Delightfully Tacky, yet Unrefined

NEW BLOG

2006-06-12T11:07:00.000-07:00

So as I announced before the weekend, I am shutting this blog down. I am moving on. It's not you, blogger, it's me. I swear. Anyway, the new and improved site (which is still getting the kinks worked out) can be found at http://delightfultact.wordpress.com Same sardonic style, different address.

the last straw

2006-06-09T10:31:00.000-07:00

i cannot take blogger anymore, it's horrible formatting coupled with its constant bugs makes it an inconvenience that is adding pressure to my otherwise hectic life. by the end of the weekend, there will be a new address. stay tuned

The Rationality (or lack thereof) of the American Legal System

2006-06-07T21:09:00.000-07:00

Hard to believe, but check this out: Faced with the inability of two bickering attorneys to resolve even the most innocuous scheduling questions without his intervention, a Florida federal judge yesterday ordered the two to meet on the steps of the federal courthouse and resolve their latest quarrel by playing "one (1) game of 'rock, paper, scissors.' "
Read the court transcript to this Solomon-like resolution here. Editor's Note: This makes me feel one hundred times better about giving up a week of my guaranteed-to-be-fun summer in DC to study for the LSAT.

Gay Marriage: The Daily Show Take

2006-06-07T09:29:00.000-07:00

Jon Stewart is at it again, this time discussing Gay Marriage with Bill Bennett: Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society? Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families... Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink) Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters... Stewart: So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling. Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women. Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish. Here's the clip

Democracy Land!

2006-06-06T22:53:00.000-07:00

Help the intrepid voter dodge special interests and party politics make it to Democracy Land! Editor Note: Delightfully Tacky, yet Unrefined is not responsible for intrepid voters lost to special interests and party politics during their perilous journey to Democracy Land.

Heil Jefferson!

2006-06-06T22:47:00.000-07:00

From the Daily Show's Jon Stewart: "Thomas Jefferson once said: 'Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.' I think that was Jefferson. Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering. Shoot."

And Iran (Iran so far away...)

2006-06-06T15:15:00.000-07:00

Among President Bush's best creations added to the American vernacular during his presidency were the terms "lockbox", "strategery", and of course, "Axis of Evil". Ever since Bush branded North Korea, Iran, and Iraq with the name in 2002, one of the nations has been forcibly occupied, the other has tested several long and mid-range missles over the Sea of Japan, and the third is currently pursuing nuclear technology and spitting anti-semitic dogma. Makes for interesting parlor talk, if not fodder for journalists and policy advisors in Washington. I think we need to reassess our grouping of the Axis of Evil, being as we have seen the reprucussions of a full scale invasion of one of the essential members. While we are currently stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, we still have a chance to salvage our foreign policy abroad. North Korea is engaged, on and off, with the six-party talks in Asia. While there is much international pressure on the Stalinist regime, there is little direct action the United States can take in the matter. Why? Nuclear weapons, of which North Korea has several. Kim Jong-Il has been called irrational and eccentric, but how about this one: shrewed. Seeing both extremes, the Bush administration turns to Iran, the nation caught in the middle. Observing the fate of its Middle Eastern neighbor at the hands of the American "devils" and fueled by strong Islamic Jihad idealism, the secular regime in Tehran has openly expressed its desires to, among other things, develop a nuclear arsenal and, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad so eloquently put it, "wipe Israel from the map". Unrelated, perhaps, but nevertheless a disconcerting idea. Now before the Texas gunslingers in Washington decide to saddle up and turn Iran into another smoking rubble in the desert, I must bring attention to a statement made by a Washington Post Columnist: In the middle of a tirade about the pointlessness of talking with the Bush administration, a senior Iranian official I met in Tehran last month abruptly paused and asked if he could speak off the record. Then he said: "What we need is an American president who will follow the example of Richard Nixon going to China."
Amidst the incessant screaming coming out of Tehran and Washington, increasing gas prices, and mindless killing in the Middle East, I wonder how long it will take the administration to cease to view Iran through the lens of the "Axis of Evil", but rather as a legitimate global player. I like this comparison to China because of its appropriate analogy: consider Maoist China in the early 1970s, an ideocracy much like Iran that heavily predicated its society and government on the principles of a religiously revered figure. Backwards ideals were rampant throughout the countryside as most of the country had recently suffered from the backlash of Mao's zealous Cultural Revolution, leading to the isolation of the intellectual class and the overall deterioration of Chinese society. But after years of isolation and increasing pressure from the Soviet Union, the United States did the unthinkable: opened relations with Communist China. Soon enough, an embassy was built in Beijing, the Soviet Union collapsed, and now half of my wardrobe is now made in China. The liberalization of China is occuring at the moment, but we can see the difference between now and the Maoist camps of the late 1960s. Democracy is a slow blooming flower, but it needs open attention to blossom. Why can't this be a plausible path for Iran? With increased political pressure from most of the world and hightened sectarian violence in Iraq, it seems appropriate that the United States do something, well...bold. Playing by the book has gotten us nowhere but deeper in the cesspool, and now its time to think, as they say, "outside the box". Engagement, not concession, should be our strategy. International organizations and treaties should be used to pressure Iran to regulate its budding program and hold it responsible for any aggressive actions it might carry toward Israel or Europe. Nuclear non-proliferation should remain a priority of every nation; America should take this not as their burden but rather as their impetus for engagement. Iran should not be subject to American scrutiny, but the whole world. It is not productive to isolate an already angry nation in a dark closet, but rather bring it out and rationalize. The freedom and democracy that America wishes to bring to the supposed dark corners of the Earth cannot possibly come from a gun (or from a whimsical farce of a parliament in Iraq), but rather from within. Democracy, I believe, it an inevitability and it comes with global engagement. It is time to move past President Bush's antagonistic and simple minded conception and give Iran a chance.

Soccer: the sport of love and brotherhood (unless you are black, Asian, or Muslim)

2006-06-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

The aggregate productivity of the world will begin to go down a significant percentage and will continue its downward spiral into the nadir of sloth and oblivion when the World Cup begins in Germany this Friday. Millions will rejoice and neglect any sort of obligation they have to work or school as the world's true game commences with its global tournament, full of excitement, historic rivalry, and emotion. Soccer has been the universal equalizer, it seems. Religious strife, genocide, war, and pestilence are all eliminated by twenty two players, three referees, two goals, and a ball. Even Bono, the pop world's equivalent of Mother Theresa, has said the World Cup "closes the schools, closes the shops, closes a city and stops a war." ESPN has already attempted to capitalize on soccer's global appeal and simplistic nature by commercializing its indirect good will, describing the cease fire in Ivory Coast (now known as Cote D'Ivorie) because, "as everyone knows, a country united makes for better cheerleaders than a country divided." While this is a heartwarming story, this World Cup is already facing international scrutiny. FIFA has had to address the growing trend of racist actions and crimes at soccer games. Germany, once the bastion of xenophobia and racism in Europe, is now attempting to promote racial harmony in the one global event that should echo such noble ideals. Europe has traditionally been a xenophobic area, and its closed identity is glaringly obvious during international events such as the World Cup. Scars from colonial pasts and whispers of racial genocide echo through European soccer stadiums, ghosts of darker times. Already there have been anti-racist commercials and billboards running throughout European television, bringing awareness to a darker side to a wonderful sport. European soccer stars of black, Middle Eastern, and Asian decent have been harassed and attacked by European soccer fans over the past few years. Barcelona star Samuel Eto'o, originally from Cameroon, has walked off the field mid-game amidst jeers and infamous "monkey chants". Even French star Tierry Henry is subject to the detrimental scrutiny, being harassed by neo-fascist fans and met with the same monkey jeers. Rowdy soccer fans have attacked players on the field and on their respective benches. Soccer fans have always been a little irrational but for the non-soccer mind imagine this: Oakland Raider fans adorned with tattooed swastikas and burning flags, chanting fascist slogans. Whoever says Europe is this bastion of freedom and tolerance has probably not seen this ugly side of the continent yet. It is an absolute shame that a place of such culture and history can still be so backwards with its thinking. Granted, there was no civil rights movement in Europe, and because black and Muslim immigrants make a very small percentage of the population, such actions might go unnoticed in local competitions. But with hundreds of millions of people set to tune into live broadcasts from Germany, FIFA and the EU must prepare to protect the players on the field and punish those who attempt to propagate such horrible circumstances. I believe in the game of soccer because of its universal appeal; it is the only sport that anybody in the world can play, despite social standing, religion, or race. Soccer does not require an ice rink, a basket, or a net. It does not even require a goal or a real ball; a nice pair of rocks and a melon has done just fine in most of the world. I believe that soccer is a beautiful game that can, indeed, unify this world in a common identity. Europe has 14 of the 32 teams in the World Cup. While they account for almost half of the qualified teams, Europeans must realize that this is by far not their game. Soccer has trascended barriers and borders to the rest of the world. For the first time in history, five African countries have qualified, complimenting the four teams from Asia. Granted, these racist soccer fans are bad apples amidst an overall tolerant and progressive European Union. But once play begins on Saturday, the "footballers" have to feel secure on the field so they can devote their full attention to the game and their teammates. I think an analogy is in order here, and soccer provides the an apt one: we need to focus on our team and, simply put, shooting the ball in the metaphorical goal of life. Once we are distracted by messages of hate and intolerance, we lose sight of the beautiful game we are engaged in. And what a goal it is (pun intended), and an attainable one at that. And for the optimists out there, remember that the game is never over until the referee blows the whistle. Soccer, the multi-faceted metaphor that can be applied to the individual or the nation, soccer's indirect gift to mankind in addition to golden goals, lovely crosses, and Ronaldinho. Perhaps all of the world's problems would be solved if we saw world as a soccer ball instead of a globe with continents and political boundaries. Whatever the case, for the next month, I expect to hear nothing from the world except for the sound of emotional cheers, chanting in multiple languages, and crying, both for the heartbreaking defeat of the team most beloved and the victory that seemed all but impossible a moment before.

Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole

2006-06-01T15:42:00.000-07:00

If you did not realize it already, we live in a pretty twisted world. Case and point, young little Micaiah Phelps-Davis did not spend his Thursday afternoon in early April playing baseball or skateboarding. Rather, the fourteen year old was busy holding a sign in front of Walter Reed Army Medical Center declaring that "God blew up the troops", clearly within sight of the wounded soldiers inside. I would like to think that this was a misguided practical joke, until I see the ever more present joke, as sombering as it might be: his mother, at his side, with another sign thanking God for "maimed soldiers". This is the lovely sermon taught by the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas, who recently have publicly condemned the United States for its immoral character; God, they claim, is punishing the nation for its unethical behavior. "Every soldier in that building has been maimed by the Lord," proclaims Rebekah Phelps-Davis, the mother of young Micaiah. "A direct judgment upon this nation for its perversions and its rejection of His word." Wait, I thought the "Vengeful God" of the Old Testament was replaced by the "Merciful God" of the New Testament. I guess "Vengeful God" is heading on his reunion tour, flaming beard and all. Across the street, supporters of the soldiers held signs with such slogans as "God Bless" and "Thank you". They would respond to the Westboro jeers of "God hates America" with the universally appealing "U.S.A!" I've seen similar actions at A's games, but it usually involves copious amounts of alcohol and not intoxicating amount of religious fervor. I cannot help but vomit in my own mouth at the thought of these nihilistic idiots from backasswards Kansas that came out to a military funeral and held signs that proclaimed "God loves dead soldiers". This is a church that preaches intolerance and prejudice, hatred and contempt. They hate their own country; ironically, the very same tolerant nation that allows them to babble such intolerant nonsense in the first place. They proclaim they are trying to save the nation, a place full of sinners where more people know less about the sermon on the mountain and more about Brokeback Mountain. They have said God hates America, Canada, and Sweden among other places. But not once have they said any place (or person for that matter) that God loves. Well, maybe Westboro, Kansas. This is exactly what I cannot stand: people who think that freedom of speech means the obliteration of any sense of moral boundary or taste; just because we have the right to say anything doesn't mean we have to or should. Freedom of speech does not equal the elimination of tact. If you are curious and would like to check out their website, which has a lovely Chuck E Cheese ring to it, go to www.godhatesfags.com. The website has a schedule with upcoming funerals for US soldiers, photos from previous rallies, and Bible quotes that reaffirm their intolerance. Whoever says intolerance is dying in this country is oblivious to groups such as this, who claim that they prayed for a large tsunami to hit Southeast Asia. Lovely thought, I'll bet Jesus just gave God a high five as thousands of brown babies were sent to the horrible pits of hell to burn for all of eternity. I know I am not alone in my belief on this matter; for the first time in a long time, I side with the religious majority in this case. I can confidently say that, despite our religious and moral differences, intolerance and blind hatred are tenents that all ideology try to absolve. Obviously the Westboro church is a very extreme polarized example of intolerance, but they inadvertently provide a nice example for the nation. They expose our own imperfections and show people the extent of hatred. Ironically through intolerance, the Westboro church can indirectly build tolerance. Whenever these idiots are mocked on political talk shows or in the newspaper, it reinforces a greater unity within our country. Yes, we are banding against a group of cretins, but its because we see everything we do not want to become within their ranks. We see what we can possibly turn into, and we are disgusted. This is probably the closest thing we have to Al-Qaeda in this country; a group that has hijacked religion to justify its own intolerance and subsequent actions. Such apocalyptic groups have no sense of reason and no sense of fallibility. The sobering thing about all of this is we are led to believe that religious extremism is a poison suffered by "everyone else" when it is right in our backyard. The lesson is in fact close to home and it reiterates a historical truth: it is human beings, not religion itself, that hijacks faith for selfish gain and self-promotion of self-righteous dogma. Despite the fact that I am no Christian, I understand that these idiots do not represent his word. Nor do Al-Qaeda represent the gentle words of Muhammad and Islam. If people want to know where such ignorance and intolerance comes from, they need not look further than the mirror. For loss of better words, allow me to be audacious for a moment and use a double entendre from Cunninlynguists: like poisoned communion wine, nobody can stomach their blessings.

What about them Nationals?

2006-06-01T09:55:00.000-07:00

If I haven't made it clear yet, I love baseball. Baseball gets a bad rap, I don't know why. Maybe its because people perceive it as slow. Or dull. Or uninteresting. I've heard complaints that it does not have enough action. Not enough home runs, I heard one friend say. Not enough power. OK son, go watch reruns of the home run derby and chug a red bull, cause this is baseball, not the X games. Baseball is about the nuances. A good pitch for a strike. A tough grounder turned into a nice 6-3 putout. The pressure of a full count in the late innings. But what about the experience of going to a ballgame? Dare I say, you are not an American until you have experienced the atmosphere of the ballpark, exuding all the warmth and comfort of a summers night (or day), hot dog relish and all. Last year saw the arrival (or should I say return) of baseball to our nation's capital. People were elated, and why not: shouldn't the national pastime have a team in the capital? It would only be appropriate. And for a while it seemed like the Nationals were the team of destiny. That is, until the inevitable choke. Every team hits it hard at some point in the season. At the All Star break last year both beltway teams were first in their respective divisions; both hit the wall in August and fell faster than a drunk at Mardi Gras. A thought from a Washington Post Blogger:

When baseball returned to Washington last year, 33 years after the previous team, the Senators, was carted off to Texas, we were all ecstatic, and went to games, and watched our Nationals camp out in first place in July and remain in contention until the beginning of September, at which point Atlanta won the division for the 1,745th consecutive year. (The last team to beat Atlanta in the National League East was the Visigoths.) This year the novelty's gone, and it's hard to avoid noticing that we're a mediocre team playing in an old stadium with terrible food. Will Washington have the patience to support a losing team? This is a town obsessed with poll results and approval ratings, a town in which one of the highest compliments is "electability."

Will baseball remain popular in the district? This is a tough town (not New York tough) and people want results. So how are the Nats doing this year?

Right now the Nats sit in a comfortable fourth place (Editors Note: lowly Florida decided to pursue the "Major League" agenda and lose enough games to get a stadium deal in Las Vegas. Ironic that in "Major League" the Indians were proposing to move to South Florida) and sit 11 games behind first. But its a long season, and anything can happen. Just ask those White Sox fans from last year. Or those Red Sox fans from two years ago.

Wading through the stream of consciousness, part 2

2006-05-31T20:47:00.000-07:00

I was on my evening run today and I thought of something that brought minor distress to my otherwise content existence and was immediately added to my list of pet peeves. Do you ever notice that in films that feature denizens from other nations or past empires, their speech, when not subtitled and conveniently provided to us in English by the sympathetic producer, is heavily accented to their respective place of origin? For example, when the Arab sheik speaks to his Arab horsemen (implied within the film to be in Arabic), they speak with a heavily Arabic accent (whatever that may sound like), or when the Japanese samurai prays for a blessing from his ancestor, he speaks English with a heavy accent, unable to pronounce his r's. While this might be Hollywood's convenience for the movie viewers, as an intelligent person I take offense. If these people are among their respective kind and we understand that they are speaking their native language but for sake of the film we remove subtitles and simply provide the dialogue in English, it seems reduntant to add the accent. I think the sheik can speak to his minions just fine, without heavily accenting his own language. In attempting to be diverse, Hollywood is in fact being insensitive. The German Nazi captain knows how to speak deutch just fine, so don't affect his "wocabulary". Unless, of course, you're making a Hogan's Heroes remake, in which case Colonel Klink can be the walking stereotype he was meant to be. A nice assessment from none other than Hogan's Heroes:

The show made no attempt to resolve the language problem of the Germans and the Allies. All the German characters in the show simply spoke English with a German accent, although they used certain stock German phrases like "Heil Hitler" and "Jawohl, Herr Kommandant". Because many of the plots involved prisoners impersonating German military, it appears that all of the prisoners spoke perfect unaccented German, and that none of the guards found this to be remarkable. It is possible that only the core group of prisoners involved in sabotage and other activities were the only ones who had this talent, and that they did not share it with the guards in their prisoner guises. If it provided grist for humor, the linguistic difference was exploited: in one episode, a guard was asked if he would say which cell a person was in, the response was "nine", and Carter thought the guard said "nein".

Example number two: Alexander, a terrible historical epic, that features King Phillip of Macedonia speaking with a British accent but his wife with a heavily Eastern European one. Great, and Alexander, through his cultural confusion, wound up speaking with a hint of an Irish accent (more so perhaps because it was Colin Farrell). Whatever the case, I know that these actors were perfectly capable of speaking correct English, so why can't they do just that. We might be Americans, dumb and simple as we are, but don't patronize us Hollywood with your sly nuances. To be blunt, it's insulting, and the last thing I want to feel when I'm at a movie this summer, inevitably featuring actresses in svelt attire seducing men with more sex appeal than I can imagine, amidst completely ridiculously egregious yet fascinating situations that I can only dream of (or pay eight fifty for to see), is bad about myself.

Bush: The best President since Clinton

2006-05-31T15:41:00.000-07:00

Beats the hell out of my assessment of former Presidents, but alas...I am delightfully tacky:

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worstever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by thenonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

Check out the rest here

A Step in the Right Direction...

2006-05-31T13:57:00.000-07:00

Going on what I have been talking about in my past tirade on Democrats, I found an interesting article from the New Yorker. While I find the publication rather pretentious at times, here is a great quote from a lengthy but informative article: The Democratic Party’s challenge, though, is not only to recalibrate itspositions on abortion and national security but also to persuade voters that Democrats have something essential to offer: an aptitude for governing. Moderates argue that a year after Katrina Americans are searching for plausible and competent leadership. (Michael Dukakis, who in 1988 campaigned against charisma, may have been a prophet without honor.)
It goes on:

But, the argument continues, candidates must express concern for thewelfare of their audiences, have a vision of an equitable society, and, perhapsabove all, learn to speak without condescension.

Read the whole thing here if you have time.

Pelosi, the future of the Democratic Party, and 31 flavors to match

2006-05-30T16:57:00.000-07:00

Here's nice little clip from Minority Leader Nanci Pelosi's interview with the American Prospect: Let me just say this and you’ll understand. If I said, “a microphone is on the table is the message,” 10 Republicans around the table would say a microphone is on the table, a microphone is on the table, a microphone is on the table. Ten Democrats around the table would say a microphone is on the table, it’s next to a glass, there’s all these people sitting around, it’s in a room with a chandelier, there are windows in the room… Now why are you doing that? Just say what we’re going to say! Just say it! This is what we want them to know! But I think if I said it that way, they would understand it better, there’d be more context… They have this much time for us -- you got to get in before the window closes. The microphone is on the table!
What Rep. Pelosi is saying is very true: you have heard it once, and you've heard it again, but Democrats are disorganized and confused, fragmented and inarticulate. This is a great analogy to describe the current state of the fighting left. However, I read this, and I cannot help but remember that Pelosi is a lame duck. Her vanilla ice cream attitutude toward her own party stems from her dedication to victory; but this is the path that has led Democrats to failure in the past. Case and Point:

People criticize us -- “you don’t have your own plans.” You know what? We’ll take the heat, Harry and I. We’re willing to take the heat, and we just have to keep the spotlight on the President of the United States."

That's great that Rep. Pelosi is selflessly taking the "heat" from the critical masses, but it makes you wonder why the aforementioned pundits are so critical in the first place: nonchalant answers like that subvert the original question or impetus of the discussion, instead redirecting the attention (and inevitably the temporary blame) at the mess in the White House. I know there's a mess in the White House: about 60-70% of Americans think so too. But it's simply not productive to expose the fiasco in the Oval Office, to scream Katrina over and over again, and to talk about the quagmire in the Middle East. We need tangible answers, solutions, agendas, and plans to allieviate problems to our country. We cannot have vanilla answers anymore: we need someone bold enough to think in neapolitan terms, pun very much intended.

Back to the Slave (Intern)ship...

2006-05-30T15:52:00.000-07:00

On the thought of another summer in DC, I couldn't help but think about the concept of an intern: not quite an employee, but nevertheless essential to the overall operation. Yet many college students, despite accumulating school debt, are sacrificing their summers to work for a letter of recommendation and a three sentence blurb on their resume (translation: free). For those of you ready to take the orange/blue line to Capitol South or the red line to union station every day this summer, realize that, considering the transportation, living expenses, and inevitable incidentals, this summer will probably come out to one sobering fact: you are paying to work this summer. Fubar is right. What are the economic implications of such actions? According to Anya Kamenetz of the New York Times:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not identify interns or track the economic impact of unpaid internships. But we can do a quick-and-dirty calculation: according to Princeton Review's "Internship Bible," there were 100,000 internship positions in 2005. Let's assume that out of those, 50,000 unpaid interns are employed full time for 12 weeks each summer at an average minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. That's a nearly $124 million yearly contribution to the welfare of corporate America.

In this way, unpaid interns are like illegal immigrants. They create an oversupply of people willing to work for low wages, or in the case of interns, literally nothing. Moreover, a recent survey by Britain's National Union of Journalists found that an influx of unpaid graduates kept wages down and patched up the gaps left by job cuts.

Fascinating and frightening at the same time...take a moment to read the rest of her article.

