Oooh man, still no word from BP other than "going as planned." I did however watch CNN bash Obama and BP for quite some time yesterday, and happened to see a guest scientist on the show who was trying to explain how this top kill mud pile thing works, and why it's not actually terrifying that they stopped pouring mud for a bit (in a sentence or two). It flew right over the host's head, but I'm pretty sure I got the gist of what he was attempting to explain. The basic idea is that the mud is getting shot down the pipe to overpower the pressure of the oil in hopes that the hydrostatic forces of the mud and oil will reach equilibrium... buh? Yea, that's actually more words than he used, and if you're like Campbell Brown you're asking, "so why doesn't the oil just come flying out again once you stop pouring mud?"
Sciency Junk! :D If I'm not mistaken, this system loosely resembles the fundamentals of the hydraulic press in reverse. The weight of the ocean and ocean floor is pushing down on a reservoir of oil which has a very narrow escape route. The pressure at that route is not that great in comparison to the weight of the ocean floor, but still immense as we've seen. If the ocean floor SINKS say an inch, then the oil in the pipe must RISE by that same inch multiplied by the ratio of the surface area of the oil reservoir divided by the surface area of the hole in the pipe. HUGE multiplier. The distance the oil has risen is multiplied by the cross sectional area of the pipe, which equates to a MASSIVE volume of oil! And if I'm not mistaken the velocity has the same scaling factor.
If you can start to push that stack of oil back down, it works like a hydraulic press where it requires less force over a greater distance to push the larger mass a small distance. Due to the narrowness of the tube, it's conceivable that the force needed can be provided by just the mass of the mud pile in the pipe. If that mud pile gets large enough, then the system will reach equilibrium. They pumped for HOURS before taking a break, so there's a lot of mud the oil must fight to come back out. This means it won't come flying out all at once, but will slowly accelerate because the pressure of the oil remains the same, but as more mud comes out less mass is being used to force the oil down. Interesting o.o
I would assume they paused to take a measurement to estimate how much further they need to push the oil down, and also to refill on mud. If the length of the pipe is shorter than the calculated required length of mud, then they may as well try something else. But so far everything is "going as planned."
Unrelated Tax Junk: Check out this article by Derek Thompson. He had a great article on Hillary's comment about raising taxes. Good perspective and intelligent comments too! I weighed in on a few of them, and you should too!... but Dad, try to keep it brief on other people's posts! Here's the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/hillary-clintons-unfortunate-defense-of-higher-taxes/57427/?success#toggleBio
Have a good weekend!
~Yasu
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Top Kill
Well, wasted all my time this morning responding to post comments, so no real post today. Just wanted to cross my fingers for BP's Top Kill operation. Hopefully this works, but if not, I will likely bust out my fluid dynamics book and submit a fix recommendation :P I really wish they published reports on why the first few attempts failed, and had more available data on the pressure, velocity, and volume being emitted. Would make it easier to propose a fix. It seems to me the problem is they're trying to overwhelm the oil with brute force, and not taking advantage of laws of fluid dynamics. If the velocity of the oil is the problem, then reverse funnel it, and use rods to make the flow more turbulent. If the pressure is the problem, do the opposite and use the fundamentals of hydraulic systems to stop it. If it's a combination of the two, then uses both techniques. I'm a fan of an hourglass shape filled with arrays of steel rods to first reduce the pressure (bernoulli's equations), then reduce velocity with the rods. Anyway, the brute force methods I've been seeing do not look to be very effectively using mechanical advantage over this thing. But much like the economy, it's easy to speculate from the sidelines. Good Luck BP!
Resisting the urge to do a point by point comparison on how this is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the hurricane Katrina crisis. Simply put, Katrina was a failure to put the square block in the square hole, levee technology has been around since before Jesus! Obama's crisis is a failure to make somebody else do something that's NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE! Oh the incompetence.
Resisting the urge to do a point by point comparison on how this is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the hurricane Katrina crisis. Simply put, Katrina was a failure to put the square block in the square hole, levee technology has been around since before Jesus! Obama's crisis is a failure to make somebody else do something that's NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE! Oh the incompetence.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
American TurmOIL
Here's a long one, primarily influenced by "The End of the Free Market" by Ian Bremmer. Don't worry, it's not what the title sounds like, and is actually very pro-America. GO BUY IT NOW, IT'S BRILLIANT!
Why Real Patriots Hate the Environment: It's time to wake up people (hahaha, what a hilariously overused, quaint phrase. Thanks Palin)! Global warming is a myth, it's largely disputed in the scientific community, it's a conspiracy run by the Emerald Cities, CCX, Al Gore, AND OBAMA! It's actually caused by a shift in the gravitational poles of the earth as prophesied by the late great EDGAR CAYCE! (Nobody's saying that, I'm just fascinated by Cayce) Oil drilling is perfectly safe, we're not actually causing ocean temperatures to rise, we're not in the middle of a mass-extinction event, and don't need to start doing everything in a more sustainable manner...
WHEN in the history of EVER was there an ANTI-environment campaign on the scale that conservatives are running today!?! This is ludicrous! Who's spreading this garbage? (that'll likely be my next post :P) Oh well, that's never going to convince anybody, so how about this: Reducing oil consumption is a matter of economic and national security! Two terms that speak clearly to all conservatives :D
Junk Stolen From Ch3 of "Free Market": The emergence of state-capitalism (read the book!) has brought about the rise of National Oil Companies (NOC)! How big are they? NOC's control 52% of the present market and 88% of all known reserves. They ARE the future! Aside from NOC's being vastly larger than private sector oil companies, they also have different motivations. Private industries are concerned with profit, whereas the NOC's use their natural resources as bargaining chips to achieve the political goals of the nation.
