Two weeks ago, I returned to New Mexico for a summer hiatus from the hot, humid environs of Washington. My journey's original objective was to make up for several months of insufficient Hatch green chile intake. However, I came away with something more profound that reminded me of the peculiar sense of human connectivity that distinguishes our unique part of the world.
A good host, I resolved to take my traveling partner to White Sands National Monument. As we steadily progressed in our hosts' 1992 GMC Sierra pick-up, I excitedly imagined the sloping dunes and sandy fun that awaited us. All was well until a faulty front-left tire blew-out about 20 miles west of the monument, ending our hopes for a care-free afternoon
Of greater import, perhaps, was the question of how we'd make it back to Las Cruces. Cell phone service was scant as the August sun beat down upon us, and fruit flies of greater quantity than I care to recall suddenly made our cab their home. Frustrated, hot, and short on water, we realized that we'd have to figure out a plan soon, or things would become quite perilous.
Finally, I connected with a towing company over the Organs in Las Cruces.
As I negotiated the particulars of our transaction, a car pulled over and slowed to a halt behind us. With a mirage-like quality, a man with a cowboy hat emerged and strode steadily toward our vehicle.
Wanting to know more about what this mysterious figure had to say, I told the representative from the towing company that I would call him back. I rolled down my window, said hello, and listened intently as the man peered into our window and reassuringly told us that he believed he could help. We popped out of the cab and made our way to the rear of the vehicle, where our rescuer happily declared that our spare was in good repair (before you scoff at the fact that I couldn't change the tire myself and dismiss me as an out-of-touch, "latte-sipping liberal", consider that we had been fortunate to not flip the car during the blow-out and didn't want to tempt fate twice by executing a shoddy changing of the tire ourselves).
The unnamed samaritan quickly set to work. Jacking up the car and loosening the screws on the ruined tire, he began revealing a few key pieces of his identity. A resident of Dona Ana, he commuted each day to Alamogordo, where he worked as a meat cutter for Loews and is the proud father of two, one a budding young musician and the other a former three sport stand-out high school athlete.
Our dialogue hit a potentially fateful snag, when I revealed my loyalties to the Bulldawgs of Las Cruces High, where I spent my Freshman-Junior years. The rescuer, a Trojan, jokingly told me that, under normal circumstances, we could no longer do business. However, wanting to be a goodwill ambassador for his alma mater on the north side of town, he immediately proceeded in his labor.
Finally, with sweat pouring down his formerly impeccably-pressed, white dress shirt and dirt and grit covering his hands, our new-found friend reported that he had finished. We immediately requested his address so that we could do right by him and properly express gratitude for the incredibly gracious service he'd performed. However, in a gesture that could not have been more telling of his character, he waved us off, insisting that he'd simply wanted to help two people in need. After a bit of back and forth, he reluctantly told his address, and we spent the ride home deciding the proper way to express our gratitude.
The broader point of this story is to show that, even in these troubled times, when it can seem so hard to find good in the world and people expressing compassion towards one another, if you look hard enough, you can see, everyday, examples of normal people performing extraordinary deeds, guided by the remarkable and irrepressible force that connects all of us as humans.
And as the political season hits full force, with candidates and parties trying to secure votes by deriding and denigrating their opponents, it is important for us to remember that, no matter the political party or ideology to which we belong, there is something stronger that unites us- that is, the human spirit and desire to do well unto one another.
But, as universal as I think this spirit is, I can't help but believe that is especially on display in our part of Southern New Mexico. Sam didn't have to help us. He was on his way home, ready to relax after a long day. Still, the kindness, compassion, and selflessness that characterizes this region lead a full-blooded Trojan to help out a Bulldawg in need.
I'm grateful to have come home, and I return to Washington with a renewed sense of what can be achieved when we take a break from the politics and get back to just being humans.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Fear and the 4th
The 4th of July is a day to celebrate. We celebrate our freedom as a country. We celebrate the principles of liberty endowed in our Constitution. And we celebrate the many blessings and tremendous comparative wealth that characterize our lives.
However, just as we celebrate the many things for which we have to give thanks, it also behooves us to take a step back and assess the current state of our republic. For that, I must confess I am fearful. We seem to have reached a point of disfunction in our political dialogue. Elected officials don't listen to one another, and the most important challenges facing the American people- unemployment, climate change, finanicial regulatory reform, immigration, terrorism, and a sub-par soccer team (c'mon- there's always a role for humor!) are not being addressed in anything resembling a constructive manner.
