Is that racist?

Holding up a "PC for Dummies" book, she approached me and said, "I should ask you because you obviously know more about this stuff than me."

This was the "excuse me, can you help?" that I got from a middle-aged white customer, looking for beginner's advice on digital conversion and imaging.

(OK, all you out there probably know what I'm going to say next.)

My gut reaction was to take the book from her and riffle through it -- fine.

My (split) second reaction was to wonder: Waaiiidaminit.Why should I obviously know more about computers than she would? THAT'S RACIST!

My third reaction was to admit to myself: But I do know about computers... I guess the stereotype is true that all Asians know more about computers than the general white population.

My fourth reaction was to admonish myself: That's silly, that whole statement could be false and conversely so as well.

My fifth reaction was to wonder if that's what she meant by her first statement in the first place. Maybe she actually meant "you young person" rather than "you Asian person." Perhaps??

My sixth reaction, and this was close to a millisecond before I reacted to her inquiry, was to give up my usual recursive thinking process and despair that every single thing said to me by any kind of person would be considered racist by me.

Do you ever get that feeling?

If someone asked me out of the blue, "where's the nearest Japanese restaurant?" is that racist? (true, I probably would have been able to give them an answer. . .)

If someone bowed their head in passing on the street to acknowledge me, is that racist? (true, I would have bowed my head back. . .)

If a touring Asian couple intentionally avoided asking me about map directions and went to ask a white employee instead, is that racist? (true, I probably would have directed them to the same white employee cause I'm clueless about my surroundings, never mind directions. . .)

Tell me if you do or don't, but I find myself scouring every input and output for any trace of even the slightest possibility of racism when none may exist at all. Or on the other suspicious hand, it may permeate all interactions. I've realized and forgotten over and over that there is a fine line between racism and altering behavior based on cultural background. All of those scenarios above define people I know. Is it worth getting angry about if there's no hostility intended? I suppose we get angry because there's a definite frustration that people aren't educated in our specific situation. "We aren't Asian, we're Asian American. Our native language is English, not Chinese. We are integrated into the American culture, not foreigners. So stop treating us like we are!"

The question we have to ask ourselves: How can someone tell if we're Asian or Asian American? African American or Haitian American? French or French American? Does the label really matter? Should it matter? Should there be an initial assumption that we are all, by default, acclimated Americans until proven otherwise?

And more importantly, should we be focusing so much of our attention on it? I'm getting all riled up and confused as we speak! This recursive thought loop has spun out of control.

Nerds because we choose it?

I was probably considered a nerd in high school.

At least, I considered myself one. . . and was slightly traumatized all my pubescent life thinking I was one. . . and idolized my sister who was a punk&grunge dude-person three years below me.

In a moment of needed quiet today, I read the first few pages of Hackers & Painters, by Paul Graham. His first idea is that nerds are unpopular because they are too busy being smart, or rather, striving to increase their arena of knowledge. Becoming popular, as he says, is a constant effort, a “following the consensus,” of which nerds don’t have as much passion for, as much as learning how to create things.

My moment of quiet eventually turned into a nice afternoon nap, of which I’ve just woken, but I remember thinking as I slid into peaceful oblivion that I didn’t quite agree with Paul the Nerd. Was I really not bothered enough to really want it? Was all the passionate hatred of sweatpants, obsession with scrunchies and facial hair, writing down and scrutinizing every outfit that Claudia from the Baby-sitters Club wore, not wearing my owl-eye glasses to the prom to look prettier (but a lot more blind -- let’s save that for another post, shall we?), stealing moon-eyed glances at Danny and Chris whenever I got the chance, and sheer desperateness to get any sort of acknowledgment from any of the girls in the in-crowd – was it all “not really wanting it”?

I agree with Graham that, eventually, it became more of a conscious choice not to keep trying, and to take it off the priority list and onto the wishful thinking list. But I don’t agree that it was because I was smart. I think it was more because I was naive. Believe it or not, I do recall being popular back in nursery school, all the way through 2nd or 3rd grade, which culminated in all its glory by going to a really popular student's house with a whole bunch of other popular students to film a science project.

That's when the trouble started happening. I wasn't allowed to go out until I had finished my homework and practiced piano, which oftentimes ended up being too late in the day, as my parents needed to check my stuff. I couldn't make or receive phone calls from boys. I couldn't attend social events that had boys in it. I couldn't sleep over a girl's house. But I could talk on the phone with "girls only!" to ask about homework, and get straight A+'s, and win piano competitions.

Being raised in America by conservative parents, who were raised in Eastern Asia until their early 20's, really affects the level of awareness that makes its way (or doesn't make it's way) into a developing child's mind, their idea of choice and control. The same family environment that I experienced may have propelled me into popular-dom in Asia, but there was a fear left exposed in American society that prevented me from getting farther than 2nd grade. Perhaps for Graham and other American nerds (OK, so this post isn't quite PC. . .), interest in constructive projects led the way to nerd-ity, but for me, it was fearful innocence that led me to fall behind in the "social" system, and choose to go for something easier and more predictable: the academic system.

