So Mohammed ElBaradei of the IAEA is a Nobel laureate. This is disappointing. While I don't think that the group's work and charge are undeserving of recognition, or that what they are doing is not of the utmost importance in the political games we play, but I don't feel that the track record of the group is worthy of this honor. I'm not referring to Iraq.
Of the nuclear news in the last few years or so, the IAEA has demonstrated not a lack of will or means, but a lack of results. Iran, North Korea, A.Q. Khan. Libya closed their nuclear shop because we intercepted a shipment of materials and strongarmed that result. The IAEA, while necessary, is just another bureaucracy. And we all know the many problems of bureaucracy.
I know the Nobel committee likes to send political messages, especially to the U.S. Like when Jimmy Carter won. While he had a record of deserving the prize, the reasons the committee gave were purely political and aimed directly at President Bush as we discussed the run-up to the Iraq War. This seems equally as political, considering the U.S. tried unsuccessfully to not renew ElBaradei's term at the IAEA earlier this year. It also seems like the committee is making a point regarding the inspector issue in Iraq.
And while the Peace Prize is the only Nobel prize that can be given during ongoing work, it seems past history has shown us that waiting for results of a "peace movement" is prudent. Like the mistake of giving the Prize to Arafat. For peace!
So by my own argument, it might be best to wait for the program to end before rewarding Sen. Lugar and former Sen. Nunn for their work to round up all the missing nuclear material around the world. Same with Bono for all his work to raise awareness on the issues plaguing Africa.
I don't know who would have been a better choice this year, but I would not have voted for this one.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN
Since the nomination of Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS on Monday, a blog was created to monitor the road to confirmation. It mocks her, and it is hilarious.
Especially funny are the criticisms of The Note, ABC's daily political news roundup. It is too long. Fake-Harriet Miers has it right. It's a good source of info, but too damn long.... You should have seen it when the election last year was reaching its boiling point.
More on this nomination in a later post....
Especially funny are the criticisms of The Note, ABC's daily political news roundup. It is too long. Fake-Harriet Miers has it right. It's a good source of info, but too damn long.... You should have seen it when the election last year was reaching its boiling point.
More on this nomination in a later post....
Monday, October 03, 2005
A MISTAKE OR A GREAT CHESS MOVE?
President Bush has nominated his White House Counsel Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor on the SCOTUS. I'm yet unsure if this was a good thing or a bad appointment.
On one hand, she was once a democrat and is now a republican, so the conventional wisdom is that she is a moderate. So this may be a one-for-one trade and the balance of the court will remain the same. Or so the theory goes. She seems smart, capable, and would provide another female to the court, which I believe was important.
I would have liked to have seen a female minority, preferrably an Hispanic, nominated, but we can't all win.
On the other hand, she is not, nor has been, a judge. Her experience is solely as a lawyer. This does not disqualify her of course, but it seems like it flies in the face of recent tradition. I heard Orrin Hatch earlier say this was another type of diversity on the court, providing another avenue of experience. I can be persuaded of that. But my real concern is that she got the nod because she is loyal to Bush. Was she the most qualified? Was she even the most qualified woman? I don't know the answers to those. But I would not want another example of political cronyism to result in a huge job promotion. Anyone remember FEMA's Mike Brown? Vince Foster? American government is littered with sweet political appointments that might be undeserved (from both parties, throughout time; this is nothing new). What does it matter if Bush likes Miers? Or that she has been loyal to him?
She once told David Frum that President Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever met. Exsquese me? I believe he is smarter than he gets credit for, and the perpetuates the assumption of his stupidity for low-political expectations, and we know he was smarter than John Kerry from their pretty-unimportant Yale grades, but I take great issue with Miers's classification of our president. She may be the only person in the world to have ever said such a thing.
On one hand, she was once a democrat and is now a republican, so the conventional wisdom is that she is a moderate. So this may be a one-for-one trade and the balance of the court will remain the same. Or so the theory goes. She seems smart, capable, and would provide another female to the court, which I believe was important.
I would have liked to have seen a female minority, preferrably an Hispanic, nominated, but we can't all win.
