Sunday, May 14, 2006
Whitewater Rafting
What an absolutely gorgeous weekend in San Francisco. Today it must have been 80 degrees in the city, with a slight breeze keeping it just cool enough. The grass was green, the birds were chirping, the girls were all wearing shorts and tanktops, and best of all it looks like we have this weather for another week. After one of the rainiest early springs on record this late spring is looking damn good.
And to take advantage of said weather, I went whitewater rafting. It was great.
I have never been whitewater rafting before, so I wasn't quite sure what to expect on my inaugural trip. The day started off poorly since I had to get up extraordinarily early (6.45 -- anytime before 10am on a Saturday is painful). I was meeting friends at my place at 7am to eat breakfast, and at 7:30 we were to take off for the river, which is 2.5 hours away. We were headed to the American River: this popular river with the imaginative name is located east of Sacramento.
Of course, my friends did not show until 7.30, and we ended up leaving at 8 after a quick meal of homemade breakfast burritos. Our delay and the slightly erratic driving one of my friends notwithstanding, we arrived only slightly late at the designated meeting place, and greeted our guides. Nathan - a friendly and very relaxed college freshman, and Zach - one of the owners of the company. Both were easy to get along and clearly a lot of fun. Oh, and also pretty competent (somewhat important, all things considered....)
We promptly all got wetsuits to put on -- not normally necessary, but apparently a requirement with the water levels so high. All of the rain and snow this past winter has raised the water levels and increased the flow rate to a level not seen in 30 years. These wetsuits were called "farmer johns", as they resembled a pair of overalls.....i found them pretty odd, but hey, when in rome.... So we got into wetsuits, put on lifejackets, signed away our lives on release waivers, received the requisite safety talk, and hopped into a big rubber boat.
There were six of us, and we all fit in one raft (that was it's max capacity, it worked out quite well) plus the guide who sat in the back and barked out orders: "forward row!" "backward row!" "STOP!", and the ever popular but uttterly confusing "left turn!!"
We then proceeded down the river. After about 1.5 hours we stopped for lunch along the shore, a hearty meal of sandwiches, fruit salad, lemonade, and oreo cookies. I tell you, eating good food beside a roaring river under the sun with friends is what life is all about. After lunch we continued rafting for another 1.5 hours or so, through what is known as "The Gorge". The water was white and the rapids were strong, everyone got soaked but we never tipped over. In short, it was a blast. At the end we all jumped in the water for a refreshing swim before heading out. To tell the truth, it was a little too refreshing: the water was absolutely frigid.
And that was my first experience rafting in whitewater. It's probably not going to be my last -- I had a good time, and would love to do something like that again for a longer period of time.
What an absolutely gorgeous weekend in San Francisco. Today it must have been 80 degrees in the city, with a slight breeze keeping it just cool enough. The grass was green, the birds were chirping, the girls were all wearing shorts and tanktops, and best of all it looks like we have this weather for another week. After one of the rainiest early springs on record this late spring is looking damn good.
And to take advantage of said weather, I went whitewater rafting. It was great.
I have never been whitewater rafting before, so I wasn't quite sure what to expect on my inaugural trip. The day started off poorly since I had to get up extraordinarily early (6.45 -- anytime before 10am on a Saturday is painful). I was meeting friends at my place at 7am to eat breakfast, and at 7:30 we were to take off for the river, which is 2.5 hours away. We were headed to the American River: this popular river with the imaginative name is located east of Sacramento.
Of course, my friends did not show until 7.30, and we ended up leaving at 8 after a quick meal of homemade breakfast burritos. Our delay and the slightly erratic driving one of my friends notwithstanding, we arrived only slightly late at the designated meeting place, and greeted our guides. Nathan - a friendly and very relaxed college freshman, and Zach - one of the owners of the company. Both were easy to get along and clearly a lot of fun. Oh, and also pretty competent (somewhat important, all things considered....)
We promptly all got wetsuits to put on -- not normally necessary, but apparently a requirement with the water levels so high. All of the rain and snow this past winter has raised the water levels and increased the flow rate to a level not seen in 30 years. These wetsuits were called "farmer johns", as they resembled a pair of overalls.....i found them pretty odd, but hey, when in rome.... So we got into wetsuits, put on lifejackets, signed away our lives on release waivers, received the requisite safety talk, and hopped into a big rubber boat.