What does this mean for the future? As the present wells run dry and our dependence on oil grows with our population, we become vulnerable to the political whims of those controlling the NOC's. For example, Venezuela has repeatedly threatened to cut off our oil supply, and they're our third largest supplier! Oil prices are going to go up as the supply goes down, and then who gets rich, and what do you suppose they'll do with their new found wealth? Well when oil prices peaked back in 2008 Russia started a conflict with Georgia, and Iran started firing off test missiles. Also, as I mentioned in yesterday's post, China gets oil for weapons in Iran, and traded oil for nuclear programs in N. Korea! THAT is the trading power of oil. Forget dollars!
So which NOC's are the most powerful, and who owns them? Saudi Aramco, Russia's Gazprom, China's CNPC, Iran's NOC, Brasil's Petrobras, Malaysia's Petronas, and Venezuela's PDVSA make up the "new seven sisters" of oil. We have good relations with Saudi Arabia, bad relations with Iran and Venezuela, we have very shaky relations with Russia and China, and Malaysia and Brasil largely keep politics out of their oil (not to be feared or relied too heavily upon).
So which NOC's are the most powerful, and who owns them? Saudi Aramco, Russia's Gazprom, China's CNPC, Iran's NOC, Brasil's Petrobras, Malaysia's Petronas, and Venezuela's PDVSA make up the "new seven sisters" of oil. We have good relations with Saudi Arabia, bad relations with Iran and Venezuela, we have very shaky relations with Russia and China, and Malaysia and Brasil largely keep politics out of their oil (not to be feared or relied too heavily upon).
Our massive reliance on oil will necessarily fund nations who would love to see us fall! Despite claims to the contrary, we're NOT a socialist state, and because we love our free market so much, we will NOT be able to get in on this NOC game. Our only chip on the table is that we are and must continue to be vital to the survival of all other economies through our top notch educational institutions, innovative products, and massive consumption (...of things that don't rhyme with soil). The ONLY way to take control of our destiny is to reduce the bargaining power of oil by massively reducing our dependence on oil for energy, production, and gasoline.
One glimmer of hope resides in the fact that these NOC's are not operated as well as private multi-nationals and largely use the profits for political gain rather than for investing in new rigs and fixes. This hurts their productivity, but also limits the supply further by blocking access to other companies who could more efficiently extract the oil. This could help or hurt, depending on who is failing and who picks up the slack.
Short Term Junk: Cap and Trade will necessarily cause electric bills to "skyrocket," but if oil goes over $100/barrel again or even $200/barrel, what do you think is going to happen to our bills? Byproducts of cap and trade include cleaning our environment, developing green technologies, and Al Gore gets rich. Byproducts of continuing our reliance are we destroy the environment, lose our position as a global super power, and start speaking Chinese.
One glimmer of hope resides in the fact that these NOC's are not operated as well as private multi-nationals and largely use the profits for political gain rather than for investing in new rigs and fixes. This hurts their productivity, but also limits the supply further by blocking access to other companies who could more efficiently extract the oil. This could help or hurt, depending on who is failing and who picks up the slack.
Short Term Junk: Cap and Trade will necessarily cause electric bills to "skyrocket," but if oil goes over $100/barrel again or even $200/barrel, what do you think is going to happen to our bills? Byproducts of cap and trade include cleaning our environment, developing green technologies, and Al Gore gets rich. Byproducts of continuing our reliance are we destroy the environment, lose our position as a global super power, and start speaking Chinese.
Case rested. Conservatives, please, stop with the kill the planet campaign. Archaic Libertarian greed at the moment will cause our downfall in the future, a flaw I'll likely write about soon.
~Yasu
...btw, I gave oil drilling a hard time earlier, and would like to clarify. Just because there's a disaster now doesn't mean drilling won't be a good idea once we resolve safety issues. If the anti-oil stigma is similar to the anti-nuclear stigma following Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, it will only exacerbate the problems I just outlined. It's not a popular opinion right now, but I hope and believe oil drilling should make a comeback much faster than nuclear did :\
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Crazy Uncle Il
N. Korea, wtf mate? Is Crazy Uncle Kim Jong Il ACTUALLY going to start a war, or does he just need a nap? WHO wants to start a war right now!?! That's crazy expensive! We can't afford this right now. Not to mention it's like getting in a fist fight with your girlfriend. If we lose or even struggle we're going to look like idiots, and if we beat them up too badly we'll look like bullies. They've got way too many soldiers and not near enough funding. Do they even have laser guided long range missiles? Our military budget is 11x their entire GDP, come on!
In the case that the Glorious Leader actually gets his Glorious Battle what happens? Hillary Clinton just returned from her visit with China, and it seems China could care less what N. Korea does. Why? 1) They're good trading partners, China accounts for about half of N. Korea's foreign commerce, provides them with around a ton of oil, and stands to gain more from S. Korea's withdrawal from the N. Korean market. 2) N. Korea will likely go to the Chinese for help, not with battle, but with weapons and supplies, and China will give it to them because we've been making HUGE weapon sales to Taiwan since the end of the Bush administration. Why would we DO that!?! ...well because China supplies weapons to Iran... dang.
End result, we lose a ton of money in the war effort, China makes money, our gigantic war budget is thinned out in battles around the world (with two allies of China), and our relations with China are worse than ever. And did we mention when N. Korea shut down their nuclear weapons facilities they signed them over to China in exchange for oil? If I had my Glenn Beck black board out we'd be looking at bubbles indicating that China gives weapons to Iran for oil, then exchanges that oil with N. Korea for their nuclear program! "Nuclear World War, yea, that's greaaat." <--that's my patronizing Glenn Beck voice.
I'm going to wrap this up before I go too far off the deep end. Bottom line, doesn't look good for N. Korea, but looks almost as bad for us.
