Mate is a traditional caffeinated tea-like drink from southern South America. Unlike tea or coffee, the filtration process happens while drinking, not before: a special metal straw has a closed end whith tiny holes in it that allows in the infusion but keeps out the herb.
A special "cup" or gourd is filled with "Yerba Mate" once, and then hot water, usually from a thermos, is poured into the gourd. Lastly, the straw goes into the gourd and the infusion sipped via the metal straw.
You can read all about it here.
The habit of drinking Yerba Mate is so common in Uruguay that you can often see young and old drinking it on the streets.
Its been six months since the fraudulent elections in Iran, and despite all the arrests, imprisonments, torture, and killings of protesters, the opposition is still very strong, as the recent demonstrations follwing lead opposition cleric Hossein Ali Montazeri's funeral show.
It seems clear this goverment won't complete its full term, the question is how long will it last, and what will happen afterwards. I pray for a fully democratic government in Iran that will help stabilize the middle east and prove that full-fledged democracies are viable in muslim countries.
Walking down the Avenue of the Dead in this precolumbian city, you can almost feel the weight of time adding to the thousands of tons of masonry -over twenty centuries since its first buildings were erected.
I was particularly aware of this fact because only a day before, I had been marveling at five hundred year old cathedrals in the historic distric of Mexico City and all the history since the Spaniards arrived in Mexico.
Knowing that the builders of this city faded away without ever coming into contact with the people of the Old World feels like watching the remains of an alternate current of history. What if the the Europeans had never crossed the Atlantic and the Mayans had thrived and expanded? Perhaps I'd be posting pictures of ancient Roman ruins and wondering the same thing.
You can feel the flow of history in this town, from the 500 year old cathedrals, to the glass towers from the age of corporate globalization just a few blocks apart, to the great cities abandoned long before Columbus was born. It is also a city of sights and smells: ubiquitous food vendors fill sidewalks with the smell of cooking, the ever-present always-on flashing red and blue police-car lights, the pedestrian-only commercial streets. And in spite of all the hustle and bustle one would expect from the second-largest city in the world, it is surprisingly orderly, and it feels quite safe -at least it feels that way so far -maybe I haven't come across a "fun" neighborhood yet...
I found this old family picture, and I thought about how the past seems like a foreign country: most things are easily recognizable, but just different enough to make them seem a bit strange, unfamiliar. The infant on my great-grandmother's lap is my Dad.
After reading this article, my original intention was to reflect on the irrational fear of change that afflicts so many of our species. A useful survival trait perhaps, in an era of tribal warfare, but no more. At a certain level, I feel that Europeans are avoiding their responsibility to take on their share of leadership in the world.
I was reminded of the ancient myth of a Europa in distress, and started searching for an appropriate image to go with my yet to be written post. Aside from finding the great bronze piece above, I became more interested in the details of this mythical woman who lent her name to a continent, and so I -ahem- binged her. Thus I found myself browsing this lost presentation. Intrigued by its, shall we say, uniqueness, I looked into it and found it was put together by a school kid. It was then that it hit me -I always talk about how everybody has something to teach and today I was taught ancient mythology by a 6th grader.
This was a completely wasted half-hour, you say? Maybe, but I could never give up such care-free moments of surfing on this world wide web, our brave new sea of information.
It's been two months since the election fraud in Iran energized the reformist movement. Since then protests have continued, but the government has gotten better at repressing the opposition, and things seemed a bit quieter in tha past few weeks.
Today's demonstrations -piggybacking the Jerusalem Day ceremonies-, have shown that the opposition is alive and kicking, pulsing just below the surface.
I think it is reasonable to wonder if Iran's recent softening nuclear policy isn't at least in part an effort to appease the opposition.
In theory, lobbying is a tool of democracy. It is how citizens can make sure their voices are heard when they are not voting. Lobbying has helped important causes like civil rights, labor, environment, etc.
The corporate sector however, having far more resources, can pretty much outspend anyone else to protect and further their interests -unfortunately they tend to act with short-term benefits in mind. Today, the professional lobbyist, working for the special interests, has far more influence in the legislative process than can possibly be considered ethical.
