From the NYTIMES article: As president, Mr. Clinton had sent Mr. Kim a letter of condolence on the death of his father, Kim Il-sung, according to a former official. For Mr. Kim, the former official said, freeing the women was a “reciprocal humanitarian gesture.”
I would never have expected any world leader, let alone a notorious dictator, to base a decision off of a letter on an irrelevant subject. This quote in the article makes it appear as though Kim released the hostages as a personal favor to Bill Clinton.
I suppose it only goes to show that you can never forget that all the monsters are human too.
The terrorism accusation is demonstrably false, and the rest of it is skewed ever so slightly. We have a revolution in the US every couple of years. That’s what I like best about my country, as a matter of fact. Change is good and natural. Now if only the authority figures in Iran would stop jailing everyone who tries to stir the compost.
As for the purported “policy of the Western media” to discredit the election, instituted before it even took place, well, the media doesn’t always agree with the government on how its own country is run. I doubt there would be any way to get rival news agencies to agree to forwarding the same foreign policy. Covering a human rights event for the millions of people eager to learn more after the fact is another matter entirely.
I know I (almost) promised to do a post about my experience at the inauguration, but the more I reflect on it, the less interesting it was. I already posted the highlights of my own experience, and frankly, running (literally) around downtown DC trying to find the end of a line (and once finding the beginning instead) isn’t all that interesting. The speech was good though. If you didn’t watch it, look it up. It won’t be quoted for centuries, but it should last out the decade.
So now I can take advantage of the fact that we have a new government by getting my foot in the door early for making fun of it. The nation as a whole has reached a point where all its dreams have come true, now they just need to sit back and watch the magic happen.
But on his very first day in office, Obama did something I disapproved of. What he’s done with regards to federal jobs, pay, and appointments will prevent much ‘new blood’ from coming in, as well as the usual interchange between public and private sectors. The vast majority of the time, what he’s done is good. I know one person, however, who was considering taking a political appointment in the new administration, but now won’t because she wouldn’t be able to pay the bills with that pay. Money was an issue before, but now it is absolutely out of the question.
This will hopefully be fixed in the long term- a few appropriate loopholes in an otherwise good policy.
Also, here’s a quote (found on www.newyorktimes.com) which was somewhat unfortunate. Not a Bushism by any means, but rather clearly a politicians translation. The stimulus/infrastructure plan which it was used to defend, however, I approve of. Especially the bit about fixing the electric grid.
“We won’t just throw money at our problems; we’ll invest in what works.”
Terrorist attacks such as those currently taking place in Mumbai infuriate me. But it’s not the terrorists who make me really angry. It’s the victims. According to one report, about fifteen armed ‘terrorists’ were holding a great number of people hostage. Why do the victims, who far outnumber their captors, allow themselves to be victims? Why not fight back? There’s almost no doubt that if all the hostages in a situation like this chose to resist, they would win. It wouldn’t even take all of them.
Case and point: Flight 93 on 9/11.
Resistance doesn’t necessarily mean fighting. Almost certainly, in this situation, but if someone could orchestrate an escape of all the hostages, that would be equally effective. The point isn’t to hurt the terrorists, merely to take away the power fear gives them. Because right now hostages chosing to stand up and resist would be protecting and representing more than just themselves. They would be protecting all of the hostages, and representing all of those opposed to the terrorists.
Bottled water has been under heavy attack for some time now, most recently on Funny Goodbye Letters, where the following comic was posted:
Oddly enough, it looks like this was taken from a blog I read more regularly (Don’stuff), but I saw it on Funny Goodbye Letters first. I think I need to fix my feeds.
It makes a strong point. Bottled water is stupid. It’s expensive, it’s terrible for the environment, and there’s no reason for us to be paying the dramatic fiscal and environmental costs associated with it.
Or is there? I think it’s about time someone who isn’t making money from selling it took up the defense of bottled water. So here we go.
Why buy bottled water? What does a bottle of water offer you that a glass of water from the tap doesn’t?
