has been in the news a lot lately.  Unfortunately, not many people (myself included) really understand it.

A friend asked me today to explain it to him.  I was able to give him the very basics.

I think this is stuff that everyone should know, so I thought I’d post our discussion here.  

If you’d like to learn more, there are plenty of resources available online that are written by people far more knowledgeable than I.  But I think I can explain the very unspecific basics adequately using two mostly-accurate examples:

me: until NAFTA, Mexican truck drivers weren’t allowed to operate in the US.  so, if  you wanted to order something from Mexico, a Mexican truck would drive to the border, then a Mexican guy would off-load the truck and put the contents in a warehouse.  then an American guy would come by the next day, take the stuff out of the warehouse, and put it in an American truck, and deliver it to you.

me: Now, with NAFTA, if the trucking company wants to jump through A TON of bureaucracy, they can SOMETIMES get approval to drive directly into the US

Alan: er, ok 

that, uh, helps speed things up a little… i guess

 

Sent at 1:55 PM on Tuesday

me: but yea, it speeds things up, and it brings down your shipping cost, because the shipping companies don’t have to pay for warehouses and people to load and unload warehouses

so, you get it faster and cheaper

but the warehouse workers lose their jobs

 

Alan: so

who’d complain?

me: and more of the truck drivers you’d see in the US will be spanish speaking

so, people who don’t like spanish speaking truck drivers, and warehouse workers will complain

also, others will complain because now they know that there are fewer warehouse jobs, they won’t be able to get a warehouse job if they ever need one

 

Alan: true

me: personally, i think that’s good, because if people don’t have the safety net of working in a warehouse, they will be more likely to learn more job skills so they can compete for higher-level jobs than working in a warehouse

 

Alan: er

what if they CAN’T!

me: but not everyone agrees with that logic…they say not everyone can learn those higher skills

 

Alan: go to school

have the brains

LOVE the warehouse

etc

me: exactly

 

Alan: YOU ANTI-AMERICAN!

me: that’s the counter-arguement

lol

NAFTA also identifies jobs in which we have labor shortages.  like nurses.  with NAFTA, Mexican and Canadian nurses have a MUCH easier time getting permission to work in US hospitals

so, it’s easier for hospitals to fill their vacancies, which means you’ll get better care when you’re there

me: but bringing in Mexican nurses means nursing jobs pay less

me: (granted, they are still very well paying jobs, but they are no longer VERY WELL paying)

so, faster and cheaper shipping, but fewer warehouse jobs.  better and cheaper hospital care, but nurses don’t make quite as much

almost all economists say that we are better off with these kinds of deals…that there are far more winners than losers, and most people come out ahead

but some people lose out, like the warehouse workers

it’s all about trade-offs

 

Alan: yes

and i don’t like the brownskins

with their funny language

and soft foods

me: generally, the losers are less-educated and working in fields that are becoming outdated.  personally, i don’t beleive that we need to go out of our way to protect losing jobs.  i mean, it must suck to be a typewritter repairman, too.  kinda like being a warehouse worker.  but i don’t think the govt should take special measures to protect your typewritter business

and honestly, i think you’re right…people complain about the economic element

but i think A LOT of times, that’s just an excuse because they are uncomfortable with more brown-skinned people speaking foreign languages

me: but yea, those are the pros and cons of trade agreements in general

NAFTA is a medium-strength trade agreement.  it does more than some, but less than others

i dont’ really know all of the specifics

i’m sure it has problems

but i’m in favor of it in the big picture

 

Alan: i see

nice, man

me: 

 

Alan: i wish i were as informed as you on this

quite embarrassing

me: that’s the thing that bugs me

not about you

 

Alan: grrr

me: but what i just explained is really pretty simple

no reason not to understand it

 

Alan: true

me: but no one actually goes out and explains it

 

Alan: guess there was never a place

to find that

me: they just say it’s bad, and people believe it

yea

 

Alan: ye

p

me: i mean, i’m hardly an expert on it.  i only know maybe 5% of the specifics, if that

but compared to what most people know, i feel like an expert

 

Alan: hahahaha

me: lol

  

Check out the reporter who questions Condoleezza Rice 45 seconds into this report:

http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/urdu/2007_12/Video/wmv/Rice%20Reaction-v.wmv

It’s half-English, half-Urdu.  But it’s only about 2 minutes long, and you might find it interesting.  Especially if you know the reporter.

