Not one to support every fruitcake leader known to man but all the press (and government grandstanding) about Iran's nuclear ambitions seems over the top.
Hypocrisy seems the right word to describe a government led by a corrupt, inept, religious zealot who is responsible for the invasion of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) and the military and diplomatic support of another invasion (Lebanon - by Israel - a country that also has nuclear weapons) in the last 5 years and who has weapons of mass destruction of their own calling for a country that hasn't been at war for 18 years to stop developing weapons.
This is compounded by both India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons in recent years and getting no effective sanctions for that. No threats of invasions or bombings. Just let them do it.
And the one country that is actually making threats with nuclear weapons - North Korea - certainly isn't being threatened with invasions or air strikes. Even though a person on the board of a company (ABB) who supplied them with nuclear technology, is now a senior US Administration member.
No wonder most of the Middle East thinks the US (and Europe - especially the UK) is full of...it.
No, I'm not advocating the spread of nuclear weapons or technology (at a time when Tony Blair is advocating renewed nuclear power developments), but you haven't got a moral leg to stand on when you're responsible for illegal acts around the world and supporting or ignoring other countries who are doing the same things as Iran.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Mirrors - Left wing liberals and the religious right
I've always had an interest in environmental "stuff", not necessarily because I'm enlightened or anything, but because environmental things can lead to greater efficiency and health. I am a bit of a lefty but only a bit.
Environmentalism also interests me because done sensibly it can be done by the general public (without great disturbances to their lives) and by good government planning.
Examples being simple things like dual flush toilets (common in NZ but rare in the UK - queue more ranting about British plumbing), public trash cans with three compartments instead of one (for bottles, cans and the rest - common in Germany), anti-GM sentiment (all through Europe despite the chemical companies "owning" the governments), and general recycling.
However you get silly things too (we've all seen the "don't generate jobs for thousands because it will destroy the Northern Spotted Ant" stories) and it isn't always black and white either. Sometimes one environmental victory causes another environmental defeat. Recent examples here include species of butterflies dying out (well, they are photogenic) because of people (of course) AND replanted native woodlands.
But when you see a story like the Montana Governor suggesting Montana's coal as a cure for America's oil addiction which I recently saw reported on the BBC you get some strange things happening.
The governor outlined his side of the story: no reliance on horrible places with dictators; keeping payments within the US; generating jobs; Montana is full of coal, etc.
Then, to balance the story, the BBC got comment from an environmentalist (which are probably just like economists - each have a different story) and he pretty much said pretty much "no, we all need to conserve energy".
This immediately sounded like a Christian fundamentalist (and the American government these days) saying the cure to teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc is abstinence. You all know it has as much chance of working as George Bush's plans for Iraq.
So why, given the small sound bite available, didn't he actually come up with something practical? Even I, from my casual but interested observer status, know about Ethanol.
The BBC have had a number of stories on it and how it's worked in Brazil - 2 million cars running dual fuel with Ethanol being much cheaper than imported oil and cleaner too.
And if you're thinking "yeah, but that's them", Google recently had a lecture by Vinod Khosla who as an obvious bumbling amateur (he founded Sun Microsystems!) saying that it could be done in the States for around $30 - $70 a car (some notable cars are already capable of running dual fuel but nobody realises it), and a state the size of Montana (he actually used the Dakotas as an example) could generate enough raw material to replace oil almost entirely - eliminating the need for a lot of expensive wars, propping up very evil dictators (in the name of supporting the spread of democracy), and also eliminating America's expensive (to your tax payer) agricultural subsidies.
So all around good news (except maybe the oil companies - whose refineries could actually make ethanol).
His video is here and it is HUGE so only click if you're on broadband, have a lot of spare time, have a tolerance for un-flashy presentations (needs Steve Jobs's help), and an interest in this.
So to badly sum up this waffling post: "just say no" doesn't work for sex or the environment. Making it easier to say no (either to sex or to driving gas guzzling SUVs) or say yes in a less destructive way (contraceptives or cleaner fuels) is a much more pragmatic idea - one that has a hope of working AND doing good.
[I need to edit more - and to get a cleaner line of thinking]
Environmentalism also interests me because done sensibly it can be done by the general public (without great disturbances to their lives) and by good government planning.
Examples being simple things like dual flush toilets (common in NZ but rare in the UK - queue more ranting about British plumbing), public trash cans with three compartments instead of one (for bottles, cans and the rest - common in Germany), anti-GM sentiment (all through Europe despite the chemical companies "owning" the governments), and general recycling.
However you get silly things too (we've all seen the "don't generate jobs for thousands because it will destroy the Northern Spotted Ant" stories) and it isn't always black and white either. Sometimes one environmental victory causes another environmental defeat. Recent examples here include species of butterflies dying out (well, they are photogenic) because of people (of course) AND replanted native woodlands.
But when you see a story like the Montana Governor suggesting Montana's coal as a cure for America's oil addiction which I recently saw reported on the BBC you get some strange things happening.
