I just finished watching a documentary called “Sand and Sorrow.”
As docs go this isn’t great but the story it tells and the message far outweigh the production’s short-comings.
It is about the efforts of a few to get the U.S. Govt. and others to do something about the on-going genocide in Darfur.
Several months ago I wrote about the “Lost Boys” from southern Sudan who had to leave because of conflict there.
Recently I wrote about Steven Spielberg and his decision to NOT assist with the Beijing Olympics because of China’s involvement with the Sudanese government who back the so-called “Janjaweed,” who are the militia-like group responsible for most if not all of the slaughter and rape and the like in Darfur.
In this documentary the most disconcerting thing I heard (there is plenty to see!) was that shortly after 9-11, we began to get more intelligence information from the Sudanese government about terrorist activity inside their borders (I guess everyone has read or heard that Osama bin Laden once lived in Sudan and used that as a base of operations for much of his activity until he went to Afghanistan.) My point here is that if what is said in the doc is true, we have sort of turned our eyes away from Darfur in exchange for the information they provide.
Another point of this movie is what can we/anybody do? I have no idea except to support some relief work going on. I like Samaritan’s Purse. I used to have my contributions to them designated to southern Sudan years ago. I think I’ll switch to Darfur.
I am naïve about this stuff but I find it strange that we have sustained a boycott of Cuba for years – decades, yet we have done nothing to stop the brutality and whatever else is going on in Sudan. Overall I think U.S. foreign policy is inconsistent at best – misguided at its worst.
This was not supposed to be a ramble but rather a recommendation to watch this movie if you can. Like I said I don’t think it is a great one as far as how it is done – far too long to make the points it makes but still a very important story that people need to hear.
And as with everything I’m sure I don’t have the whole story but all you have to do is look at the eyes of the Sudanese government guy when he talks about what they are doing and then look in the eyes of the women who have been raped and the children who are starving in the camps in Chad waiting for somebody – somewhere to do something to help them. I think it is safe to assume that the story contained in this movie is true. I’m sure the makers have some anti-U.S. bias in their portrayal of our govt. but I’d agree that we have made many mistakes in our dealings with countries like this in the past under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
more on Beijing
Some months ago I wrote a post that said I would be boycotting the Beijing Olympics. I had no idea I would be in such esteemed company.
Seems sometime last year Mia Farrow - yes formerly of Woody Allen, Frank Sinatra and Rosemary's Baby - wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Wall St. Journal calling for artists to stay away from any involvement. I guess somewhere along the line Steven Spielberg had talked about helping to produce the opening ceremonies.
Here's the link to the Mia Farrow thing which was published in The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2007
The 'Genocide Olympics'
By RONAN FARROW and MIA FARROW
"One World, One Dream" is China's slogan for its 2008 Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan." more here
Here's a link to the news about Spielberg who has now decided NOT to participate.
Honestly I had no idea China had any connection whatsoever with Sudan and Darfur but it makes sense and seems believable. I intend to research this some more in my spare time - perhaps so can you.
Seems sometime last year Mia Farrow - yes formerly of Woody Allen, Frank Sinatra and Rosemary's Baby - wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Wall St. Journal calling for artists to stay away from any involvement. I guess somewhere along the line Steven Spielberg had talked about helping to produce the opening ceremonies.
Here's the link to the Mia Farrow thing which was published in The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2007
The 'Genocide Olympics'
By RONAN FARROW and MIA FARROW
"One World, One Dream" is China's slogan for its 2008 Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan." more here
Here's a link to the news about Spielberg who has now decided NOT to participate.
Honestly I had no idea China had any connection whatsoever with Sudan and Darfur but it makes sense and seems believable. I intend to research this some more in my spare time - perhaps so can you.
More on the bio-fuel dilemma
I've written before about the rush to move our country toward ethanol as a replacement for traditional fossil based fuels. I'm still learning but read this article recently published in the NY Times.
Here's a key line:
"Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded."
Read the whole thing here.
Here's a key line:
"Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded."
Read the whole thing here.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Don’t Do it Again!
Early in 2007 our esteemed elected officials in Jefferson City passed a bill that in the guise of promoting competition, forever changed the landscape of cable in Missouri. AT&T lobbied hard and got what they wanted. Cities and ultimately consumers lost – all in the name of choice and competition.
I won’t belabor that lost cause now – just follow what is happening in cities across the country where AT&T is moving in. Technical problems. A lesser-quality-signal than cable. Slight – but noticeable delays in switching channels and of course what is near and dear – PEG. This once bastion of local programming has been (or will be) relegated to a sort of hybrid channel that forces viewers to first select a channel then make another selection once there to pick the particular channel they wish to watch. They say on the internet if you ask people to make too many clicks, they won’t get to your site. I think the same thing will happen here. People just wont bother.
And one thing we haven’t seen yet in Springfield are the huge boxes AT&T has to put up everywhere to make this work. Because the legislature effectively took away some local authority, these enormous boxes can be put wherever AT&T thinks they need them – just hope one doesn’t end up in your front yard.
But my point is not cable or lack of it but rather that it appears our elected officials may once again be entering an area where they don’t know enough – full disclosure - NEITHER DO I!