Back in January of 2006, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto came to my office for some interviews and a press conference.

My boss was the one who set up the visit, and she arranged for some tea for Benazir.  The tea was served, but Benazir wanted cream.  So, my boss tasked me to find some cream for BB’s tea.

I found the cream and returned to give it to Benazir. 

I don’t remember if I added it to the tea or if Benazir did, but suffice it to say that cream was added.  BB smiled at me warmly and thanked me.  She seemed genuinely grateful.

BUT! 
Before she took a sip, one of her advisers pulled her aside and whispered into her ear.  Benazir and the adviser looked me up and down.  They glanced suspiciously at the tea, and snuck a peek at the container the cream was in.  They whispered a little more, but Benazir finally took a sip.  She thanked me again.

At the time, I was somewhat amused and somewhat bemused that a former world leader at least entertained the idea that I might be trying to poison her.  But, after today’s events, I have to wonder if Benazir trusted me more than she should have.

***

I’m hardly ignorant, but I’m not nearly as “into” Pakistani politics as one might think.  Part of this is intentional: I do journalistic work, and I’m trying to stay as impartial as possible.  But there are two things that I do know:

1. This wasn’t much of a surprise. 
2. Regardless of what you think of Benazir, this is a tragedy.

Benazir must have been incredibly brave, or incredibly stupid.  (Or are they sometimes the same thing?)  More than once, I had heard the phrase, “when Benazir is assassinated.”  Not “if;” “when.”

Regardless, there are certain traits about her that you can’t help but admire: overcoming such adversity with her family, getting so far as a woman in an Islamic country, and appealing to the west as well as to her constituents.  Plus, she seemed genuinely kind.  At least as genuine as anyone can seem after a 30-second meeting.

Of course, she was far from perfect. 
I’m not going to get into whether she was ultimately good or ultimately bad, or if she were “the lesser of many evils” or anything like that.  I don’t have an opinion.  And even if I did, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to share it.

But I am willing to come out and say that the assassination is almost undoubtedly bad.  It was a suicide attack in more than one sense of the term: the gunman was killed, stability in Pakistan took a blow, and hopes of democracy on life-support.  The Army (and Musharaff’s) credibility is hurt.  Opponents will be looked at with suspicion.  And if this is some sort of power-grab by outside forces, I just can’t see it succeeding for long.

***

I was extra-busy today at work covering this.  In fact, I’m staying in DC an extra day.  (Call/e-mail/text me if you’re in town and free tomorrow afternoon/evening.).   

Speaking of coverage, I’d like to say that I am impressed with the way the American media has been covering this.  Their coverage isn’t perfect, but it’s definitely a step up from what they have been doing.  The international media is also doing an admirable job, but this is less of a surprise.

I don’t really have anything terribly insightful to say about this event.  Just that it hits home.  Maybe it shouldn’t.  But when I saw my old boss on TV this afternoon from Rawalpindi, crying over the assassination of her colleague, whom I had met, and whom was briefly skeptical of me….I don’t know.  It just felt odd to have a personal connection, however small, to something historic.  It feels even odder when you stop to consider the possible ramifications in international politics.

So, I thought I’d use this moment of popularity to try to play-up the interactivity of my blog by posing you a question:

If you could meet anyone, whom would you meet?

I know, I know; it’s a pretty stereotypical question.  But I think it’s a good one.

Me? 
Well, it’s hard to pick one.  So, I’ll break it down into two categories: living and dead.  Then I’ll pick a few.  In a mostly-flexible order.

Living

1. George W. Bush.  Just to get an insight into his mind.
2. Mike Eruzione.  The Captain of the 1980 US Men’s Olympic hockey team was part of not only one of history’s greatest sporting upsets, but also unwittingly became a symbol of the cold war.  I love ice hockey, and I’m fascinated by how sports and politics so often mix (the Olympics, Summit Series, Bodyline Series, Gleneagles Agreement, Ping-pong diplomacy, Bosman ruling, etc.).  He’s the only athlete on my list, both because there are bigger things in the world than sports, and because I’ve been fortunate enough to meet many famous athletes already.
3. the Dalai Lama.  For pretty obvious reasons.

Dead

1. The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama
2. Jesus
3. Muhammed
4. Thomas Jefferson.  I admittedly know far less about TJ than I should.  But I do know that he’s the sort of scholar-leader who perfectly fits into the concept of a “republic.”
5. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
6. Benjamin Franklin.  A true renaissance man.

