Here's to me working on my New Year's resolution!

I resolved to blog again. So here I am.

I had a spare moment to kill. I'm going to be spending the next few days recovering from getting three teeth removed. I'm hopped up on Percocet, swollen, and bleeding.

Funny thing painkillers do to a person's psyche. I never remember my dreams- I haven't for a couple years now. But I remember mine from last night- the night I went to bed after popping two of those round little white pills. It was a strange dream. It took place in some strange Baltimore/Ashbury Park boardwalk hybrid and starred me, my first brother Daniel, my high school crush, her family (who suspiciously looked like my uncle's family), my roommate Jim, and a talking Jack Russell terrier. This dream just reinforces my feeling about painkillers in general: they scare the crap out of me- they fuck you up.

It's too bad because prescription drugs, like the Percocet I've been prescribed, are now the most commonly used drugs in high school, surpassing even pot. And teachers wonder why high school kids are getting more and more fucked up.

Is that you God?
Greg

A note about global warming

According to a general, non-scientific, poll on weather.com, 38.7% of those polled are "not convinced that [global warming] is true."

On a related note, 38.7% of those who participated in the weather.com poll have spent the last 10 years of their live mimicking ostriches and sticking their heads in the ground.

I understand if you don't think global warming isn't a particularly alarming issue (although I personally think it's pretty alarming), but to outright deny that it's occurring is ridiculous. I've stated my opinions about global warming before here.

Oh well, there's no cure for fools.

Frustrated with humanity,
Greg

A rant about energy

Quick tidbit about oil prices from, of all people, Eddie Vedder. Vedder mentioned at Bonnaroo during Pearl Jam's set that the average price of gas in the US when President Bush first took office was $1.46 a gallon. The other day, I was paying $4.22 a gallon.

Another little note: a year ago, a friend of mine was doing similar work I'm doing this summer and was canvassing for wind farms off of Long Island. The wind farms were ultimately defeated because they would be 'eyesores' and the cost of the wind farms didn't seem justifiable at the time because energy was affordable. The cost of oil was $70 a barrel. A year later, the cost of oil is about $140 per barrel and still climbing. The cost of an offshore wind farm doesn't seem to be too bad now doesn't it?

What I'm saying is that even if you don't agree with environmentalists, they're right about one thing: As far as energy sources go, the United States (and the rest of the world for that matter) needs to find alternative sources quick. This summer seems to be proving that the peak oil hypothesis is true. Drilling in Alaska and the Dakotas might be a quick fix, but ultimately, the truth is that oil is a limited resource. Some alternatives that seem feasible? Bio matter fuel from quickly-reproducing algae (screw corn- it exacerbates the world food crisis [by the way, subsidies for farmers in this country is a joke, but that's for another rant at another time]), solar energy, nuclear energy (stop it, it's much safer than oil- anyone who took and paid attention in high school chemistry would know that), salt water (read this- I really hope this is not a hoax like cold fusion was), and wind energy all seem reasonable enough.

Unfortunately (like I've said many times before in this blog) people generally hate change and thus do not have the abilities of foresight and prognosis. It's only when things are too late do people decide action is needed. Even then, it's not even unanimous. The ultimate downfall of humanity will be due to hubris, lack of foresight and laziness- mark my word.

Cynically,
Greg

Post no. 100: Impeachment

We've seen that word (impeachment) thrown around the last couple of years in reference to the current presidential administration. Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles (although I can't find a copy of the 35 articles anywhere online) why President Bush should be ex-President Bush sooner than the date of the inauguration of the winner in November; yes, we're talking impeachment.

Now, just because Kucinich is talking to the House about this doesn't mean anything will come of it. The last few times it was tried, the motion was killed in the House, even after the Dems won the majority in 2006.

If this was still 2006, I would have been all for impeachment. I mean deliberate public misinformation, authorization of a military campaign on legally shady grounds, possible nepotism, deliberate leaks of information that endangered the lives of American agents, and general corruption all seem like more legitimate failures to the American people than prejury about a blow job. Hell, that was enough for impeachment proceedings for this guy. Honestly, all those reasons still ring true today- President Bush deserves the disgrace of impeachment.

However, let me play political analyst with a Democratic bias. Simply put, this impeachment is a terrible idea at the moment.

Why? Well, the first thing I'll care to point out is this: it's a presidential election year. I have a lingering feeling that the proponents of Bush's impeachment will be mostly Democrats in government. Naturally, Republicans will be pit against the Democrats- despite whatever rumblings of disillusionment within the Republican party concerning President Bush.

Concerning this, there are two things that could occur that would be highly undesirable for Democrats. The first is that the impeachment proceedings may act as a nucleus for Republican rejuvenation. We've all heard rumblings about fragmentation and dissent within in the party, why provide a event that may help consolidate the Republicans? I could draw a parallel between Americans and patriotism before and after 9/11. Before, being overtly patriotic wasn't the norm. Afterwards, draping the front of your house with flags became the norm. 9/11 was the nucleus for patriotic rejuvenation in this country- these impeachment proceedings can act the same for the Republicans, albeit on a smaller scale.

