Welcome to WeeklyWilson.com, where author/film critic Connie (Corcoran) Wilson avoids totally losing her marbles in semi-retirement by writing about film (see the Chicago Film Festival reviews and SXSW), politics and books----her own books and those of other people. You'll also find her diverging frequently to share humorous (or not-so-humorous) anecdotes and concerns. Try it! You'll like it!

Month: April 2008 Page 1 of 2

The Davids Stay On Top on April 29th’s “American Idol”

The \"American Idols\" Davids, Cook & ArchuletaJason Castro and Brooke White Struggle with their Selections…

Jason Castro drew the short stick, apparently, on April 29th‘s “American Idol” show featuring songs written by Neil Diamond and had to sing first. Since Jason always seems as though the next word out of his mouth is going to be “duh,” he performed “just OK” according to Randy, and his renditions of “Forever in Blue Jeans” and “September Morn” were proclaimed to be “definitely not the best,” “safe,” and “you struggled through both songs”(Simon). To me, Jason’s performance this week seemed to be more of the same: light, insipid, wimpy, and inferior to either of the other boys remaining or, on this night, one of the two worst performers. His fan club may feel differently.

Up second was David Cook, who, as usual, sang unknown songs, specifically “I’m Alive” and “All I Really Know Is You.” He did a good job and the judges seemed pleased. One of them even went so far as to say that he/she was “looking at the American Idol,” but that seems a bit premature. As for me, I’d like to hear a song I might recognize, but David was his usual confident self, and, in that regard, he should sail on.

Third came Brooke White, who sang “I’m a Believer” (which Simon pronounced “a nightmare”) and “I Am, I Said,” which brought faint praise from Simon when he said it was “a million times better than the first song.” Paula said, “Nice job,” and Brooke also accompanied herself (piano, guitar). Paula commented, “Everyone loves who you are,” which, while true, is not necessarily supposed to be what wins the competition. Brooke, for my money, was one of the two weakest performers of the night, but the “lovability” factor may keep her in as the last female standing, when Syesha did a superior job, vocally and in every other regard…although Simon “dissed” her efforts.

Fourth up was David Archuleta, who sang “Sweet Caroline” and “America.” The latter choice of songs was the smartest since the C&W songstress sang Lee Greenwood’s patriotic ditty. David, clad in a black-and-white horizontally striped shirt that kept me thinking of the “Peanuts” comic strip, turned in another thoroughly professional performance, and the audience reaction was far and away the most enthusiastic, keeping him firmly in first place, in my mind.

Last…but not least on this night…was Syesha, who sang “Hello” and did a very nice job, with her hair down, barefoot and going up for a great last note. Syesha is doing something down and long with her hair that is a vast improvement, and her dress was lovely. She sang and looked the best of the girls, but her fan club seems smaller than the less-vocally-talented Brooke White (Brooke’s range, which is not great, really showed up on her song selections this night, while Syesha hit some high notes and was a real diva.

So, predictions? Let me just say that, in order of, “Who was best on April 29th?” I would praise the Davids (Archuleta and Cook, in that order) as Numbers One and Two, and finish up with Syesha in third place, Jason in fourth, and Brooke in last place, vocally, but it is quite apparent that the best singer also has to be the Most Popular, and, if that is the case, I fear that Syesha has begun displaying her personality too late in the game to overcome her earlier lackluster presentations.

As far as justice…of which there has been little this season…either Jason or Brooke should leave the group on Wednesday when the numbers drop from five to four, but the popularity polls seem to favor the Davids, Jason and Brooke, not necessarily in that order, so talent may well not be rewarded as the competition loses yet another contestant on Wednesday, April 30th.

American Idol Gets It Wrong: Carly Smithson Eliminated

American Idol Gets It Wrong

Carly Smithson“American Idol’s” claim to be a singing competition and not just a popularity contest took a hit tonight (April 23), when Carly Smithson, arguably the most vocally talented female singer left, was eliminated, while the dreadlocked Jason Castro was voted on to the next round.

I have said, for some time, that Carly was going to have trouble going the distance, as she was older, married (to a guy who is tattooed over his entire body, including his face) and Irish by birth. She also couldn’t expect much of a “sympathy” vote, as she had previously had a recording contract.

The result was that a vastly inferior singer (Jason Castro) who performed poorly during his last outing sailed through, while Carly was sent packing.

Even more outrageous was the other singer given a position as “second lowest,” Syesha Mercado. It is true that Syesha’s personality has been missing in action over the past several weeks, but she flaunted it on her last outing, singing the best she has all season. To have that rewarded by placing in the bottom two must be a bitter pill. Surely Brooke White, who forgot the opening line to her song and stopped to start over, did less well on April 22nd, but that made no difference whatsoever, as Brooke is “the nice one.”

