Ok, so I still haven't gotten around to posting my second installment on the Ahmadinejad speech from like a month ago, but my friend just showed me this and I felt that I had to share.
This is the best thing I've seen all week, and generally speaking, I've never even been particularly impressed with Farrakhan. I think I've watched this about five times today. The video quality isn't that great, but the sound is good.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Ahmadinejad, Part I
Quote of the day:
"In
Yesterday, I attended the lecture by President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. You probably have seen or read clips from it by now because it was all over the domestic and international news yesterday and this morning. Campus was in controlled chaos all day long. There were camera crews set up outside the main gates, and throngs of protesters were there as well. Only those with
The major disappoint for the day came at the very beginning with the opening remarks of University President Lee Bollinger. His version of opening the discussion with a challenge to Ahmadinejad was simply a 25-minute tirade in which he caved to the pressure of special interest and politicians. The following insults that Bollinger lobbed at Ahmadinejad do a good job at characterizing the overall tone of his remarks:
“You exhibit all of the signs of a petty and cruel dictator”
The major disappoint of his remarks were not just the words themselves, but rather the embarrassingly un-academic nature of them, and Ahmadinejad did a very good job at calling him on it. Beyond his assertion that Bollinger’s remarks were no way to treat an invited guest, Ahmadinejd remarked that a man who purports to champion free speech cannot reasonably expect to have an open and free dialogue when he just spent nearly a half an hour spewing bias and closemindedness. Anything that Ahmadinejad said from that point on would be colored by Bollinger’s obviously biased comments.
Once we got past that point, however, things started to get more interesting.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Chocolate Slaves
Much like the African diamond trade that has received a great deal of attention in recent years, there is yet another natural resource trade in parts of Africa that is chiefly consumed in the West, but is having devastating effects on the lives of normal Africans: chocolate cultivation in parts of West Africa.
By some estimates, 50% of the world's cocoa beans come from Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. This cocoa is shipped abroad to a central location, mixed together with cocoa beans from around the world and then sold and turned into chocolate. This is common knowledge and should not come as a surprise to anyone. However, what is not commonly known, but is very well documented by the cocoa industry is that given the very low world prices for cocoa, many plantations in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire find it necessary to use child slave labor to plant and harvest their crops. Which is often the case with forced child labor, the children are either sold to the plantation owners by poor families or simply kidnapped. These children work very long hours and receive little or no education or training outside of cocoa cultivation. Given the fact that cocoa beans are aggregated and then sent out for processing, there is no way to know whether the conventional chocolate bar you're eating came at least in part from beans harvested by workers in Latin America or child slavery in West Africa.
There have been some notable efforts on the part of the US Government to fight this problem, but progress has been painfully slow and, of course, the cocoa industry has been dragging its feet. US Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and US Rep Eliot Engel (D-NY) sponsored the Harkin-Engel Protocol of 2001, which calls for voluntary industry-side standards with respect to child labor by July 2005, was signed by both the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) and the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF), but over two years after the deadline, the standards still have yet to be implemented. Furthermore, Tulane University's Payson Center for International Development was tapped by US Secretary of Labor Elaine Choa to spearhead a project to oversee efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the West African cocoa industry.
Fortunately, despite widespread knowledge of this issue among your ordinary chocolate consumers, some progress is being made. However, there is still a lot more that needs to be done. I think that the most important and practical thing that we all can do would be to raise awareness of the issue. Most people just don't know. I personally only found out recently when I was having lunch with a group of high school students over the summer as part of my internship and one of the students brought it up. The more people that know about this, the more it becomes a public relations issue for the chocolate industry and the more likely they are to take steps to fix the problem.
Another practical step that we all can take is to only buy Fair Trade chocolate. It's the only way that you can be reasonably sure that the chocolate was harvested on farms and plantations that do not utilize slave labor. It's a little more expensive and often not as good, but it gets the job done and it gives you that wonderful feeling of moral superiority over all those consuming traditionally manufactured chocolates.
For more information:
Tulane University Public Health
Harkin-Engel Protocol
World Cocoa Foundation
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
By some estimates, 50% of the world's cocoa beans come from Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. This cocoa is shipped abroad to a central location, mixed together with cocoa beans from around the world and then sold and turned into chocolate. This is common knowledge and should not come as a surprise to anyone. However, what is not commonly known, but is very well documented by the cocoa industry is that given the very low world prices for cocoa, many plantations in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire find it necessary to use child slave labor to plant and harvest their crops. Which is often the case with forced child labor, the children are either sold to the plantation owners by poor families or simply kidnapped. These children work very long hours and receive little or no education or training outside of cocoa cultivation. Given the fact that cocoa beans are aggregated and then sent out for processing, there is no way to know whether the conventional chocolate bar you're eating came at least in part from beans harvested by workers in Latin America or child slavery in West Africa.
There have been some notable efforts on the part of the US Government to fight this problem, but progress has been painfully slow and, of course, the cocoa industry has been dragging its feet. US Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and US Rep Eliot Engel (D-NY) sponsored the Harkin-Engel Protocol of 2001, which calls for voluntary industry-side standards with respect to child labor by July 2005, was signed by both the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) and the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF), but over two years after the deadline, the standards still have yet to be implemented. Furthermore, Tulane University's Payson Center for International Development was tapped by US Secretary of Labor Elaine Choa to spearhead a project to oversee efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the West African cocoa industry.
Fortunately, despite widespread knowledge of this issue among your ordinary chocolate consumers, some progress is being made. However, there is still a lot more that needs to be done. I think that the most important and practical thing that we all can do would be to raise awareness of the issue. Most people just don't know. I personally only found out recently when I was having lunch with a group of high school students over the summer as part of my internship and one of the students brought it up. The more people that know about this, the more it becomes a public relations issue for the chocolate industry and the more likely they are to take steps to fix the problem.
