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?
Monday, December 11, 2006
J'aime New York
I live in Harlem... and I love it. There are so many really cool things to do in this city. For example, I just got back from a weekly live jazz set a few blocks from my place. Every Sunday night on 132nd street (between 7th and 8th) there's live jazz music on the bottom floor of a very unassuming brownstone. In addition to the great music, there are also cheap drinks and soul food. While I didn't get a chance to sample the food, it did look and smell very good.
This is the first time I've been and I don't know if this was a typical Sunday night, but a few interesting events transpired during the 2 hours or so that I was there. After finishing his set leading the band on the organ, the "Preacher", as he was called, brought to the front an older woman who was there celebrating her birthday with her grandson and his girlfriend. After coercing the crowd to stand and give the 82-year old woman a round of applause, he pulled out a crisp new $100 bill and forced it upon her despite her reservations. I was standing just next to where the woman was seated and as the night progressed, many people came up to her to wish her well. Over time, I began to wonder whether in fact it actually was her birthday. I think that the Preacher had simply misunderstood her and it would have been too awkward for her to say anything to the contrary (let alone give the money back).
Taking over the reigns at the organ, the next band leader invited a young Japanese woman to perform who "scatted" along with the band. She was pretty good and really got into it. I assume she had planned to perform that night, but it look like she was just another member of the audience. Upon completion of the song, the band leader offered her a warm "Arigato Gozaimas" with slight bow of the head as she returned to her seat.
Only in New York.
So all in all, it was really good music, no cover, a cool crowd, cheap drinks (by NY standards), and -- what looked to be -- good soul food. They do this every Sunday. I definitely plan on stopping by again sometime soon.
This is the first time I've been and I don't know if this was a typical Sunday night, but a few interesting events transpired during the 2 hours or so that I was there. After finishing his set leading the band on the organ, the "Preacher", as he was called, brought to the front an older woman who was there celebrating her birthday with her grandson and his girlfriend. After coercing the crowd to stand and give the 82-year old woman a round of applause, he pulled out a crisp new $100 bill and forced it upon her despite her reservations. I was standing just next to where the woman was seated and as the night progressed, many people came up to her to wish her well. Over time, I began to wonder whether in fact it actually was her birthday. I think that the Preacher had simply misunderstood her and it would have been too awkward for her to say anything to the contrary (let alone give the money back).
Taking over the reigns at the organ, the next band leader invited a young Japanese woman to perform who "scatted" along with the band. She was pretty good and really got into it. I assume she had planned to perform that night, but it look like she was just another member of the audience. Upon completion of the song, the band leader offered her a warm "Arigato Gozaimas" with slight bow of the head as she returned to her seat.
Only in New York.
So all in all, it was really good music, no cover, a cool crowd, cheap drinks (by NY standards), and -- what looked to be -- good soul food. They do this every Sunday. I definitely plan on stopping by again sometime soon.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Rummy on Trial
Maybe everyone already knows about this, but I just read this morning on Al Jazeera's English news site that the ACLU has initiated a trial against Donald Rumsfeld implicating him in the claims of torture in Guantanamo resulting from President Bush's War Against Terror. I just recently started reading Al Jazeera online and I like it so far, but this article doesn't clearly state that it's just a civil trial and not a criminal one, which I think is a very important distinction. I think the Associated Press does a better job of covering the story, but I would have never searched for the AP article in the first place had I not first read the prominently displayed link to their story on Al Jazeera's website.