In the process of trying to keep posts short, I think I may just be stating the obvious. I'll limit future posts to topics or viewpoints that are less widely spread. Thanks for reading.
~Yasu
In the case that the Glorious Leader actually gets his Glorious Battle what happens? Hillary Clinton just returned from her visit with China, and it seems China could care less what N. Korea does. Why? 1) They're good trading partners, China accounts for about half of N. Korea's foreign commerce, provides them with around a ton of oil, and stands to gain more from S. Korea's withdrawal from the N. Korean market. 2) N. Korea will likely go to the Chinese for help, not with battle, but with weapons and supplies, and China will give it to them because we've been making HUGE weapon sales to Taiwan since the end of the Bush administration. Why would we DO that!?! ...well because China supplies weapons to Iran... dang.
End result, we lose a ton of money in the war effort, China makes money, our gigantic war budget is thinned out in battles around the world (with two allies of China), and our relations with China are worse than ever. And did we mention when N. Korea shut down their nuclear weapons facilities they signed them over to China in exchange for oil? If I had my Glenn Beck black board out we'd be looking at bubbles indicating that China gives weapons to Iran for oil, then exchanges that oil with N. Korea for their nuclear program! "Nuclear World War, yea, that's greaaat." <--that's my patronizing Glenn Beck voice.
I'm going to wrap this up before I go too far off the deep end. Bottom line, doesn't look good for N. Korea, but looks almost as bad for us.
In the process of trying to keep posts short, I think I may just be stating the obvious. I'll limit future posts to topics or viewpoints that are less widely spread. Thanks for reading.
~Yasu
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Whose News
I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out how to limit the length of my posts while still presenting something meaningful. Until I figure out how to do that I think I'll do a few short thought pieces.
How much do you trust your news source?
Sure, your newspapers and stations are owned by rich dudes with agendas, and all independent organizations have their purposes as well (and don't even get me started on those garbage propaganda emails, oy), but the REAL misinformation in the media is your own internal bias. YOU WILL FIND WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR! Think about that. Your preconceptions dictate what you find to be credible. Questioning yourself, and finding REAL credible sources for things you already believe is the hardest part of research, but is the only way to really know anything is true.
For instance, I know I listen to more liberal outlets, and every now and then some things sound fishy. Recently the liberal media has been attacking Rand Paul, mostly for being the TEA Party's first major success in the primaries. When I heard he was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of course I was skeptical. I checked it out, watched the videos (his words exactly), and turns out the man is NOT a racist, he's just a laissez faire Libertarian who's not used to getting grilled on national television. He believes private businesses should have the right to deny service to whomever they choose, should have no affirmative action, no mandatory wheel chair accessibility, and probably believes in monopolies too. Doesn't make him a bigot, makes him a very backwards economist.
The point is, we're all predisposed to think opposition news is garbage and needs to be fact checked, but how many of you check the things that you're predisposed to thinking is credible? Work on that.
~Yasu
"If you're young and have a heart you're a liberal. If you're older and have a brain in your head you'll be a conservative." ~My very wealthy real estate agent
Friday, May 21, 2010
Taxes and Benefits
Taxes taxes taxes. Today's post has been inspired by a conversation some co-workers were having as I strolled into work (only 15mins late today!). The convo go cut short because we all had to get back to work, but here's the basic gist of what I think the two opposing sides were saying.
ALL OPINION, totally void of facts!... well almost:
Both sides agree that taxes should be "fair," but how they define fair is vastly different. Should the rich pay more because they can, and its only because of their forced generosity that our country is able to operate? Should we all pay the same amount because the poor receive more benefit while paying less taxes, and as an incentive to be a productive member of society, should those who have earned their fortunes be allowed to keep them?
In short. Yes.
Flat taxes that affect all people equally are almost by definition fair. The amount of taxes charged is proportional to the value of the goods or services provided, regardless of who is receiving it. If I buy a car I'll be taxed just as much as if a millionaire buys that same car. There's some equality.
So, where is the fairness in taking more money from society's most successful... just because they're more successful!?! Shouldn't success be rewarded, should there not be an incentive to be the wildest success you can be, and innovate yer a$$ off all the way to the bank? And isn't America the land of opportunity where your place in society and your success is determined by your talent and hard work?
Yes and Yes.
Furthermore, aren't the rich less likely to cash in on government funded programs? They have private schools, purchase their own health insurance, purchase their own homes and home insurance, live in gated communities, don't go to prison (guilty or otherwise, cuz their lawyers cost a TON!). Rich people basically just need police, military, road and park maintenance, and need illegal immigrants out, which isn't even being done. So why is it that they provide the largest share of tax dollars to programs they won't use?
Argument 1: Earlier, unless you disagreed with me, we answered Yes and Yes to providing incentives to succeed, and to America being the great land of opportunity. I say the two are self-reinforcing; America has provided the incentive for working hard by giving you that framework in which you can succeed and become rich, and because America is great, we are obligated to give back to her and KEEP her great with a portion of the wealth she has given us the opportunity to make. Tadah! Born into another country, into another family, Steve Jobs might be revolutionizing the world of riveting grommets into sneakers. And honestly, born into the wrong family in THIS country he might be revolutionizing the world of janitorial services. Success is not just the product of talent and hard work, but also environment, and dues should be paid.
Argument 2: I make a good amount of money and pay taxes accordingly, and I still have WAY more than I need to get by. I enjoy life, spend as freely as I want on my vacations, and have some fairly nice stuff at my place. People who make more than me, no matter how high their taxes, STILL MAKE MORE THAN ME! And I make less than half the $250k Obama threshold of wealth. Still there are so many rich people who donate money to charity or starving children funds or to the warm fuzzy make me feel good about myself funds, whatever, but they bitch like hell about being over taxed! As if any of those causes should come before the needs of the country. Traditional American beliefs say, 'honor your God, Family, and Country and in that order'. Not 'honor yourself, family, shelter animals, the whales, African orphans, breast cancer, and save some for your country.' How many conservatives do you know who fit this description? How many of them are on the "bring America back to its roots and core values upon which it was founded" bandwagon? To continue the theme from the Arizona post, they follow the most traditional of American values, GREED!
