For years, Detroit has spent more money on lobbyists fighting higher fuel efficiency standards than they have on efficiency R&D. The Bush administration was on their side - hey, fat cars were good for W's oil buddies.
At long last, now that they've got no choice, US car manufacturers are going to have to do what's right. Too bad they couldn't manage to do it of their own volition, but had to be strong-armed.
Why, after decades of battling, complaining and maneuvering over fuel economy standards, did carmakers fall in line behind the tough new nationwide mileage standard President Obama announced Tuesday?
Because they had no choice. The auto industry is flat on its back, with Chrysler in bankruptcy, General Motors close to it, and both companies taking billions of dollars in federal money. Foreign automakers are getting help from their own governments. Climate change legislation is barreling down the track, and Congress showed last fall that it had no appetite to side with Detroit any more.
Simply put, Detroit and the other companies need Washington’s help, and they are powerless to block the rules Washington dictates.
“They can feel the political winds changing,” said David Doniger, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council who has faced the car companies in court many times. “They need government aid to stay in business. When you have your hand out for help, it’s hard to use the same hand to thumb your nose at the federal government.”
In 2005, car companies were able to stop fuel economy legislation. By 2007, with the country awakened to the realization that global warming was a threat, they were forced to go along with higher standards but managed to water them down.
This time, they arrived at the table so debilitated they could extract only the barest of concessions. The primary gift carmakers received from Mr. Obama in Tuesday’s proposal was the certainty of one fuel economy standard from California to Maine, rather than the patchwork that would have resulted from two sets of regulations, one by the 18 states that wanted tighter standards, and another for everywhere else. [NYTimes.com]
Bread is used as much as metaphor as it is food. The most obvious examples that come to mind are from the Bible, in both the Christian and Hebrew texts. A simple search for the word "bread" in an online bible yields hundreds of results, and familiar stories abound. The book of Exodus reminds us that when the Jews were lost and starving in the desert God fed them with manna, or bread from heaven. And sometimes directions are pretty specific. In the book of Ezekiel, for example, the prophet is instructed to take wheat, barley, beans, lentils, and millet and make bread out of them for nourishment while he too was in the desert. In the New Testament Jesus uses bread as the ultimate metaphor when he refers to it as His body: blessed, broken, and shared. After more than two millennia this is still practiced in the form of Holy Communion each Sunday in Christian churches around the globe. And one of the most powerful Biblical metaphors is in the Lord's Prayer, where people pray to God for their life's necessities, while using the words Daily Bread. These, of course, are just a few examples of many.
Bread as religious metaphor is not limited to Judeo-Christian tradition or inspiration. Rumi, the 13th century Islamic mystic and poet, who is an important figure in Sufism and is usually accredited with the Whirling Dervishes, dedicated or inspired an entire series of poems to bread and how it mirrors life. To this day, in fact, bread is such an integral part of many Middle Eastern diets that in some Arabic dialects it is referred to as esh or aysh, meaning life.
The act of sharing bread or an entire meal together is sometimes referred to as "breaking bread." This is also the basis of the modern word companion, which is derived from the Latin phrase com pani, which loosely translates to with one whom bread is shared (com: with or together; pani: bread). Other modern, albeit slightly dated, examples are in the form of slang. Money is sometimes called "bread" or "dough." [cheftalk.com]
Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program....
Inside the Obama administration, some officials say, Pakistan’s drive to spend heavily on new nuclear arms has been a source of growing concern, because the country is producing more nuclear material at a time when Washington is increasingly focused on trying to assure the security of an arsenal of 80 to 100 weapons so that they will never fall into the hands of Islamic insurgents....
Bruce Riedel, the Brookings Institution scholar who served as the co-author of Mr. Obama’s review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, reflected the administration’s concern in a recent interview, saying that Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than anyplace else on earth, and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing faster than anyplace else on earth.” [NY Times]
Given that nukes are probably weapons to be used against India, which is really not the imminent threat that the Taliban is, why is Pakistan ramping up their nuclear capabilities? Scary stuff!
"All animals except man know that the ultimate of life is to enjoy it." - Samual Butler; 1912
"There is something about dolphins. It is difficult to put into words..." - Mark Carwardine
"Diviner than the dolphin is nothing yet created..." - Oppian, Halieutica
"Listen to the voice of a dolphin, and you shall learn the secret to mankinds' survival: PEACE!!!" - Mallory Watson
"Pushing through green waters Symbol of joy You leap from the depths To touch the sky Scattering spray Like handfuls of jewels..." - Horace Dobbs
A while ago I was asking people what kind of animal they would be, and here were some of the answers:
My aunt: a dog My grandmother no doubt would be a giraffe My mother: a rhino George: a virus, so you can get inside and find out how things work And for me, surprise, a dolphin because I'd like to be that smart and to swim around all day.
Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars.
Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park — large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home.
As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.
Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called “smart planning.” [NY Times]
So, what do you think? Is it the right thing to do, reducing emissions and oil dependency, while encouraging exersize? Or is it taking this whole green thing too far?
The Chinese capital of Beijing will increase water prices this year as it aims to restrict total water consumption to 3.58 billion cubic meters according to China News Service. [Environmental Leader.com]
I've heard stories that Indian village farmers can now make more money because, via cellphone, they have better market information. I also remember my friend using his cellphone screen as a flashlight to help us all go down the dark stairs in his apartment building.
Sometimes a technology comes along and crystallizes a cultural moment. Not since Americans and their automobiles in the 1950s, perhaps, have a people and a technology wedded as happily as Indians and their cellphones — small and big, vibrating and tringing, BlackBerry and plain vanilla.
What makes the cellphone special in India? It is partly that India skipped the land-line revolution, making cellphones the first real contact with the outside world for hundreds of millions of people. It is partly that, with few other machines selling so briskly, the cellphone in India is forced variously to be a personal computer, flashlight, camera, stereo, video-game console and day organizer as well. It is partly that India’s relative poverty compels providers to be more creative to survive.
But it is also that the cellphone appeals deeply to the Indian psychology, to the spreading desire for personal space and voice, not in defiance of the family and tribe, but in the chaotic midst of it. [NY Times]
This week Buddhist's are celebrating Buddha's birthday. Here are some great pictures. [foreignpolicy.com] In Korea and other places, lanterns play a large role in the festivities, representing illumination both internal and external. I love these fish.
I came back from two weeks of vacation, away from news, away from politics, away from TV to find Bristol Palin advocating abstinence-only. What!?
Why does ideology have to trump common sense? She, of all people, should know that what she's talking about is rubbish. While he's not terribly articulate, I'm glad her baby-daddy is out there countering the nonsense.
I love hearing about these ideas that solve several problems at the same time.
Kenya's huge and squalid slums don't have much of anything, except mountains of trash that fill rivers and muddy streets, breeding disease.
Now Kenyan designers have built a cooker that uses the trash as fuel to feed the poor, provide hot water and destroy toxic waste, as well as curbing the destruction of woodlands.
After nine years of development, the prototype "Community Cooker" is close to being rolled out in overcrowded refugee camps as well as slums around the country where the filth encourages diseases including cholera.
First of all, here's a link to a very interesting map of pirate attacks around the world. They certainly are clustered around Somalia, but there are some off the Americas as well.
My bigger question, raised when the US military got involved with the latest big act of piracy and hostage taking: Is this a military matter, where commerce is part of the national interest and should be protected?
Or is it a commercial matter, where insurance against piracy is simply the cost of doing business? This seems to be the attitude, by and large, up to this point.
Here's my opinion: dealing with piracy should be a private, commercial matter. The consumers of the goods being shipped will pay the additional costs for the safety of transport. If the matter is taken over by the military then you and I, the taxpayers, are subsidizing the businesses that choose to use this shipping lane. Why should I do that? If I'm a purchaser of those goods, I'll make the decision whether or not I'm still going to purchase at a higher price and then the market sends a clear signal on whether that shipping lane should be used.
I haven't seen any media discussion of this. Has anyone?
At some point -- say, once the Illinois legislature has voted to kick you out of office and you're under federal indictment -- there comes a time where you really can't sink much lower. Fortunately, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is a man of many talents, and he's found a way to do just that.
Blagojevich has reportedly signed on for the next season of the reality show "I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!" which is set to be filmed in Costa Rica for NBC this June. There is one potential hitch: He'll need a judge's permission to travel out of the country. But come on, what judge would deny him the opportunity to compete for fame and money with Nancy Kerrigan?
Fascinating interview with Iran's Ahmadinejad. He clearly takes no responsibility for the state of the US-Iran relationship. It is all the fault of the US. Is he saying it to bolster his re-election bid? or does he really believe it? Given his pattern, I suppose he really does believe it.
President Obama,who has called your aggressive anti-Israeli remarks "disgusting," has nevertheless spoken of a new beginning in relations with Iran and extended his hand to you.