On the other hand, she is not, nor has been, a judge. Her experience is solely as a lawyer. This does not disqualify her of course, but it seems like it flies in the face of recent tradition. I heard Orrin Hatch earlier say this was another type of diversity on the court, providing another avenue of experience. I can be persuaded of that. But my real concern is that she got the nod because she is loyal to Bush. Was she the most qualified? Was she even the most qualified woman? I don't know the answers to those. But I would not want another example of political cronyism to result in a huge job promotion. Anyone remember FEMA's Mike Brown? Vince Foster? American government is littered with sweet political appointments that might be undeserved (from both parties, throughout time; this is nothing new). What does it matter if Bush likes Miers? Or that she has been loyal to him?
She once told David Frum that President Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever met. Exsquese me? I believe he is smarter than he gets credit for, and the perpetuates the assumption of his stupidity for low-political expectations, and we know he was smarter than John Kerry from their pretty-unimportant Yale grades, but I take great issue with Miers's classification of our president. She may be the only person in the world to have ever said such a thing.
ALIEN TRIFECTA
The television networks have been unloading their new shows on us unassuming Americans the last few weeks. Well, I guess we were assuming, since this happens every year.
Among the new shows are three options trying to serve the "Lost" crowd: supernatural-themed thrillers. There is "Threshold" on CBS, the number one network; there is "Surface" on NBC, the fallen giant in desperate need of a big hit again; and there is the "Lost" heir-apparent, "Invasion."
I've seen all three shows since they began and am up-to-date. I have already stopped watching "Surface" because it is a waste of time. I do not like Lake Bell, or the story, and feel I can see the same kind of material done better elsewhere. Too bad NBC keeps striking out. What will it take?
"Invasion" is alright, though there is very little exposition in the show. I like the cast and the setup, but there are mysteries all over the place and almost no resolution, even on the most basic level. I will stick with it, if only on my DVR, for awhile to see if it can win me over.
The best of the three, I think, is "Threshold." The cast is great, with Peter Dinklage, Carla Gugino, and that guy from Independence Day who was the doctor and was doing the autopsy on the alien and was pushed up against the glass and used as the vessel through with the alien speaks to Will Smith through the glass. Plus, they treat the material intelligently. I think this is because David Goyer is behind the show. He is the comic book messiah who was behind Blade, Batman Begins, etc. They refer back to things like the others do not, and don't sloppily leave plots hanging. Plus, they show just enough of the problem, i.e. the aliens, to intrigue but not ruin. The other shows just do not show enough of the hand they are holding. They render the audience, or maybe just me, uninterested. I had the benefit of watching the first four episodes back-to-back this weekend while I was sick, thanks to my DVR. I'm telling you nonbelievers, get this device. It only costs $10 from Comcast. And for all I know there is a better deal out there.
Has anyone else seen any of these shows? What do you think?
And what of the new season, if anything, have you caught, and what do you like? Dislike?
Among the new shows are three options trying to serve the "Lost" crowd: supernatural-themed thrillers. There is "Threshold" on CBS, the number one network; there is "Surface" on NBC, the fallen giant in desperate need of a big hit again; and there is the "Lost" heir-apparent, "Invasion."
I've seen all three shows since they began and am up-to-date. I have already stopped watching "Surface" because it is a waste of time. I do not like Lake Bell, or the story, and feel I can see the same kind of material done better elsewhere. Too bad NBC keeps striking out. What will it take?
"Invasion" is alright, though there is very little exposition in the show. I like the cast and the setup, but there are mysteries all over the place and almost no resolution, even on the most basic level. I will stick with it, if only on my DVR, for awhile to see if it can win me over.
The best of the three, I think, is "Threshold." The cast is great, with Peter Dinklage, Carla Gugino, and that guy from Independence Day who was the doctor and was doing the autopsy on the alien and was pushed up against the glass and used as the vessel through with the alien speaks to Will Smith through the glass. Plus, they treat the material intelligently. I think this is because David Goyer is behind the show. He is the comic book messiah who was behind Blade, Batman Begins, etc. They refer back to things like the others do not, and don't sloppily leave plots hanging. Plus, they show just enough of the problem, i.e. the aliens, to intrigue but not ruin. The other shows just do not show enough of the hand they are holding. They render the audience, or maybe just me, uninterested. I had the benefit of watching the first four episodes back-to-back this weekend while I was sick, thanks to my DVR. I'm telling you nonbelievers, get this device. It only costs $10 from Comcast. And for all I know there is a better deal out there.
Has anyone else seen any of these shows? What do you think?
And what of the new season, if anything, have you caught, and what do you like? Dislike?