Most of those need no explanation.

(I picked more dead people than living people because there are more dead people than living people.  I think.)

Yes, I know my lists are pretty much stock answers.  But it’s true.
(And I apologize for picking only men.)

What about you?  If you could meet anyone, whom would you meet?  Living and/or dead?

Let me know in the comments!

I haven’t posted that much in the past week.  Part of it might be laziness, but I really don’t have all that much to say anyway.

Well, let me re-phrase that.  I haven’t come up with many ideas to write about. 
Maryland Macaca, however, has. 
I mean, she has come up with ideas for to write about herself, but they have inspired me to write about the same thing! 

She has written several posts this week, and two of them were right up my alley. 
I ended up bascially hijacking her “comments” sections twice this week to essentially write full essays about my own views of her topics.

I thought I’d link them here, partly because her blog is worth reading in its own right, and partly because, this week, I’ve written more of my opinions on her site than I’ve written on my own!

On Wednesday, she talked about John Edwards. 
Now, I don’t have particularly strong feelings on Edwards one way or the other.  But the post touched on a number of broader issues (eg., education, economics, entitlements, globalization) that I think transcend politics and affect the basic lives of people in the US and around the world.
So, I left a LONG comment!

I think that we, the US people (and I’m not excluding myself here; I’m plenty guilty of it myself), have forgotten that the nature of capitalism is competition.
I think too many of us have come to expect an easy, comfortable, well-paying job with low barriers to entry as a right. MAYBE that was the case for our grandparents, but, in today’s world of 6 Billion, all of whom can communicate and thus compete against each other, it is certainly no longer the case. We need to accept that.

You can read her full post and the comments (including my full comment/outlook) here.

Then, last night, she wrote a post about soccer, violence, US sports fans, and their European counterparts.

Of course, this was also right up my alley, so I wrote a LONG explanation:

So, if i wanted to be brief (for once!), I guess I’d just say that soccer may be more likely to result in violence than other sports. The lack of soccer’s popularity here, combined with the lack of a group mentality among American spectators, and our vast geography, accounts for fewer incidents of hooliganism.
Is that a valid thesis?

If you’d like to see what else I have to say about that (and I have a lot to say!), check out MD.M’s post, here. 

That’s right, when I wake up in a few hours, the opening match of the World Cup will be under way in Jamaica, and, as you can see above:

1. I only own a toy cricket bat.
2. I really do need a shave.
3. I’ll be pulling for the West Indies. 
   (Why?  Well, the Leeward Islands are part of the WIndies, and the US Virgin Islands are part of the Leeward Islands, and the US Virgin Islands are part of the US.  Since the US doesn’t have a national team at the moment, the WIndies are the closest we have to an American team.  And I kind of met Brian Lara and a few WIndies other players.).
   

It’s not ice hockey, and it’s not baseball, but by now, I have to say that cricket is in the back of a four-way-race for being my 3rd favorite sport.

If you’re American (like me!), or if you otherwise don’t know much about the game, I HIGHLY recommend DangerMouse’s Explanation of Cricket.

I think he does a great job explaining it, but if you want the REALLY condensed version, and you understand baseball, here’s my quick rundown:

• The cricket field is an oval; in the middle is a long strip called a pitch.
• At each end of the pitch, there’s a crease (like a batter’s box). 
• One batsman stands in each crease/batter’s box.  When the ball is bowled to him (kind of like how it’s pitched in baseball), he can swing at it or let it pass.  If he hits the ball, he can run to the other crease if he wants to.  He doesn’t have to.  When he runs, the guy in the crease at the other end runs, too. 
• One run is scored every time the batsmen change places.
• If the ball rolls past the outter boundary, 4 runs are scored.  If it goes over the boundary in the air, that’s a 6.
• In baseball, when you’re in the field, your primary objective is to get the other team out.  It’s the same in cricket, but getting those outs is harder.
• In baseball, when you’re up to bat, your primary objective is to score runs.  Not getting out is a secondary concern.  LOTS of players will get out, but relatively few runs will be scored.
• In cricket, it’s the opposite.  LOTS of runs will be scored, and relatively few players will get out.
• There are a bunch of ways to get out, but one of the main ones is by knocking down the wicket–those sticks that are stacked up behind the crease.  More than scoring runs, the batsman wants to defend his wicket, by keeping the bowler from knocking it down, and by not running when someone else could knock it down.
• The team with more runs after everyone is out (10 on both sides) wins.
• It can take A LONG TIME for everyone to get out.  Test matches are generally played over 5 days, and a good portion of those end in draws beacuse they run out of time.
• The World Cup is limited overs cricket.  Basically, the inning ends after 300 balls (pitches) are thrown, even if everyone isn’t out.  These games shouldn’t last more than 7 hours or so.

So, now you know the VERY basics of cricket!
Now, as I was saying, the opening match kicks off in a few hours in Jamaica, and I’ll be wishing I were there.
I guess that’s what two years dating an Indian and a year and a half working with a bunch of Pakistanis will do to you!

I like cricket a lot, but even more than that, I LOVE big-time, weeks-long multinational sporting tournaments.  (I stay up until 4am watching curling during the winter Olympics).
I’ve always dreamed of competing in the Olympics.  I’ll never get to do that, and this year there won’t even be any to watch on TV.  But you can bet that I’ll be watching the Cricket World Cup!

You want to know what I think about it this year?
Well, I’m glad you asked!

Here are your teams, in their groupings and with their seeds (courtesy of Wikipedia), along with my comments on each of them.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not REMOTELY qualified to do this.  I barely know cricket!)

GROUP A

Australia (1) — Australia will go deep.  There’s no question about that.  But they struggled mightily in New Zealand last month.  And Brett Lee will have to let it be.  They deserve to be the favorite, but they’re far from a shoe-in.
(That Brett Lee link is really worth clicking, by the way).

South Africa (5) — Underrated?  Possibly.  They have smooth sailing to the Super 8s, where we’ll find out what the krugerrand is really worth.

Scotland (12) — I suppose this is an issue only an American would have, but I just don’t understand why Scotland doesn’t play with England/Wales.  Consolidating them would open up a valuable slot in the tournament for another country and encourage the development game there (ie, UAE until the USA gets its act together).  I just don’t ever see the Scots making great strides forward.  That said, they did win the ICC Trophy and the match against the Orange might be exciting.

Netherlands (16) — If a bat-and-ball sport ever takes off on the Continent, you’ll have the Dutch to thank.  While the Germans are playing baseball and Finnish baseball, the Dutch are the only European country serious about the two big bat-and-ball sports.  Their baseball and cricket programs are doing pretty well, as far as non-traditional nations go.  I’m glad to see them get the last seed.  I could see them advancing to the Super 8s sometime in my life, but not for a while.

GROUP B

Sri Lanka (2) – It’s hardly a surprise that Sri Lanka is not a media darling.  But that hardly means they don’t deserve to be.  A very well-balanced team might just turn some heads.  Finalists?  Don’t be surprised.

India (8) — Of all of the greats who will be looking to win their first World Cup in their last try this year, I think Sachin Tendulkar has the biggest chance to bring home the trophy.  Watch out for India.

Bangladesh (11) — The Bangladeshis (or are they “Banglas”?  I’m not sure.  BTW, I’ll put the question mark outside of the quotes because that’s the British style, and cricket is a British game) might be a Super 8 team if they were in Group C or D.  But this group is just too strong for the weakest of the South Asian teams.

Bermuda (15) — If I were Malcolm Speed, I’d find some way to incorporate Bermuda into the West Indies.  Of all the minnows, I don’t think you’ll find a more cricket-hungry nation than Bermuda.  The islanders even get excited about domestic matches!  Alas, I don’t know that there will ever be a way a nation this size can ever make a splash.  Not for a lack of heart, but for a lack of manpower.
If they can knock off Bangladesh, you’ll hear the island erupt, wherever you are.

GROUP C–THE GROUP TO WATCH

New Zealand (3) — I’ll be honest, I know even less about the Black Caps than I know about the rest of these teams.  I’ll just say that they feel a bit forgotten, and I’m not exactly sure what that means in a group that is ripe for an upset.

England (7) — Buy your Monty Panesar gear now before they run out!  If nothing else, he’ll be a favorite in the tournament.  (Assuming the pitches suit him).  It’s no surprise that England isn’t highly-regarded after their dismal performace at the Ashes, but they did beat New Zealand recently.  What kind of England team will we see this year?  One that can’t relax, for one.

