San Fran Bans Plastic Bags

The Board of Supervisors in San Francisco voted Tuesday to ban plastic bags from supermarkets in an effort to promote recycling.

Beginning in six months, area drugstores and large supermarkets won't be allowed to offer petroleum based plastic bags, according to the newly passed legislation.

The ban is expected to save 450,000 gallons of oil annually and keep 1,400 tons of debris out of landfills each year.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom must either approve or veto the measure. He is expected to sign the legislation into law.

The Bethie Bee believes this is a bad idea:

There are so many problems with this, I don’t know where to begin. It’s a local law at least, so that makes me happy–but do even local governments have the right to interfere this much into commerce? And is it wise to do so?

So does this guy who calls himself Grossy. On his Vox blog, he makes a point about the weight of paper bags:

The plastic bags are easy and convenient, and produce nowhere near the waste of the packaging used on most grocery products. Plastic bags use very little material, and weight much less than paper bags. So shipping heavier paper bags all over the city, to grocery stores, and to recycling centers will probably result in more wasted petroleum than the plastic bags themselves.

But Rusty at Portland MetroBlogs decries plastic's effect on the environment:

But even with all the benefits, I feel bad taking plastic. I know it's not good for the environment (just as I know that my tall plastic handle-tie kitchen garbage liners aren't -- and, as an aside, I was looking at the boxes of garbage bags at Fred Meyer the other day to see if any were being touted as environmentally friendly; that facade's been entirely dropped by the whole industry). And I often see the remnants of them blowing down my street, making their way into the sewers where they can eventually damage some eco-system downstream. The eco-unfriendliness is, to me, in and of itself enough reason to abandon the things.

The ideal solution is bringing cloth bag(s) to the grocery store and then use them over and over, but motivating shoppers to buy and actually remember to bring them along each visit seems challenging.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Anti-Hillary Clinton Youtube mashup

With all the hoopla surrounding this anonymous Anti-Hillary/Pro-Obama Youtube mashup of an old Apple Computer Ad, it can be hard to make sense of this so let's go right into some of what the bloggers and alternative press are saying.

Paul at BeyondChron heralds the democratization of online video:

What YouTube does is allow any person who knows how to put up a video online to play the game – and get wide exposure. In the old days, only well-paid political consultants and the campaigns who hired them could do this – and they had to pay ungodly amounts of money to put such commercials on television. YouTube democratizes the political system, by letting grassroots activists drive the debate about how candidates get covered.

Although I don’t like Hillary Clinton and am a big fan of the latest YouTube video, I am very uncomfortable that it is anonymous. But there’s no question that the creator’s anonymity (and the fact that it was obviously not an amateur) has sparked more interest in it. I also believe the Obama campaign when they say that the creator is unaffiliated with their operation, and that they’re as clueless as we are as to who did it.

But anonymous hit-pieces – even if done artfully well – are not a good thing. If the 1984 parody had been displayed on television, campaign finance law would have required the creator to disclose its identity so that they can be held accountable. For now, the clip is probably harmless fun – but will it spawn more attacks on YouTube from sources who refuse to let the world know who they are?

It’s too soon to tell, but there’s one thing that we know for sure. The YouTube election has arrived.

David Boaz at cato-at-liberty.org big-ups the anonymity factor:

It was created by someone who prefers Obama. And it’s a great example of anonymous pamphleteering for the internet age. As Jonathan Wallace pointed out in a Cato study, that’s a tradition that goes back to Cato’s Letters and the Federalist Papers. But our modern election laws have tried to stamp out anonymity. All expressions of political support are supposed to be disclosed, reported, and regulated. But why do we need to know who created this great ad? If you take offense at it, create a better one in response.

Kibitzer at The Pesky Fly says the video was planted by the GOP:

One indication of the declining state of the Republican attack machine is the utter transparency of one of its latest disinformation efforts – namely, the video spot (which has been seen widely on YouTube and elsewhere) based on Apple Computers’ 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing the MacIntosh and (by implication) bashing computer kingpin Bill Gates.

The spot, which purports to be under the auspices of “BarackObama.com,” features what appear to be the same zombies who populated the Apple ad, having entered an auditorium in lockstep to watch, not the Gates stand-in of 1984, but Hillary Clinton as she prattles on dully about the intent of her campaign to be all-inclusive. First clue of something funny right there: That the GOP provocateurs who put this thing together (for it is surely they) would equate such an aim, fuzzily well-meaning as it is, with the oppressive nostrums represented by the original.

The comments and post quoting could go on and on but the last quote is from Clinton herself who has a sense of humor about the clip:

“I haven’t seen it but I’m pleased that it seems to be taking attention away from what used to be on YouTube and getting a lot of hits, namely me singing ‘The Star Spangled Banner.’ Everybody in the world now knows I can’t carry a tune,” Clinton told NY1. “I thank heavens for small favors and the attention has shifted, and now maybe people won’t have to tune in and hear me screeching about ‘The Star Spangled Banner.’”

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

300 "psychological warfare" against Iran?

A BBC news article calls the movie 300 a "historical war epic" and brings to light the Iranian outrage over the film. The Hollywood picture shows a small Greek force resisting a Persian army.

Javad Shamaqdari, a cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said it is "plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization" and called the movie "psychological warfare" against the people and city of Tehran.

He went on to say, "Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the US initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture.

"Certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies."

Although my knowledge of factual history on the matter is sadly lacking, the flick is intended to be based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, not the actual events that unfolded during the battles. While I don't know Miller's intentions for depicting the story as he did, I would bet most of the way the book was drawn and written was to enhance its entertainment value, not insult the people of Iran. There is no doubt a strong theme of freedom running throughout most likely because the film is targeted to an American audience. Iran should simply come back with their own movie, done in a way that is favorable to their culture. Newslok.com puts it this way:

Calling this as ‘Hollywood’s war on Iraninas’ may be far fetched to many. When “300” depicts Persians as ‘demons, without culture, feeling or humanity’, it is just being truthful to the vision of a Graphic Novelist, not history. Second, not many in Hollywood toe George Bush’s line.

What the Iranians can do is make a movie of their own, depicting a heroic chapter in their Nation and let the culture wars bloom, instead of bullets and misiles coming at you for all sides.

On the other hand, Iranians see the matter very differently. The We are hypocrite blog has an Iranian view point:

Top officials and parliament have scorned the film as though it were a matter of state, and for the first time in a long while, taxi drivers are shaking their fists in agreement when the state news comes on. Agreeing that 300 is egregious drivel is fairly easy. I'm relatively mellow as Iranian nationalists go, and even I found myself applauding when the government spokesman described the film as fabrication and insult. Iranians view the Achaemenid empire as a particularly noble page in their history and cannot understand why it has been singled out for such shoddy cinematic treatment, as the populace here perceives it, with the Persians in rags and its Great King practically naked. The Achaemenid kings, who built their majestic capital at Persepolis, were exceptionally munificent for their time. They wrote the world's earliest recorded human rights declaration, and were opposed to slavery. Cuneiform plates show that Persepolis was built by paid staff rather than slaves And any Iranian child who has visited Persepolis can tell you that its preserved reliefs depict court dress of velvet robes, and that if anyone was wearing rags around 500 B.C., it wasn't the Persians.

It would probably be beneficial for both Americans and Iranians to read some unbiased history on the matter preferably from an outside source. If anybody knows of such, please post something in the comments.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

U.S. targets India over spirit and wine tariffs

The Bush administration filed a case with the World Trade Organization against India on Tuesday concerning the tariffs the country imposes on U.S. wine and distilled spirits.

The case claims that India is imposing tariffs that go as high as 550 percent on U.S. wine and spirits imports and is in violation of its WTO commitments that they would not exceed 150 percent.

Both of India's wine and spirits import duties are within WTO limits -- wine at 100 percent and spirits at 150 percent -- however various government surcharges boost the tariffs much higher.

The matter may possibly be resolved in WTO consultations.

The U.S. and India have 60 days to strike a solution through negotiations before a WTO panel is formed. If the United States wins the case it can put penalty tariffs on goods coming from India into the States unless India drops the tariffs in dispute.

The announcement from the administration came after the European Union also challenged India's tariffs on wine and spirits.

An attempt by the administration to join the EU case was rejected by India. Under WTO rule a member country that isn't allowed to join a existing case can file its own.

India is one of the largest spirit markets in the world -- valued at the retail level at about $14.2 billion.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation