Mark Cuban — Cancel the Inauguration (But Not the Basketball Season)

This blog entry by Mark Cuban has to rank up there in the annals of silly hypocrisies. Cuban thinks it would be a good idea to cancel the inauguration and donate the $40 million or so it will take to tusnami relief efforts. Since the money for the inauguration is raised from private donors, I suspect that if W. wanted to cancel the balls and private parties the GOP would have to refund the money to the donors who could then decide to use it for tsunami relief or not.

But its a bit odd to see a man who pays 12 individuals almost $100 million annually to play basketball to be complaining about lording it over the developing world with American excess. Cuban whines,

Why are all these corporations and people spending all that money? Hey I love a good party, but there ain’t no party like a $10,000 per ticket party. It’s a 10k dollar ass kissing. As an accountant, fund raiser when asked about the high prices to attend the Inaugural events told the NY Times, “its the cost of playing the game”.

Oh right, $10,000 to buy a ticket to a party is nonsense, but leasing a luxury suite for $50,000/year at American Airlines Stadium is perfectly rational behavior.

WFP to Wean China Off Food Aid — Another Lester Brown Prophecy of Doom Bites the Dust

After a five day visit to China, World Food Program executive director James Morris announced that his organization would no longer provide food aid to China. Noting China’s phenomenal economic progress over the past 25 years, Morris said that China no longer faces the sort of food insecurity problems that the WFP must, of necessity, focus its resources on.

Morris told the BBC,

Our job is to feed the hungriest, poorest people, wherever they are in the world. We are very focused on those countries that would be the least developed, that would have the greatest food security problem, and the least per capita income. China is no longer one of those countries.

Morris went on to add that, “China now has this extraordinary experience of how to move a large number of people out of hunger and poverty.”

Just don’t tell Lester Brown.

Back in 1995, Lester Brown wrote one in a long line of prophetic books about overpopulation, “Who Will Feed China? A Wake-Up Call for a Small Planet.” Published as a WorldWatch book, the plot was simple — China’s rapid growth in industrialization combined with its sky high population meant that China would soon need levels of grain imports that were simply impossible. After all, according to WorldWatch

Within a span of two years (1992-1994), China has gone from being a net grain exporter of 8 million tons to being a net importer of 16 million tons. China’s overnight emergence as a leading importer of grain, second only to Japan, is driving up world grain prices, promising to raise food prices everywhere, the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental research institute, said in a study released today.

Brown projected massive, unbelievable grain import demands from China. He suggested that simply to feed all of the chickens necessary to meet China’s demands for eggs by 2000 would require the equivalent in grain imports of the entire Australian production.

The reality, of course, was a bit different. China’s brief period as a net importer of grain turned out to be an anomaly. For example, other than 1994-95 and 1995-96 when it as a net importer of corn, China has been the second leading exporter of corn, behind only the United States.

Brown and others, as they always do, vastly underestimated the ability of China’s grain production capabilities.

Rather than China’s rapid industrialization and economic growth outstripping its ability to produce food, China, as Morris noted, “has built its capacity to address its own problems, it doesn’t need us any more.”

Brown made two fundamental errors of the type commonly made by prophets of doom. First, he assumed that very short trends — in this case, just over two years (!!) — represented long-term trends. Second, he assumed that the development model that Japan followed — rapid industrialization and population expansion that quickly created land shortages — would also be applicable to China, despite the obvious dissimilarities between the two (Brown might want to locate Japan and China on a map someday and compare and contrast the respective land mass of the two countries).

Source:

China ‘ no longer needs food aid’. The BBC, December 13, 2004.

UN Agency to Halt Food Aid to China. Benjamin Sand, NewsVOA.Com, December 14, 2004.

Future Directions for China’s Food Demand. Robert Wisner, AgDM Newsletter, November 2000.

Who Will Feed China:
Wake-Up Call for a Small Planet
. Press Release, WorldWatch Institute, November 3, 1995.

Nobel Prize Winner — Abortion Is Wrong

Kenyan environmental activist Wangari Maathai was awarded the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, according to the Nobel committee, “for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace.” Maathai also has strong opinions about abortion and Kenyan fathers who shirk their responsibility, denouncing both in strong language.

When it comes to abortion, Maathai, who is currently Kenya’s deputy minister of the environment, told Norway’s Dagen newspaper,

Both [the woman and the aborted fetus] are victims. There is no reason why anybody who has been conceived, shouldn’t be given the opportunity to be born and to live a happy life. The fact that a life like that is terminated, is wrong.

. . .

When we allow abortion, we are punishing the women — who must abort their children because their men have run away — and we are punishing the children whose life is terminated.

Maathai goes on to identify a particularly bizarre aspect of the Kenyan legal system that she believes drives women there to abortion. Under Kenyan law, mothers alone are responsible for the maintenance of children born out of wedlock. No, that’s not a misprint or an exaggeration — in Kenya, a man who fathers a child out of wedlock has no legally enforceable requirement to financially support that child.

Maathai told Dagen,

I want us to step back a little bit and say: Why is this woman and this child threatened? Why is this woman threatening to terminate this life? What do we need to do as a society? A part of that answer lies in this House [the Kenyan Parliament].

. . .

Now I think we are too lenient on men. We have almost given them a license to father children and not worry about them. That is part of the reason why women abort, because they do not want to be burdened with children whose fathers do not want to become responsible.

Source:

Abort er galt, sier Maathai. Jostein Sandsmark, Dagen, December 12, 2004.

“Abortion Is Wrong” says Nobel Prize Winner Maathai. LifeSiteNews.Com, December 7, 2004.