Ok, so if I'm lucky maybe half of you are in agreement that we owe some money to the government, but why do the rich owe more than the poor? They don't, but like any family this country needs X amount of dollars to get by, and it's sure not getting it from the people who need government money just so they can get by. Equal payment from the members of this country would be the equivalent of a father demanding equal payment for bills from his wife, children, infants, pets (haha, though in this analogy each adult, child and pet would have an equal vote in how the household is run and opperated :P ...ignore the absurdity there, cuz for better or worse, that is actually how America is run.).
ALL OPINION, totally void of facts!... well almost:
Both sides agree that taxes should be "fair," but how they define fair is vastly different. Should the rich pay more because they can, and its only because of their forced generosity that our country is able to operate? Should we all pay the same amount because the poor receive more benefit while paying less taxes, and as an incentive to be a productive member of society, should those who have earned their fortunes be allowed to keep them?
In short. Yes.
Flat taxes that affect all people equally are almost by definition fair. The amount of taxes charged is proportional to the value of the goods or services provided, regardless of who is receiving it. If I buy a car I'll be taxed just as much as if a millionaire buys that same car. There's some equality.
So, where is the fairness in taking more money from society's most successful... just because they're more successful!?! Shouldn't success be rewarded, should there not be an incentive to be the wildest success you can be, and innovate yer a$$ off all the way to the bank? And isn't America the land of opportunity where your place in society and your success is determined by your talent and hard work?
Yes and Yes.
Furthermore, aren't the rich less likely to cash in on government funded programs? They have private schools, purchase their own health insurance, purchase their own homes and home insurance, live in gated communities, don't go to prison (guilty or otherwise, cuz their lawyers cost a TON!). Rich people basically just need police, military, road and park maintenance, and need illegal immigrants out, which isn't even being done. So why is it that they provide the largest share of tax dollars to programs they won't use?
Argument 1: Earlier, unless you disagreed with me, we answered Yes and Yes to providing incentives to succeed, and to America being the great land of opportunity. I say the two are self-reinforcing; America has provided the incentive for working hard by giving you that framework in which you can succeed and become rich, and because America is great, we are obligated to give back to her and KEEP her great with a portion of the wealth she has given us the opportunity to make. Tadah! Born into another country, into another family, Steve Jobs might be revolutionizing the world of riveting grommets into sneakers. And honestly, born into the wrong family in THIS country he might be revolutionizing the world of janitorial services. Success is not just the product of talent and hard work, but also environment, and dues should be paid.
Argument 2: I make a good amount of money and pay taxes accordingly, and I still have WAY more than I need to get by. I enjoy life, spend as freely as I want on my vacations, and have some fairly nice stuff at my place. People who make more than me, no matter how high their taxes, STILL MAKE MORE THAN ME! And I make less than half the $250k Obama threshold of wealth. Still there are so many rich people who donate money to charity or starving children funds or to the warm fuzzy make me feel good about myself funds, whatever, but they bitch like hell about being over taxed! As if any of those causes should come before the needs of the country. Traditional American beliefs say, 'honor your God, Family, and Country and in that order'. Not 'honor yourself, family, shelter animals, the whales, African orphans, breast cancer, and save some for your country.' How many conservatives do you know who fit this description? How many of them are on the "bring America back to its roots and core values upon which it was founded" bandwagon? To continue the theme from the Arizona post, they follow the most traditional of American values, GREED!
Ok, so if I'm lucky maybe half of you are in agreement that we owe some money to the government, but why do the rich owe more than the poor? They don't, but like any family this country needs X amount of dollars to get by, and it's sure not getting it from the people who need government money just so they can get by. Equal payment from the members of this country would be the equivalent of a father demanding equal payment for bills from his wife, children, infants, pets (haha, though in this analogy each adult, child and pet would have an equal vote in how the household is run and opperated :P ...ignore the absurdity there, cuz for better or worse, that is actually how America is run.).
So who's it going to come from? That's right. It sucks, but that's how it is. Should rich people get a medal of honor or a Christmas card for keeping this country afloat? Absolutely. Does it suck that it gets taken without their permission? Definitely. Would they give it to the government if they had the choice and the government asked nicely? Probably not, that's why the gov takes it. Should they get more say in how the country is run because they're the ones paying for it? No, because it's a democracy of equality, but the cool thing for them is that they DO get more say because the rich control the media and sponsor support efforts for bills they believe in. So congratulations rich guys, you are skewing democracy :D INCENTIVE! For those of you rich folk who don't own TV stations, not to worry, there's a good chance they will also support defending your wealth.
The big gripe: "Ok, I'll pay your blasted taxes because I have to. But for God's sake spend it wisely man!" Just as every family needs X number of dollars to get by, every family also has Y dollars WASTED! How do you determine which tax dollars fund X and which fund Y? Ohoo, that is a much longer blog than I care to attack today. But do consider two things when paying them and you may at least sleep better at night:
The big gripe: "Ok, I'll pay your blasted taxes because I have to. But for God's sake spend it wisely man!" Just as every family needs X number of dollars to get by, every family also has Y dollars WASTED! How do you determine which tax dollars fund X and which fund Y? Ohoo, that is a much longer blog than I care to attack today. But do consider two things when paying them and you may at least sleep better at night:
First, the reason we have the largest economy is because we are the largest consumers in the world, and the reason we are the largest consumers is because we have the largest middle class. The more people we can shoulder up into the middle class, the better off we'll be. The welfare reform laws of 1996 were made to ensure that it's not an enabling crutch, though welfare-type spending has been and will continue to escalate in down times and with the expansion of the government.
