So I am sure most of you have heard about the Trump v. Rosie war of words this past week. It all started when Trump gave Miss USA a second chance after she was seen drinking even though she was underaged. Rosie attacked Trump saying he shouldn't be a moral compass. Then The Donald attacks Rosie back calling her a disaster, disgusting, and a failure among other things. Then Trump goes even further saying he could send some of his friends to lure Rosie's girlfriend/partner away from her...it was ugly and yet so beautiful as Trump is Trump.
But even more than the whole Rosie feud, why I love The Donald is how he handled the whole Miss USA drinking ordeal. He floats the idea that he is going to get rid of her or as the media constantly reported, by telling her "You're fired." But then he lets her stay (as long as she goes to rehab) because Donald believes in second chances. It was brilliant. He got a ton of publicity (not only for his name and show, which is coming back on the air in January, but also for the Miss USA/Universe pageant, which no one knows about) and he looks like a good guy at the end. Plus he gets to beat the shit out of Rosie...not a bad week for Trump.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Tony Snow on Iraq
From CNN's PM Political Ticker on 12/18:
"Snow also downplayed Powell's description of the situation as a "civil war," a label that the administration has rejected.
"What he talks about is the most serious phase began earlier this year, with the blowing up of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, that turned into sect-on-sect violence, communitarian violence, which is what I think is generated into what some of us are calling, anyway, a civil war," Snow said. "That's what he's calling; we call it a situation of alarming sectarian violence."
"A situation of alarming sectarian violence"??? Thanks Tony...of course it is not a civil war, only a situation of alarming sectarian violence. Duh. What planet is the White House on?
"Snow also downplayed Powell's description of the situation as a "civil war," a label that the administration has rejected.
"What he talks about is the most serious phase began earlier this year, with the blowing up of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, that turned into sect-on-sect violence, communitarian violence, which is what I think is generated into what some of us are calling, anyway, a civil war," Snow said. "That's what he's calling; we call it a situation of alarming sectarian violence."
"A situation of alarming sectarian violence"??? Thanks Tony...of course it is not a civil war, only a situation of alarming sectarian violence. Duh. What planet is the White House on?
Why I love The Economist
Read this article from December 7th issue of The Economist. It basically says that organic, locally produced, and fair trade food products are a bunch of crap. Oh yes, all of those who insist on shopping at Whole Foods or Wild Oats, you will not like this. But oh well, I think they have a point. My favorite line from the article is "Buy organic, destroy the rainforest." You may disagree, but at least read the article.
Good food?
If you think you can make the planet better by clever shopping, think again. You might make it worse
Good food?
Dec 7th 2006
From The Economist print edition
From The Economist print edition
If you think you can make the planet better by clever shopping, think again. You might make it worse
 | |
“You don't have to wait for government to move... the really fantastic thing about Fairtrade is that you can go shopping!” So said a representative of the Fairtrade movement in a British newspaper this year. Similarly Marion Nestle, a nutritionist at New York University, argues that “when you choose organics, you are voting for a planet with fewer pesticides, richer soil and cleaner water supplies.”
The idea that shopping is the new politics is certainly seductive. Never mind the ballot box: vote with your supermarket trolley instead. Elections occur relatively rarely, but you probably go shopping several times a month, providing yourself with lots of opportunities to express your opinions. If you are worried about the environment, you might buy organic food; if you want to help poor farmers, you can do your bit by buying Fairtrade products; or you can express a dislike of evil multinational companies and rampant globalisation by buying only local produce. And the best bit is that shopping, unlike voting, is fun; so you can do good and enjoy yourself at the same time.
Sadly, it's not that easy. There are good reasons to doubt the claims made about three of the most popular varieties of “ethical” food: organic food, Fairtrade food and local food (see article). People who want to make the world a better place cannot do so by shifting their shopping habits: transforming the planet requires duller disciplines, like politics.