And so, myself in my early 20's, a fresh awareness was wrenched out of me that has helped me determine the quirks of what we call life -- unlike the academic world, there's actually the concept that there is no wrong answer and there doesn't have to be any judgment.

So I'm not a nerd.

Try your mouth at soup

*slurp*

Ah...

*slurp*

Ah... Mm-hmm!

*slurp*

Ah... This soup is so good, so warm...

I look up in the deserted room. No wait, it's not deserted, I recall, after seeing that the tables around me are filled with my fellow employees on their lunch break. It's amazing how quiet people can eat. As I look down to savor another delightful spoonful of Au Bon Pain chicken soup:

*slurp*

I look up again, just quickly enough to catch a number of pairs of eyes dart back to their own meals. They were looking at me because... huh? I scan my memory of how I dressed this morning, of how I was seated at the table. I happen to glance at my soup on my way down.

Ohhhh... oops.

The culture conundrum strikes again!

After learning how to fully savor the flavor of hot soup, while cooling it off by vacuuming it full speed into my mouth, thanks to Japanese tradition, I have remained faithful to that technique -- and it has served me well while eating hot ramen noodles, steaming nabeyaki udon, and yes, the occasional store-made reheated chicken soup. While previously unconscious of using this delectable skill, having only used it in Asian restaurants or at home with my culturally-educated ("imposed" may be a closer word) significant other, I had a sudden reverse culture shock after now almost three years back in the States. We don't slurp hot liquids in America. Duh. That goes for hot coffee and green tea as well, I remind myself now. Such a sad, sad thing. Americans are missing out on the fun, I must say.

Not only do you risk burning your tongue by directly pouring fundamentally undisturbed hot substances into your mouth, all the flavor is left undisturbed, still nestled within the liquid itself. Plus all the trouble of trying not to make any sounds -- that's a toughie. So how do you get to savor the aroma of the food?

OK, take wine tasting. Hear the sounds that experts and the gargles that amateurs make? Each one of those sounds has a purpose, which is to direct the scent molecules -- the essence of the food -- into the nasal cavity to make it a fuller, more enriching and distinguishing experience. That's the purpose, and it's not strange in that situation. In fact, it's weird if you don't make the slurping noises. (As chewing is a parallel for solid food.)

With practice, hot liquids also become aerated enough during the process to drop in temperature, adding another layer of satisfaction -- one of not having your tongue turned into rubber the next day.

A challenge: I recommend that this week, you try a bit of soup or tea "the Asian way" and see what you think. I've had the occasional splash-in-the-eye from a delinquent noodle, yes, but those of you who persevere will be richly rewarded. I was a doubter too, but here I am!

When will the noises end?

At last, there was something that happened unusual enough to spark me to write. I'm talking this time about the state of racism. Ironically, the "aggressors" in this case are often enough the purposeful victims in a majority of other cases, screaming their outrage on public TV.

I'm not trying to be hostile here, I'm just telling it like I see (and today, experienced) it. What happened was this. My sister and I were walking down Mt. Auburn Street, the main road that runs from Harvard Square in Cambridge to Watertown. Close to a main intersection, there was a bus that was parked off to the side chock-full of black kids, probably at the first or second grade level. There was a huge ruckus coming from them, a byproduct of high doses of Kool-Aid and the freshly minted just-got-out-of-school-yay!! rush, I would venture to guess.

As we approached, we started getting excited hellos and cat calls -- dozens of boys sticking their arms out the half-open windows and leaning to get our attention, "Hey!! You're beautiful!!!" (Though I would not consider this unusual from any race). I braced for it, because I just knew it was coming. I didn't have to wait long for that bitter mix of satisfaction, for being right, and disappointment, for what really did happen. It was as pure and as sword-slitting smooth as the first time Rosie O'Donnell uttered her own "Ching Chong" slur. As we passed the bus, we were followed by high-pitched Chinese-sounding noises, a continuous stream of shouts reminiscent of pop-culture TV desperately trying to mimic Chinese food stalls and dry-cleaning joints.

I knew it was coming, but I was astounded by the sudden, very sad realization that these kids are our next generation. Not to mention that they, the race that has withstood just as much obvious racism and perhaps more in its history, were being brought up, in current times, insensitive to the effects of "the word" -- or in this case, "the noises."

If these kids weren't so young, I would have labeled them hypocrites, but how could they know any better than what their own society and family values are teaching them every step of the way; every input they get, every role model they see? We say we the U.S. are so far along, we're so much better than we were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Then why am I not surprised anymore? Why have I begun, in my post-babied life, to need to learn how to take the racist slurs, noises, and cat calling, and just "deal with it"?

My grief is this: in one of the most liberal and intelligent places in the U.S. as Cambridge, how is it imaginable that even these children here are no different?

I am saddened by the thought, and there's no way out.

The duty of reporters, the duty of the people.

A comment (not my own) in response to Washington Post article:

Al-Qaeda Suspects Color White House Debate Over Iran
By Dafna Linzer, February 10, 2007

. . . I would just like to say to the Washington Post staff that promotes this sort of propaganda and when I say propaganda I am talking about the way you are reporting this crap as newswothy - instead on jumping on the bandwagon of making this administration accountable for making a mockery out of the media including yourselves. . . . Do you not know the seriousness of the way this country is going? Please think long and hard about the way you think you have the power of the pen. . . .