The governor outlined his side of the story: no reliance on horrible places with dictators; keeping payments within the US; generating jobs; Montana is full of coal, etc.
Then, to balance the story, the BBC got comment from an environmentalist (which are probably just like economists - each have a different story) and he pretty much said pretty much "no, we all need to conserve energy".
This immediately sounded like a Christian fundamentalist (and the American government these days) saying the cure to teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc is abstinence. You all know it has as much chance of working as George Bush's plans for Iraq.
So why, given the small sound bite available, didn't he actually come up with something practical? Even I, from my casual but interested observer status, know about Ethanol.
The BBC have had a number of stories on it and how it's worked in Brazil - 2 million cars running dual fuel with Ethanol being much cheaper than imported oil and cleaner too.
And if you're thinking "yeah, but that's them", Google recently had a lecture by Vinod Khosla who as an obvious bumbling amateur (he founded Sun Microsystems!) saying that it could be done in the States for around $30 - $70 a car (some notable cars are already capable of running dual fuel but nobody realises it), and a state the size of Montana (he actually used the Dakotas as an example) could generate enough raw material to replace oil almost entirely - eliminating the need for a lot of expensive wars, propping up very evil dictators (in the name of supporting the spread of democracy), and also eliminating America's expensive (to your tax payer) agricultural subsidies.
So all around good news (except maybe the oil companies - whose refineries could actually make ethanol).
His video is here and it is HUGE so only click if you're on broadband, have a lot of spare time, have a tolerance for un-flashy presentations (needs Steve Jobs's help), and an interest in this.
So to badly sum up this waffling post: "just say no" doesn't work for sex or the environment. Making it easier to say no (either to sex or to driving gas guzzling SUVs) or say yes in a less destructive way (contraceptives or cleaner fuels) is a much more pragmatic idea - one that has a hope of working AND doing good.
[I need to edit more - and to get a cleaner line of thinking]
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Terror - or inconvenience? A ramble
Well, almost 13 months after the London Tube bombings, we have another major terrorist incident in London.
Supposedly, the terrorists were going to blow up liquid based bombs kept in their carry on luggage on up to 10 planes.
This resulted in police raids and an effective lock-down of most of the UK's airports. You have to remember that London has 3 of the largest airports in the world - Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It also has two other commercial airports - Luton and London City. A LOT of people go through here.
Most airlines cancelled flights - especially to the US. Extra-ordinary security measures were in place - especially having to check in carry on baggage and any carry on goods having to be taken in see through bags. No liquids, no electronic devices. Goodbye cellphones, iPods, laptops, contact lens fluid!
Compliments to the intelligence services (MI5 actually have a nice website) and the police if this is proven. Security and deterrence is good. Terror, fear and a police state is bad. London (apart from an in-depth media "autopsy") seems to have returned to normal. The British are used to terror groups - we had the IRA here for years. But we haven't turned into a psychopathic police state with secret prisons and rights removing insane laws like the Patriot Act. We continue to live - we are still Britain.
Up yours terrorists!
...
On the other hand I was debating asylum seekers and immigrants with a friend and thought how easy it is to feel marginalised and isolated in this country (any country).
If these "British born terrorists" were attacking Israel (maybe firing these Hizbollah rockets) would Israel try to rain destruction on the UK? If the same applied to maybe France would the UK government still NOT be insisting on an immediate ceasefire? And how does this double standard make British Muslims feel? Does this breed more "British born terrorists"?
We live in a strange world but one that hasn't changed much - except everything has got closer and bigger. I (currently) still feel extra-ordinarily lucky (touch wood - really touch wood) that I live in a generation where I haven't had to go to war. My parents didn't but their families did and just about every generation beforehand have had to deal with it - not with professional armies but with conscription where people weren't brave and heroic, they just "did" and "survived".
Other places aren't so lucky - like the Palestinians, the Israelis (to a lesser effect but still an effect), the Iraqis, the Sri Lankans, most of Africa (especially Sudan, Somalia, Congo), any number of places. There, you can't be talking head like me and journalists, you do what you need to live and hope you and your family stay alive :(
One hopes that one day, those places too can avoid the fear of instant death either from terrorists or "anti-terrorists". Peace, in other words.
[one has to wonder if all these interesting keywords are going to flag things with the NSA and GCHQ?]
Supposedly, the terrorists were going to blow up liquid based bombs kept in their carry on luggage on up to 10 planes.
This resulted in police raids and an effective lock-down of most of the UK's airports. You have to remember that London has 3 of the largest airports in the world - Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It also has two other commercial airports - Luton and London City. A LOT of people go through here.
Most airlines cancelled flights - especially to the US. Extra-ordinary security measures were in place - especially having to check in carry on baggage and any carry on goods having to be taken in see through bags. No liquids, no electronic devices. Goodbye cellphones, iPods, laptops, contact lens fluid!