Kenya (10) — If there is a big upset in the tournament, it will be from Kenya.  Fortunately, the seeding works out well for them: they have a group where such an upset is very possible.  But it won’t be easy.  This is Kenya’s time to sink or swim.  Yes, they turned some heads in last World Cup, and yes, they turned some more in the World Cricket League.  But both of those were on their home turf.  Not this time.  Normally, it would be OK if Kenya tried but just didn’t pull it off.  But with the precarious state of the Kenyan teams finances, a win here could give a little economic boost along with an incentive to schedule more matches against Test nations that could possibly send it on the fast track to Test status for itself.

Canada (14) — I’d be lying to you if I were to say that I wasn’t just a little bit jealous of our neighbors to the north (if they could get here, the US could do the same with a proper administration).  And I’d be lying if I weren’t pulling for them just a little bit, even though the US-Canada cricket rivalry is the oldest in international cricket.  But I’d be lying to myself if I thought they could move on the the Super 8s.  They have beaten Kenya in first-class and ODI cricket, and maybe their ODI team is due (they have to win again sometime, and they did scare Bangladesh a few weeks ago).  But it’s extremely unlikely that they’ll win a game.

GROUP D–Another one to watch

Pakistan (4) — Without Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed Asif, with a captain who doesn’t score all that well in major ODIs, and with controversy around every corner, Pakistan might be a wee bit overrated coming into this. This is the shakiest of the two groups with three test nations, so they can’t relax, either. 
West Indies (6) — The home team could win the tournament, or they could implode, get a scare from Ireland, and fall to Zimbabwe.  They’ve got the bats, but do they have the bowling attack?  And do they have the composure to go the distance?  I’m not so sure; they sure didn’t look that way in the warm-up matches (but can you really use them to judge?).  However, it is a long tournament.  And the home turf should hold an advantage when other teams will be away for nearly two months.  The West Indies will likely never host an event like this again.  And Lara will never play in an event like this again.  That should serve to inspire.  Since they could go far or fall far short, I’ll take the middle and predict them to lose in the semis.
Zimbabwe (9) — Like everything in Zimbabwe, the cricket team isn’t what it should be.  Still, they’ll be breathing down the necks of the the favorites here.  While they don’t quite control their own destiny, they can be ready to pounce if either of the favorites in this group slip, which is entirely possible.
Ireland (13) — You could make the arguement that the very fact the Irish are here should make them a dark horse, ripe for an upset.  After all, cricket just seems so contrary to Ireland, and especially to Irish sports.  Gaelic games are prominent; some are even skeptical of soccer, with it big contracts and English influences.  You could argue that, with a Windies team capable of collapse and a Zimbabwe team that many think doesn’t deserve test status, they have the right group to catch on fire.  Me, though?  I’m not going to make those arguements.  I just don’t see it happening.

So, there you have it.  I might make some more concrete predictions as the World Cup wears on.  I’ll also revise this and fill in the blanks after I get up.  It’s late.

The World Cup runs until late April.  If you live in the US, you likely won’t have the opportunity to check it out.  But if you can, make yourself a Pimm’s cocktail, settle down for a few hours, and enjoy the action!  It only comes once every four years!

(And if you have a way to watch it, do let me know!  It’s not offered on regular cable, the official webcast is VERY expensive, I’m leary about paying $50 or more for a grey-market webcast that might get shut down, and I’m having no luck getting any P2P streaming softward working on this old computer).

Anyway, go West Indies!

(Failing them and the North American minnows, I’ll be pulling for India).

Today’s Netflix pick was Hotel Rwanda.  It is simply a must-see. 
Not only is it well done, not only does it shed light on an event that is embarassingly poorly-known to the public, not only does it shame the West’s lack of intervention and even attention, but, most importanly, it does a wonderful job  humanizing a continent and a people.  In addition to “not looking like us,” I believe that Africa spends so little time in the news because the culture is so different and so poorly understood, and therefore people and events there just seem less important, because they’re too different to understand.  This film’s very human portrait shows very well that we are all the same people, and that no place is “inhuman” enough to be ignored. 
Let’s again say “never again,” and, this time, mean it.
4.5 stars out of 5.

Link du jour:  Lawmakers Live in ‘Animal House.’
Watch the video if you can.  I saw this on the news this evening, and I found it funny and SO refreshing.  Four high-profile Senators just kick back like regular guys in a crappy, overpriced group house on the Hill, just like when I interned!  In an age with so many silver-spoon politicos, this down-to-earth portrait was just incredibly refreshing for me.  Edit: I originally posted this at around 3:30am this morning, but the time on the post changed when I edited it and added the last team profiles.  In the meantime, West Indies beat Pakistan in the opening match.  I did find a good, free video webcast.