Organic food, which is grown without man-made pesticides and fertilisers, is generally assumed to be more environmentally friendly than conventional intensive farming, which is heavily reliant on chemical inputs. But it all depends what you mean by “environmentally friendly”. Farming is inherently bad for the environment: since humans took it up around 11,000 years ago, the result has been deforestation on a massive scale. But following the “green revolution” of the 1960s greater use of chemical fertiliser has tripled grain yields with very little increase in the area of land under cultivation. Organic methods, which rely on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertiliser, are far less intensive. So producing the world's current agricultural output organically would require several times as much land as is currently cultivated. There wouldn't be much room left for the rainforest.
Fairtrade food is designed to raise poor farmers' incomes. It is sold at a higher price than ordinary food, with a subsidy passed back to the farmer. But prices of agricultural commodities are low because of overproduction. By propping up the price, the Fairtrade system encourages farmers to produce more of these commodities rather than diversifying into other crops and so depresses prices—thus achieving, for most farmers, exactly the opposite of what the initiative is intended to do. And since only a small fraction of the mark-up on Fairtrade foods actually goes to the farmer—most goes to the retailer—the system gives rich consumers an inflated impression of their largesse and makes alleviating poverty seem too easy.
Surely the case for local food, produced as close as possible to the consumer in order to minimise “food miles” and, by extension, carbon emissions, is clear? Surprisingly, it is not. A study of Britain's food system found that nearly half of food-vehicle miles (ie, miles travelled by vehicles carrying food) were driven by cars going to and from the shops. Most people live closer to a supermarket than a farmer's market, so more local food could mean more food-vehicle miles. Moving food around in big, carefully packed lorries, as supermarkets do, may in fact be the most efficient way to transport the stuff.
What's more, once the energy used in production as well as transport is taken into account, local food may turn out to be even less green. Producing lamb in New Zealand and shipping it to Britain uses less energy than producing British lamb, because farming in New Zealand is less energy-intensive. And the local-food movement's aims, of course, contradict those of the Fairtrade movement, by discouraging rich-country consumers from buying poor-country produce. But since the local-food movement looks suspiciously like old-fashioned protectionism masquerading as concern for the environment, helping poor countries is presumably not the point.
The aims of much of the ethical-food movement—to protect the environment, to encourage development and to redress the distortions in global trade—are admirable. The problems lie in the means, not the ends. No amount of Fairtrade coffee will eliminate poverty, and all the organic asparagus in the world will not save the planet. Some of the stuff sold under an ethical label may even leave the world in a worse state and its poor farmers poorer than they otherwise would be.
So what should the ethically minded consumer do? Things that are less fun than shopping, alas. Real change will require action by governments, in the form of a global carbon tax; reform of the world trade system; and the abolition of agricultural tariffs and subsidies, notably Europe's monstrous common agricultural policy, which coddles rich farmers and prices those in the poor world out of the European market. Proper free trade would be by far the best way to help poor farmers. Taxing carbon would price the cost of emissions into the price of goods, and retailers would then have an incentive to source locally if it saved energy. But these changes will come about only through difficult, international, political deals that the world's governments have so far failed to do.
The best thing about the spread of the ethical-food movement is that it offers grounds for hope. It sends a signal that there is an enormous appetite for change and widespread frustration that governments are not doing enough to preserve the environment, reform world trade or encourage development. Which suggests that, if politicians put these options on the political menu, people might support them. The idea of changing the world by voting with your trolley may be beguiling. But if consumers really want to make a difference, it is at the ballot box that they need to vote.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Wheel Column: Bye Bye, Baghdad
I was a strong supporter of the War in Iraq even before our troops hit the ground. Even as its popularity has diminished to Vietnamesque levels, I stood by the war and the President's decision to keep our troops in Iraq. I thought Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Penn.) was mistaken when he called for the withdrawal of American troops earlier this year. After all, there is no debate that it is our troops who are holding Iraq together and propping up its fledgling government. Once American forces leave, Iraq will undoubtedly erupt in a full-scale civil war that not even President Bush could play off as "sectarian violence."