The NRA actually warned senators that it would punish those who voted to confirm justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court -few Republicans voted for her. (article)
Like this article explains, it makes perfect sense for the interest groups to hire former congressional members to do their lobbying: it's a win-win: the former congressmen have the experience and contacts needed to know how, when, and to whom to apply pressure, making far more money without the trouble of running for office every few years. The industry gets the most bang for their buck. So there you have a clear career path: get elected to congress, work for the lobby group from the inside, get hired by said lobbying group... and continue to work for them from the "outside". What could possibly be unethical about that?
Indeed.
The pharmaceutical lobby spent over 40 million in lobbying in the past few months, and have more lobbyists working for them than there are memebers of congress. Would they spend all that for nothing? "Today the government is empowered to negotiate how much it pays doctors, hospitals, laboratories — almost anyone who does business with Medicare. Anyone except pharmaceutical companies". (article)
Apparently not.
The fiercest enemy this country faces, is not the economy, the health industry, or global warming, it is not even Al Qaeda. It is a system that over the decades has entrenched itself on the inside of the halls of power to the point that it has become a virtually integral part of how lawmaking is done to the detriment of the public interest. Ironically, in the long run this often works against the industry that is trying to protect its own interests. Look at how the US has lost its leadership in the auto industry, and how China is set to control the new green energy industry -how much better off would these major industries in the US be right now if they had had to abide by more "unfair" legislation? History shows that when facing challenges, the industry always responds by producing innovation and increasing efficiency, but the lesson of the Dodo is wasted in corporate America.
It is my belief and hope that the Obama administration will reap all the fruits of its hard work to easily win a second term, in which it will find itself with renewed spirit and energy to tackle the most important of all problems: special interest lobbying and campaign finance reform.
Chaplin's "The Dictator" has become quite poular in Iran
In the past decade, Iran has made headlines often because of its nuclear research and hostile stance in the world stage. Unfortunately it is easy for people reading headlines to think that most of Iran is composed of zealots, especially during a time when the Bush administration made Iran a part of “the axis of evil”.
However, the events of recent weeks in which the people have massively protested the election fraud, have helped the world see that in spite of its alleged democracy, Iran’s regime has no mandate from its people. In other words, the people in Iran massively oppose their government:
-They do not want to pursue the development of nuclear weapons. -They do not wish the destruction of Israel. -They do not hate the West, Israel, or care to be seen as a destabilizing force. -They are very unhappy with the way the regime has managed the country, in particular the economy, and want to have a say on how it is conducted. -They want the clergy to have a respected but advisory role in government, similar to how some European monarchies have an influential voice at certain times, but no real power in state affairs. -They want a more liberal society, with less state/religious control.
This is why reform in Iran is so important, much more so than in other countries. A truly democratic government in Iran would:
- Cease funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite extremists, which would go a long way to bring peace and stability to Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and the region at large. - Show the world that Islam and Democracy can easily coexist, and make Iran a catalyst for reform in the region. - Allow a population that is among the most educated in the region to bring about economic and social progress, serving as an example of the benefits of Democracy to its neighbors.
This is why we must let the people of Iran know that there are hundreds of millions of people all over the world that admire and support their valiant efforts and the sacrifice of their martyrs’ to take control of their destiny and claim their place among the free peoples of the world. We are paying close attention and are waiting to welcome them to the fraternity of nations who seek peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and global cooperation to the betterment of all. Because all of our lives are intertwined, their fight is also ours. To intervene would only make things worse, but to show our solidarity, is our duty.
It's been said over and over: the US spends twice as much in health care as the average developed nation, and yet 1 out of 6 US citizens are uninsured. If nothing is done, the number of people without health care will continue to grow, or the government will eventually go belly up -or more likely, both.
OK... but why is this happening in the first place?
Answer:
The underlying problem has to do with the lobbying mechanisms that allow interests groups to exert such enormous influence on the Congress that it amounts to legalized corruption. Lobbying should be a democratic mechanism for minorities and groups that otherwise would have no voice; unfortunately it has become a tool for groups with huge sums of money to push legislation that favors their interests at the expense of the country, and over the past decades it has had a negative effect on health care.
Specifics:
1. Doctors get paid based on the drugs and tests they prescribe -the more they order the more money they make. Yes, this is a fact, and the result is doctors are rewarded for unnecessary spending and labs have no incentive to control prices.