The District Sleeps Tonight...

2006-05-30T14:48:00.000-07:00

I will be in our nation's captial again this summer, this time working for Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. While there is little I can say about the journal at this point, I speculate that it will be a great asset to not only the moderately liberal community, but the greater political and academic community as well. More to come, naturally, as it develops. What adventures will befall upon me in the upcoming months? Last summer I endured the swealtering humidity, tabulated data and filed angry constitutent mail in a Congressional office, and did my best Ted Kennedy impression at numerous...social outlets? I made friends with chums named Adams Morgan, Captain Morgan, Mr. Smith, Garret (not to be confused with the prodigal roommate), and Julie, and was introduced to such wonderful companions like Yuengling and jumbo slice. Potbellies was great; Cosi's was better. I'll say this: they definietly do their fireworks right in DC. I cheered for the home team, not because I was forcebly coerced, but because, for 10 weeks, I felt like a geniune Washingtonian. Except when they played the A's, then they were the enemy in red. While I have enough pictures, postcards, phone numbers, and memories to last anyone a lifetime, its just not enough for me. So I begin anew, amidst a new endeavor, new friends, and new hopes. What kind of adventures will I find myself in this time around? Rather unsettling, but I find a certain comfort in knowing that it is still the same city, same newspaper, same coat and tie, same $1.35 metro ticket, and same god-awful heat that made my summer all the more enjoyable last year.

Will Obama run in 2008?

2006-05-30T13:35:00.000-07:00

First, read this article from the Chicago Tribune. Then prepare for the political shitstorm, partisan rants, and demagoguery.

A thought from Time columnist Joe Klein:

"Close friends of Obama's say he really doesn't know yet what he's going to do in 2008. It would be nice if we statesmen of the media gave him the room to think it through -- but, of course, we won't. Washington is buzzing with the possibility of an Obama candidacy; he is about to be seriously pestered for a definitive answer."

Read the entire transcript here. A thought for Democrats: while Obama might lack the political experience that his party might desire, liberals must realize the passion and universal appeal he embodies. Why must the Democratic nominee be a veteran; would we not prefer someone with identity and ideals, integrity and vision? With today's current issues and crises, what Democrats need is not a staunch veteran who plays the political game, but rather someone who has not yet been fully engulfed by it; one who will be bold enough to speak when no one else will.

Love Potion #9

2006-05-29T23:01:00.000-07:00

Science has once again ruined the romantic and awe-inspiring concept of love, as Shakespearean and flowery as we would like to keep it, by formulating it; that is, to create rudimentary empirical criteria to explain phenomenon that, frankly, needs no explination. To the hopeless romantics out there, there is little more science in the matters of the heart besides amorous theories such as love at first sight and soul mates, but still this study is quite an interesting read.

Make a Decoration Day (Or Memorial Day) Vow!

2006-05-29T15:33:00.000-07:00

Apparently Memorial Day used to be Decoration Day until shortly after the Civil War. But while you clean up your barbeque and relish the coming summer, honor our fighting men, current and old, and fend off blistering traffic to get home, perhaps this might provide inspiration (or at least nice food for thought), brought to you by the Daily Kos.

2008: Democrat in the White House

2006-05-29T13:18:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post May 28 2006 If Power Shifts In 2008 By Robert Kagan Could the United States be better off with a Democrat in the White House in 2009? Here are a couple of reasons the answer might be yes, even if you're not a Democrat. The Democrats need to take ownership of American foreign policy again, for their sake as well as the country's. Long stretches in opposition sometimes drive parties toward defeatism, utopianism, isolationism or permutations of all three. What starts off as legitimate attacks on the inevitable errors of the party in power can veer off into a wholesale rejection of the opposition party's own foreign policy principles. Republicans in the 1990s, after supporting an expansive internationalism under Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, drifted toward quasi-isolationism against the Clinton administration's quasi-internationalism. During Woodrow Wilson's two terms, the internationalist party of Theodore Roosevelt began transforming itself into the isolationist party of William Borah. During the Nixon-Ford years, the party of John F. Kennedy became the party of George McGovern. Eight years of Bill Clinton brought the Democrats mostly out of their post-Vietnam trauma and revived liberal interventionism. But the George W. Bush years have driven many back. Buffeted between the administration's failures and their party's left-wing critics, the Clintonites either disavowed what they once believed or kept their heads down. Lately they're starting to show signs of life and could still take the reins again if the right Democrat won in 2008. That wouldn't be such a bad thing. No one can claim any more that the old Clinton foreign policy team is less competent than the Republicans who succeeded it. But what happens to these Democrats if their standard-bearer loses in 2008? The case for electing a Democrat is not only to save the party's soul, though that's a worthy task, but to pull the country together to face the difficult times ahead. The last time the Democrats were in office, the world seemed a comparatively manageable place. They have not yet had to deal with the post-Sept. 11 world. Since the only post-Sept. 11 foreign policy Americans know is Bush's, many believe -- especially many Democrats -- that if only Bush weren't president, the world would be manageable again. Allies could be easily summoned for the struggle against al-Qaeda or to bring pressure on Iran or to replace American troops in Iraq. Threats could be addressed without force, through skillful diplomacy and soft power. Maybe some of the threats would disappear. This is fantasy. The next president, whether Democrat or Republican, may work better with allies and may be more clever in negotiating with adversaries. But the realities of the world are what they are, and the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy are what they are. The diffuse threats of the post-Cold War world simply don't unite and energize our European allies as the Soviet Union did, and even a dedicated "multilateralist" won't be able to get them to spend more money on defense or stop buying oil from Iran. A smarter negotiating strategy toward Iran might or might not make a difference in stopping its weapons program. Soft power will go only so far in dealing with problems such as North Korea and Sudan. In fact, the options open to any new administration are never as broad as its supporters imagine, which is why, historically, there is more continuity than discontinuity in American foreign policy. If the Democrats did take office in 2009, their approach to the post-Sept. 11 world would be marginally different but not stunningly different from Bush's. And they would have to sell that not stunningly different set of policies to their own constituents. In this respect 2008 would be another 1952. The Republican Party had been out of power for 20 years when Dwight Eisenhower took office, through Munich, World War II and the first years of the Cold War. Many Republicans imagined that everything that went wrong in the world during those two decades was the fault of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democrats. FDR "tricked" us into war with Japan. Then he gave away Eastern Europe at Yalta. Then Harry Truman adopted the disastrous strategy of containment. These were the years when Joe McCarthy, Robert Taft and anti-containment "realists" such as Walter Lippmann flourished. But when Ike and the Republicans finally took over management of the Cold War, years of railing against "cowardly containment" gave way to broad if shaky acceptance. The country could benefit from a similar passing of the baton in the 2008 presidential election. At the end of the day, of course, a president's personal qualities and worldview are usually more important than the party she or he represents. The Democrats, like the Republicans, could nominate a candidate no sensible person would entrust with American foreign policy. For that matter, the Republicans could nominate someone capable of winning broad Democratic support, which would partly address the debilitating national divide on foreign policy. But eventually America's post-Sept. 11 foreign policy will probably be better if both parties have a shot at shaping it.

Memorial Day Traffic in Context...

2006-05-29T11:06:00.000-07:00

In West Philadelphia born and raised...

2006-05-28T23:15:00.000-07:00

I'll need my Penn buddies and friends of Pennsylvanian origin to verify the validity of this quote, as entertaining as it might be:

"Philadelphia isn't just a city that lies between the shadows of New York and Washington, It's a city where the Eagles are the topic of dinner conversation year round. It's where a meal consists of a cheesesteak, Yuengling Lager Beer, soft pretzels, & Tasty Kakes for dessert. It's where there's a Wawa on every corner, and you look forward to the 1st day of Spring when Rita's gives out free "wooder" ice. It's where you know it's a hoagie, not a sub and the shore, not the beach. Most importantly , where everyone is brothers and it's ok to say hello to someone you don't know if they're a birds fan. That is Philly, the city of Brotherly Love: outsiders will never understand." - Mike Saks

Blog Version 2.0

2006-05-28T22:53:00.000-07:00

As you can tell, I have once again changed some things around here. The most glaring change is probably the title of my blog, which has left its Ferris Buellerian origins and become something more simple and unadulterated; consider it the harmony the blog has be trying to desperately to attain. That's bullshit, I actually got tired of the title, which was neither clever nor personal to me nor my blog. Yes, after reading the advice of many bloggers who are far wiser and experienced than me, I realized that perhaps I need to change my image, and for the better. And what better time to start than now, as summer is upon us. Sun. The beach. Updated blog template. I can hear the Beach Boys already. But lets try something here. I have said it once and I'll say it again, I would hate to think that this blog is solely my naked contribution to this world; to be blunt, I hate yelling into a wall or an empty room. What I want is debate, even if it is not intelligent (because most usually isn't). Aspire to be Walt Whitman and contribute a verse to the great play of life. Or at least my blog.

The Truman Show starring George W.

2006-05-28T17:48:00.000-07:00

President Bush addressed Graduates of West Point yesterday and likened himself to President Harry Truman. To be fair to history and a far greater President, George W. is no Harry S. Bush had said that "(Truman's) leadership paved the way for subsequent presidents from both political parties -- men like Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan -- to confront and eventually defeat the Soviet threat". Bush's speech echoed nostalgic passions of the Cold War to bring support to his war on terror; as he proclaimed, both "follow murderous ideologies". But instead of setting the stage for America's eventual confrontation with global socialism, as Truman did, Bush has set a new precedent. By expanding executive powers to a level never seen in the United States and compromising the very liberty he has sworn to protect (twice, I last checked), Bush has set the stage for, frankly, darker times. If I may add my two cents of historic justice, I believe there is a 50's political icon we can compare President Bush to, and his name is not Harry Truman. Drop your hula hoops and hair grease, President Bush, because you sound a lot like Joseph McCarthy. Senator McCarthy and President Bush operated in very similar circumstances: a nation facing a national threat and potential dissent from covert saboteurs (as they would claim). But instead of reconciling differences and pursuing diplomatic solutions to the potential danger, they instead spread salt on the already festering wound by playing on the fear of the nation to expand their own power and influence. Politics is power, I now know and concede, but to take advantage of people's own insecurities in a time of danger is Machiavellian and draconian. McCarthy had his own witch hunt of Communist sympathizers, Bush has his current attack on civil liberties and potential "terrorists". "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" Bush polarized in November of 2001, the same simplistic political rhetoric McCarthy slung at political opponents in the Mid-1950s. Through media exposure and brave journalism from pioneers like Edward Murrow, McCarthy's campaign was exposed as a web of lies, deceit, and coercion. Will we have the same luxury now with the overbearing government in Washington compromising our daily ideals? Will the media, our bastion of speech and identity, be the next casualty of Bush's noble "War on terror?" Who will then speak out against the leviathan in the White House? Will anyone be bold enough? Fear is a contagious disease, something that feeds on itself and only gets worse with time. If history is any lesson, we should learn from our experience with the Cold War and rationally approach our national security issues without compromising our own principles in the process. And we must keep our government liable for its actions, no matter what our leader might proclaim. But lets get one thing straight: he's far closer to the infamous senator from Wisconsin than that Missouri farm boy he so brazenly compared himself to yesterday.

