(a continuation) Companies aren't legally allowed to dump toxins in the ocean, because of the third-party costs associated with it. They'd be getting free disposal, while poisoning the water, affecting fish, other wildlife and humans. So, if carbon emissions are destructive in a similar way, shouldn't this bear a financial responsibility? A $2/ton carbon tax roughly estimates the damage caused by carbon emissions. Yet, some people suggest instituting a $140/ton tax on carbon emissions because this would help curb global warming faster. This is true, but: A) is it right to arbitrarily tax someone that much higher than what their output is causing? B) are the benefits worth it? for instance, we could lower the speed limit to 5 mph and drastically decrease traffic accidents, but there are costs associated with this C) how much easier will it be to get countries around the world on board with a $2/ton carbon tax as opposed to the larger one? Because frankly, not many countries are going to be willing to accept an economic penalty when countries they compete against aren't?

(a continuation) Is our goal to maintain a consistent average global temperature? What should that number be? Let's focus specifically on human life. If the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is right, if we do not change our habits, the average global temperature will increase by approximately 4.7 degrees by the end of the century. In Britain, this would cause an estimated 2,000 more deaths in Britain, annually, through excess heat. It would also prevent an estimated 20,000 deaths from excess cold. This factor of 10 times more lives saved is slightly greater than the current factor of 7 times more people in Europe who currently die from excess cold over excess heat. So, what am I saying? Should we speed up the warming process in order to save more lives? Well, global warming isn't just about saving lives in a pure, numerical sense. It's about preserving a better quality for all life now and in the future. Not to mention that warming will surely affect people living near the equator more negatively than people living further away from it. But, we need to understand the consequences, and yes, even the benefits of global warming before we even try to determine our best solution for solving the problems caused by it.

This week, we will be discussing the consequences of global warming, what our goals should be when determining solutions, and weighing the costs of these proposals in terms of the benefits gained from instituting them. We will begin from a standpoint that global warming is real, man-made, and will have serious effects on both humanity and the environment. Feel free to comment with any thoughts that can lead off our week.

While you've probably read enough single-page articles, and watched enough television blurbs to be familiar with the vocabulary being used to explain the current subprime mortgage / credit crisis, do you really understand why it happened? Chicago Public Radio's This American Life has a terrifically sticky hour-long audio presentation that explains it with real-life examples of the people involved. Listen to this while at work today (click on the Full Episode button), and once you're done, see if your thoughts have changed regarding whether or not you thought the bailout was a good idea, or on what actions you think should take place now. Report your findings. Show your work.

In Chicago, there is a proposal for the development of a gay-friendly high school that would ensure gay students have a safe place to learn. Shouldn't our focus be to reform anti-gay attitudes at our current high schools? If gay kids are feeling threatened at their current schools, I understand the desire they have to escape these harmful environments. But if the problem is the stigma, are we just prolonging the problem by separating ourselves? (post idea submitted by frequent contributor, Emily)

If you go to a golf range, you'll see a lot of people with horrible swings they learned from their father. They've read some books, taken some lessons, and tried to emulate Tiger Woods, but there's still that base foundation of terribleness that's ingrained in their muscle memory because of the ignorant teaching of their father, who learned from his similarly ignorant father. And they can't get past it. Knowledge is the same way. You have to make a point to unlearn the garbage you've obtained over the years. Whether you know it or not, we all have faulty paradigms stuck in our head that influence our current decisions. Make it a point to assume you're wrong on everything. And start over.

Let's say Alaska decided they wanted to secede from the Union. As Americans with a similar history of claiming independence from a country who controlled us from far away, wouldn't we have to be at least sympathetic to the argument? Choose a side and list your reasons.

Example: golf Golf is something that many men play their whole lives, and don't get any better at it. Practice only makes perfect if you're practicing correctly. Repetition of horribleness does not create anything beneficial.

Ever catch yourself saying this when watching politicians speak? I've said it about people from both parties. "This guy gets it. He understands how the economy works." "This guy gets it. He understands what's really going on with the war." I'm realizing that these are faulty statements. The truth is, when I say, "He gets it," what I mean is "He gets me." He's saying the things I believe. We share a worldview, at least when talking about a certain aspect of governance. It's not that one of these guys gets it, and the other doesn't. It's that one of their voices sounds a little bit closer to our own.

I had hoped that one of the best consequences of a George W. Bush administration would be a future unwillingness of the populace to blindly trust the government.

No more would we follow the cries for immediate action without first hearing the pros, the cons and the alternatives.

This latest financial debacle proved me wrong.

The government called fire, claimed themselves as savior, and we immediately yelled for them to act. No real debate. No real discussion. Just a blind yell to save us all and write the check.

We didn't learn a thing. And it's absolutely tragic.