Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Useless Information #2
Chinese censors want the right to approve Britney Spears outfits on her tour of China. As they said, Relevant departments will carry out strict reviews of Britney Spears' performance clothing. In other words, a bunch of Chinese bureaucrats will sit around "approving" the clothes she will wear on her tour.
I rank this one up there with those seven cops who were in a position to see Pee Wee Herman doing the things which got him busted for public indecency in a porno theater. Frankly, I don't care if Britney Spears performs naked and engages in live sex acts. Somehow I think the world has bigger things to worry about than tut-tutting over "naughty clothing."
Chinese censors want the right to approve Britney Spears outfits on her tour of China. As they said, Relevant departments will carry out strict reviews of Britney Spears' performance clothing. In other words, a bunch of Chinese bureaucrats will sit around "approving" the clothes she will wear on her tour.
I rank this one up there with those seven cops who were in a position to see Pee Wee Herman doing the things which got him busted for public indecency in a porno theater. Frankly, I don't care if Britney Spears performs naked and engages in live sex acts. Somehow I think the world has bigger things to worry about than tut-tutting over "naughty clothing."
Useless Information #1
The oldest woman in the world recently died. She was 114.
I find that amazing. I find the changes that have happened in my brief life to be amazing. Modern video games make the Atari 2600 equivalents seem like cave paintings. My first computer had a "whopping" 10 MBs hard drive space (and ran a C/PM operating system). We used to drive a Ford Pinto.
That's peanuts compared to what Ms. Ramona Trinidad Iglesias Jordan has seen. She was 22 years old when the Titanic sank. She was 27 when WW I ended, and the Communist revolution in Russia happened. She was 50 YEARS OLD when America entered WW II.
When she was born, the normal mode of transportation was horses, and airplanes hadn't even been invented yet.
Amazing, and that's only 100 years. Given that technological progress seems to proceed exponentially, I can't even BEGIN to imagine what the world will be like in 2080.
The oldest woman in the world recently died. She was 114.
I find that amazing. I find the changes that have happened in my brief life to be amazing. Modern video games make the Atari 2600 equivalents seem like cave paintings. My first computer had a "whopping" 10 MBs hard drive space (and ran a C/PM operating system). We used to drive a Ford Pinto.
That's peanuts compared to what Ms. Ramona Trinidad Iglesias Jordan has seen. She was 22 years old when the Titanic sank. She was 27 when WW I ended, and the Communist revolution in Russia happened. She was 50 YEARS OLD when America entered WW II.
When she was born, the normal mode of transportation was horses, and airplanes hadn't even been invented yet.
Amazing, and that's only 100 years. Given that technological progress seems to proceed exponentially, I can't even BEGIN to imagine what the world will be like in 2080.
Monday, May 31, 2004
Good News in India
When I first heard that the BJP (which stands for Bharatya Janata Party, or something like that) was beaten by the Congress party in the most recent Indian elections, I thought: oh shit (as nobel prize winners like to say), there go the reforms. India's economy has been humming along in recent years (and NOT just because of outsourcing, though that's certainly a nice feather in the cap). It seemed mildly insane to throw the people out who nominally were responsible for that success and hand it to a party that, due to its lack of a clear majority, would have to make common cause with the Communist party.
My knee-jerk response, however, appears to be wrong. First, Congress was the party who initiated the reforms that lead to India's vibrant growth in the first place. They started to untie the miles of red tape which stifled Indian industry in the first place (put there by Nehru as a way to encourage domestic Indian industry to replace all those British imports, which is a natural thing for a former part of the British empire to do, just ask Ireland).
When the BJP managed to win the election, they continued those reforms. In practice they were rather reluctant reformers given that they were a Hindu nationalist party, and nationalists don't tend to be the most economically enlightened. Fortunately, they were also rather reluctant to roll back the reforms, so India benefited and the BJP got to claim credit.
The Congress party, however, was the original reformer, and now that Italian-born Sonia Ghandi (not related to Muhatma, and I have NO idea if that is spelled right) has decided not to accept the prime minister's position, the role has passed to Mr. Manmohan Singh, the man who pushed through the original reforms in the first place.