The second thing relates to it being an election year. The Democrats are pushing for control of the executive now that is control of the legislature. Remember the long grueling democratic primaries that just ended? Remember the bitter feelings from some Hillary supporters? It's safe for me to make the claim that Clinton supporters are more likely to vote Republican than Obama supporters, especially since Obama won the nomination. Okay, now follow this line of reasoning: now John McCain is trying to court these angry Clinton supporters. Here comes the Democrats, who are now aligned with Obama, to 'upset the order of things' and impeach President Bush during a time of war. That doesn't look good- that doesn't look good at all. I sure as hell do not read the situation like this, but I'm sure there are a number of borderline voters who will read it like this. The message in the end is this: the Democrats' way of working is to completely upset what is in place. Change doesn't appeal to these people- most people abhor and are frightened by change.

Imeachment is a great idea, it's just that now it's bad timing. As I already alluded to, it may be too litte too late. Remember, it's June of 2008. We only have 6 months or so left to bear with the Bush administration- is it worth the potential political cost to impeach the man?

Plus, say impeachment proceedings work out rather quickly and President Bush is ex-President Bush in a month (read: this is incredibly unlikely). Who's in control afterwards? Ol' Birdshot Dick. Dick Cheney, some may argue, has been the most influential vice president in American history and might even be worse for the American people if he were president- even if it's only the remaining 5 months. What I'm saying is, the Bush administration will still be in place even if Bush himself is not.

Hey, I would love it if President Bush, on top of being one of the most unpopular and disastrous foreign policy presidents in American history, would go down in history for how miserable he is/was by being kicked out of office. But, the potential political costs the Democrats may face is not worth it- especially in the election year. The number one priority for Democrats is to win the presidency while maintaining control in the legislature- let the history books do the disgracing (they've already began).

Dripping with inner conflict,
Greg

Oh, I love good racial humor

Yep, I do. Does that make me a racist? I don't think so.

Lets think about this for a second: what's humor in the first place, what makes something funny? To me the funniest things are usually commentary on blatantly obvious facts or truths, a pleasant deviation from the expected, or just the plain absurd. What's racial humor? It's humor based around the norms and association of race. Sometimes, racial humor manages to do all three things I listed above. Now lets watch this little video I came across.

See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

Commentary? On the perceived and existing stereotypes typically associated with black American males.

Deviation from the expected? Once the stereotype is established, the black men end up going to a farmer's market to spend their day.

Absurdity? The mere fact that black males decide to "just go out and be black guys."

That's all three bases covered. I laughed. Does that make me a racist? I don't think so.

Here's how I feel about racial humor: it's all about context. If I make a joke with the intent to humiliate someone, that's a racist act. If I make a joke to do one of the three things I mentioned above, it's just a joke. What if I offend inadvertently? Well that's a risk I have to take for the sake of humor. In the end, it's best to use what you believe is common sense. I believe most people have that.

Racial humor done right is one way to acknowledge racial differences in a non ignorant manner. Issues involving race in this country (mostly racism, discrimination and stereotyping) is a matter of ignorance. Humor is rarely to be taken seriously. Racial humor is a safe way to educate and discussion issues of race since it's not meant to be inflammatory. You see what that video above did right there? It pretty much showed that even black people realize that there's a perception of what a "black guy" does and the correlation between actual blacks and the "black guy" image is loose. It educates through humor. That's good racial humor in my opinion.

Not a racist,
Greg

TV, baseball, movies, and life reflections

This is me talking about anything and everything that I haven't mentioned.

First of all, my school kicks ass at lacrosse. We crushed Duke's dreams yet again- that's 3 out of the last 4 years, the one year that we didn't crush Duke's dreams, they were crushed by an ill organized house party and the subsequent allegations of rape. As a result of that one particular event, they've become pariahs that the popular media roots for. Oh well, we put those little bitches in their place. I have no sympathy for them. (My, I am quite the ruthless fan!)

Second is TV in general. I've been doing a lot of watching recently- mostly online ironically enough. The four shows I watch regularly, The Office, House M.D, Scrubs, and The Big Bang Theory, all saw their season finales.

The Office's end was satisfactory and leaves me yearning for more. I hope they have some interesting things planned for season 5 and whatever their spinoff will be.

House's season finale was also great. They kill off a semi-major character that viewers have become accustomed to- they teased it in seasons past, but they actually did it. I was impressed. Those two shows were examples of shows that did positive things despite the writers strike.

Scrubs' "season finale" was a disappointment, especially considering the gaffe in continuity (involving Dr. Kelso- that's all I'll say). They really suffered because this would have been the last seaons if it weren't for the strike. After all the finale was what was supposed to be the 9th episode of the season- the true finale is put off. They have to put it off for one more year- which isn't so bad, but it'll be on a differnt network at a different time- what a bitch.

The Big Bang Theroy's seaons finale was too good- I need to know what happens next. My enthusiasm for that particular show says too much about what I think of myself. Oh well.