-- By danders5000 | Feb 10, 2007 2:33:54 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this reader is blaming WaPo journalists for "supporting" the Bush regime by not opposing it. Read that sentence again; it is a very sad set of circumstances on many levels (e.g. the need to blame people for supporting our President). In any case, this accusation upon journalists seems rather unfair due to the ethics rules that are the guiding light of good journalism, which include neutrality and unbiased reporting.

This reader told WaPo journalists to use the power of the pen to create change in today's society, to hold the Bush administration accountable for what they've done. Although I agree that journalism should be used to balance the powers of lawmakers with the powers of the people, I don't agree that it should be used to spoon-feed one-sided ideas into the public's mind, even if they seem like good ideas at the time. With the continuing illegitimate behavior of the Bush administration, it may seem deserving and justified that the media cater to the anti-everything-Bush majority or even cater to the vengeance of having been deceived by the White House on many topics, especially concerning the "War Of Terror" which Borat aptly names it. There is now a sense of betrayal when one does not preach to the choir, as seen in the impassioned comments of the WaPo reader.

What the reader did not consider is that the role of journalism in a democratic society is to serve the truth, like it or not; to provide un-opinionated reports to give to the people for the people themselves to interpret, opinionate, and take action. To make liberal use of the pen would be to violate the neutrality that is useful in order for the public to respond logically and in all varieties of ways that mark us as an individualized society.

I believe that the WaPo article states the facts and sheds several perspectives from various sources on the situation, and in no way seems to support the issue on either side. In fact, they document that:

Five administration officials were made available for interviews for this story on the condition that they not be identified. Other officials who spoke without permission -- including senior officials, career analysts and policymakers -- said their standing with the White House would be at risk if they were quoted by name.
(from WashingtonPost.com)

How is this spreading administration propaganda? It's true that there is no in-depth analysis of the further consequences of the situation, and the article doesn't offer suggestions as to what the "correct" future approaches could be, but isn't that what we the people are partially here for? Aren't we supposed to take the information from the journalists and use it to write our own letters to government, and our own opinion pieces? Journalists are necessarily under a tighter rein when they are blessed (cursed) with providing "just the facts, ma'am," and to let the readers judge as they wish, and react as they wish. That's proper journalism, no?

(What I was ranting about in my previous post was the incomplete analysis of a given situation, not the incomplete analysis of a possible propaganda scheme.)

Why not. So I did it.

You know how you have unresolved questions after you've finished reading a newspaper or magazine article? You know I did when I read this article on WaPo today. It talks about how ExxonMobil has turned a new leaf with regards to the way it's handling its response to global warming, including having cut funding to an unnamed Washington think tank, which the reporter seemingly implied to be the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), but we can't be sure:

Exxon Mobil Warming Up To Global Climate Issue
by Steven Mufson, February 10, 2007

So I did the previously unthinkable and actually posted a comment to the article. Now I know that usually, posts border along the side of "rant," so I'm proud to say that mine was fairly civil, and I hope that someone responds equally as civil.

If ExxonMobil claims that they cut funding for "a Washington think tank critical of climate change actions" in 2005, then why is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) still at it with their $10,000-for-IPCC-critique solicitations in 2007?

Unless the AEI isn't the Washington think tank that had its funding cut, or the percentage cut was insignificant.

I really do want to give ExxonMobil the benefit of the doubt, but it's difficult to believe their dedication when the pro-emissions trend of prominent think tanks have not changed despite the supposed absence of the largest oil company's influence.

Can someone clarify?

--By lisalin55 | Feb 10, 2007 11:45:55 AM

That's it. Don't be surprised when I've disappeared in a week; my darkest fear of the consequences of vocalizing rational opinion, you know! ;)

Seriously, I don't particularly like it when the article writer neglects to bring relevant questions to light such as the claim of certain policymakers/corporation conglomerates as compared to the actual trend of performance and results. It's been two years since the claimed funding cut, and still no observable change? And what does "funding cut" actually mean? ($1)? A cut is a cut, no matter how you slice it. And who exactly is this Washington think tank? God forbid it's just a little league tyke.

Of course I hear and feel ongoing hatred, apathy and disbelief towards the possibility of ExxonMobil, and other related companies, starting to cater to the ever-dominating anti-emissions crowd; and that they could possibly mean well. Yes, I said that I want to give ExxonMobil the benefit of the doubt, because I really do. Me being the shiny-eyed princess that I am (that was sort of a joke), it's hard to tell what is a real effort to be genuine and what is most likely a fertilizer-coated PR campaign to rejuvenate their grease-tainted image.

It's been two years, where are the results?? Perhaps the reporter should have found this out, as a journalist.

Surface Analysis of Obama Announcement Preview

The eve of the anticipated day has come. I just got an e-mail from Barack Obama's campaign committee telling me to go to this link for a special video message. (Yay)

http://www.barackobama.com/preview/

I was excited to see what the promise of Obama had in store for us all, but again, there was a curious feeling, one that furrowed my eyebrows and got my head in a tilt while I clicked on "Play."