I read a blurb yesterday that they may be considering some sort of State legislation related to ethanol and subsidies.
I don’t know enough about ethanol but have read that if we somehow could convert all our corn production and even perhaps additional available land for more corn, and somehow build the multi-million-dollar processing plants and somehow find enough groundwater to support the processing operation – at best we might reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 2.5 %. That’s TWO POINT FIVE PERCENT!
Let’s look at subsidies.
Big oil will no doubt be involved. Do they need any sort of subsidy?
Large agricultural corporations like ADM and Cargill will want in on the action. Do they need a financial boost?
Local farmers who grow corn have seen their prices rise dramatically – partly based on supply and demand and partly on speculation. So they are getting more for their crop than before. But they are getting some sort of windfall since their prices for fuel and fertilizer and other operating costs have gone up. I just read about a Mississippi family who switched from cotton to corn for more profits. That is their choice but if we structure our system to encourage much more of this – one more industry will be shoved out – overseas – maybe it is already.
So who needs the subsidy?
Locally there is an issue about putting one of the ethanol refineries near a small town. The citizens are up in arms that such an operation could begin to eat up their precious water supply among other things.
Do the folks who want to build the plant need a subsidy? I undertstand a little about economic development and enticing businesses. I also understand that government often has to build the infrastructure on which these businesses ride.
But the government is not a bank or a loan company (you could debate this point on several levels). If I want to start up a chocolate business – I can’t expect the government to give me a chunk of money and to start encouraging people to eat chocolate. I’ll get enough tax breaks and incentives just the way the tax code is written now to write off lots of things against my potential profits.
Other issues at stake? Did I mention groundwater? I can’t quote figures but the ethanol plants require lots and lots of water to convert the corn into cellulose and then into what ever it is that ends up being ethanol.
For a nice short summary of why ethanol may not be the thing that solves our energy problems – read George Will in Newsweek (Feb. 11, 2008 Bio-Fuel Follies)
Anybody remember the dust bowl? I am way over-simplifying but part of the problem as I recall was so much crop land had been tilled and tilled and then a few dry years come along and all the top soil blows away. I am not a farmer of row crops but I know that corn is hard on the soil. It uses up nutrients and wears it out so you just can’t keep planting corn year after year without giving the land a rest.
I am a farmer or raiser of sheep so I can relate to the rising cost of feed. Just a few weeks ago I went to buy more and the price per 100 pounds had gone up more than $1 in just one month. I know part of this is the price of oil but it is also pegged to the price of corn and all the other commodities that go into feed.
As with so many things, when you push down in one place (subsidies for ethanol) things will simply pop up somewhere else (rising grain prices – erosion – lowering the water table etc.)
I think it is unfair for the State Govt. to start endorsing through a subsidy a business that has not been proven environmentally safe, absolutely necessary and may in and of itself just be a plain old bad idea.
I won’t belabor that lost cause now – just follow what is happening in cities across the country where AT&T is moving in. Technical problems. A lesser-quality-signal than cable. Slight – but noticeable delays in switching channels and of course what is near and dear – PEG. This once bastion of local programming has been (or will be) relegated to a sort of hybrid channel that forces viewers to first select a channel then make another selection once there to pick the particular channel they wish to watch. They say on the internet if you ask people to make too many clicks, they won’t get to your site. I think the same thing will happen here. People just wont bother.
And one thing we haven’t seen yet in Springfield are the huge boxes AT&T has to put up everywhere to make this work. Because the legislature effectively took away some local authority, these enormous boxes can be put wherever AT&T thinks they need them – just hope one doesn’t end up in your front yard.
But my point is not cable or lack of it but rather that it appears our elected officials may once again be entering an area where they don’t know enough – full disclosure - NEITHER DO I!
I read a blurb yesterday that they may be considering some sort of State legislation related to ethanol and subsidies.
I don’t know enough about ethanol but have read that if we somehow could convert all our corn production and even perhaps additional available land for more corn, and somehow build the multi-million-dollar processing plants and somehow find enough groundwater to support the processing operation – at best we might reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 2.5 %. That’s TWO POINT FIVE PERCENT!
Let’s look at subsidies.
Big oil will no doubt be involved. Do they need any sort of subsidy?
Large agricultural corporations like ADM and Cargill will want in on the action. Do they need a financial boost?
Local farmers who grow corn have seen their prices rise dramatically – partly based on supply and demand and partly on speculation. So they are getting more for their crop than before. But they are getting some sort of windfall since their prices for fuel and fertilizer and other operating costs have gone up. I just read about a Mississippi family who switched from cotton to corn for more profits. That is their choice but if we structure our system to encourage much more of this – one more industry will be shoved out – overseas – maybe it is already.
So who needs the subsidy?
Locally there is an issue about putting one of the ethanol refineries near a small town. The citizens are up in arms that such an operation could begin to eat up their precious water supply among other things.
Do the folks who want to build the plant need a subsidy? I undertstand a little about economic development and enticing businesses. I also understand that government often has to build the infrastructure on which these businesses ride.
