Raging Cynic

I love it when countries lead by example. No, this isn’t about anything the US is doing; it’s about something good for the environment. The International Herald Tribune is reporting that weeks following a 2002 plastic bag tax in Ireland, use of plastic bags plummeted 94%. Ninty-four percent!

Elisabeth Rosenthal writes in the Jan 31st 2008 article that,

 Within a year, nearly everyone bought reusable cloth bags, which they now keep in the office and the back of their cars. Plastic bags became socially unacceptable - on par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after your dog.

There are cities here in the US that fully ban the use of plastic bags and even Styrofoam material, but countries like Ireland, Germany, and Taiwan (just to name the few I know off hand which tax plastic bags) show us that national bans and taxes on such environmental garbage are practical, enforceable, and, most importantly, effective measures for curbing environmental degradation.

It’s actually shameful for me as a Californian when the best we can do, our “mandatory recycling program,” doesn’t even mandate recycling or fine those who don’t recycle. The California Redemption Value (CRV), a surcharge on beverages sold in markets, is a good show of how policies which require follow up by consumers fail. In China the redemption value of a bottl, from what I encountered, can be half the value of the drink itself. Levying a 10 cent charge on a three-dollar drink is almost asking it to be ignored. In the best case, a thoughtful consumer may figure paying the CRV is paying to have the environmental impact of a wasteful purchase offset so he can feel better about throwing away the bottle when he’s done with it. Worse case is people don’t even think that much about it.

The great thing about programs such as Ireland’s is that people get the message that it’s their own actions which are impacting the environment. It raises awareness and with a simple tax, avoidable if consumers chose to bring a reusable bag, offers the realization that we can do better.

There’s something that must go over my head about the value of being conservative in this environment. With all the arguing about who can bring change earlier this month, how is it that the boys from the Good ol’ Party are now vying for the title of most conservative? Isn’t this just the same game that the Republicans have been playing for the last decades? Playing up most conservative just to pull voters away from the middle? And isn’t that exactly how we ended up with that warmonger Bush at the helm?

Now, really, this isn’t so surprising from the rest of the red flock, but it’s pretty disappointing to see McCain jump on this bandwagon. McCain’s got about three things that play strongly for him. He’s not a religious idealogue, he knows war better than most American voters, and he’s willing be independent from the party to get good things done. I can see how he can think playing super-conservative will help him get the party’s nomination, but he should be thinking further ahead. Sending the message that it’s he’d rather be a party man than a people’s man now may dissuade Democrat voters who didn’t get their favorite blue candidate on the November ballot.

Until today’s GOP debate, I would have taken McCain over Hillary. Tomorrow? We’ll see.

While I have met a good number of people who are tremendously well versed on a variety of subjects, I cannot say I’ve yet had the pleasure of meeting one able to demonstrate an understanding (and do keep in mind the difference between understanding something and knowing bland facts about it) everything. It is a fact I accept as part of the natural order of things that some know more about one thing than others and, as such, must sacrifice the small details of an phenomenon so keep the larger picture within focus; delving into atomic spin orbitals isn’t really necessary when explaining how a microwave works.  It becomes expected that experts know enough about something to boggle our minds with details (after all, that’s why they’re experts) and, for the sake of not loosing an audience, leaves out details which would be either lost or distracting to the lay person.  But at what point does this simplification become oversimplification? More disturbing, how far will we let someone broad stroke an issue before it’s evident that they’re skipping important parts, parts that shouldn’t be skipped, for a better selling story?

These thoughts came to mind during an interview I caught on Berkeley’s KPFA Flashpoints program. They broadcast an interview with journalist Robert Fisk earlier this evening (Jan 29th) in which Fisk, as befitting his great familiarity with the Middle East went into good detail on some of the more shadowy details of the current US led occupation of Iraq (beyond my own knowledge without question). There was a bit more. Something in his voice that was familiar to me through the time I’ve spent living overseas as an expat. Something in the same tone as the sentence I just wrote. There’s a tone of “I know more than you possibly can because I’ve been there.”

Is there credit to this notion? Some, surely. There’s something about living in a place that goes beyond merely studying it. It goes back to the distinction between knowing a place in the academic sense and understanding it in a way that’s somehow more. But there’s a danger to this. In the same way one with a financial stake in, say, the automotive industry may not be the most objective reporting on failing auto safety, one with an emotional stake in a country or region may, consciously or not, tend to overlook it’s shortcomings in a way that creates the same one-sided world view he would criticize from someone who’s never been there.

It’s a balancing act, you see, to allow yourself to experience enough of a place to understand it better without letting yourself get carried away with the prevailing ideas of a place.

While embedded journalists and experts are without a doubt invaluable to our understanding of the world, we should all keep in mind that thin line between reporting and supporting and how easy it can be to drift over.