My belief is that our country's increasing ineffectual political discourse stems from the rules and regulations surrounding campaign finance. Candidates for elected office need to spend a gazillion dollars just to be relevant, and to get this money, they need to win the favor of large corporations and wealthy backers, all of whom have their own agenda, which is often, if not usually, out of step with the needs of most Americans.
For example, large corporations who fear the impact that legislation restricting carbon emissions would have on their profit margin have, through eye-popping campaign contributions, convinced lawmakers to continue a debate over whether or not climate change is truly a concern. Are we seriously still having this debate, despite everything science and, increasingly, the vast environmental changes before our own eyes are telling us?
We're also still debating the merits of revamping our country's finacial regulatory system, even thought the one currently in place allowed complex, largely unregulated financial products to bring the global economy to the brink of collapse. The reality that a) it has taken so long to bring regulatory reform legislation to near passage and b) that this passage is still not guaranteed would be unthinkable, if not for the incredible sums of money financial giants have thrown at politicians to do their bidding and maintain a system that enables them to take huge risks, the pay-off from which will accrue to a small ellite and the fall-out of which translates into financial ruin for millions.
And, perhaps most biting of all on this 4th of July holiday, millions across the country are calling for the effective closing of our borders to persons who want to come here in pursuit of a better, safer, more properous way of life. This, despite the fact that people who most vociferously promote things like border walls, racial profiling laws, and other measures designed to restrict the "other" from penetrating into U.S. territory are themselves the product of the large-scale immigration responsible for not only our country's unique and beautiful ethnic and cultural mosaic, but our political and financial dynamism. That these folks, such as Janet Brewer in Arizona, Tea Party adherents throughout the country, and Republican Party leadership would use drug violence in Mexico and our country's current challenging economic state as cover for trying to halt U.S.-bound immigration is beyond illogical- it's appalling.
So, as we take time to celebrate fireworks, BBQs, and our nation's freedom, let us also keep in mind and reflect upon the many ways in which we still need to improve.
Our prosperity during the second 234 years of independence depends on it.
However, just as we celebrate the many things for which we have to give thanks, it also behooves us to take a step back and assess the current state of our republic. For that, I must confess I am fearful. We seem to have reached a point of disfunction in our political dialogue. Elected officials don't listen to one another, and the most important challenges facing the American people- unemployment, climate change, finanicial regulatory reform, immigration, terrorism, and a sub-par soccer team (c'mon- there's always a role for humor!) are not being addressed in anything resembling a constructive manner.
My belief is that our country's increasing ineffectual political discourse stems from the rules and regulations surrounding campaign finance. Candidates for elected office need to spend a gazillion dollars just to be relevant, and to get this money, they need to win the favor of large corporations and wealthy backers, all of whom have their own agenda, which is often, if not usually, out of step with the needs of most Americans.
For example, large corporations who fear the impact that legislation restricting carbon emissions would have on their profit margin have, through eye-popping campaign contributions, convinced lawmakers to continue a debate over whether or not climate change is truly a concern. Are we seriously still having this debate, despite everything science and, increasingly, the vast environmental changes before our own eyes are telling us?
We're also still debating the merits of revamping our country's finacial regulatory system, even thought the one currently in place allowed complex, largely unregulated financial products to bring the global economy to the brink of collapse. The reality that a) it has taken so long to bring regulatory reform legislation to near passage and b) that this passage is still not guaranteed would be unthinkable, if not for the incredible sums of money financial giants have thrown at politicians to do their bidding and maintain a system that enables them to take huge risks, the pay-off from which will accrue to a small ellite and the fall-out of which translates into financial ruin for millions.
And, perhaps most biting of all on this 4th of July holiday, millions across the country are calling for the effective closing of our borders to persons who want to come here in pursuit of a better, safer, more properous way of life. This, despite the fact that people who most vociferously promote things like border walls, racial profiling laws, and other measures designed to restrict the "other" from penetrating into U.S. territory are themselves the product of the large-scale immigration responsible for not only our country's unique and beautiful ethnic and cultural mosaic, but our political and financial dynamism. That these folks, such as Janet Brewer in Arizona, Tea Party adherents throughout the country, and Republican Party leadership would use drug violence in Mexico and our country's current challenging economic state as cover for trying to halt U.S.-bound immigration is beyond illogical- it's appalling.