Moving on, how about those Yankees? They actually put together a winning streak. Starting pitching hasn't absolutely bombed while the offense is finally living up to the "Bronx Bomber" nickname. I'm glad that Jason Giambi (and his golden thong), Robinson Cano and Alex Rodriguez decided to join us. You know what will make me happy, IPK to continue pitching like he did a couple of nights ago, Phil Hughes to pitch like Phil Huges once he comes back, and Joba being Joba in the starting rotation. Then I'll be a happy Yankee fan.

I haven't said too much about the medium known as cinema in a long time. I just saw the new Indiana Jones movie. What'd I think? Well it's not going to be the best movie I'll see all summer, but it was fun. I think it was so difficult to top the first three, especially with an older Indiana Jones. The Communists are upset about it, but we needed a dastardly enemy to the same effect as the Nazis in Raiders. In a lot of ways, this movie was an homage to Raiders. The enemy uses and pursues the same thing Jones does, Marion is literally back, and the sequencing of the action and plot movement are parallel. Plus, the bad guys both melt at the end. But I will say, aliens are kinda ridiculous. Fun film still, I recommend it with a large tub of popcorn.

I saw Iron Man back when it opened at the Senator theater about a month back- YES GO SEE IT IT'S AWESOME OMG!!1 Robert Downey Jr. as an actor really carried that film considering how limited Iron Man's actual presence in the film was. Plus there was the little cameo in the end (after the credits) that has me excited.

On to life. I don't have much to say about that. Read my haikus, I say plenty in those.

On and about,
Greg

"I didn't vote for Bush- I WASN'T EVEN BORN YET!"

Breaking my hiatus for a brief moment, this was too good not to post.

Here we have two 4 year old democrats debating contemporary politics. Good stuff.



***
Final thought on this current upcoming election: First, let me preface this by saying that political elections in this country are never about the issues- it rarely is and the trend won't change because the issues are inherently "elitist"- they're difficult to understand by the common voter (being an "elitist" isn't a bad thing- it just means being smarter than the normal Joe). Elections are all about who seems like a leader the individual voter will like better. American electoral politics is personality-focused. I'm writing this while keeping so-called "elect-ability" in mind.

This long battle between Hillary Clinton and Barak "Barry" Obama is both good and bad. First it's good because it gives both candidates a reason to build up experience in all 50 states- they'll be familiar with the whole campaigning thing by the time one (maybe both) of them have to face McCain. Second, it's bad because the longer this continues, the more likely each side is alienating the supporters from the other. This is most problematic for the democrats if Barak Obama gets the nomination because more moderate voters tend to be Clinton supporters- they may find McCain more appealing than Obama.

Regarding the issues, I frankly don't care. I don't see enough of a difference between Obama and Clinton to form a solid opinion for one or the other. As far as personality goes, Hilary Clinton's appearance on the Bill O'Reily show confirmed what I thought: Hilary Clinton is a bitch who won't take shit from anyone- that's the kind of leader I want when they're dealing with, oh I don't know, say-Vladimir Putin.

Either way, this is what American democracy is- don't bitch about this, please. Personally I think a Clinton-Obama ticket is unbeatable and most desirable- it consolidates both groups of supporters under the Democratic Party's ticket, it also gives Obama 4 to 8 years to dispel any current "inexperience" claims against him and lets him get his feet wet on the national and international political scene.

I hope you all can see my latent dislike for the mindlessness of national elections in this country (actually, any country that holds elections). Issues are addressed in the legislative branch and the 3 years of "dead space" between presidential elections anyway- this is no time for issues. I guess with a society with a media that feasts on sensationalism it makes sense that elections are as ridiculous as they are anyway.

This turned into a rant- really quickly too.

Quick question: If you were Senators Obama or Clinton, would you accept a Vice Presidential position over your seat in congress, especially considering that within the 4/8 years of the election you would probably be the majority leader? Is VP still the political black hole it used to be? If Dick Cheney taught us anything, the answer is no, isn't it?

Oh well, so much for all that, back to my papers and finals!

With cynical frustration,
Greg

PS - Happy Cinco De Mayo.

Race is being run again

I'm not sure what it is, but race is back in mainstream American discourse. Between Barak Obama being the leading candidate for the Democratic Party, the illegal immigration question, the best collegiate basketball player being white (Tyler Hansborough), to even something as simple and picking ones head up and simply looking around in a class room, a cafeteria, an office, the street- race is back as an issue in American discourse. It's such a coincidence for me personally considering how much race itself has been a pivotal point in so many of my classes (Modern European History, Asian American Politics, American Grand Strategy).

Let me start with what I understand 'race' to be. The word itself is fairly modern in that people didn't talk about 'race' in Ancient Greece. In America, the notion of race has been attached to phenotypical connotations stemming from the days of American slavery. Dark-skinned Africans made up most of the underclass as slaves while light-skinned Europeans made the ruling class of masters creating a notion of racial hierarchy that has persisted today. Although slavery itself was abolished after the American Civil War, the concept of race and racial disparity has been encoded into the American legal and judicial system both intentionally and unintentionally. It wasn't until the civil rights movement in the 1960s that these institutionalized notions of race and hierarchy were addressed for, in many cases, the first time. Mind you this is being very brief but now, we have a man many would identify as 'black' as a legitimate candidate for President.