There were six of us, and we all fit in one raft (that was it's max capacity, it worked out quite well) plus the guide who sat in the back and barked out orders: "forward row!" "backward row!" "STOP!", and the ever popular but uttterly confusing "left turn!!"
We then proceeded down the river. After about 1.5 hours we stopped for lunch along the shore, a hearty meal of sandwiches, fruit salad, lemonade, and oreo cookies. I tell you, eating good food beside a roaring river under the sun with friends is what life is all about. After lunch we continued rafting for another 1.5 hours or so, through what is known as "The Gorge". The water was white and the rapids were strong, everyone got soaked but we never tipped over. In short, it was a blast. At the end we all jumped in the water for a refreshing swim before heading out. To tell the truth, it was a little too refreshing: the water was absolutely frigid.
And that was my first experience rafting in whitewater. It's probably not going to be my last -- I had a good time, and would love to do something like that again for a longer period of time.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thursday, July 28, 2005
IRA Renounces Violence
----------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON, July 28 -- The Irish Republican Army, which waged a three-decade-long paramilitary struggle against British rule in Northern Ireland, formally ordered an end to its armed campaign Thursday and pledged to pursue its political aims through "exclusively peaceful means."
Note that the IRA has not renounced any of its goals, and has not renounced criminal activity or other illegal operations. It simply mentions an "alternative method" of acheiving its goals, which does not include violence. Still, this is great. Anything that reduces the level of terrorism in the world is a positive thing, and the IRA is one of the oldest ones around.
----------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON, July 28 -- The Irish Republican Army, which waged a three-decade-long paramilitary struggle against British rule in Northern Ireland, formally ordered an end to its armed campaign Thursday and pledged to pursue its political aims through "exclusively peaceful means."
  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the IRA has not renounced any of its goals, and has not renounced criminal activity or other illegal operations. It simply mentions an "alternative method" of acheiving its goals, which does not include violence. Still, this is great. Anything that reduces the level of terrorism in the world is a positive thing, and the IRA is one of the oldest ones around.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
India-US Nuclear Cooperation
This is a huge milestone for India, and a significant achievement by Manmohan Singh. I have a good deal of respect for that man, and so far he has not disappointed me in his leadership of the country.
Under the terms of the agreement, the US will share nuclear technologies with India, something which it has never done before with a country that does not accept international monitoring of it's nuclear facilities. India has agreed to monitoring of its civilian, but not military, nuclear complexes. It has also refused to sign on to the NPT, which requires such monitoring. Nevertheless Bush has signed the agreement, and it's now going to Congress for approval. It will face some opposition, but in the end I'm pretty sure it'll pass.
You can't blame India for not signing the NPT -- doing so is not going to get them anything that they have not been able to get without it, and it significantly restricts their development in a number of ways. India is not stupid. It knows that nuclear technology matters, but unlike Iran and North Korea, it has the backing and partnership of the US, which represents a huge edge. It now has access to not only nuclear technologies, but also advanced weapons systems. This also enhances their bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council, as the other contenders (Brazil and Japan) both have forgone the nuclear option. Oh, Musharraf is certainly unhappy right now.
The US of course is doing this in it's own interests. It knows that the only real counter-weight to China is India, and India is a lot friendlier to the US. It's in our interests to support and grow India's stature in the region as much as is reasonable in order to make China have to look over her shoulder. If she has to worry about two borders and two economies rather than just one, it will significantly hinder her ability to compete. Helping India also plays to the dynamics of power politics in South Asia. Despite press reports, I get the feeling that Bush is quite unhappy with the level of support that is being given to hunting down bin Laden in Pakistan, and this may be his way of shooting a warning shot at Musharraf.
Of course, if Musharraf gets toppled or killed, things will be much worse.
This is a huge milestone for India, and a significant achievement by Manmohan Singh. I have a good deal of respect for that man, and so far he has not disappointed me in his leadership of the country.
