Russia justifies the recent takeover of the nation of Georgia as a similar action to the United States attacking and taking over Iraq. There are certainly similarities, but the fact that Saddam Hussein is a notorious murderer makes the comparison more difficult to make. That's especially true in the minds of Americans.
So I have a comparison that brings it home to us here in the US: Texas. In a time long ago, the nation of Mexico was a sovereign nation to the south who had a weak military compared with the vast land it was holding onto. White settlers kept on flooding a region of the Rio Grande valley and eventually the white settlers became a powerful minority.
So the people of this land decided to attack and to rebel against the incumbent political rulers, and wanted to join the United States instead. While they fought against their Mexican rulers, they were outmatched. One of the biggest battles was fought in the fort of Alamo. The Mexicans responded with overwhelming might.
After the large loss, the cry "Remember the Alamo" went out, new recruits arrived from the United States, General Houston surprised General Santa Anna, and the region of Tejas became the Republic of Texas. Never recognized by Mexico, it teetered on the edge of invasion by the southern neighbor. That's when the United States military stepped in. After winning the US-Mexican war, the territory of Texas was officially annexed into the United States.
So what does this have to do with Georgia today? Well, the people of South Ossettia wants Russia to beat up the Georgians so that they can proclaim independence, and then promptly join Russia. If the Texans can do it, why shouldn't the South Ossetians?
Oh, the headache of it all. Remember the Alamo?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Carbon Footprint
Lily and I had a long conversation about carbon footprint and how it relates to our daily lives. As Americans, we simply consume too much and there is very little we are willing to do to change it. There are four main categories we control that affect the carbon emission: air travel, volume of home, cars, and food.
-- air travel is bad because it injects carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide directly into the upper atmosphere where it does a great deal of damage. Since we live in Washington and want to see our families and friends in California, cutting air travel is too emotionally difficult
-- volume of home causes carbon dioxide pollution because the home (whether it be a studio, a condo, or a stand alone home) must be cooled in the summer and heated in the winter. Living in a place has so much meaning about who you are that we find ourselves debating how much home is enough.
-- cars are both used for recreation and for work. Can a family of 4 grow up on one car along? Sure. Do you want to?
-- food costs money to refrigerate, to transport, to harvest, and to prepare. Food plays a large role in our nutrition and our health for decades to come. Plus it is simply delicious. Our carbon footprint for food will never be reduced to zero. While the sustainability movement claims that responsible growing and harvesting is good for the environment, that type of food might never be locally grown. Can we live without our ethnic foods? Can we give up pineapples, bananas, and strawberries forever?
As we talked and debated, the realization is that there is so little we are willing to cut. Will we go to only one car so that I can drive to work, even if we have children in the future? Will we only buy the vegetables in season and say goodbye to certain Taiwanese dishes that do not use Northwest vegetables? Will we give up on flying? Will we really live in a smaller home?
If we are going to call ourselves responsible Christians, we really have to think about these things.
-- air travel is bad because it injects carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide directly into the upper atmosphere where it does a great deal of damage. Since we live in Washington and want to see our families and friends in California, cutting air travel is too emotionally difficult
-- volume of home causes carbon dioxide pollution because the home (whether it be a studio, a condo, or a stand alone home) must be cooled in the summer and heated in the winter. Living in a place has so much meaning about who you are that we find ourselves debating how much home is enough.
-- cars are both used for recreation and for work. Can a family of 4 grow up on one car along? Sure. Do you want to?
-- food costs money to refrigerate, to transport, to harvest, and to prepare. Food plays a large role in our nutrition and our health for decades to come. Plus it is simply delicious. Our carbon footprint for food will never be reduced to zero. While the sustainability movement claims that responsible growing and harvesting is good for the environment, that type of food might never be locally grown. Can we live without our ethnic foods? Can we give up pineapples, bananas, and strawberries forever?
As we talked and debated, the realization is that there is so little we are willing to cut. Will we go to only one car so that I can drive to work, even if we have children in the future? Will we only buy the vegetables in season and say goodbye to certain Taiwanese dishes that do not use Northwest vegetables? Will we give up on flying? Will we really live in a smaller home?
If we are going to call ourselves responsible Christians, we really have to think about these things.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Really Depressing
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government says the federal budget deficit soared in July, pushed higher by economic stimulus payments and $15 billion in outlays to protect depositors at failed banks.
The Treasury Department reported Tuesday that the deficit for July totaled $102.8 billion, nearly triple the $36.4 billion deficit recorded in July 2007.
The deficit beats the $97 billion gap that Wall Street economists had been expecting for July.http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/federal_budget.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008081214
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