Race, beyond being associated to notions of class, also has come to represent a key part of peoples' identity. For example, one of the many things shaping my personal identity is as a Korean American living in the United States. Because of this, we get a "chicken or the egg"-like argument where race has been used to create a schema for people in the United States- namely through the use of stereotypes. There are enough harmful and dangerous stereotypes (the black underclass stereotype for one example) as well as many relatively benign ones (white people can't play basketball for example) too.

Alright, now that I've provided a little background of race in the United State as a schema, let me get to what caught my interest.

LZ Granderson, a writer for ESPN, wrote this article aptly titled "White men can't jump?" Now, I'm a huge sports fan because I have primal urges to associate myself to a larger association of people (fans) and that pro sports is every bit a part of American culture as music, cinema, current events, et cetera.

Professional sports for the last 50 years have developed and perpetuated specific racial stereotypes. LZ Granderson takes a look at this type of racial stereotyping that's prevalent throughout pro sports today. Tyler Hansborough and Kevin Love are outstanding collegiate basketball players but enough basketball pundits out there don't really consider them blue chip prospects for the NBA draft on nothing else outside of skin color. This kind of thing is seen in other sports as well, for example football: black quarterback, white wide receiver and white cornerback are all oxymorons to a lot of football fans. I hate to make it sound so academic- at the moment I can't really help it. But I really suggest you go and read this particular article.

Here it is again.

Five years laters....

In a couple days, we will come to mark the fifth year since the United States' invasion of Iraq (March 20). The Iraq "War" has turned out quite differently from from what most Americans expected. Within those 5 years, we've seen a very premature declaration of "mission accomplished," the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, his subsequent flight, capture and execution, the gross mistreatment of prisoners of war in Guantanamo, allegations of torture, a completely deteriorating public opinion of the war, increased instability within Iraq, new evidence that the popular justification of the invasion (Iraqi weapons of mass destruction) were false, perhaps even fabricated (source), deterioration of Iraqi democracy, nearly 4000 confirmed American Military deaths, about 30,000 confirmed non-fatal American casualties (source for both numbers), scores of non-American deaths and casualties, and more than half a trillion dollars spent so far. Quite a laundry list eh?

Let me remind you that the general reasons for invading Iraq were in the first place. Iraq was targeted because it was marked as a threat to conduct a terrorist strike on the United Sates. It was officially a preemptive war on our part- this was the only time a liberal democracy has taken part in a preemptive war (source: G. John Ikenberry). Yea, the United States hasn't been hit by a terrorist attack directly since the start of the "War" in Iraq, but do you realize how domestic society has changed since 9-11 in general? Before 9-11, I probably wouldn't have gotten a background check before applying for a flight school. Now, the government can see what books I've taken out from the library without a warrant (thank you USA PATRIOT act). Society has become fundamentally restructured- the lack of a terrorist attack isn't a result of us getting rid of Saddam Hussein, it's us becoming more paranoid at home. Dick Cheney still swears that invading Iraq has made the US more secure and that Iraq had direct ties to 9-11.

You can probably judge by my tone by now that I really don't like the "War" in Iraq. At the ripe age of 15 (Jesus, I was young back then!) I couldn't understand why we were invading Iraq in the first place. As I understood it, the 9-11 attacks were ideologically driven. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked the United States, not because they 'fundamentally hate our way of life,' because they want to scare us out of our obligations in the Middle East so they can reestablish the old Caliphate. Saddam Husein's Iraq, as I understood it, was a totalitarian dictatorship but a westernized one. Husein actively captured and slaughtered 'Muslim extremists' because he had his own ideological idiosyncrasies with people like Osama Bin Laden- in other words, Husein would have rather killed himself than collaborate with Bin Laden. So you can imagine how surprised I was when I heard we were going to invade Iraq and take down Husein. Why? We didn't even find Osama Bin Laden yet, the man we can directly place the blame of the 9-11 attacks.

There were other reasons given to why Iraq was invaded outside of this possible collusion as well, each one was just as ignorant of reality as the Husein-Bin Laden cooperation angle we were thrown. I already alluded to the claim that the preemptive strike on Iraq was to stop it before it became a real threat to the United States. This claim was on the basis that Husein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. This doesn't make sense on so many levels. First off, UN inspectors didn't find anything before and after the invasion. Second, even if Iraq acquired weapons of mass destruction, how would they threaten the United States itself? At the height of the Cold War, the USSR never had a warhead able to transverse half the globe and strike the United States. The bottom line is that it's a very difficult thing to do- how would a developing dictatorial state acquire military resources that all states outside of one (the United States) did not have?

