The Eclipse

Here's a picture of the lunar eclipse taken earlier in the week from my front porch using my brand new Nikon D300 Digital SLR camera. The small dot to the left of the moon is Saturn.

The North Pacific Gyre

I know I haven't posted in awhile. To be honest, football has consumed more of my creative free time than I care to admit. But with the start of a new year, I've resolved myself to blog more, get more serious about photography and guitar, and run an eight-minute mile.

My first posting of 2008 is about a thought-provoking book I'm currently reading - The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. This book is just one of many I have learned about by watching The Daily Show.

Weisman's tome is interesting for a variety of reasons. He imagines what would happen if humans disappeared from the planet tomorrow - the process of decay, the short-term and long-term impacts of human achievement in our absence, etc. And he also shares anecdotes about ways that we - the world with us - are currently affecting our environment.

One of these anecdotes is about a guy named Charles Moore sailing across the ocean who serendipitously finds the North Pacific Gyre. This gyre - and others like it around the world - are well known and avoided by commercial shippers and navies, but are relatively unknown to the lay person.

According to Wikipedia, the North Pacific Gyre is "a swirling vortex of ocean currents comprising most of the northern Pacific Ocean. It is located between the equator and 50º N latitude and occupies an area of approximately ten million square miles. The North Pacific Gyre has a clockwise circular pattern and comprises four prevailing ocean currents: the North Pacific Current to the north, the California Current to the east, the North Equatorial Current to the south, and the Kuroshio Current to the west."

As a result of the swirling vortex and its position between the currents, the gyre is the focal point for all of the waste of the Pacific Rim. What Moore finds on his sailing voyage is an aquatic horror show twice the size of Texas of plastic waste and other non-biodegradable flotsam. At one point, Moore compares sailing his ship through the gyre and all of the plastic to sailing an icebreaker through arctic waters and trying to avoid icebergs.

We shouldn't need to be reminded about the importance of consuming less and recycling more, but Weisman's telling of Moore's experience in the Pacific does the job well. And the damage isn't limited to this gyre - apparently all of the oceans' gyres are in a similar state of ruin.

Knowing this problem exists and that we are solely responsible does not make me feel good about humanity.

The greatest place on earth

I just got back from my trip to Alaska. Here is a picture of Mt. McKinley that I took in Denali National Park.

Souvenirs from Alaska

Every summer for the past six years I have made a pilgrimage to Alaska to fish, visit good friends or do both. And I've never walked away empty handed.

Each summer - without exception - I've come back with music. The following non-Alaskan bands were introduced to me while I was in Alaska:

• O.A.R. (...of a revolution)
• Old Blind Dogs
• Dispatch
• My Chemical Romance
• Against Me!

I'll never forget my second trip to Anchorage and reluctantly going to see the Scottish band Old Blind Dogs. I've literally seen hundreds of bands in concert, but none as good as Old Blind Dogs was on a chilly Alaskan night in September 2002. I've been a fan ever since. Old Blind Dog's album Fit? helped get me through my first quarter of graduate school that fall.

On my most recent trip last summer, I was introduced to the punk/folk band Against Me! (I know it's an unorthodox genre combo, but it works for them). Against Me! just came out with a new album - New Wave - that I picked up several weeks ago and can't seem to get out of my head.

On Wednesday I'm heading up for this year's trip. I can't wait to see what I'll bring back this time.

People like this make me want to run for office...

...so I can make sure they never hold a position that matters.

Check out what Republican presidential candidate Congressman Tom Tancredo recently said at a campaign event - http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/state-dept-to-t.html. Tancredo would deter a future terrorists act against the U.S. commited by Islamic extremists by threatening to bomb the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in response to such an act.

This is no different than threatening to bomb the Vatican in response to a terrorist act commited by Christian extremists against an abortion clinic. Or threatening to destroy any religious holy site in response to criminal acts of terror commited by fanatics belonging to that particular religious group.

If Tancredo is willing to go this far, why stop there? Why not threaten to murder the family and friends of the terrorists? Or the first-borne children of all Muslims? I know this sounds extreme (and it is), but if we are willing to threaten the lives of innocent people by bombing Mecca and Medina, we are also willing to go down a dark path that can lead to such unsavory places.

Fortunately, Tancredo's views are only embraced by a minority of Republicans. And he will never be elected president. He is a third-rate candidate for a party that will probably (and thankfully) lose the presidency to the country's first serious female or African-American contender (sorry Carol Moseley-Braun and Alan Keyes, but it's true).

But it's still scary to think about.

New posts...coming soon

I promise to begin posting again. And soon.

All I can say for now is that if you haven't been watching The Daily Show's recent coverage of Bush and company, you're missing out. Jon Stewart has really been on point lately.

Other thoughts:

• Go Colts!;
• I don't understand American Idol - go read a book;
• India's economy might be overheating; and
• Let's not start another one with Iran.

Jubilee and cautious optimism

I can't believe it actually happened, but the Dems took back the House and Senate. And Rumsfeld resigned. Needless to say, yesterday was my day of jubilee.

For the first time since the sad night of November 2, 2004, I feel cautiously optimistic about national politics.

The coming days and weeks are important. I truly hope Pelosi, Reid et al take the high road and avoid getting bogged down in talk of impeaching or censuring Bush.

I also hope the Democrats remember this election was not won by them. Rather, it was lost by the Republicans over Iraq, Mark Foley and a host of other reasons. If the Democratic leadership can get its act together and choose statesmanship over retribution and partisan bickering, the White House will be in their grasp two years from now. However, I fully realize the Dems could mess this up (some would say this is our MO).

But I think it's still okay to drink from the cup of victory for a few more days before getting down to business.

A great night

Hallelujah! What a great night.

The Democrats took back the House, maybe regained the Senate and secured a majority of the governors' mansions around the country.

However, the highlight of the night was when Brieanna mistook James Carville for Skeletor during CNN's election coverage.

Visit The Maldives (while you still can)

My urge to travel to the Indian Ocean started with Mauritius (see previous blog “Dreaming of Mauritius,” September 8 2005). Now my wanderlust has expanded to include The Maldives.

The Maldives are a chain of islands (26 atolls with 1,192 islets) located southwest of India in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The population of 329,000 - mostly Muslims - is spread out over about 200 of the islets. Major industries include tourism and fishing. One distinguishing characteristic of the country is that it is the flattest on earth – the highest point, excluding buildings, is only 7 ½ feet above sea level (Source: Wikipedia).

I’m captivated by the capital city of Malé (see picture). Malé's urban area completely convers a small island - with no room to spare. This island is only 1.05 miles by 0.62 miles and has over 80,000 people, making it one of the most densely populated cities in the world. I don't think a built-up metropolitan area on a small island in the middle of the ocean exists anywhere else.

It's a shame I may never get the chance to visit The Maldives. With the ocean levels rising because of global climate change, the country could disappear or become uninhabitable before I get a chance to play tourist - 7 ½ feet doesn't leave much room to spare. And most of the country is much closer to sea level than that.

Ignorance is alive and well in this country

The other night I had a hard time falling asleep. Maybe it was UW’s loss to Oregon or anticipation of the upcoming election on Tuesday, but I just couldn’t get any shuteye. So instead of counting sheep, I turned on my trusty late-night companion: The History Channel.

Usually, in the middle of the night The History Channel can more appropriately be called “The World War II Channel,” airing a documentary on the sinking of the Bismarck or how the quantity of American tanks beat the quality of German tanks during the war.

But last night was different.

Instead of a WWII show, there was a documentary about the modern day Klu Klux Klan (KKK). What I learned from the 20 minutes I watched is that although marginalized (now numbering in the thousands, instead of the millions), the KKK is alive and well in the US. And they are still full of hate. At one point in the show, a “grand wizard” from Indiana went on a tirade at a klan rally (40-50 people) about how much he hated blacks, Jews, gays and just about anyone non-white and non-Christian.

I’ve long been aware that such overt racism still exists in this country. And I’m also aware that to some extent, we’re all racists – this comes with being human (however many of us refuse to acknowledge this). But for some reason, the show resonated with me about how far we still have to go as a country to end racism.

The documentary reminded me that I can hop in the car and take a road trip to just about anywhere I want in this country without fear of harm. But a person of color does not enjoy this freedom because of the KKK, neo-Nazis and other hate groups. A person of color must worry that he or she could be one wrong stop at a gas station away from encountering a klansperson, and becoming an actor in a real-life horror movie. I have all the confidence in the world that the “grand wizard” and company would not hesitate to cause harm to someone on their hate list.