Nothing like a leap-year winter; one extra chilly January day and the last State of the Union address of a presidential term. Except for the 30% of Americans who still approve of Bush (guess that would be the thirty percent who haven’t been keeping up with the news over the last seven years), most probably shared me experience of sideways jokes punctuated by the akward silence as the room contemplates that eternal Bush musing, “can he really mean that?”

Some of my favorite excerpts:

In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth, but in the short run, we can all see that that growth is slowing.

Sure we’re confident in the long run. We’ll have (heavens willing) a brilliant former law professor in as President for the next eight years. And growth isn’t slowing. We’re fucked. First hint: the disgusting fall in the value of the US dollar since Bush took office ( chart). Second: every time Bush comes up with a “plan” to fix the economy, the market heads south.

We have other work to do on taxes. Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we’ve delivered over the past seven years will be taken away.

Members of the Congress should know, if any bill — raises taxes reach — reaches my desk, I will veto it.

And yet $300 checks to American taxpayers? How many morgages will that keep from going into default? Is that something this jackass thinks we can afford? We’ve been portioning our economy off to foreign countries to finance a war that has lost it’s support (domestically, internationally, and ideologically) and was founded on lies (I’ll never know how Powell sleeps at night) because we had to build a nation (sorry, fight terror. . . or was it spread democracy?) and have gotten utterly quagmired. NOW Bush thinks he can afford to buy off the American people with money that isn’t his and is becoming less and less ours? How about listening to Congress once and a while? You know, those people we elected when we couldn’t kick you out?

Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely.

Twit

On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas.

Hehe. . . as poor as the Dollar is doing, I don’t see how giving Corporate America more outsourcing options is going to help the American work force. Ah, but herein lies the genius of Bush; the weaker the Dollar gets, the less benefit there’ll be for moving a job overseas. Sweet.

To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow.

Except for stem cells, cloning, and things related to that evolutionary gobbledygook.

On matters of life and science, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries.

Did anyone see “defining moral boundaries” in his job description?

On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says.

Wasn’t there something about powers not within the constitution being reserved for the people? Maybe I got that backward. Constitution didn’t say anything about illegal wiretapping so they must be included?

Tonight, the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast.

Is that the army that blows up hospitals or the one that blows up the checkpoints of an occupying force?

I won’t go further into the mess of military stuff he dumps on the table like so much soiled, rotten cabbage, but if you didn’t get the chance to watch it, the transcript is up on CNN ( link).

Well, I’ll sleep a lot better (whiskey helps)

There’s an interesting interview with Brig. Gen. Lindell posted on the Department of Defense’s website.

Lindell:

It’ll be beyond three years before we have developed that capability with the Afghan air corps. It’s not just airframes that we have to acquire. It’s obviously the training of the pilots in this close air support role. It’s the development and the interoperation with the Afghan army that needs to be conducted, and that’s through a joint tactical controller concept. We’re making the plans right now on how we will do that, and we hope to have that capability developed in the year ‘13.

In addition, we have — some of those pilots that are flying are sitting out into an English language program. So they may be currently flying today, but we will pull them off the flying schedule to start English language training, so that they can learn an adequate level, comprehension level of English, and then attend Western training and English language to check out in the C-27 program. So it’s a — it’s kind of a — we’ve got to have a lot of pilots to sustain and build capacity with the current aircraft they’re flying yet pull some off the schedule, sit down to attend full-time academics and English language training.

[full text]

Something about the tone. Can you hear it? The bland acceptance of a prolonged US occupation, teaching people English - requiring it even? So there’s the side that fights against us and the side that accepts us. Of course, accepting occupation isn’t enough. How could the US Armed Forces give up the chance to make another English speaking country out of Iraq. Here it is, the United States version of “Nation Building.” My prediction, by 2012 military policy will label anyone not on a cellphone, severely overweight, and wearing bluejeans as an insurgent.

I can’t be the only one who sees an eerie parallel in the US business in Iraq to Britain’s attitude toward India in the ol’ colonial days, can I?

Finially, the CIA has identified the REAL backers of international terror. After about six-and-a-half years, of running down Al-qaeda and bring democracy to Iraq, we’re taking the war to the true causes of terror and unrest in the world. California whales. Bush’s insistence that Navy training in San Diego’s waters is just a cover to keep PETA off the Administration’s backs. Clearly, using SONAR to beach whales is the weapon to end terrorism, why else would it be so important to train there? And anti-sub exercises? What terrorists have subs?

Come on Bush, you don’t have to lie to the American people like we’re the UN . Congress has backed you this far, I’m sure they’ll understand that killing off whales is critical for national security and international piece. All makes sense to me.

Jack ass.