Anyway, in deciding whether to let the trial proceed, the judge acknowledges that torture is clearly illegal, but he is worried about what precedent this trial would set if we, in effect, extend the rights of the Constitution to all people everywhere and begin allowing the courts to second-guess any decision the military makes at home and abroad. That's an interesting point. On the one hand, the US military should be held accountable not only if they violate international law, but also if they act in ways that are contrary to American moral standards. But on the other hand, the Constitution is an American document for Americans. Afgani, Iraqi, and other citizens clearly do not fall under the protection of the US Constitution. Referring to Judge Thomas Holden, who is hearing the case, the AP writes,
Anyway, in deciding whether to let the trial proceed, the judge acknowledges that torture is clearly illegal, but he is worried about what precedent this trial would set if we, in effect, extend the rights of the Constitution to all people everywhere and begin allowing the courts to second-guess any decision the military makes at home and abroad. That's an interesting point. On the one hand, the US military should be held accountable not only if they violate international law, but also if they act in ways that are contrary to American moral standards. But on the other hand, the Constitution is an American document for Americans. Afgani, Iraqi, and other citizens clearly do not fall under the protection of the US Constitution. Referring to Judge Thomas Holden, who is hearing the case, the AP writes,
"Foreigners outside the United States are not normally afforded the same protections as U.S. citizens, Hogan said, and he was wary about extending the Constitution across the globe. Doing so, he said, might subject government officials to all sorts of political suits. Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered." (Matt Apuzzo, Houstan Chronicle, 12/8/2006)
Thursday, December 07, 2006
An Unlikely Alternative
The problem, as I see it, is that we’re losing the war in
Let’s face it: going to
So my advice is based on the premise that going to war was a huge mistake in the first place. I think that President Bush should go on national television (which, in effect, means going on international television) and tell the world that he was wrong and that the rest of the world was right and the
I know, it’s never going to happen. No
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Game Theory
OK, I know I'm a little late and it's been out for quite some time, but I just listened to The Roots's lastest album -- Game Theory -- and it's hot! It usually takes me a little time to warm up to a CD, but I was a big fan of this one from the very first time I listened to it. While I'll have to take some time before I'm ready to commit to the following statement, this may very well be their best album -- dare I say -- even better than Things Fall Apart and Illadelph Halflife.
I don't know if y'all caught it, but I'm loving the sample of Radiohead's Amnesiac album in the Atonement track.
Quality.
I don't know if y'all caught it, but I'm loving the sample of Radiohead's Amnesiac album in the Atonement track.
Quality.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Still No Cure
World AIDS Day 2006Please take a moment to reflect on our fallen brothers and sisters, both at home and abroad, and the children of the world that they have left behind.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Again... no comment
I just finished reading President Ahmadinejad's letter to the people of the US. Although the Bush Administration has dismissed the letter as "transparently hypocritical", I think it's still worth a read. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with anything President Ahmadinejad says, but I do find it interesting.
Follow the link to his blog on the right of the screen if you're interested.
Follow the link to his blog on the right of the screen if you're interested.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
In response...
...to the comment I received in my previous posting:
First, thanks for your comments. I love to read what other people have to say about topics that I find interesting.
I agree with you that the Americans have the right to purchase and possess fire arms. It's clearly stated in the Constitution. My argument, however, (although not explicitly stated in the original entry) is that maybe owning a gun isn't a right that people should have. It made sense when the threat of British soldiers was on everyone's minds back when the Constitution was drafted, but nowadays, I would assert that it causes more trouble than it’s worth. I concede that there have been many instances in which law-abiding citizens have protected themselves and their families from danger through the possession of a firearm, but that number is dwarfed by the number of people that have been killed due to the fact that it is legal to possess weapons in this country. Guns are potentially dangerous and it takes a level of maturity and training and soundness of mind to ensure that guns aren’t used for malicious ends. The problem, however, is that the ease at which one can obtain a gun is in direct contrast with the level of responsibility one should take on when issued such a potentially dangerous weapon. Ultimately, if everyone who was issued a gun were responsible enough to make sure that kids didn’t get a hold of it or that it didn’t end up in the hands of criminals, I would feel a lot more comfortable with people exercising their “right” to possess firearms. The problem is that many people don’t fully appreciate the gravity of the decision they have made to obtain a gun, and, as a result, guns that have been obtained legally through rights guaranteed under the 2nd amendment go onto murder innocent (and also not so innocent) people.
Furthermore, I wholeheartedly stand by my assertion that I would rather be robbed by a person wielding a paintball gun than a person in possession of a real gun. Obviously, robbing someone is a crime and is scary and is something that no one should have to experience. However, given the fact that people do in fact get robbed, getting robbed with a toy gun is clearly preferable to getting robbed with a real gun because at least with a toy gun, there’s no chance that you’ll lose your life along with your wallet, even if you don’t know that it’s a toy gun pointed at your back at the time.
Banning paintball guns isn’t going to stop people from getting robbed. If someone has made up his mind to rob you, not having had the opportunity to stop at Walmart to pick up a paintball gun isn’t going to stop him.
But again, thanks for you comment. I’m sure there are many things that I write in this blog that people don’t agree with. I’d love to hear from you.
First, thanks for your comments. I love to read what other people have to say about topics that I find interesting.