Don't bother telling me about biological weapons. Ever take a bio lab in high school or college? Yes. Remember how hard and annoying it was to culture bacteria for those labs? It's very hard. Do you suppose culturing smallpox is any easier? No, not at all. How do you suppose you can support smallpox to a potent degree long enough for it to be snuck into the United States? Umm... Can smallpox be engineered to only attack Americans? Oh, that means it'd probably kill Iraqis or other terrorists as well.

The last justification given for the invasion of Iraq is that the United States was bringing democracy to Iraq. Yay neo-conservatism! How's that working out by the way? There are so many things wrong with the notion of literally "bringing democracy" to non-democratic states just on a purely theoretical standpoint. I could literally write a thesis about the theoretical impossibilities itself (I am actually).

So given these, I wondered: why are we really in Iraq? I came up with a few theories, some of which are on the verge of conspiracy theories. Is it for oil? Judging by record oil prices and our seemingly apparent non-control of Iraqi oil fields- no. Was it a personal vendetta by George W. Bush to finish a job that he felt was left unfinished by his father? Along this line and neo-conservative thought I say a strong maybe. Most horrifying of all, was this war fought for the sake of a war; for the sake of having an excuse to control the masses? Was George Orwell's prediction twenty years too premature? Given the USA PATRIOT act and its tag-along legislation, I wouldn't be to surprised if this were the case. It's horrifying to even consider that the case isn't it?

The consequences of this "war" is tremendous. I probably mentioned this before somewhere on this blog. We decided to act unilaterally in this particular endeavor. By doing so, we've turned off many-a-close allies. For the first time in the post WWII era, we've had disputes with ideologically similar states as a result of this "war" (France, Germany and Japan to some extent are a few states in mind). Through our stubborn unilateral action, we've managed to further alienate other great powers we were trying so desperately to incorporate into international lattice of institutions and cooperation(China and Russia are the two that come to mind here). This "war" has essentially reset a lot of the progress made in the post Cold War years achieved by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Russia and China, along with Iran, are a part of the first non-NATO military alliance since the end of the Cold War. This is what realists would call "hard balancing against the hegemonic power." So much for the great new world order and a culture of cooperation.

You know what's the best part of all this? There's no way out- none. We're stuck there. By getting rid of Husein's Iraq, we've left a power vacuum in that region of the world. Yes, Iraq threatened Israel, but it balanced against Iran. Now Iran will have free reign and who knows what can happen in the Middle East. We've taken over the role of literally balancing against Iran now. Unless Iraq miraculously becomes a stable liberal democracy immediately (read: it's not happening), we'll make Iraq into a resource-sucking proxy state to desperately maintain the balance of power in the Middle East (yes folks, we're talking about states and realism can be applied). We have to stay there now. There's the chance that leaving Iraq high and dry like we did Vietnam will result in benign consequences, but there's also the chance that Iraq becomes overrun by our ideological enemies (read: organizations like the Taliban and Al Qaeda) and that, in coordination with other states in the region becomes even more of a threat to US security than it already is. Of course, it's only a problem if the US maintains relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia and consumes oil. Remember, the terrorists want the US out of the Middle East in every sense of that phrase. That's no oil, no trade relations with anyone there- and that's not going to happen with a pull out of Iraq- they'll remain hostile against the US.

Great things folks. This is quite the little mess we have to work out.

Mike McConnell @ JHU

Admiral Mike McConnell was appointed as the Director of National Intelligence this past February. He came to Hopkins today to have a question and answer session. For such a high-profile figure in Government, the event was all it was expected to be. There was the very flat political line-giving typical of talks by those involved in politics, there was sidestepping questions deftly, there was a bleeding heart liberal doing his best to make the government-man eat crow, and there was also bland questions from the student populous.

Some points (paraphrased):

• Despite McConnell's insistence that this particular paraphrased point wasn't the case, he "agrees that water-boarding is justified in some situations and that it's a useful means to gather information." (The quote is the best approximation of Prof. Davis' sum up of McConnell on water-boarding.)
• McConnell wants to overhaul how the Intelligence department recruits college graduates- make it more efficient (take much less time).
• It doesn't matter that the intelligence community never predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union- "all that matters is that we won." (Quote is his.) Intelligence, nor President Regan, had little to do with the Soviet collapse- it was capitalism that should be responsible for the USSR's collapse.
• Iran is not a threat for nuclear weapons because, although it is developing fissionable material for civil purposes, it has abandoned its development of delivery weapons.
  
• The above point was a declassified key judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate- these, the declassified key judgments, will no longer be made in future NIEs.
  
• Al Qaeda's goal is to create a pan-Arabic state and uses terrorism to force Europe and the United States out from the reigons that would comprise this pan-Arab state.

There are a bunch of things he said that I obviously disagree with or beg to differ. The most interesting point to me is the last one I noted. He went on record (the event was being taped by CNN) on saying that Al Qaeda's goal was to force the US and Europe out of a potential pan-Arab state. If this truly is the government stance on Al Qaeda's motive, then there's a really quick fix to the insecurity caused by terrorism on US soil.