But the reality is, Iraq is getting worse, not better. Our troops are not fixing the problem. American men and women are dying everyday. Thousands of Americans are coming home from Iraq maimed or seriously wounded. The U.S. military is at its weakest point in decades, and many critics are doubting its ability to respond to a crisis should one erupt with Iran or North Korea. To make matters worse, if we fail, the vacuum left in the wake of the collapsed Iraqi state will become a virtual playground for terrorists, a safe haven where they can train, recruit and plot their attacks. With all that in mind, the following decision was not easy.
The United States needs to leave Iraq. After years of supporting the war, I have changed my mind because we are not accomplishing anything in Iraq other than damaging our military and putting the lives of American soldiers at risk. Our military is designed to win a war, not to maintain peace where peace seems impossible. We have no place fighting in an Iraqi civil war. Many of the top US generals disagree, saying that we need to stay in Iraq because the Iraqi military forces are making progress. What progress? As Peter Galbraith wrote in Time, "Iraqi security forces, the centerpiece of the U.S.'s efforts for stability, are ineffective or, even worse, combatants in the country's escalating civil war."
With all due respect to the generals, they have done a poor job creating an effective military plan for the United States in Iraq. Brave American soldiers have been fighting in a hostile land for three years; one would hope our top military leaders could have created a winning game plan by now. But now it's too late. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a supporter of the war, recently wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post, "There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis - not the Americans."
If what Hagel says is correct, then Iraqis need to step up and make the tough decisions for the future of the country, decisions that so far they have refused to make. The Iraqi government, if you can even call it that, has refused to disarm the sectarian militias that wreck havoc on a daily basis. As long as these militias remain an extra-governmental force, the prospects for a stable Iraq are slim.
There is no doubt things will get worse as Americans start to leave. Iran will exert more influence in Iraq. Since Iraq and Iran are both majority Shi'a Muslim countries it only makes sense for them to be close allies. The only reason they were enemies under Saddam was that as a Sunni, Saddam suppressed the Shi'a. The Shi'a are showing their power in the new Iraqi parliament. We might not like it, but this is democracy at work.
The war has been mismanaged by the Bush administration since day one. It did not have to turn out this way. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's poor planning and ill-conceived notions of the situation in Iraq under Saddam have led the U.S. into this quagmire. Now we have the chance to cut our losses and focus on other problems in the world. Let's hope the president will make the right decision and start bringing the U.S. troops home.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This ran in the Emory Wheel on 12/12/06.
But the reality is, Iraq is getting worse, not better. Our troops are not fixing the problem. American men and women are dying everyday. Thousands of Americans are coming home from Iraq maimed or seriously wounded. The U.S. military is at its weakest point in decades, and many critics are doubting its ability to respond to a crisis should one erupt with Iran or North Korea. To make matters worse, if we fail, the vacuum left in the wake of the collapsed Iraqi state will become a virtual playground for terrorists, a safe haven where they can train, recruit and plot their attacks. With all that in mind, the following decision was not easy.
The United States needs to leave Iraq. After years of supporting the war, I have changed my mind because we are not accomplishing anything in Iraq other than damaging our military and putting the lives of American soldiers at risk. Our military is designed to win a war, not to maintain peace where peace seems impossible. We have no place fighting in an Iraqi civil war. Many of the top US generals disagree, saying that we need to stay in Iraq because the Iraqi military forces are making progress. What progress? As Peter Galbraith wrote in Time, "Iraqi security forces, the centerpiece of the U.S.'s efforts for stability, are ineffective or, even worse, combatants in the country's escalating civil war."
With all due respect to the generals, they have done a poor job creating an effective military plan for the United States in Iraq. Brave American soldiers have been fighting in a hostile land for three years; one would hope our top military leaders could have created a winning game plan by now. But now it's too late. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a supporter of the war, recently wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post, "There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis - not the Americans."