Guess who benefits from this?
a) The drug companies b) The hospitals/labs/health contractors c) The doctors d) All of the above (Yes, you won!!) e) The patients
Solid evidence suggests that by cutting back on unnecessarily expensive procedures and prescriptions, between 10% to 30% of health costs could be saved. As the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, the California-based Kaiser Permanente system, and others have shown, it is possible to save money and produce better outcomes at the same time.
2. The government subsidizes half of the cost of employer provided health insurance. This means that:
a. Insurance companies are encouraged to come up with expensive/luxury coverage options. b. All taxpayers share this burden, including those who don't get insurance via our employers, or no insurance at all.
3. Health insurance is not mandatory, therefore most uninsured people don't go to the hospital until the problem becomes serious enough, turning a potentially easy treatment into a an expensive one.
4. There is no incentive for preventive health care. Again, catching a problem before it gets expensive and crippling would benefit everyone... except the health industry. If you're like me, having health insurance is not enough of an incentive to do what we hate the most: going to the hospital. We are big babies, we are legion, and we need to be disciplined because if we don't, everyone has to share the burden of our poor decisions, and that is not fair. A tax break, a tax penalty, our names on the wall of shame -something. Preventive-oriented health care, I suspect, is the most important piece of the puzzle.
5. Lack of competition.
Lots of health care price-fixing lawsuits seems to demonstrate this point, and here is a report that shows that most states are dominated by one or two insurance providers.
6. Obsolete and expensive bureaucracy.
Question: OK... so just put in place legislation to correct these issues, what's the big deal? Answer: Because when you spend less on health care, the health care industry earns less providing it -the industry is very profitable as it is, and therefore it is exerting its very considerable influence to maintain the status quo.
Question: but the legislators in congress say all kinds of scary things, they make it sound like the people would suffer terribly if we do anything to seriously cut costs.
Answer: If you look at all those arguments, you will first find that some are easily answered, for example, the Mayo Clinic case proves that you can definitely increase quality AND reduce cost at the same time. But most interestingly, you will find that all these arguments have one thing in common: the end result either protects the staus quo, or changes things in a way that does not compromise the interests of the health care industry. What a remarkable coincidence, isn't it?
But here are some specific points to ponder:
-If some go out of business, it means they were not efficient to begin with and/or not able to adapt, this means business from the least efficient providers would go to the more efficient; a net gain for patients and the country at large. -As in the Mayo Clinic example, costs can be reduced and quality improved at the same time -we shouldn't lower the standard of the whole industry so that the worst providers don't have to change, which if you reduce it to the essentials, is exactly what some people in Congress are saying. -There are many examples of health care systems on other developed nations that provide better care for less money, besides, to measure the quality of health care without factoring in the 50 million uninsured is a sad joke.
Question: who will win, Reform or Status Quo?
Answer: I think there will be modest reform, better than what we have now, but not the kind of real solution that we need to provide quality health care for all and not mortgage the future. I hope I'm wrong.
Google just announced it is launching its own operating system: Chrome OS. Someone described this as dropping a nuclear bomb on Microsoft, and it kind of feels that way. There's no question a war has been brewing, and the object of that war -market dominance of the Web- is now moving into Microsoft's core territory. As Google put it, existing OSs were designed before the web -that is, they are computer-centered, to run local applications. It has been clear for a while that the computer world is moving from the local PC to the web. So not only is Google threatening the Windows OS, it is threatening MS Office, or pretty much ninety percent Microsoft's revenue.
This reminds me of the first web war: the battle between the Netscape and Internet Explorer (see browser wars) -of course, back then Microsoft used to bundle IE with Windows in new PCs while Netscape couldn't do much but watch helplessly. Google plans shipping its OS with new netbooks and later full laptops and desktops, so Microsoft will get a taste of its own medicine. Also, unlike on the first Web war, both rivals are evenly matched, so this will be a long battle, and hopefully we'll see a lot of innovation on both sides.
I am wondering if we will finally see the public at large adopting web based office apps -especially, I wonder about the one advantage of MS near-monopoly: the ability to send a Word document or a PowerPoint and not have to worry if the recipient can open it. So this is really about whether small carry-everywhere netbooks and ubiquitous wireless broadband will complete the change that started with laptops and smartphones.
Either way, I think this will ultimately be a win for users worldwide -not to mention, fun to watch ;-)
I found myself reading the news about the riots in Xinjiang, and wondering, who are the Uyghur people, and why can't the central government just let minorities thrive instead of drowning their cultures among Han mainstream? Fear, of course. But I don't want to think too much... here is some Uyghur pop music, enjoy.
