There are precious few times, unfortunately, when a television program will rise above its purpose, transcend its medium, and make us forget, for an hour a week, just how mediocre and vapid television has become. In an industry that increasingly caters to the lowest, most base and superficial urges within us all, “The West Wing” stands alone.
From its inception seven years ago, “The West Wing” has set a standard in the commercial television industry that other programs never even attempted to match. The consistently smart dialogue, well-crafted and provocative storylines, and more than adequate performances turned in by its cast, made for a weekly celebration of what television could be. Last night, “The West Wing” made its final curtain call: the trashy and tawdry will now have to suffice. Click.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Ahmadi-Najad Reverts to Form?
This is just a quick update to the Ahmadi-Najad letter story. It seems that the letter has generated a great deal of sympathy for the irrepressible president of Iran; I knew it would, that's why he got a B+. If you haven't heard about Ahmadi-Najad's latest exploits; read about them here. Here's the first line of the piece:
“IRAN'S President unleashed more nuclear rhetoric yesterday to a rapturous audience in Indonesia, saying a "tyrannical" Israel should be destroyed.”
It appears that the mixed metaphors of Ahmadi-Najad's letter have been given a companion in the form of mixed messages. I will, unless I find this report to be in error, take this as further evidence that Ahmadi-Najad's letter was exactly as I had reported, namely, a diplomatic counterattack that was as sincere as it was brief. (It was 18 pages long for those of you that didn't sense my sarcasm).
I have been told by a few individuals that Ahmadi-Najad's speeches are purposely mistranslated by the western media in order to make them appear to be more outrageous than is actually the case. If this is true, I'd very much like to hear about it. Those fluent in Farsi are encouraged to comment.
.
“IRAN'S President unleashed more nuclear rhetoric yesterday to a rapturous audience in Indonesia, saying a "tyrannical" Israel should be destroyed.”
It appears that the mixed metaphors of Ahmadi-Najad's letter have been given a companion in the form of mixed messages. I will, unless I find this report to be in error, take this as further evidence that Ahmadi-Najad's letter was exactly as I had reported, namely, a diplomatic counterattack that was as sincere as it was brief. (It was 18 pages long for those of you that didn't sense my sarcasm).
I have been told by a few individuals that Ahmadi-Najad's speeches are purposely mistranslated by the western media in order to make them appear to be more outrageous than is actually the case. If this is true, I'd very much like to hear about it. Those fluent in Farsi are encouraged to comment.
.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
A Letter from Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
The first thing that struck me about this letter was that it’s badly in need of some serious copy-editing. I would think a letter of such implied importance, written expressly for the leader of an English-speaking nation, would be subjected to a lot more revision than this lackluster effort appears to have been.
Second, I don't think, aside from the fact that the letter was sent at all, that any new ground was broken regarding a significant move toward conciliation with the West. Ahmadi-Najad can't possibly expect to reinvigorate relations with the West by telling them that democracy has failed and that Israel's existence is an inexplicable phenomenon.
Finally, I think it's safe to say that this letter wasn't written to George Bush at all. If it was, you wouldn't be reading it right now. Ahmadi-Najad realizes how low George Bush's ratings are and understands that he needs to tone down his message in order to capitalize on Bush's current unpopularity.
All in all, I give this effort of statecraft a solid B+; it was well-timed, addresses its intended audiences perfectly, and could very well, at least temporarily, apply the brakes to the hostile rhetoric of late. Why only a B+ and not an A? Spelling and grammar count. Install MS Word Mr. Ahmadi-Najad; I personally never send out a historical, potentially world-changing document without spell checking it first.
Read the full letter here
Second, I don't think, aside from the fact that the letter was sent at all, that any new ground was broken regarding a significant move toward conciliation with the West. Ahmadi-Najad can't possibly expect to reinvigorate relations with the West by telling them that democracy has failed and that Israel's existence is an inexplicable phenomenon.
Finally, I think it's safe to say that this letter wasn't written to George Bush at all. If it was, you wouldn't be reading it right now. Ahmadi-Najad realizes how low George Bush's ratings are and understands that he needs to tone down his message in order to capitalize on Bush's current unpopularity.
All in all, I give this effort of statecraft a solid B+; it was well-timed, addresses its intended audiences perfectly, and could very well, at least temporarily, apply the brakes to the hostile rhetoric of late. Why only a B+ and not an A? Spelling and grammar count. Install MS Word Mr. Ahmadi-Najad; I personally never send out a historical, potentially world-changing document without spell checking it first.