Second, the taxes we contribute have been voted on by elected officials, so do your crying to your local representatives and contribute money to battle further tax bills and spending bills, your opposition will do the same, and hooray for democracy. But until your side wins it's your duty as a citizen to pay the taxes owed. DO NOT go crashing your private plane into the IRS building. If he spent as much paying for a good lawyer and some taxes as he did on that plane he crashed, he might be better off than dead. Chronic tax evader, not martyr, don't be that guy!
Sentimental Aside: My family fell on hard times and needed a hand once, right after the divorce. I don't dare ask my mom for the details, but I know we received at least some government assistance. That help was enough for my mom to keep us fed, get on her feet, and decades later she, my sister and I are both very productive members of society and paying back into the funds from which we borrowed, with interest. This may not be the norm, but the poor should have a chance to succeed just as much as the rich, and to some extent the welfare programs ensure that right. Even if only 1 in 5 end up succeeding, we'll still come out ahead (my taxes alone likely pays back in a year what my mom received in total, and my mom pays about the same), and will have at least given everyone a fair chance to succeed.
Conclusion: Yes, taxes are necessary, it's unfortunate but the rich have to take the brunt of it without the benefits (truly taxation without representation :\ ), but it goes to a good cause that indirectly benefits the rich as well. In broad general terms I am SURE there is plenty of government and waste and ways to fix it, but until then keep in mind that the "rich" have more than they need, money doesn't buy happiness, and crying about how things ought to be doesn't buy happiness either. That's it for now, perhaps we can attack what is and is not necessary in a later post.
There will be a post on greed coming soon I'm sure, but I would like to finish the economics book I'm reading first to make it more insightful.
~Yasu
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Anarchy in the BK (Thailand)
So, once again, the news has dictated the post. Bangkok, Thailand... oh man. This is very sad :(
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-20/thai-army-moves-to-enforce-curfew-after-ending-protest-assault.html
http://www.lfpress.com/news/world/2010/05/19/14005151.html
For those of you who haven't been following at all, check out these links to get caught up. (I apologize in advance for using so many wikipedia links as references, but for large breakdowns of Thai politics (in English), this is really the most comprehensive way to go):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8004306.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejjajiva
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-20/thai-army-moves-to-enforce-curfew-after-ending-protest-assault.html
http://www.lfpress.com/news/world/2010/05/19/14005151.html
For those of you who haven't been following at all, check out these links to get caught up. (I apologize in advance for using so many wikipedia links as references, but for large breakdowns of Thai politics (in English), this is really the most comprehensive way to go):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8004306.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejjajiva
Recent Junk: The most recent series of developments were first the red shirt protests were pushed back by the military using non-lethal weapons, red shirts fought back, held their ground, responded violently, live ammunition was then used in response, and likewise the red shirts responded with explosives and tactics learned from an unnamed foreign support force. After a round of bloodshed, both sides backed off, talks were held, and PM Abhisit agreed to hold a new election. Hooray. The red shirts intended to hold their ground until the election, and somehow during an interview with The New York Times a red shirt general was shot in the head by a sniper... crap. The red shirts go crazy, protests increase in violence, the elections get canceled, live rounds are used on red shirts who are burning tires and setting up barricades in the streets, death toll reaches 37, a curfew is imposed, the protests were forcibly broken up, and now entire buildings are being burned down. City Hall and Central World shopping center, have both been completely destroyed. There is straight up anarchy in Thailand right now, death toll up to 74, and 1700 injured! :( The rebel leaders have been captured, but when fighting idealists, there's always new leaders to replace them.
Speculative JUNK: This is a bit of an aside, but who's in this fight right now? Red shirts and the military. Yellow shirts and other shirt groups have been mostly silent and completely non-violent. So, if a red shirt general gets shot in the HEAD by a SNIPER, who do you suppose did it? The red shirts were all going to go home after the elections right? Instead, Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdiphol, a defector, was shot in the head, everyone went nuts, and surprise, the elections got cancelled. Come on, who stands to benefit from this? 95% odds Abhisit called in the order to avoid elections, 5% chance it was the foreign reinforcements on the Red Shirt side being anarchist war mongers. Anyway, no way to confirm, so moving on.
Opinionated Junk: There are clearly fundamental problems with Thailand's democratic government structure which has been a work in progress since 1932 and was radically changed during their last crisis in 2006. Since the start of the prime minister position in Thailand, only a handful of them have left office due to an election. The majority leave by a military coup or their version of impeachment! The reason military coups are so common is because the military is too closely tied in with politics. The senate is largely controlled by the military and only half the members get voted in, the others are appointed.
There's good reason for citizens not to trust their government leadership. The red shirts' original cause was to support a more representative election (their champion was banished, the party disassembled, and their enemy voted in under suspect circumstances). That's a worthy cause that has devolved into total anarchy. I don't promote much international interaction, but I do think that because we are democracy's flagship and Thailand is a floundering democracy, we should at least speak out for peace. I know it seems to be US policy not to promote peace in countries without OIL, but we should do SOMETHING.
Hillary Clinton starts an Asia tour today which includes China, Japan, and South Korea. She will likely discuss Thailand at all three locations, but it would be a very impressive move on her part (and great for her career) to actually VISIT Thailand in this time of need. It is dangerous right now, but the people do have limits. The Thai people are very respectful of foreigners, and also of their king. In all the chaos, the palace has gone untouched out of respect. An American ambassador could speak directly to the people from the palace as a guest of the king and be fairly safe. There would be no need to choose sides, just have them stop the anarchy. It wouldn't be that hard for a respected unbiased party to convince a nation primarily made of peaceful Buddhists to step back and realize the damage they're doing to their beloved country, and that this is NOT the way to achieve a democracy. Also, since the government had already agreed to a new election previously, it would only be reasonable that they could again agree to such a thing if the red shirts just go home. If Hilary doesn't want to or can't do it, send Bill or Jimmy Carter. We have several big names in peace negotiations who have dealt with far worse in the middle east. I think stopping this is well within our power. We could help them restructure their government too, but that may be pushing it.