I agree with you that the Americans have the right to purchase and possess fire arms. It's clearly stated in the Constitution. My argument, however, (although not explicitly stated in the original entry) is that maybe owning a gun isn't a right that people should have. It made sense when the threat of British soldiers was on everyone's minds back when the Constitution was drafted, but nowadays, I would assert that it causes more trouble than it’s worth. I concede that there have been many instances in which law-abiding citizens have protected themselves and their families from danger through the possession of a firearm, but that number is dwarfed by the number of people that have been killed due to the fact that it is legal to possess weapons in this country. Guns are potentially dangerous and it takes a level of maturity and training and soundness of mind to ensure that guns aren’t used for malicious ends. The problem, however, is that the ease at which one can obtain a gun is in direct contrast with the level of responsibility one should take on when issued such a potentially dangerous weapon. Ultimately, if everyone who was issued a gun were responsible enough to make sure that kids didn’t get a hold of it or that it didn’t end up in the hands of criminals, I would feel a lot more comfortable with people exercising their “right” to possess firearms. The problem is that many people don’t fully appreciate the gravity of the decision they have made to obtain a gun, and, as a result, guns that have been obtained legally through rights guaranteed under the 2nd amendment go onto murder innocent (and also not so innocent) people.
Furthermore, I wholeheartedly stand by my assertion that I would rather be robbed by a person wielding a paintball gun than a person in possession of a real gun. Obviously, robbing someone is a crime and is scary and is something that no one should have to experience. However, given the fact that people do in fact get robbed, getting robbed with a toy gun is clearly preferable to getting robbed with a real gun because at least with a toy gun, there’s no chance that you’ll lose your life along with your wallet, even if you don’t know that it’s a toy gun pointed at your back at the time.
Banning paintball guns isn’t going to stop people from getting robbed. If someone has made up his mind to rob you, not having had the opportunity to stop at Walmart to pick up a paintball gun isn’t going to stop him.
But again, thanks for you comment. I’m sure there are many things that I write in this blog that people don’t agree with. I’d love to hear from you.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Is anyone else as worried as I am?
Has the United States become an overly militarized state right under our noses? I fear that the answer may be yes.
I was home in Baltimore this weekend for Turkey Day and I happened to glance at a copy of the Baltimore Examiner , in which the headline read "Bill aims to outlaw paintball, BB, pellet guns in Baltimore" The Baltimore City Council is considering restricting the purchase and use of paintball and BB guns to licensed entertainment facilities and no longer allowing ordinary citizens to purchase them. The reasoning behind the bill is because these "toy" guns have been used to commit real crimes such as robberies. The irony in all of this is that instead of trying to get rid of toys that look like guns, shouldn't we be trying to get rid of real guns? If I'm going to get robbed on the street, I'd much rather the guy be holding a paintball gun instead of a real gun, so in case he gets nervous and pulls the trigger, I just have to buy a new jacket instead of spending the rest of my life in a wheelchair. I think most people would probably agree with that, but the notion of outlawing real guns isn't even an option. How did we get to the point when the individual right to carry a weapon overrides all appeals to collective security and the common good?
In another example of how American society has become overly militarized, the NYPD has yet again used excessive force against unarmed black men, using the "oh, I thought he had a gun" excuse (the NYPD seems to never get tired of using that one). NYPD fired 50 bullets, only half of which actually landed anywhere close to their intended targets. Has anyone thought that if normal citizens weren't allowed to walk around with guns, maybe cops would be a little less trigger happy? Not to take any blame away from cops because I'm sure everyone (including myself) has their issues with cops, especially the NYPD, but in such a militarized society in which anyone you meet could potentially have a concealed weapon, I could understand a cop being a little jumpy.
My concern, however, isn't limited to ease in which Americans can obtain firearms, but rather my concern extends to the militarized nature of our society as a whole. It would not be difficult to make the argument that the ridiculous amount our government spends on defense has just as much to do with economics as it has to do with actual defense. As proven by German militarization leading up to World War II and our own militarization during the same period, nothing jump starts an economy like gearing up for war. Upon emerging from WWII as the unquestioned western pole of a bi-polar world, the US was reluctant to sacrifice the economic gains reached through militarization, especially with the Soviets nipping at our heals. And even today, with the Soviet threat long gone, war and military build up continues to be one of the main drivers of our economy. I urge anyone who questions that assertion to look at the huge profits defense suppliers and contractors are making through various wars and military operations around the globe and the existence of, by some accounts, over 700 US military bases in over 40 countries. Not only is our society becoming very militarized, but we successfully project our bellicose culture abroad.(This could quite easily lead to a discussion of the false claim that the US has always been the "reluctant" imperialist, but I'll save that discussion for another time).
So I commend the Baltimore City Council in trying to lower crime in the city, but, unfortunately, I fear that the problem of violence in that city or any other across the nation goes much deeper than whether people are allowed to carry around paintball guns.
I was home in Baltimore this weekend for Turkey Day and I happened to glance at a copy of the Baltimore Examiner , in which the headline read "Bill aims to outlaw paintball, BB, pellet guns in Baltimore" The Baltimore City Council is considering restricting the purchase and use of paintball and BB guns to licensed entertainment facilities and no longer allowing ordinary citizens to purchase them. The reasoning behind the bill is because these "toy" guns have been used to commit real crimes such as robberies. The irony in all of this is that instead of trying to get rid of toys that look like guns, shouldn't we be trying to get rid of real guns? If I'm going to get robbed on the street, I'd much rather the guy be holding a paintball gun instead of a real gun, so in case he gets nervous and pulls the trigger, I just have to buy a new jacket instead of spending the rest of my life in a wheelchair. I think most people would probably agree with that, but the notion of outlawing real guns isn't even an option. How did we get to the point when the individual right to carry a weapon overrides all appeals to collective security and the common good?
In another example of how American society has become overly militarized, the NYPD has yet again used excessive force against unarmed black men, using the "oh, I thought he had a gun" excuse (the NYPD seems to never get tired of using that one). NYPD fired 50 bullets, only half of which actually landed anywhere close to their intended targets. Has anyone thought that if normal citizens weren't allowed to walk around with guns, maybe cops would be a little less trigger happy? Not to take any blame away from cops because I'm sure everyone (including myself) has their issues with cops, especially the NYPD, but in such a militarized society in which anyone you meet could potentially have a concealed weapon, I could understand a cop being a little jumpy.
My concern, however, isn't limited to ease in which Americans can obtain firearms, but rather my concern extends to the militarized nature of our society as a whole. It would not be difficult to make the argument that the ridiculous amount our government spends on defense has just as much to do with economics as it has to do with actual defense. As proven by German militarization leading up to World War II and our own militarization during the same period, nothing jump starts an economy like gearing up for war. Upon emerging from WWII as the unquestioned western pole of a bi-polar world, the US was reluctant to sacrifice the economic gains reached through militarization, especially with the Soviets nipping at our heals. And even today, with the Soviet threat long gone, war and military build up continues to be one of the main drivers of our economy. I urge anyone who questions that assertion to look at the huge profits defense suppliers and contractors are making through various wars and military operations around the globe and the existence of, by some accounts, over 700 US military bases in over 40 countries. Not only is our society becoming very militarized, but we successfully project our bellicose culture abroad.(This could quite easily lead to a discussion of the false claim that the US has always been the "reluctant" imperialist, but I'll save that discussion for another time).
So I commend the Baltimore City Council in trying to lower crime in the city, but, unfortunately, I fear that the problem of violence in that city or any other across the nation goes much deeper than whether people are allowed to carry around paintball guns.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Whew...That Was Close
At first, I was a little disappointed. After making a terrible, yet completely understandable, mistake 4 years ago, I thought that my home-state brethren were poised to make an even more egregious error. But, alas, my own lack of patience was the only fault of the evening.
When I powered up my computer Tuesday evening and looked up the election tallies, I was very worried that not only was Ehrlich going to remain the governer of Maryland, but his Lt. Governor was going to pass one of Maryland's Senate seats to the other side of the aisle. Fortunately, however, as more votes rolled in, Martin O'Malley (who I honestly don't really find very impressive)and Ben Cardin came through in the end. After a 4-year identity crisis, it's nice to see that Maryland has come back to its Democratic senses and ended its foolish experimentation with Republican politics.
All is now right with the world.
By the way, was anyone else caught off guard with Bush's sacking of Rummy? If anything, I would have thought he would have given him the axe before the election. Since so many people hated him, firing him before the election might have helped the Republicans a bit. Waiting until the day after is like Bush admitting that he was wrong all along, which is not something that I would have ever expected him to do.