The smart money still favors “the Davids” for the Final Two, those being David Archuleta and David Cook. It probably was no coincidence that they were the first two called out onstage and told that they were “safe,” as they probably had the highest vote totals.

As Carly exited, Simon Cowell apologized for giving Carly a compliment on her last night of competition, when she sang “Jesus Christ, Superstar,” calling it “the kiss of death.” And he may just have been right, although Carly was doomed for several other reasons. But none of those reasons were vocal talent.

Pennsylvania Primary Redux: Thoughts on the April 22nd Vote

                  Pennsylvania Primary Redux: Was It Decisive?

 

                    [April 23, 2008, 3:37 a.m., Chicago, IL)

 

     The question I posed at the top of my Pennsylvania Primary blog entries, (its title, if you will), was “The Pennsylvania Primary on April 22nd: Will It Be Decisive?” The Keystone State vote is now in; the answer to that question is no.

    Indiana’s vote lies ahead. Twenty-five per cent of Indiana voters are in the Chicago media mart. It’s similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania in its make-up and it will be a crucial state. While North Carolina, which has a large African American population and some affluent areas, looks good for Obama, Indiana shapes up to be much more like Pennsylvania or Ohio, so Hillary might well win in Indiana, but it, too, will be a close race. Just as Pennsylvania was expected to go for Clinton, North Carolina is expected to go for Obama.

      Barack Obama did not receive a death blow in Pennsylvania, but Jeffrey Toobin and other analysts have said (on CNN Election Eve coverage), “This victory may convince Super Delegates that he has problems with blue-collar voters, Catholic voters. They’re asking themselves, “Do we have a damaged candidate here?'” Indiana is becoming a  pivotal state, as Obama himself acknowledged.

     Barack Obama needs to stay ahead in the Super Delegate counts. He needs to keep his momentum going.  Having two-thirds of Catholic voters in Pennsylvania vote for Hillary (69% to 31%, specifically), as well as white male voters voting for Hillary 55% to 45% for Obama, is not good news.

    What happened on April 21st, however, was what was expected. In Philadelphia, the Obama supporters came out, including black voters and he won big in the city, 65% to Clinton’s 35%. The southeast did well for Obama, as did Delaware and Chester County. Clinton’s big victory came in Bucks County (suburb of Philadelphia), and in rural areas like Allentown and Erie and “the T,” (discussed in my original article.) She won the senior vote, the white male vote,  the Catholic vote and 57% of the Jewish vote. (Only 7% of the state’s voters are Jewish.) All this courtesy of John King’s blue map (The Magic Touch or the “wonder wall” as they call it) on CNN Election Coverage.

     The thing to remember about Hillary Clinton, as one analyst on CNN said, is that “She’s in it to spin it.” Hillary and Bill have a well-known reputation for going to almost any lengths to win. She went negative on Barack Big Time in Pennsylvania, and, distasteful as that seems to much of the country, we’re bound to see more of it. In fact, those inside Barack Obama’s campaign are urging him to become more negative in defending his lead. Keep in mind, if Hillary “spins” the need to “seat” Florida’s voters ( she’s the Mother Theresa of Florida, worrying overtime about their disenfranchisement), where both names appeared on the ballot, at least, (which they did not in Michigan), and, if you add in Pennsylvania’s popular vote, the popular vote margin becomes closer: 15,117,521 for Clinton, or 47%, with 15,390,196 for Obama, or 48%. (4% go to “other”). Is pulling within range by changing the rules in the middle of the game fair? Isn’t this cheating? Of course it’s not fair, and 6 of 10 voters polled have said that they think Hillary Clinton is “untrustworthy” in CNN polls.  It’s not fair to suddenly become so concerned about the poor disenfranchised Florida (or Michigan) voters that both candidates agreed to punish early on, but “she’s in it to spin it,” and, now that she’s behind, why not change the rules so that she can seize the nomination from the grasp of the rightful winner? [Hey! It happened to me in East Moline’s 1st Ward, as I proved in a challenge ordered by a Republican judge, and it happens in elections every year (Al Gore in Florida, anyone?)]

     After Pennsylvania was called for Hillary, she made a plea for donations and raised $2 and ½ million dollars from new donors. The money will help Hillary to spread her new message that she’s better with blue collar  voters, white folks, Latinos, old people, and Catholics than Obama is and help her to put forth the doubt that Obama can win nationally. In fact, she has already done this, asking why Obama couldn’t “close the deal” before Pennsylvania was over.