Read the full letter here
Monday, May 08, 2006
Why Rent Control is Destructive
Most people are under the impression that price controls serve to make things more affordable for the less wealthy element of a particular society. A closer inspection, however, reveals that price controls will, without failure, create shortages in those products or services that they are applied to.
An example of this could be rent controlled apartments in an urban region. Let's say that apartments are "spiraling" out of control as far as rents being charged. The lower economic strata will protest that housing has become largely unaffordable and something must be done. Well-intentioned government officials may well react by placing a ceiling on rents; let's say at a rate of $500/month. The poor will be overjoyed and quickly occupy any available housing. This is where this city's problems will begin.
As time goes on, landlords will no longer invest money in the upkeep of their properties; the reason is that while there is a control on how much money they can charge for their apartments, there is no such control on the materials and utilities needed to keep these units in good repair. Eventually, the landlord will find that he's losing more money to keep the apartments in shape than he is getting as a return on his investment in the form of monthly rent payments. He will do one of two things at this point: either allow the apartment to fall into gross disrepair, or abandon it altogether to avoid losing even more from his investment. As this goes on throughout the city we see that it has the net affect of degrading existing housing and also inhibiting new housing from being built; being a landlord is no longer profitable under the price control so why bother being one?
The above example was taken from a real world situation which developed in NYC - the situation became so bad that by the mid 1980's there were 4 abandoned apartments for every homeless person within NYC limits. I'd suggest the lesson to be learned here is that economics aren't emotional and so decisions concerning economics shouldn't be either.
An example of this could be rent controlled apartments in an urban region. Let's say that apartments are "spiraling" out of control as far as rents being charged. The lower economic strata will protest that housing has become largely unaffordable and something must be done. Well-intentioned government officials may well react by placing a ceiling on rents; let's say at a rate of $500/month. The poor will be overjoyed and quickly occupy any available housing. This is where this city's problems will begin.
As time goes on, landlords will no longer invest money in the upkeep of their properties; the reason is that while there is a control on how much money they can charge for their apartments, there is no such control on the materials and utilities needed to keep these units in good repair. Eventually, the landlord will find that he's losing more money to keep the apartments in shape than he is getting as a return on his investment in the form of monthly rent payments. He will do one of two things at this point: either allow the apartment to fall into gross disrepair, or abandon it altogether to avoid losing even more from his investment. As this goes on throughout the city we see that it has the net affect of degrading existing housing and also inhibiting new housing from being built; being a landlord is no longer profitable under the price control so why bother being one?
The above example was taken from a real world situation which developed in NYC - the situation became so bad that by the mid 1980's there were 4 abandoned apartments for every homeless person within NYC limits. I'd suggest the lesson to be learned here is that economics aren't emotional and so decisions concerning economics shouldn't be either.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Why I Support (with reservations) the War in Iraq
I have heard many arguments, pro and con, regarding the war in Iraq. These arguments, unfortunately, tend to be long on emotion and hyperbole but astoundingly short on reason. The opposition relies on anti-Bush rhetoric while never actually addressing the geopolitical realities that made this war, in my opinion, a question not of if, but of when. On the other side of the debate, I often hear supporters of the war declare with absolute sincerity that “We’re over there helping the people of Iraq; we’ve saved these broken people from Saddam Hussein's dictatorial meglomania” or something along those lines. I'm not convinced.
To respond to the anti-war camp, I would suggest that this war in Iraq was going to happen sooner or later, no matter which party happened to be in power. Saying that George Bush lied to get us into this war or that the war is being fought ineptly, misses the point, and does nothing to change this fact. Casualties suffered in its prosecution also change nothing.
As to the pro-war factions who insist that this war is being waged for national security or human rights considerations in Iraq, my response to them would be, where’s the evidence? If we were so worried about ensuring human rights around the world, we’d have 138,000 troops in Sudan, not Iraq. If our national security was really at issue, why are our borders wide open to illegal immigration?
No, most of the talk I hear and words I've read have nothing at all in common with my understanding of this war. The reason we’re in Iraq , at least to me, is rather basic: allowing a renegade dictator to threaten the world oil market is an incomprehensible policy for a rational, self-interested nation to prescribe to. Let me explain.