According to this NYT article, leading celrics in Qom declared the elections illegitimate, in a direct challenge to the Ayatollah, showing the regime faces strong opposition at all levels.
What is most interesting is that there this is supposed to be a stronghold of the regime as there are "...no liberals or opposition groups here(Qom); this is the center of mullah control over the government, culture, and politics of Iran." If the regime is finding strong opposition here, it means it is standing in very shaky ground indeed.
This in turn will undoubtedly embolden others to openly opose the regime, which would require even more repressive violence, which would enarage the people even more.
The possible arrest of Mousavi seems to be more and more likely -this may prove to be an unintentional boost to the reformists, as it would provide a rallying focus to the protesters.
Arrests of citizens and media repression continue: The BBC reports that "despite threats people are still uploading videos onto sites such as YouTube - which is more difficult to trace. Others have already paid the price of being in touch with the media. A long-standing contact in Tehran had been keeping us across events in the capital since the election. But this week she wrote to say: "I've been fired from work. I can't give you any more info right now. They have been going into our computers at work and found out that I'd emailed you. Wish me luck." "
Good luck to her and all the brave people of Iran in their quest for freedom.
The creative graffiti in the streets of Tegucigalpa turns Mel Zelaya to Mel ZeVaya (Mel Go Away)
Honduras' legitimately elected president, Manuel Zelaya, has been ousted in an alleged coup. I say alleged because in spite of the international backing of Zelaya, so far I have seen no clear evidence that his removal from office was illegal -after all, the move to attempt re-election violated articles of the Constitution that forbid changes to the presidential limit of one four-year term and establish the legal procedure for constitutional amendments- however, the mode of his removal seems hardly a democratic measure and adds legitimacy to Mr. Zelaya's claims. In any case, declarations from OAS, UN, and the US, state their support for Zelaya and demand his return to power. Perhaps I should humbly assume they know exactly what they are doing and are acting out of their selfless devotion to Democracy. I'm not being sarcastic this time (really, I'm not).
Elected on a center-right platform, Mr. Zelaya decided he liked the left better half-way through his term. After he became friendly with Venezuela's Chavez, he embraced a Chavez-style leftisit/populist campaign to have a referendum to change the constitution so as to allow for a consecutive second term.
The Supreme Court, his own party and other government bodies declared such a referendum unconstitutional, and declared his lack of compliance to stop the referendum as an illegal act. Soon after the military flew him to Costa Rica in his pajamas. The Honduras Congress produced a dubious letter of resignation -which Zelaya says he never wrote- and appointed Roberto Micheletti as his replacement.
If you're like me, you must be thinking this is pretty strange. If congress voted him out of power, and Zelaya's actions were truly illegal, why the coup-like forceful exile?
Let me take a wild guess at the story behind the story...
1. Zelaya becomes friends with Chavez
2. Chavez starts courting Zelaya.
3. Zelaya makes a 180 degree ideology turn
4. The Honduran government and upper classes think: "this guy wants to stay in power forever by using populism to appeal to the impoverished masses, just like Chavez did... if it worked for Chavez, it can probably work for Zelaya -after all, the poor here don't read the news and have no idea that Chavez is ruining Venezuela and trying to become pseudo-king. We can vote him out of power, but with Chavez's funding, he can find a way to get reelected or stage a coup. This isn't good, we have to do something or it's bye-bye democracy (and bye-bye our elite privileges)"
5. Zelaya gets free one-way trip to Costa Rica.
6. Regional leaders don't want anyone getting bad ideas about overthrowing elected leaders, decide to show strong condemnation of coup.
7. The international community at large, fearing a return of civil war to the region, threatens sanctions and withdraws ambassadors, pressuring Honduras to undo the coup.
8. The US, complying with new foreign policy, repudiates coup publicly and pressures Honduras as well (though many breath easier in private. Same for many Latin American countries).
9. Chavez delights in being able to parade around region making noise and taking the high moral ground, feeling important and siding with his protege.
In this article of El Heraldo of Honduras, a Venezuelan citizen writes to congratulate the people of Honduras and thanks them for showing Venezuela that would-be dictators are not invincible and wishes they could do the same with Chavez. Many others ad comments to second the thought.
While I sympathize with the writer, it seems like Zelaya has plenty of popular support in Honduras, though it isn't clear if his supporters outnumber his opposition. Given the mounting international pressure, it seems possible that a negotiated return to power of Zelaya may happen, in which he agrees not to attempt to run for a second term. This of course, would be ideal, but the question hanging in the air is: is it OK to risk a second Chavez in Honduras? While Venezuela had the oil boom to mitigate Chavez's devastating policies and corruption, Honduras is already very poor to start with, and a Chavez-style regime would likely bring utter ruin and even more corruption. Unfortunately, if the Honduran people chose to go that route, knowingly or not, they have every right to do so, and should not be opposed by force or unlawful actions -otherwise we are no better than the Zelayas of the world.
The government continues to supress demonstrations, and blames the West on government television, even showing "confessions" of protesters supposedly incited by western media outlets. The Iranian bloggers make clear that no one is fooled by this, but since the Supreme Leader decided to show his hand and intervene in the elections, he doesn't have a choice but to play his role and go on with the act, leaning on his security forces. Although Khameini has succeeded in making the public demonstrations diminish significantly, the unrest persists in the minds of the people. It seems clear that this isn't simply going to go away. The clamp down on the media, scare tactics on the party leaders and reformists, violence on protesters, and monitoring of Internet comunications may have calmed things down to an extent on the surface, but underneath the tension hasn't gone away.
So far the government has been threatening to arrest Mousavi; if they do, a general strike may likely ensue, as Mousavi himself has exhorted the people as follow up to that eventuality. Or perhaps a massive demonstrations will be planned for the forty day anniversary of the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan. Perhaps the catalyst will be something else, but it is good to remember that the last revolution didn't happen overnght -it took a year until the Shah was toppled -and it's been a short three weeks since June 12th.
It appears that the rift among the the top religious authorities in Iran continues to gain momentum, with the Ayatollah Khameini having to lean more and more in his enforement agencies and less in the rule of law, while his moral authority seems to be spiraling down in all but the most conservative Iranians.
According to Reuters the most senior opposition ayatollah, Hossein Ali Montazeri, distanced himself further from Iran’s supreme leader, saying that “Resisting people’s demand is religiously prohibited … I am calling for three days of national mourning from Wednesday.” and described the election results as something that “no wise person in their right mind can believe.”
Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who leads the 86-member Assembly of Experts -a goverment body with legal authority to remove the Supreme Leader-, is supposed to be playing a quiet but critical role in organizing the opposition. His daughter Faezeh Hashemi Rafsanjani is a former member of Parliament who gained notoriety for opening sports to women and was seen at a rally for opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi on June 17.
Below is what is reported to be a demonstration in Shirazi street in Teheran from earlier today. It seems that demonstrations continue throughout Iran today, but with less violence than Yesterday in spite of the large number of police in the streets. Indeed, they are chanting "we are all together" -I wonder if we are beginning to see the turning of the enforcement agaencies -the only thing that seems to be keeping the government in place -to the reformist camp...
Here is a great blog from inside Iran, with great updates and photos
With chants of "Allah-o-akbar!" ("God is great!") and ”Marg Bar dictator!” ("Death to the dictator!"), the people marched all over Iran today in defiance of Yesterday's threats of violence by the Ayatollah Khameini. Reports of massive use of tear gass, water cannons, and in some cases live bullets slowed slowed down the demonstrations, but did not manage to stop them completely.
It looks like the government of Iran has but two options: become a plain dictatorship in all but name, or veer towards freedom and reform.
Here is one of the many websites following the ongoing events
Videos, photographs, and blogspostes abound. The people are leaving no room for doubt about what they want, and their willingness to pay whatever cost is necessary:
"I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I'm listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It's worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I'm two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow's children..."
It is incredible to see what is in the hearts an minds of so many Iranians right now. It is touching, it is moving, it is amazing. History tells us of armies of long dead people who put themselves in harm's way for the sake of freedom, but that can never compare to the reality of seeing it happening, right this moment, by people like you or I, who go to school, or have a job, who for all that matters could be our next door neighbors -placing freedom above all else. Moments like this make me fall in love with the people of Earth.
The Ayatollah made clear where he stands -and has given a clear warning to the people and opposition leaders -but the protests will go on in a few hours. I hope the cost to the people is not too high.