I’m a big proponent of free speech. But I also believe that people should be able to travel without the fear of being harmed because of their race, ethnicity or gender. I don’t think we should lock people up just for being ignorant (we would probably destroy our GDP), but I think we should talk more frequently and more openly as a society about racism. The more we talk about it and acknowledge it within ourselves, the more we can marginalize those that wish to cause harm to others because of it.

Glacier beer

I just heard a story on NPR while getting ready for work about Greenland's first brewery. If this isn't cool, I don't know what is.

Check on the link below from the BBC for more info on what claims to be the cleanest tasting beer in the world, literally brewed using glacier water.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5234194.stm

The Northwest Passage Redux

As the effects of global warming become palpable, one of the early casualties - along with The Maldives, Florida and winter - may be Canadian sovereignty over its arctic possessions. The annual rise in temperatures around the world is causing the ice pack in northern Canadian waters to recede, which will eventually turn the fabled Northwest Passage into an ice-free reality. Although this will come a half-century too late for Henry Hudson, Martin Frobisher et al, it will come. And its impending arrival is already becoming a source of consternation for policymakers in the US, Canada and beyond.

SIDEBAR: Whether or not humans are causing global warming is a contentious issue. I don't pretend to know the extent to which we are responsible. However, whether our emissions are causing 10%, 50% or 90% of global warming, what is indisputable is that we are responsible for some percentage of it. To argue otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest with yourself and with a preponderance of the scientific community. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma knows where he can shove it.

Back to the issue at hand...Canada considers the largely icebound Northwest Passage territorial water. The US and others think of it as an international waterway. As long as ice floes choke the passage for most of the year, the only test of Canadian sovereignty is the occasional friendly visit by a US nuclear attack submarine (see "U.S. sub may have toured Canadian Arctic zone," National Post, December 19, 2005). But if the ice recedes and enables the free passage of non-icebreaker cargo vessels for most or part of the year, a pissing match will ensue between the international actors involved.

The actors are already ramping up in anticipation of the melt. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is talking about increasing Canada's military presence in the north by stationing a small flotilla of icebreakers in the Inuit territory of Nunavut. Canada also recently staged a major military exercise in the north as a show of force.

Beyond unannounced submarine visits, the US is also gearing up. Last month a member of the US Arctic Research Commission told a congressional committee that the US needs new icebreakers to assert American interests in the north (see "U.S. scientists test waters of Arctic sovereignty debate," The Globe and Mail, September 27, 2006). The US continues to claim - under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - that Canada's internal arctic waters constitute a "strait used for international navigation" (see "Arctic Sovereignty: Drawing a line in the water," CBC News, February 9, 2006).

So why does this matter?

In a world where time is money, an ice-free Northwest Passage would shave several days off of the journey of a cargo ship, oil tanker or other ocean-going vessel from Europe to Asia. In fact, the route is several thousand miles shorter than going through the Panama Canal. And it's about as far away from the "Axis of Evil" and potential terrorist threats as you can get.

I will be interested to see what happens. In all likelihood, the US and Canada will not come to blows on this one. I think the Canadians are smart enough to know that - just like paper beats rock - the US 101st Airborne and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier beat the Mounties and a flotilla of icebreakers. The only real losers will be the diplomats and international law scholars that will have to spend countless hours in negotiations and writing legal briefs.

Hudson and Frobisher were really on to something.

My neighborhood smells like poop, literally

No joke - something went horribly awry when the association decided to invest in some last minute beauty bark landscaping before the onset of the fall drizzle monsoon. The entire neighborhood smells like a port-o-potty.

My weekend leaf peeping expedition (see yesterday's post) was cut short because of the smell. Luckily the odor hasn't made it inside of the condo.

I just thought I would share.

Globalization in my closet

Okay, so the epic rebuttal to the Bush speech isn’t going to happen. As the days became weeks, I lost my motivation to finish the post. However, I am gearing up and looking forward to the drubbing the GOP is about to receive on November 7th. My prediction: the Democrats take the House and pull within one in the Senate (49-51).

But enough on politics. My reason for this post is to share a few thoughts I had over the weekend.

1. The new album by Rise Against – The Suffering & the Witness - is amazing. If you don’t own it, you should.
2. Leaf peeping is underrated. The return of autumn to the Northwest brings spectacular arboreal visuals; this year is no exception. Thanks to Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing (Episode #27, Season 2: "And It’s Surely to Their Credit"), I now know what to call my forays into the wild with my digital camera.
3. My closet is filled with the labor of workers from all over the world (more on this one below).

After returning home on Saturday from a trip to Fred Meyer with an Arrow Fairfield Pinpoint white dress shirt, I noticed the tag stated “Made in Honduras.” I then compared this to the other three Arrow Fairfield Pinpoint white dress shirts in my closet. To my surprise, they were not products of Latin America. One was made in Egypt, another in Bangladesh and the third in Indonesia. The production of these four shirts – wrinkle-resistant and identical in every way – literally spanned the globe.

I’m not sure what to think of this. I’ve drank the Kool Aid as much as anyone when it comes to believing in the benefits of globalization and free trade – in theory. But in practice I know there are harmful side effects. I know there is a chance my shirts could have been made in a sweatshop (probably through a subcontractor or a sub-sub-contractor, unbeknownst to the corporate heads at Arrow who can go on thinking their product is sweat free).

But I also know US trade laws – touted by organized labor - hurt workers in foreign countries, protecting inefficient domestic industries at the expense of providing a market for foreign producers. Although I can’t take the time to qualify the following statement here, the dirty secret of unions and the US textile industry is that technological innovation has cost more jobs than cheap foreign labor.

The bottom line is this: I’m not sure if this revelation about the shirts in my closet is good or bad. But it has given me food for thought and is forcing me to continue thinking hard about globalization and the impact of free trade. More on this in the coming weeks.

Bush 9/11 Address – Part I

On September 11, 2006 – the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania – President Bush delivered a live televised address to the nation. What follows is the first of several blog entries analyzing his speech paragraph by agonizing paragraph (click here to read the full-text of the speech).

“Five years ago, this date -- September the 11th -- was seared into America's memory. Nineteen men attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history. They murdered people of all colors, creeds and nationalities, and made war upon the entire free world. Since that day, America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before.”

Far be it for me to dispute the President, but I disagree that the 9/11 hijackers “attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history.” According to dictionary.com, barbarity is:

1. brutal or inhuman conduct; cruelty.
2. an act or instance of cruelty or inhumanity.
3. crudity of style, taste, expression, etc.

American history is rife with such acts. One could argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or the terrorist bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983 were equally as barbarous. I don’t dispute that the 9/11 attack was a heinous act of brutality. But I do question whether or not it is unequaled in its barbarity.

Bush goes on in the first paragraph to suggest “America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before.” Again, I have to challenge the president’s statement. The US has fought and continues to fight a war against a similarly amorphous enemy: drugs. Similar to the war on terror, the war on drugs has been fought against a stateless enemy. I don’t dispute that the war on terror is unique in many ways when compared to previous conflicts. However, like drugs, it is a war that can never be won. You can plant Old Glory in Kabul or Baghdad, but you can never declare victory by flying it over the capital of “terror” or “drugs.”

“Today we are safer, but we are not yet safe.”

Maybe. Maybe not. I can’t empirically validate or discredit Bush’s statement. One would have to gauge safety in America from terrorism both before and after 9/11. Without data to support the claim, I find it inappropriate for Bush to make the assertion. However I know such claims will help win the Republicans votes in the upcoming mid-term elections.

“On this solemn night, I have asked for some of your time to discuss the nature of the threat still before us, what we are doing to protect our nation, and the building of a more hopeful Middle East that holds the key to peace for America and the world.

On 9/11, our nation saw the face of evil.

Yet, on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion and responding with extraordinary acts of courage.

We saw courage in office workers who were trapped on the high floors of burning skyscrapers, and called home so that their last words to their families would be of comfort and love.

We saw courage in passengers aboard Flight 93, who recited the 23rd Psalm and then charged the cockpit. And we saw courage in the Pentagon staff who made it out of the flames and smoke and ran back in to answer cries for help.

On this day, we remember the innocent who've lost their lives, and we pay tribute to those who gave their lives so that others might live.

For many of our citizens, the wounds of that morning are still fresh.

I have met firefighters and police officers who choke up at the memory of fallen comrades.

I have stood with families gathered on a grassy field in Pennsylvania, who take bittersweet pride in loved ones who refused to be victims and gave America our first victory in the war on terror.

I've sat beside young mothers with children who are now 5 years old and still long for the daddies who will never cradle them in their arms.

Out of this suffering, we resolve to honor every man and woman lost. And we seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world.”