Thoughts on the Previous Post

2006-05-25T22:29:00.000-07:00

What are we as Americans trying to establish with the codification of English as the national language? It seems to me that its the same messge as constucting a large fence around the border, metaphorical or not, and increasing the difficulty of obtaining citizenship: some people are simply not good enough to be Americans. How ridiculous is this? Last I checked, America was the land of opportunity: A thought from Emma Lazarus that we have all heard from our history or civics lessons:

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

I'm sorry, but when did America cease to become the beacon of hope and liberty and become the country club? Since when did we establish requirements to become Americans besides hard work, dedication, and patriotism? How dare we as the current inhabitants of this country pervert what our ancestors (yes I said my ancestors) toiled and fought over for almost a century and a half. I appreciate the rhetoric of solidarity spewing out of Capitol Hill, especially in such dark times of international terrorism and national danger, but is this the right answer? Lou Dobbs might economically analyze the illegal immigration problem, Donald Rumsfeld might add with a threat to national security. But lets not sugar coat this with academic nonsense, its xenophobia that has struck our leaders and intellectuals. America xenophobic? Seems like an oxymoron to me, but alas, this is the country we live in today. Do we have an immigration problem? Perhaps? But who are we to blame? Those aforementioned huddled masses are coming to this country for opportunity, the same opportunities that our own ancestors sought hundreds of years ago (or within that time). We have made this an illegal immigration issue by creating physical and intangible barriers to this country. To persecute them would be nothing short of hypocritical. And we wouldn't want any hypocritical actions in Washington, would we? What we need, and I feel like I am beating a dead horse by saying this, is to increase border security and decrease the difficulty of obtaining temporary and permanent citizenship. We must consider why we would want to discourage people to come to this country; are we really willing to discount the millions of immigrants and their children who have contributed to the general welfare of my fair state and most of the nation? Before we ask for a completed application, references, and a rigorous evaluation process, consider that Tiger Woods is still not allowed to play at certain golf clubs because of his opaque skin tone. I cannot think of a more qualified candidate for membership to any golf course, but its codified nonsense from a century before that bars Mr. Woods from membership. It's the same kind of simple-minded ignorant thinking: exclusiveness might be more detrimental to the overall welfare of the system. What are we saying by establishing a national language? That there are manditory obligations one must take to become American? This is directed at certain groups, whether they speak Spanish, Korean, or Tagalog, but the ramifications remain apparent: you must improve yourself to become one of us. Being diverse or unique is not a character flaw. Imperfection comes with diversity, and our country feeds on diversity. Perhaps at this point you are wondering what my true thoughts on an American identity truly because of one of my previous posts. Allow me to clarify: I believe in an American identity that transcends nationality or borders, languages and religion, sexual orientation and morality. But the beauty of all of this is the concept of choice; we are Americans and we embrace the principles of this country not because we are coerced to, but because we want to. My point with the last post is that the Korean American community is resistant to adopting American principles due to stubborn Korean ideals. This is a point of conflict between me and others because, I suppose, of a differing idea of the American identity. But I believe that we can all agree on one thing :the second we force citizens to abide by certain rules or adopt an identity is the moment we lose our most valuable ideal--liberty. This debate in Congress simply represents larger issues about immigration and future definitions of the American identity. President Bush is in a serious conundrum this fall. He knows that immigration will determine the political makeup of Congress for the next few years. And I think he knows what is right. But will he sacrifice his party's ownership of Congress to do what I believe that he believes is right? I don't know, but it will be interesting to see what comes out of the Bush camp over the next few months.

English: The National Language?

2006-05-24T21:53:00.002-07:00

Read these two opinion pieces, both from the Washington Post, about this debate currently being held in the Senate. E.J. Dionne Jr. attacks such a proposal's credibility, while George Will defends its principal. Let the debate begin. My thoughts tomorrow.

Hip-Hop's Tough Guy Romance

2006-05-24T21:45:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post May 22 2006 By Jabari Asim My friend Mark was the first of my college crew to get married. He was also the first to fall so deeply in love that he preferred the company of his intended to hanging out with us guys. I remember the moment when everything changed. I called him at his girlfriend's place to suggest that he come play basketball, a sport at which he excelled. No thanks," he told me. "I'm comfortable where I am." For a while after that, "comfortable" became our code word for being helplessly under the sway of feminine charms. Being mature, thoughtful young men, we teased our smitten pal at every opportunity. "We're going to the lakeshore," we'd taunt, "but we guess you're too comfortable to go." We weren't surprised when Mark got married not much later. Twenty-one years have passed since then, and the comfortable couple is still together. Those heady memories of young adulthood rode back to me on a delightful breeze the other day. The sun was shining, the weather was balmy and it felt like the kind of morning when even the most dedicated company man would entertain thoughts of skipping work. But work, unfortunately, was precisely where I was heading, as soon as I finished pumping gas. The atmosphere didn't change all that much when a car pulled up near mine. The young man inside had a booming system that blared music powerfully enough to rattle the windows of the service station. I didn't mind. The music had a charming lilt, and the lyrics, though indecipherable, suggested a mellow day much like the one unfolding before me. The song, I later learned, was by T.I., a popular Atlanta rapper. This particular tune was from his CD called "Urban Legend." In it, T.I. explains that he won't be spending time with his friends because he plans to spend some quality time with his significant other. As the lyrics of the first verse became clear to me, I actually smiled, remembering when my friends and I began to seriously consider notions of commitment, responsibility and intimate adult relationships. Like my buddy Mark, T.I. was telling his friends that he was comfortable where he was. Then the chorus kicked in and he proclaimed, "I'm chillin' with my bitch today, I'm chillin' with my bitch today." It's no secret that our popular culture's increasingly tepid offerings on romance reflect a general downward slide in the culture at large. Americans have trouble maintaining committed relationships between consenting adults, so we can hardly blame our artists for showing the same ignorance in their songs, literature and movies. Despite knowing all that, T.I.'s lyrics made my ears itch. In my lifetime, we've descended from Stevie Wonder's "My Cherie Amour," in which he borrows a metaphor from Shakespeare to compare his love to a summer's day, to R. Kelly, who tells a young lady that she reminds him of a jeep. After "Chillin With My Bitch," how much farther can we fall? I shared my concerns with Sterling Warren, 22, a new graduate of Howard University who plans to be a filmmaker. Talented and ambitious, he's also a devoted hip-hop listener who counts OutKast as his favorite group. "It's all about being a tough guy now, even when they're talking about relationships," he told me. "Back in the day, rappers were more well-rounded. They were surrounded by dancers and even danced themselves. Now rappers don't dance." Significantly, when I asked him to name a classic hip-hop song about romance, he mentioned a song that's almost 20 years old -- the same song that I happened to be thinking of myself: "I Need Love" by LL Cool J. "He was able to put himself in a sympathetic position, now rappers can't do that," Warren said. "If you want to express your love for a woman it has to be in some street-tough way. That's kind of silly. Everybody feels weak from love sometimes and the best artists don't hide their weakness." Cool J's lyrics remind me that hip-hop artists can indeed express the tenderest of emotions when they choose to: Romance sheer delight how sweet I gotta find me a girl to make my life complete You can scratch my back, we'll get cozy and huddle I'll lay down my jacket so you can walk over a puddle I'll give you a rose, pull out your chair before we eat Kiss you on the cheek and say ooh girl you're so sweet So it's not Shakespeare or Stevie Wonder. But at least it doesn't make our ears itch. It even makes me feel -- you'd guessed it -- kind of comfortable.

Bit of humor from Wonkette

2006-05-24T14:42:00.000-07:00

From Wonkette, May 24 2006 “One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bullshit,’” said Mr. McCain, according to Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, an invitee, and two other guests. Looks like Iraq’s just bought itself a one-way ticket on the Straight Talk Express — next stop, Straighten Up and Fly Rightsville. And don’t miss McCain’s immigration proposal, the 2006 “In my house, you play by my rules, Mister” Act. Thoughts: Bullshit huh...Senator McCain, with all due respect, this bullshit has been fermenting in the Mid-East for thousands of years, and I don't think that Panmunjoem attitude is going to get anything resolved. In the meantime, perhaps we should reevaluate our engagement strategy with such nations; perhaps our own perceptions of "bullshit" are in fact exacerbating tensions that already exist and creating even more problems. The American President might be the most powerful man in the world, but he cannot sway history with his words. Deep rooted conflict like that in Iraq cannot be quelled with White House rhetoric or any Texas gunslinging attitude.

Message for the Class of 2006

2006-05-15T00:30:00.000-07:00

To the Class of 2006: How appropriate is it that the final ceremony of our college career is called commencement: the end of these past four years is the beginning of a new chapter in our lives. As we walk across that stage, ceremonial cap and gown adorned with victory wreaths and tassels, we end this stage of our development inevitably and certainly better people than we were when we arrived four years ago. I still remember my first memory of UC Berkeley: staring at the campus in awe from a coffee shop on Telegraph one early Saturday morning in April of 2002, I arrived at the university on Cal Day. While I sipped on my caffeinated drink and enjoyed my breakfast pastry, I could only imagine what would happen to me during my next four years here. Who would I meet? What would I learn? Where would I go? My mind wandered, and I eventually realized something: the possibilities were endless. And I was terrified and awe struck at the same time. As I walked across the stage at the Greek Theatre on Thursday, I realized I was a different person. This is supposed to be an introspective time, and naturally I eventually wound up on my computer, typing away. Nostalgia has a way of getting to me, one of my lesser muses. But don't be sad: college does not end, for as I see it, it is not an event but rather a state of mind. What have I learned during my four years at Cal? My professors and GSI’s would hope that I learned numerous facts and theories, ensuring that their hard work and dedication to academia was not wasted away on another reluctant sponge. But alas, the memory is a fickle thing, selective yet arbitrary. Or is it? Perhaps this is what I have learned here: our lessons are not all learned in the classroom. These past four years were not about finding a career or a direction: they were about finding ourselves. Do I sound cliché? Do I sound like the commencement speaker you heard this morning? Or do I sound like the school counselor you spoke to last week as you shuffled through job applications? I hope I sound like an introspective and quasi-enlightened student who has just navigated through these tumultuous seas in search of a white whale that simply might not be there. Life is an adventure, and it rewards adventurous people who take risks, or to quote a good friend, chips up. I feel that despite countless hours in the classroom, two degrees from prestigious departments, I unfortunately have been unable to retain the majority of the substance of my lessons here. Ultimately I have learned three very important lessons from this university. And I am completely satisfied, for these three lessons have forever changed me. I have found a passion and appreciation for the written word. I don’t write because I have to, but because I need to. My English teacher in high school once said that if the English language could be personified in the form of a woman that he would fall hopelessly in love. While the artistic and poetic symbolism was lost in my mind at the time, I now realize what he means. My thoughts can often be best expressed on paper (or in this case on web-space provided by blogger), through which I have ultimate control, confidence, and blessing. Through my own writing, I have earned a great appreciation for great writers. Kurt Vonnegut, Thomas Friedman, David Broder, and Nicholas Kristof are now my teachers, inspirations, and friends: their works provide me with insight and lessons that I relish and absorb on a daily basis. I know that I have a gift for writing, not because I necessarily am a great writer, but because it is my addiction. I often joke that someday my columns are published in a major newspaper and people view them as fortune cookies, with profound insight coupled with a tasty afterthought. Call me a bookworm, a nerd, a journalism junkie, or something perhaps more clever and well-thought out. But I’ll be damned if someone calls me uninspired. Lesson one: find something you love and do it incessantly. I write everyday, even if it comes out as nonsensical gibberish and incoherent rhetoric (which is often the case). I firmly believe that everyone has a purpose, their contribution to the world certain yet ambiguous. Think of people as blocks of marble, shapeless yet malleable, waiting to be slowly chipped away until their true form is realized. I remember looking through some old pictures on my computer recently. Looking at my image from freshman year was and still is a surreal experience, because I do not recognize the person looking back. I look back on my freshman year and remember arriving scared and confused, the intellectual and spiritual 98 pound weakling at the beach, getting midterms and a skewed social life kicked in my face. I was unsure of myself, questioning my direction and my worth. Two years into my college career was the lowest point of my life: I was failing my major, lacking any sort of inspiration, and feeling generally low. This was and still is the most difficult time I faced in my life. But I turn back to the Korean proverb that often resonates in my mind at times of trouble: failure is the mother of all success. I maintain that optimism, even if blind, is better than pessimism. I know I am meant for greater things, not because of any narcissistic heroism I somehow possess, but rather because of the aforementioned oblivious optimism coupled with stubborn courage. I unfortunately know no other recourse. Life is about change, and through my years at Cal I have realized a change in my own perspectives and priorities. I have realized the importance of treading one’s own path, the path less traveled, as Robert Frost so eloquently described. I leave with a newly found and vindicated self worth, the realization and confidence in my actions, knowing and having faith that they are my actions and my decisions, right or wrong. Lesson two: self confidence is a complex yet necessary thing and the simple belief in oneself will lead to success. Everyone has their enemies, their opponents, their disbelievers. It is important to realize that this is an inevitable result of life and should not be deeply absorbed; as long as you believe in what you are doing and your passion coincides with your efforts, you can do no wrong. Those who mind do not matter, and those who matter do not mind. Finally and perhaps most importantly I firmly believe that life is defined by moments. Perspective is an ever-changing thing, and one’s outlook on life is constantly tweaked by the people you encounter everyday. Through my four years at UC Berkeley, I have met countless people, whether through class or work, social functions or student organizations. Some have been with me from the first day I moved in, others have come and gone. But I have learned not to discount any of them, for each has contributed to my life in some significant way. Each has contributed to my own identity, as I have learned so much through experiences and interactions. Whether people realize it, I learn from every conversation and encounter. Memories are a gift that can never be taken away nor tarnished. I believe that I am not uniquely me nor is anyone uniquely themselves. Rather people are amalgamations of everyone they hold dear in life. Lesson three: everyone you meet, good or bad, is significant in life and one can learn profound lessons from every one of them. Give people a chance, two chances even. And fight for everyone you hold dear, because friendships should be cherished and never taken for granted. The fortune cookie version: Find what makes you happy and do it. Find what you are passionate about, and make it better. Give everyone a chance: realize that every person out there is significant and will affect your life. Have faith in yourself, and you will inspire others. Aloha means goodbye…until we meet again Eugene