Another practical step that we all can take is to only buy Fair Trade chocolate. It's the only way that you can be reasonably sure that the chocolate was harvested on farms and plantations that do not utilize slave labor. It's a little more expensive and often not as good, but it gets the job done and it gives you that wonderful feeling of moral superiority over all those consuming traditionally manufactured chocolates.
For more information:
Tulane University Public Health
Harkin-Engel Protocol
World Cocoa Foundation
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Axis of Evil Right in Our Own Backyard
Several heads of state will be in town for the UN General Assembly meeting this week and next. As is the custom every year, my university invites world leaders to come speak on campus while they're passing through New York. This year, among others, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president of Iran, has confirmed that he will speak and remain for a Q&A session. And guess who just scored a ticket?!
That's right, I'll be there soaking in all of the magic. This guy's a f-ing lunatic. It's going to be awesome!
I wonder whether he'll report on the event in his blog.
That's right, I'll be there soaking in all of the magic. This guy's a f-ing lunatic. It's going to be awesome!
I wonder whether he'll report on the event in his blog.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
War: What is it Good For?
As I lay in bed last night in my stuffy Harlem apartment with the screenless bedroom window set ajar, I began to hear the unmistakable buzzing of a mosquito in my ear. Once the mosquito met a violent and undoubtedly premature death, I returned to bed and began to consider the role of the Mosquito writ large in the grand scheme of things. You know: circle of life, food chain type stuff. While I’m sure that they serve some positive purpose on the planet, I couldn’t think of one. All of I could think of was the spread of malaria, disease and general annoyance around the world. Then I began to think that perhaps the spread of disease was its positive contribution to the planet after all. Given that man has no natural predator, maybe the general spread of disease was designed to thin our numbers and keep nature in balance. Maybe disease does play a significant role in that regard, but it has to be more than that. Lots of people die from mosquito-born diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, but I can’t imagine that enough people die from such diseases to make a significant dent in our booming population.
That’s were man comes in.
There are over 6 billion humans on earth, and I read just yesterday that demographers project a human population of 12 billion by 2050. I think that 6 billion is probably already too many. I can’t imagine the stress that a population twice that size will place on the Earth. As we have seen time and time again in nature, a species in an environment with no natural predator tends to reproduce without impediment. But perhaps we do in fact have a natural predator that no one really considers.
Ourselves.
From the beginning, human history has been riddled with violence. So much so, that the study of history is often tracked by the occurrences of war. War is the primary focus and everything else simply goes to explain what happened after the last war and what lead up to the next one. It is not uncommon for hundreds of thousands of people to be killed over the course of a single war. I can’t think of anything else that even comes close to claiming as many lives over a comparably short period of time. Small fish eat plankton, big fish eat smaller fish, bears eat big fish, and then humans make coats and rugs out of bears. We’re at the top of the food chain. Aside from the occasional shark attack, dog mauling or unfortunate encounter with a cannibal, humans don’t get eaten by anything else, but that doesn’t mean that we ourselves aren’t preyed upon. We’re the product of our own ambition, greed and pride. We wage war for the accumulation of wealth and power, and one could argue that as a result, we provide a valuable service to nature. By taking on the responsibility of reducing our numbers, we have managed to maintain a rough balance with other populations on earth.
Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, war is actually good for something.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Where Are We Headed?
“The question is whether France should stay in Algeria. If the answer is yes, then we must accept the necessary consequences”
I just finished watching the film The Battle of Algiers, which tells the story of one of the most influential years in the Algerian battle of independence from the French in the late 1950s, early 1960s. It was a very well done film, which, unfortunately, still in many ways parallels the state of the world today.
The above quote from the film comes from Colonel Mathieu, who was charged with leading the French military effort in squashing the Algerian resistance movement in the capital city of Algiers. A reporter asks the colonel whether it is true that French soldiers under his command use torture and whether torture was an acceptable means of accomplishing his mission. In his response the colonel implies that the French people themselves are complicit in the course of action that he deems necessary in Algiers. Given the overwhelming sentiment among the French populous that the French should remain in Algeria, French society had given its tacit approval to use every means necessary to maintain the French occupying presence, even if that extended to torture.
Could the same be said of us Americans?
I personally am appalled at the use of torture by the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror”, and I’ve become even more so incensed after reading the Washington Post series on the Cheney Vice Presidency, in which they lay out how this doctrine of torture became a part of the Administration. Now, however, I’m beginning to wonder whether the use of torture in Guantanamo, Baghdad and elsewhere is merely the fault of the US citizenry. It’s easy to place the blame on those at the top of the pyramid, but perhaps those of us making up the much larger base at the bottom have also played role.
John Locke taught us of the Social Contract, in which each of us relinquishes a bit of our independence and self-determination to the State for the purposes of promoting the common good. Following September 11th, we all renegotiated our contract and handed over a little bit more of our self-determination in an effort to “secure our borders” and keep America free from future terrorist attacks. While some may argue that we are less safe now than we were prior to September 11th, the fact remains that there have been no additional attacks on US soil in the last six years, but my question is, was it worth it? Are we willing to accept the possibility of less effective intelligence – and, by extension, increased vulnerability – in exchange for the maintenance of our shared values? While I’m sure that the Administration has gained valuable information by employing torture – information that may have saved American lives – I’m not certain that it was worth the price we pay in terms of the massive blow it has delivered to American ideals and values.
We torture people.
Robert Mugabe tortures people. Kim Jong Il tortures people. Saddam Hussein tortured people. We’re Americans. We don’t do that. We’re the good guys. Aren't we supposed to be better than that? We’ve lost the moral high ground on this issue and, in essence, every other issue as well. How can we act as the champions of freedom and human rights around the world when we unabashedly sanction inhumane treatment of foreigners?
We torture people.
I’m interested in seeing the US response when one of our diplomats abroad is captured and subjected to torture. What could we possibly say? “It’s ok for Americans to engage in torture, but you terrorists groups and other non-state actors, you’re not allowed to follow suit. We only use torture for noble purposes, whereas you all torture with nefarious intent.”