Nothing to question here.

“Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy, but not without purpose.”

I have a concern with this last paragraph. I fear that declaring our enemies “evil” is a step towards dehumanizing them. Perhaps this is a philosophical question I shouldn’t wade in to too deeply, but I think we should use caution when using the term evil. I think the actions of our enemies can be evil without our enemies themselves being evil. If we consider our enemies evil, what is to stop us from treating them like animals and locking them up at Guantanamo Bay or one of the CIA’s secret prisons without due process? If we think we are facing evil, my concern is that we will do anything - without regard for human rights - to stop our enemy and subsequently lose what makes our country so great in the process.

If evil actions are committed, but all means we should try and convict the evildoers. I’m a big proponent of locking up the terrorists for life. But they are still humans. If we frame the enemy as evil, how can we ever make peace? There is a valuable lesson to be learned about this from the First World War and misperceptions based in propaganda.

“We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam: a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent.

And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings, and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations.”

While it is true that some terrorists have formed a global network and some would consider their “vision of Islam” as perverted from the true meaning of the Koran, I think Bush treats the terrorists too monolithically. Islam, just like Christianity, contains numerous sects. The beliefs held by Muslims from these sects are as diverse as those held by Christians from different sects. The reasons a Muslim or anyone is driven to terrorism are diverse. Not all terrorists want to “build a radical Islamic empire.” For instance, some Palestinians driven to terrorism hate the US because of their support for Israel – not because they want to see the rise of an Islamic empire. Some Iraqis driven to terrorism attack US soldiers because they view the troops as occupiers of their homeland.

When you don’t have Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters, the only heavy artillery you have is suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices. I don’t condone the tools of the terrorist trade, nor its innocent targets. But I also don’t support statements made by the President and others on both the Right and Left oversimplifying the facts of the war on terror. Sometimes people are driven to terrorism for more complicated and less sexy reasons than a "perverted vision of Islam."

Stay tuned for Part II of my breakdown of Bush’s speech…

Calculate your distance to the apocalypse

One of my favorite online haunts is the official site for the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). I find they consistently provide good coverage of U.S. and international security issues. Being a self-proclaimed international relations/military geek, I feel right at home browsing the links on dirty bombs, nuclear non-proliferation and foreign weapons systems.

I've visited the FAS site on many occasions, but tonight I discovered something new. Buried within the depths of the site is a "Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator" (click here to view the calculator). You can select a city from a list (Seattle is on it), set a weapon yield and delivery method, and estimate the destruction caused by a nuclear bomb going off at different locations throughout the city.

Assuming favorable winds, it looks like the homestead in Redmond would be unaffected by the detonation of a 4.o megaton nuclear device in downtown Seattle. However, all bets are off if the terrorists decide to detonate it on Mercer Island.

I'm pleased to see a map of my beloved Portland wasn't included on the list. The creators of the program instead offer Grand Rapids, MI and Hartford, CT as targets. I'm not sure if this is comforting, or disappointing. As much as I never want to see a nuke go off anywhere in the world from now until the end of time, it's kind of fun to play Dr. Strangelove with a map of your hometown.

Why I drink RC Cola

Since 1905, people have been drinking and enjoying Royal Crown Cola (RC Cola). I first discovered this beverage in 1998 and have been a convert ever since.

There are several reasons I drink RC:

• It tastes great. Better than Coke, Pepsi or any of the second-rate grocery store chain brands;
• You choose it, rather than it chooses you. Unlike other major brands, RC does not spend as much on advertising. As a result, it typically is not thrust upon you on kiosks and endcaps the moment you walk into a grocery store. Like a fine wine or a premium beer, you have to seek it out. I am continually amazed at the number of grocery stores that refrain from carrying the Royal Crown line of beverages; and
• The rich history. RC has over a hundred years of tradition to draw from. Although no longer under its original ownership (acquired by Cadbury Schweppes in 2000), it still retains the years of tradition as a pioneer in the field of carbonated sodas. The makers of RC developed the first diet soda (Diet Rite) and the first caffeine-free soda (RC 100).

I'm proud to say I live in an RC household. As long as I can find it, I will continue to offer visitors to my humble abode an ice cold RC.

Train 1, Car 0

I was on the train this evening when the accident in this picture happened (KATU: Car hits MAX train in Downtown Portland).

It's a miracle no one was hurt. The woman driving the car learned a valuable life lesson on the virtue of yielding.

Another unconscionable comment from an unconscionable administration

This is more of a rant than I would like, but here goes...

Today (August 30), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at an American Legion convention in Salt Lake City. During the course of the speech, he talked about the rise of a “new type of fascism” and compared critics of the Bush administration to those seeking to appease the Nazis before World War II (Source: The Seattle Times)

The fact that Rumsfeld would make such a comparison is unconscionable.

I’m not a supporter of the Bush administration, but I’m also not a fan of terrorists. I support locking up terrorists and the individuals planning to commit terrorist acts (assuming there is credible evidence).

I take deep offense to Rumsfeld’s speech. Criticizing Bush and company for U.S. actions in the “war on terror” is not analogous to being an “appeaser” in the same vein as a Neville Chamberlain. It takes balls – especially after Abu Ghraib, NSA wiretapping, the Iraq debacle, etc. – for Rumsfeld to stand up on a podium and attack the administration’s critics in such a manner.

A friend emailed me today after reading an article on the speech and subsequently reading the following quote from a law school text: "One lesson of the Holocaust is that the vast powers of government must constantly be subjected to the most exacting scrutiny in order to guard against their abuse" (Source: Unknown). After Rumsfeld’s speech, one could just as easily compare the Bush administration to the Nazis as compare Bush’s critics to Nazi appeasers (although I think both comparisons are inaccurate).

Allowing dissent is a hallmark of good governance – it helps keep governments honest. Even in the face of criticism, the Bush administration has still gotten away with many questionable actions (such as the “rendering” of suspected terrorists to countries lax on human rights) and deceptive practices (cherry-picking evidence to paint a false picture about Iraq’s WMD program).

I am a patriot. But I lose heart in this country each day knowing that smart people continue to support this administration. I can understand why people with low IQs or those that think all taxation is wrong support Bush. But I can’t fathom why the intelligent ones do. The mid-term elections this November and the presidential election in 2008 cannot come soon enough.

Okay, I promise to start blogging again

I mean it. I'll have something up by the end of the week.

I had to take some time off to think and live life, but now I'm back.

A brief thought on immigration

The issue of immigration deserves a lengthy and thoughtful discussion. Until I get a chance to write something longer, check out this cartoon (courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor).

I think it's on point and a reality check to those thinking we should let no one else in and turn the country into an impregnable fortress (a fortress - I might add - unable to harvest its crops or clean its restrooms).

You can’t guard my port, but I’ll sell you an F-16

These days it’s a rare thing indeed for me to agree with President Bush. But I must admit he was on the right side of the issue surrounding the recent port deal involving a company from Dubai, United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.).

I get angry and embarrassed every time I read about how the Democrats (my idiotic party) and some Republicans succeeded in pressuring Dubai Ports World (DPW) to pack up and move out of the US (Source: BBC News). The actions of Senator Charles Schumer (one of the most vocal opponents of the DPW deal) et al smack of racism and set a precedent for other companies – not just from the Middle East – to do business elsewhere.

If I owned a company based in Uzbekistan, Bulgaria or even Canada, I would worry about investing in the US because of the Dubai port deal. What if a future terrorist act in the US involved Uzbekis, Bulgarians or Canadians? Does that mean I would be forced out an investment because of the actions of criminals sharing my citizenship? (NOTE: Companies based out of China, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Denmark already run or partially run 15 ports in the US).

The irony of the situation is the weaponry we have sold U.A.E. (a U.S. ally in the war on terror) since 2000. According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), we willingly sold the U.A.E. the following (this is a sampling – click here to view the full list if you don’t believe me):

• 80 F-16 Block 60 combat aircraft with AMRAAM and HARM missiles
• 1,000 JAVELIN anti-tank missiles, 100 launchers and other components
• 5 E-2C Hawkeye AWACS aircraft
• Upgrades of 30 AH-64A Apache attack helicopters to the AH-64D model
• Thousands of machine guns, hand guns and other fire arms

We couldn’t allow a U.A.E.-based company to own some of our ports – with the security still being performed by Americans – but we could arm them with American military equipment?

The opponents of the port deal are so absurd it’s surreal. If they really believed the U.A.E. (two 9/11 hijackers), Saudi Arabia (fifteen 9/11 hijackers) and other Gulf States were threats to the US by harboring terrorists, they would work to cut off the flow of weapons going from us to them (if you really want a shock, look at what the Saudis are buying from us). But they don’t take such action.

And I am forced to agree with Bush on this at the expense of many Democrats. Damn.

The next disaster is coming – are you prepared?

Lately I’ve been constantly surrounded by information on natural disasters - on the television, in the newspaper, at work and in my personal reading. I can’t seem to escape reminders of Mother Nature’s cataclysmic past – and the inevitability of more destruction in the future. In case you think I’m making this up, here is a short list of things I've recently been thinking about:

• I recently started reading Simon Winchester’s Krakatoa: The Day The World Exploded – 27th August 1885.
• Last week on NPR I heard a story about 1816 (“the year without a summer”), when Tambora erupted in present-day Indonesia.
• The newspapers around here frequently write about the potential for a massive earthquake to occur off the Oregon Coast – the last time this happened was 1700, and we are due.
• There has also been concern in the news (and a special on the Discovery Channel) about the Yellowstone Supervolcano reawakening – which will erupt again someday.
• On top of all of this, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Hood and the Three Sisters (not to mention the rest of the volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest) all have the potential to blow (and were mentioned in a recent documentary on Oregon Public Broadcasting).
• And there is also Mt. St. Helens.
• And the recent landslide in the Phillipines.
• And last year’s tsunami in Sumatra.
• Not to mention Hurricane Katrina.

If I ruminated on this longer I could add even more to this list – as it currently stands, this is a lot to think about.

So why does this matter? It matters because we – Cascadians, Americans and the human race – are still lackadaisical about preparing for disaster.

Hurricane Katrina was a clarion call for all Americans to increase their level of emergency preparedness after poor planning by individuals, city, state and the federal government resulted in the death of several thousand people. Unfortunately, the call is being muted by the war on terror.

We spend too much time worrying about terrorism (or at least Bush, FOX News et al perpetuate a climate of fear built around terrorism), but not enough time losing sleep about future hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis. I don’t mean to belittle the very real threat terrorism poses to the US and the rest of the world, but ten 9/11s will pale in comparison to a quake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Just look at the aftermath of the tsunami in Southeast Asia – the death toll was in the hundreds of thousands. Someday soon (geologically speaking) the West Coast will experience similar destruction.

I agree we should be spending tens of billions – even hundreds of billions on homeland security. But I argue the lion’s share of this money should be on things related to preparing for natural disasters - emergency supplies, evacuation plans, emergency alert systems, more durable FEMA shelters and command centers, education efforts for the general pubic, etc. We should also be spending money to upgrade the security at our port facilities and take other measures to reduce the threat of terrorist acts, but it should not come at the expense of our preparedness for natural disasters.

Katrina showed us we are not prepared – and it killed several thousand people and destroyed a swath of the South. Let’s work to change our level of preparedness. The Feds need to do more, but it is not just a job for government. We all need to work with our family, friends and neighbors to make this happen. There are many easy and affordable steps we can all take (go to Red Cross or FEMA for more info).

This matter is too important to ignore.

Some pharmacists need to find a new line of work

The iPod hiatus is over…

I find it unconscionable that some pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives. Several recent and highly publicized examples from around the country have caused some state politicians to act.

I think it’s fine to have a moral objection to birth control. But personal views should not be allowed to undermine one’s ability to act as a professional: denying a prescription for anything less than a medical reason (i.e. a pharmacist noticing a mix of prescriptions could be fatal to a customer) is simply unprofessional and should be grounds for termination of employment.

I’m almost certain a vegan working at McDonald’s would be fired if he or she refused to serve a customer a Big Mac. Or a pacifist employed as a police sniper would be forced to seek another job if he or she refused to shoot a suspect during a hostage standoff. Indeed these examples are hyperboles (I doubt many vegans work in fast food or pacifists in law enforcement), but I find them no less extreme than a pharmacist denying a drug to a customer with a valid prescription from a doctor.

We depend on pharmacies to provide us with prescription medication. Few of us have an apothecary in the family we can turn to when we’re in a bind. For many living in rural areas or small towns, the pharmacy options are limited – if someone is denied a medication, they can’t always walk down the street to another pharmacy. With emergency contraceptives, timing is everything. A pharmacist-caused delay could reduce the effectiveness of the morning-after pill (or prevent it from working at all).

I applaud the actions taken by Illinois Gov. Blagojevich and others to force pharmacists to fill prescriptions. This lack of professionalism by some pharmacists is too important to remain unchecked.

iPod hiatus

I must take a moment and apologize for my lack of postings over the past month.

Every moment of discretionary time has been spent transporting my music collection into iTunes for use in my new electronic toy: an iPod.

Once the transfer is complete (possibly by December 27), I will return to a more consistent twice-weekly posting schedule.

In the meantime, go Seahawks!

A reminder from the not-so-distant past

On December 25, 1914, brutal fighting along 500 miles of the Western Front in Europe stopped as both sides observed a truce in honor of Christmas. By that time, the prospect of a quick victory for either side had become a pipe dream - World War I had been on for almost five months and tens of thousands had already been slaughtered at the Marne and Ypres. Yet on that cold day more than 90 years ago, German, British, French, Austro-Hungarian and other soldiers engaged in the "war to end all wars" celebrated as friends, rather than foes.

I don't think anything like this has happened since - it certainly didn't happen again on such a wide scale for the rest of WWI. I have heard anecdotal stories of such truces occurring during the American Civil War - and more than likely they have occurred at different times for different reasons throughout human history - but indeed they are rare.

This past week (Monday, November 21) the last survivor of the famed truce - 109 year old Alfred Anderson - passed away in Scotland (Anderson coincidentally was the oldest person in Scotland).

I can't help but think about Anderson and what it was like for the millions who fought in that war. Many of them obviously did not hate those they were fighting. Entangling alliances, military build-ups, nationalism and a range of other factors outside of their control led to the breakdown of diplomacy, forcing the soldiers to fight. In the absence of their governments, they would likely have been drinking together rather than killing each other. If they were capable of celebrating Christmas together even after all that had happened, the political leaders of the day could have likely done more to prevent the war.

Military conflict is unavoidable from time to time, but how many of the wars fought over the ages could have been avoided? The Christmas truce - occurring in the midst of hell on earth - is a reminder that we are (or should be) humans first, national identities second. All too often, war is driven by national identity and an allegiance to king and country. However, this identity and allegiance is a social construct - we are taught, rather than born with such things. I am not advocating doing away with the nation-state or national identity, but I do think we should consider ourselves dually as members of both a nation and as members of the global community.

I would like to think the valiant service and sacrifice our troops in Iraq are giving the country is for a nobler cause than the one fought by Anderson and his generation. But I fear they are engaged in another unnecessary war where the reasons for fighting have been forgotten. All that matters now is the survival of American and Iraqi alike until we reach such a time that our forces can be pulled out without losing face.

Our political leaders, like those of Anderson's time, have failed us miserably. As a memorial to those who have fallen and those who are continuing to fall, we need to work harder at preventing these wars from occurring in the first place. I harbor no delusions about ending armed conflict altogether. But I know we can do better. To do otherwise is to dishonor the memories of the dead. I think a more global perspective - or the addition of a global perspective - to our national identity is one way for us as a society to move in that direction.

The order of presidential succession

Beyond the vice president, most people I talk to are unaware of the order of presidential succession. In order, here are the next eight (I must confess I could only remember the top five before looking it up):

• Vice President - Dick Cheney
• Speaker of the House - Dennis Hastert
• President pro tempore of the Senate - Ted Stevens
• Secretary of State - Condoleeza Rice
• Secretary of the Treasury - John Snow
• Secretary of Defense - Donald Rumsfeld
• Attorney General - Alberto Gonzales
• Secretary of the Interior - Gale Norton

Looking at this list, I am reminded of the importance of voting for regime change in 2008. As frightening as I find our current president's dearth of competence, I find no solace in looking at who is next in line.

Although Dick Cheney is a known entity as Bush's #2, his unconscionable acceptance of the use of torture is only now coming to light (Source: CNN). I think the only way the US could possibly worsen its already piss-poor image abroad would be for this guy to take the oath of office.

I don't have much to say about Dennis Hastert other than that he is the speaker of the house for the wrong team.

Ted Stevens is the poster child for why we need term limits (I don't necessarily agree with term limits, but he is the poster child for the pro-term limit camp). If you need a reminder, read about the recent oil executive testimony before the Senate Energy Committee and how he allowed them to testify without being under oath (much to the chagrin of Sen. Maria Cantwell).

We could do a lot worse than Condi, making her the most acceptable presidential successor on the list.

