Coop in the car. wearing a seat belt, naturally.
Soon after I was thinking of my favorite words in Spanish. I heard her voice and realized that’s why they were my favorite. The tone of her voice, the way intonation fell gracefully from her tongue. And that’s when I realized those words will never sound the same out loud. Everything changed then.
southwest air had a flash sale yesterday. round trip to Minneapolis = $161. I can’t help it. home is home.
B is by far my most politically aware friend. I love politics so I especially love him for this reason. One of our favorite pastimes is to pop open a bottle of wine, get a glass or two in and discuss current events/politics. [Quick aside: a secondary goal of mine for 2012 was to become more educated in wine. B took a wine class with his parents (lol), he’s also European so he grew up drinking. Anyway, B is my cheap lead to the wine world.]
B and I couldn’t be more politically different— he leans conservative on most things but says he doesn’t identify with the modern Republican party (who does?! jk, maybe); whereas I’m as liberal as they come. So this makes everything even more fun. We teach other, challenge each other; basically we act as if we’re presenting to a class instead of a slightly drunk friend and it’s so nerdy but so great.
Without further adeu, I present a little series I will call Wine Time: From Point A to Point B. (punny, let’s do it!)
Wine of choice: We had Funky Llama, Shiraz. I mostly bought it for the label. I like llamas. But for on super sale at BevMo, this turned out to be really good. Most Shiraz are, I’ve come to find.
Topic: Today’s topic comes from the economic theory of..(forgive me for this, I cannot find the name of the economist but I’ll keep looking. He’s in a text book of mine somewhere) who argues that war will one day be obsolete. He argues that person to person contact will fade out as globalization becomes even more prominent and monetary transaction just does not make sense anymore. Instead, countries will use resources, both natural and not, intellectual property, technology— as political and military leverage and eventually to wipe out civilizations altogether.
So for example, the U.S. threatens North Korea to stop food aid to that nation pretty frequently, particularly when NK is especially active with their “weapons of mass destruction”. NK is perpetually in a food shortage/drought so obviously this would take a huge toll on the people who depend on the food that the U.S. sends. This tactic is essentially bribery of course but it’s effective and more efficient than sending however-many soldiers to NK to forcefully make them stop.
This theory makes sense. With the world economy recovering at painfully slow rate, conflict decreases because nations put priority elsewhere. But we’re humans and humans always find something to fight about (see: Pig War) but with human, military costs so severe, war will not be worth it. Opportunity cost at the largest scale, I suppose. Above all, there is just too much money spent on fighting that alleviates little…or nothing at all (remember this?). Bottom line: this theory argues let’s take away the guns and the tanks and I’ll just take away what you need most until I get what I want.
Verdict: Consensus. B and I agreed for the most part. B is kind of a fatalist to begin with so there wasn’t much to argue over. We marveled over how crazy the world can (will?) get. B thinks for sure we will self destruct and he thinks it will happen in our lifetime. He says that since we’re living it it won’t be as traumatic. I’m not so sure, but that’s a different topic, a different bottle.
— Jack Kerouac, The Dharma Bums
Well this is really cool. Sara Zucker answered my question for “ask your questions Tuesday”. Her response was superb, naturally.