      No one has been able to explain why the Catholic vote went 2/3 for Hillary Clinton. Thirty-seven % of the voters in Pennsylvania are Catholic, but neither Hillary nor Bill is Catholic. Pennsylvania voted much like Ohio before it. Here are the theories for this I’ve heard: 1) the Nun theory. Nuns are (generally) mature, white women. Those are Hillary’s supporters, so perhaps nuns convinced their charges to vote for the first woman with a real shot at becoming her party’s Presidential nominee. Let us not forget that Roman Catholic nuns have been in the forefront of many national movements that require women to stand up and be counted; if you’re able to remember the Vietnam War, you will know that both priests and nuns demonstrated, at times, to stop the slaughter (Father Daniel Berrigan, et. al.), and there have been other issues of conscience that have brought forth either outright or tacit support from this group of independent women

     (2) Catholics are big on forgiveness, confession and guilt and strongly disapprove of divorce (I know; I’m a Catholic). When her philandering husband publicly humiliated Hillary, she didn’t bail on him, but “stood by her man.”  Some felt she should have served him with divorce papers ASAP, but she did not. She held her head high, bit her lip, and suffered in silence.  This period was perhaps the peak of Hillary’s personal popularity, as even those who had castigated her previously felt sorry for the poor “wronged and humiliated” wife. While we can all speculate on whether the Clinton liaison is a “marriage” in the traditional sense of the word, or more of a business partnership, we may be seeing the traditional Catholic virtues emerging in response to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It’s just a theory; add yours, if you have one.

     Over 320,000 new Democrats, up 8% in Pennsylvania have spoken. What they said did not really surprise pollsters, who were already anticipating a Clinton win there. The Clinton side “spins” the win as huge for her, because of the Big State argument (I can carry the Big States like Pennsylvania, and you, Barack Obama, cannot. Nyaaah. Nyaaah, nyaaah, nyaaah!)

     The Obama campaign has run a fairer and cleaner campaign, to date. No negative attack ads. No attempt to change  rules that were agreed upon by all in advance, like the Vegas voters voting in casinos or the seating of Michigan and Florida delegations, who are being punished for moving their caucuses and primaries up in defiance of the national Democratic Party (I have to ask: Dr, Dean….you’re a smart man? How did you and/or yours come up with that bonehead idea? Surely you could see something like this coming?)  No pious mouthing(s) about the poor disenfranchised Michigan and Florida voters, made in order to seize their votes, by the Obama camp.

      Obama, himself, said that Clinton would win Pennsylvania before the votes were in, but also said  “we’ll do better than people expect.” Narrowing the gap from 20 or 30% to 10% qualifies and is exactly what he predicted.

     As Obama  closed a 20-point polling gap. David Gergen, political analyst for CNN said, “He was closing in on her and as he was closing, not only did he stall, but he actually got hurt.”

     The entire Democratic Party is going to have a “stalling” problem and get hurt if they can’t get their candidate picked by June.  Representative Patrick Murphy (D, PA), said, “We need to all come together. I hope it’s not a brokered convention.” There will only be 8 weeks between the end of the conventions and the actual election, so it would be to the advantage of the Democratic party to know who is going to be their pick by June, as John McCain is sitting pretty in that department right now, watching the Democratic fight with great amusement, no doubt.

     The 300 Super Delegates are looking pretty important right about now, as they have for months. I’m wondering if John Edwards will come into play somehow in the North Carolina contest that looms? And what about Florida and Michigan? Remember, Folks: “she’s in it to spin it.”

If You’re a Baby-Boomer, You’ll Enjoy This

     Here’s a little bit of humor to make the bad news seem less, well, bad.

 

    If you’re not a baby-boomer, you’ll still probably think it’s funny.

 

 

Pennsylvania Election Eve Thoughts

   Just a word to the wise about the posts you will see on Associated Content, should you be interested. I was one of four corresopndents from “Associated Content” (www.associatedcontent.com) asked to “blog” during the evening’s election night returns, posting every 15 minutes or so. Today, I posted a “preliminary” article, outlining the problems faced by each candidate in winning and analyzing the areas and demographics of the Keystone State that will prove pivotal to a win for either candidate.
    Be sure to check it out on Associated Content, which wants “exclusivity” for the piece(s).

 

 

World Forum on Latin America is Group Meeting in Cancun

     A correction to my WTO posting. The group meeting next door (and up and down the Hotel Zone) is actually one dedicated to the same purposes but focusing on Latin American problems.

    The information on the WTO provided in my previous post is still accurate and informative and more than I knew about the WTO before researching it for weeklywilson. Therefore, I shall leave it up for you, with the correction that this group is exclusively focusing on such matters in Latin America.

World Trade Organization Meets Again in Cancun, Mexico

                    World Trade Organization Meets in Cancun, Mexico

 

     The last time that the WTO (World Trade Organization) met in Cancun, in 2003, South Korean Farmers and Fisheries President Lee Kyung Hai ( Kun Hai Lee in some news accounts) stood outside the police lines, shouted “The WTO kills farmers” and, using a blade, slashed himself to death in protest on opening day, South Korea’s Day of the Dead. The suicide victim had previously conducted a hunger strike in Geneva outside the WTO Secretariat headquarters in Switzerland. Three other supporters had tried self-immolation in protest, two of them successfully, at various WTO meetings. Hai was protesting the price-distorting agricultural subsidies of the European Economic Union and the United States. 

