CP.17 Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform forEnhanced Action. (click here)

The Conference of the Parties, 

Recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires to be urgently addressed by all Parties, and acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions, 

Noting with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, 

Recognizing that fulfilling the ultimate objective of the Convention will require strengthening of the multilateral, rules-based regime under the Convention,...

continued in next entry...

It's Sunday Night

Being sexy, pretty, healthy and lovable is all part of being a woman. It doesn't matter the partner, a woman has a right to express her femininity. Being feminine is all a part of her abiding belief in feminism. 

Femininity is not a science, it is not a culture, it is the outward expression of every woman no matter it's fashion flair or absence. 

Being a woman defines the variety of outward expressions of self. That diversity defines the very need for feminist values.

"I love Paris" sung by Doris Day (click here for official website)

Every time I look down on this timeless town
Whether blue or gray be her skies.
Whether loud be her cheers or whether soft be her tears,
More and more do I realize:

I love Paris in the springtime.
I love Paris in the fall.
I love Paris in the winter when it drizzles,
I love Paris in the summer when it sizzles.

I love Paris every moment,
Every moment of the year.
I love Paris, why, oh why do I love Paris?
Because my love is near.'

I love Paris in the springtime.
I love Paris in the fall.
I love Paris in the winter when it drizzles,
I love Paris in the summer when it sizzles.

I love Paris every moment,
Every moment of the year.
I love Paris, why, oh why do I love Paris?
Because my love is near.'

Paris' flag colors are red and blue. 

There is some debate about the color ribbon of feminism.

The color purple is the symbol for USA domestic violence.

African suffrage used the colors purple and white.

"A Feminist Dictionary" (click here) was published by Illinois University Press in 1996.

In the USA the color was gold or yellow.

"Colors were important (click here) in the iconography of the suffrage movement. The use of the color gold began with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony's campaign in Kansas in 1867 and derived from the color of the sunflower, the Kansas state symbol. Suffragists used gold pins, ribbons, sashes, and yellow roses to symbolize their cause. In 1876, during the U.S. Centennial, women wore yellow ribbons and sang the song "The Yellow Ribbon." In 1916, suffragists staged "The Golden Lane" and the national Democratic convention; to reach the convention hall, all delegates had to walk through a line of women stretching several blocks long, dressed in white with gold sashes, carrying yellow umbrellas, and accompanied by hundreds of yards of draped gold bunting....

I think feminism needs to be revitalized in the USA and the color of the ribbon should be gold. 

The yellow ribbon was tied around trees for POWs returning home. That is the origin of the song. It was sung for a returning Union POW when the Civil War ended.

I don't know of any other cause assigned the color gold and USA feminism has a history to claim that color. Hillary should define the feminist movement rather than allowing it to define her. Hillary Clinton's political campaign should consider distributing feminist ribbons at rallies.

Feminism is about empowerment, not destroying marriages or families or the women in them.

I am a feminist and have been on both sides of relationships. 

I married my high school sweetheart. We shared so much in life. Besides our history we loved the same exact things about life. When we decided to be a young farm family we were embraced by the community in the state. We had great support from family, too. We knew what we were doing. After two years of hard work we had a son born to us. We could not be happier.

When we were visiting my sister-in-law and her family for an evening meal my then husband bragged about wanting a second child. I stopped the pill without pause and in no time I was expecting again. I was five months pregnant when I learned my husband was having an affair. I am not going to get into the details, but, it was devastating and the marriage did not survive it for many reasons including financial pressure that came with a change in his dedication to our dream farm.

It was primarily substance abuse and it was ongoing even after I learned of it and his family told him they would not support him through any such change in lifestyle. Sexual identity didn't play a part. It took eight years, but, when my former spouse came back to his parents home he was clean and working a job far different than a farm. We were divorced by then. He deeply regretted what had happened to "The Us" he no longer had.

I was raising two children alone, returned to school and started a new career all because a local female drug dealer thought farming was fun.

During my return to being single I dated a few men. I was seeing a man when one day I was at work and a co-worker came up to me and asked if I was seeing John Smith (mythical name). I smiled and said yes as a matter of fact we had spent the previous evening together. My co-worker told me he was married. I could not believe it. There were no clues to his married status. My co-worker then told me who his wife was and I knew her from my employment. I cut off the relationship regardless of the pain I was feeling.