Currently Watching Hotel Rwanda By Xolani Mali, Don Cheadle, Desmond Dube, Hakeem Kae-Kazim, Tony Kgoroge, Rosie Motene, Neil McCarthy (II), Mabutho ‘Kid’ Sithole, Nick Nolte, Fana Mokoena, Jeremiah Ndlovu, Sophie Okonedo, Lebo Mashile, Antonio David Lyons, Leleti Khumalo, Kgomotso Seitshohlo, Lerato Mokgotho, Mosa Kaiser, Mathabo Pieterson, Ofentse Modiselle see related

John McCain!

And Vice-President?  Rudy Guiliani!

It’s not an endorsement (nor is it a condemnation; we’re still WAY too far out for either), just a prediction.

Here’s how I see it:

Basically, everyone else who is running so far has a major Achilles’ heal.  Hillary is divisive, Obama is inexperienced, Richardson is low-profile, Edwards just doesn’t feel like a winner to me, Romney is Mormon, Brownback can’t capture the public’s attention, etc.
I’m not saying this means they wouldn’t be a good President; I’m just not sure it makes them electable.

McCain is the most traditional candidate (i.e., an old white dude with a strong military and congressional record who has been gearing up for this for years), and he doesn’t really have that one, glaring, Achilles’ heal.

I think he’ll win the GOP nomination easily, and I have a feeling one of the Dems that I mentioned before will win theirs.  But, like I said, they have their weaknesses. 

Running Guiliani with McCain leans the GOP pretty sharply to the left and poises the Republicans to capture A LOT of cross-over votes from Democrats who are skeptical about their candidates’ perceived weaknesses.  Even considering the unpopularity of the Republicans at the moment, I think a lot of folks (myself included) would be fairly comfortable with a non-neocon, left-leaning Republican president/VP balanced out by a Democratic senate.

I don’t know yet if it’s the best ticket, but it seems the most win-able to me as of February 2007.

Caveats:

1) Neo-cons.  I’m 95% sure that their time in the spotlight is done.  However, with a left-leaning GOP ticket and 8 strong years under their belts, a third party or independent run on social and religious issues could look appealing.  But it could hand the race to the Dems.

2) I don’t think Gore* will run, but if he does and wins the nomination, then this is a whole new ballgame.
This is just my mostly-uneducated educated guess.  I know a handful of people who follow American politics like I follow Swiss hockey (Allez, Gottéron !!!), and who could probably debunk this easily.  But my theory seems reasonable to me.

All in all, I’m excited about the 2008 campaign.  I might be naieve, but it feels like we really can’t lose.

*I’ll use this mention of Gore for a tangent on global warming/climate change.
I used to be a skeptic; now I’m mostly a believer, although I’d kill to see a jury trial between both camps.
Regardless, even if humans aren’t causing a thing, we should still throw our full weight behind green technologies, and Washington should take the lead. Why?

• It’s supposed to be the government’s job to protect the long-term territorial integrity of the country.  Most people accept this as grounds for a strong military.  Why doesn’t the same hold true in protecting our country from itself?  It should.  And the health of our country’s environment should be given the benefit of the doubt.
• We have Velcro because of the space program.  Massive research into green technology could bring us advances in other areas that we can’t even imagine.
  It could also bring…
• JOBS! 
  First, there was the agricultural age.  Then industrial.  Now, service-sector is big.  But what’s next? 
  A public commitment to research in Green energy could differentiate the US economy from the rest of the world.  As more and more service-sector jobs are offshored, we should really be thinking ahead and finding a way to make the US economy stand out in the future.  Thinking ahead, research and development of green technology could become a backbone of the US economy.  And even if you’d rather think behind than ahead, there might be some benefit for you as well.  We could even build a green manufacturing sector!  “Made Green in the USA.”
• Education.  I feel like a hypocrite saying this, considering that I moronically turrned down the option for advanced math and science classes during my freshman year of high school, but we need to stress the value of math and science in our educational system.  This could be a way to do that.

That’s all for now!

ANYWAY, why, per my last post, am I dreading 26?  The people want to know!
Well, for statistical purposes, some organizations use 26 as a cut-off date for being a “youth.” 
That means no more discounts! (Not that there are many left anyway, but still.)