So, as we take time to celebrate fireworks, BBQs, and our nation's freedom, let us also keep in mind and reflect upon the many ways in which we still need to improve.
Our prosperity during the second 234 years of independence depends on it.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Berdych Advances to Wimbledon Finals (for the Federer haters...)
Tomas Berdych, who beat Federer in a tight, four-set quarter-final match, just casually dismissed 3 seed and world #2 Novak Djokovic, 6-3, 7-6, 6-3, to move into the Wimbledon Finals. While many called his victory over Federer an upset, I disagree. As a Fed fan, I had been worried about the prospect of that match-up for several rounds and was not surprised when Berdych advanced. The 6’5” Czeck bomber has always been loaded with talent but, while he has been inside or just on the cusp of the world top ten for many years, the story line on him is that he’s never quite lived up to his full potential. That seems to be changing. Berdych made it to the semis at last month’s French Open, where he narrowly lost a five-set thriller to Robin Soderling, a match in which he was up two sets to one. While the spread will show Berdych as the underdog in Sunday’s final, regardless of whether he plays world #1 Rafael Nadal or British hope Andy Murray, I think he has at least a fighting chance of landing his first major title.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Follow-up on "Is there trouble looming for Teague?"
Several readers have responded to my suggestion that progressive Democrats have no business protesting Congressman Harry Teague's moderate voting positions, since they failed to mount a credible primary challenger to the first-term Democrat.
Most of these responses argue that my point is either invalid or disingenuous, or both, since, in 2008, Teague did not have the power of incumbency, which gave McCamley a far better shot of defeating him than would be the case today, with Teague being both well-financed by the national Democratic Party and a House incumbent.
A simple example, however, illustrates the limitations of this objection. In Arkansas, incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln faces a stiff primary run-off challenge from Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. While Lincoln received the most votes in initial primary balloting on May 18, Halter kept the incumbent under the critical 50% mark, forcing a run-off on June 8. With President Obama, Vice-President Biden, former President Clinton, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (Senate arm of the Democratic National Committee) firmly in Lincoln's corner, Halter faced at least as much, if not more, of a disadvantage in waging his insurgent primary bid to unseat Lincoln as a progressive Democrat would have faced in trying to take down Teague in New Mexico's primary on June 1.
So, I throw the ball back in progressives' court. Where was the challenger?
Most of these responses argue that my point is either invalid or disingenuous, or both, since, in 2008, Teague did not have the power of incumbency, which gave McCamley a far better shot of defeating him than would be the case today, with Teague being both well-financed by the national Democratic Party and a House incumbent.
A simple example, however, illustrates the limitations of this objection. In Arkansas, incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln faces a stiff primary run-off challenge from Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. While Lincoln received the most votes in initial primary balloting on May 18, Halter kept the incumbent under the critical 50% mark, forcing a run-off on June 8. With President Obama, Vice-President Biden, former President Clinton, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (Senate arm of the Democratic National Committee) firmly in Lincoln's corner, Halter faced at least as much, if not more, of a disadvantage in waging his insurgent primary bid to unseat Lincoln as a progressive Democrat would have faced in trying to take down Teague in New Mexico's primary on June 1.
So, I throw the ball back in progressives' court. Where was the challenger?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Progressive Flight from Teague on Health Care?
By: Daniel Balke
Las Cruces area progressives have threatened to withhold support from Congressman Harry Teague over the first-term Democrat’s decision to buck his party and vote “no” in the U.S. House of Representatives’ historic passage of health care reform legislation on Sunday night. Many are frustrated by Teague’s refusal to stand with President Obama in the latter’s hour of greatest need. And while they will happily cast their vote for Democratic Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish in her bid to become New Mexico’s first female governor, they will leave their ballot blank on the U.S. House line in order to protest Teague’s progressive credentials.
This would be misguided for several reasons. First, refusing to vote for Teague is effectively the same thing as voting for Steve Pearce, Teague’s Republican opponent in the November election and a former three-term Congressman from New Mexico’s Second District. The race between Teague and Pearce is expected to be one of the country’s closest and most competitive in the 2010 mid-term elections. In other words, every vote matters. By withholding their electoral support from Teague, progressives would greatly help the cause of one of President George W. Bush’s strongest Congressional allies, who has cozied up to Tea Party activists and vigorously opposed measures close to the progressive heart, including financial regulatory reform, climate change legislation, and, of course, the recently-passed health care bill.