In 1979, the people of Iran raised up to overthrow a goverment they did not approve of. That revolution was supposed to put in place an islamic goverment, empowered by the people. But the recent and highly contested election results triggered a series of protests in which the people of Iran made clear that they did not feel empowered by their government. "It's not about Mousavi, or any candidate, it's about democracy" explained a young protester in the streets of Teheran. It seems to me, from the multiple accounts, interviews, tweets, blogs, and cell-phone videos from the streets, that the people weren't particularly upset with the system of government -at least at the beginning- they just wanted to have a say in how things are run, and they want to be able to express themselves freely -the problem is that this is a classic example of what happens when one branch of government has power over the others: the people's sovereignty soon starts to fade.
So now, with the whole world paying close attention, Iran finds itself at a fork in the road. The Supreme Leader must be thinking about what happened to the last Shah during the revolution, armed forces or not. Using force to repress the protests would discredit whatever credibility it has left before its own people and abroad, and it might backfire, triggering another revolution. He even has strong opposition within the clerical branches of government, supporting the protests. The safest way out seems to be to call for a re-election, and this time making sure it is legitimate. This of course, may weaken his position in the eyes of his opponents, and probably his own; though it seems to me that with the right moves, he could easily turn the situation to his advantage and gain popular support.
Khamenei said he would address the people tomorrow, and in the meantime, the people continue to flood the streets to make sure no one forgets what they want.
I find that knowing my own and other people's personality types can be helpful to understand behavior and motivation, and therefore help find the logic in apparently confusing or contradictory behavior. This tool can then help counteract the classical mistake of assuming that behavior in others is caused by the same motivations or understanding of the world as one's own.
On June 4th, 20 years ago, many brave people died for demanding that their voices be heard. They wanted reform, freedom, and democracy. I think that when someone takes a stand for freedom at the risk of their own lives, they not only bring honor upon themselves, but elevate all of us, as a species, and we should all be proud of them, our brothers and sisters in the human family. As a small tribute to them, I spent some time reading about, and pondering the events that took place during the weeks that culminated that night on Tiananmen square.
Two quotes in particular caught my attention:
"Whether you like or not, the events ensured 20 years of fast economic growth" Beijing Netizen, Beijing
"June 4th was a time when a group of people sacrificed their lives for democracy. We need to remember their efforts" Steve Chan, Hong Kong
It cannot be denied that a peaceful demonstration for freedom is an honorable action and stems from basic human rights -on this belief we should not waver. We must also consider that freedom has many dimensions; political freedom does no good if people are starving, or can't educate themselves. These too are basic building blocks of freedom. History shows that lack of stability is detrimental of economic growth, and economic growth is necessary to elevate people from poverty, to provide education, and raise standards of living. Thus, it could be argued that the violent repression of June 4th was necessary for the long-term wellfare of the people.
So the question is this: was the benefit of crushing a potential revolution enough to justify the taking of so many lives?
I suggest that before answering, you take a deep breath, close your eyes, and imagine yourself in a room large enough to contain all the mothers, fathers, children, and friends of all those who were killed -a very, very large room.
Now imagine you have to ask that question to them.
After brief experimentation, I have found no great performance gap between Google and Bing -Microsoft's latest Search Engine re-launch. They are marketing it as a "Decision Engine"; it is supposed to help you sort through results better by selecting more "credible" sources (better-paying sources?) I can't wait for the conspiracy theories on that.
While Bing doesn't really have more to offer than Google, it does a better job of presenting and advertising its features. Even the simple, clean-looking Google interface, one of its best liked features, looks a bit too simple after Bing's nice interactive wallpapers. I am sure that if a proper comparisson is done, Google will come out on top performance-wise, at least initially, but for the first time, Microsoft appears to have come up with a credible adversary to Google, and in view of Microsoft's past history, even mighty Google should be losing some sleep. Or has Microsoft finally met its match?
Either way, the web landscape has become a bit more interesting...
I used to dislike Tango, but this genre seems to grow on you. No doubt some will attribute that to increased wisdom; tango evokes sadness, melancholy, despair -not usually appealing to the very young. It is a reflection, perhaps, of the society in which it was born, and wether good or bad, it seems to have a deep effect on the listener...
I recently learned -completely by chance- of the existence of a country I hadn't even heard of before: Kabardino-Balkaria. I was amazed at my own ignorance -I thought that by know I knew of every country on Earth, at least by name, so I had to look it up. It turns out this former Soviet repubic is not an independent contry but one of the many oblasts (a type of province) that make up the Russian Federation.