He looks tired. It's expected of all people campaigning for any highly publicized role, especially President, to spend "150%" on the role, to rally the people, to exude confidence and utmost determination, friendliness and understanding. All while trying to spar and elude the viciousness and unprecedented attacks from the opposition and its minions (we all know what I'm referring to), and to look good while doing it, goddammit! In other words, it's known that they'll be exhausted in the process.

So why does it shock me so to see a paler, hesitating, soft-spoken, slightly thinner Obama than I was expecting? It really does look like he's gotten the air knocked out of him with all the uh-'s, and the absence of, well, passion!

"uh- Obviously, uh- I'm extraordinarily excited about ... uh- the possibilities of this campaign..."

Did you notice that he didn't smile or look excited through the whole thing? Did you notice that he got slower and slower as the video went on?

I wonder if he trying to be serious-and-determined, or if he wasn't feeling-it, or if he was just nervous? I'm worried. Clinton can get away with layers and layers of foundation and makeup to round out her features, but she has always been consistent with the strength and confidence behind her stance and voice. She emits infallibility, especially through times when even the strongest women were susceptible to running over their husband three times with their Mercedes... or driving from Texas to Florida non-stop while wearing a diaper...

Surely Obama's team could have done a better job in preparing for his special and very significant rallying video with a little more makeup to warm his appearance, a suit jacket to give him more bearing and presence, a scripted and practiced dialog to convey confidence and security, and a more upright head posture so he doesn't look so lax and ... tired.

Not that I'm being picky or anything, but I want him to mean it all the time! It's not bedtime yet! Well anyway, I'm not going to go into a rage about this man. We'll see how he does tomorrow.

I admit that he might be right... "maybe"...

I just read a rather calm and level-headed article on how people have settled into a partisan mindset of either "you're with us and therefore against every idea that the Bush administration puts forth" OR "you support a policy issued by Bush and therefore you are against us," which, I admit, I was very much heading towards. Anyway, it was a wake-up call for me to be more complete in my assumptions and judgment of the state of things, though "completeness" is something I've found particularly difficult to, well, judge.

See for yourself and let me know! Here's the article: Don't Think I'm Defending Bush, But..., by Clive Crook (National Journal Group, Wealth of Nations).

RANT: Jumping the climate gun

Global warming is a fact. That's good to know. Now the question is, what's the cause?

Something bugging me today. The Washington Post (and many other news groups) are still using the word "probability" to suggest the "possibility" that global warming and climate change "may" be caused by human activities.

Alright already! Despite the IPCC's report that gives us the supporting evidence we need, the public world, for some reason, is still in wishy-washy mode. Granted, the actual report came out only yesterday, but I'm on the edge! And I have a feeling that many journalists are too. Reading the WaPo article, it seems to me that this writer uses numerous "maybe"-type words painstakingly, as if each was a deliberate term that was inserted over much unwillingness and fretting against the writer's conscience; terms such as "overwhelming probability" and "90 percent certain."

I'm excited and frustrated at the same time. How much longer do we have to wait until the media start treating our contribution to the Earth's pollution as fact, not theory? Let's face it, nd humans have caused significant increases in global warming, and that is a fact, whether we contributed to it 60% or 90%, it still dictates that we need to change our way of "doing business around here." If it is indeed on the lower percentage side, all the better for us to start "early" and avoid sea level increases of 23 feet over the next 100 years, wouldn't you say?

And of course, we haven't been let down by the critics of the IPCC report, may I mention, with obvious conflicts of interest:

... the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank that receives funding from Exxon Mobil, ... issued a statement urging "great caution in reading too much" into the report until the panel releases its detailed scientific documentation a few months from now.

... adding that "the underlying state of knowledge does not justify scare tactics or provide sufficient support for proposals . . . to suppress energy use and impose large economic burdens on the U.S. economy."
(from WaPo article)

So, the U.S. economy should be held above the well-being of all living things on Earth. I expect that they would be all in favor of Bush's request for an additional three-quarters of a trillion dollars (yes, you read that right) for the purpose of defense and war spending. That does a great thing for the U.S. economy, yes it does!

To explain Bush's superb request, I go to U.C. Berkeley professor, George Lakoff, who explains that neoconservative thought promotes the idea that creating a national deficit is good because it prevents the development of democratic social reform groups, for example: government assistance for health care, education, social security, well, basically the managed well-being of its citizens. In other words, neoconservative rationale is that all deserving citizens should be able to fend for themselves. And the government should be able to take the strict-father position of sitting in a recliner with a belt. "Be home by 11! ... and bring me back a paper!"

Revenge vs. Rationale

Oh boy, boys and girls, and the faux-madrassah story continues with a direct response from the Obama committee against Fox News. What's more, it's actually a pretty redeeming feel-good story, that is, until you address the nagging in your gut.

