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.
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.
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.
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.
Whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty?’ There’s been so much fuss over the last week over the Chinese gymnastic team. A number of the members of the female team (anywhere from three to five of the six, depending on your source) are suspected of being under sixteen- the minimum age required to compete in Olympic gymnastics.* Before the Olympics all competitors were required to show valid passports in order to prove their eligibility; the gymnastic team passed. Since then multifarious papers have been asked for, given, and approved. Yet the vast majority of people I’ve heard from, media and otherwise, seem to believe that the gymnasts are under-aged.
He Kexin, winner of two individual gold medals
At this point, what could prove the gymnasts innocence? As their coach put it:
“The passports were issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. The identity card was issued by China’s Ministry of Public Security. If these valid documents are not enough to clarify this problem, then what will you believe?”
Now, that’s not to say that the Chinese government isn’t capable of falsifying documents. Exactly this type of falsification has been done before, and by the Chinese to boot (a gymnast spoke out afterward revealing that they were only 14 at the time of the competition). There was no big fuss- there were no medals on the line.
But while the Chinese certainly had the opportunity to slip in underage athletes, I don’t think they would in this case. The primary argument for them doing it works in the other direction as well: they want to impress the world on the Olympic stage. So far they’ve done well; they currently have more golds than any other country. The point, however, is that if they cheat and get caught at the games they are hosting, it will look very bad. I’d argue that it’s not worth the risk.
The team, with supporters
A few other things make it plausible that the girls are all sixteen or older. Do they look young? Yes, but there are numerous explanations for this.
Race; its a fact that many Chinese are smaller than Westerners. I’ve met high schoolers who could have passed for eight or nine year old children. Furthermore they look different, which makes it harder to judge age.
Physical maturity; intense physical training can slow or postpone development in girls. This is because when a female’s body fat percentage is below a certain level the hypothalamus prevents the release of certain hormones tied to development. I know Caucasians for whom this is the case- they are runners, or dancers, and in one case a gymnast. While they couldn’t pass for more than two or three years below their actual ages, consider also the relative intensity of their training. China has been criticized for the way they treat their athletes, separating them and devoting their lives to training for the Olympics. Of course their growth has been delayed further than that of athletes who need to arrange their training around school, etc.
Size of gene pool; China’s population is over 1.3 billion and rising. That’s over 20% of the world population unless we broke 7 billion and no one told me. Why can’t these athletes have ‘odd’ genes, and be naturally small and slow developing? If any nation could find such an anomaly in it’s population, odds are on it being China given both it’s government and it’s population. For all we know they have dwarfism or something of that sort. Yes, here that would be all over the news, but China’s culture is different. Perhaps they would respect their athletes enough that such a thing would be kept secret, even given the current suspicions.
Of course, I have no more proof than those accusing the Chinese of cheating. The accusers have old web pages which may or may not be reliable and I have general information on things which could cause the athletes to appear younger than they are, particularly to Westerners who’ve just lost a slew of gold medals to them. However I will ask that everyone keep in mind the American notion of innocence until proven guilty. Frankly I won’t be too surprised if some of them are too young, but there is no reason to assume that is the case without proof.
*Technically it is possible to compete while 15 as the exact requirement is that the athlete’s 16th birthday be in the Olympic year.