If what Hagel says is correct, then Iraqis need to step up and make the tough decisions for the future of the country, decisions that so far they have refused to make. The Iraqi government, if you can even call it that, has refused to disarm the sectarian militias that wreck havoc on a daily basis. As long as these militias remain an extra-governmental force, the prospects for a stable Iraq are slim.
There is no doubt things will get worse as Americans start to leave. Iran will exert more influence in Iraq. Since Iraq and Iran are both majority Shi'a Muslim countries it only makes sense for them to be close allies. The only reason they were enemies under Saddam was that as a Sunni, Saddam suppressed the Shi'a. The Shi'a are showing their power in the new Iraqi parliament. We might not like it, but this is democracy at work.
The war has been mismanaged by the Bush administration since day one. It did not have to turn out this way. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's poor planning and ill-conceived notions of the situation in Iraq under Saddam have led the U.S. into this quagmire. Now we have the chance to cut our losses and focus on other problems in the world. Let's hope the president will make the right decision and start bringing the U.S. troops home.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This ran in the Emory Wheel on 12/12/06.
Congress vs. Car Salesmen
From today's USA Today...
Only 15% of 1,009 adults in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday gave U.S. senators high or very high
marks for honesty and ethical standards. Only 14% did so for U.S. representatives,"
Scoring lower than members of Congress in the poll: Insurance salesmen (13%), HMO Managers (12%), Advertising
practitioners (11%), and Car salesmen (7%).
Wow...good work Congress. The public thinks of you twice as good as sleazy car salesmen. Finally, an accomplishment for the Do Nothing Congress. Nothing like ethics and integrity. Maybe Congress missed that day of school.
Only 15% of 1,009 adults in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday gave U.S. senators high or very high
marks for honesty and ethical standards. Only 14% did so for U.S. representatives,"
Scoring lower than members of Congress in the poll: Insurance salesmen (13%), HMO Managers (12%), Advertising
practitioners (11%), and Car salesmen (7%).
Wow...good work Congress. The public thinks of you twice as good as sleazy car salesmen. Finally, an accomplishment for the Do Nothing Congress. Nothing like ethics and integrity. Maybe Congress missed that day of school.
Lindsay Lohan: Go away...I don't care
So I woke up this morning to see a CNN.com headline "Lohan: I haven't had a drink in a week." Wow. Way to go. A whole week. I couldn't care less about Lohan, her party girl lifestyle, or that she managed to stay away from booze for a whole week. Big deal. This is not news. Let the National Enquirer cover it, not CNN. As for Lohan, sorry, I could care less.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Wheel Column: Iraq's Civil War, By Any Other Name
On Monday morning, America woke up to Matt Lauer announcing on "The Today Show" that NBC would now start referring to the situation in Iraq as a civil war. NBC News is the first major television news organization to start calling Iraq a civil war and joins the Los Angeles Times as the only two prominent media outlets using the terminology.
This decision has set off a flurry of debate over the situation in Iraq and just what people should call the war. Is Iraq truly engaged in a civil war, as NBC now claims, or is the country just suffering from what President Bush deems "sectarian reprisals"?
NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams wrote on his blog that the decision came after "much consultation over the weekend with our colleagues, fellow journalists, historians, analysts and members of the military, both present and former." NBC News Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss defended the decision, saying, "If you define a civil war as a country where a lot of groups are struggling for power, and that's primarily the struggle, Iraq is in a civil war." Even U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has admitted that Iraq is close to civil war.
But some personalities affiliated with NBC are blasting the decision. Radio host Don Imus, whose popular show, "Imus in the Morning," gets television airplay on the NBC-owned cable news network MSNBC, said, "Do these nitwits at NBC News think this is going to have the impact of when Walter Cronkite came back in Vietnam and said we can't win, and Lyndon Johnson famously said 'Well if we've lost Walter Cronkite, we've lost the country'?"