I’ve been thinking about a posting dedicated to this mainstream component of our culture for a long time. It turned out much longer than I had anticipated.
As a young child (way before cable or DVRs) I couldn’t think of a better way to spend my time than watching TV. Even when there was nothing I liked, I’d still rather watch TV than do anything else. Why do so many children have this addiction for something so worthless? This question kept nagging at me so I had to try to figure it out.
For somebody relatively new to the world, few things can provide as much effortless information input density as TV. A child’s mind is an avid information sink. Any information is excellent when you have almost none, so even the dullest cartoon is a synaptic feast of new objects, concepts, and interactions; thus the young brain latches on to it. Eventually, however, information density drops, as most of it is no longer new. The increasingly more complex intellect becomes more demanding, and TV loses its preeminence; most information coming out of it no longer has much value even as entertainment, as ninety-nine percent of it is nothing but thinly disguised repetition. At least this was the case with me during my mid-teens (no, I don’t mean I was nothing but thinly disguised repetition) I mean that I started to find TV quite dull and rather a waste of time. Once in a while I’d find something worth watching, but those were the exceptions.
Then, in the past decade or so, TV’s landscape changed. I am talking about entertainment– comedies and dramas. A new generation of TV shows started to appear. I found myself enlightened, moved, or challenged by ideas and situations in a TV show. Suddenly, TV was an enriching experience.
Around the end of the millennium, I had been hearing lots of good things about The Sopranos, I was a bit curious, but never got around to watch it –after all work was an all consuming monster at the time, and that was just a TV show, right? Eventually, though, I found myself with a lot more time than usual in my hands, and I was impressed by the show. All kinds of unexpected things happened. Unexpected and TV show in the same sentence -imagine that. I was hooked. Then I found Six Feet Under, my first dramedy, and I watched the first two seasons. That show was totally groundbreaking back in 2002, and it still hasn’t lost its edge in 2009 (I watched the rest of it recently thanks to an involuntary extended vacation :)
But in my opinion the prize goes to The West Wing, this show has single-handedly risen the bar on broadcast TV by a couple of orders of magnitude -hands down my absolute all time favorite.
Sure, regular and bad TV shows still outnumber good ones, but why the relatively sharp change upwards in the quality curve in the past decade? Part of it is the normal trend on any field –people build on previous advances, and so the bar keeps rising. I wonder if people are becoming more demanding as well. I think it is a fact that the average citizen is less naïve or conventional, society in general has become less static, more open and multi-faceted than it was a couple of decades ago, and it takes some time for writers and producers and studios to catch up to the new paradigms; especially, if as this article suggests and I have no trouble believing, profit margins in broadcast TV became the primary goal of management, creating a downward spiral of declining ratings, followed by declining budgets and quality and so on: http://seekingalpha.com/article/85828-the-end-of-broadcast-tv-nears (I found the comments even more interesting than the article). So the advent of cable must have been a magnet for talented and creative writers and producers, helping to save TV –at least the evidence seems to match this theory.
Finally, the spread of technologies and services like DVRs, Netflix, iTunes, streaming, and file sharing; laptops and mobile devices are allowing people to watch shows at a time and place of their choosing, rather than having to seat in front a designated screen at a designated time –this is really significant, because for the first time, content originally created for TV is independent of TV channels, TV schedules and TV sets, allowing people to watch shows that otherwise they would never get around to see (and BTW, here is yet more proof that freedom is something we can never have too much of).
The really exciting thing about all this, is that producers and writers of TV shows will continue to gain artistic independence from management. Sure, we still need studios and money-people, you can’t (yet) produce something like The West Wing in your garage, but it is pretty clear where things are headed -and it looks like a better place to me.
After a very long campaign by green activists and responsible leaders, environmental awareness has finally been responisbly met by political will in the White House.
I think it is virtually impossible not to like Pandas, they are the rock stars of the animal kingdom, people go to the zoo just to see them -and yet they are the most gentle creatures, as if they existed inside a bubble of peace .
Mate is a traditional caffeinated tea-like drink from southern South America. Unlike tea or coffee, the filtration process happens while drinking, not before: a special metal straw has a closed end whith tiny holes in it that allows in the infusion but keeps out the herb. 
