5 November 2016

Today is Guy Fawkes Day, otherwise known as the Bonfire Day or the Gunpowder Plot. Guy Fawkes was a Catholic dissident who, along with others, conspired to blow up King James I during the opening of Parliament on 5 November 1605.  Catholicism was suppressed for many years prior to the plot and the would-be assassins hoped to change the draconian policies by installing James’ daughter and marrying her to a Catholic.  Fawkes was reborn in the 1980s as a cultural hero in the graphic novel and movie “V for Vendetta”.

As Americans prepare to vote on Tuesday (although almost 30 million people have already voted), there is a weird cloud hanging over the process:  the suspicion that Russia has been attempting to influence the outcome of the election by the selective leaking of secret documents.  It is no secret that Russian President Putin has negative feelings about Hillary Clinton and that Donald Trump has been especially positive toward Putin.  But the Russian intrusion, confirmed by the highest intelligence officials in the US, is an extraordinary act which defies an appropriate response. Nonetheless, I suspect we can reasonably expect a relatively firm response from the US after the election is over.  US officials also believe that Russia intends to disrupt other elections in the West.

Researchers have calculated how much human activity contributes to the melting of Arctic sea ice: “Just 75 miles in a fossil-fuel powered car equals one square foot of ice melted Arctic ice.”   Ccording to the study:

“… for every metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted, about three square meters (approximately 32.3 square feet) of Arctic summer sea ice disappears. And, with humans currently emitting about 35 to 40 million tons of CO2 each year, the future doesn’t look very frozen.”

At this rate, the Arctic might be ice-free by 2050.  The US is virtually the only major industrialized country that does not have a robust plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Rolling Stone has a very interesting article on why the US lags so far behind.  The article does not pretend to disguise its biases, so everyone should take the conclusions of the article with a grain of salt.  It does, however, provide several interesting bits of information that appear to be correct.   (I will not ask any quiz questions about the Rolling Stone article)