Compliments to the intelligence services (MI5 actually have a nice website) and the police if this is proven. Security and deterrence is good. Terror, fear and a police state is bad. London (apart from an in-depth media "autopsy") seems to have returned to normal. The British are used to terror groups - we had the IRA here for years. But we haven't turned into a psychopathic police state with secret prisons and rights removing insane laws like the Patriot Act. We continue to live - we are still Britain.
Up yours terrorists!
...
On the other hand I was debating asylum seekers and immigrants with a friend and thought how easy it is to feel marginalised and isolated in this country (any country).
If these "British born terrorists" were attacking Israel (maybe firing these Hizbollah rockets) would Israel try to rain destruction on the UK? If the same applied to maybe France would the UK government still NOT be insisting on an immediate ceasefire? And how does this double standard make British Muslims feel? Does this breed more "British born terrorists"?
We live in a strange world but one that hasn't changed much - except everything has got closer and bigger. I (currently) still feel extra-ordinarily lucky (touch wood - really touch wood) that I live in a generation where I haven't had to go to war. My parents didn't but their families did and just about every generation beforehand have had to deal with it - not with professional armies but with conscription where people weren't brave and heroic, they just "did" and "survived".
Other places aren't so lucky - like the Palestinians, the Israelis (to a lesser effect but still an effect), the Iraqis, the Sri Lankans, most of Africa (especially Sudan, Somalia, Congo), any number of places. There, you can't be talking head like me and journalists, you do what you need to live and hope you and your family stay alive :(
One hopes that one day, those places too can avoid the fear of instant death either from terrorists or "anti-terrorists". Peace, in other words.
[one has to wonder if all these interesting keywords are going to flag things with the NSA and GCHQ?]
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
London - exciting and boring
I've lived in London now for over 6 years now and coming from a country where just about every house is unique and individual (sometimes to a scary degree) London can seem monotonous and boring.
I've walked through suburbs where uniqueness is one street's houses having a different feature window than the houses in the next street. Or one round window instead of a triangular one. Bungalows (single story houses) are unique and sold to little old ladies because there's no stairs and they're rare. Detached houses (not row houses or semi-detached "joined at the hip" houses) are rare and generally owned by millionaires. In fact the greatest sense of identity for most houses here is the (usually shoddy and mismatched) housing modifications - like patios and new window frames.
The song "little boxes by the roadside" applies to London housing and coming into London recently by road it was so undeniably depressing that I wonder why I'm here - when I could be in New Zealand moaning about something completely different ;)
Then, as you think everything is depressing, you get a different point of view (isn't there always?).
I walk a short distance to work in Central London. When I say short, I mean SHORT (or possibly even SHRT). In that extremely short walk to work I pass a modern cafe of an undeniably modern nature (wouldn't want to have to clean all the glass windows), apartment buildings best described as mansions (we won't comment on the insides - British plumbing and cabling is scary), shops with apartments above them that would architecturally be described as palatial (or palace like) and an old church that would be a cathedral in any other country. If I walked a bit further I would actually see a palace too!
Britain can do good architecture (and engineering and manufacturing and design and...) but they just don't these days unless it's for some new bridge or multi-storey office block. When it comes to residential suburban living, it's just bland variations of boring designs that have been here for a century.
It's sad, but you have to wonder if Britain's creative stems from a backlash of the soul against this monotony.
...meanwhile there's nothing wrong with an American beach house being put beside a French chateau style building in a NZ street - is there? Oh....
I've walked through suburbs where uniqueness is one street's houses having a different feature window than the houses in the next street. Or one round window instead of a triangular one. Bungalows (single story houses) are unique and sold to little old ladies because there's no stairs and they're rare. Detached houses (not row houses or semi-detached "joined at the hip" houses) are rare and generally owned by millionaires. In fact the greatest sense of identity for most houses here is the (usually shoddy and mismatched) housing modifications - like patios and new window frames.
The song "little boxes by the roadside" applies to London housing and coming into London recently by road it was so undeniably depressing that I wonder why I'm here - when I could be in New Zealand moaning about something completely different ;)
Then, as you think everything is depressing, you get a different point of view (isn't there always?).
I walk a short distance to work in Central London. When I say short, I mean SHORT (or possibly even SHRT). In that extremely short walk to work I pass a modern cafe of an undeniably modern nature (wouldn't want to have to clean all the glass windows), apartment buildings best described as mansions (we won't comment on the insides - British plumbing and cabling is scary), shops with apartments above them that would architecturally be described as palatial (or palace like) and an old church that would be a cathedral in any other country. If I walked a bit further I would actually see a palace too!
Britain can do good architecture (and engineering and manufacturing and design and...) but they just don't these days unless it's for some new bridge or multi-storey office block. When it comes to residential suburban living, it's just bland variations of boring designs that have been here for a century.
It's sad, but you have to wonder if Britain's creative stems from a backlash of the soul against this monotony.
...meanwhile there's nothing wrong with an American beach house being put beside a French chateau style building in a NZ street - is there? Oh....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)