Currently, the world consumes 85 million barrels of oil per day. Of that total, the U.S. alone consumes 25% or 21.2 million barrels per day. Global oil demand leaves only 2 million reserve barrels a day; this is a dangerous margin. If even one of the major oil-producing nations were to withdraw their oil from the world market, for whatever reason, prices would immediately jump to levels not seen in human history, even after being adjusted for inflation. This thin margin of error necessitates, until demand can be lowered somehow, that the oil supply remain stable. This need for stability in the world oil market has clearly manifested itself in American foreign policy throughout the world; the best example being the war in Iraq, but it's also quite apparent in American dealings with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. Oil, for better or worse, is America’s lifeblood, whose importance we ignore at our own peril.
I support the war in Iraq for the reasons I’ve stated above; this is not to say I take any pleasure in death and suffering in Iraq or in any way approve of how the war has been conducted to date. I'm simply saying that if you want to protest this war, do so by cutting back on your personal energy consumption and by demanding more investment in viable alternate fuel sources (not ethanol for reasons I’ll explain in a future post.) Insisting that George Bush be impeached or that American troops should be withdrawn immediately will do absolutely nothing to address the fundamental issue at hand: The day when oil suppliers can no longer satisfy global demand is not long off, and when that day does arrive, the war in Iraq will pale in comparison.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
The Scream
"The Scream," an impressionistic rendering,was painted by Norwegian artist Edvard Munch in 1893. The painting depicts a man becoming overwhelmed by a rapidly dehumanizing modern world. 1893 was the height of the Second Industrial Revolution; an age of trains, automobiles and mechanized factories that advanced far more rapidly than many could endure. (Perhaps analogous to the computer age of today).
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Food for Thought
"The great tragedy of the drive to centralization, as of the drive to extend the scope of government in general, is that it is mostly led by men of good will who will be the first to rue its consequences."
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962
By men of good will, Friedman is referring to the modern day liberal, not to be confused with classic liberals such as Adam Smith and John Locke who both saw government as something to be let out of its cage only under the strictest of supervision. Friedman is correctly implicating the current tendencies of Western governments to treat its citizens as a master would treat a favored pet. Rewards, condescension and firm but gentle admonitions characterize the demeanor with which a supposed free man is approached by his government. A democratic government exists primarily to assure that a free man will remain just that: free to trade and enter into contracts, free from perils both domestic and external and free to convert his labor into whichever form of consumption he chooses within the laws of good conscience and reason.
When a government institutes a direct tax on those it serves, there are certain questions that need to be addressed. Is an inefficient, distended government capable of exercising the same restraint and care that a private citizen would over the fruit of his own labors? Is this same government as interested in an individual's freedom as it is in growing its own power? In the case of the American government, I would have to unfortunately answer no on both issues: the current trends in governance come as a result of a constant and increasingly irresponsible drift away from the solemn promises promulgated and recorded by the founders of this great experiment in freedom. As the government grows the individual must shrink.
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962
By men of good will, Friedman is referring to the modern day liberal, not to be confused with classic liberals such as Adam Smith and John Locke who both saw government as something to be let out of its cage only under the strictest of supervision. Friedman is correctly implicating the current tendencies of Western governments to treat its citizens as a master would treat a favored pet. Rewards, condescension and firm but gentle admonitions characterize the demeanor with which a supposed free man is approached by his government. A democratic government exists primarily to assure that a free man will remain just that: free to trade and enter into contracts, free from perils both domestic and external and free to convert his labor into whichever form of consumption he chooses within the laws of good conscience and reason.
When a government institutes a direct tax on those it serves, there are certain questions that need to be addressed. Is an inefficient, distended government capable of exercising the same restraint and care that a private citizen would over the fruit of his own labors? Is this same government as interested in an individual's freedom as it is in growing its own power? In the case of the American government, I would have to unfortunately answer no on both issues: the current trends in governance come as a result of a constant and increasingly irresponsible drift away from the solemn promises promulgated and recorded by the founders of this great experiment in freedom. As the government grows the individual must shrink.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Al-Qaeda leaders are losing control, U.S. says
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Leaders of al-Qaeda lost some control of the terror network last year due to the arrests and deaths of top operational planners, but the group remains the most prominent terror threat facing the United States and its allies, the State Department said Friday."
See the full story here.
I believe this type of report is dangerous in two important ways. For one, it treats Al-Qaeda as if it was a main objective instead of just one of hundreds of so-called terror organizations and secondly, such a report absolutely misses the point as to the nature of terrorism and its goals.
Killing or incarcerating terrorist leadership does nothing to reduce the motivations that drove the organizations to be formed in the first place. The war on terrorism cannot be fought solely against existing organizations but must, in a larger sense, address the culture from which such organizations arise.