We've spent trillions on wars in oil rich countries and imposed democracies, can we spare a plane ticket and a few hours of face time for peace in a struggling democracy? It's so simple, I don't know if our reputation can afford NOT to send someone. But who knows, maybe we're too late and a visit is now unnecessary. Maybe the red shirts will return to the countryside defeated now that their leaders have been captured, and the dispute has been resolved violently... :\
Hope to have some uplifting news soon, but probably not the next post. I have some ideas I want to get out soon.
Opinionated Junk: There are clearly fundamental problems with Thailand's democratic government structure which has been a work in progress since 1932 and was radically changed during their last crisis in 2006. Since the start of the prime minister position in Thailand, only a handful of them have left office due to an election. The majority leave by a military coup or their version of impeachment! The reason military coups are so common is because the military is too closely tied in with politics. The senate is largely controlled by the military and only half the members get voted in, the others are appointed.
There's good reason for citizens not to trust their government leadership. The red shirts' original cause was to support a more representative election (their champion was banished, the party disassembled, and their enemy voted in under suspect circumstances). That's a worthy cause that has devolved into total anarchy. I don't promote much international interaction, but I do think that because we are democracy's flagship and Thailand is a floundering democracy, we should at least speak out for peace. I know it seems to be US policy not to promote peace in countries without OIL, but we should do SOMETHING.
Hillary Clinton starts an Asia tour today which includes China, Japan, and South Korea. She will likely discuss Thailand at all three locations, but it would be a very impressive move on her part (and great for her career) to actually VISIT Thailand in this time of need. It is dangerous right now, but the people do have limits. The Thai people are very respectful of foreigners, and also of their king. In all the chaos, the palace has gone untouched out of respect. An American ambassador could speak directly to the people from the palace as a guest of the king and be fairly safe. There would be no need to choose sides, just have them stop the anarchy. It wouldn't be that hard for a respected unbiased party to convince a nation primarily made of peaceful Buddhists to step back and realize the damage they're doing to their beloved country, and that this is NOT the way to achieve a democracy. Also, since the government had already agreed to a new election previously, it would only be reasonable that they could again agree to such a thing if the red shirts just go home. If Hilary doesn't want to or can't do it, send Bill or Jimmy Carter. We have several big names in peace negotiations who have dealt with far worse in the middle east. I think stopping this is well within our power. We could help them restructure their government too, but that may be pushing it.
We've spent trillions on wars in oil rich countries and imposed democracies, can we spare a plane ticket and a few hours of face time for peace in a struggling democracy? It's so simple, I don't know if our reputation can afford NOT to send someone. But who knows, maybe we're too late and a visit is now unnecessary. Maybe the red shirts will return to the countryside defeated now that their leaders have been captured, and the dispute has been resolved violently... :\
Hope to have some uplifting news soon, but probably not the next post. I have some ideas I want to get out soon.
Update: sad start for my blog, good day for AZ.
Corrective JUNK: Dang, one post in and I'm already having to withdraw outrage. Lesson learned for the future: research everything to death... hard to do when you're reading full original texts as research. Oh well, I'll get this figured out eventually.
Recently an amended version of SB1070, HB2162, has been signed into law (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0211.htm). This new bill corrects the "lawful contact" line to make it clear that questioning can only occur during an already legal stop. Also there's further language changes specifically intended to discourage racial profiling. Sounds like some very good fixes, that just might make this bill legal. Furthermore, AZ is one of the states where a driver's license is evidence of legality, which is good news. As someone who frequently forgets or loses his drivers license, I can understand how Latinos would still be discriminated against, but the discrimination is much less extreme. (Also, if you ARE someone who forgets your DL often, you probably know your DL number, and with another form of photo ID, say a debit card with photo on it, you're in the clear! Crisis averted.) I'd say the remaining inconvenience might be worth the $2.7B price tag. Sounds to me that unless this law leads to excessive enforcement of minor crimes (eg: J-walking, littering cig butts, etc.) for the purpose of having cause for questioning a persons legality, things should be ok. We'll see how enforcers choose to use this law. Though I standby my outrage at the original bill, my outrage has been quelled thanks to the amendment.
Thoughts? Is this enough of a fix? Is the left ready to rescind objections? How much more fair do you really expect federal corrections to be and still be effective? What does this still say about the willingness of the bills original supporters to sell out our civil rights?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Arizona: Individuals vs Americans
With so much going on, it's hard to decide where to start... luckily the news decided it for me. Today President Obama again condemned the Arizona Immigration Law Amendment - Senate Bill 1070. Unlike the health reform bill it's only 17 pages long, and changes are highlighted in blue for your convenience. I highly recommend you check it out: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Factual Junk: Section 2b states that an officer of the law who makes lawful contact (unlawful would be like trespassing to apprehend without a warrant) with a person they believe is an illegal immigrant, must attempt to get verification of their immigration status. There has been some "confusion" from proponents of the law saying there has to be a previous infraction as well, such as a traffic violation. There is nothing like that in this section of the bill, only in Section 4e which only applies to the illegal smuggling of immigrants.