The question for us is whether the use of torture is truly in the long term interests of the US. Does the preservation of our security today warrant the use of torture and its deleterious effects on the American system of values for years to come? If the answer is yes, then we too must accept the necessary consequences. If not, then perhaps it is time for us to withdraw the tacit support we’ve extended to the Administration over recent years.
But how one goes about doing that, I haven’t quite figured out.
I just finished watching the film The Battle of Algiers, which tells the story of one of the most influential years in the Algerian battle of independence from the French in the late 1950s, early 1960s. It was a very well done film, which, unfortunately, still in many ways parallels the state of the world today.
The above quote from the film comes from Colonel Mathieu, who was charged with leading the French military effort in squashing the Algerian resistance movement in the capital city of Algiers. A reporter asks the colonel whether it is true that French soldiers under his command use torture and whether torture was an acceptable means of accomplishing his mission. In his response the colonel implies that the French people themselves are complicit in the course of action that he deems necessary in Algiers. Given the overwhelming sentiment among the French populous that the French should remain in Algeria, French society had given its tacit approval to use every means necessary to maintain the French occupying presence, even if that extended to torture.
Could the same be said of us Americans?
I personally am appalled at the use of torture by the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror”, and I’ve become even more so incensed after reading the Washington Post series on the Cheney Vice Presidency, in which they lay out how this doctrine of torture became a part of the Administration. Now, however, I’m beginning to wonder whether the use of torture in Guantanamo, Baghdad and elsewhere is merely the fault of the US citizenry. It’s easy to place the blame on those at the top of the pyramid, but perhaps those of us making up the much larger base at the bottom have also played role.
John Locke taught us of the Social Contract, in which each of us relinquishes a bit of our independence and self-determination to the State for the purposes of promoting the common good. Following September 11th, we all renegotiated our contract and handed over a little bit more of our self-determination in an effort to “secure our borders” and keep America free from future terrorist attacks. While some may argue that we are less safe now than we were prior to September 11th, the fact remains that there have been no additional attacks on US soil in the last six years, but my question is, was it worth it? Are we willing to accept the possibility of less effective intelligence – and, by extension, increased vulnerability – in exchange for the maintenance of our shared values? While I’m sure that the Administration has gained valuable information by employing torture – information that may have saved American lives – I’m not certain that it was worth the price we pay in terms of the massive blow it has delivered to American ideals and values.
We torture people.
Robert Mugabe tortures people. Kim Jong Il tortures people. Saddam Hussein tortured people. We’re Americans. We don’t do that. We’re the good guys. Aren't we supposed to be better than that? We’ve lost the moral high ground on this issue and, in essence, every other issue as well. How can we act as the champions of freedom and human rights around the world when we unabashedly sanction inhumane treatment of foreigners?
We torture people.
I’m interested in seeing the US response when one of our diplomats abroad is captured and subjected to torture. What could we possibly say? “It’s ok for Americans to engage in torture, but you terrorists groups and other non-state actors, you’re not allowed to follow suit. We only use torture for noble purposes, whereas you all torture with nefarious intent.”
The question for us is whether the use of torture is truly in the long term interests of the US. Does the preservation of our security today warrant the use of torture and its deleterious effects on the American system of values for years to come? If the answer is yes, then we too must accept the necessary consequences. If not, then perhaps it is time for us to withdraw the tacit support we’ve extended to the Administration over recent years.
But how one goes about doing that, I haven’t quite figured out.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
What the Hell is Wrong with Americans?!
In today’s Guardian, there was a story about a 20-year-old man in Florida that was sentenced to an additional 60 days in jail for masturbating in his jail cell. There was a court case, lawyers, jury and everything. The jury found that because it’s funded by the government, a jail cell is a “limited-access public space”, and since it’s illegal to masturbate in public, it’s, by extension, illegal to masturbate in one’s jail cell.
First of all, who cares? The guy was in jail. Where else is he going to masturbate? It’s not like he go home and masturbate like everyone else. He’s kinda stuck there for a while. I don’t care if guys in jail masturbate all day long. What else do they have to do?
Secondly, why are we wasting our money on prosecuting guys that masturbate in jail? If he had been out on a park bench, I could understand the consternation, but this guy was alone in a jail cell. If society is so concerned with the fragile sensibilities of jail guards, a) maybe we should find jail guards that aren’t quite so sensitive, or b) maybe they should put doors on the jail cells instead of enclosing them in glass. Regardless of the course of action they choose, I don’t think they should be wasting tax payer money prosecuting crimes that weren’t really crimes in the first place. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I could’ve sworn that there were still real crimes being committed that we haven’t quite stopped yet. This is just an idea, but maybe we should start using resources to fight real crime instead of worrying about a guy just trying to get to know himself a little better.
First of all, who cares? The guy was in jail. Where else is he going to masturbate? It’s not like he go home and masturbate like everyone else. He’s kinda stuck there for a while. I don’t care if guys in jail masturbate all day long. What else do they have to do?
Secondly, why are we wasting our money on prosecuting guys that masturbate in jail? If he had been out on a park bench, I could understand the consternation, but this guy was alone in a jail cell. If society is so concerned with the fragile sensibilities of jail guards, a) maybe we should find jail guards that aren’t quite so sensitive, or b) maybe they should put doors on the jail cells instead of enclosing them in glass. Regardless of the course of action they choose, I don’t think they should be wasting tax payer money prosecuting crimes that weren’t really crimes in the first place. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I could’ve sworn that there were still real crimes being committed that we haven’t quite stopped yet. This is just an idea, but maybe we should start using resources to fight real crime instead of worrying about a guy just trying to get to know himself a little better.