Second, Teague has reliably supported progressive causes. He backed the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), voted in favor of climate change legislation that would cap carbon emissions, and has routinely pushed for increased investment in clean, renewable energy technologies in which New Mexico has a comparative advantage, such as solar and wind. Far from a Republican stalwart, moreover, Teague has voted with Democrats 88% of the time, and his occasional unwillingness to vote with the majority has never sunk a major piece of legislation, including Sunday night’s health care vote, which passed with a three vote cushion. The track record is clear: Teague has either voted for, or at least not stood in the way of, progressive initiatives.
Third, a victory for Teague in the upcoming election would give him a freer hand to support progressive causes in future. Today’s political climate is extremely difficult for Democrats, and the Republicans are expected to make big gains in the upcoming mid-terms. Moreover, in Pearce, Teague faces a well-financed politician with wide name recognition and an established electoral base owing to his six years representing the Second District in Washington. In other words, it is unlikely that Teague will ever face a more challenging reelection battle than the way he faced this year. If he triumphs, it is difficult to imagine a Republican challenger unseating him in the near- or medium-term. Such job security would provide Congressman Teague greater ability to support measures more in-line with progressive thinking.
Progressives are understandably frustrated over the centrist line Harry Teague has walked since coming to Congress in January 2009, particularly his refusal to back President Obama’s landmark health care legislation. However, refusing to support Teague in November would provide critical support to conservative Steve Pearce in an election that could be decided by a razor thin margin. Paradoxically, Teague’s success in November depends in large measure on strong turn-out amongst progressive voters, who have now threatened to sit on the electoral sidelines. For those who support a more progressive future for New Mexico’s Second Congressional District, the best move at this point would be to bite their lip and cast a vote for Harry Teague.
Las Cruces area progressives have threatened to withhold support from Congressman Harry Teague over the first-term Democrat’s decision to buck his party and vote “no” in the U.S. House of Representatives’ historic passage of health care reform legislation on Sunday night. Many are frustrated by Teague’s refusal to stand with President Obama in the latter’s hour of greatest need. And while they will happily cast their vote for Democratic Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish in her bid to become New Mexico’s first female governor, they will leave their ballot blank on the U.S. House line in order to protest Teague’s progressive credentials.
This would be misguided for several reasons. First, refusing to vote for Teague is effectively the same thing as voting for Steve Pearce, Teague’s Republican opponent in the November election and a former three-term Congressman from New Mexico’s Second District. The race between Teague and Pearce is expected to be one of the country’s closest and most competitive in the 2010 mid-term elections. In other words, every vote matters. By withholding their electoral support from Teague, progressives would greatly help the cause of one of President George W. Bush’s strongest Congressional allies, who has cozied up to Tea Party activists and vigorously opposed measures close to the progressive heart, including financial regulatory reform, climate change legislation, and, of course, the recently-passed health care bill.
Second, Teague has reliably supported progressive causes. He backed the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), voted in favor of climate change legislation that would cap carbon emissions, and has routinely pushed for increased investment in clean, renewable energy technologies in which New Mexico has a comparative advantage, such as solar and wind. Far from a Republican stalwart, moreover, Teague has voted with Democrats 88% of the time, and his occasional unwillingness to vote with the majority has never sunk a major piece of legislation, including Sunday night’s health care vote, which passed with a three vote cushion. The track record is clear: Teague has either voted for, or at least not stood in the way of, progressive initiatives.
Third, a victory for Teague in the upcoming election would give him a freer hand to support progressive causes in future. Today’s political climate is extremely difficult for Democrats, and the Republicans are expected to make big gains in the upcoming mid-terms. Moreover, in Pearce, Teague faces a well-financed politician with wide name recognition and an established electoral base owing to his six years representing the Second District in Washington. In other words, it is unlikely that Teague will ever face a more challenging reelection battle than the way he faced this year. If he triumphs, it is difficult to imagine a Republican challenger unseating him in the near- or medium-term. Such job security would provide Congressman Teague greater ability to support measures more in-line with progressive thinking.