I haven't understood Obama's comments quite that way. I pay attention to what he says today. But that is precisely where I see a lack of something decisive. What leads you to talk about a new beginning? Have there been any changes in American policy? We welcome changes, but they have yet to occur.
You are constantly making demands. But the truth is: Your policies, Iran's disastrous relations with the United States, are a burden on the global community and a threat to world peace. Where is your contribution to the easing of tensions?
I have already explained this to you. We support talks on the basis of fairness and respect. That has always been our position. We are waiting for Obama to announce his plans, so that we can analyze them.
And that's all?
We have to wait and see what Obama wants to do.
The world sees this differently. Iran must act. Iran must now show goodwill.
Where is this world you are talking about? What do we have to do? You are aware that we are not the ones who severed relations with America. America cut off relations with us. What do you expect from Iran now?
Concrete steps, or at least a gesture on your part.
I have already answered that question. Washington cut off relations.
Are you saying that you would welcome a resumption of relations with the United States?
What do you think? What has to happen? Which approach is the right one?
The world expects answers from you, not from us.
But I sent a message to the new U.S. president. It was a big step, a huge step. I congratulated him on his election victory, and I said a few things to him in my letter. This was done with care. We have been and continue to be interested in significant changes taking place. If we intend to resolve the problem between our two countries, it is important to recognize that Iran did not play a role in the development of this problem. The behavior of American administrations was the cause. If the behavior of the United States changes, we can expect to see important progress …
… that could lead to a resumption of diplomatic relations, perhaps even to the reopening of the U.S. embassy, which was occupied in 1979, the year of the revolution?
We have not received an official request in this regard yet. If this happens, we will take a position on the matter. This is not a question of form. Fundamental changes must take place, to the benefit of all parties. The American government must finally learn lessons from the past.
Quantcast" border="0" width="1" height="1">
But you should not?
Everyone must learn from the past.
Then please tell us which lessons you are learning.
We have been under pressure for the past 30 years, unfairly and without fault on our part. We have done nothing …
… according to you. Americans see things quite a bit differently. The 444-day hostage crisis during which 50 U.S. citizens were held from late 1979 until early 1981 in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is still a collective American trauma today.
But think of the things that were done to Iranians! We were attacked by Iraq. Eight years of war. America and some European countries supported this aggression. We were even attacked with chemical weapons and [Western countries] aided and abetted those attacks. We did not inflict an injustice on anyone. We did not attack anyone, nor did we occupy other countries. We have no military presence in Europe and America. But troops from Europe and America are stationed along our borders.
I've read a few books touching on Afghanistan in the past few months. One especially, Kabul in Winter: Life without Peace in Afghanistan, deals with the condition of women as the country emerged from under the Taliban. Outside of Kabul, illiteracy among women is almost universal, girls are married off at 12 or 14.
The NY Times article does not mention whether the 300 women marching were Shiite or a broader coalition. By the fact that some of them were wearing jeans, I'll assume they at least some of them were educated Kabulis, but nonetheless, it is pretty extraordinary that they had the power to protest in the face of opposition.
The women who protested Wednesday began their demonstration with what appeared to be a deliberately provocative act. They gathered in front of the School of the Last Prophet, a madrassa run by Ayatollah Asif Mohsini, the country’s most powerful Shiite cleric. He and the scholars around him played an important role in the drafting the new law.
“We are here to campaign for our rights,” one woman said into a loudspeaker. Then the women held their banners aloft and began to chant.
The reaction was immediate. Hundreds of students from the madrassa, most but not all of them men, poured into the streets to confront the demonstrators.
“Death to the enemies of Islam!” the counterdemonstrators cried, encircling the women. “We want Islamic law!”
The women stared ahead and kept walking.
A phalanx of police, some of them women, held the crowds apart.
From Foreign Policy... Here's an issue I've wondered about from the beginning of the "War on Terror". W kept talking about killing the enemy, as if al Queda were an army whose soldiers could be counted and then eliminated. His whole vocabulary always sounded to me like he thought we were fighting another country. I wonder how much of this comes from the Beltway establishment having grown up during the cold war, when the enemy was a clearly defined nation with formal alliances defining their sphere of influence?
On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed the Pentagon's budget plan for fiscal year 2010. Media attention focused on the many expensive weapons programs Gates cancelled. Gates gave a glimpse of his philosophical approach to the budget with this exchange during the question-and-answer session with the Pentagon press corps:
I mean, the reality is that -- and let me put this very crudely -- if you broke this budget out, it would probably be about 10 percent for irregular warfare, about 50 percent for traditional, strategic and conventional conflict, and about 40 percent dual-purpose capabilities.
So this is not about irregular warfare putting the conventional capabilities in the shade. Quite the contrary: this is just a matter -- for me, at least -- of having the irregular-war constituency have a -- have a seat at the table for the first time when it comes to the base budget.
Gates has felt himself battling against what he has seen as a Pentagon bureaucracy that has been more comfortable with preparing for "big wars," the traditional state-versus-state conventional conflicts. Most of the weapons programs the bureaucracy has promoted, and which Gates killed on Monday, were designed with such wars in mind.
There's an article in BusinessWeek on the effects of providing girls with economic opportunities, both in terms of overall economic development of the country and improved quality of life for the girls themselves.... For more info, also check out girleffect.org.
There are 600 million adolescent girls in developing countries, but they are largely invisible to the world at large. Included among them are girls affected by armed conflict, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, and internal displacement, as well as girls in child-headed households or locked in early marriages. To ignore them is to miss the "girl effect," which could be an unexpected answer to the global economic crisis.
Here's why: When a girl benefits, so does everyone in society, including business. Girls as economic actors can bring about change for themselves, their families, and their countries. Conversely, ignoring the girl effect can cost societies billions in lost potential.
• When a girl in the developing world receives seven or more years of education, she marries four years later, on average, and has 2.2 fewer children.
• An extra year in primary school statistically boosts girls' future wages by 10% to 20%, and every additional year a girl spends in secondary school lifts her income by 15% to 25%. The size of a country's economy is in no small part determined by the educational attainment and skill sets of its girls.
• Young women have a 90% probability of investing their earned income back into their families, while the likelihood of men doing the same is only 30% to 40%.
• A girl's school attainment is linked to her own health and well-being, as well as reduced death rates: For every additional year of schooling, a mother's mortality is significantly reduced, and the infant mortality rate of her children declines by 5% to 10%.
• If educated, girls can get loans, start businesses, employ other women, and reinvest in their families—when they're ready to have them. That means their children can also have an education.
The quality of the US census may be undermined because of rising numbers of people living in garages, tents, basements and motels as the financial crisis deepens, key organisations working with the Census Bureau have warned.[FT]
Because the census is used to distribute both representation and federal funding, the under-counting of those most in need could seriously impact the ability to help people who have fallen off the radar screen. Apparently, the stimulus bill does increase funding for the more difficult counting that goes beyond the form sent through the mail.
I came across an interesting article yesterday on the Nobel Prize website. Mahatma Gandhi never won the Nobel Peace Prize. Why not? The lists of nominees and records of decision-making are sealed for 50 years and so the discussions of Gandhi's last nomination in 1948 have only recently come to light.
It seems that the committee had a tradition of selecting winners who were European or American and affiliated with some kind of peace-focused organization. They were also concerned about the very bloody outcome of the partition of India with the slaughter and relocation of millions along religious lines...
Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans. In retrospect, the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee may seem too narrow. Gandhi was very different from earlier Laureates. He was no real politician or proponent of international law, not primarily a humanitarian relief worker and not an organiser of international peace congresses. He would have belonged to a new breed of Laureates.
There is no hint in the archives that the Norwegian Nobel Committee ever took into consideration the possibility of an adverse British reaction to an award to Gandhi. Thus it seems that the hypothesis that the Committee's omission of Gandhi was due to its members' not wanting to provoke British authorities, may be rejected.
In 1947 the conflict between India and Pakistan and Gandhi's prayer-meeting statement, which made people wonder whether he was about to abandon his consistent pacifism, seem to have been the primary reasons why he was not selected by the committee's majority. Unlike the situation today, there was no tradition for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to try to use the Peace Prize as a stimulus for peaceful settlement of regional conflicts.
During the last months of his life, Gandhi worked hard to end the violence between Hindus and Muslims which followed the partition of India. We know little about the Norwegian Nobel Committee's discussions on Gandhi's candidature in 1948 – other than the above quoted entry of November 18 in Gunnar Jahn's diary – but it seems clear that they seriously considered a posthumous award. When the committee, for formal reasons, ended up not making such an award, they decided to reserve the prize, and then, one year later, not to spend the prize money for 1948 at all. What many thought should have been Mahatma Gandhi's place on the list of Laureates was silently but respectfully left open.