I thought the UN was one such organization, but I found out today that the UN actually stops counting you as a “youth” at 24.  So I guess I’ve grown up already.  lol.
It doesn’t make any difference, really.  I haven’t changed, and I still have two more years of eligibility to stay at youth hostels in Bavaria!
MOVIE REVIEW
For some inexcusable reason, today I procrastinated The Shawshank Redemption and Hotel Rwanda for Dave Bidini: The Hockey Nomad.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed it.  I had previously read Away Games, which was an awesome gift from my awesome ex-girlfriend back when life was awesome.  haha.
Hockey Nomad is similiar-ish.  Not really, but if you enjoy one, you’ll likely enjoy the other. 
In Away Games, a reporter follows North American hockey players in Europe. 
Here, Dave Bidini (I knew the name, but I couldn’t place it.  He’s in the Canadian rock group The Rheostatics.  Cool name; I own one of their CDs and I don’t really like it) travels to some off-beat hockey destinations and really tries to get to know them.

First, Bidini visits Dubai for the Mighty Camels Tournament (is it cool or pathetic that I knew about this tournament before?).  Then, he’s off to Cuic, Romania for the local rivalry against Steaua Bucaresti (is it cool or pathetic that I knew about Steaua before?).  Finally, he ends up in Mongolia for pond hockey.

It’s short: under an hour.  The production wasn’t flawless, but it was good enough, and the content was very worthwhile.  Unlike my last travel movie, the presenter is very respectful and respectable.  We see some good hockey, and it’s a good illustration of how glocalization ties us all together with a common thread, while we still manage to hang onto our own identities.  Man, I love global sports!

One of the reasons I’m following foreign sports more and more often (ice hockey mostly, and cricket a little) is because I’ve just gotten sick of the fact that American sports are all about glitz and dollar.  This gets us away from that and shows us what sports, and what travel, should be.

Four stars out of five.
Random: Every once in a while, people will tell me they like my writing style.  I must disagree.  I frequently find myself boring.
Link du jour:  SelectSmart 2008 Presidential Selector. 
It’s never too early to get started!
I’ve always liked this test (they publish one every election) as a good, quick way of figuring out which candidate you should vote for.  I wish it were a little more thorough, so that it could be a one-stop-shop.  It’s not, but it’s still a good tool.  Hopefully it’ll get better as the election draws nearer.
I’ve never tried it this early before, but why not?
Here are my results.  I still maintain that I’m a moderate libertarian.  I maintain that, theoretically, if people stood for what they’re supposed to stand for, I’d be closer to the republicans than the democrats. 
Well, this is what SelectSmart tells me and, given the current reality, I’m hardly shocked:

(100%) 1: Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D) Information

(100%) 2: Sen. Barack Obama (D) Information

(95%) 3: Ex-VP Al Gore (D) Information

(95%) 4: Sen. Christopher Dodd (D) Information

(91%) 5: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) Information

(90%) 6: Gov. Bill Richardson (D) Information

(85%) 7: Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) Information

(83%) 8: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) Information

(83%) 9: Sen. John Kerry (D) Information

(77%) 10: Ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) Information

(77%) 11: Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) Information

(77%) 12: Sec. Condoleezza Rice (R) Information

(75%) 13: Gov. Mitt Romney (R) Information

(74%) 14: Sen. John McCain (R) Information

(70%) 15: Rep. Ron Paul (R) Information

(69%) 16: Ex-Sen. John Edwards (D) Information

(69%) 17: Sen. Joseph Biden (D) Information

(66%) 18: Gov. George Pataki (R) Information

(59%) 19: Sen. Sam Brownback (R) Information

(58%) 20: Ex-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R) Information

(58%) 21: Sen. George Allen (R) Information

(53%) 22: Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) Information

(45%) 23: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) Information

(32%) 24: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) Information

(0%) 25: Sen. Russ Feingold (D) Withdrew from race.

I’m not sure how they calculate those numbers, because I disagreed with Obama on at least one issue per SelectSmart’s system, and it still gave me a 100% match. 
But even still, I like that SelectSmart seems to think I’ll be happy with most anybody.  That ain’t bad!

Currently Watching The Hockey Nomad By Dave Badini see related

]]>

In other news, my last Netflix pick was The Double Life of Veronique. 
It’s funny how my last post talked about how, oftentimes, my tastes are often middle of the road.  I often scoff at the lowest levels of something, while I admittedly (and unfortunately) can’t fully appreciate the best.  The last post talked about beer, today’s will be movies.