John Snow...(insert excuse here). I can't really think of a good one.

Donald Rumsfeld should have resigned over Abu Ghraib. His advice and lack of planning significantly contributed to the Iraq debacle we are mired in. I think this proves he is not up for the job of running the country (although he did not do half-bad with Afghanistan and has some intriguing ideas on reforming the military in the post-Cold War era).

Alberto Gonzales - see above comments on Dick Cheney and torture. Before being named attorney general, this guy wrote a memo justifying the use of torture by our government.

Gale Norton likes to plunder our natural resources. This might be overstating things a bit (I apologize), but she did work for James Watt's Mountain States Legal Foundation to serve the interests of cattlemen, miners and oil companies (albeit not inherently bad groups) before working for the Department of the Interior (where she advocated for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Needless to say, a Norton presidency would not see an expansion of our national parks system.

So this isn't the most compelling case against those next in the presidential succession line, but there are definitely some things to be concerned about. I will revisit this in more detail (more scholarly, less ad hominem attacks) sometime soon.

Last minute election night advice

As if you didn't already have a reason not to vote Republican.

I know it is hyperbole, but it is still funny.

Vote no on I-912: Let sanity prevail

Although I abdicated my status as a resident of Washington more than a year ago, I still feel a close kinship with the state. 24 years of attachment and self-identifying as a Washingtonian does not wither away overnight.

With that being said, I feel the need to comment on an initiative coming up on the November 8th ballot: Initiative 912 (I-912). For those of you who don’t know, I-912 is an effort to repeal Washington’s recently passed 9.5 cents per gallon gas tax earmarked solely for transportation projects. If I-912 passes, more than $5 billion in anticipated transportation revenue for the public coffers will not be collected (Source: Seattle Times).

I must be honest: I am troubled by both the gas tax and I-912.

Let’s begin with the gas tax – the problem is that it doesn’t go far enough. Maybe if the 9.5 cents per gallon rate was doubled or trebled, it would be more in the ballpark of what is necessary to fund the tens of billions of dollars backlog in transportation projects needed to improve regional mobility. But it is a step in the right direction. A small tax is better than no tax because it still enables a number of projects vital to the state to be funded.

As for I-912, my initial response is both shock and awe. Supporters of this initiative are beyond the pale. Why would you consciously vote to undermine funding in the one area we need it in the most (although schools and health care are also up there)? In case you hadn’t noticed, driving from Point A to Point B in the Puget Sound area has become a horror show. There is no sign things will ever get better – what exists with the status quo is the certainty traffic will continue to grow worse as the region’s population grows.

I visited the Yes on I-912 website with an open mind (or at least an attempt at one), looking to be persuaded to enlist in the taxpayer revolt against big government run amok. What I found was anything but compelling.

Here are the reasons the Yes on I-912 folks think you should support the initiative:

• Citizens were denied a right to vote, or even to be heard when the gas tax hike was passed by the state legislature.
• Pay now AND pay later – many of the projects are not fully funded (see my earlier criticism of the gas tax).
• There are no actual plans for the major projects the gas tax hike is supposed to fund.

As for the first point, I think legislators did hear citizens complaining about the state’s transportation woes – and came up with a gas tax hike as a remedy. The state – like the federal government – is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect individuals to legislate for us. Not everything needs to be brought to the electorate. Voters get a chance to weigh in every two years on who is making the decisions for them. Unless the backers of Yes on I-912 want to adopt Swiss Cantons and have true direct democracy, going to the voters on everything would make the state ungovernable.

As for the second point, I don’t think the voters could handle fully funding these transportation projects up front. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt the people railing against the 9.5 cents per gallon tax would be excited and throw their support behind the rate hike if it were 20 or 30 cents per gallon.

As for the third point, I’m not sure what to say (I’m not even sure this point is true). Even if the plans aren’t drawn up, the projects are certainly known. I don’t know why this would compel me to vote to cut transportation funding.

Washington needs to improve its transportation infrastructure. I doubt many would disagree with this assertion. Even though the gas tax is not a panacea, it is a step in the right direction. And what have the backers of I-912 proposed as an alternative to the gas tax? Absolutely nothing.

If I-912 had been put on the ballot with a companion initiative – an alternative funding proposal for transportation – my outlook on it might be different. Instead I must agree with Joni Balter of the Seattle Times: this truly is the “Neanderthals’ answer to progress” (Source: Seattle Times).

To do nothing and expect things to get better is sheer lunacy. Voting yes on this initiative is a vote to harm the Washingtonian way of life by standing in the way of an effort to make things better. I will be ashamed of my Washington heritage if I-912 passes – it will be the victory of shortsighted selfishness over what is needed for the greater good of the region.

A call for action in Darfur

In Darfur, the US, EU et al are squandering an opportunity to show the world that a lesson was learned by their inaction in Rwanda in 1994, and the 800,000 who perished did not die in vain.

The October 15th edition of The Economist provides an update on events in this war-torn region in Sudan. (Source: The Economist). The situation is grim.

Although the African Union (AU) has more than 6,000 troops (mainly Nigerian) in the area to provide stability and quell hostilities, violence has been steadily increasing in recent weeks. The AU troops do not have the resources necessary to effectively deter further acts of genocide or instill the rule of law.

Several years ago, the Sudanese government unleashed the janjaweed militia on Darfur, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands. The government remains culpable to this day for the continued suffering of the people, hindering efforts to provide humanitarian aid to the region and resources to the AU peacekeeping force – delivery of more than 100 armored personnel carriers recently donated to the AU force by Canada have been blocked by the Sudanese government.

I do not necessarily believe the action required by the US is the use of military force – there is still a realistic chance for diplomacy to prevail. The Sudanese economy started exporting oil in 1999 and has since grown more reliant upon it each year (Source: CIA World Factbook). The US and company (with the support of the UN) could use the credible threat of economic sanctions on oil alone to leverage the Sudanese government to withdrawal all support for the janjaweed and allow shipments of arms, fuel and other supplies to the AU force in Darfur.

This strategy is not without its drawbacks – consumers here at home would pay the price at the pump if Sudan opts for the sanctions. But the alternative is to either go in militarily or allow complacency to rule the day. Up to this point, the latter option seems to resonate stronger than the former.

The AU cannot do this on its own. Similar to the situation in Rwanda in 1994 with the UN mission, a largely African peacekeeping force lacks adequate resources to do the job. Based on the accounts of the situation I have read, even if the US, EU or NATO provided only logistical support and supplies, the ability of the AU to operate effectively would increase.

The second option – to intervene militarily – is not without its merits. A relatively small US/EU force should be able to successfully deter the janjaweed (and Sudanese military) from continuing the genocide. Militarily Sudan is generations behind the US and would be easy to defeat on the field of battle.

But more people would be killed – this time by us. And the last thing we need right now is another Iraq to occupy.

However, if a vigorous attempt to employ economic sanctions fails, we need to act militarily. We cannot let Rwanda happen again.

The next best thing to world peace

After last night (October 10), the Angels are going to the ALCS to face the White Sox; the Yankees are going home. I could care less about the former, but the latter is the best sports news I have heard in awhile.

If the smile on my face gets any bigger, I might have to take the day off from work.

The Burj Dubai

Maybe it's because I played with Legos too much as a kid, but I never cease to marvel at what humans are capable of building. As one of many regular geeky habits, I routinely peruse the latest in construction news at www.emporis.com.

Even after The Towering Inferno and 9/11, developers continue building toward the heavens. Right now, the largest skyscraper in the world - the Burj Dubai - is being built in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The Burj Dubai is projected to reach over 2,600 feet into the atmosphere when completed. In case you are keeping score at home, this will make it almost 1,000 feet taller than the current record holder - the Taipei 101 in Taipei, Taiwan (Source: BBC).

For those interested, here is a list of the top ten skyscrapers in the world from Emporis (does not include those under construction):

• Taipei 101 (2004) - Taipei, Taiwan - 1,671 feet
• Petronas Tower 1 (1998) - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - 1,483 feet
• Petronas Tower 2 (1998) - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - 1,483 feet
• Sears Tower (1974) - Chicago, U.S.A. - 1,451 feet
• Jin Mao Tower (1998) - Shanghai, China - 1,380 feet
• Two International Finance Centre (2003) - Hong Kong, China - 1,362 feet
• CITIC Plaza (1997) - Guangzhou, China - 1,283 feet
• Shun Hing Square (1996) - Shenzhen, China - 1,260 feet
• Empire State Building (1931) - New York, U.S.A. - 1,250 feet
• Central Plaza (1992) - Hong Kong, China - 1,227 feet

Soon the Burj Dubai will dwarf all others on this list. And then eventually be beaten by another building in another city.