Progressives are understandably frustrated over the centrist line Harry Teague has walked since coming to Congress in January 2009, particularly his refusal to back President Obama’s landmark health care legislation. However, refusing to support Teague in November would provide critical support to conservative Steve Pearce in an election that could be decided by a razor thin margin. Paradoxically, Teague’s success in November depends in large measure on strong turn-out amongst progressive voters, who have now threatened to sit on the electoral sidelines. For those who support a more progressive future for New Mexico’s Second Congressional District, the best move at this point would be to bite their lip and cast a vote for Harry Teague.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Winning in Iraq?
In the Ghetto
Many claims have been made recently relating to our "success" in Iraq. Proponents of these claim, such as John McCain, President Bush, and virtually every annoying conservative talking head, say that the surge has worked, violence is down, and PM Nouri al Maliki is becoming a strong leader and is pushing through political reform in the war-torn country. They also use these reasons as reasons for the United States to continue its occupation of Iraq.
I'm not going to refute these facts. Violence is down, and this downturn indeed came about the same time as we tossed more troops at Iraq. Also, there is less sectarian violence which, to the naked eye, is proof of reconciliation between the hostile factions. This simple article is just meant to point out some of the inaccuracies and deceptions in their argument and try to nudge them back on the right track.
There is no doubt that the surge has brought about a period of relative calm and peace with Iraqi characteristics. But this is a little fallacious. First of all, it's pretty simple to see why the surge "worked." Let's say you have a fire that is getting out of control. So, to combat it, you grab a small water gun that you may have played with at a younger age. As you're squirting water at the fire, you realize it isn't doing anything, and maybe instead of doing it on your own, you should have called the firefighters. But, being the maverick you are, you decide to continue to go it alone and use a fire extinguisher instead of a squirt gun (the extinguisher, by the way, was previously fighting another fire a little east of the new fire). Obviously, this will contain the fire far more effectively than the squirt gun. This is essentially what we did in Iraq. There was rising violence in Iraq and we decided to bolster our troop levels with additional brigades. Only an idiot would think this wouldn't bring violence down. Here's another reason to which nobody seems to being paying attention. Sectarian violence is also going down, so naturally it's due to Mr. McCain's maverick decision to send additional brigades, right? Wrong. Right now, there is essentially a seperator between the warring faction, Sunnis and Shias being put in ghettos (hence the title). As opposed to aiding reconciliation, the surge has actually given Iraq just enough time to be sent back to the post Civil War era US. Instead of growing up as a nation and dealing with its problems, Iraq has said "You go over there, and you go over there. And, if any of you cross this line, NO OIL FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!"
I would like to add one thing, unfortunately, I can't promise any Seinfeld references. America's little dabble in nation building has been, well, just awful. Plus, when we were on the verge of winning it in Afghanistan, our President decided to send troops to Iraq, a country with nothing to do with the War on Terror. Now, Afghanistan is circling the drain and McCain and Bush are busy showing off the new and segregated Iraq. The Iraqi army is now capable of taking over, so what say we hand them a present from us, it's called "Their Country." With all our troops freed up, let's help out Afghanistan instead of occupying Iraq.
Also, my apologies for the title. I couldn't resist.
Many claims have been made recently relating to our "success" in Iraq. Proponents of these claim, such as John McCain, President Bush, and virtually every annoying conservative talking head, say that the surge has worked, violence is down, and PM Nouri al Maliki is becoming a strong leader and is pushing through political reform in the war-torn country. They also use these reasons as reasons for the United States to continue its occupation of Iraq.
I'm not going to refute these facts. Violence is down, and this downturn indeed came about the same time as we tossed more troops at Iraq. Also, there is less sectarian violence which, to the naked eye, is proof of reconciliation between the hostile factions. This simple article is just meant to point out some of the inaccuracies and deceptions in their argument and try to nudge them back on the right track.