     In a discussion of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) policies in “Why the U.S. Should Question Europe’s Orwellian Farm Reforms” (7/25/2003, Sara J. Fitzgerald and Dr. Nile Gardiner for the World Heritage Organization) the authors state,” The CAP is a huge welfare system for a relatively small group of large-scale elite European farmers who will continue to prosper. They then dump excess food on Third World countries and put them out of business.” The article continued, “The French succeeded in blocking any meaningful reform of the CAP.” The reason for this becomes clear as we learn more about the substantial subsidies that French farmers collect.

     The meeting in Cancun in 2003 continued after Lee Kyung Hai’s suicide, but not without further protests. According to Tom Hayden of www.AlterNet.com  (September 11, 2003), the Black Bloc, consisting of black-clad Mexican students, Europeans with black flags, some U.S. students, Koreans and members of Seattle’s Infernal Noise Brigade, held painted wooden rifles while trying to storm the wire barrier separating them from the Hotel Zone. They also played drums and chanted, which eventually yielded a rain storm in “the Snake Pit” (the translation of the name “Cancun” in English.) The barriers, set up at Kukulcaan Plaza and Bonampek Boulevards, was intended to keep the protesters at bay.

      This year in Cancun, there are men with machine guns searching cars, guards at the entrances to all hotels, and at least one large war ship and two smaller ships  moored offshore.

    We are here in Cancun, and whether we can move down the road towards the Hotel Zone  remains to be seen. An organization known as the OCA, or Organic Consumers Association, helped organize protests in Seattle against the WTO in 1991, culminating in what became known as the “Battle of Seattle” and no one knows—yet— if they will attempt to disrupt this meeting in a similar fashion. OCA National Director Ronnie Cummins described the efforts of the protesters as “presenting alternatives to corporate globalization.” (Among the concerns of the OCA are genetic engineering, water privatization, investment and social services privatization, and patenting of drugs and life forms.)

     To refresh the memories of those not that familiar with the WTO, it is an organization that was founded in 1947 ( Wikipedia.) The WTO seems to have been fairly quiescent during the following 50 years, settling only 300 disputes involving trade between nations in all that time. There was a Uruguay Round of meetings between 1986 and 1994 that caused a major revision of the 1947 GATT, or General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rules. This became the basic rule book for the organization, forged, as it was, of 60 multilateral agreements to regulate trade. Among the issues the group dealt with were: goods, services, intellectual property, dispute settlement and trade policy review. There was a system in place that involved sending disputes between nations about trade to experts, who ruled, through consultation. Or, failing that, disputes could be sent through a stage-by-stage procedure with the possibility of appeal to an arbitration panel.

     If you’re beginning to think that the WTO sounds as powerless as the United Nations, you’re getting the picture. You gather representatives from hundreds of different countries together, all with different agendas, and you try to get them all to agree on economic policy. Sounds easy….not.

    The WTO was somewhat revived in a meeting held in Doha, Qatar, in 2001. After  that, it met again in 2003 in Cancun and in 2005 in Hong Kong, China. Now, it is meeting once again in Cancun on April 14, 15, 16 (2008), and the militia are out in force to keep the peace, aided by ships moored offshore. An American tourist who took his son to the Omni Hotel to play golf on their 3-hole course today (April 14th, 2008) was turned away by men armed with machine guns. Offputting, to say the least.

     Any agreement that comes out of a WTO meeting has to be ratified by the U.S. Congress to take effect in the United States. This also sounds difficult. There was a “fast track” process that President George W. Bush had in place during his two terms, but it expired June 30, 2007. Now that “W”, the lamest of lame ducks, is on the way out, the odds are stacked against any progress taking place this year…if anyone ever really thought that was possible, given the nature of the WTO beast.

     Before the last Cancun summit of the WTO, in September of 2003, according to a July 25, 2003 article entitled “Why the U.S, Should Question Europe’s Orwellian Farm Reforms” by Sara J. Fitzgerald, Trade Policy Analyst, and Nile Gardiner, PhD the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation, it was important that “the U.S. (should) not be fooled by European masquerades.”

     Ms. Fitzgerald and Dr. Gardiner said in 2003, “Developed countries should travel to Cancun with a strategic plan to lower subsidies and tariffs in order to finish the Doha (Qatar) round on time. Without real change, much of the developed world will continue to be frozen out of the western markets and be consigned to further decades of poverty.”