Thoughts on race relations and the fate of the Korean American Community

2006-05-01T22:16:00.000-07:00

A recent editorial I read in The Daily Californian has got me thinking about the dynamics of race-relations in this country. How appropriate that this editorial come on "Day without an immigrant" and May Day. Immigration is a whole other issue I cannot wait to tackle, but lets save that for another day. The editorial discussed the idea of hyphenated identity in this country; according to the writer, people cling to an alternative identity to augment their American one. Our scope is unfortunately been skewed so that we perceive individuals as African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino-Americans. We are told that these are the benign effects of multiculturalism, that our society is greater because of it. However, this is quickly discounted by the author, who suggests that one of the best ways to reconcile differences and build a greater nation is to remove these unnecessary identities, thereby creating one uniform American identity. Who cares if you are black, white, red, yellow, or green: Americans all bleed the same red and love this country just the same. The second we lose the former part of hyphenated names is the second we embrace a greater identity and progress as a diverse nation. I agree with the author in the sense that I believe race is simply a categorical tool used to exacerbate social differences and cause conflict. As an American of Korean descent, I find the main problem with the Korean American, as well as the Asian American community, is their stubborn desire to segregate themselves and maintain their distinguishing characteristics. Koreans in particular are extremely xenophobic, ironically in a foreign country. Part of this has to do with the insecurities a minority group might face in a foreign land, especially one of such stark cultural differences. But culture also has a lot to do with it; pardon me for being blunt, but Koreans are notorious for being stubborn and hard headed. I maintain that we (and when I say we I am referencing my fellow Korean Americans) also simply have not tried hard enough to embrace America. Rep. Mike Honda recently spoke at Boalt Hall and cited that the Asian American community is the most underrepresented community in Congress. If Asian Americans want to be recognized, they need to have the proper representation from their respective communities. An interesting point, I thought as I counted all the Asian American representatives from both houses on one hand. An interesting pattern appeared: almost all were of Japanese descent. Japanese Americans have accomplished something that most Asian Americans in this country have not done: assimilated into mainstream American culture. Rarely do we see a Japan town in major metropolitan areas, nor Japanese American students with cultural barriers or language difficulty. I cannot fully get into why this phenomenon occurs (partly because of a lack of time and partly because I simply do not know the sociological or anthropological explanations). But when I go to Korea Town in Oakland or China Town in San Francisco, the exotic appeal soon is drowned by the realization Japanese Americans have communal appeal because they choose not to isolate themselves; rather they engage in civic dealings and work for a greater community. Nobody is going to elect a Korean American from an isolated community with strange character nuances that only fellow Korean Americans (or Koreans) will understand or appreciate. Nobody is going to support a candidate with a stubborn grasp on a past identity when his/her future path is clearly present and inviting. A Korean American will be elected to a higher office when he/she can exude popular appeal among the entire community, not just among Koreans. Korean Americans complain about misunderstanding and a lack of recognition among their local representatives (see the LA Riots) yet they do very little to alleviate the situation. They complain that their voices are not heard, yet they insist on having instruction in Elementary schools in Los Angeles in Korean. They complain about the insensitive nature of American society, yet they shun the migrant workers who have shared their plight yet are of different skin color. I cannot stand those Korean American students here at Cal who look down upon the greater student body or ignore classmates because of a pig-headed rationale that they have nothing in common. Its these students who praise Korea and Korean culture and mock American ideals or identity (whatever that might be). To those students I say this: if Korea is so great go back, nobody is stopping you. A note: there is a reason why your parents left Korea in the first place. Korea is not exactly the land of opportunity or freedom, and yes I am grouping both North and South Korea together. Don't think that South Korea gets away from my rant because of some political technicality. As I say, democracy is as democracy does. The irony of racism is that those who are subject to it the most often project the most extreme forms of hatred and judgment. It is indeed cyclical, an unfortunate product of our human nature. Before I begin to receive hate mail from the Korean American community, allow me to clarify: I support cultural diversity, in fact I relish it. When I saw Mexican American workers dancing in Aztec costumes on Sproul today I felt proud, if anything, because only in America could you find a Korean American student watching a Mexican American festival next to the Indus club, Taiwanese student association, and the African American Association. I felt proud to be an American at that moment, because at that moment, I felt part Mexican, part Indian, part Taiwanese, and part black. The comfort I felt inside came from the fact that I realized that despite our different backgrounds we are, in the end, the same. Diversity is our greatest strength, but it can also be a weakness if we allow ourselves to limit our view to identity. I believe it is folly and ignorant to be held back by one's culture, especially in the context of a new pan-American culture. Perhaps it has to do with time: Korean Americans, as well as Vietnamese and Southeast Asian Americans, have only within the past 50 years come to this country. Our parents generation is not of this land; therefore, it is these strong cultural roots that bring security and comfort to them. But we are not and should not be limited in this way, and it is close minded to remain so. If our parents or people arrived here for opportunity, then we should embrace this nation as a whole for its blessing. How long will it take before Americans embrace the idea of a multicultural identity? When will we stop looking at each other as Chinese-American or Indian-American, but rather as Americans, neighbors, and friends? While I understand and respect the trials and triumphs of respective cultures I nevertheless believe that history and culture makes you what you were, but your current identity makes you what you will become. And until Asian-Americans in particular cease to desperately cling to the Asian part of their adopted identity, they will become nothing more but overlooked.

Wading through the stream of consciousness, part 1

2006-04-26T16:20:00.000-07:00

To my readers, I have something to admit: I am dull and unoriginal. I am a slave to my own image, shaped by a society no less concerned with my own aspirations compared to the aggregate direction it inevitably takes. I am a desperate clone, clinging frantically to societal demands and regulations. And the worst part is that I am complacent with my malleability. It seems that in my quest to find inspiration I have lost my first and most important inspiration: my own voice and personality. Lost amidst quotes from Churchill, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton are my own quotes, unrefined yet nonetheless poignant. Gandhi once said to become the change you wish to see in the world. While I wholeheartedly agree (and still consider this to be one of my favorite quotes), why is it that I can only imagine myself changing the world as Gandhi did? What is stopping me from reaching out and painting my own portrait? Gandhi was a revolutionary of his time and we respect and admire him for his vision amidst his own circumstances. But those are not our circumstances, so the lessons learned must be absorbed only in hindsight and not directly. Look at John Kerry, desperately hoping to elicit past emotions of John F. Kennedy (Notice the John Francis Kennedy and John Forbes Kerry). JFK 1 and 2 had strangely similar credentials: Ivy League Educated, war heroes (on PT boats no less), senators from Massachusetts. This was John Kerry's MO. And this is why he lost. We love John F. Kennedy, but we don't love John F. Kerry pretending to be John F. Kennedy. We might be a gullible society, but we can usually see past those insubstantial exteriors, so there had better be something underneath. I realized this last night when I looked at my desktop on my computer. If you know me, you know that I keep a list of things I hope to accomplish in life, in addition to a reading list and a to-do list for the day. It helps me organize myself and my thoughts, and keeps me relatively sane during the frantic days leading up to deadlines and exams. I realized that my list of goals in life was nothing more than a copy of President Clinton's goals he set out for himself in college, famously described in his best selling autobiography My Life. These seemed noble and relative, mostly because they were obscure and very non-specific goals. I wrote them down without a second thought, mostly because I admire President Clinton and I hope to someday accomplish a fraction of what he had during his presidency. But this is when I stopped and paused to reflect: these were his life goals, why should they be mine? Granted, there is no reason to not have heroes and inspirations, because role models are important for creating the inspiration to action, the incentives for change, and courage to face adversity. But there comes a point where one loses ones own identity in exchange for an amalgamation of other heroic identities. Perhaps this is the beginning of my tragedy: in the process of becoming a leader, a model citizen, and a good man, I am losing my identity. Just realizing it in the form of Clinton's goals was the manifestation of the fears in my life. I should apologize, but I know that the only person that deserves a true apology is me. I have to promise myself to live my life for me. While this sounds cliche, lets understand that cliches exist because they are often true. I have to search through books and history to find inspiration and voices from the past, but I cannot simply provide the physical outlet for those sources to express themselves. I have never denied the fact that I am an overly ambitious person, but that's simply due to the optimism that has been instilled in me since birth. Life is what you make of it, and I hope to someday live a life of meaning, whatever that might be. But I need to understand that I will have my pundits, my critics, and my enemies who will berate my causes or campaigns. The point is to understand the fundamental dynamics of self-confidence and leadership: that no one will follow someone who doubts oneself. Call me what you will, but don't ever call me unoriginal, uninspired, or unappealing. In this sense, I will lead by example, but I will be happy in knowing that it is my example. I hate to borrow a quote at a moment like this, as it would seem both unfitting and hypocritical, but alas, poetry has never been my cup of tea. But as I have always taught, end your stories, essays, or thoughts with a quote or idea, to leave the reader with something to think about, something to ponder. Consider it the dessert after the meal, a nice refreshing treat that allows you to leave the table with a nice aftertaste and something to look forward to next time: "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference."---Robert Frost

the changing face of print media

2006-04-24T23:18:00.000-07:00

What does the future have in store for the intellectually starved, the inquisitively voracious souls who stubbornly cling to archaic newspapers for our daily dosage of information, opinion, and gossip? Many say that print media is dying: with the advent of television, Americans can now be immersed in news rather than actively engage themselves in the issue. Why read a column by Thomas Friedman when you can watch a 30 minute segment on Iraq on Fox News? News has become convenient, easily accessible, and overly simplified for the average audience member. I understand that we live in a world of convenience, but I must ask this: are we sacrificing our ability to think for ourselves in the process? Fortunately, print media is not a static entity, but rather an evolving amalgamation of magazines, newspapers, and the internet. Blogs, my friends, will be the form of future newspapers. And why not? Up to the second updates coupled with multiple opinions on prevalent issues doesn't sound like the fabricated and mettled segments on TV news channels: rather, it sounds like a town hall meeting, where everyone can have a say. And why not? That's democracy, no? The rule of thumb for internet journalists is to question blogging material and information found on the internet (read: there are over 26 million blogs on the internet, so take what you read with a very large grain of salt). But this is no reason to be discouraged. Rather, consider it an expansion of our political right, an exercise in efficacy, and most importantly, the reconnection of the American people (and the world for that matter) to the issues that affect them. Let us never underestimate the power of the written word, the ability some wordsmiths have to create either beautiful prose, powerful images, or poignant statements that forever change the masses. I shudder to think what will happen if we lose this appreciation, for I fear that will indicate the nadir of human intellectual curiosity, where we lose our interest in providing our own insight, where we ultimately settle for what is presented to us rather than taking the time to consider it for ourselves.