So, the Washington Post is reporting that due to Fox's irresponsible and illegitimate mud slinging concerning Obama's past, the Obama camp is "freezing out" all Fox reporters and producers, declining them access to speak with the senator or to participate in following his presidential campaign route. Revenge, sweet and simple.

While the actual truth of the matter is as dependable as "unnamed media sources" are, this does seem like a deliberate retaliation on the part of the presidential candidate if Fox reporters are whining about feeling like they're "in the freezer" and that the other people at Fox who didn't do anything against him are now the ones who are bearing the brunt of the snub.

Now I do have sympathy for the struggling new journalists at Fox who might naively believe that their station practices true unbiased journalism, and that by Obama sharing his stories with them, everything they report would be conveyed by Fox's broadcasters in the way that Obama and the journalists themselves intended it, without all the spinning, the skewing, the condescending tone of voice, the raised eyebrows of the broadcasters. This is not obviously not reality, and Obama's group is intelligent enough to suspect otherwise.

However, the question is, although it feels good now to admonish Fox for what they've done by giving them the silent treatment, what good will it do in the long run? Fox caters to a third of the American news-watching population (34% of Republicans, 20% of Democrats in a Pew Research Center study), more than any other single news station, leaving us to ponder the worse(r) of evils:

1. If that large slice of the population does not get their daily fix of Obama-vibes, albeit spun in a negative light, will they all lose interest in his persona?
2. But if they did hear skewed commentary on Obama, would they be more likely not to vote for him?
3. Would they really vote for Obama anyway, seeing that they regularly watch Fox, the neoconservative station?
4. Would it balance out favors for Obama to make a personal appearance in their states and be featured in their local news instead?

On a higher level, is it really right for Obama to turn his back on Fox? Though it feels justly validating, it is what it is: antagonism, which is ultimately a negative trait for a legislator to hold. Drawing that implication out, would he continue to ignore Fox if he got elected president? Would he hold out on talking to groups that actively dislike him? We have to remember that while Fox did actively attempt to discredit him, they did not skew his own words out of turn, which is what they did with the Hillary campaign. That may be a significant distinction.

I hoped that Obama would have been the bigger man by directly addressing the issue of Fox's childish reporting behavior with a completely mature (and fully publicized) response, perhaps even on Fox News itself, to clarify the issues. Not this childish counter-bullying (as far as I can tell, did I miss his statements?), which may be construed as hostile and irresponsible itself. But we shall inevitably see what ensues as a result. Will Hillary join in?? How long will it last?

Perhaps the only good thing about this news line is that we all now know what a madrassah is...

P.S. Re: my previous post

Let me know if I really am going insane... I should get off the topic.

The world is driving me slowly insane...

I'm proud to announce that I have officially entered into the realm of the small-time activist. This morning, I followed an "action" link from an e-mail sent by StopGlobalWarming.org and chose to send a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to "help save polar bears from global warming" as described by the promotional e-mail:

The Bush Administration is beginning the review process to decide whether to protect the polar bear, threatened with extinction due to global warming, under the Endangered Species Act. But we must speak up before February 23, 2007, or they will not hold public hearings on this critical matter.

Please help by sending a message directly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, letting them know you want public hearings on polar bear protection. They are not required by law to hold such hearings, but they can be swayed if we all speak up.

While polar bears may not be my main concern, the reason I did take action this time may be three-fold:

1. The really cute, poor little animated polar bear who couldn't find a resting spot on any solid floating ice-patch while swimming in the ocean (which, yes, was shown in An Inconvenient Truth, where else?), causing him to eventually drown, but they don't show that.
   
2. The "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" in Anchorage, Alaska seemed like a fairly benevolent organization that would most likely not, in my unfounded opinion, arrange for vengeful retaliation against citizens of the world, unlike my feelings for the EPA or FCC, who seem to be more closely connected to the executive branch of our government, to whom I strongly desire to send action/opposition letters, but am too scared that something similar to 1984 will happen to me and my loved ones... eeeekk.
3. I just couldn't stand by and watch our mathematics and science curriculum degenerate into writing classes, oil companies dictate international politics, media skewing/hiding world events relevant to the general public, public officials involved in a leak conspiracy trying to do a cover-up on what should be an exposure, and remain complacent. I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it anymore! *makes another desperate passing swipe at apathy*
   

If, upon the occurrence of the unlikely, and my identity is suddenly put out of existence, at least you'll have a sneaking suspicion of why!

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty...

How many of you haven't watched An Inconvenient Truth, yet? Just so you know, it's one of the few things that has been able to light a fire under me, just enough to get me involved to this extent (i.e. doing online research and actually caring about political decisions). I've recently also been considering submitting letters to the EPA via the Union of Concerned Scientists webpage... Dang, I'm losing it! *makes passing grab at apathy*

But s-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y now, I'm really excited about the report coming out next Friday (Feb. 2nd) by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For a little background, the IPCC is a scientific review panel consisting of more than 2,500 researchers from over 130 nations, with the mission as stated on its website:

"to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature." [italics mine]

After 6 years of work, they are ready to release a report to policymakers, and the world, that assesses:

1. what progress has been made in understanding and attributing human-induced vs. natural climate change.
2. the implications based on observations made of the atmosphere, oceans, sea level, and snow.
3. how the climate been behaving for the last hundreds of thousands of years.
4. the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change.
5. the projections of future changes: negative and positive consequences of climate change.
6. the options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change, and options for adapting to it.