If Al Qaeda's trying to force the United States out of the Middle East, why not comply? They have said numerous times that that's what they wanted. They've also said that if we comply, then they'll leave us alone. Why not just leave the Middle East and ignore it like we've ignored Cuba for the last 50 years?

Aren't there problems with just leaving the Middle East high and dry, you ask? Yes, most of it includes how we're going to meet our needs for energy without dealing with the Middle East for oil. But we forget that there are alternative energy sources that are already available. Making the entire country adapt to these new changes (like buying more plug in hybrids, more renewable resources for electricity, taking advantage of ethanol from organic waste, and generally moving completely away from oil) is the hardest part logistically. But with gas prices heading towards 4 bucks a gallon and the cost of oil being at an all time high, wouldn't the cost be a moot point? If the peak oil hypothesis is true (which it seems to be) we're going to have to make these changes either way.

Now truth-be-told, I don't think this is the correct thing to do. As the sole superpower of the world, the United States maintains a measure of unspoken responsibility in regards to international affairs, especially within the Middle East. What I think should happen is another editorial for another day. But just there mere admission of that last point- I don't understand why more people aren't making the argument I've just made.

SCANDAL!

Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York was liked to a prostitution ring yesterday. Now, the GOP is calling for his resignation or impeachment.

It's unfortunate because Spitzer has been such a model for liberalism in domestic politics in his career. He has combated white-collar crime, fraud, stood up for consumers' rights, is for pro-choice in abortion, supports gay marriage- he's the whole package when it comes to modern liberal ideals in domestic politics. All this marred by a sex scandal. Kind of reminds me of another prominent politician- especially if there are impeachment proceedings.

Now I have a question: given the strong reaction against Gov. Spitzer and President Clinton about 10 years ago, where was the public moral outrage against figures like Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Bob Allen (R-Florida) for their solicitation of gay sex with a police officer? Where's the moral uproar against the corruption unearthed by the Jack Abramoff scandal? Where's the outrage over David Ritters' (R-Louisiana) and Randall Tobias' (President Bush's "AIDS Czar") connection to a prostitution ring in Washington DC? Where was the outrage over Mark Foley's (R-Florida) gay pedophilia? Notice something? Those letters and states- more particularly the letters. The GOP is full of hypocrites.

If they do get to impeachment in New York over this thing, I hope it turns out that James Tedisco (New York's Republican Minority Leader) and Peter King (R-NY) were having monthly gay orgies together involving prostitutes and drugs. (Disclaimer: I'm not implying that Representatives Tedisco and King are gay and/or immoral. I'm merely implying that they are incredibly myopic and superficial and do not give two shits about real issues.)

Global warming? Global warming!

Global warming is occurring- it's a fact. The argument was, and always has been, the extent of the human impact on global warming. Everyone is familiar with the An Inconvenient Truth version of the story: the human impact of (among other things) deforestation, emission of greenhouse gases and over-exploitation of natural resources is contributing to accelerating global warming. We, according to this argument, can reverse our input if proactive action is used. The consequences can be as drastic as a change in society as we know it.

The other side of the coin is the argument that global warming is a part of an natural oscillation in mean global temperature that can be seen in ice records- there's nothing humans can do to reverse it and the human impact on this process is negligible.

Most scientists (economists are not scientists!) are on board with the first half of the argument. They generally acknowledge the natural oscillations of mean global temperature but they stress the human impact in accelerating this process. This is the mainstream point of view.

Unfortunately, there are many people who completely reject the first and the popular opinions. One of these is the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman. He's bought into the second opinion (humans have a negligible effect on global warming).

***

Okay, my turn to talk.

Let’s just think for a second. We can think of the costs and the benefits of acting and not acting against global warming- a cost-benefit analysis if you will. We have four possible outcomes of global warming generally speaking, two for the extent of the effects of global warming and two for the measures (the costs) against global warming. It's only worth looking at the best and worst case scenarios for both because everything else will be in-between.

For the effects of global warming, the best case scenario is nothing happens. Global warming was, was hysterical paranoia, nothing happens; the climate remains the same for the next 1000 years. We'll call this "minimal global warming."

The worst case scenario for the effects of global warming ends with the end of society as we know it. Increasing global temperatures lead to the melting of the ice caps, which, in-turn, leads to major flooding- perhaps as far as wiping islands (like Manhattan or Long Island) off the map altogether. These changes in turn affect climate and weather patters around the world, making traditional staple-grain producing plains unsuitable. These interact together killing off billions of people world wide from flooding and hunger leading to a massive crisis and fundamentally changes in how society is structured from then on. We'll call this "maximum global warming."

For measures taken against global warming, the minimum is not changing anything- the status quo. No extra costs for making America more 'green.' Will call this "minimum cost."

The worse case scenario for measures taken against global warming is a complete overhaul in making everything 'green.' Taxes go up, billions of dollars (say 15% of GDP) are redirected towards researching energy resources that do not contribute greenhouse gases (like renewable energy, 'clean' coal and nuclear), funding subsidies to help consumers ease the transitions (perhaps offering a very large tax deduction for installing personal solar panels or something), and provide aide funding and research to developing nations that contribute vast amounts of greenhouse gases (like China and India). We'll call this "maximum cost."