I picked this movie because to get my ear tuned up for hearing some French in Pittsburgh.  I had heard of the director, Krzysztof Kieslowski, before, but I didn’t know anything about him, and I wasn’t expecting something so deep. 

I’m not sure if it’s because I was watching it just before bed, or because I wasn’t psyched up to watch haute cinema, but I didn’t really get into it. 
Regardless, it was just too artsy for me.

I think it would be fair to call The Double Life of Veronique a deeper, more intellectual, more philosophical, less accessible Amélie.  There are definitely parallels (I had to wonder if the recurring greens in this film influenced Amélie); some are even obvious. 

I think this is the first Criterion Collection DVD I have watched, and one review of it called it “Film School in a box.”  Netflix didn’t give me the Criterion booklet or the second disc, but even still, I can’t really disagree with that assessment. 

My Netflix paradox is special features: I don’t feel like I’m getting my money’s worth on my subscription unless I turn around the movies quickly, but I also don’t feel like I’m getting my money’s worth unless I watch all of the special features, which leads to a slower turnaround.  Veronique has what looks to be a wonderful commentary track.  Hopefully, after watching that, I’ll be able to appreciate this movie as it should be appreciated.

Randomly: I timed this a week or so ago–In case anyone was wondering, I’m a 24 minute walk to the PATCO High Speedline, and then a 23 minute ride into Philly.  That’s only about 15 minutes more suburban than I was in Silver Spring! 

I told my grandmom that my mom and I were going out for an hour or so tonight.  She got upset, since she gets suspicious whenever my mom and I are together and she isn’t there.  Then I explained to her that we’re just going to the DMV (I misplaced my license, and my mom’s is up for renewal), and there’s no reason to be suspicous or upset.  My grandmom just got more upset, because she says that everything she does is wrong.

So, either she’s suspicious, or self-depricatingly upset if I tell her she shouldn’t be suspicious.

Fortunately, she forgets about being upset after 20 minutes or so, but for a while, you can’t win.

I think George W. Bush kind of won last night, though.  The State of the Union speech was pretty good.
A couple of things I noted:

• I could be wrong here, but when he mentioned tort reform for medical malpractice, I think only half of the gallery gave a standing ovation.  I thought most people were united on that?
• Reducing earmarks got a standing ovation.  Let’s see if the Congress practices what it preaches.
• “Giving employers the tools to verify the status of their works” is a pretty big job, and either requires an insane amount of public education, or a scary big-brother-type computer system.  I’m not sure I like this.  I don’t think the average American realizes how difficult it can be to determine if someone is allowed to work in the country legally.
• Bush talked about hiring more border control.  That’s not really a bad thing, and this is a bit of a tangent, but I would love to see us pressure Canada to have tighter visa controls, open the border with Canada completely, and reallocate those border agents to the southern border.
• Energy independence: doesn’t he mention this every year? 
  Still, it definitely needs to be improved upon, and I’m optimistic about this going somewhere with the the democratic Congress.  Although I think environmentalism should be considered a conservative value (and it’s one of the few areas I support big government, as it is in the long-term interest of the country), it hasn’t really been.  I support efforts to improve fuel standards, but I’m a little skeptical about doubling the national petrolium reserve.
• “War on Terror Council.”  Doesn’t that sound a little like “Iraq Study Group,” which was pretty much ignored?  Just an observation.
• When he mentioned dictatorships around the world, it was good to hear Burma and Belarus mentioned for a change, but I wish he would have used that platform to mention the possibility for a change in Turkmenistan and other less-well-known places.
• I’m going to wait until I hear more expert analysis about the healthcare deduction.  It’s an interesting idea, but it sounds awfully expensive.  Which brings me to the fact that….

All in all, it was a good, safe speech.  Almost un-Bushlike in that regard.  Of course there has to be a fatal flaw: everything he mentioned sounded very expensive, and yet he promised to do it all and balance the budget without raising taxes.  Very Bush-like in that regard.

UPDATE: The dog in the last post has been returned to its owner, according to Channel 6 Action News, the Delaware Valley’s Leading News Program.  He has been named “Garcia” after Eagles quarterback Jeff Garcia who, according to Erin O’Hearn of Channel 6 Action News, the Delaware Valley’s Leading News Program, has a t-shirt with his picture on it.