     The same article went on to state, “Global agricultural liberalization is at a standstill.” The experts felt that the U.S. must stand with “the Cairns group,” a group of 17 developed nations led by Australia, “in advocating greater liberalization in the Doha round and pushing the European Union to make substantial cuts in farm subsidies.”

     Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The representatives of George W. Bush treated the Third World countries rudely (“thugs” was the term applied to Bush’s representatives by one writer) and, in addition to the dramatic suicide of the Korean farmer already mentioned, the Witherspoon Society Home Page described how the Kenyan Ambassador walked out, quickly followed by Am Bernal, the Jamaican Ambassador. One hundred and fifty other civil society folk from Venezuela, Nigeria, Kenya and Brazil followed those leaders and the meeting fell apart after three days. Simon Harris of an organization known as the OCA (Organic Consumers Association) wrote in 2003, “Cancun may very well mark the beginning of the end of the WTO.”

     On Saturday, Mexican Foreign Minster Luis Ernesto Derbez, its chairman, drafted a declaration that was rejected. The Indian Commerce Minister Arun Jaitley said of the Cairns Group members that they had “arbitrarily disregarded views and concerns expressed…”

     In addition to the suicide of the South Korean man in 2003 Cancun, there were thousands of  unionists, students, anarchists and others protesting and trying to scale the wire fence that separated them from the hotels where the meetings were being held.

     I ventured out tonight. Each hotel had at least five men wearing orange vests guarding the entrances to the various Hotel Zone hotels. My waiter told me that his car was searched by militia with dogs as he came to work at 6:00 a.m. and he added, “even the Big Bosses had their cars searched.” There is a large battleship and two smaller ships moored off-shore,  easily visible from my ninth-floor room. The cab driver tonight told us that it would get worse tomorrow, as more representatives arrive (last meeting in Cancun, there were 146 trade ministers in attendance.) The Omni, Hilton, Marriott, Ritz-Carlton and various other high-end properties are all involved in the meeting(s).

     There is a rich versus poor, North versus South, developed nations versus developing nation fight taking place at the WTO meetings. If the Cairns group represents such nations as England, the European Economic Union, Australia and the United States, who speaks for the poor?

     “The weak are gradually acquiring a stronger, more skeptical voice. So much has been promised for globalization; so much not delivered.” Grieder went on to say, “The centerpiece of the document is farm trade liberalization.” Lately, the downtrodden poorer countries have been banding together in an attempt to stand up to what they view as the oppressive Super Powers and make that point. The counter-group to the Cairns Group  is a group  known as G20.

    This new trade bloc of developing nations has formed loosely around the People’s Republic of China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa. The group members fluctuate. Many of the poorest nations continue to have little or no influence over the WTO proposals, so the walk-out of 2003 is not surprising in the context of verbal abuse and “thug-like” behavior towards them. William Grieder of The Nation (9/22/2003) wrote, in an article entitled “Why the WTO Is Going Nowhere, “In Hong Kong, December 13-18 of 2005, at a WTO meeting, a deadline was set for eliminating subsidies of agricultural exports by 2013. The proposal:  developed nations would open their markets to goods from the world’s poorest nations 2013. In keeping with the protests of 2003 at the Cancun WTO meeting, there were 2000 protesters outside the Hong Kong Exhibition in 2000; 116 were injured, 56 of them policemen

     The Guardian newspaper, on 9/17/2003 wrote, in an article entitled “A Message of Callous Indifference” that, “Rather than tackling the problems of their high agricultural tariffs and lavish farm subsidies, which victimize farmers in poorer nations, a number of rich nations derailed the talks.” Among those rich nations derailing the talks: Japan, Korea and the Economic Union members. As the article in The Guardian went on to say, “Any hope that the U.S would take the moral high ground at Cancun (in 2003)…was dashed by the disgraceful manner in which the American negotiators rebuffed the rightful demands of west African nations that the United States commit itself to a clear phasing out of its harmful cotton subsidies.”

     It is not just cotton subsidies, which are preventing west African nations from mark- eting their crop, that is a sticking point in WTO talks. As Margaret Thatcher wrote in her book Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World (London: Harper Collins, 2002, p. 336), “The majority of the subsidies go to the wealthiest producers.  These subsidies benefit the rich while stealing opportunities from developing nations.” The recent (in 2003) U.S. Farm Bill increased subsidies to U.S. farmers by 70%.  The ten-year program would cost U.S. taxpayers $180 billion. Meanwhile, the chief beneficiary of subsidies from the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (or CAP), established in 1962, is France.  French farmers received $10 billion dollars a year in subsidies in 2003, 20% of the CAP budget. Seventy per cent of CAP funds go to 20% of Europe’s farms.

     Meanwhile, with the sudden rise of $4 a gallon gas in the United States and the push for bio-fuels worldwide, Brazil, for example, is rapidly destroying its rainforests to plant soy beans and sugar. This not only means less food grown, it has vaulted Brazil to fourth place in carbon emissions, mostly because of  deforestation.