THE HOTTEST MYSTERY
An Update: The Hottest Woman in the World has been absent from the train platform for a few weeks now. I assumed that she went on maternity leave and/or had her baby. She only occasionally returned to my thoughts, when I would walk the platform in the morning to wait for the train.
Until yesterday. I went to Oak Brook to return some bullshit headphones I bought at the Apple Store. And when I walked up the stairs from the parking garage, who do I see? Her, and Johnny Hemmesch. And a stroller. So I have a whole new layer of mystery to solve.
Johnny is a year younger than me, and mystery woman looks a year or two older. It is possible that she is Johnny's wife, I suppose, but I would be a little surprised.
Johnny has an older sister, Annie. The problem is that the Annie that I used to know ten years ago doesn't look like the woman in question. This is also possible, I suppose, but I would again be a little surprised.
But this is in line with what I privately thought I saw before: that the mystery woman would sit with Mr. Hemmesh on occasion on the train. So he sat with his daughter, or his son's wife. Hmmmmmm.
Until yesterday. I went to Oak Brook to return some bullshit headphones I bought at the Apple Store. And when I walked up the stairs from the parking garage, who do I see? Her, and Johnny Hemmesch. And a stroller. So I have a whole new layer of mystery to solve.
Johnny is a year younger than me, and mystery woman looks a year or two older. It is possible that she is Johnny's wife, I suppose, but I would be a little surprised.
Johnny has an older sister, Annie. The problem is that the Annie that I used to know ten years ago doesn't look like the woman in question. This is also possible, I suppose, but I would again be a little surprised.
But this is in line with what I privately thought I saw before: that the mystery woman would sit with Mr. Hemmesh on occasion on the train. So he sat with his daughter, or his son's wife. Hmmmmmm.
AN ODE TO THE JAPANESE
Well, like my elder, I am also hooked on Sudoku. I bought a book of it a couple months ago and do them on the train to and from work. It's a good way to wake up but on the way home, when I'm tired and just want to take a nap, I can't seem to stop putting numbers in boxes.
I can do the easy ones, well, easily, but I'm stuck on some of the moderates. I keep thinking there must be a technique I don't know about (like so many things in my life, I suppose) and if I just stare at it long enough I'll figure it out, like a world-weary detective trying to help a damsel in distress in a poorly-lit one-room office, at night, cigar smoking in the ashtray. Ok, a little dramatic and ridiculous, yes, but I lead a relatively boring life right now.
Anyway, for all you naysayers out there laughing at me right now, just try one. You'll get hooked.
I can do the easy ones, well, easily, but I'm stuck on some of the moderates. I keep thinking there must be a technique I don't know about (like so many things in my life, I suppose) and if I just stare at it long enough I'll figure it out, like a world-weary detective trying to help a damsel in distress in a poorly-lit one-room office, at night, cigar smoking in the ashtray. Ok, a little dramatic and ridiculous, yes, but I lead a relatively boring life right now.
Anyway, for all you naysayers out there laughing at me right now, just try one. You'll get hooked.
DID YOU SEE THAT LIGHTNING?
Has it really been since September 12th that I last posted? That's unbelievable! Yet believable.
Thanks Eric, for the kick in the ass.
So, you caught me, I'm posting in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday. I took the day off today, because I'm still sick, though I feel a lot better now, almost back to normal, than I did before. I earned a sick day, I feel, and since I couldn't take one last week on account of there being so much to do, when I actually needed it, I'm taking it today. And in all fairness (to whom? To me...) I am really still sick. I needed to sleep until 10:30 today. Yes, that's the ticket.
But I'm also using this time to take care of some unfinished business. I'm going online and getting the grad school applications, printing them or submitting them electronically, and getting my future begun. How's that for awkward phrasing?
So, I will post a little bit more today, but first, applications call....
Thanks Eric, for the kick in the ass.
So, you caught me, I'm posting in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday. I took the day off today, because I'm still sick, though I feel a lot better now, almost back to normal, than I did before. I earned a sick day, I feel, and since I couldn't take one last week on account of there being so much to do, when I actually needed it, I'm taking it today. And in all fairness (to whom? To me...) I am really still sick. I needed to sleep until 10:30 today. Yes, that's the ticket.
But I'm also using this time to take care of some unfinished business. I'm going online and getting the grad school applications, printing them or submitting them electronically, and getting my future begun. How's that for awkward phrasing?
So, I will post a little bit more today, but first, applications call....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)