Baseball Stats? Public or Intellectual Property?

2006-04-20T16:31:00.000-07:00

From Yahoo Sports, April 20 2006 By Jeff Passan Draft day is the best day of the year. For eight hours, my friends and I drink cold beverages, indulge in food fit for a study on clogged arteries and hold our annual fantasy baseball draft. Only a 50-inch HDTV could make the day any better, and, by heavens, we had one of those this year, too. We did not discuss right-to-publicity law and how it applies to fantasy sports. We did not talk about licensing, legalities or lawsuits. In fact, the only time we've talked about anything to do with justice was in 1995 when we threatened to send our friend Bruce to fantasy prison for wasting a pick on an A-ball pitcher named Bart Evans. Yet all fantasy players should at least be aware of what's bubbling in their leagues' background, because it could transform the industry: It's a grab for money and control, a play of greed, an entree into the ugly sides of baseball to which fantasy sports seemed immune. In February, the owners of CDM Sports sued Major League Baseball Advanced Media, baseball's Internet arm, and the Major League Baseball Players' Association to keep them from requiring licenses to use statistics for fantasy games. At issue isn't whether statistics are historical record – both sides concede they are – but the value of statistics when attached to names of professional players. CDM, based in St. Louis, believes that they provide an accounting and news service by compiling and delivering the data, and that they should receive the same immunity as newspapers that print box scores. MLB counters that CDM is using player names for a purely commercial venture and that, like video games and baseball cards, fantasy providers must pay a licensing fee to use the likenesses. On one side is baseball trying to protect its business. "What people have to understand is, this is a baseball game with a single purpose," MLBAM spokesman Jim Gallagher said. "How do they make money? They do it on people building a team using named baseball players. Not fictitious. They're the guy's name, the picture – the specifics." On the other is CDM trying to save its business. "Fantasy baseball is a game for the fans," said Charlie Wiegert, the company's co-founder. "They're the ones who make up the teams. They're the ones who follow these players. If there's anything pure in fantasy, it's that they've made up these games, gotten together and drafted, and they did it all without Major League Baseball and the players' association. They found a way they could enjoy the sport as fans without the other side." Stuck in the middle is the public, which, depending on the case's outcome, could see a free market or one run by the brand names that already dominate the industry. The tussle started in January 2005, 25 years after a group of friends met at Manhattan restaurant La Rotisserie Francaise and conceived the first fantasy league. The MLB Players' Association, which used to receive licensing fees from the reputable fantasy proprietors – CDM paid 9 percent of its gross per season, though there were constant tussles on the actual dollar amounts CDM owed – sold licensing rights to MLBAM for $50 million over five years. With the number of fantasy baseball players estimated at 16 million, MLBAM, which runs MLB.com, wanted to solidify its own game. At the same time, it would sublicense the statistics to sites of its choosing. This year, the big three – Yahoo!, ESPN, and CBS SportsLine – are licensed, along with a handful of smaller companies. In the interest of full disclosure, Yahoo!, which runs free and pay leagues and is the Internet's largest fantasy sports site, pays MLBAM a licensing fee of around $3 million per year. Gallagher said MLBAM offered CDM a one-year license before the 2005 season. Wiegert said the offer was for CDM to refer its clients to MLB.com and receive a one-time payment of 10 percent of whatever revenue those players generated. "It was either file something against them," Wiegert said, "or go out of business." CDM turned down the deal, carried on without a license and still runs its sites, including TQ Stats and Diamond Challenge Fantasy Baseball, which pays the grand-prize winner $25,000. "It's not that we want the whole kit," said Rudy Telscher, the lead attorney for CDM. "We want to run a business and improve the games." All of this came after years of fantasy baseball operated in Pleasantville. The original fantasy leagues relied on the Sunday newspaper or The Sporting News for their numbers, then compiled them longhand. The revealing of fantasy baseball standings made Mondays tolerable. Then came the Internet, and it was nirvana. Forget weekly stats. For around $100 a season, every league could have up-to-the-minute numbers. The ease of fantasy leagues encouraged millions of new players. CDM, which had a 30 percent market share before the Web, now has less than 5 percent and, Wiegert said, grosses around $8.5 million a year. Whereas fantasy in the past was reserved to the dedicated, it was now a paint-by-numbers game with as few as two steps: draft and follow. Of course, with commercialization came entanglement. Baseball saw the money generated by fantasy leagues and wanted its cut. And though it may seem baseball was trying to monopolize the industry, the players' association could sell the licenses to whomever it pleased, and that happened to be the company it works arm in arm with. At issue now is whether the licenses were ever necessary. Either way, a Pandora's Box opens. Should CDM win the case, new providers would flood the market, and the ramifications could carry over to every professional sports league, including the NFL, which is the most popular fantasy game. If the verdict sides with MLBAM and the players' association, though, it opens huge loopholes for sports without unions – could fantasy providers really approach every golfer about an individual license? – and could dramatically limit the number of companies offering fantasy games. Currently, there are 242 companies in the Fantasy Sports Trade Association. "If that happens," Gallagher said, "I don't think you'll see any effect on the prices of pay-to-play games at all. You can hold me to it. I don't expect that at all." Gallagher does expect an increase in participants, which he believes can double to almost 30 million. He cites some one-click games on MLB.com that call for one or two minutes a day as opposed to the research needed to stay up on day-by-day fantasy leagues. But Greg Ambrosius, the former president of the FSTA and editor of Fantasy Sports Magazine, says a verdict in favor of MLBAM could hinder the progress fantasy sports providers have made. "Right now, there's a lot of innovation by entrepreneurs who have been in this for a while," he said. "It's possible, if that happens, the innovation might not continue." What neither side denies is the transmogrification of fantasy baseball into just another business. While it's still an escape from $10 beers and $40 bleacher seats, the old-fashioned behind-the-scenes is classic big business. Sure, it won't prevent my friends from sending e-mails to one another with subject lines like "You are undoubtedly the worst fantasy GM of all time" or "I hate you" or, simply, "Pujols!" But the case is expected to drag on, and as it does, it will drag fantasy baseball's name along with it. There will be citation of case law, like Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball from 2001, where a California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of MLB's inclusion of names and statistics of retired players in programs. Baseball, in the current case, is fighting against exactly what it sought five years ago. "If this applies to baseball players [like MLBAM says], in a Trivial Pursuit game, I can't use Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, presidents," Telscher, CDM's lead attorney, said. "They have a right of publicity, right? "If you're using player identities, singling them out, promoting products individually, of course players should get something for that. If you're using raw, mass data, that is owned by the public. It's historical facts." That's for a judge or jury to decide. MLBAM and the players' association have sought a declaratory judgment, which could end the case. A judge is expected to rule on that around July. If it's denied, the case will go to a jury. Which would put the issue in the hands of St. Louis citizens. Perhaps a couple fantasy baseball players would land on the jury. The man might remember the time his friend chose Greg Vaughn in the first round instead of Mo Vaughn. Or the woman might laugh at the draft where someone had too much to drink and passed out before the final pick. And then they'd look up, at the expert witnesses and cross-examinations and the exhibits, and find some bit of macabre humor in money tainting baseball – their game – once again.

Daily Cal Editorial

2006-04-18T22:44:00.000-07:00

From the Daily Californian, April 14 2006 Genocide in North Korea goes Unchecked by Eugene Lee The entrance to the Holocaust Museum in Washington has two words adorning the doorway: never again. Through a tour of the museum, you are overwhelmed with stories and images of horrible atrocities, filling visitors with a sense of disgust and anger, sadness and bewilderment. This was the lowest point in the history of mankind, the ultimate manifestation of man's cruelty and the display of our worst potential. The two words, as simple as they appear, are full of hope, hope for a better future with lessons learned from the past. But history has a tendency to repeat itself. Currently there is a genocide occurring halfway around the world. It is lost amidst power politics and skewed American foreign policy. Millions of people die each year in silence as the world calmly turns away. You might be thinking that I am talking about Darfur, but I'm not. I am talking about North Korea. For many Americans, North Korea is seen only in the context of nuclear weapons, the George W. Bush-proclaimed "Axis of Evil," and through satirical pieces such as "Team America." When people hear North Korea, they immediately think about Kim Jong-Il, with his tan jump suit and oversized aviator sunglasses. The country is as enigmatic as its leader, instilling a slight fascination in its peculiarity, but nothing more. What is lost amidst these issues and peculiarities are the egregious human rights violations at the hands of the despotic regime. Amnesty International deems North Korea as one of the worst violators of human rights. In April 2004, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution "expressing deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights." North Korea ranks among the worst in censorship and freedom of the press. According to a study published last year by the Food and Agricultural Organization, 13 million people in North Korea, over half the total population, suffered from malnutrition. Reports also indicate that there are numerous labor and torture camps established throughout the country by the regime to punish dissidents and political prisoners. The regime tightly controls its subjects' every movement, punishing anything that would be construed as counter-revolutionary. Each day, thousands of North Koreans desperately cross the Yalu River into China, hoping to escape their dismal existence and to pursue political asylum. However, the Chinese government continues to maintain their policy of returning captured North Korean refugees, sending them to a certain and grim fate. Many risk their lives against the elements, North Korean agents and Chinese security forces, knowing that their decision to leave North Korea has very final and dire consequences. How can we continue to pretend that nothing is going on? This past fall, we established Liberty in North Korea here at UC Berkeley. Part of a larger umbrella organization based out of Washington, DC, the organization strives to bring awareness to these issues that are largely ignored by the media and our own government. Our organization is nonpartisan, nonreligious and nonethnic. Our philosophy is empowerment from a grassroots level, as we hope to bring change from the bottom up, through education and empowerment of the student body and the local community. We are not here to demand for regime change or to criticize our own administration. Politics is not our game. We demand a change for the better for those who wish to live without constant fear, to speak without limitation, and to achieve a certain amount of happiness. As an executive member, I invite you to our annual North Korean human rights week, from April 24 to April 27. There will be film screenings, a debate with different professors and speakers all addressing the current problems in North Korea each evening at 7:00 p.m. in 2060 VLSB. In addition we will end with a benefit concert featuring a local band called The Moving Picture and a band all the way from the East Coast called The Ides at 7:00 p.m. in Pauley Ballroom on May 1. I hope you come to these events with a sense of curiosity and leave with a sense of obligation. Education, we believe, is our greatest weapon in our struggle. While this event is sponsored by many Korean groups on campus, this by no means is a Korean issue. This is a human issue that should be recognized by everyone as an injustice. I do sincerely hope you attend and are inspired by what normal everyday people out there are doing in the name of human rights. While this might seem like a gargantuan issue that is simply overwhelming for any one person, I respond with an idea, taken from the Berlin Wall: "Many small people who in many small places do many small things that can change the world."