The way to combat terrorism is by taking the desperation and powerlessness its supporters feel; replacing it with an efficacious political system that allows them to seek meaningful redress without having to resort to inhumane violence. Removing dictators from power and replacing them with responsive democratic bodies accomplishes this goal: the majority of terrorist activities are provoked by its adherents feeling that no other viable options exist. When considering such dictatorial regimes such as Iran, pre-war Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and to a lesser extent, Egypt, we see that the citizens of these nations have very little opportunity to effectively air their complaints. Until this situation changes, the war on terrorism is merely a sophisticated public relations campaign that, like the war on drugs, will never actually accomplish anything, but instead tout encouraging statistics while root causes go relatively un-addressed.
It is important to understand that only a tiny fraction of Muslims actively take part in terrorist activities. The main thrust of any anti-terrorist efforts must instead concentrate on eroding the popular support these radical organizations rely on to survive. Terrorism only thrives when it can rely on a constant network of sympathizers to finance its operations and protect its operatives.
This is why I believe that, for better or worse, the West must redouble its efforts in assuring the democratization of the Middle East; gone are the days when Western governments could play one dictator against the other for their own personal gains; as WMD become more readily available to the highest bidder, the neo-colonialist policies of old are no longer relevant. It’s time to practice what we preach; democratization in the Middle East must be realized or this war will be just another Madison Avenue brainchild with no end in sight.
See the full story here.
I believe this type of report is dangerous in two important ways. For one, it treats Al-Qaeda as if it was a main objective instead of just one of hundreds of so-called terror organizations and secondly, such a report absolutely misses the point as to the nature of terrorism and its goals.
Killing or incarcerating terrorist leadership does nothing to reduce the motivations that drove the organizations to be formed in the first place. The war on terrorism cannot be fought solely against existing organizations but must, in a larger sense, address the culture from which such organizations arise.
The way to combat terrorism is by taking the desperation and powerlessness its supporters feel; replacing it with an efficacious political system that allows them to seek meaningful redress without having to resort to inhumane violence. Removing dictators from power and replacing them with responsive democratic bodies accomplishes this goal: the majority of terrorist activities are provoked by its adherents feeling that no other viable options exist. When considering such dictatorial regimes such as Iran, pre-war Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and to a lesser extent, Egypt, we see that the citizens of these nations have very little opportunity to effectively air their complaints. Until this situation changes, the war on terrorism is merely a sophisticated public relations campaign that, like the war on drugs, will never actually accomplish anything, but instead tout encouraging statistics while root causes go relatively un-addressed.
It is important to understand that only a tiny fraction of Muslims actively take part in terrorist activities. The main thrust of any anti-terrorist efforts must instead concentrate on eroding the popular support these radical organizations rely on to survive. Terrorism only thrives when it can rely on a constant network of sympathizers to finance its operations and protect its operatives.
This is why I believe that, for better or worse, the West must redouble its efforts in assuring the democratization of the Middle East; gone are the days when Western governments could play one dictator against the other for their own personal gains; as WMD become more readily available to the highest bidder, the neo-colonialist policies of old are no longer relevant. It’s time to practice what we preach; democratization in the Middle East must be realized or this war will be just another Madison Avenue brainchild with no end in sight.
Monday, May 01, 2006
The Bully Pulpit Consortium
Interested in joining the Bully Pulpit?
If you are:
If you are:
-A strong writer who stresses honesty and accuracy in their arguments
-A person with a strong desire to share their knowledge with others
-A person with expertise in a specific area (liberal arts, sciences and the technology field just to name a few)
-A person able to present an argument in a respectful tone without resorting to ad hominem or evidence- poor emotionalism
-A serious person interested in growing intellectually by joining a consortium of like-minded individuals
then we are not looking for you - we NEED you.
If the idea of joining such a consortium appeals to you, leave me a comment telling me what your field is and how best to get in touch with you online and I'll contact you posthaste.
Thanks for your interest,
Invisibull
P.S. - Your beliefs, political philosophies, cultures and places of national origin have nothing at all to do with being accepted as a member of the consortium. Cultural and philosophical diversity is considered a welcome asset here.
HTML Tips and Tricks
This post will act as a blogger editing database. Any blogger tips and tricks you might have for giving the more inexperienced (myself included) bloggers a helping hand will be appreciated. For those new to blogger or to html editing in general, feel free to ask your questions here as well. Please identify your question or tip clearly in the subject line so other users can more easily find what they need. Ex. ( How can I add a counter to my site?) (Adding a counter to your blogger site)
Thanks for your participation
Thanks for your participation
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)