Say what you want about the world today and the progress of humankind over the centuries: the globe is still afflicted by war, disease and poverty; hundreds of millions lack access to adequate food and clean drinking water; and global warming is occurring (whether or not you believe it is the result of humans alone, there is no denying it is happening - visit Barrow, Alaska if you have any doubts).

But our ability to reach the heavens certainly has improved since the Tower of Babel.

In case you're not sure evil exists...

On most days, I like to think the proverbial glass of water is half-full (notable exceptions: November 2, 2004 and November 7, 2000). There are many reasons to live life thinking this way.

However, there is also a darker side to the world and compelling reasons to think the glass is not only half-empty, but shattered into tiny pieces across the floor. The tragic story of Rwanda is one such reason to carry around a pessimistic Weltanschauung (you can look this one up).

Earlier this year I spent some time learning about this tiny, yet densely populated state in sub-Saharan Africa. Over the course of a few weeks I digested three truly powerful works: Philip Gourevitch’s We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire’s Shake Hands With The Devil: The Failure Of Humanity In Rwanda and the movie Hotel Rwanda starring Don Cheadle.

Few tomes and films have ever left such an impression on me.

From watching the news in the 1990s, I knew something bad had happened in Rwanda and that many lives were lost. But only recently did I become aware of the macabre details of how members of the Hutu majority ethnically cleansed members of the Tutsi minority in 1994.

At least 800,000 people were killed – many by the blade of a machete – in only 100 days. I remain unconvinced the Waffen SS could have done the job any faster.

Our complacency allowed this to happen (and significant arms shipments from the French and the Chinese to the Hutu perpetrators of this genocide). This becomes painfully obvious as you read both books, especially the general’s firsthand account of events as the commander of the UN mission in Rwanda. Gen. Dallaire was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome brought on by his Rwandan experience. His repeated requests for additional UN troops (fewer than 10,000 more) were denied. Dalliare believes he could have prevented the genocide – or lessened the loss of life – had he been given the forces he was asking for. The troops he did command often numbered in the hundreds or less and could do very little to stop the killing.

Some will likely disagree with this thought, but I think it is apparent we do not value an African life as much as we value an American or European life. When the fragmentation of Yugoslavia resulted in civil war and genocide, the US and NATO allies sent troops (albeit not until the failure of a UN-led effort without US troops). In fact, the US still has troops on the ground in Bosnia and Kosovo to this day.

With Rwanda, some US troops were involved in flying in humanitarian relief, but they came too late to stop the genocide and were not allowed to travel out into the countryside. The US – with the most powerful military in the history of the world (I say this without exaggeration) – did virtually nothing. Our overall record with Africa is underwhelming. Somalia aside, we have done little in the past 20 years to use our military when circumstances have called for action.

I am not proposing we send in the 82nd Airborne at the first sign of a border skirmish or the burning of a village, but we should consider using our military as an option when atrocities are being committed and our involvement will save lives. I have never been troubled by the US as world policeman argument – why can’t we fill this role? If not us, who else is going to do it? We don’t have to get involved in everything – i.e. invading China to free Tibet – but we could and should do more. In Rwanda, it would not have taken the legions deployed in Iraq to save hundreds of thousands of lives. A modest force of several thousand troops – by Gen. Dallaire’s estimation – would have done the job.

As of today, tens of thousands of people in Darfur are dead because of the Sudanese government-sponsored janjaweed militia. I’m all in favor of diplomatic solutions as a first option. But when they fail (and they have so far in Sudan), we should consider doing what we failed to do in Rwanda and intervene militarily.

Everything you know about the world could be wrong

Map-making is far from an exact science. Cartographers struggle with projecting a three-dimensional image – the globe – to a two-dimensional surface. Trade-offs must be made between accurately representing the size versus the shape of the seven continents.

Back when I was a matriculating elementary school student, the Mercator map was ubiquitous. Geradus Mercator’s creation from 1596 ruled social studies classrooms throughout the past century and is still widely used. Thanks to Mercator, I grew up thinking Greenland was an island of continental proportions, rivaling Africa and South America in size. In reality, Greenland is closer to 1/14 the size of the former and 1/8 the size of the latter. The Mercator is fraught with distortions of relative size. However, the shape of land masses is more accurately preserved than with some of the alternatives.

Indeed, alternatives to the Mercator do exist. The Robinson, Winkel Tripel and Peters projections are a few of the many cartographic attempts to map the world more effectively than Mercator.

The Peters project is noteworthy in that it preserves relative size at the expense of accurate shape. The result goes against all intuition (at least for those growing up in a Mercator paradigm). The world appears distorted, but the proportions are correct. With Africa and South America proportionally correct, Greenland is rightly relegated to insignificance as a land mass on the Earth’s polar fringe (no offense intended to Big G’s 56,000 inhabitants).

So why should anyone care about the map on the wall?

Here’s why – the way we perceive the world in our mind’s eye unconsciously affects the level of significance we place on other countries. A Mercator world greatly exaggerates the Northern Hemisphere – i.e. the US, Western Europe and other G8 powers – and diminishes the Southern Hemisphere. A Mercator world makes Greenland and its 56,000 inhabitants seem comparable in size to Africa and its 877.5 million inhabitants.

Coincidentally, a lot of the developing world is located in the Southern Hemisphere – most of South America and a large portion of Africa. A Mercator world reinforces the dominance of the developed world over the developing world (somewhat akin to Churchill’s adage about history being written by the victors; in this case the world being mapped by the victors).

Increasing one’s understanding of world geography is no panacea for solving the many problems facing the globe this century, but it is a start. It becomes a little bit harder to dismiss Africa once you realize it is actually three times larger than Europe.

The coming apocalypse averted at the last moment

Just when I thought the world was coming to an end, a grand jury intervened and saved the day.

The story begins on Tuesday (September 27) when events took a turn for the surreal. Each year the US Supreme Court receives about 7,000 petitions to review decisions made by the appellate judiciary. Only 150 of these petitions are generally heard by the full court. We learned on Tuesday that one of this year's 150 will be a case brought forth on appeal by Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith in her struggle to claim the inheritance of her dead husband (Source: CNN).

I have no doubt the highest court in the land accepted this case on its merits - some technicality involving state probate proceedings and federal courts. However, you can understand why I took this as a sign the apocalypse was upon us: a case involving the spokeswoman for Trimspa is going to be heard within the inner sanctum of the judicial branch!

But then something happened, saving the world from its impending doom.

Wednesday afternoon (September 28), US Representative (and House Majority Leader) Tom "The Hammer" DeLay was indicted by a grand jury of illegally funneling cash to the state party apparatus and then stepped down as House Majority Leader (Source: CNN).

I don't know whether or not Tom "The Hammer" DeLay is guilty of these specific charges. But this doubt didn't stop me from popping open the bottle of Ballatore Gran Spumante sitting in the back of my refrigerator since New Year's Eve.

What I do know about Tom "The Hammer" DeLay's is that the world would be (or will be) a better place without him in a position of political power. Indictment or no indictment, his record of un-statesmanlike partisanship speaks for itself (I will write about this more in the future - but keep in mind that his nickname is "The Hammer").

So how did this stop the coming apocalypse? I know it sounds far-fetched, but the rift opened up in the space-time continuum when the Supreme Court decided to hear Anna Nicole Smith's appeal was miraculously remedied by the grand jury indictment of Tom "The Hammer" DeLay. Hey, I don't make the rules.

What about them?

Last week I did something for the first time. I was waiting in line to buy my weekly fix of tofu curry from a favorite local vendor when a homeless man came up to me and mumbled something incoherent. Assuming he wanted money, I politely refused and he directed his attention elsewhere. After picking up my order, I noticed he was still asking for alms from the queue in front of the vendor.

Although I had never done it before, I suddenly felt compelled to buy the man lunch. He unenthusiastically accepted my initial offer of tofu curry. When I asked if he wanted something else, he suggested McDonalds - specifically the following: two large orange juices, a quarter-pounder and a filet-o-fish. My promise to make this happen succeeded in bringing a smile to his face.

When “Mike” and I parted ways, I was $9.49 poorer (McDonalds is not the bargain it used to be) and felt introspective. The plight of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina had been in the news for more than two weeks, and the relief effort had produced an almost unprecedented outpouring of support across the country – from donations to volunteer hours.

My ten minutes with Mike caused me to think about the homeless people in our own communities that we give short shrift to. Yet we freely offer up our homes and open up our coffers to strangers from afar in a time of crisis.