I'm sure it will be a rather unnerving learning experience for all of us who are willing to listen with an open mind, and who are willing to hear the real and immediate consequences of inaction. With the larger significant changes to our globe in recent years and, especially, with international involvement, I desperately hope that these current efforts will not yield the same results as the report by U.S.' National Assessment on Climate Change in 2000:

"The National Assessment was attacked upon publication by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an industry-funded think tank with an anti-regulatory free-market philosophy and a longstanding history of opposing efforts to address global warming. CEI filed lawsuits seeking to have the NACC report declared unlawful and to suppress its dissemination. These suits were dismissed "with prejudice," which means they had so little merit that they could not be refiled. In an interview, James R. Mahoney, admitted that the Climate Change Science Program has been constrained in its ability to use information in the National Assessment." (on Wikipedia)

Bush has recently defended the current unprecedented release of carbon emissions based on the one-sided belief that lowering carbon emissions standards in automobiles and industrial factories would be a devastating blow to the American economy, and would therefore be out of the question.

Let me ask you this. Would losing our freedom in 50 years due to climate terrorism also be considered a devastating blow to the American economy? What then?

VIDEO: nutty fiend

Digg said it best: "Apparently someone attached a speedometer to their furry friend's wheel to find out just how fast their four-legged pet could sprint. The little fella gets the speed count pretty high before the wheel gets the best of him and spins him around TWELVE times. I haven't laughed this hard at a hamster in, well, ever..."
(http://digg.com/videos/comedy/High_speed_hamster)

Check it out!
"High-speed Hamster" Video (1:07)
(on www.youtube.com)

Losing my data... gaining a muse...

I had a post coming this way, but there was a temporarily long disconnect with the Blogger/Blogspot/(dare I mention Google?) server when I "PUBLISH"-ed it. Alas, when I pressed "Back" on Firefox, there was no data there, just the same "sorry" page.

I suppose I had it coming to me 'cause I was hit with a mental scenario very similar to this one last night right before I went to sleep, where Blogger went down and I lost all my posts. Go figure that I didn't type up my post today ON A VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT MIND YOU on a local editor.

Maybe I should meditate on my lost post tonight and it'll appear tomorrow. If only the universe really worked that way, although such events of foresight/suspicion do correlate often with similar resulting coincidences, for example, when I meditate on certain friends that I haven't talked to in ages and they shockingly contact me the next day... what a trip! I do believe that Fate must have a muse after all...

Go Dems, part II: "Barry"!

By now, we all may have heard about Fox News' anti-Muslim Obama "smear campaign" (what else can we expect from these guys nowadays). Started by Insight, a conservative magazine published by the Washington Times, without a proper source or background check (I guess Insight's reports are based solely on, well, insight rather than fact), it was claimed that [1] Barack Obama had studied at an Islamic madrassah in Indonesia, which translates as "school" in Arabic, but in current times implies a location for ideological and political training grounds with the purpose of spreading hatred and violence against the Western world (in the Islamic fundamentalist tradition). The newscasters on Fox and Friends also repeatedly made an issue of the fact that [2] Obama was raised Muslim for the first 10 years of his life, and that his Muslim father gave him the middle name, "Hussein." As if his conversion to Christianity and living it the majority of his life meant nothing.

Not only targeting Obama's reputation, Fox chose to include an additional, indirect, smear on Hillary Clinton by referencing Insight magazine's "insight" that [3] it was the Clinton campaign committee's idea to research Obama's background which produced this "secret" information. Fox went further to attribute these hostile intentions on the suspicion that the Clinton campaign felt financially threatened by his running.

It was indeed discovered by CNN, after investigating the claims by going directly to Obama's school in Jakarta, Indonesia, that [1] the whole madrassah story was fake: the school-in-question that he attended 40 years ago was a public elementary school (and not a madrassah) which follows a national curriculum, and where his classmates called him "Barry." In other words, it is not an Islamic school, doesn't focus on religion, and in fact doesn't give preference to one religion or another. [3] It was also revealed that Clinton's campaign had no connection to the false allegations, and that both Obama and Clinton campaign groups were outraged by the reports.

I want to comment on the truth of [2], that Obama was initially raised Muslim - and I want to parallel it to my own experience in Japan. Living in a foreign country for an extended period of time, sustained by daily interaction with the native people is a true cultural and human learning experience. At first, there definitely is that culture shock and rebellion, but live there long enough and it eventually results in an innate understanding of a distinct set of basic beliefs and perceptions of how the world functions. As a child, I suspect that Obama would have absorbed the legitimate perspective of a Muslim culture, and upon his residing in the U.S. also absorb the equally legitimate perspective of the American culture.