Under the terms of the agreement, the US will share nuclear technologies with India, something which it has never done before with a country that does not accept international monitoring of it's nuclear facilities. India has agreed to monitoring of its civilian, but not military, nuclear complexes. It has also refused to sign on to the NPT, which requires such monitoring. Nevertheless Bush has signed the agreement, and it's now going to Congress for approval. It will face some opposition, but in the end I'm pretty sure it'll pass.
You can't blame India for not signing the NPT -- doing so is not going to get them anything that they have not been able to get without it, and it significantly restricts their development in a number of ways. India is not stupid. It knows that nuclear technology matters, but unlike Iran and North Korea, it has the backing and partnership of the US, which represents a huge edge. It now has access to not only nuclear technologies, but also advanced weapons systems. This also enhances their bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council, as the other contenders (Brazil and Japan) both have forgone the nuclear option. Oh, Musharraf is certainly unhappy right now.
The US of course is doing this in it's own interests. It knows that the only real counter-weight to China is India, and India is a lot friendlier to the US. It's in our interests to support and grow India's stature in the region as much as is reasonable in order to make China have to look over her shoulder. If she has to worry about two borders and two economies rather than just one, it will significantly hinder her ability to compete. Helping India also plays to the dynamics of power politics in South Asia. Despite press reports, I get the feeling that Bush is quite unhappy with the level of support that is being given to hunting down bin Laden in Pakistan, and this may be his way of shooting a warning shot at Musharraf.
Of course, if Musharraf gets toppled or killed, things will be much worse.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Ever since I heard about the bombings in London, I've been hoping for one thing: that they were not suicide bombers. Timed bombs, charges next to gasoline tanks, anything other than suicide bombers. But today it seems the UK governement is certain that the majority of attackers died in the bombings in what were probablysuicide attacks.
The reason this is so scary is that it's so hard to defend against. A look at Israel, which has had to defend against suicide bombers for decades now, shows what needs to be done. Profiling and random searching of individuals, roaming guards with guns at all major gathering sites, tough immigration laws, and more. This is exactly what the terrorists want, to instill a culture of fear and dread. And the problem is that there's no good way around it.
The best method is never to give in. I know that sounds like something Bush might say, and I'm not really a supporter of his policies in general, but it's true in this case. Terrorism is in essence a form of blackmail. They are saying "Do what we want or we'll kill your civilians". And of course the constant issue with blackmail is that once you give in, you'll always be a target. Because you've shown that you can be coerced. So we must conduct our business as if they had never done this, with the exception of course of hunting down and bringing to justice everyone involved in this despicable crime.
Suicide attacks are in London, but let's pray they're not here to stay. Careful attention to domestic policy will help stop this. One of the best defences is the British Muslim community itself, which will show it's character in the next few months by their reactions to this crime. They must weed out this viscious intolerance in their midsts, or it will come back to haunt us all.
The reason this is so scary is that it's so hard to defend against. A look at Israel, which has had to defend against suicide bombers for decades now, shows what needs to be done. Profiling and random searching of individuals, roaming guards with guns at all major gathering sites, tough immigration laws, and more. This is exactly what the terrorists want, to instill a culture of fear and dread. And the problem is that there's no good way around it.
The best method is never to give in. I know that sounds like something Bush might say, and I'm not really a supporter of his policies in general, but it's true in this case. Terrorism is in essence a form of blackmail. They are saying "Do what we want or we'll kill your civilians". And of course the constant issue with blackmail is that once you give in, you'll always be a target. Because you've shown that you can be coerced. So we must conduct our business as if they had never done this, with the exception of course of hunting down and bringing to justice everyone involved in this despicable crime.
Suicide attacks are in London, but let's pray they're not here to stay. Careful attention to domestic policy will help stop this. One of the best defences is the British Muslim community itself, which will show it's character in the next few months by their reactions to this crime. They must weed out this viscious intolerance in their midsts, or it will come back to haunt us all.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Rove Leak?
It appears that Karl Rove might have been the infamous leak in the case of Valerie Palme. The Time reporter has identified Rove as being one of his informants, although the case still has to be decided. Quite obviously, Democrats smell blood in the water and are starting to circle. I bet they didn't in their wildest dreams think they'd have a chance to take down The Architect himself.