There is no doubt that the surge has brought about a period of relative calm and peace with Iraqi characteristics. But this is a little fallacious. First of all, it's pretty simple to see why the surge "worked." Let's say you have a fire that is getting out of control. So, to combat it, you grab a small water gun that you may have played with at a younger age. As you're squirting water at the fire, you realize it isn't doing anything, and maybe instead of doing it on your own, you should have called the firefighters. But, being the maverick you are, you decide to continue to go it alone and use a fire extinguisher instead of a squirt gun (the extinguisher, by the way, was previously fighting another fire a little east of the new fire). Obviously, this will contain the fire far more effectively than the squirt gun. This is essentially what we did in Iraq. There was rising violence in Iraq and we decided to bolster our troop levels with additional brigades. Only an idiot would think this wouldn't bring violence down. Here's another reason to which nobody seems to being paying attention. Sectarian violence is also going down, so naturally it's due to Mr. McCain's maverick decision to send additional brigades, right? Wrong. Right now, there is essentially a seperator between the warring faction, Sunnis and Shias being put in ghettos (hence the title). As opposed to aiding reconciliation, the surge has actually given Iraq just enough time to be sent back to the post Civil War era US. Instead of growing up as a nation and dealing with its problems, Iraq has said "You go over there, and you go over there. And, if any of you cross this line, NO OIL FOR YOU! COME BACK, ONE YEAR!"
I would like to add one thing, unfortunately, I can't promise any Seinfeld references. America's little dabble in nation building has been, well, just awful. Plus, when we were on the verge of winning it in Afghanistan, our President decided to send troops to Iraq, a country with nothing to do with the War on Terror. Now, Afghanistan is circling the drain and McCain and Bush are busy showing off the new and segregated Iraq. The Iraqi army is now capable of taking over, so what say we hand them a present from us, it's called "Their Country." With all our troops freed up, let's help out Afghanistan instead of occupying Iraq.
Also, my apologies for the title. I couldn't resist.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Prisoner Swap in Israel; and Biofuel Reduction Urged
Israel/Lebanon Swap Prisoners
"In the presence of a UN representative," the government of Israel and the Islamic movement of Hezbollah signed an agreement under which Hezbollah would give up two soldiers it captured during the 2006 conflict, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser who are believed to be dead by the Israeli government, in exchange for five Lebanese prisoners. Among the prisoners being handed over to Hezbollah is Samir Qantar, who was imprisoned in 1979 for his actions during a raid. He is believed to be involved in the murder of three Israelis (including a policeman and a child). Also, Israel is exhuming the bodies of fighters who were slain during the numerous years of conflict between the two battling sides. The leader of Hezbollah added he would "provide information on missing Israeli airman Ron Arad."
So, what does this mean on lasting peace between the two belligerent camps. Hopefully, this may lead to an easing of the tensions, a theoretical détente, on Israel's northern border. There are many complications to a possible peace between Israel and Hezbollah. First of all, it's kind of hard to just give up the fight to which you have dedicated your life. That's a given. A more concrete reason would be Hezbollah's ties to various other radical groups who are always working hard to fight against Israel. United by their hatred of Israel, Hezbollah, a radical Shia organization, has provided military training and financial support to Hamas, the radical Sunni group fighting Israel in the Gaza Strip. Currently, Hamas holds an Israeli prisoner of its own, soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, and, despite the recent ceasefire, Israel and the militant group continue to exchange acts of violence. Finally, Iran, a country which has incessantly opposed Israel and also very Shia, and Hezbollah are, to put it lightly, good friends. If Israel can somehow establish a peace deal, hardlinersin Israel might believe it's lending credence to a peace deal with Iran.
There are many occlusions to a peace deal with Hezbollah. However, for the sake of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the entire Middle East, we can only hope that they can form some kind of peace deal. Unfortunately, this a very, very unlikely scenario.
Biofuels Barred?
The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, discouraged rich countries from growing crops, that could be used as food, for fuel. Speaking at the G8 summit in Japan, Mr. Zoellick berated the US and EU for using corn and rapeseed for fuel. The Secretart General of the UN Ban Ki Moon has also blamed biofuel production for the food shortage.
While the EU and Japan also bear responsibility for this crisis, seeing as how I live in the US, I'm going to focus on the hypocrisies of the US policy on trade and hunger. The United States claims to be the greatest nation of the world, the world's policeman, and various other trite, arrogant labels made by, quite frankly, trite arrogant people for, most likely, the only country to which they have ever been. However, isn't it true that, as the world's policeman, shouldn't we not only be fighting the "evil-do-ers" of the world, but be aiding the citizens of the countries where we are fighting these bad people. Instead, we are fighting the interests of the poor people abroad and bickering over the patriotism of various presidential candidates.