     The Soy Bean King of the World who owns half a million acres in Mato Grosso, Brazil, is Blairo Maggai, also the Governor of the province. Maggai says the bio-fuel boom is making him rich, but adds, in an April, 2008, issue of Time (“The Clean Energy Scam” Michael Grunewald, pp. 40 – 45), “People see the forest as junk. If you want to save it, you better open your pocketbook….” It irks Maggai that Brazil is criticized by nations like the United States, which cleared its frontier 125 years ago but continues to provide subsidies to its farmers.  Says Maggai in the Time article, “You make us sound like bandits, but we want to achieve what you have achieved in America.  We have the same dreams for our families. Are you afraid of the competition?”

     Maggai does have a point..

     Commentators like Zha Quiwen of the China Daily (9/16/2005) said, “Only a breakthrough on agriculture can possibly help realize the Doha (Qatar) development

promise that vast developing countries deserve.” He decried American and French reluctance to face down the powerful agricultural lobbies in their countries.

    On the official WTO website (www.wto.org), in an article written on December 4th, the WTO seems to agree, saying, “…the first step we need is for WTO member governments to agree at the Ministerial level by the end of May on the framework for cutting

agricultural tariffs, agricultural subsidies and industrial tariffs.”

     This goal sounds very worthwhile, but Simon Harris of OCA (the Organic Consumers Association), which helped organize protests in Seattle, has said, “Cancun (of 2003) may very well mark the beginning of the end of the World Trade Organization.” With nations like Brazil declaring, “If you don’t want us to tear down the forest, you better pay us to leave it up!” (Governor of Mato Grosso Blairo Maggai, Time “The Clean Energy Scam,” April, 2008, p. 45.) Like all politicians, it seems, Maggai wants his country to share in the lucrative subsidies currently being hauled in by the French, the Americans and other European Economic Union nations.

     Against this backdrop of continued inequity, set against the turquoise blue waters of Cancun, the talks will begin in earnest tomorrow, April 15, 2008. How good do you think the WTO’s chances of success will be this time around?

 

The Clean Energy Scam: Ethanol

 

     As a full-time resident of the Midwest (Iowa-born, Illinois-resident), the section of the United States  that stands to benefit most from the newfound emphasis on ethanol and the development of biofuels, the April issue of Time magazine, with an article (pp. 40-45) by Michael Grunwald entitled “The Clean Energy Scam” caught my attention. The subtitle read, “Hyped as an eco-friendly fuel, ethanol increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food prices. So why are we subsidizing it?”  Why, indeed?

    Like all Midwesterners who hail from corn-growing states, it occurred to me that   $4-a-gallon gas might prove to be a boon to mankind and that ethanol, made from corn, stood a good chance of being in the forefront of  new efforts to tap into alternative energy sources. “Good for Iowa!” I initially thought. “You go, Hawkeyes!”

     After all Iowa, my home state, according to this article,  gains over 50,000 jobs (nothing to sneeze at in a state with only about 3 million residents and no really large cities) and $2 billion in income as it turns corn into fuel. Iowa produced nearly 2 billion gallons of ethanol last year, 30% of the entire United States total. Certainly the new initiatives will see even more emphasis on this alternative energy source. As the article put it (p. 44), “If biofuels are the new dot-coms, Iowa is Silicon Valley, with 53,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in income dependent on the industry.”  The article even calls Iowa “America’s biofuel mecca.” (p. 44)and says that the industry has taken off with such gusto that Iowa is even importing corn for the initiative. It relates that John McCain’s absence from the landscape during the Iowa caucuses in 2000 was  due to the fact that he had called ethanol “an outrageous agribusiness boondoggle” back then. By 2006, a more politically astute McCain was calling ethanol “a vital alternative energy source,” but he still did almost no campaigning in Iowa this season, which we can chalk up to his faltering campaign (see my article regarding McCain’s “Second Coming” on www.jollyjo.com).

     In 2007, fewer than 2% of United States gas stations even offered ethanol as a fuel. The U.S. produced 7 billion gallons of biofuel in 2007, which cost taxpayers at least $8 billion in subsidies. (“The Clean Energy Scam,” p. 44). However, Iowa is not the world, and when one reads, in the same article, that regular gasoline isn’t even offered at a Brazilian “gas” station. Our country produces 5 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol, which supplies 45% of its transportation needs. Here at home, the demand for ethanol is expected to increase five-fold in the next ten years. In 1995, ethanol was a $5 billion-dollar industry in the United States. By 2005, it is projected to be a $38 billion-dollar industry, worldwide, which will increase to $100 billion by the year 2010.