The best case scenario in the end is “minimal global warming” with “minimum cost” – the status quo is maintained at no extra cost to anyone. The absolute worst case scenario is “maximum global warming” with “minimum cost” – here nothing is done as society itself may crumble as we know it.

The other two possible combinations of outcomes are not as undesirable as the absolute worst case scenario. If “maximum global warming” occurred with “maximum cost,” the hope is that minimizing of greenhouse gases and creating a more ‘green’ society assuaged some of the pressures of global warming – some changes would have occurred due to global warming, but the effects wouldn’t have been as bad had nothing been done - society can go on. If “minimal global warming” occurred with “maximum cost,” the only thing is lost money – this is not as bad as society as we know it crumbling.

Alright, so what’s my point? The extent of the true effects of global warming isn’t something anyone has real control over. What we do have control over is the cost against global warming. Both scenarios where there was a measure of cost against global warming were taken resulted in outcomes that weren’t the most undesirable outcomes. Yes, it was a “minimal cost” scenario that produced the best possible outcome, but it also had the worst possible outcome as well. By not even considering the mere possibility of the effects of global warming, you’re turning the entire thing into a coin flip between best and worst case scenarios. Wouldn’t it be better if you were guaranteed a scenario that didn’t end with the possible dissolution of society as we know it? The only part of this thought experiment we can actually control is the cost of taking measures against global warming.

The absolute worst things that will happen is that spending in the US will increase. It won’t be too much different from the Cold War if we end up spending about 15% of the GDP against climate change. The only difference will be that it’s against climate change instead if communism.

Plus at the very least, such spending should end US dependence on fossil fuels- something that needs to be either way. More on that another day…

Ten Best Movies that go well with Coffee

I was bored and I decided to make a top 10 list of something I think I know a little something about. Keep in mind, this is a very limited list due to it's by me- a single person with his own personal biases and limitations (like all those movies I haven't seen- sorry no "Coffee and Cigarettes" in this list).

Without any further adieu, I give you the Ten Best Movies that go well with Coffee.

Generally, I'm going to be choosing a specific type of movie right? I mean, what would go well with a 2-hour long drinking of coffee? A couple of things I think of that are necessary are thought provoking stories, dialogue the way we wish we'd all speak, a defining stylistic ambiance in the film, and other general fodder for conversation- over a cup of joe.

10. "Fight Club" (1999) by Dave Fincher

I had a hard time deciding to put this in here. The theme is thought provoking- an anarchistic rebellion against contemporary consumer culture. There's also that crazy mindfuck of a twist- but I'm not so sure this is such a good thing. The movie is quite intense with the fighting. Will caffeine help you deal with that? I can't say. Well, at least anarchy is still a coffee-cup topic of conversation.

9. "There Will Be Blood" (2007) by PT Anderson

This is all about the dialogue. Daniel Day-Lewis' character is so over-the-top. This film has produced the latest in the long line of cinematic catchphrases. But beyond the dialogue, there's more to be engrossed by. The themes of insanity and Johnny Greenwood's score are things that should put your caffeine buzz to good use.

8. "Withnail and I" (1987) by Bruce Robinson

This is a highly underrated British comedy. Here, it's all about the quick and witty banter between the number of characters we see throughout the film. The best thing about the conversation is that none of it feels contrived (yes, I'm looking right at you Juno). All of it is natural and completely believable coming from the characters. Given a cup of coffee, there'll be enough great lines for you to stew over.

7. "No Country for Old Men" (2007) by the Cohen Brothers

When discussing this movie, make sure your coffee is as dark as you can take it. This movie is so wonderfully dark- it's outlook on life is pessimistic and nihilistic. Doesn't that sound like something hipsters in coffee shops would talk about while flexing their philosophies? Everything about the film only goes to accent this dark and nihilistic outlook- from the soundtrack, the conversation, the acting- everything. Also, it doesn't hurt that it was the best film made last year.

6. "The Lives of Others" (2006) by Florian Henckel von Donnorsmarck

Compared to the previous films, this film has a more positive outlook on things. Themes tackled in this movie contribute to it's agreeable tendencies with coffee. Things like the nature of love, the nature of obedience and duty, the notion between right and wrong, rebelling against a corrupt institution- all such perfect things to discuss over a cup of coffee. The pacing of the film also contrasts nicely with a caffeine buzz- it's very deliberate and gives the viewer enough time to soak the entire scene in.

5. "Amelie" (2001) by Jean Pierre-Jeunet

This is the happiest film on this list. Carefree is the adjective to use here. Between the colors, the soundtrack, the voiceovers, and those little asides that are sprinkled throughout the film, this is quite the charming and carefree film. Of course the big theme of conversation here is love. The Frenchness of this film feeds well into the coffee-shop intellectual culture that spawned from France in the 18th century.