Monday, July 09, 2007
South Africa to the Rescue
The Guardian reported this morning that faced with worsening hyperinflation, Zimbabwe may be turning to big brother South Africa yet again for support. The central bank of South Africa may include Zimbabwe in the Rand monetary union, which already includes South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. By pegging the Zimbabwe Dollar to the South African Rand and thus relinquishing Zimbabwe’s monetary authority to the central bank of South Africa, there are hopes of bringing some stability to the country’s ever-weakening currency. In return for this, President Mugabe would have to agree to certain “political concessions” at the behest of South African President Mbeki. There was no word of what these concessions would be.
On the one hand, this sounds like good news for the citizens of Zimbabwe. With currency controls in place, ordinary citizens could save money without fear of it becoming essentially worthless the moment after they cash their paychecks. On the other hand, maybe the spiraling inflation would have proven to be the catalyst needed to incite the people to overthrow the oppressive Mugabe regime. Many African scholars were predicting a significant political shake-up in Zimbabwe in the near term as a result of the worsening hyper-inflation. If South Africa bails Mugabe out, yet again, there may be no real change in the country for some time to come. Mugabe’s already in his early 80s, but from what I understand, he’s in excellent health. Despite his age, he isn’t expected to be going anywhere anytime soon.
However, I can see where Mbeki is coming from. Stability along South Africa’s borders may be his most strategically important goal in this regard. An abrupt breakdown of the Mugabe administration could lead to great civil unrest in the country that could cause violence and refugees to spill over the border into South Africa. South Africa’s got enough problems to deal with. They don’t need to import new ones from Zimbabwe. In this world of global institutionalism, Realism is far from dead. The integrity and security of the state is still of paramount importance. It’s easy to advocate revolution remotely from the secure position of the US, but it’s quite a different story when that revolution may be taking place right next door.
On the one hand, this sounds like good news for the citizens of Zimbabwe. With currency controls in place, ordinary citizens could save money without fear of it becoming essentially worthless the moment after they cash their paychecks. On the other hand, maybe the spiraling inflation would have proven to be the catalyst needed to incite the people to overthrow the oppressive Mugabe regime. Many African scholars were predicting a significant political shake-up in Zimbabwe in the near term as a result of the worsening hyper-inflation. If South Africa bails Mugabe out, yet again, there may be no real change in the country for some time to come. Mugabe’s already in his early 80s, but from what I understand, he’s in excellent health. Despite his age, he isn’t expected to be going anywhere anytime soon.
However, I can see where Mbeki is coming from. Stability along South Africa’s borders may be his most strategically important goal in this regard. An abrupt breakdown of the Mugabe administration could lead to great civil unrest in the country that could cause violence and refugees to spill over the border into South Africa. South Africa’s got enough problems to deal with. They don’t need to import new ones from Zimbabwe. In this world of global institutionalism, Realism is far from dead. The integrity and security of the state is still of paramount importance. It’s easy to advocate revolution remotely from the secure position of the US, but it’s quite a different story when that revolution may be taking place right next door.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Demise of Doha?
It was just reported about an hour ago that the Group of 4 meetings in Germany, which were tasked with trying to save the Doha Round of WTO negotiations, have just collapsed. While this is not surprising, it is nonetheless disappointing. After the suspension of talks a year ago, this was seen as a last-ditch effort to revive this round of WTO negotiations, which was touted as the round intended to bring the benefits of liberalized trade to the developing world. As has been the case all along, agricultural protectionism was the hurdle that the participating nations – US, EU, Brazil and India – were not able to overcome. Now one can only expect the blame game to ensue, in which each nation points its finger at the others’ perceived lack of willingness to cut agricultural subsidies.
So all of you who were holding on to the hope that Doha talks would finally get back on track, it’s not looking too good.
In a very well-timed piece in the Washington Post, it was reported yesterday that US farm subsidies, unsurprisingly, tend to only benefit large, white-owned farms, while small farms (many of which are black-owned) receive none of the largess. The idea behind farm subsides is to help farmers who need assistance in coping with detrimental shifts in the agricultural economy, such as changes in weather and world food prices, but in reality they are going to large commercial farms that can probably deal with such factors on their own and those who are most vulnerable receive no support.
Although I don’t know this first-hand, I suspect that small farmers in Mississippi don’t have well-paid lobbyists in Washington, but I’m sure that the large commercial farmers do.
So all of you who were holding on to the hope that Doha talks would finally get back on track, it’s not looking too good.
In a very well-timed piece in the Washington Post, it was reported yesterday that US farm subsidies, unsurprisingly, tend to only benefit large, white-owned farms, while small farms (many of which are black-owned) receive none of the largess. The idea behind farm subsides is to help farmers who need assistance in coping with detrimental shifts in the agricultural economy, such as changes in weather and world food prices, but in reality they are going to large commercial farms that can probably deal with such factors on their own and those who are most vulnerable receive no support.
Although I don’t know this first-hand, I suspect that small farmers in Mississippi don’t have well-paid lobbyists in Washington, but I’m sure that the large commercial farmers do.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Violence in America
“Since her boys were teenagers, she [a mother who had just lost her son to gun violence] had been haunted by the fear that guns might take them. There is a connection, she believes, between the violence that blights America and the country's actions elsewhere. ‘When people see what we're doing in the rest of the world, they think, why not in my neighborhood? The government sets an example of violence and then it gets played out on the streets.’ "
The above quote is from the Guardian Newspaper’s recent article on gun violence in America. The article tells the story of nine young people who found themselves on the wrong end of a hand gun in different cities in America over a 24-hour period. The sentiments of the woman in the above quote, Martine Parraga, greatly mirror my own (see previous entry).America can’t possibly hope to quell violence at home when we export our violent tendencies abroad. While there has been a strong current of violence throughout the history of mankind, the United States has managed to institutionalize that violent sentiment over the last 60 or 70 years, since the end of World War II and the emergence of the US as the sole global superpower. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned us against the threat of the “military-industrial complex” (see previous entry), which has not only championed the loss of US life through military operations around the globe, but has successfully spread our bellicose tendencies to other governments and regimes. How many US and British soldiers have been killed by al Qaeda using weapons that we sold them in the first place? How are we expected to teach our youth to respect life when countless innocent Iraqi citizens have died at the hands of US and British soldiers? Perhaps Ms. Parrega is right: the violence in our neighborhoods is simply a microcosm for US actions in the global community.