Ever since the start of the Iraq War, and further beyond, there has been a need for politicians who understand the true concept of "new" terms such as "globalism" and "internationalism." Specifically, in this case, not just how U.S. citizens view and react to the Muslim community, but also how the Muslim community views and reacts to the U.S. in all its meanings and implications. There is an obvious imbalance in this regard, where the current administration views foreign relations as an "Us-Them" paradigm, rather than the much more civil "We."

I fully believe that Barry Obama's unique cultural experience and understanding of the Muslim world would serve as a clear paradigm shift which will benefit the U.S.; he would be one of the few able to relate to "those people over there whom we are fighting" on a humanistic level, and even more, to empathize with their fundamental needs and bring that back to a practical level in the form of the education of U.S. citizens and our democratic politics. Isn't that what we are trying to create over there, anyway? It's ironic that our idea of democracy is based on the needs and goals of the people being governed, yet we are trying to build a democracy in the Middle East for people we don't understand. Gotta love the logic!

Go Dems!

Has anyone been keeping track of the democratic presidential candidates so far?
Disclaimer: For my own sanity, this is a completely partisan posting.

(The following are taken from President4-2008, Congresspedia, and the Washington Post's "The Presidential Field," which I'm sure will be updated accordingly, for those of you interested in following along. As for me, I'll be following the latter link because there are pictures of the candidates to judge from. Awesome... ;)

DEMOCRATIC PARTY (as of 1/21)
Official Candidates

1. Christopher J.Dodd, Connecticut Senator
2. John Edwards, North Carolina Senator
3. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Representative
   
4. Tom Vilsack, Iowa former Governor
5. Mike Gravel, Alaska former Senator
6. Randy Crow, no affiliation
   

Exploratory Candidates

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Senator
2. Barack Obama, Illinois Senator
3. Bill Richardson, New Mexico Governor

Unofficial Candidates

1. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Senator (Senate website)
   
2. Al Gore, no affiliation (Washington Post profile)
   
3. John Kerry, Massachusetts Senator (Senate website)
   

At first glance (based solely on character, as Dave Chappelle advises), I'm leaning towards the two candidates who are not yet quite candidates: Clinton and Obama. It slightly worries me that these are also the two candidates who have been receiving boosted media coverage - am I a victim of media influence?? I suppose I'm being too sensitive as usual.

On the topic of sensitivity, I'm going to barge right into a glass wall (never mind treading on broken glass) by saying that, while I fully support Hillary Clinton's ability, intelligence, and experience, not to mention that the person closest to her was a very successful President himself, she is a woman. All right, before all y'all start raisin' a fuss, I really want to point out who we're dealing with across the oceans abroad. We've all heard the stories of Afghani women not being allowed to step out into the public without at least first covering their entire bodies and being escorted by a man. Women tend to have substandard rights in that region, often not being valid enough to speak, let alone vote. And I can't imagine that Kim Jong-Il would bother consulting with women (other than his harem, for other reasons), either.

Imagine the leaders of these countries, with all of their preconditioned conceptions of women, confronted with a woman who is vocal and unhidden, with a mind to communicate on an equal level with them. What would they think, how would they react on a humanistic level, and how would they respond politically? Would the United States gain any support or trust or even respect from them? Now, I know that with regards to all of the other thousands of issues on the president's plate, Middle East/North Korean/etc. Foreign Relations is only a part of the pyramid, but I can just see it: "[Insert country name] refuses to negotiate with U.S. on terms of female president. Conflict continues without end."

Why, oh why, isn't the world fair and objective??? We need a female president to temper the flaming testosterone and pompousness that make up the administration (and the world) today. Someone reasonable and gentle, yet strong; easy to approach, yet comfortable with control. Someone who is open to discussion and willing to compromise without foregoing confidence, or degenerating into automatic warfare. Someone who holds pure democratic values, yet is able to put them to practical use. I see all of that in Hillary Clinton. In fact, she has the potential to bring domestic policy to the highest levels of quality yet to be seen.

But, I need to be convinced of the viability of her presidency in international policy. Thoughts anyone?

Let us pray.

"Dear Lord, I thank you for this time to give praise to you, for your everlasting mercy, love, and grace."

This opening, albeit a standard kickoff, invokes a myriad of reactions depending on your experiences. Distaste, repugnance, wariness, triviality, incomprehension, defensiveness, hatred. Or it could be gratefulness, hopefulness, security, calming, warmth, understanding, focus.

It is globally understood, though, as an offering of a spiritual prayer - the beginning of the outpouring of an individual's hopes, dreams, worries, and angst.

"I want to offer up my devotion to you, and ask for your guidance during this time. I feel lost, Lord, unaware of my path, unknowing of where to step next."

Here is where it gets sticky. Replace the concept of the Christian "Lord" with a general "anybody out there" or "mom" or even your own name, then take away the religious wording, and you get the type of thought that most people whisper to themselves during times of crisis and doubt. The feeling, at least, is universal no matter what religion you do, or don't, believe.

"I pray to receive strength and comfort in knowing that you are here watching over me, and in knowing that the future is secure in your ultimate plan."

We'd all love to know that what we're doing at every point in our lives is contributing to a greater good, whether it be for humankind or any other desirable kind. To know would help us make decisions easier, take action easier, remain inactive easier, even let breathing come easier. In other words, living life easier.