Opinionated Junk: [A relevant aside: I'm keeping this clearly labeled because I think News channels with opinion commentators should more clearly label their programming by removing the "NEWS" bit from their title/logo while that program is on.] The debate is NOT about whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US. Both sides AGREE they should not be allowed, and there needs to be tighter regulations. There should be no finger pointing as to why it's a problem, because it's been a problem through several administrations. End of story, bi-partisan agreement. Hooray.
The debate is over civil rights and racial profiling.
Shocking revalation: As an INDIVIDUAL I believe in profiling, and I bet you do too. Hear me out. Do you think it's anyone's effective use of time to be stopping Granny Smith at the airport for additional screening? NO, there's no reason to think she's a terrorist, stop wasting time on her, and use it being more effective. What about Jihad Janes? If we could observe mosque activity, the way we observe online "chatter," then that risk goes way down too. So why are we all candidates for additional screening? For our nonsensical sense of fairness. Ok, still not convinced? How about this example a high school teacher of mine once gave me. Imagine the crime were not plane high jackings, but rather brutal anal rape and murder in dark alleys (yes, this is EXACTLY what my teacher said), and say the vast majority of these criminals were not Muslims, but rather short Asian men. You're walking home one night walking by a dark alley with a short Asian man sitting there. What do you do? Does your liberal civil rights side say, "Oh, don't be silly, there are billions of short Asian men out there, don't run or prep your pepper spray or you might offend him." He gets up and starts toward you, "Oh this is strange, but I must not judge, he might just ask me for change. Don't offend him." HELL... NO! You, the individual, starts walking as fast as your legs will carry you, because you're thinking, "Gee, there've been a lot of brutal anal rape murders in alleys like this one, and he looks a lot like all the other guys who are doing it. I'm gonna run like hell." And there's no shame in that. This is how busting drug dealers works (young men standing idley on corners), this is how busting prostitutes works (scantily clad women walking aimlessly on the streets). The international airport in Tel Aviv, Israel (super dangerous area) doesn't screen everybody, only "suspicious people". What's suspicious? It's at the discression of the screener *cough profiling*, and their system WORKS!
So, why do you (liberals) feel like an Unamerican bigot if you see a Muslim park a large white van with tinted windows and think, "terrorist maybe?"
Because, as AMERICANS we believe in equal rights and civil rights, we do not condone discrimination or profiling, it's one of the things our forefathers believed in, it's been redefined and fought for by great men and women before us, and it's what makes America great. As AMERICANS we have the individual right to run like hell if we feel endangered, but we CANNOT set up discriminatory laws or practices. And there's the rub.
So tell me this, why, when we're faced with the possibility of death and attack, do we maintain composure and remember who we are and where we come from, but somehow Arizona forgot this over elevated crime rates and a poor economy. "Patriots" are pushing for this bill to protect our "freedoms", and supposedly 2/3 of all Americans support this law that legalizes the discrimination of Latinos. Coincidence that the passage of this bill happens to coincide with the largest financial crisis in decades? The most convincing reason I've seen for cracking down on immigration is FAIR's (Federation for American Immigration Reform) statistic that illegal immigration in AZ alone costs them an additional $2.7B! I can't find info on whether this is true or not, but it doesn't matter for the point I'm making.
Again, as an INDIVIDUAL, yea it makes sense, get 'em out. As an AMERICAN, is that the price tag put on our values? We say, "I don't care if I die from preventable terrorist attacks, but $2.7B!?! Let's get to profiling!" The modern day "Patriots" are saying we need to do this to defend our country and our rights from illegal immigrants. I say the only American value they're defending is GREED.
Proposal: The thing I hate most about gripes is when there's only complaining and no proposed solutions. In this case it's fairly straight forward and unoriginal, but requires some patience :\ Let's do this legally at the federal level. We can keep better track of immigrants or make more stringent entrance regulations. Set up all drivers licenses to contain citizenship information, so when a person is stopped (for a good reason), it will become immediately obvious whether they are illegal or not. Also, crack down on employers; there are any number of ways (many of which are already being done) to crack down on illegal immigration. There is now sufficient pressure on Obama to make this the next item on his agenda (and it is obviously related to the economy), so thanks AZ for lighting that fire... while setting us back decades in civil rights. Let's see what happens.
Thanks for reading. Tomorrow's post likely to be on Anarchy in Thailand, so stick around.
~Yasu
haha oh man, the number of quotes that could be taken out of context in this thing are ridiculous! Good thing I'm not famous.
Factual Junk: Section 2b states that an officer of the law who makes lawful contact (unlawful would be like trespassing to apprehend without a warrant) with a person they believe is an illegal immigrant, must attempt to get verification of their immigration status. There has been some "confusion" from proponents of the law saying there has to be a previous infraction as well, such as a traffic violation. There is nothing like that in this section of the bill, only in Section 4e which only applies to the illegal smuggling of immigrants.
Opinionated Junk: [A relevant aside: I'm keeping this clearly labeled because I think News channels with opinion commentators should more clearly label their programming by removing the "NEWS" bit from their title/logo while that program is on.] The debate is NOT about whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US. Both sides AGREE they should not be allowed, and there needs to be tighter regulations. There should be no finger pointing as to why it's a problem, because it's been a problem through several administrations. End of story, bi-partisan agreement. Hooray.
The debate is over civil rights and racial profiling.