If our government and society began showing some respect for human life abroad, maybe we as Americans could learn to respect each other at home.
The above quote is from the Guardian Newspaper’s recent article on gun violence in America. The article tells the story of nine young people who found themselves on the wrong end of a hand gun in different cities in America over a 24-hour period. The sentiments of the woman in the above quote, Martine Parraga, greatly mirror my own (see previous entry).America can’t possibly hope to quell violence at home when we export our violent tendencies abroad. While there has been a strong current of violence throughout the history of mankind, the United States has managed to institutionalize that violent sentiment over the last 60 or 70 years, since the end of World War II and the emergence of the US as the sole global superpower. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned us against the threat of the “military-industrial complex” (see previous entry), which has not only championed the loss of US life through military operations around the globe, but has successfully spread our bellicose tendencies to other governments and regimes. How many US and British soldiers have been killed by al Qaeda using weapons that we sold them in the first place? How are we expected to teach our youth to respect life when countless innocent Iraqi citizens have died at the hands of US and British soldiers? Perhaps Ms. Parrega is right: the violence in our neighborhoods is simply a microcosm for US actions in the global community.
If our government and society began showing some respect for human life abroad, maybe we as Americans could learn to respect each other at home.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Nuclear Fusion
I just attended a lecture on the potential of fusion to meet our global energy needs in the somewhat-distant future. According to applied physicists, at temperatures that exceed 100 million degrees, it may be possible to fuse together sub-atomic particles to produce vast amounts on energy. I don’t quite understand the science behind all of it, but theoretically, fusion technology promises nearly unlimited carbon-free energy. Furthermore, scientists are optimistic that they can produce “green” nuclear energy that produces no radioactive waste and is so safe that there is no need for emergency evacuation plans for areas surrounding the nuclear facilities. As an added bonus, with the type of nuclear fusion they are studying, there is no danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The only problem is that they haven’t quite figured out how to do it yet.
The EU, US, China, Korea, Japan, Russia, and maybe others, have pledged $11 billion to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, an experimental plant which will be located in France to make the theory of nuclear fusion a reality. If I remember correctly, they hope to prove that nuclear fusion is viable within the next 10 years and then make it commercially available by 2050.
2050 is still a ways off, but if this thing works the way scientists hope it will and big polluters like the US, China, and the EU take concrete steps to curb global warming in the meantime, maybe mankind isn’t doomed after all.
The only problem is that they haven’t quite figured out how to do it yet.
The EU, US, China, Korea, Japan, Russia, and maybe others, have pledged $11 billion to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, an experimental plant which will be located in France to make the theory of nuclear fusion a reality. If I remember correctly, they hope to prove that nuclear fusion is viable within the next 10 years and then make it commercially available by 2050.
2050 is still a ways off, but if this thing works the way scientists hope it will and big polluters like the US, China, and the EU take concrete steps to curb global warming in the meantime, maybe mankind isn’t doomed after all.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I Guess Art Really Does Imitate Life
I got the chance to attend Russell Simmons's book release party last week. My roommate who's tied into that scene brought me along. It was at this lounge called Stereo in the West Village. It was a very cool place. I had never been there before. The party itself wasn't all that spectacular (it was a Tuesday night after all), but it was definitely interesting, especially for a poor grad student who generally doesn't find himself in such circles. Russell Simmons was there meeting and greeting people and chatting about his new book, "Do You". I met him and shook his hand. I didn't say much. I just congratulated him on his new book. He's different in person than I would have imagined. He's extremely low-key, almost demure. Some people (famous or not) have a such a large presence regardless of their actual physical stature. When they walk into a room, you know it. Russell Simmons was not one of these people. He was just making his way through the crowd pleasantly greeting his guests. He was probably the most casually dressed person in the room. He's at a point in his career where he doesn't need to impress people anymore. If he wants to throw a party and show up in whatever he happened to be wearing that day, he's Russel Simmons. He can do that.
What was most interesting, however, was the crowd that showed up. My roommate is a publicist, so she gets invited to such things, and there was no shortage of other industry folk present: publicists, entertainment writers, fashion designers, etc. There were also several minor celebrities, but since I haven't owned a television in about three years, I didn't recognize any of them. But I was able to glean that there were people from TV shows like the Apprentice, America's Next Top Model, and MTV, among others. The place was full of beautiful people draped in impossibly trendy attire. Although I thought I was looking pretty hip that night, it was clear that no one else was impressed: "Oh you can't introduce me to someone famous? Yeah, you're not worth my time". But that didn't at all concern me. I was able to drink for free and spend a little time on the dance floor, and that's all I really needed.
The best part of the evening was when you exited the lounge, you immediately found yourself on a red carpet, replete with waiting paparazzi. Of course, I was no one special, but my roommate's friend, however, was of interest. So after not saying more than two words to me the whole evening, when she caught sight of the cameras, she shoved her purse in my hand so that she could run over and attend to her adoring fans. After striking no fewer then four poses, she grabbed her purse and thanked me. Although I was beginning to feel uneasy due to her sudden acknowledgment of my existence, fortunately she immediately returned to ignoring me completely as we walked to fetch a cab.
New York is a great city. There are so many almost surreal experiences that happen here on a daily basis. The parties and circles and attitudes that you watch everyday on television actually happen in real life, and it's interesting to sometimes be a fly on the wall and observe these things unfold.
