How the Cup Unites July 13, 2006
Posted by theexpress in Sports, world.2 comments
A few months ago, when the World Cup buzz was just starting to surface on peoples minds, I thought that it was a little over-done in terms of hype. I didnt pay too much attention to the last World Cup and I was just too young to remember enjoying any before that one. I like soccer (which I sometimes catch myself calling football), but the idea of watching it for a month and tracking a tournament seemed less than exciting for me. 
That was a few months ago. By the time June started and everyone was eagerly anticipating the Cup, I started to get wrapped up in the flood of fans. Before the Cup started, I found myself doing research on teams and picking a favorite. I wont even mention who I picked because that team, as well as my home team, USA, were out before the second round ended.
This year’s tournament taught me that soccer truly is the world’s sport, because even people who dont watch much of it are wrapped up in the tournament. I’m an expample of that, as I have established, but I have also found people just like me all over, who changed greatly. Though most people were bitter enemies when their countries were playing against each other, they became good friends joining together with the world in the most border-breaking game of all.
Early War February 27, 2006
Posted by theexpress in war, world.add a comment
Now that everyone is sick of this forsaken war in Iraq, I thought that I would go back and see what America and the government felt before it all started. I was still a little young to fully grasp it, so my research has brought up a few points that I didn’t realize or didn’t remember from back then. My impression now and then was that it was more of an emotionally charged enterance to Iraq. We sat on the brink for a while, but when American, Britain, and other troops crossed the borders of the country, we fell into figurative quicksand that we cant get out of.
I found a CNN headline dated October 11, 2002: ” In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. “. Why was the support so strong back then whilst it is so weak today? Is it because it was politcally popular to back the war, because we were still smarting from 9/11, or because we did not realize that the bodies would pile up and it would become a repeat of Vietnam? I guess people just wanted to stay and office and not be tagged as “un-American” if they did not support the war. The good news is, the time when one was called un-American for opposing the war is over. The bad news, the war is still going on, and only recently has there seemed to be an end in sight. In the past few months, Congress has really been stepping it up in terms of calling for a pullout in the country. Sadly, the plans for a pullout are longterm and incomplete. Just leaving Iraq all at once would be an international disaster, but these three-year plans are just too long. What needs to be done is to step up training for the Iraqi army so they have a way to protect themselves while are troops leave the country more rapidly.
In the pre-war passionate debates, no one on the hawk side had any plan for an exit, and no one on the dove side questioned the issue. America needs to stand up now and correct the mistakes we made in 2002 and 2003 before we entered Iraq. In three weeks, Sadaam was out of power, but the lack of stability there makes me wonder why things can not be done in addition to the new curfews to keep law and order there. I’ve tried to keep my weblog clear of my comments on the war because I tend to branch off (which I’ve probably did here) and not finish a story. All this branching off is trying to get back to the point that Washington needs to realize the error of their ways and fix it before we slip any deeper in the sands of Iraq
DP World and the Six February 26, 2006
Posted by theexpress in politics, security, world.1 comment so far
The news has recently been bombarded with the issue of letting a UAE-run company handle cargo in six different U.S. ports. In my opinion, the issue has been blown out of proportion with people not giving the whole story to what will happen in this possible deal. In October, Dubai Ports World told the U.S. Treasury Dept. that they would most likely be purchasing cargo terminals in six U.S. ports from the British-run Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. The six ports involved (Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, and Newark) have a total of 43 terminals and only 11 would be trading hands to the United Arab Emirate Company. P&O only handles unloading and loading cargo, storage, and repairs, not security, so my question is: Where is the national security disaster in this?
Dissidents would argue back that UAE is the home country of 2 9/11 hijackers and has frequently been the hub of money transfers in the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, but basing the whole country’s security level on the acts of a few people is ridiculous. The UAE has been an ally to the U.S. in the current and previous war and has let U.S. Navy ships dock in the country. Why is such a big deal made of a country with only a few skeletons in their closet? DP World will control no measures of security; that will remain in the hands of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard. The prevously mentioned two have done a less-than-perfect job as it is managing security at the nation’s ports, so it is shocking that the public outcry is not focused around how so little cargo is checked.
Recent evidence shows that only 5 to 10 percent of cargo that enters the U.S. ports are checked as opposed to many other countries who have beefed security up to almost 100%. There have been customs agents sent abroad that check the U.S.-bound cargo, but not enough is being done do prevent attacks and the Department of Homeland Security still has not made enough reform. Now, I’m not saying that every single container of cargo should be checked, it would shut down global commerce everywhere, but more than such a small percent should be screened. I have a feeling, though, that there will be change in this system as the controversy has opened a “can of worms” for security organizations.
Warming in the Cold February 20, 2006
Posted by theexpress in world.add a comment
With the special on last night’s 60 Minutes and articles popping up all over the web, global warming seems to be an issue that is resurfacing fast. Recent statistics have shown that the glaciers in Greenland are melting almost twice as fast as predicted. The myth that global warming will take a very long time to make a dramatic effect is melting away. There are predictions that the sea may rise two feet by the end of this century. A mere two feet would be enough to flood the low-lands of any country out there.
Even if all of the cars, factories, and any other greenhouse gas emitting machines were stopped today and never turned back on, the current warming trend would continue until the end of the century. Which would be too late anyway , because the seas would have risen so fast. In the State of the Union Address a few weeks ago, the president came across the subject of new forms of energy to run our cars. He mainly focused on the subject so we wont be as reliant on the Middle East (whether he actually means it or not) for oil, but the warming must be stopped in the process.
It almost seems ironic to be talking about global warming when we are just being let out of the deep colds and heavy snow that is setting records around the world. Las Vegas, which hardly sees cold, got a little bit of snow over during the grips of this cold. Russia, the country that is most used to the cold, has been seeing Ice Age temperatures that has claimed many lives. But even with all of this cold, it is safe to say that spring is on the way.