Life, I find, is full of heaviness and unhappiness. By all means, please prove me wrong, please. Where does this dreariness come from? A lack of purpose? A grinding guilt emanating from our childhood? Our role-model caregivers? Capitalism and bureaucracy? The "War in Iraq/Iran/Syria/North Korea/Darfur/Israel/Palestine/Sudan/Afghanistan/Mexico/Mother Nature" and other global state of affairs? There seems to be no limit to the sources of darkness - if we don't see one immediately, we can readily conjure one up.

I've heard on TV (yay!) that this general malaise and apathy is a natural reaction of human beings toward being exposed to the goings on in the world today. That's reassuring. To combat it, how about this helpful tip from a "Positive Thinking" magazine: If you fake happiness, you'll eventually believe it. Radical. I also recall hearing some straightforward logic in which it doesn't serve any productive function to be negative - it gets you nowhere and only pushes you down - so, why not be positive and save yourself the grief? A somewhat convincing rationale, I must admit. The first time I heard it, I really tried to give positivity a shot. But somehow after the fourth and fifth times, I just kept forgetting about it and reverting back to mundanity.

Prayer, or its more popular second cousin, inner cries of despair, however, is another thing on its own. It naturally spurts out now and then, doesn't it? "Oh man, this sucks." or "Help me, someone... anyone?" or "I'm so friggin' tired of this." or "What the hell am I supposed to do now?" Asked, or rather, tossed out there into the vast ether of space and time. Interestingly, upon the utterance comes a definite moment of repose, an almost release from the heat of the moment. Perchance could there also be a split-second expectation of an answer to the mindlessness somewhere in that moment? One would have to analyze oneself honestly to find out, but I suspect it would be true.

"Dear God, thank you so much for your love and forgiveness. I pray that you will continue to fill us with warmth and a passion to serve you through the journey that we are each taking. I trust that you will lead us to glory. I give this time to you. Amen."

For those of us not on the religious bandwagon, there has to be a way to refocus our inner cries of despair and guilt into concrete thoughts, recognition of a fundamental trust toward life, disregarding of self-judgment, and developing true acceptance and thankfulness toward the life you are living, with the will to keep going on the journey. A meditation of sorts, where it's just you and "the ether of space and time" communing, no judgment, no expectations, no pressure. Perhaps that will be enough to rise above the deathly doldrums. For me, with enough daring and patience, that may be the way away from Lexapro-and-friends. Let me not forget...

Reading in circles.

I've got nothing today, friends. My mind is utterly preoccupied with the overwhelming amount of reading there is to do in order to understand the current state of democratic events here... I'm trying to read 4 websites:

• Huffington Post
• Zmag.org's instructional section on "Understanding U.S. Foreign Policy"
• freepress.org's coverage of the National Conference for Media Reform
• Wikipedia's entry on "Hezbollah"

at the same time and getting absolutely nowhere and I started at 11 this morning. Talk about productiveness... give me a break! OK, so all four readings are on completely separate issues, but hey! I'm trying to make myself into new woman here.

Transform me...

Doing my homework... Where's the instructor?

There's a ton to keep track of when the news media doesn't do it for you, huh! Here's a list of 39 issues that are dominant in maintaining order in the United States (taken from Project Vote Smart - http://votesmart.org/).

Do you know where any of your legislators stand on the issues? But first, do you know how you stand on these issues? For my part: "No, sadly, except maybe Obama's" and "On a generally whimsical level," but I'm going to try and see if I can become an active-thinking member (yes, it's a dash, not a comma... Gotta respect that apathy!) of this democracy even if it kills my eyeballs...

1. Abortion Issues
2. Agriculture Issues
3. Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues
4. Appropriations
5. Arts and Humanities
6. Budget, Spending and Taxes
7. Business and Consumers
8. Campaign Finance and Election Issues
9. Civil Liberties
10. Civil Rights
11. Congressional Affairs
12. Crime Issues
13. Defense
14. Drug Issues
15. Education
16. Employment and Affirmative Action
17. Energy Issues
18. Environmental Issues
19. Executive Branch
20. Family and Children Issues
21. Foreign Aid and Policy Issues
22. Government Reform
23. Gun Issues
24. Health Issues
25. Housing and Property Issues
26. Immigration
27. Labor
28. Legal Issues
29. Military Issues
30. National Security Issues
31. Regulatory Issues
32. Science and Medical Research
33. Senior and Social Security Issues
34. Social Issues
35. Technology and Communication
36. Trade Issues
37. Transportation Issues
38. Veterans Issues
39. Welfare and Poverty

This calls up to mind Dave Chappelle's bit on "Killin' Them Softly" (2000) about a "cultural thing" - "He knows who he's going to vote for, he's just not gonna tell me ... White people do not like to talk about their political affiliations. It's a secret..." So good, though plenty of cussing, mm-mmm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agr4ArqVf7k (6:27 total, but watch at least the first 2:30).

So there, my predicament. I'd love to tell and discuss the issues - is this the right place for it?? Ah well, on with my search regardless.