What was most interesting, however, was the crowd that showed up. My roommate is a publicist, so she gets invited to such things, and there was no shortage of other industry folk present: publicists, entertainment writers, fashion designers, etc. There were also several minor celebrities, but since I haven't owned a television in about three years, I didn't recognize any of them. But I was able to glean that there were people from TV shows like the Apprentice, America's Next Top Model, and MTV, among others. The place was full of beautiful people draped in impossibly trendy attire. Although I thought I was looking pretty hip that night, it was clear that no one else was impressed: "Oh you can't introduce me to someone famous? Yeah, you're not worth my time". But that didn't at all concern me. I was able to drink for free and spend a little time on the dance floor, and that's all I really needed.
The best part of the evening was when you exited the lounge, you immediately found yourself on a red carpet, replete with waiting paparazzi. Of course, I was no one special, but my roommate's friend, however, was of interest. So after not saying more than two words to me the whole evening, when she caught sight of the cameras, she shoved her purse in my hand so that she could run over and attend to her adoring fans. After striking no fewer then four poses, she grabbed her purse and thanked me. Although I was beginning to feel uneasy due to her sudden acknowledgment of my existence, fortunately she immediately returned to ignoring me completely as we walked to fetch a cab.
New York is a great city. There are so many almost surreal experiences that happen here on a daily basis. The parties and circles and attitudes that you watch everyday on television actually happen in real life, and it's interesting to sometimes be a fly on the wall and observe these things unfold.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
England & Ireland
I recently returned from spending Spring Break in London and Dublin and their surrounding areas. I had a great time, thanks in large part to my great friends that live there that put me up for several nights. Here are a few pics from my excursions.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Darfur: War Crimes Indictment
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has finally brought charges against what it sees as the primary perpetrators in the crisis in Darfur. It is still very much unclear as to whether this will make any difference on the ground in Darfur, but at this point, I'm happy to see at least some sign of progress in that conflict.
Here's a link to the article in the Economist.
Here's a link to the article in the Economist.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Don't Believe the Hype
During the buildup for 2008 Presidential election, I am somewhat perplexed by the enduring opinion that John McCain (R-AZ) is a moderate republican candidate. Admittedly, there was a time in which I was also under this impression, but in recent years, McCain has continuously aligned himself ever more closely with the right. As new examples of this fact emerge, I will try to post them here. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a conservative politician, it would be rather unfortunate for someone to base their vote on misinformation. There are many past examples that I need to research and post, however I will start off the series with an associated press article published in yesterday's International Herald Tribune. I think the title of the article speaks for itself:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain says law that legalized abortion should be overturned
Republican presidential candidate John McCain says law that legalized abortion should be overturned
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Why We Fight
I just saw an interesting documentary called Why We Fight.
One quote from the film: "We know we did not have an exit strategy in the invasion of Iraq because we never intended to leave."
One quote from the film: "We know we did not have an exit strategy in the invasion of Iraq because we never intended to leave."
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Not Bad
My personal Top 10 highlights from the speech (in order of occurrence):
1. I loved how Congress members stood to applaud Bush’s proposal to cut earmarks in half by the end of the current Congressional session as if they weren’t the ones placing the earmarks on legislation in the first place. Gotta love politicians.
2. Proposal to reduce gasoline use in the
3. Bush has been pushing this guest worker program for the last year. I don’t really know much about immigration, but sounds like it could potentially be a good program. It very well might not be, but I think it’s an interesting enough idea to be debated in Congress.
4. His argument to stay the course in
5. Civilian military core to supply highly specialized civilians to support military operations when necessary sounds like a good idea to me, assuming it’s completely voluntary, which I assume it would be.
6. Yet another mention of Darfur, but as far as I can see, nothing significant has been done by the administration on this issue in the last 6-12 months, especially since Zoellick left the State Department for Goldman Sachs last summer.
7. I’d be interested to see whether his request for $15 billion to fight malaria in
8. Dikembe Mutombo and a shot out to
9. Wesley Autrey: Milk it for all it’s worth! It was like the guy just won the Heisman or something.
10. What was with the lady molesting the President as he was leaving the House chambers? Did anybody catch that? She had her hand chillin’ on his shoulder or caressing his back for I know a good 5 minutes… on national television. That is definitely not ok!
10: Part Deux. Watching Bush work the crowd as he was leaving the chambers was very impressive. He’s good. Maybe almost as good as
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
The Rebirth of the Electric Car??
Last year's documentary by Chris Paine entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? told the story of the ill-fated EV1, the fully electric car introduced by GM in California in the mid-90s. Although I definitely recommend checking out the film, you don't need to actually watch it know that the EV1 is no longer around. The film explores various causes for the automobile's demise, but, unsurprisingly, big auto and politics were the chief culprits.
However, in a move that I believe caught many people by surprise, GM unveiled at the recent Detroit Auto Show the Chevy Volt , an electric-gasoline hybrid that could be available as early as 2010. Of course, the Prius has been around since 2000, so what makes this hybrid any different? Well, unlike the Prius or other hybrids currently on the market, the Chevy Volt could potentially run forever without using a single drop of gasoline. After charging the battery at home for 6 hours, the Volt can go 40 miles on battery power alone. GM asserts that the majority of Americans live within 20 miles of work, so if that's the case, a normal weekday commute could be done completely using battery-powered electricity. When in fact a person needs to drive more than 40 miles without re-charging the battery, a three-cylinder engine kicks in to burn fuel to recharge the battery, potentially boosting fuel economy to 150 miles per gallon! Furthermore, the engine is equipped to burn E85, which is 85/15 ethanol/gasoline mix. The use of E85, they claim, would mean that the car could go over 525 miles per gallon of petroleum. While there are still some concerns surrounding the efficiency of ethanol production in the US, I imagine that if the ethanol technology in the US isn't able to meet demand at an acceptable price, we could potentially import ethanol from more efficient (and friendlier) nations, such as Brazil, until we could rely solely on domestic production.