4. "Wild Strawberries" (1957) by Ingmar Bergman

The first Bergman film on this list, this is a very deep introspective film. Dealing with themes like love, loss and nostalgia to tickle the juices in the brain, this film is where it's at. This is one of those films where afterwards, one has the urge to make a new insight into oneself. Considering that's one of the many favorite pasttimes of coffee-drinkers, this film makes the list quite well.

3. "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) by Quentin Tarantino

Want to see an example of great dialogue in a film? This is it. The dialogue is second to none. It's not particularly realistic, but at the same time it's not as contrived as you'd think. Also given the high-strung mood, there's a kind of sick dark humor throughout the film. More than anything else, it's the style of this film that makes it so appealing to coffee. Cheap black suits, thin black ties, and Ray Ban Wayfarer sunglasses- throw that in with some entertaining dialogue and you have something you'll enjoy talking about.

2. "The Seventh Seal" (1957) by Ingmar Bergman

Remember what I said about Bergman's other film? Take that and now throw in the question of "Does God exist?" instead of your boring ol' life. It's existential examination into what the nature of religion, God and salvation is. That's not even mentioning the amazingly classic characters that have been satirized to the point of staleness (like Death). This is one of those films where you always pick up something new about it every time you watch it- it never gets old. The film seems to entice almost a cathartic flow of existential and generally philosophic thought into any viewer's mind. Great to hold over coffee conversations.

1. "Annie Hall" (1977) by Woody Allen

The best film for coffee conversation in my opinion. The film in itself is a coffee conversation by Woody Allen about relationships through his semi-autobiographic character. The little asides throughout the film, literally looking into the memories of Alvy Singer, are captivating. It's funny, the conversation is great, there are memorable characters and lines, unique ways of presenting what's going on (like subtitling what the characters are actually thinking while carrying on a fluffy conversation). The film as a whole has very subtle charms while talking about one of the most vexing human emotions.

And with this list, I enter the ranks of pretentiousness. Thank you. Until next time...

Tis only a flesh wound!

I like Hilary, I really do. But it seems like she's losing momentum- at least according to the media coverage of the elections. She's only trailing by less than 100 delegates at the moment and has more cash-on-hand compared to Obama. I'm really surprised the democratic primaries have been this close- a lot of people are really passionate about one candidate or another. This is both a good and bad thing.

Look, I can live with a President Barak Obama- and I'm sure most of the Obama supporters could live with a President Hilary Clinton as well. We can't forget this. We can't let this enthusiasm polarize voters between whoever the Democratic nominee for president will be. I still feel like the real difference between Obama and Clinton at this point is a preference in personality and charisma between the two candidates. The policy differences between the two candidates are not worth the potential polarization of voters. A John McCain or Mike Huckabee (just give up already!) presidency is something that must be avoided.

Ten Favorite Beatles Song

Here's my 10, what's yours?

10. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" off of Beatles (The White Album)



9. "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" off of Help!



8. "A Day in the Life" off of Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band



7. "Blackbird" off of Beatles (The White Album)



6. "I'm Only Sleeping" off of Revolver



5. "Yesterday" off of Help!



4. "I Saw Her Standing There" off of Please Please Me



3. "Michelle" off of Rubber Soul



2. "Norwegian Wood" off of Rubber Soul



1. "In My Life" off of Rubber Soul



I really like Rubber Soul

A thought now... and reporting back

I had this conversation earlier with a couple of friends of mine.

Where do you see yourself living 2 years down the line?

That question forced me to become introspective for a little bit. In retrospect, life has moved very quickly. I marked two full decades of existence on this planet a few days ago. During those two decades, lots have happened. If I have it my way, I'll stick around for a bunch more decades where a bunch more can happen. It was yesterday I was high school sophomore with a bustling interest in chemistry. Today, I'm a college sophomore contemplating the nuances of the realm of human interaction known as politics. Tomorrow I'll be in the real world, in a real city, trying to make a real difference in my life or others'. It's all come so quickly, and the rest of it will be upon just as quickly.

There's are three cities that I can comfortably call "home" right now.

Will I be living in the hustle and bustle of the city I called home for most of my life, New York? There's a real chance that I won't have any reason to go back there in a few years- my parents are contemplating a move to the West Coast as soon as my youngest brother gets to college in 2 years.

Will I be strolling down the wide avenues of Los Angeles? Most of my family here in the States are there to begin with- all of my family in the States may end up there soon enough. The warm dry air will hold me over.

Will I be enamored with the charm of Charm City in Baltimore? As far as I plan, this will be where I earn my education- it's not unreasonable to suggest that I stick around afterwards. Maybe I'll be making regular commutes between Charm City and the Hill.

My future is coming on fast and it's a scary thing to think about.

---

One more thing: Seems Barak Obama has won the primary in Maryland. So much for my vote. He didn't win by as much as some polls leading up to the primary suggested (60% vs. numbers that generally predicted about 70%). As of right now (2-13) Barak Obama has a slight lead in number of delegates. Whatever the case, the Democratic race seems like it's going to remain tight. Maybe the National Convention will actually mean something this year.