But the government is not a bank or a loan company (you could debate this point on several levels). If I want to start up a chocolate business – I can’t expect the government to give me a chunk of money and to start encouraging people to eat chocolate. I’ll get enough tax breaks and incentives just the way the tax code is written now to write off lots of things against my potential profits.
Other issues at stake? Did I mention groundwater? I can’t quote figures but the ethanol plants require lots and lots of water to convert the corn into cellulose and then into what ever it is that ends up being ethanol.
For a nice short summary of why ethanol may not be the thing that solves our energy problems – read George Will in Newsweek (Feb. 11, 2008 Bio-Fuel Follies)
Anybody remember the dust bowl? I am way over-simplifying but part of the problem as I recall was so much crop land had been tilled and tilled and then a few dry years come along and all the top soil blows away. I am not a farmer of row crops but I know that corn is hard on the soil. It uses up nutrients and wears it out so you just can’t keep planting corn year after year without giving the land a rest.
I am a farmer or raiser of sheep so I can relate to the rising cost of feed. Just a few weeks ago I went to buy more and the price per 100 pounds had gone up more than $1 in just one month. I know part of this is the price of oil but it is also pegged to the price of corn and all the other commodities that go into feed.
As with so many things, when you push down in one place (subsidies for ethanol) things will simply pop up somewhere else (rising grain prices – erosion – lowering the water table etc.)
I think it is unfair for the State Govt. to start endorsing through a subsidy a business that has not been proven environmentally safe, absolutely necessary and may in and of itself just be a plain old bad idea.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Super Tuesday
Two observations:
When I arrived at my little dinky town’s community center to vote I was asked “Democrat or Republican?”
Two questions come to mind:
1 – This doesn’t make my secret ballot very secret does it? No offense to the four nice ladies who sat behind the table but if one of them wanted to spread the word that “hey, that guy voted Republican,” they could.
2 - I was not tempted nor do I care but what about the Libertarians? I was not asked if I wanted to vote for them.
This from the Waynesville Daily Guide on Tuesday:
“In Missouri, voters also have a third choice. While there’s no party registration in Missouri, voters must pick a Republican, Democratic or Libertarian Party ballot.”
Maybe they just forgot to ask me. Or maybe they remembered I voted Republican last time. (See item#1)
When I arrived at my little dinky town’s community center to vote I was asked “Democrat or Republican?”
Two questions come to mind:
1 – This doesn’t make my secret ballot very secret does it? No offense to the four nice ladies who sat behind the table but if one of them wanted to spread the word that “hey, that guy voted Republican,” they could.
2 - I was not tempted nor do I care but what about the Libertarians? I was not asked if I wanted to vote for them.
This from the Waynesville Daily Guide on Tuesday:
“In Missouri, voters also have a third choice. While there’s no party registration in Missouri, voters must pick a Republican, Democratic or Libertarian Party ballot.”
Maybe they just forgot to ask me. Or maybe they remembered I voted Republican last time. (See item#1)
Internet Sales Tax
I still don’t understand why the “moratorium” on collecting sales taxes on things sold over the internet is still mostly in place.
I’m sure this was someone’s bright idea back when the internet was fledgling and somehow asking people to pay the normal 5 – 6 – 7 % sales tax on something they bought out-of-state would cripple this nascent industry.
If Microsoft can offer up $50 billion or whatever incomprehensible amount of money for Yahoo – the internet is doing just fine thank you.
And in the meantime states and cities have lost out on untold millions or even billions in sale tax revenues that could be helping with infrastructure and other things that cost money.
With my limited knowledge of economics I think all that would happen is that some states that don’t have a sales tax might see more internet shoppers and business come there way.
But while I enjoy not having to pay sales tax on some of my internet purchases, it wouldn’t keep me away. I don’t stop going to WalMart because of my local sales tax.
Politicians seem to think this is some sort of good thing but I think it is shortsighted.
We already have to pay tax on some internet purchases – for instance if I buy on-line from Target I have to pay because they have a physical location in Missouri even though my merch may come from who knows where.
I don’t think this would slow down our economy one bit and I don’t think the internet would even hiccup.
I’m sure this was someone’s bright idea back when the internet was fledgling and somehow asking people to pay the normal 5 – 6 – 7 % sales tax on something they bought out-of-state would cripple this nascent industry.
If Microsoft can offer up $50 billion or whatever incomprehensible amount of money for Yahoo – the internet is doing just fine thank you.
And in the meantime states and cities have lost out on untold millions or even billions in sale tax revenues that could be helping with infrastructure and other things that cost money.
With my limited knowledge of economics I think all that would happen is that some states that don’t have a sales tax might see more internet shoppers and business come there way.
But while I enjoy not having to pay sales tax on some of my internet purchases, it wouldn’t keep me away. I don’t stop going to WalMart because of my local sales tax.
Politicians seem to think this is some sort of good thing but I think it is shortsighted.
We already have to pay tax on some internet purchases – for instance if I buy on-line from Target I have to pay because they have a physical location in Missouri even though my merch may come from who knows where.
I don’t think this would slow down our economy one bit and I don’t think the internet would even hiccup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