Given the decades of neglect and self-interest in terms of environmental sustainability, I hope that 2007 will see a growing trend towards greener business, the likes of which we first began seeing on a significant scale in 2006.
However, in a move that I believe caught many people by surprise, GM unveiled at the recent Detroit Auto Show the Chevy Volt , an electric-gasoline hybrid that could be available as early as 2010. Of course, the Prius has been around since 2000, so what makes this hybrid any different? Well, unlike the Prius or other hybrids currently on the market, the Chevy Volt could potentially run forever without using a single drop of gasoline. After charging the battery at home for 6 hours, the Volt can go 40 miles on battery power alone. GM asserts that the majority of Americans live within 20 miles of work, so if that's the case, a normal weekday commute could be done completely using battery-powered electricity. When in fact a person needs to drive more than 40 miles without re-charging the battery, a three-cylinder engine kicks in to burn fuel to recharge the battery, potentially boosting fuel economy to 150 miles per gallon! Furthermore, the engine is equipped to burn E85, which is 85/15 ethanol/gasoline mix. The use of E85, they claim, would mean that the car could go over 525 miles per gallon of petroleum. While there are still some concerns surrounding the efficiency of ethanol production in the US, I imagine that if the ethanol technology in the US isn't able to meet demand at an acceptable price, we could potentially import ethanol from more efficient (and friendlier) nations, such as Brazil, until we could rely solely on domestic production.
Given the decades of neglect and self-interest in terms of environmental sustainability, I hope that 2007 will see a growing trend towards greener business, the likes of which we first began seeing on a significant scale in 2006.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Oceanic Carbon Sequestration
Current Temperature in New York City: 59 degrees
Expected High Tomorrow: 66 degrees
While I am definitely enjoying the very mild winter here in New York this year, I can't shake this sinking feeling that 5 or 10 years from now science and society will look back at this winter as a major point in the progression of global warming. Columbia University economist and director of the Earth Institute Jeffrey Sachs argues that the global ecosystem acts as a "step function". In much the same way that a bathtub can continue to accept water without any ill effects until suddenly the water reaches the top and begins to overflow onto the floor below, the earth's ecosystem can accept continuous environmental stress until one day it reaches its limit and begins to rapidly deteriorate. I worry that this winter of near record-breaking warm temperatures here in the northeast is signaling that the bathtub has begun to overflow.
Fortunately, however, there are some very intelligent people out there working on some very new ways of turning back the clock on global warming. One interesting path of research is carbon sequestration -- pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and burying it deep underground. While scientists are still working on ways to actually make that a reality, one economist/inventor, Philip Kithil, thinks he has a way to sequester carbon in our oceans to the ocean floor. As reported in the Guardian , there is a "barrel-shaped type of plankton called salps, which feed on algae and excrete dense pellets of carbon that sink to the ocean floor." By using a system of plastic tubes installed throughout the ocean, Kithil argues that colder, nutrient-rich water can be pulled from the deep ocean and brought closer to the surface to promote a suitable environment for algae. With the abundance of algae, the salp plankton will begin to flourish and through their biological processes, naturally sequestering carbon from the surface down to the ocean floor. Furthermore, Kithil believes that once the systems of tubes are in place, their output could be accelerated in order to further cool the surface water ahead of incoming hurricanes, which strengthen as they move along warm water.
The downside, of course, is that all of this is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but I figure if the US alone can spend over $300 billion on losing a war in Iraq, I think that the global community can scrape together enough money to make innovations like this a reality.
Let's face it: if we mess up this planet, we don't really have anywhere else to go.
Expected High Tomorrow: 66 degrees
While I am definitely enjoying the very mild winter here in New York this year, I can't shake this sinking feeling that 5 or 10 years from now science and society will look back at this winter as a major point in the progression of global warming. Columbia University economist and director of the Earth Institute Jeffrey Sachs argues that the global ecosystem acts as a "step function". In much the same way that a bathtub can continue to accept water without any ill effects until suddenly the water reaches the top and begins to overflow onto the floor below, the earth's ecosystem can accept continuous environmental stress until one day it reaches its limit and begins to rapidly deteriorate. I worry that this winter of near record-breaking warm temperatures here in the northeast is signaling that the bathtub has begun to overflow.
Fortunately, however, there are some very intelligent people out there working on some very new ways of turning back the clock on global warming. One interesting path of research is carbon sequestration -- pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and burying it deep underground. While scientists are still working on ways to actually make that a reality, one economist/inventor, Philip Kithil, thinks he has a way to sequester carbon in our oceans to the ocean floor. As reported in the Guardian , there is a "barrel-shaped type of plankton called salps, which feed on algae and excrete dense pellets of carbon that sink to the ocean floor." By using a system of plastic tubes installed throughout the ocean, Kithil argues that colder, nutrient-rich water can be pulled from the deep ocean and brought closer to the surface to promote a suitable environment for algae. With the abundance of algae, the salp plankton will begin to flourish and through their biological processes, naturally sequestering carbon from the surface down to the ocean floor. Furthermore, Kithil believes that once the systems of tubes are in place, their output could be accelerated in order to further cool the surface water ahead of incoming hurricanes, which strengthen as they move along warm water.
The downside, of course, is that all of this is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but I figure if the US alone can spend over $300 billion on losing a war in Iraq, I think that the global community can scrape together enough money to make innovations like this a reality.
Let's face it: if we mess up this planet, we don't really have anywhere else to go.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
The Highlights
Here are a few of the points that I thought were interesting from this morning’s White House Press Conference. The New York Times has the complete transcript online.
The Reluctant Environmentalist
Bush: The American people expect us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our use of alternative energy sources. So we must step up our research and investment in hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid plug-in and battery-powered cars…
a. tyrell: If you take a look at the film “Who Killed the Electric Car” you’ll see that not only is the electric car possible, but we already have the technology for it. And I’m not talking about those funny-looking one-seater cars you see on prototype car tests on TV. These are completely regular looking electric cars that regular people owned and used during the early 90s until the auto industry decided that they wanted to take them off the market.