Sorry

2006-04-18T00:06:00.000-07:00

I appologize for the recent drought in posts, but I have to be honest. I am busy with LSATs, school, and my life, which never ceases to amaze me with interesting twists. This and a severe case of writers block. It's bad. What I need is inspiration. I need to find my muse, whatever or whomever that may be...

I wish I could quit you...but I can't, so I'm going to make a big deal about the Oscars...

2006-03-19T16:15:00.000-08:00

How many of us sat, open jawed and befuddled as Jack Nicholson announced "Crash" as the upset Best Picture at this year's Academy Awards instead of heavy favorite "Brokeback Mountain"? I was so surprised that I actually did not hear it the first time; "Crash" simply would not process itself in my mind as Best Picture. "Brokeback Mountain" rose in the mind of moviegoers and critics as the controversial but sound film that would easily sweep the Oscars. I was subjected to weeks of Oscar propoganda, bombarded with images of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall in Entertainment Weekly, US News, the New York Times, and Entertainment Tonight. I was (and unfortunately still am) a drone, exposed and subjected to the Media's will and desires. I was programmed to know that "Brokeback Mountain" would win. When it didn't, I was shocked, disgusted, and angry. That is, until I sat and thought about it for a moment. Crash, many torrid liberal film critics proclaimed, was one of the worst movies of the year and was definitely not deserving of the Best Picture Oscar. A movie about a homosexual relationship would never be accepted as Best Picture. This just shows the narrow mindedness of Hollywood and its Conservative undertones. Something tells me that these people were convinced that "Brokeback Mountain" had to win in order to accomplish a great victory for popular acceptance of homosexuality in America. Many of the attacks on "Crash" were groundless and simply out of political zeal. As Roger Ebert explained, "describing 'Crash' as 'the worst film of the year' is as extreme as saying John Kerry was a coward in Vietnam. It means you'll say anything to help your campaign." Critics, both in film and in politics, often blindly follow a rhetoric based on their ideology and not on empirical or self-evaluation. Say what you will, but last time I checked, "Crash" is about racial misunderstandings and tolerance. And "Capote" is about an overtly homosexual writer during a period of extreme homophobia. Whoever says Hollywood is not tolerant or open-minded is yelling with their heads in the sand. In fact, all five Best Picture nominees (Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Munich, and Goodnight and Goodluck) had some social implication about tolerance. For those liberal pundits who claim that neglecting "Brokeback Mountain" as a progressive portrayal of homosexuality in the mainstream media is an act of close-mindedness or politics needs to reassess their position. Screaming for the sake of making noise just gives everyone a headache. "Brokeback Mountain" has already reached a greater audience than it ever could have in its short story form. And despite many theatres is rural Midwestern towns refusing to show the film, many people viewed the film and enjoyed it. It won Golden Globes for Best Picture and Director. This film received much praise, and rightfully so. But before people get too infuriated by Hollywood's supposed political agenda, they should try sitting back and thinking about it for a moment, as I did on my couch while Paul Haggis thanked his beautiful wife for her inspiration. Why does everything have to be a political attack? A threat to our livelihood? Instead of being a malicious act, is it possible that, perhaps, "Crash" simply was a better movie? I think so. By making a big deal about the supposed Oscar snub is simply taking away from "Crash", an excellent film about racial tolerance and misperceptions in Los Angeles. To me, this is the most important social issue facing our country, and "Crash" beautifully displays the dynamics of ignorance and assumption in the close interaction of different racial groups. Tolerance comes in many forms, as does success for films. "Brokeback Mountain" was by no means a failure, and will still remain one of the most important films of our time. But if liberal extremist film critics are going to continue yelling about "Brokeback Mountain" deserving the Oscar for its progressive vision, I'm going to yell right back, exclaiming "Crash" does the same.

"Teach the Test?" What Test?

2006-03-18T17:40:00.000-08:00

Writers block strikes and my own standardized test looms large...but that being said, I have a lot on my mind and I will get back to writing posts soon enough...but until then, enjoy... From The Washington Post March 18 2006 by Colman McCarthy From the academic sidelines, where calls to Leave No Child Untested are routinely sounded by quick-fix school reformers, Jay Mathews joins in with his Feb. 20 op-ed column, "Let's Teach to the Test." In well-crafted prose, he reports that "in 23 years of visiting classrooms I have yet to see any teacher preparing kids for exams in ways that were not careful, sensible and likely to produce more learning." On Mathews's visit to my classroom four years ago -- at School Without Walls, where I have been volunteering since 1982 -- he must not have noticed that not only was I not preparing my 28 students for tests but that I regard tests as educational insults. At School Without Walls and two other high schools where I am a guest teacher -- Wilson High School in the District and Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in lower Montgomery County -- I have never given a test. I respect my students too much to demean them with exercises in fake knowledge. Tests represent fear-based learning, the opposite of learning based on desire. Frightened and fretting with pre-test jitters, students stuff their minds with information they disgorge on exam sheets and sweat out the results. I know of no meaningful evidence that acing tests has anything to do with students' character development or whether their natural instincts for idealism or altruism are nurtured. I have large amounts of evidence that tests promote the opposite: character defects. After having two of my high school classes read Mathews's column, I asked the students: If during a test the opportunity came to cheat, with no fear of being caught, would you? A majority of hands went up. A few students dismissed the question as naive. Not cheat if you could get away with it? Get real. When speaking at high school assemblies, I ask students how many can raise their hands and say with total honesty that they never cheated in school. Few hands go up. If some brave souls do confess to honesty, they are greeted with jeers or calls of "yeah, right." Standardized tests measure braininess and memory skills. American society has plenty of people who were academic whizzes in high school but were so driven by the lure of a high grade-point average that their spiritual lives remained stunted. I worry about students who make too many A's. What parts of their inner lives are they sacrificing to conform to someone else's notion that doing well in tests means doing well in life? Is any time left over from mastering theoretical knowledge for gaining the kind of experiential knowledge found in community service or volunteering in programs such as Special Olympics or DC Reads? Desire-based learning happens when teachers deal in combustibles, when fires are lit and students burn to explore ideas that have nothing to do with what testocrats require. Quality teachers who are fire-lighters often find themselves trapped in schools that have been seduced by the Advanced Placement fad. Teachers whose students can't hack the AP final are regarded as failures. School principals get hammerlocked also. They watch teachers' performance the way teachers watch students' performance. A hierarchy results. Most everyone is fearful of someone in power right above. Students worry about teachers, teachers worry about principals, principals worry about school boards, school boards worry about politicians and politicians worry about the voters. Before riskily breaking ranks with an innovation or two that might actually eliminate fear in the classroom, a deviator must ask: Will I be whacked by that power-wielder just above me? Caution reigns. To compensate for my no-testing policy, I assign tons of homework. The assignments? Tell someone you love him or her. Do a favor for someone who won't know you did it. Say a kind word to the workers at the school: the people who clean the toilets, cook the food, drive the buses and heat the buildings. And a warning: If you don't do the homework, you'll fail. You'll fail your better self, you'll fail to make the world better, you'll fail at being a peacemaker. For 25 years of testing the waters by not testing, I've been telling my students not to worry about answering questions. Be braver and bolder: Question the answers. Which answers? To start, the ones from anyone who champions classroom get-aheadism based on test scores. Throw off your chains, students. You have nothing to lose but your backpacks.

Great article for College students

2006-03-03T17:51:00.000-08:00

From the New York Times March 2 2006 Harvard Bound? Chin up... by David Brooks I've got great news! You're young and you're smart and next year you're beginning college. Unfortunately, I've also got bad news. The only school you got into is Harvard, where, as Peter Beinart of The New Republic notes, students often graduate "without the kind of core knowledge that you'd expect from a good high school student," and required courses can be "a hodgepodge of arbitrary, esoteric classes that cohere into nothing at all." But don't despair. I've consulted with a bevy of sages, and I've come up with a list. If you do everything on this list, you'll get a great education, no matter what college you attend: Read Reinhold Niebuhr. Religion is a crucial driving force of this century, and Niebuhr is the wisest guide. As Alan Wolfe of Boston College notes, if everyone read Niebuhr, "The devout would learn that public piety corrupts private faith and that faith must play a prophetic role in society. The atheists would learn that some people who believe in God are really, really smart. All of them would learn that good and evil really do exist --- and that it is never as easy as it seems to know which is which. And none of them, so long as they absorbed what they were reading, could believe that the best way to divide opinion is between liberals on the one hand and conservatives on the other." Read Plato's "Gorgias." As Robert George of Princeton observes, "The explicit point of the dialogue is to demonstrate the superiority of philosophy (the quest for wisdom and truth) to rhetoric (the art of persuasion in the cause of victory). At a deeper level, it teaches that the worldly honors that one may win by being a good speaker ... can all too easily erode one's devotion to truth --- a devotion that is critical to our integrity as persons. So rhetorical skills are dangerous, potentially soul-imperiling, gifts." Explains everything you need to know about politics and punditry. Take a course on ancient Greece. For 2,500 years, educators knew that the core of their mission was to bring students into contact with heroes like Pericles, Socrates and Leonidas. "No habit is so important to acquire," Aristotle wrote, as the ability "to delight in fine characters and noble actions." Alfred North Whitehead agreed, saying, "Moral education is impossible without the habitual vision of greatness." That core educational principle was abandoned about a generation ago, during a spasm of radical egalitarianism. And once that principle was lost, the entire coherence of higher education was lost with it. So now you've got to find your own ways to learn about history's heroes, the figures who will serve as models to emulate and who will provide you with standards to use to measure your own conduct. Remember, as the British educator Richard Livingstone once wrote, "One is apt to think of moral failure as due to weakness of character: more often it is due to an inadequate ideal." Learn a foreign language. The biographer Ron Chernow observes, "My impression is that many students have turned into cunning little careerists, jockeying for advancement." To counteract this, he suggests taking "wildly impractical" courses like art history and Elizabethan drama. "They should especially try to master a foreign language as a way to annex another culture and discover unseen sides to themselves. As we have evolved into a matchless global power, we have simply become provincial on an ever larger stage." Spend a year abroad. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland believes that all major universities should require a year abroad: "All evidence suggests this, more than any other, is a transforming experience for students that lasts a lifetime." Take a course in neuroscience. In the next 50 years, half the explanations you hear for human behavior are going to involve brain structure and function. You've got to know which are serious and which are cockamamie. Take statistics. Sorry, but you'll find later in life that it's handy to know what a standard deviation is. Forget about your career for once in your life. This was the core message from everyone I contacted. Raised to be workaholics, students today have developed a "carapace, an enveloping shell that hinders them from seeing the full, rich variety of intellectual and practical opportunities offered by the world," observes Charles Hill of Yale. You've got to burst out of that narrow careerist mentality. Of course, it will be hard when you're surrounded by so many narrow careerist professors building their little subdisciplinary empires. But you can do it. I have faith.

Asian Men: short end of the stick?