Shocking revalation: As an INDIVIDUAL I believe in profiling, and I bet you do too. Hear me out. Do you think it's anyone's effective use of time to be stopping Granny Smith at the airport for additional screening? NO, there's no reason to think she's a terrorist, stop wasting time on her, and use it being more effective. What about Jihad Janes? If we could observe mosque activity, the way we observe online "chatter," then that risk goes way down too. So why are we all candidates for additional screening? For our nonsensical sense of fairness. Ok, still not convinced? How about this example a high school teacher of mine once gave me. Imagine the crime were not plane high jackings, but rather brutal anal rape and murder in dark alleys (yes, this is EXACTLY what my teacher said), and say the vast majority of these criminals were not Muslims, but rather short Asian men. You're walking home one night walking by a dark alley with a short Asian man sitting there. What do you do? Does your liberal civil rights side say, "Oh, don't be silly, there are billions of short Asian men out there, don't run or prep your pepper spray or you might offend him." He gets up and starts toward you, "Oh this is strange, but I must not judge, he might just ask me for change. Don't offend him." HELL... NO! You, the individual, starts walking as fast as your legs will carry you, because you're thinking, "Gee, there've been a lot of brutal anal rape murders in alleys like this one, and he looks a lot like all the other guys who are doing it. I'm gonna run like hell." And there's no shame in that. This is how busting drug dealers works (young men standing idley on corners), this is how busting prostitutes works (scantily clad women walking aimlessly on the streets). The international airport in Tel Aviv, Israel (super dangerous area) doesn't screen everybody, only "suspicious people". What's suspicious? It's at the discression of the screener *cough profiling*, and their system WORKS!
So, why do you (liberals) feel like an Unamerican bigot if you see a Muslim park a large white van with tinted windows and think, "terrorist maybe?"
Because, as AMERICANS we believe in equal rights and civil rights, we do not condone discrimination or profiling, it's one of the things our forefathers believed in, it's been redefined and fought for by great men and women before us, and it's what makes America great. As AMERICANS we have the individual right to run like hell if we feel endangered, but we CANNOT set up discriminatory laws or practices. And there's the rub.
So tell me this, why, when we're faced with the possibility of death and attack, do we maintain composure and remember who we are and where we come from, but somehow Arizona forgot this over elevated crime rates and a poor economy. "Patriots" are pushing for this bill to protect our "freedoms", and supposedly 2/3 of all Americans support this law that legalizes the discrimination of Latinos. Coincidence that the passage of this bill happens to coincide with the largest financial crisis in decades? The most convincing reason I've seen for cracking down on immigration is FAIR's (Federation for American Immigration Reform) statistic that illegal immigration in AZ alone costs them an additional $2.7B! I can't find info on whether this is true or not, but it doesn't matter for the point I'm making.
Again, as an INDIVIDUAL, yea it makes sense, get 'em out. As an AMERICAN, is that the price tag put on our values? We say, "I don't care if I die from preventable terrorist attacks, but $2.7B!?! Let's get to profiling!" The modern day "Patriots" are saying we need to do this to defend our country and our rights from illegal immigrants. I say the only American value they're defending is GREED.
Proposal: The thing I hate most about gripes is when there's only complaining and no proposed solutions. In this case it's fairly straight forward and unoriginal, but requires some patience :\ Let's do this legally at the federal level. We can keep better track of immigrants or make more stringent entrance regulations. Set up all drivers licenses to contain citizenship information, so when a person is stopped (for a good reason), it will become immediately obvious whether they are illegal or not. Also, crack down on employers; there are any number of ways (many of which are already being done) to crack down on illegal immigration. There is now sufficient pressure on Obama to make this the next item on his agenda (and it is obviously related to the economy), so thanks AZ for lighting that fire... while setting us back decades in civil rights. Let's see what happens.
Thanks for reading. Tomorrow's post likely to be on Anarchy in Thailand, so stick around.
~Yasu
haha oh man, the number of quotes that could be taken out of context in this thing are ridiculous! Good thing I'm not famous.
Hello World
Junk Shot: A proposed technique for stopping the oil spill by filling the ruptured pipe with debris of various sizes in hopes that all holes will eventually be sealed... with junk. Ingredients range from tiny bits of epoxy, to golf balls and shredded tires. Probably soon to be a metaphor or euphemism for many things, including this blog which will likewise be filled with tiny bits of technical substance and large clusters of opinionated garbage. I'm going with Junk Shoot cuz that's what I originally thought it was called, and I think it's more appropriate.
The reason I'm starting this is because we live in a time of unprecedented political disagreement. Topics of the time: the failing economies of the west, the prospering economies of the east, the reform of American health care, the growing national debt, the growing GLOBAL debt, the rise of the TEA Party in the US, the red shirt rebellion in Thailand, accusations of socialism in the US, the birthers, an unparalleled level of global communication, the use of that communication for the mass spread of intentional misinformation, extreme partisanship, Arizona's immigration law, the oil spill, etc. IT'S ENDLESS!!! I've had the pleasure of debating these points while "shooting the shit" with so many people and in the process learned so much, that I thought it might be time to start using some of this crazy global communication jazz to shoot the shit with y'all. So, let's fill the gaps between the left and right with bits of understanding, perspective and knowledge.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
~Yasu
PS: Congrats to you if you get the programming geek reference title.
"Yea, Mike's real easy company. So quick to joke and laugh, it's like shooting shit in a bucket." ~Briana Morey
The reason I'm starting this is because we live in a time of unprecedented political disagreement. Topics of the time: the failing economies of the west, the prospering economies of the east, the reform of American health care, the growing national debt, the growing GLOBAL debt, the rise of the TEA Party in the US, the red shirt rebellion in Thailand, accusations of socialism in the US, the birthers, an unparalleled level of global communication, the use of that communication for the mass spread of intentional misinformation, extreme partisanship, Arizona's immigration law, the oil spill, etc. IT'S ENDLESS!!! I've had the pleasure of debating these points while "shooting the shit" with so many people and in the process learned so much, that I thought it might be time to start using some of this crazy global communication jazz to shoot the shit with y'all. So, let's fill the gaps between the left and right with bits of understanding, perspective and knowledge.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
~Yasu
PS: Congrats to you if you get the programming geek reference title.
"Yea, Mike's real easy company. So quick to joke and laugh, it's like shooting shit in a bucket." ~Briana Morey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)