Banning luxury items for personal use (#273, Topic F)

TToday's Washington Post has a front-page story to the effect that the US has set up a list, consisting of some 60 items, that US would not supply to the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il. The story adds that "The United States reserves the right to take away even more privileges away, should Kim's behavior continue -- or should his tastes change." Since when has US been appointed to be the arbiter of personal tastes of foreigners? The story concludes with this gem: "... there will be no -- repeat, no -- Samuel Adams beer on Kim's table this season." I am a bystander and do not enjoy beer. But, were I otherwise involved, my reaction to the above gem would be: so what? who cares? The story quotes a psychiatrist with a local university that this banning "involves "subtler reasoning", which is "to frustrate the senior circles of cronies." I see it only as a crude display of western arrogance. If the purpose is to ask a nation's leader to set a good example, I have a good one. This country is the world's greatest importer of oil. Frequently, when I am in DC doing research, I find myself stranded on a bus, along, say, Pennsylvania Avenue, with its engine running (meaning wasting fuel). Why? Because a VIP would be passing through momentarily. And when the caravan does come through, it is preceded by some 20 policemen on motorcycles, then upwards of ten limousines, then another 20 policemen on motorcycles. Now, perhaps these VIPs and their senior circles of cronies could set a good example -- of saving oil -- by announcing that, henceforth, the VIPs limousine need be accompanied by only 2 motorcycles, one before and one after. If one were really sacarstic, one might imagine a scenario whereby an Arab King, being a major oil exporter to US, would set up a list on how to save oil, including one limiting the number of vehicles accompanying a VIP caravan. Now, that would be setting a good example.