Even after boyfriend told me he was separated and saw no need to share that; I simply told him he needed to be more honest with any women he sees in the future. He was the father of two children. Being involved with a married man and a family man is hugely wrong. A woman needs to date honestly to know if there are children on his side of the equation and what that meant for her life.

I am a feminist. I believe in empowering women. Women raise families alone as a majority in the USA.

I've always been told an affair can help a marriage. I suppose taking a lover when there is honesty can work for some. I don't judge people and their passions.

As a woman sincerely married for what I thought was the rest of my life, I found it extremely painful to be truncated from my future plans. I was floundering for a long time. It took me four years to sign the divorce papers. He didn't mind maintaining a false marriage, it played well to end relationships with women he did not care for except for a sexual interlude. 

I didn't judge the other women. I didn't care to know them. I had my hands full and I had to put my heart back together. There were some very nasty things said about me in those four years by people I thought of as friends. I was never up for a good cat fight. Maybe that was what they thought should happen to shake him back to reality. In that reality of defaming were excuses made by him. He didn't mind providing excuses for his actions. AND! I had a right to defend myself and my marriage. 

When people who want to claim to be feminists state Hillary Clinton said terrible things about the women involved in Bill's affairs, they don't give a damn about women. Not really. Married women have the high road and have every right to defend their marriage, especially when there are children. The laws of the USA recognize marriage as a social norm and destroying that norm comes with consequences. In some states in the USA, if a wife can prove an affair broke up the marriage there can be lawsuits filed not just for divorce but for damages caused by the other woman. Imagine having a judgement leveled against you for an affair that broke up a marriage only to have the relationship dissolve. That is poetic justice.

Being a feminist does not mean hating men and the sexual affairs they have. Feminism is about empowerment. That means if the three adults involved in a sex triangle needs to resolve it, there should be a degree of maturity to handle the relationships. That means it ends in divorce or otherwise. Does anyone believe Bill Clinton was ever going to divorce Hillary? That was never going to happen. Any woman involved with a married man that has a political career should know their future in the relationship was very limited.

The women in those triangles or those claiming have experienced sexual assault were empowered. At the time of Jennifer Flowers affair she received financial advances in her career, but, that ended when she went to the public on a national basis. The woman that claimed sexual harassment was validated. She wasn't swept under the carpet. Monica was asked to apply for other jobs outside the White House. She was provided a good reference. In all these cases it was the media that destroyed the women, not the married couple of Bill and Hill. In Monica's case it was a political operative that threw her under the bus.

Feminists need to concentrate on the way the media destroyed the lives of at least three women. Those women were sensationalized and received no financial benefit from it. They were ground into the dirt under the media's heel. 

That is the issue. Hillary Clinton is not the issue. I always thought she had her priorities straight, validated the love of her husband and the honor of their daughter. How many children are abandoned by their fathers in this country when they simply don't want the marriage anymore? That didn't happen and it set a darn good example for many. 

I don't care to digest the warfare of the mistresses and the way the marriage and parenting was defended. That is simply validating the media had the right to destroy women, including the one that is running for President today.

Feminism is about maturity, seeing inequalities and moving against them. Feminism is about breaking down prejudge against women. It is about giving women a fighting chance in life. It is about women growing wealth. It is about the protections of the children they hold dearly all their lives. It has absolutely nothing to do with the way women CHOOSE to live their personal lives. And I am tired of counting the causalities.

Enough.

The earthquake lasted at least a minute and a quarter..

Check out the fish tank.

There is a film by Arv Pugay on Facebook that shows a cargo area at Anchorage Alaska Airport. Arv text he was worried. Being in the middle of the quake gives no perspective about everyone else. Alaska has had some really significant quakes. They better check the runway for any fissures.

The USA government is foolish to turn over it's petroleum to Wall Street, especially to export. These are liquid reserves.

This is the liquid/crude oil reserves. It is not natural gas. Natural gas comes as a by product to drilling except for horizontal drilling. Horizontal drilling recovers natural gas. There is also natural gas/methane found with coal.

SA oil consumption daily as of 2013 (click here).

Below are the UNDISCOVERED areas of the USA believed to be technically recoverable.

27 Billion Barrels of Oil (BBO) The industry claims an optimistic 39 BBO. That is optimistic?

That's it. 27 Billion Barrels of Oil left in USA reserves and not the Republican Congress has allowed the petroleum industry to export USA oil.