The economy is tough right now, and this downturn is mostly caused by the price of oil. As a result, many are looking toward different renewable resources for our energy crisis. Unfortunately, we are making two mistakes. The first has to do with these "renewable resources" to which we're attempting to turn. Instead of investigating reasonable solutions like nuclear plants, wind and solar energy, and batteries with longer lives, we're taking crops, which could be used to feed the world, and turning them into fuel. This is taking food off the tables of millions of people and putting it into our cars. The second mistake is with our trade policy. As a country, we purport to be supportive of not only free trade, but of the plight of millions of poor farmers and workers around the developing world. However, as we continue to support agricultural subsidies, we are doing neither. Subsidies go against everything for which free trade stands. Also, with cheap US imports, poor farmers in the developing world and their slightly more expensive crops are plunging further into poverty. Until the US changes its policy, nothing good will happen to these poor people.
"In the presence of a UN representative," the government of Israel and the Islamic movement of Hezbollah signed an agreement under which Hezbollah would give up two soldiers it captured during the 2006 conflict, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser who are believed to be dead by the Israeli government, in exchange for five Lebanese prisoners. Among the prisoners being handed over to Hezbollah is Samir Qantar, who was imprisoned in 1979 for his actions during a raid. He is believed to be involved in the murder of three Israelis (including a policeman and a child). Also, Israel is exhuming the bodies of fighters who were slain during the numerous years of conflict between the two battling sides. The leader of Hezbollah added he would "provide information on missing Israeli airman Ron Arad."
So, what does this mean on lasting peace between the two belligerent camps. Hopefully, this may lead to an easing of the tensions, a theoretical détente, on Israel's northern border. There are many complications to a possible peace between Israel and Hezbollah. First of all, it's kind of hard to just give up the fight to which you have dedicated your life. That's a given. A more concrete reason would be Hezbollah's ties to various other radical groups who are always working hard to fight against Israel. United by their hatred of Israel, Hezbollah, a radical Shia organization, has provided military training and financial support to Hamas, the radical Sunni group fighting Israel in the Gaza Strip. Currently, Hamas holds an Israeli prisoner of its own, soldier Gilad Shalit. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, and, despite the recent ceasefire, Israel and the militant group continue to exchange acts of violence. Finally, Iran, a country which has incessantly opposed Israel and also very Shia, and Hezbollah are, to put it lightly, good friends. If Israel can somehow establish a peace deal, hardlinersin Israel might believe it's lending credence to a peace deal with Iran.
There are many occlusions to a peace deal with Hezbollah. However, for the sake of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the entire Middle East, we can only hope that they can form some kind of peace deal. Unfortunately, this a very, very unlikely scenario.
Biofuels Barred?
The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, discouraged rich countries from growing crops, that could be used as food, for fuel. Speaking at the G8 summit in Japan, Mr. Zoellick berated the US and EU for using corn and rapeseed for fuel. The Secretart General of the UN Ban Ki Moon has also blamed biofuel production for the food shortage.
While the EU and Japan also bear responsibility for this crisis, seeing as how I live in the US, I'm going to focus on the hypocrisies of the US policy on trade and hunger. The United States claims to be the greatest nation of the world, the world's policeman, and various other trite, arrogant labels made by, quite frankly, trite arrogant people for, most likely, the only country to which they have ever been. However, isn't it true that, as the world's policeman, shouldn't we not only be fighting the "evil-do-ers" of the world, but be aiding the citizens of the countries where we are fighting these bad people. Instead, we are fighting the interests of the poor people abroad and bickering over the patriotism of various presidential candidates.
The economy is tough right now, and this downturn is mostly caused by the price of oil. As a result, many are looking toward different renewable resources for our energy crisis. Unfortunately, we are making two mistakes. The first has to do with these "renewable resources" to which we're attempting to turn. Instead of investigating reasonable solutions like nuclear plants, wind and solar energy, and batteries with longer lives, we're taking crops, which could be used to feed the world, and turning them into fuel. This is taking food off the tables of millions of people and putting it into our cars. The second mistake is with our trade policy. As a country, we purport to be supportive of not only free trade, but of the plight of millions of poor farmers and workers around the developing world. However, as we continue to support agricultural subsidies, we are doing neither. Subsidies go against everything for which free trade stands. Also, with cheap US imports, poor farmers in the developing world and their slightly more expensive crops are plunging further into poverty. Until the US changes its policy, nothing good will happen to these poor people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