Convenience
There is no denying the ease which comes with grabbing a bottle of water and walking out the door. I don’t think anyone is going to argue that water is a luxury, not when used for drinking at any rate. In an age when grab it and go meals are the norm, and a minute in the microwave can be too long, it’s no wonder people have turned to the water with zero preparation time. Furthermore, you don’t need to wash bottles. You throw them in the recycling (or, evidently, if you’re 80% of people, you throw them away, but I’m too small to be 80% of people)
Utility
As of yet, a glass of water has not been invented which can be safely thrown into a brief case or backpack without soaking the contents. Perhaps it has, but I haven’t seen it. Furthermore, it seems silly to keep glasses of water in the refrigerator. But the refrigerator keeps bottled water cooler than the sink can produce it. The western world, at least, likes its water cold. This is less of an issue in China where water is usually boiled before drinking, and preferred hot.
Accessibility
Often times, bottled water is all that’s available. You’re thirsty, don’t want the calories, sugar, or taste of any other beverage, but you’re not at home. You don’t have a glass, you don’t have the kitchen sink. Rumor has it that some people carry theirs around with them, but you can’t find them. What do you do? You buy a bottle of water. Is that so wrong? Surely you can’t be expected to drink out of the toilets.
Taste
Bottled water DOES come from a pristine, mysterious source. Tap water has fifty bajillion chemicals in it, ranging from chlorine to kill bacteria and fluorine so that your teeth don’t rot to chlorine to lead from the pipes ensuring that the rest of you rots. Alright, I grant you, not many places have lead piping anymore. But the point is that tap water has a taste, and it isn’t always good. Some places have downright funky tasting tap water, especially after storms. And then there’s the white precipitate which I always find in any water I get out of the downstairs faucets. Bottled water, for the most part, comes in two varieties. 1. Distilled/filtered water takes away all the things that make tap water unpleasant. 2. Mineral/spring water which is selected to be good tasting. They add things (or find water already containing) salts which make the water, in fact, taste better.
Now to demolish those arguments as fast as possible.
-Use reusable water bottles. I have a 32oz pink bottle that I carry around with me. Yes. Pink. It was on sale.
-Get a filter for your kitchen faucet, if the taste bothers you.
-Put ice cubes in your water bottle.
-If you really can’t bear to get a reusable water bottle, there’s no need to drink out of the toilet. When I’m on long runs, or just don’t have my water bottle with me for one reason or another, I have no compuction drinking out of bathroom sinks. And you know what? I’m not dead yet.
While corn and ethanol fuel have been widely advertized as the solutions to global warming, I’m now finding out exactly how naive that notion is.
Take a close look at that, and what we should be doing becomes obvious. Algae. It would dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions, even making up for many of those emitted by other sources. It is also the only biofuel which is even remotely realistic for completely replacing fossil fuels. While 1-2% of US cropland is a lot, it is nowhere so much as the alternatives. Furthermore, given my knowledge of algea growth, it should to possible to utilize territory which is not currently counted as ‘crop land’ in order to grow algea. This meaning the potential to use lakes, artificial or natural, as well as the oceans, to create algea farms. There’s an offshore island made of trash in the Pacific, why not have offshore algea farms? Remeniscent of the island in Life of Pi, only sans the carnivourous factor. Well, maybe not. Only instead of eating little monkeys, these would eat CO2.
This declares that the ‘technology is not ready.’ But how much do you want to bet that if we focussed our efforts, this could be made possible?
One of the things which really bothers me is the lack of press. Look at those numbers. That’s incredible! You’d think it would be all over the news instead of ethanol. To think that all the debates between Obama and McCain focused on marginally less filthy coal and ethanol rather than algea.
Here’s a radical new idea for Obama- why not make McCain Secretary of War? Secretary of State or National Security Advisor would work as well, but I’ve been led to believe that McCain would prefer a position as Secretary of War. This makes a great deal of sense. As President, Obama will have several jobs. He will need to fix everything that Bush screwed up; this would include getting rid of the Department of Homeland Security, which may or may not have been a good idea (aside from the fascist name), but was so terribly implemented as to now be a hopeless mess. He will need to regain the world’s respect for the United States. He will need to heal the wounds this country’s partisan nature has inflicted upon itself. This means bringing the left and the right to terms with one another. One of the best ways to do this, which has been discussed in the press, is a bipartisan cabinet.