When I powered up my computer Tuesday evening and looked up the election tallies, I was very worried that not only was Ehrlich going to remain the governer of Maryland, but his Lt. Governor was going to pass one of Maryland's Senate seats to the other side of the aisle. Fortunately, however, as more votes rolled in, Martin O'Malley (who I honestly don't really find very impressive)and Ben Cardin came through in the end. After a 4-year identity crisis, it's nice to see that Maryland has come back to its Democratic senses and ended its foolish experimentation with Republican politics.
All is now right with the world.
By the way, was anyone else caught off guard with Bush's sacking of Rummy? If anything, I would have thought he would have given him the axe before the election. Since so many people hated him, firing him before the election might have helped the Republicans a bit. Waiting until the day after is like Bush admitting that he was wrong all along, which is not something that I would have ever expected him to do.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Ain't the Internet Great?
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Obama in '08??
Not owning a television makes it difficult for me to catch Meet the Press each week, but I just read in The Washington Post that Barack Obama announced on Meet the Press this morning that he is considering a run for the presidency in 2008. This is huge! A black man actually has a real chance of being the next President of the United States. People love this guy, but I don't really know much about him other than the fact that he's been holding it down in the Senate for Black America for the last 2 years. He's probably the one person that could give Hilary a real run for her money in the 2008 primaries. Don't get me wrong, I like Hilary. I even helped her get elected in 2000 (and by "helped her get elected" I mean I interned in her campaign office once a week my senior year in college). The problem is that she's definitely polarizing. While I don't feel that she's really done anything that monumental that would cause her to be a polarizing figure, the fact remains that she is: many people love her, and many people hate her. And this became very apparent to me while I was interning in her office, and that was before she even had a job (being First Lady doesn't count). But the same could have been said about President Bush in 2000. Despite that fact that he was (and still is) very polarizing, and he still won...twice. Nevertheless, it would make me and a lot of other people very happy for the Democrats to have a candidate that could potentially appeal to the entire country and not just the blue states... but then there's the black thing.
Is the US ready for a President that's not a white male? One could argue that countries like Germany, the UK, and even Chile, and Liberia are far more progressive than the US because they've elected female heads of state and the US has never even come close. The only serious non-white male candidate we've ever had was Elizabeth Dole, and even her own husband said that she never had a chance. I don't know if the US is ready for a Black President (or a female President for that matter). I'd like to hope so, but I really don't know.
Of course if Obama does decide to run, he's definitely not guaranteed the nomination. Beyond Hillary, there's also John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, and maybe even Al Gore among others to contend with. If you take Obama and Hilary out of the equation, I'd put my money on Feingold or Biden, but unlike last election, there's no dearth of good talent hoping for the Presidential nod. I'd honestly be happy with many of the Democratic hopefuls that are expected to make a run in '08 (with maybe the exception of Kerry. I was never a big fan.).
But before we get too far ahead of ourselves, there's the little matter of midterm elections and control of Congress coming up in a few weeks. Americans generally prefer divided government. Although Republicans have held the legislative and executive branches for the last six years, I believe that if you look back over post-war history, Americans have generally prefered having one party in the White House and a different one controlling Capitol Hill. So if Democrats actually do as well in the upcoming election as people seem to think that they can and they regain control of both houses, it may make a little difficult for the Democratic nominee to take the White House in '08, regardless of who that nominee is. That's not to say that I think we should all go out and vote Republican next month, but if Democrats do regain control of Congress, they're really going to have to get their act together so that they don't mess things up so much to ensure the maintenance of Republican control of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Is the US ready for a President that's not a white male? One could argue that countries like Germany, the UK, and even Chile, and Liberia are far more progressive than the US because they've elected female heads of state and the US has never even come close. The only serious non-white male candidate we've ever had was Elizabeth Dole, and even her own husband said that she never had a chance. I don't know if the US is ready for a Black President (or a female President for that matter). I'd like to hope so, but I really don't know.
Of course if Obama does decide to run, he's definitely not guaranteed the nomination. Beyond Hillary, there's also John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, and maybe even Al Gore among others to contend with. If you take Obama and Hilary out of the equation, I'd put my money on Feingold or Biden, but unlike last election, there's no dearth of good talent hoping for the Presidential nod. I'd honestly be happy with many of the Democratic hopefuls that are expected to make a run in '08 (with maybe the exception of Kerry. I was never a big fan.).
But before we get too far ahead of ourselves, there's the little matter of midterm elections and control of Congress coming up in a few weeks. Americans generally prefer divided government. Although Republicans have held the legislative and executive branches for the last six years, I believe that if you look back over post-war history, Americans have generally prefered having one party in the White House and a different one controlling Capitol Hill. So if Democrats actually do as well in the upcoming election as people seem to think that they can and they regain control of both houses, it may make a little difficult for the Democratic nominee to take the White House in '08, regardless of who that nominee is. That's not to say that I think we should all go out and vote Republican next month, but if Democrats do regain control of Congress, they're really going to have to get their act together so that they don't mess things up so much to ensure the maintenance of Republican control of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Graduate School
As I sit here in the university library late in the evening trying to prepare for my upcoming mid-term examinations, I can't help but reflect on graduate school as an institution. I'm still rather new to the grad school experience, but I love the opportunity to focus exclusively on learning about subjects that I actually care about. But as I look at over the crowd of my fellow students with their noses buried in their books, I can't help but consider the irony of this endeavor.
One could argue that education is the great equalizer in American society. No matter what your background, no matter where you grew up, no matter what you look like, a quality education can be your key to success and the "American Dream" (whatever that is). While that may be true on some level, whatever truth that assertion holds does not provide much comfort for those that aren't able to pursue graduate education in the first place.
It's no secret that graduate school is expensive -- ridiculously so. And it should also be no surprise that as I look out across the library in which I sit, all I see are White and East Asian faces. Here at one of the preeminant graduate institutions for international affairs in the country in which the vast majority of students enroll because they want to "save the world" and ensure that everyone everywhere has access to the tools they need to not just survive, but to thrive in life, there exists one of the most blatant displays of inequity in the world. How many people can not only afford to survive for two years with no income, but, in addition, pay over $50,000 a year in tuition and expenses? While education may in fact be a great equalizer among men, it's a path that the ones who could use it most aren't able to step foot on. That is the irony I see: everyone here -- myself included -- dream of going on to make the world a more peaceful and equitable place for all, but what do any of us really know about how life really is? What do we know about poverty, war, or struggle that we didn't read in a textbook or watch on CNN?
As I sit here studying economic theory under the watchful eyes of university benefactors immortalized in portraits upon the walls, I can't help but wonder whether we're all fooling ourselves. None of us could possibly follow through on our grand expectations because none of us truly understands what needs to be done. And those out there who do know what needs to be done because they live it everyday, will never have the opportunity to occupy the seat in which I now sit. Most will never have the opportunity to take part in this great "equalizing force" because whoever came up with that notion clearly didn't consider all of the obstacles the average person must overcome before they can even get here.
Well, back to work. These econ problem sets aren't going to do themselves.
One could argue that education is the great equalizer in American society. No matter what your background, no matter where you grew up, no matter what you look like, a quality education can be your key to success and the "American Dream" (whatever that is). While that may be true on some level, whatever truth that assertion holds does not provide much comfort for those that aren't able to pursue graduate education in the first place.
It's no secret that graduate school is expensive -- ridiculously so. And it should also be no surprise that as I look out across the library in which I sit, all I see are White and East Asian faces. Here at one of the preeminant graduate institutions for international affairs in the country in which the vast majority of students enroll because they want to "save the world" and ensure that everyone everywhere has access to the tools they need to not just survive, but to thrive in life, there exists one of the most blatant displays of inequity in the world. How many people can not only afford to survive for two years with no income, but, in addition, pay over $50,000 a year in tuition and expenses? While education may in fact be a great equalizer among men, it's a path that the ones who could use it most aren't able to step foot on. That is the irony I see: everyone here -- myself included -- dream of going on to make the world a more peaceful and equitable place for all, but what do any of us really know about how life really is? What do we know about poverty, war, or struggle that we didn't read in a textbook or watch on CNN?
As I sit here studying economic theory under the watchful eyes of university benefactors immortalized in portraits upon the walls, I can't help but wonder whether we're all fooling ourselves. None of us could possibly follow through on our grand expectations because none of us truly understands what needs to be done. And those out there who do know what needs to be done because they live it everyday, will never have the opportunity to occupy the seat in which I now sit. Most will never have the opportunity to take part in this great "equalizing force" because whoever came up with that notion clearly didn't consider all of the obstacles the average person must overcome before they can even get here.
Well, back to work. These econ problem sets aren't going to do themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)