Congress will still have to make an alliance with the Communists, but the Communists in India are not your grandfather's communist party. They rule in Kerala and have managed to make a decent run of things (where they have banned people from striking in the "strategic" IT services industry, a very un-communist thing to do). India's communists seem to concentrate simply on helping the poor and dispossessed to get a share of the pie, and hey, that ISN'T such a bad thing to do. They don't seem as beholden to dated concepts of state central planning.
Singh is also a Sikh, which is a relgion that is a hodge-podge of Islam and Hinduism (and I mean no disrespect by that). That might help him to strike a middle ground between Hindu and Muslim interests, and make him a decent negotiating partner in ongoing peace overtures towards Pakistan.
All things said, India's election generated a useful result. Now, if only America could free itself from domination by only two parties.
When I first heard that the BJP (which stands for Bharatya Janata Party, or something like that) was beaten by the Congress party in the most recent Indian elections, I thought: oh shit (as nobel prize winners like to say), there go the reforms. India's economy has been humming along in recent years (and NOT just because of outsourcing, though that's certainly a nice feather in the cap). It seemed mildly insane to throw the people out who nominally were responsible for that success and hand it to a party that, due to its lack of a clear majority, would have to make common cause with the Communist party.
My knee-jerk response, however, appears to be wrong. First, Congress was the party who initiated the reforms that lead to India's vibrant growth in the first place. They started to untie the miles of red tape which stifled Indian industry in the first place (put there by Nehru as a way to encourage domestic Indian industry to replace all those British imports, which is a natural thing for a former part of the British empire to do, just ask Ireland).
When the BJP managed to win the election, they continued those reforms. In practice they were rather reluctant reformers given that they were a Hindu nationalist party, and nationalists don't tend to be the most economically enlightened. Fortunately, they were also rather reluctant to roll back the reforms, so India benefited and the BJP got to claim credit.
The Congress party, however, was the original reformer, and now that Italian-born Sonia Ghandi (not related to Muhatma, and I have NO idea if that is spelled right) has decided not to accept the prime minister's position, the role has passed to Mr. Manmohan Singh, the man who pushed through the original reforms in the first place.
Congress will still have to make an alliance with the Communists, but the Communists in India are not your grandfather's communist party. They rule in Kerala and have managed to make a decent run of things (where they have banned people from striking in the "strategic" IT services industry, a very un-communist thing to do). India's communists seem to concentrate simply on helping the poor and dispossessed to get a share of the pie, and hey, that ISN'T such a bad thing to do. They don't seem as beholden to dated concepts of state central planning.
Singh is also a Sikh, which is a relgion that is a hodge-podge of Islam and Hinduism (and I mean no disrespect by that). That might help him to strike a middle ground between Hindu and Muslim interests, and make him a decent negotiating partner in ongoing peace overtures towards Pakistan.
All things said, India's election generated a useful result. Now, if only America could free itself from domination by only two parties.
The Islamic Reformation
Saudi Arabia is trying to deal with Islamic extremists who want to force westerners out of Saudi Arabia, as well as charge exhorbitant fees to western powers for the right to consume Arab oil (not a terribly bright thing to do, as high prices tend to motivate people to find alternatives). Pakistan is facing a struggle between Sunnis and Shias that is almost incomprehensible to westerners because, save for Northern Ireland (which is more an ethnic thing than religion), such a situation hasn't happened since Catholics and Protestants rampaged across Europe creating new and innovative ways to kill each other. Also in Pakistan, extremist attempted to assassinate the woman responsible for recent changes to the curriculum in Pakistani schools that reduce the influence of fundamentalist Islam and the concept of holy war.
I find it interesting that Saudi Arabia relies on 6 million expatriates to support its oil industry (Saudi Arabia only has a population of 21 million, making the expat community 1/3rd of the total). Why is it that Saudi Arabia must rely on foreigners to run their businesses for them? Is it an indictment of a system that puts more emphasis on religious indoctrination than issues that matter to the health of modern economies? It's not just me asking these questions. Saudi Arabia, like Pakistan, is evaluating its curriculum to determine whether it emphasises the wrong things.