     So, as the old Wendy’s ad used to put it, “Where’s the beef?” What’s wrong with using corn and sugar and soybeans to make biofuels to power our vehicles, rather than continuing to be at the mercy of the Mideastern oil-rich countries?

     The April Time article from which these facts are taken posits the following reasons why ethanol (et. al.) is/are not the ideal alternative fuel source(s) of the future for the world.

     Number One Argument Against Ethanol“Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous,” according to the Time piece. As writer Michael Grunwald eloquently phrased it (p. 42), “Several new studies show (that) the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended; it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it.”

     Number Two Argument Against Ethanol:  Biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry, world-wide. The author cites tortilla riots in Mexico over rising prices and destabilization of Pakistan caused by rising flour prices. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute says that the emerging struggle pits  800 million people with cars against 800 million of the world’s hungry. In 2004, two University of Minnesota researchers predicted that the world’s hungry would drop to 625 million by the year 2025. Last year, however, after adjusting for the biofuel effect, they increased their original prediction to 1.2 billion hungry in that time period.

     NumberThree Argument Against Ethanol and other Biofuels: The Amazon is doomed, unless steps are taken to prevent its brutal rush from forest to farmland. “Strange as it sounds, we’re better off growing food and drilling for oil.” (p. 44) Why? It seems that the scientists who originally put forth dreams of petroleum independence as a result of the increased growth of biofuels didn’t take into account that  plants need land to grow. They don’t spring, fully-grown, from a parking lot in downtown Santa Monica. Land is needed to grow soybeans, sugar cane or corn. Why should this matter?  It matters because many nations are industrially deforesting their countries so that they, too, can feed at the trough of biofuel largesse. Brazil is the best example. Besides the fact, as Grunewald puts it, that “every acre used to generate fuel is an acre that can’t be used to generate the food needed to feed us,” there is the problem of carbon storage. We need forests and foliage to take in carbon dioxide and, in turn, give off oxygen, but in countries like Brazil, forest land is burning that is roughly equivalent in size to the state of Rhode Island. The Amazon faces the very real prospect of turning into a desert unless something  is done. Deforestation now accounts for 20% of all carbon emissions and Brazil vaulted into fourth place as a worldwide polluter, as a result of its slash-and-burn policies in converting jungle into farmland. As Grunewald put it (p. 42), “…unless the world can eliminate emissions from all other sources—cars, power plants, factories, even flatulent cows—it needs to reduce deforestation or risk an environmental catastrophe.”

     Number Four Argument Against the Use of Bio-Fuels: the “experts” have changed their minds. One of the original leading proponents of the use of biofuels, rather than petroleum products, was University of California  Berkeley professor Alexander Farrell. His 2006 Science article, which calculated the emissions reductions of various ethanols, used to be considered the Bible for promoting the initiative. Today, in 2008, he says, “The situation is a lot more challenging than a lot of us thought,” as the effects of deforestation are felt.

     With all this in mind, the experts now are calling for better biofuels that don’t trigger massive carbon releases by displacing wildland (sugar, for example, is a better biofuel and burns cleaner than corn) and a mix of fuel sources. Leading supporters of the environment like Robert Kennedy, Jr., argue for a more widespread array of alternative fuels. Not just corn, soybeans, sugar or other foodstuffs, but wind and solar power, as well. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Nathanael Greene says, in “Growing Energy,” (2004) “We’re all looking at the numbers in an entirely new way.”

     But, as a Midwesterner, I predict that the powerful agriculture lobby will not agree with the conclusions of Michael Grunewald’s Time piece, and I’m not sure that I do, either. If subsidies are given to Iowa farmers to pay them not to grow certain crops, in order to keep the market from being glutted and the prices to drop, then the WTO (now meeting in Cancun, Mexico) might consider such subsidies to African countries to preserve the rainforest from unnecessary destruction. And if Americans would get on the hybrid car bandwagon (I’ve owned three) and/or the hydrogen or electric car, when it appear on the scene, that would help. And, just as the Midwest is a source of corn for biofuel, flat states like Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota are veritable wind wizards. I hope to see the new-fangled windmills dotting the Midwestern landscape, and, while I’m not sure that nuclear power plants are terribly cost-effective, nor is there a good solution to the spent nuclear fuel rods in this country, in Europe, France has successfully harnessed the atom and even learned to recycle the spent nuclear material.

     So the answer, as the song says, may be “blowin’ in the wind,” growing in the ground or a host of other places, none of which we should neglect to thoughtfully consider.

Musings from Cancun

     Now that we have spent almost one full week in the beautiful, balmy weather of Cancun, Mexico, some of our party is beginning to wonder about how, exactly, they are going to get back, since American Airlines is/was the carrier of choice after our first choice (ATA) went bankrupt just days before our flight. Now, American Airlines has canceled numerous flights, and the question is, “How do  I get there from here?”