A Bit of an Understatement
Question: Mr. President, less than two months ago, at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said: Absolutely, we're winning. Yesterday, you said: We're not winning; we're not losing. Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?
Bush: …My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.
…Victory in Iraq is achievable. It hadn't happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would have. I know it's -- the fact that there is still, you know, unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that's troubling to the American people.
A Remorseful President
Question: Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn't sleep during the Vietnam War; questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can't help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you, as you yourself have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you can talk to us about that. Has it been a painful time?
Bush: Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I -- I read about it every night. I -- my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband and wife or son and daughter. It just does. And so, when you ask about pain, that's pain… But the most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.
Alternative Energy
Bush: nuclear power is going to be an essential source, in my judgment, of future electricity for the United States and places like China and India. Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas. And it makes a lot of sense for us to share technologies that will enable people to feel confident that the new nuclear power plants that are being built are safe, as well as technologies that'll eventually come to the fore that will enable us to reduce the wastes, the toxicity of the waste and the amount of the waste. Continue to invest in clean-coal technologies. Abundance of coal here in America. And we need to be able to tell the American people we're going to be able to use that coal to generate electricity in environmentally friendly ways. My only point to you is: We got a comprehensive plan to achieve the objective that most Americans support, which is less dependency upon oil.
a. tyrell: If he’s as concerned with alternative sources of energy and decreasing US dependency on foreign oil as he says he is, what has he been doing in this regard for the last 6 years? I can’t think of a single significant measure proposed by the Bush Administration that was primarily in support of alternative sources of energy. There has been some support for hydrogen fuels and ethanol derived from corn, but given the predicted impracticality and prohibitive expense of hydrogen fuel and the glaring inefficiency of US ethanol production initiatives, I would suspect that support for these technologies has less to do with the environment as it does with covertly protecting agriculture and private industry.
Social Values
Question: …Mary's having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you said it's your preference -- you believe that it's preferable to have one man-one woman...
Bush: No, I've always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly…
a tyrell: What about support for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage? I wouldn’t view that as a measure that would ensure that all people are treated fairly.
Where’d that surplus go again?
Bush: My message to the Iranian people is: You can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history [referring to Iranian President Ahmadinejad]. You can do better than somebody who hasn't strengthened your economy…
a tyrell: So I’m still unclear on how President Bush has strengthened our economy. Was it through tax cuts to the rich that led to huge corporate profits, but virtually no growth in wages and very little job growth until fairly recently? Or was it by spending $300 Billion in Iraq over the last 3 years while we continue to fund our deficits by borrowing from China and other nations?
So if the Iranians deserve better, does that hold true for us too?
The Reluctant Environmentalist
Bush: The American people expect us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our use of alternative energy sources. So we must step up our research and investment in hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid plug-in and battery-powered cars…
a. tyrell: If you take a look at the film “Who Killed the Electric Car” you’ll see that not only is the electric car possible, but we already have the technology for it. And I’m not talking about those funny-looking one-seater cars you see on prototype car tests on TV. These are completely regular looking electric cars that regular people owned and used during the early 90s until the auto industry decided that they wanted to take them off the market.
A Bit of an Understatement
Question: Mr. President, less than two months ago, at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said: Absolutely, we're winning. Yesterday, you said: We're not winning; we're not losing. Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?
Bush: …My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.
…Victory in Iraq is achievable. It hadn't happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would have. I know it's -- the fact that there is still, you know, unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that's troubling to the American people.
A Remorseful President
Question: Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn't sleep during the Vietnam War; questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can't help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you, as you yourself have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you can talk to us about that. Has it been a painful time?
Bush: Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I -- I read about it every night. I -- my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband and wife or son and daughter. It just does. And so, when you ask about pain, that's pain… But the most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.
Alternative Energy
Bush: nuclear power is going to be an essential source, in my judgment, of future electricity for the United States and places like China and India. Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas. And it makes a lot of sense for us to share technologies that will enable people to feel confident that the new nuclear power plants that are being built are safe, as well as technologies that'll eventually come to the fore that will enable us to reduce the wastes, the toxicity of the waste and the amount of the waste. Continue to invest in clean-coal technologies. Abundance of coal here in America. And we need to be able to tell the American people we're going to be able to use that coal to generate electricity in environmentally friendly ways. My only point to you is: We got a comprehensive plan to achieve the objective that most Americans support, which is less dependency upon oil.
a. tyrell: If he’s as concerned with alternative sources of energy and decreasing US dependency on foreign oil as he says he is, what has he been doing in this regard for the last 6 years? I can’t think of a single significant measure proposed by the Bush Administration that was primarily in support of alternative sources of energy. There has been some support for hydrogen fuels and ethanol derived from corn, but given the predicted impracticality and prohibitive expense of hydrogen fuel and the glaring inefficiency of US ethanol production initiatives, I would suspect that support for these technologies has less to do with the environment as it does with covertly protecting agriculture and private industry.
Social Values
Question: …Mary's having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you said it's your preference -- you believe that it's preferable to have one man-one woman...
Bush: No, I've always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly…
a tyrell: What about support for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage? I wouldn’t view that as a measure that would ensure that all people are treated fairly.
Where’d that surplus go again?
Bush: My message to the Iranian people is: You can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history [referring to Iranian President Ahmadinejad]. You can do better than somebody who hasn't strengthened your economy…
a tyrell: So I’m still unclear on how President Bush has strengthened our economy. Was it through tax cuts to the rich that led to huge corporate profits, but virtually no growth in wages and very little job growth until fairly recently? Or was it by spending $300 Billion in Iraq over the last 3 years while we continue to fund our deficits by borrowing from China and other nations?
So if the Iranians deserve better, does that hold true for us too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)