The Islamic world seems to be going through a reformation, and if the western equivalent is any guide, it is likely to be violent. Unfortunately, their's is taking place in a world with nuclear bombs and modern armaments. Likewise, certain elements are so angry at the west (and westerners) that they will do everything in their power to kill as many of them as possible (only one of the murdered expats in Khobar was an American, and the dead included a Swedish cook, so it's NOT just an anti-American thing).
If we didn't rely on oil, we might be able to ignore the turmoil of the middle east about as much as we ignore events in Africa. Heck, it took 1 million deaths in Rwanda before the west noticed the genocide taking place in the country. Granted, ignoring such horror is NOT a good thing, but I certainly don't like having to worry about whether the economy is going to tank because a "fear premium" is causing price inflation and slowing growth in the world economy.
On the other hand, there IS a good side to high gas prices. Yes, it CAN slow growth. On the other hand, the higher the price of gasoline, the more likely people will do things to reduce their consumption, leading to a reduction in our reliance on oil sourced from the middle east (as an aside, the number one source for oil imported by the United States is Canada. Saudi Arabia, however, is number two). Moreover, higher prices make alternative sources of power (not to mention alternative sources of oil) more economical.
Europe gets by on prices of gasoline that would make a cowboy choke on his chewing tobacco. They can handle those prices because they have lead to widespread mass transit systems and roads filled with the functional equivalent of gas-sipping clown cars.
Saudi Arabia is trying to deal with Islamic extremists who want to force westerners out of Saudi Arabia, as well as charge exhorbitant fees to western powers for the right to consume Arab oil (not a terribly bright thing to do, as high prices tend to motivate people to find alternatives). Pakistan is facing a struggle between Sunnis and Shias that is almost incomprehensible to westerners because, save for Northern Ireland (which is more an ethnic thing than religion), such a situation hasn't happened since Catholics and Protestants rampaged across Europe creating new and innovative ways to kill each other. Also in Pakistan, extremist attempted to assassinate the woman responsible for recent changes to the curriculum in Pakistani schools that reduce the influence of fundamentalist Islam and the concept of holy war.
I find it interesting that Saudi Arabia relies on 6 million expatriates to support its oil industry (Saudi Arabia only has a population of 21 million, making the expat community 1/3rd of the total). Why is it that Saudi Arabia must rely on foreigners to run their businesses for them? Is it an indictment of a system that puts more emphasis on religious indoctrination than issues that matter to the health of modern economies? It's not just me asking these questions. Saudi Arabia, like Pakistan, is evaluating its curriculum to determine whether it emphasises the wrong things.
The Islamic world seems to be going through a reformation, and if the western equivalent is any guide, it is likely to be violent. Unfortunately, their's is taking place in a world with nuclear bombs and modern armaments. Likewise, certain elements are so angry at the west (and westerners) that they will do everything in their power to kill as many of them as possible (only one of the murdered expats in Khobar was an American, and the dead included a Swedish cook, so it's NOT just an anti-American thing).
If we didn't rely on oil, we might be able to ignore the turmoil of the middle east about as much as we ignore events in Africa. Heck, it took 1 million deaths in Rwanda before the west noticed the genocide taking place in the country. Granted, ignoring such horror is NOT a good thing, but I certainly don't like having to worry about whether the economy is going to tank because a "fear premium" is causing price inflation and slowing growth in the world economy.
On the other hand, there IS a good side to high gas prices. Yes, it CAN slow growth. On the other hand, the higher the price of gasoline, the more likely people will do things to reduce their consumption, leading to a reduction in our reliance on oil sourced from the middle east (as an aside, the number one source for oil imported by the United States is Canada. Saudi Arabia, however, is number two). Moreover, higher prices make alternative sources of power (not to mention alternative sources of oil) more economical.
Europe gets by on prices of gasoline that would make a cowboy choke on his chewing tobacco. They can handle those prices because they have lead to widespread mass transit systems and roads filled with the functional equivalent of gas-sipping clown cars.