     The “there” in question is either Chicago or Atlanta, both of which sound like they are having less glorious weather than Cancun, Mexico! With the daughter in school in Nashville, Tennessee, the CNN weather reports of tornadoes in that area, plus the news that tornadoes touched down in Iowa (the home state) are distressing.

     Tried to call the youngest child on her cell phone in Nashville from the Lobster Dinner Cruise the other night, but she tells me (online) that she was at her boyfriend’s concert. His band was playing. She also tells me that she is (probably) going to become an Assistant Manager (of sorts) for a band called “Moon Taxi” that she is very “high” on. She is still interning with Rick Clark Productions and helping select music for at least 3 movies, plus receiving a Producer’s Credit for an XM/Sirius radio show for Mr. Clark. She’s even feeding the pet cat (“Keeks”) while Rick is in Santa Monica on business. Busy, busy, busy!

     The impressions of the United States from another country, while far away, are interesting. The violence towards a teacher in a Baltimore classroom, caught on cellphone video and posted to the internet, illustrates the disrespect towards teachers in the classroom and the need for reform in the nation’s schools. The President of the Teachers’ Union in Baltimore (MD) spoke, saying that the policy has Principals urged to cut down on suspensions, so unruly students sent to the Principal are just sent back to class. I remember this technique from 1985, so is there anything new about that? She went on to say that there needs to be an “alternative school” or a different facility where aggressive, disobedient, unruly students can be sent, to isolate them from the general population of students and teachers. This has been in effect in both the Davenport (Ia) and Rock Island and Moline (IL) schools for years, so I wonder why Baltimore has no such system? Of course, it was the alternative school in Moline, Illinois, that was the breeding ground for the youths who cold-bloodedly murdered a fellow student in the Sarah Kolb case, about 3 years ago. The schools are not getting the message that the 21st Century requires different sort(s) of schooling from those of the agrarian past. Better use of facilities. More computer usage and teaching. Greater emphasis on math and science. All have been indicated by national studies, but the old practice(s) of loading up classrooms with up to 35 students continue. As a long-time Sylvan Learning Center owner/operator, to me, it seems obvious that the number of students assigned to teachers needs to come down. Perhaps 3 to 1 (Sylvan’s ratio) is not realistic in a public school, but certainly 35 to 1 is even less realistic. If we had back the money being spent on the Iraq (and Afghanistan) Wars, just think what innovative change could take place in our schools, rather than this “fill in the bubble” testing emphasis that has added nothing, but, arguably, taken much away from real teaching and real learning. Most teachers I know personally (and I know a lot of them) are praying for the days when “No child left behind” becomes “A program left behind.”

    But I digress. Last night, we scoped out 3 relatively new eating places in the Cancun area, all built since the disastrous hurricane of a couple years back. First was Porto Madera, which we have eaten at previously. It is an Argentinian steakhouse, with high prices, but great ambience. I had the shish-ka-bob (which is called “brochettes” on the menu) and it was HUGE!

     Next, we wandered to a brand-new restaurant open only 3 months. Name: “Harry’s Bar and Grill,” a tribute to Ernest Hemingway’s famed Key West hang-out. This is an extremely romantic get-away, with a great view of the lagoon and a pricey menu. There is a fake waterfall, 3 fountains lighted in the lagoon itself that spout water, and….for your tableside snack while having a drink: crisp bacon. (Weird). A beautiful place.

    The last place (3 in a row, geographically) was entitled Grill 14 and was similarly romantic in tone, but the entire menu was printed ONLY in Spanish and there was an abundant presence of sushi on the menu. It was far less crowded than either of the first two mentioned, although the approach to the restaurant, itself, is very romantic. I would say a drink in this one might suffice, as the menu did not support the eating habits of two Midwesterners who don’t care for sushi and don’t read Spanish well-enough to know what they are ordering. Three very nice new additions to Cancun’s dining life, however, since our visit of one year ago.

“An American in Paris”: hôtel de ville

The hôtel de ville in the fourth arrondissement is only open to groups by arrangement.  Our class was fortunate to have the opportunity to see the interior of this beautiful building.  It is a 19th century reconstruction of the 17th century town hall that was burned down in 1871.  It is highly ornate with elaborate stonework, turrets and statues overlooking a large, beautiful square complete with fountains and night time illumination.   The square was once the main site for hangings, burnings and other executions.  It was here that Ravaillac, Henri IV’s assassin, was quartered alive, his body ripped to pieces by four strong horses.

paris-hotel-de-ville-4-50.JPG

paris-hotel-de-ville-2-50.JPG

interior…

paris-hotel-de-ville-5-50.JPG

paris-hotel-de-ville-8-50.JPG

paris-hotel-de-ville-9-50.JPG

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén