Order of Countries in Opening Ceremony Altered by NBC

Much like most of the United States last night, I watched the Olympic opening ceremonies, delayed 12 hours, by the grace of the National Broadcasting Company (another complaint for another entry, maybe). During the March of Nations, the commentators, Matt Lauer and Bob Costas kept going on about how Chinese does not have an alphabet and, therefore, the sequence of countries in the march would be determined not by any "alphabetical" sequence.

Turns out, it went beyond that. NBC actually edited the sequence of the March of Nations so that the United States was near the end (whereas, in reality, it was somewhere in the middle). I don't know if this happens often or has happened in the past, but this strikes me as entirely unscrupulous. On the one hand, NBC commentators criticize censorship and other forms of government control of knowledge and information in China and, at the same time, their own network seems to be reworking entire opening ceremonies (and thus misrepresenting information to 300 million+ Americans) all for the sake of what? Higher network ratings? I'm not sure if that's as ominous as information control by the government, but it certainly is far more sleazy.

[via Slashdot]

UN helping developing nations develop sustainably

The UN Industrial Development Organization has started up its first zero emissions power station in rural Kenya this week. It seems that they intend to harness solar and hydro energy to sustain upto 500 households plus several micro-enterprises in the area (Kibai village, 150 kilometers from Nairobi).
Admittedly, this was not part of the original mandate of the United Nations. But, I laud them for their desire (and ability) to adapt to their rather shifted role in this new millenium. At this point, most powerful nations regard the UN as something to generally ignore and swat aside, unfortunately. Rather than giving up and throwing in the towel, the UN has retooled itself to something more of a development-oriented organization. Instead of directly shaping a peaceful world through debate and discussion as was the initial plan for the United Nations, they are, through organizations like UNIDO, UNDP, etc., indirectly working towards long-term peace in the world by helping developing nations (such as Kenya here) shape a sustainable future for themselves.
This is the sort of thing that I point to when people tell me that the UN is useless. The UN is not useless; it has merely reshaped the methods to its end in an attempt to adapt to the world around it.

[via Kenya Environmental & Political News]

Obama and NASA funding

I don't know if anyone was paying attention to this when it happened back in November 2007, but Obama unveiled his education plan to the US to much laudation that month. However, one thing that bothered me, which may not have been noticed by most others because, honestly, noone cares all that much about NASA anymore (nor does NASA give people reason to care, most of the time), was that he intended to pay for his education initiative by delaying funding for NASA's Constellation program:

Though Obama called for a renewed investment in math and science education, his plan would actually pull money from the federal government's greatest investments and achievements in math and science. Obama would delay funding for the NASA Constellation program for five years, though he would maintain the $500 million in funding the program would receive for its manufacturing and technology base, in order to help fund his education policy.

This bothered me quite a bit; after all, it's sort of depressing that the only way his campaign found to increase education funding was to delay (read: shut down) the future of America's human space exploration program (for those who don't know, Constellation will be replacing the aging space shuttle program).
So, when I read yesterday that Obama promised not to cut NASA funding, I was a bit confused. After reading a bit more carefully, I understood what was happening; Obama was speaking in Brevard County, Florida, where a large segment of the population is sustained by NASA's Cape Canaveral. He would have come down on the "wrong side" of the issue with that audience so he decided to change his mind (perhaps temporarily) about NASA's human space exploration program.
I have been grumbling about Obama quite a bit of late. The fact that I don't grumble about McCain shouldn't be read to mean I like him; it's more like McCain doesn't even show up on the radar as a viable presidential candidate in my eyes. And to be honest, I really don't think Obama's that bad; I think he's probably the most hope-inducing presidential candidate I have been around to see. It's just that he's not as principled as I thought he was when I heard his Race Speech (although that probably makes him a better candidate and president). I'm going to stop grumbling for some time.

[via Florida Today]

Did you know Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are private?

I feel like a bit of an idiot right now, but I'm fairly sure that most people still think that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two enormous corporations now at the center of the credit/loan crisis, are government agencies or, at the very least, public-private companies heavily controlled by the US Federal government.
I was wrong (and if you are one of my presumed majority, so were you).
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are "government-sponsored enterprises". Now, the official definition for what that means is pretty long, but the essence of it is:

The term "government-sponsored enterprise" means a corporate entity created by a law of the United States that has a Federal charter authorized by law; is privately owned, as evidenced by capital stock owned by private entities or individuals; is under the direction of a board of directors, a majority of which is elected by private owners...

[via the US House Office of Law Revision Counsel]

This assumption of mine led to my comfort with several recent developments that I am no longer as sure about. For one, it is not absolutely clear to me that the taxpayers should be massively bailing out any more privately-held companies (Bear Sterns being the first) who seemingly ruined their houses themselves (see NYT article, At Freddie Mac ... Warning Signs). It again seems like a bit of smoke and mirrors: let the populace think that we're part of the government so that they don't think twice about having to bail us out and we have an easier time of getting low interest rates on capital.
Ultimately, having already made my peace with bailing out Bear Sterns, I am in favor of helping out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well (perhaps even more so, as, through them, the government is helping out a lot of borrowers who are having trouble making payments on their loans' principal and accrued interest). I just wish I had known I am helpint to bail out another series of privately-owned corporations...

Obama okay with offshore oil-drilling

Earlier today, Barack Obama shifted his view on offshore oil drilling in the United States during a speech he gave to Michigan voters. Just to recap, previously, Senator Obama was strictly against drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for any reason, even to make things easier for Americans (which, in the long term, and probably even the short term, it won't do). His view has changed somewhat:

He said he might be willing to accept some exploration of limited offshore drilling as part of a more comprehensive energy bill that would include things he favors, like renewable fuels and batteries for electric-powered cars.

(By the way, the above quote is the most equivocal statement I've read in a long time in the New York Times ["might be willing", "some exploration", "more comprehensive"...]) It's sadly clear why he is doing this - to garner up some votes that McCain seemed to be taking away from him. But, if he really was going to be an "Ideas President" and the "Candidate for Change," he really would not succumb to such distractions. I understand that he wants limited exploration of offshore drilling, packaged within a larger push towards oil independence based on alternative energy investments and hybrid automobile incentives. But that still does not explain why anyone with generally smart economic advisors (some of them being UChicago professors) would suggest even limited offshore drilling when everyone (including Obama himself) says that there is no long-term benefit to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Just a few days ago, he did the right thing, saying "I'm in favor of solving problems. What I don't want to do is say something because it sounds good politically." Why did he change his mind so suddenly?

[via NYT]

[2008-08-05] Update: I thought about this a little more last night... Somehow, I feel that what Obama did here was take the easier way out. If you will recall, his popularity (at least with me, I guess) skyrocketed when, instead of simply distancing himself from Rev. Wright, Senator Obama gave a speech on race relations that was so elegant in content and delivery that it has since become known as the Race Speech. He didn't take the simple way out there; rather, using his intelligence and eloquence, Obama explained to us his viewpoint and stance. Admittedly, he ultimately did back away from Rev. Wright (leaving Wright's church), but he did it with a measure of class that is unseen in current politicians. This time around, I can't say I feel he took any high road. He saw he was on the unpopular side of an issue. Despite knowing and admitting earlier to knowing that the right side of the issue was the unpopular side, he changed his view so that he was no longer on the right/unpopular side. Maybe I have McCain to blame for this particular situation (who, by the way, has proven many times over that he is worse for the environment and long-term human survival on the earth than Obama by several magnitudes). But, somehow, I feel the blame falls not just on McCain. This time around, Obama failed to raise the level of debate and Americans (and probably the world) will suffer as a consequence.