Saudi Arabia is believed to have 280 BBO

Kuwait has about 104 billion barrels of oil. However, 5 billion barrels of oil in this count is within the Saudi-Kuwait Neutral Zone.

Venezuela has reported 297 BBO as of 2011.

Iran has estimates of 84 BBO, but, may be updated with markets open to them again.

This is from the US Department of Energy. (click here)

In 2015 it was discovered the amount of oil in the USA was incorrectly reported.

The Republicans pushed through a law to allow exporting of USA oil.

The gas reserves were incorrectly reported. FOR DECADES. Does the Mineral and Mining Management Cocaine Dependence mean anything?

Report: "Accelerated Depletion...", 1998 (click here) When it comes to national security and the well being of the American people, they are not on the Wall Street agenda. I would think that would be evident by now. The petroleum industry wants to pump oil out of the USA for profits as fast as it can, including shipping to the rest of the world. When it is gone, it is gone. 

With minimal oil reserve in the USA, we are looking to Norway and Saudi Arabia anyway; IF; there were to be war.

The USA is a country on the North American continent. What is our military doing in the middle east? 

Our allies are already defended

US Collective Defense Arrangements (click here)

United States, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Thailand, Trinadad & Tobago, Turkey, Uruguay, United Kingdom, Venezuela

US and Israel Agreements (click here)

Jordan Bilateral Investment Treaty (click here)

Saudi Arabia (strategic oil supply for the world)

The United States-Saudi security relationship steadily expanded during the Cold War.(click here)

What is interesting about the petroleum industry is that they insisted the new horizontal drilling would liberate the USA from foreign oil. Explain then how exporting and bankruptcy provides that security. The relationship with Saudi Arabia is decades old. Saudi Arabia a is a sovereign power with defense of it's own oil fields. Get the picture.

Better yet, just a straight forward question. Is the USA strategic oil reserve more secure with Saudi Arabia as a friend or the petroleum industry (Wall Street)?

This reminds me of a very interesting lesson in the Bible.

18th-century Russian icon depiction of the prophet Hosea. Hosea is considered a minor prophet in Christianity, but, the Talmud considers him the greatest prophet of his time.

Hosea 11:9. -- The Lord, (click here) speaking of himself as "God, and not man," mentions as the special point in which he is above and beyond man, that he has greater grace, greater long-suffering, and greater willingness to forgive: "I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man." In a thousand respects, God is greater than man; for us to enter into that theme, would require a very considerable length of time; but the Lord here puts this truth most prominently forward, that he is "God, and not man,"...

Wars are of man, not God. Does anyone actually think God commands men to fight wars in his name?

When men submit to war, it must carry a moral purpose. Defense of life is a moral purpose. Defense of the material world is immoral.

The war into Iraq was immoral as well as illegal. That is not going to change. Daesh grew out of that war. Think about it.

The fun just never stops.

You see, Sarah? You see what type of effect you have on man and nature, too. How many times do I have to say it; when you ask God for seismic changes it does not translate well. Baby steps.

The region effected is below. That is the epicenter. Anchorage probably is having aftershocks. That is the largest populated area.

Here it is, Anchorage was effected (click here).

Twitter users reported feeling shaking, but there were no immediate reports of casualties in the region. "Long and pretty strong earthquake and power out in West Anchorage," wrote David Hulen.

The magnitude 7.3 quake struck 30 miles east-southeast of Pedro Bay, on the shore of Iliamna Lake, the USGS added. It was recorded at a depth of 124.8 km at 1030 GMT (0530 ET).

Fishermen/women. If they were in harbor there could have been damage. I don't see reports of tsunami. It would effect the shoreline of southern Alaska, but, would radiate out. There is no expected tsunami and the shake map is to the right. It is fairly local. The region where the earthquake took place is wilderness and fishing vessels. Small towns that serve the incredible fishing industry might dot that area.

The reason there is magnificent fishing is because it is a wilderness. Absolutely little to no pollution of any kind.

January 24, 2016

By Fiorna Keating

Tremors from a 7.3 magnitude quake (click here) were felt more than 170 miles (280km) away in Alaska's biggest city Anchorage. The earthquake struck on Sunday, 24 January, 30 miles east-southeast of Pedro Bay on the shore of Iliamna Lake, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The quake's epicentre struck near Cook Inlet, about 162 miles southwest of Anchorage, and was about 50 miles deep.

There were no immediate reports of fatalities or casualties although social media users gave accounts of vigorous shaking. "Long and pretty strong earthquake and power out in West Anchorage," tweeted David Hulen.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre stated it was not expecting a destructive tsunami and that there was no threat to Hawaii from the earthquake, according to a Reuters report.

The earthquake caused power outages in Anchorage, according to utility and media reports. At least 10,000 customers were without electricity in the area, utilities reported....

The warmer temperatures have not arrived as soon as predicted. That is a good thing. It expends the time line to melting allowing the snow that fell into rivers and streams to move downstream before overland flow (melting) increased.

Ex. Ice jams slow the waters flow downstream.

The melting will still occur, but, there will be lower cresting levels. There is a very good chance there will still be flooding, hopefully not dangerous flooding.

Stay at home, even the day the storm is expected to strike.

A car accident exposes drivers and passengers immediately to the elements unless the heater is still working. Driving the day of dangerous weather causes traffic jams, threatens to running out of gas and stranding of all in the car.

This storm delivered inch(s) of snow per hour. If a driver and/or passengers are  caught in a storm delivering that quantity of snow they will be stranded. Stranding automatically exposes danger to the lives of those in the car.

There should be a prior understanding with employers such storms would automatically provide a reason for employees to stay at home with their families. Schools are normally closed for such a threat of snow, however, this storm came on Friday into the weekend. It would have been better to simply stay at home. Employers can also be proactive in releasing their employees home early, however, it has to be staggered closings of business to prevent dangerous traffic jams.

This storm illustrated many things. I witnessed states sincerely making good decisions and I believe deaths were reduced. But, there was a problem with traffic that was not well managed by the businesses in a region. There should be meetings between business and local government to determine the best way to send employees home in anticipation of storms. A local/regional authority wants to prevent traffic jams. That takes understanding and PREPAREDNESS between business and government.

To would be better if employees were organized into car pools during winter, but, that is probably not realistic. Car pools would reduce the number of cars on the road.

Politicians play voters for fools.

Politicians like to wear a war mantle and because of economic and crony priorities the USA would reenter a war in the middle east with the next president.

If the USA reconstituted the war in Iraq adding Syria it would not have stopped the attacks in San Bernardino. 

Again.

If the USA reconstituted the war in Iraq adding Syria it would not have stopped the attacks in San Bernardino. 

It would not have stopped the attacks in Paris and it would not have ended the refugee crisis or the movement of migrants. 

If anything, returning to a war in Iraq adding Syria would have escalated the danger into Europe and quite possibly increased domestic attacks in the USA and among all allies.

The only affiliation the murderers in San Bernardino had with the middle east was cultural and through the internet. The husband was American. The wife a resident of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They received no training at any al Qaeda or Daesh base.

The idea San Bernardino and/or Paris would have been avoided by a return to war in Iraq adding Syria is at least rhetoric, but more propaganda. Stop thinking wars solve problems in the middle east, they don't. Wars in the middle east make the world a far more dangerous place.

I don't see where police were charged.

 By Scott Viau (Patch Staff) 
 January 17, 2016 12:01 pm ET

The United States Supreme Court (click here) has agreed to hear the case of a Joliet man who claims he was maliciously prosecuted when the Joliet Police Department falsified the results of a drug test.
Elijah Manuel was arrested March 18, 2011 on a charge of possession with intent to distribute ecstasy. Manuel was riding in a car with his brother when they were pulled over for failing to signal.
A Joliet police officer claimed he smelled cannabis. “Without warning, the officer flung open the passenger’s door and dragged Manuel out. The officer pushed Manuel to the ground, handcuffed him, and then punched and kicked him,” according to court documents.
After a pat down, the officer found a bottle of pills. The pills were tested by officers at the scene, who allegedly falsified the results to show the pills were ecstasy. Manuel said the pills were vitamins.At a March 31 grand jury proceeding, police allegedly continued to lie about the results.
An April 1, 2011 lab report claimed the pills were not ecstasy but vitamins. However, Manuel was still arraigned on April 8. A dismissal of the charges was not sought until May 4, 2011. Manuel was released the next day.
Manuel sued the City of Joliet and Joliet police officers April 10, 2013. The court dismissed most of the claims. On appeal, Manuel argued malicious prosecution, but the Seventh Circuit Court United States of Appeals decided that while Manuel’s lawyer gave a strong argument, it would not go against precedent and said “Manuel’s argument is better left for the Supreme Court.”