That being said, most of the legal opinions I've read so far say that Rove did not actually violate the law. In fact, the law is so narrow in it's scope, that he probably did not. Plus there are no real precedents here, so there's nothing for the courts to use as a yardstick. All in all I don't think Karl will go down for this, but it's broader political implications can already be felt. They make one more soft spot for the Democrats to attach Bush, and they've been getting more and more vocal about their discontent recently. It also has implications for the Supreme Court nomination, odd as that may seem. Essentially Bush's "political capital" is decreasing, and this is going to affect his ability to bully a conservative justice through the Senate if that's what he wants to do.
I also think that the whole debate about journalistic confidentiality is an interesting one. While the Time reporter chose to comply with the court ruling and give us his source, the NYT reporter has chosen the path of civil disobedience and is going to jail rather than reveal her source.
It's clear that confidentiality in journalism is quite important -- it allows the light to shine in on government operations that would otherwise never reach the public eye. It is one of the essential ways that journalists get their information, and needs to be protected by a federal shield law. The Supreme Court has ruled that journalistic confidentiality is not covered by the first ammendment, however state or federal legislatures are free to pass laws that would protect these relationships. And they should do that in a standardized fashion -- 48 states already have these laws, but they would not hold in a federal court.
That being said, if the source is breaking the law by leaking the informaiton, that should not be protected. Illegal activities should be exempted from any confidentiality clause, and that decision should be up to the courts. In this case the courts have decided that the law was potentially broken, and so the reporters should reveal their sources. While I admire the NYT's principled stand, I think it's wrong.
It appears that Karl Rove might have been the infamous leak in the case of Valerie Palme. The Time reporter has identified Rove as being one of his informants, although the case still has to be decided. Quite obviously, Democrats smell blood in the water and are starting to circle. I bet they didn't in their wildest dreams think they'd have a chance to take down The Architect himself.
That being said, most of the legal opinions I've read so far say that Rove did not actually violate the law. In fact, the law is so narrow in it's scope, that he probably did not. Plus there are no real precedents here, so there's nothing for the courts to use as a yardstick. All in all I don't think Karl will go down for this, but it's broader political implications can already be felt. They make one more soft spot for the Democrats to attach Bush, and they've been getting more and more vocal about their discontent recently. It also has implications for the Supreme Court nomination, odd as that may seem. Essentially Bush's "political capital" is decreasing, and this is going to affect his ability to bully a conservative justice through the Senate if that's what he wants to do.
I also think that the whole debate about journalistic confidentiality is an interesting one. While the Time reporter chose to comply with the court ruling and give us his source, the NYT reporter has chosen the path of civil disobedience and is going to jail rather than reveal her source.
It's clear that confidentiality in journalism is quite important -- it allows the light to shine in on government operations that would otherwise never reach the public eye. It is one of the essential ways that journalists get their information, and needs to be protected by a federal shield law. The Supreme Court has ruled that journalistic confidentiality is not covered by the first ammendment, however state or federal legislatures are free to pass laws that would protect these relationships. And they should do that in a standardized fashion -- 48 states already have these laws, but they would not hold in a federal court.
That being said, if the source is breaking the law by leaking the informaiton, that should not be protected. Illegal activities should be exempted from any confidentiality clause, and that decision should be up to the courts. In this case the courts have decided that the law was potentially broken, and so the reporters should reveal their sources. While I admire the NYT's principled stand, I think it's wrong.
Friday, July 08, 2005
London Attacks
A friend of mine said to me recently that London always seemed so peaceful and innocent to him, that it's hard to imagine anyone actually killing people there. Truth be told, London has a pretty violent history. They've been bombed by wars and terrorists several time in the recent past, they've been invaded numerous times throughout history, and they're still here. I'm not going to talk much about these attacks, because press and internal strife are the primary motivations of terrorist organizations. Simply let it be said that these attacks, if anything, have a unifying effect on the opponents of Al-Qaeda.
A friend of mine said to me recently that London always seemed so peaceful and innocent to him, that it's hard to imagine anyone actually killing people there. Truth be told, London has a pretty violent history. They've been bombed by wars and terrorists several time in the recent past, they've been invaded numerous times throughout history, and they're still here. I'm not going to talk much about these attacks, because press and internal strife are the primary motivations of terrorist organizations. Simply let it be said that these attacks, if anything, have a unifying effect on the opponents of Al-Qaeda.