We shouldn’t be able to go to sleep at night knowing we are helping people displaced by Katrina, but ignoring the longtime homeless we pass by each day on the way to work. We can and should help both. I am as guilty as anyone at failing locally and have thought about it everyday since my encounter with Mike.

You need glasses to look at this math

Hurricane Katrina is a natural disaster of epic proportions. The US has not seen such devastation since Galveston, Texas was largely destroyed by a hurricane in 1900. As a result, the cost of the recovery effort will understandably reach unprecedented levels – perhaps even hundreds of billions of dollars.

On Friday (September 16), President Bush gave a speech from New Orleans about Katrina and his plan to rebuild the region. Bush did not specify how much his plan would cost, but asserted new taxes would not be necessary. Instead, Bush said cuts to “unnecessary spending” would help pay for the rebuilding effort (Source: CNN).

No one knows exactly how much will need to be spent, but we do know $62 billion has already been approved by Congress. I think $100-200 billion is a conservative estimate of the final costs when all is said and done.

During the 2000 presidential race, Bush famously accused Vice President Gore of “fuzzy math” during a debate when he (Gore) explained his proposals. Bush should take this criticism to heart – his proposal to provide billions in hurricane relief is nothing but fuzzy.

The US government is currently spending over $300 billion more a year than it is bringing in. I completely support spending billions to help rebuild the South, but do not think cutting “unnecessary spending” is going to be enough. If tens of billions of dollars of “unnecessary spending” is still on the books today, why didn’t Bush cut it already? He has been in office for more than five years.

Any spending solution needs to remove the tax cuts implemented by Bush since he has been in office (a subject for a future blog entry). Reinstating this lost revenue – in combination with some frugality in government spending across the board – would be a less fuzzy solution.

My take on the Pledge of Allegiance

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United State of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

On Wednesday (September 14), US District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled the “under God” reference in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the right of schoolchildren to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” (Source: CNN).

Karlton is right.

I am befuddled by the propensity of many Americans to support the Pledge in its current form – as if it were created by God and hauled down the slopes of Sinai by Moses himself.

The Pledge was originally written by a Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy in 1892. As chairman of a National Education Association committee of school superintendents, Bellamy wrote the Pledge as part of a program to celebrate the quadricentennial of Columbus reaching the Americas. The original did not contain the phrase “under God.” (Source: Excerpts from John Baer. 1992. The Pledge of Allegiance, A Centennial History, 1892 - 1992, Annapolis, Md. Free State Press, Inc.).

It was not until the rise of McCarthyism in 1954 that Congress – pressured by President Eisenhower, the Knights of Columbus and others – added the “under God” phrase.

Whether or not Karlton’s ruling will hold up on appeal remains to be seen. In 2002, the Supreme Court overruled a lower court ruling similar to Karlton’s on a technicality (Source: CNN).

There is nothing wrong with paying tribute to America’s religious heritage. From Jonathan Edwards to Billy Graham, religion has played a major role in this nation’s history. To this day, millions of Americans profess faith to one of hundreds (if not thousands) of organized religions and voluntarily attend religious services.

However, there is a lot wrong with retaining “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Schoolchildren are a captive audience. Even if youths of atheist, Buddhist or some other non-monotheistic background are not required to recite the Pledge, they remain in the room with their largely monotheistic peers as it is spoken. The daily coercive affect on these non-Pledgers of hearing “under God” may only be slight, but there still is a coercive affect.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and abrogating the Pledge entirely, why not scrap “under God” and return the Pledge to its pre-1952 condition? I doubt this change would undermine anyone’s faith in their monotheistic religion, yet it would strike a blow in support of religious tolerance. Besides, the words are only 52 years old. If they were a person, they wouldn’t even qualify for Social Security (although they would qualify for AARP membership).

Sammy. Katrina. Saddam?

While campaigning for president, George W. Bush joked that trading Sammy Sosa (when he was part-owner of the Texas Rangers) was the biggest mistake he had made in his life.

At a press conference held on April 13, 2004, a reporter asked Bush to comment on any “big” mistakes made since 9/11. Bush responded: “I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it (laughter)…I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just – I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet…(goes on to justify the invasion of Iraq)…I hope I – I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t – you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one” (Source: The White House).

Today (September 13, 2005) Bush, when asked at a press conference about the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, said, “Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility” (Source: CNN).

I sincerely applaud this declaration of culpability in regards to Katrina. Bush deserves blame for his role in appointing the incompetent leadership of FEMA. Bush is only one of many culpable parties, but as president, the buck stops with him. I think taking responsibility for FEMA’s failure is one of the most presidential things he has done (SIDEBAR: Rumsfeld should have done the same over Abu Ghraib).

Today’s comment brings the total number of mistakes publicly acknowledged by Bush to two: Sammy and Katrina. It is entirely possible I am missing some, but to the best of my knowledge he has not admitted fault to anything else of consequence.

My question now is this: when is Bush going to accept responsibility for Iraq? The situation in Iraq is a charlie-foxtrot (think about this one awhile). The evidence for going in (the existence of WMDs, not just the ability to make them) has been proven false; the post-war occupation failed to establish rule of law and basic services – even to this day; the “coalition of the willing” is a façade – most of the casualties are American; the Iraqi Army is largely combat ineffective without significant US support; there are arguably more terrorists today threatening the US than before the invasion; and there is no conceivable end in sight to the status quo.

I don’t advocate pulling out of Iraq tomorrow. But I do want to see Bush call a press conference and accept responsibility for this debacle. In terms of Bush mistakes, Katrina and Sammy are sideshows compared to the main event going on in Iraq. Katrina is a terrible tragedy, but Bush is not directly responsible for what happened to the Gulf Coast. In the case of Iraq, he is directly responsible for our involvement.

We all should be feminists

I am a feminist.

I am embarrassed to say it took more than 15 years of schooling for me to make this statement. Feminism is a widely misunderstood "ism" thanks to Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and other political entertainers. Rush coined the term "femi-nazi," relegating feminism to pejorative-status in the minds of many. Jerry Falwell included feminism on his list of reasons for the 9/11 attacks (The transcript from Falwell's 9/13/01 '700 Club' appearance with Pat Robertson is worth a read - but not before bedtime).

Feminism is sometimes labeled militant, extreme, liberal, un-American or anti-religious. I would argue the inverse: there are few things more American.

Feminism is defined as "belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes" (Source: Dictionary.com). There are many threads of feminism - from the more mainstream to the fringe - but the core is still gender equality. I can call myself a feminist without subscribing to anything other than a "belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes."

So why is this important? There are times I think we live in an enlightened period where gender does not matter...the problem is that it still does.

We all should be feminists for the following reasons:

• Number of female US presidents since George Washington = 0.
• Number of female US vice-presidents since George Washington = 0 (Geraldine Ferraro was a close call as Walter Mondale's running mate for the Democratic party in 1984).
• Number of females currently sitting in the US Senate = 14 (14% of total).
• Number of females currently sitting in the US House of Representative = 69 (15.9% of total).
• Females as a % of Total US Population = 50.9% or 143.4 million people (2000 US Census).

There are many areas where gender inequality is palpable (i.e. unequal wages for similar jobs, male-centric medical research, etc.), but arguably none as obvious as the disparity that exists in elected representation. I am surprised more isn't written in the media about this gap.

This inequality is important because the majority gender (women) is being marginalized in the making of public policy. Americans (myself included) bash other countries for substandard women's rights - such as Saudi Arabia - yet turn a blind eye to gender inequality at home.

The draft Iraqi constitution currently being written includes a provision for no less than 25% of legislative seats to be held by women. If this provision holds up, Iraq will have better female representation in government than the US!

We all should be feminists because the alternative is to support sexism outright, or behave with indifference in the face of obvious inequality. I find the former and the latter to be the truly un-American options.

44 down, 39 to go

According to the latest AP-Ipsos poll, President Bush's approval rating has reached an all-time low of 39 percent (Source: CNN). At one time Bush had an approval rating up in the 80 percent range.

The impetus for this latest downturn is partly the result of FEMA's bungling of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. I am saddened it took the near-apocalyptic destruction of the Gulf Coast and the lives of several thousand more Americans (as if the 2,000 US dead in Iraq weren't enough) to make this drop possible.

I don't pretend to know whether or not Bush is the worse president in our history. That honor probably goes to Warren G. Harding, James Buchanan or one of the ineffectual POTUS's from the days of Tammany Hall.