This would mean giving Republicans important positions in the new administration. So why not make McCain Secretary of War? Before he started trying to become president, McCain was respectable. He was a good senator, but the way American politics works forced him to do and say things which I believe he regrets. Actually, considering that he lost the election, I feel fairly safe saying that he regrets them. If he’d succeeded it would likely have been a contest of means and ends in his mind. Assuming that the election did not somehow fundamentally change McCain, turning him into one of the neo-conservatives he was forced to cater to, he’s capable and would be a powerful addition to the Cabinet. Furthermore he carried 46% of the popular vote. It should go a long way to healing the nation.
Well, there’s one reason not to give him such a position. None of the Republicans like him. Still, Obama could do worse than to give him a position of authority. All the time they were bashing eachother’s voting records, they didn’t seem to notice how often they’d voted together.
So here’s to giving McCain a cabinet seat, now that he’s safely out of range of the presidency. Just so long as he isn’t Secretary of the Internet.
According to USA Today, the US government is only now realizing that the only reason the Taliban is able to put up any resistance at all is because they’ve been making from $60-$80 million a year from selling opium (derived from poppy). This has a variety of unpleasant consequences:
- continued instability in Afghanistan
- illegal opiates such as heroin are more easily available (particularly in Europe)
- land that could be used for food is instead producing drugs
On that last note, it wasn’t so long ago that the world was freaking out because of the rising cost of staples such as corn, rice, and wheat. At the time it was blamed on those products, corn in particular, being used for ethanol fuel. What right does the world (as a whole) have to complain about a shortage of food when it isn’t doing all it can to produce food? That means countries like Afghanistan and Colombia whose primary agricultural export is an illegal substance need to get turned around.
Now, as for the current situation in Afghanistan, the USA Today article said that NATO and the US are planing on working harder to regulate drug traffickers… but are doing nothing to stop Afghans from growing opium for fear of making them angry. The logic seems to run like this:
Eliminate profitable crop > anger farmers who must now grow less profitable crops> lose control of country
On the other hand, look at what happens if the plan works.
Drug traffickers eliminated > poppy no longer profitable > farmers have lots of inedible, unsellable poppy on their hands and starve
This is just not terribly well thought out. It seems that what they hope will happen is that their own operations will be inefficient and will only slowly eliminate drug traffickers, making poppy marginally less profitable each year until farmers begin to switch of their own accord.
A much more viable plan would be to 1. make growing poppy illegal and enforce the law. (note: there are medicinal purposes for some opiates, so a few licenses could be given out to produce the very little which is needed for the medical industry) 2. Make seed for other crops easily available.
I’m against subsidies as a rule, but they could be used in Afghanistan much as they are in the US.
Does this solution solve the problems? It would appear to. This would eliminate the Taliban’s income, 90% of illegal opium, and a chunk of world hunger in one swoop.
Now why can’t any government’s see the obvious?
*note: the article I linked to isn’t the same one that I had in print- for some reason that one does not appear to be on the website, but they are similar.
**I never buy my own newspaper, but there are so many lying around on busses, the Metro, and in coffee shops that I never have to.
Sorry that this is late (hey, it’s still Friday in my timezone, whatever WordPress thinks). Unfortunately this is going to be a tad rushed. I have something better to do- namely sleep- right now. I have a 5K tomorrow and a half-marathon (my first) the next day. Bad planning? Yes. Is that going to stop me? No. This will go down as one of my numerous ’stupid running stunts.’
In any case, here’s a song which has been on my running playlist ever since I discovered it. It’s called ‘Something Better’ and the artist is “true story.” Modern rock, and fast paced enough for me to run to.
There’s a really simple way to figure out whether or not you approve of a Vice-Presidential candidate in this election. Would you be satisfied with them as Commander-in-Chief?
This hasn’t always been the case. Much of the time the Vice-President only has to sit around and look nice, and it helps if the candidate is from that swing state.
This election is different because McCain and Obama are two of the most likely candidates to die during their term- via disease or assassination, in history.
Skeptical? Good. I can’t prove that they’re the most likely, but I can demonstrate considerable risk.
McCain: Oldest candidate in history, has previously suffered from skin cancer. Anyone who has had cancer is at higher risk for cancer than someone who has not.
I have my own opinions, but I’m not going to force them upon you here. But please, everyone, consider whether you would be comfortable with Palin or Biden as your President.
Here’s an interesting post I found about Sarah Palin. If anyone has an informative one about Biden (for or against) or another for Palin (preferably for), please post it in the comments and I’ll add it to the post.