Is the nomenclature of civil war even important, or is it merely a debate over semantics? The situation in Iraq will remain bleak no matter what the news outlets are calling it. The dangers faced by American soldiers and Iraqi security personnel won't be alleviated by the name change. The death toll of Iraqi civilians won't spike or dip because of what term Brian Williams uses to describe the violence in Iraq.
Yet the decision is still important because of the effect it could have on public opinion. Other news organizations could face pressure from their audiences to follow NBC's lead. If the media starts referring to Iraq as a civil war, it will likely further undermine support for an already unpopular war.
On Thursday, President George W. Bush reiterated that Iraq is not in a civil war and that American troops will not leave until the country is secure. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley agreed with his boss, saying, "The Iraqis don't talk of it as a civil war. The unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war."
Fantastic. "The unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war." This is the same unity government that holds next to no power in its own country and manages to survive only by the grace of U.S. military protection. The same unity government that can't stop hundreds of Iraqis from being killed each week by sectarian fighting. The same unity government that is powerless to prevent innocent Iraqis from torture or death simply because they are Shi'a or Sunni. We're supposed to care about what this unity government thinks?
Iraq is in a civil war. Whether NBC's decision will be equivalent to Cronkite saying the United States could not win in Vietnam is uncertain. But Lauer, Williams and the rest of NBC's news executives are right. When religious groups in the same country are openly fighting in the streets, killing people simply because they are different, to call it anything but a civil war would be a denial of the truth.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This ran on 12/1/06.
This decision has set off a flurry of debate over the situation in Iraq and just what people should call the war. Is Iraq truly engaged in a civil war, as NBC now claims, or is the country just suffering from what President Bush deems "sectarian reprisals"?
NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams wrote on his blog that the decision came after "much consultation over the weekend with our colleagues, fellow journalists, historians, analysts and members of the military, both present and former." NBC News Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss defended the decision, saying, "If you define a civil war as a country where a lot of groups are struggling for power, and that's primarily the struggle, Iraq is in a civil war." Even U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has admitted that Iraq is close to civil war.
But some personalities affiliated with NBC are blasting the decision. Radio host Don Imus, whose popular show, "Imus in the Morning," gets television airplay on the NBC-owned cable news network MSNBC, said, "Do these nitwits at NBC News think this is going to have the impact of when Walter Cronkite came back in Vietnam and said we can't win, and Lyndon Johnson famously said 'Well if we've lost Walter Cronkite, we've lost the country'?"
Is the nomenclature of civil war even important, or is it merely a debate over semantics? The situation in Iraq will remain bleak no matter what the news outlets are calling it. The dangers faced by American soldiers and Iraqi security personnel won't be alleviated by the name change. The death toll of Iraqi civilians won't spike or dip because of what term Brian Williams uses to describe the violence in Iraq.
Yet the decision is still important because of the effect it could have on public opinion. Other news organizations could face pressure from their audiences to follow NBC's lead. If the media starts referring to Iraq as a civil war, it will likely further undermine support for an already unpopular war.
On Thursday, President George W. Bush reiterated that Iraq is not in a civil war and that American troops will not leave until the country is secure. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley agreed with his boss, saying, "The Iraqis don't talk of it as a civil war. The unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war."
Fantastic. "The unity government doesn't talk of it as a civil war." This is the same unity government that holds next to no power in its own country and manages to survive only by the grace of U.S. military protection. The same unity government that can't stop hundreds of Iraqis from being killed each week by sectarian fighting. The same unity government that is powerless to prevent innocent Iraqis from torture or death simply because they are Shi'a or Sunni. We're supposed to care about what this unity government thinks?
Iraq is in a civil war. Whether NBC's decision will be equivalent to Cronkite saying the United States could not win in Vietnam is uncertain. But Lauer, Williams and the rest of NBC's news executives are right. When religious groups in the same country are openly fighting in the streets, killing people simply because they are different, to call it anything but a civil war would be a denial of the truth.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This ran on 12/1/06.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)