What I do know is I don't like what I'm seeing on Bush's watch - Katrina is only the latest. Here is my short list of things Bush has done wrong:

• Fiscal irresponsibility (tax cuts + spending increases = fiscal lunacy).
• Steel tariffs (sold out his free-market principles to win votes in West Virginia).
• Clear Skies Initiative (unlike many environmentalists, I don't agree we should have adopted the Kyoto Protocols as they were written - but this as an alternative is a joke).
• Healthy Forests Initiative (this is an even bigger joke).
• Homeland security spending (this is the biggest joke of all - some of this spending makes sense, but a lot of it does not).
• ANWR (why risk a national treasure for maybe six months of oil?).
• The detainee debacle (we cannot hold people indefinitely without charging them of a crime - this is just plain wrong and tarnishes our already frail international image).
• Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General (torture is not okay and he wrote a memo justifying it).
• Social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc - unfortunately Bush is in line with the thinking of millions of Americans).
• Iraq (the WMD evidence was not a "slam dunk" as former CIA Director Tenet once argued; books will be written about this for years to come).
• Leadership - or lack thereof - on health care.
• Leadership - or lack thereof - on homelessness and poverty issues.
• No Child Left Behind (if you want to know why this doesn't work, ask any teacher).
• Abstinence-only sex education (sheer lunacy supported by those ignorant of reality; akin to burying one's head in the ground like an ostrich).
• Abstinence-only birth control efforts in the developing world (see above).

This list is not comprehensive. Rest assured I will be adding to it in the coming weeks. I tried to refrain from ad hominems, but I think a few made it in there. In an effort to avoid being Ann Coulter-esque, I will work on fleshing out this list and making it more scholarly. Accurately making the case against Bush is important since everyone loses when the facts are applied loosely.

In his defense, not everything Bush has done is bad. I support CAFTA, John Roberts as a nominee (because he could have picked someone much worse), and many other things he has done.

But a preponderance of evidence is not on his side.

Dreaming of Mauritius

Several years ago as an undergraduate at university, a scheduling snafu left me with an hour to spend dawdling at the university library. Some would have used the time to catch up on Melville's Bartleby the Scrivener or read about aboriginal land claims in the Yukon Territory.

I chose to watch a documentary about Mauritius (not to be confused with Mauritania).

Many Americans (or humans for that matter) have never heard of this small volcanic island located in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar.

Prior to my Mauritian cinematic experience at the library, I could locate Mauritius on a map and tell you the capital is Port Louis, but little else. Now I am filled with wonder and have developed an insatiable desire to learn more about all things Mauritian.

Why is this tiny hamlet of an island noteworthy? Let me tell you...

• Per capita GDP - $12,800 (purchasing power parity); this is among the highest in all of Africa.
• The average life expectancy on Mauritius is 72.4 years (total population).
• The population is a melting pot of Indo-Mauritian 68%, Creole 27%, Sino-Mauritian 3%, Franco-Mauritian 2%.
• The island was uninhabited prior to discovery by the Portuguese, followed by Dutch, French and British rule (gained independence from UK in 1968).
• Contains 1.2 million people in a land area 11 times the size of the District of Columbia.
• Religiously diverse - Hindu 48%, Roman Catholic 23.6%, other Christian 8.6%, Muslim 16.6%, other 2.5%, unspecified 0.3%, none 0.4%.
• Over 80% literacy rate.

I could go on...you can read more about Mauritius for yourself at the CIA World Factbook website.

The significance of Mauritius is that it is the closest thing to a success story one can find in all of Africa. Some refer to the island as the "digital tiger" of the Indian Ocean because of its burgeoning tech sector.

All I suggest is putting Mauritius on your radar and removing it from the list of places you can't locate on a map.

What's wrong with America?

There are a lot of great things about America. Let me name a few...

• The Bill of Rights;
• The Pacific Northwest;
• The Protestant work ethic;
• Whole Foods;
• National Public Radio;
• Sacagawea dollars;
• The US Navy (specifically Nimitz-class aircraft carriers);
• Baseball;
• Alaska;
• Feminism;
• Judicial review.

I could go on. But there is something else I would rather discuss.

At the risk of sounding unpatriotic (which I'm not - Patton is my favorite movie), I want to point out something wrong with America. In case you didn't know already, we incarcerate a shitload of people.

According to a recent article in the Economist, the US has 726 prison inmates for every 100,000 people. Other members of the G8 aren't even in our league - for every 100,000 people, England imprisons 142, France 91 and Japan 58 (Source: The Economist. 2005. "The prophet of prison," September 3rd-9th, p. 58).

These numbers are stunning! As a country, we need to sit down and discuss this issue. There is something wrong with having an incarceration rate 12 times higher than Japan, 8 times higher than France and 5 times higher than England. These countries are among our closest allies - culturally, economically and militarily.

Although I don't have statistics to provide in this post, incarceration is not the only thing the US is a leader in among the pantheon of developed countries. Crime rates are also higher in the US than the rates found in our G8 bretheren. If I were a tourist from Country X planning a vacation, these numbers would make me think twice about visiting Times Square over Picadilly Circus.

What is the cause of this disparity? You can pick your poison - mandatory minimums, Hollywood, the Second Amendment, the absence of a social safety net, etc...

One way or another, the US currently has a problem with its prisons. I refuse to believe the average American is that much more prone to a life of crime than a Briton.

I don't know how to solve this problem - coming up with alternatives to long prison sentences for drug possession might be a start. Reagan did a pretty good job of ratcheting up mandatory minimums for drug offenses, helping lead us to where we are today (perhaps a subject to discuss in more depth later).

Beyond this, we need to have a conversation as a country and discuss where we are headed. I find this level of incarceration unacceptable and a detractor from all of the other things that make America such a great place to live (see bulleted list above).

The Robertson Doctrine

The world is rife with bad people. Some of these people - to the great misfortune of their homelands - happen to be in positions of power.

In running down a list of these dregs of humanity, I first think of Kim Jong Il of North Korea. After that, the despot hierarchy is less than clear: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and the Myanmar junta to name a few. I would not place Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in the top 20.

Apparently Chavez's Bolivarian revolution was too much for Pat Robertson. Today on The 700 Club, Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez, stating: "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability...We don't need another $200-billion (U.S.) war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator...It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." (Source: The Globe and Mail)

Setting aside the issues with international law and the immorality of covertly knocking off the leader of a sovereign state without provocation, Robertson's comments reflect his ignorance of the world. Chavez is no saint and has been overtly critical of American policies. But his populist Bolivarian revolution is attempting to do real good for Venezuela by bringing government to the people. Venezuela shares many of the land issues endemic to Latin America where a small group of people controls a disproportionate share of the arable land. Chavez is trying to change this and improve the conditions for the sizable percentage of the population living in poverty. I am not necessarily an advocate for his methods of wealth redistribution, but taking a position contrary to the US should not be cause for sending in the special forces on an assassination mission.

If anyone deserves to be covertly assassinated, it is some of the other previously mentioned despots on the list. How many lives would be improved, if not saved altogether, if Mugabe met the working end of a .50 caliber sniper rifle? But it does not change the fact that state-sponsored assassination is wrong and fraught with unforeseen consequences. What criteria would be used? What guarantee is there the new leader would be any better than his/her predecessor? In the case of Venezuela, more Venezuelans than not support Chavez. Who would pick up the pieces and govern the country with the support of the population?

The "Robertson Doctrine" is as half-baked as it is morally wrong. It is a shame someone as internationally unsophisticated as Robertson is given such a loud microphone.

A brief treatise on the renaming of food at a time of heightened national security

What ever happened to burning in effigy?

Of all the acts of protest from yore, does anyone still do this? I lament certain forms of protest - such as renaming food during a national security crisis - remain en vogue today, while an effigy burning is considered passé.

I once thought food renaming was unique to the recent "Boycott France" movement and the need to feel better (and make the French feel bad about not supporting us in Iraq) by eating "freedom fries" in lieu of french fries. [SIDEBAR: "Boycott France" bumperstickers are available from billoreilly.com]

However, I read the other day that some enterprising Americans during World War I renamed sauerkraut as "liberty cabbage." Although I think this was stupid, I can understand the need to show solidarity against a clearly identifiable enemy - in this case the Germans.

With Iraq, the French merely chose not to support our foreign policy initiative. If they had overtly supported Hussein's regime, I would have advocated giving them back the Statue of Liberty and dropping JDAMs on the palace at Versailles. But a lack of support for our Iraqi mission hardly qualifies for the "freedom fry" treatment.

I think a one-time protest outside the French embassy with a effigy burning of Chirac, Villepin or Le Pen (even better) would have really done the job.

We need to avoid resorting to the absurd when dealing with an international disagreement. Messing with the etymology of food should be reserved only for times when the enemy actually is fighting a war against you.