2006-02-25T13:13:00.000-08:00

This is an op/ed piece from the Daily Quaker, the Student Newspaper at U Penn, written by a buddy of mine from Stanford Summer session.... February 24 2006 Try naming a famous Asian hunk by Daniel Nieh McCarthy. Kidd. Rosenzweig. Berman. Williams. Oh yeah, and, Nieh. These are just a sample of the last names of half-Asian students at Penn. See a trend? According to Wayne State University Asian-American Studies expert Frank Wu, 72 percent of Asian-white couples in the United States consist of an Asian wife and a white husband. Apparently, not so many white women have Asian fetishes. "Growing up, I thought I'd date white girls ... but I began to realize that I wasn't attractive to the white community," College senior Wes Nakamura, a panelist at a forum on interracial dating held last Thursday. "I discovered that wanting that is setting yourself up for a lot of pain." Nakamura touched on a serious issue in American sexual culture: the marginalization of Asian men. You know the stereotypes. They're small, bookish and geeky. They're good at math, ping pong and PlayStation. And they're not very sexy. These preconceptions about East Asian men have not been around forever. White Americans perceived late 19th- and early 20th-century Chinese and Japanese railroad workers as virile, intimidating and sexually potent. In other words, Asian men were stereotyped in much the way black men are today. But in contemporary America, East Asian men produce cars, televisions and semiconductors -- not railroads -- and the rest of America sees Asians as intelligent and industrious (read: nerdy). Unfortunately, the "model minority" label does not come with vaunted sexual categorization. But we must not ignore the role the media play in eroticizing East Asian women while desexualizing East Asian men. For example, nothing says "cultural imperialism" like silver screen interracial relationships -- just think Sideways or The Last Samurai. Now think of the last time you saw an Asian man kiss a white woman on screen. Really? Me neither. Jackie Chan, Jet Li -- and even Bruce Lee, who married a white woman -- have never had an on-screen kiss with anyone. Where are the male counterparts for Lucy Liu, Kelly Hu and Sandra Oh? "Very rarely are Asian men portrayed as sexual beings with normal sexual desires and behaviors," Penn Graduate School of Education professor Vinay Harpalani said. The marketers who set the agenda in mass media have determined that, while Asian women are exotic and sexy, Asian men are nerdy, funny or, at best, ninjas. These same people put Beyonce Knowles -- light skin, red lipstick, Farrah Fawcett hair -- on one magazine cover and 50 Cent -- tattooed muscles, no shirt, optional firearm -- on another. This selling of stereotypes creates the white-male oriented standards of beauty that define contemporary American sexual identities: black female (conformist), black male (predatory), East Asian female (submissive) and East Asian male (none). And, of course, the tall, thin white females; minorities aren't the only groups that suffer under these standards. I won't suggest that an Illuminati group of influential white men gets together and decides how to portray beauty in the media. These sexual stereotypes sell, and businesses using them are just maximizing profits. And they will continue to do so as long as we continue to buy. Unfortunately, the marketing of these sexual identities is resulting in ugly consequences. According to Wu, Asian women are marrying at twice the rate of Asian men. Even sadder than the white men and women who buy into these stereotypes are the Asian women who begin to see themselves as submissive and the Asian men who begin to see themselves as unwanted. "Knowing that Asian men aren't seen as attractive by society at large," Nakamura said, "I often don't consider dating white women as an option." So what's to be done? The first step lies in recognizing that we see each other through the tinted glasses of our preconceptions. "I don't buy the whole argument that you just love who you love -- our sexual and romantic decisions are influenced by a larger context," said Ed Brockenbrough, who co-instructs a Graduate School of Education seminar on Cross Cultural Awareness. Even with our Ivy League enlightenment, we at Penn have yet to transcend stereotyped sexual identities. And until we recognize the pervasiveness and gravity of sexual stereotypes, we won't be seeing too many half-white Tanakas around campus.

Conservatives: happier than liberals?

2006-02-24T12:02:00.000-08:00

From The Washington Post February 23 2006 Smile if (and only if) You're Conservative by George Will To bemused conservatives, it looks like yet another example of analytic overkill by the intelligentsia -- a jobs program for the (mostly liberal) academic boys (and girls) in the social sciences, whose quantitative tools have been brought to bear to prove the obvious. A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals -- in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals. Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole. People in the Sun Belt -- almost entirely red states -- have sunnier dispositions than Northerners, which could have as much to do with sunshine as with conservatism. Unless sunshine makes people happy, which makes them conservative. Such puzzles show why social science is not for amateurs. Still, one cannot -- yet -- be prosecuted for committing theory without a license, so consider a few explanations of the happiness gap. Begin with a paradox: Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the Book of Job got it right ("Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward"), as did Adam Smith ("There is a great deal of ruin in a nation"). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones. Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness. The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver. On Jan. 3, 1936, FDR announced that in 34 months his administration had established a "new relationship between government and people." Amity Shlaes, a keen student of FDR's departure from prior political premises, says, "The New Deal had a purpose beyond curing the Depression. It was to make people look to Washington for help at all times." Henceforth the federal government would be permanently committed to serving a large number of constituencies: "Occasional gifts to farmers or tariffs for business weren't enough." So, liberals: Smile -- you've won. Nevertheless, normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals. Liberals have made this the era of surly automobile bumpers, millions of them, still defiantly adorned with Kerry-Edwards and even Gore-Lieberman bumper stickers, faded and frayed like flags preserved as relics of failed crusades. To preserve these mementos of dashed dreams, many liberals may be forgoing the pleasures of buying new cars -- another delight sacrificed on the altar of liberalism. But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism, which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them the better.) And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims -- that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do -- the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles . . . You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

5 Worst Presidents of All time...

2006-02-19T14:34:00.000-08:00

In honor of Presidents Day, I thought it would be appropriate to look at the 5 worst presidents in US History. This comes after reading countless op/ed pieces about the failures of the Bush administration, condemning it as the worst Presidency in US History: 5) James Buchanan---President during the years prior to the US Civil War, Buchanan did little to alleviate the tension growing between the industrial north and the agrarian south. Moreover, the debate in Buchanan's head represented the debate within the nation: while Buchanan was a fervent abolitionist, he felt that slavery was protected by the Constitution. As secession was discussed in the Southern states, Buchanan felt that although the states had no right to do so according to Constitutional Law, he had no power to stop it. Buchanan's view of the Presidency was limited to simply protecting Federal lands and commerce. When it came to dangerous or sticky situations, he usually found an excuse to remove himself from the issue. Wishy-washiness eventually won out and the bloodiest war in the history of the United States followed. 4) Gerald Ford---What did this guy do? He started by pardoning Richard Nixon for the Watergate scandal and any other illegal activity he had committed while in Office. Besides that, Ford's infamous WIN (Whip Inflation Now) public relations fiasco did little to whip inflation (but they did make WIN buttons and pins) that would severely limit the US economy in the mid 1970s. In addition, Ford's commitment of US Marines to rescue captured sailors in the Mayaguez incident simply proved how incompetent and impatient the Ford administration really was. 3) George W. Bush---its hard to evaluate Bush's presidency because it is not over, but at this point the rap sheet speaks for itself...from 9/11 to Katrina, Bush Jr. always seemed to be a step behind with his mind elsewhere. Not only that, Bush's war in Iraq went from ambitious (finding nuclear weapons and bringing freedom to the Iraqi people) to apologetic (no weapons but now that we are committed we must see this war to the end) to pathetic (exit strategy, my dear?). How about increasing executive powers and compromising American Constitutional rights (the ones he swore to protect) in the name of national security. National debt? Warrentless surveillance? Axis of Evil? Pretzels? Roe v Wade? I feel like Billy Joel... 2) William Henry Harrison---While Harrison was a hero in the Indian Wars and the War of 1812, he will forever be known as the President who gave the longest inauguration speech in the rain and died of pneumonia a month later. There is a God, and he has a very twisted sense of irony. and finally... 1) Richard Nixon---what a lying bastard...but what do you expect from a guy who funded his political career from poker earnings? From campaigning to end the Vietnam War and then escalating it by bombing Cambodia to having to pay almost half a million dollars in back taxes to his now infamous Watergate scandal (too much to say about that here), Nixon left the White House in shame and will forever be known as the most infamous president in this country's history. His attempts to foil his political adversaries lead to deceit and corruption, adjectives soon used to describe the Presidency. Disagree? Post a comment

Valentines Day+writers block=nothing interesting yet

2006-02-14T00:28:00.000-08:00

Its a combination of the fact that I am super busy + I usually despise Valentines Day + I for some reason have a severe case of writers block, but I will hopefully come up with something clever by the end of this day....until then, enjoy From The New York Times February 14 2006 The Kiss of Life by Joshua Foer SINCE it's Valentine's Day, let's dwell for a moment on the profoundly bizarre activity of kissing. Is there a more expressive gesture in the human repertoire? When parents kiss their children it means one thing, but when they kiss each other it means something entirely different. People will greet a total stranger with a kiss on the cheek, and then use an identical gesture to express their most intimate feelings to a lover. The mob kingpin gives the kiss of death, Catholics give the "kiss of peace," Jews kiss the Torah, nervous flyers kiss the ground, and the enraged sometimes demand that a kiss be applied to their hindquarters. Judas kissed Jesus, Madonna kissed Britney, a gambler kisses the dice for luck. Someone once even kissed a car for 54 hours straight. Taxonomists of the kiss have long labored to make sense of its many meanings. The Romans distinguished among the friendly oscula, the loving basia and the passionate suavia. The 17th-century polymath Martin von Kempe wrote a thousand-page encyclopedia of kissing that recognized 20 different varieties, including "the kiss bestowed by superiors on inferiors" and "the hypocritical kiss." The German language has words for 30 different kinds of kisses, including nachküssen, which is defined as a kiss "making up for kisses that have been omitted." (The Germans are also said to have coined the inexplicable phrase "A kiss without a beard is like an egg without salt.") How did a single act become a medium for so many messages? There are two possibilities: Either the kiss is a human universal, one of the constellation of innate traits, including language and laughter, that unites us as a species, or it is an invention, like fire or wearing clothes, an idea so good that it was bound to metastasize across the globe. Scientists have found evidence for both hypotheses. Other species engage in behavior that looks an awful lot like the smooch (though without its erotic overtones), which implies that kissing might be just as animalistic an impulse as it sometimes feels. Snails caress each other with their antennae, birds touch beaks, and many mammals lick each other's snouts. Chimpanzees even give platonic pecks on the lips. But only humans and our lascivious primate cousins the bonobos engage in full-fledged tongue-on-tongue tonsil-hockey. Even though all of this might suggest that kissing is in our genes, not all human cultures do it. Charles Darwin was one of the first to point this out. In his book "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals," he noted that kissing "is replaced in various parts of the world by the rubbing of noses." Early explorers of the Arctic dubbed this the Eskimo kiss. (Actually, it turns out the Inuit were not merely rubbing noses, they were smelling each other's cheeks). All across Africa, the Pacific and the Americas, we find cultures that didn't know about mouth kissing until their first contact with European explorers. And the attraction was not always immediately apparent. Most considered the act of exchanging saliva revolting. Among the Lapps of northern Finland, both sexes would bathe together in a state of complete nudity, but kissing was regarded as beyond the pale. To this day, public kissing is still seen as indecent in many parts of the world. In 1990, the Beijing-based Workers' Daily advised its readers that "the invasive Europeans brought the kissing custom to China, but it is regarded as a vulgar practice which is all too suggestive of cannibalism." If kissing is not universal, then someone must have invented it. Vaughn Bryant, an anthropologist at Texas A&M, has traced the first recorded kiss back to India, somewhere around 1500 B.C., when early Vedic scriptures start to mention people "sniffing" with their mouths, and later texts describe lovers "setting mouth to mouth." From there, he hypothesizes, the kiss spread westward when Alexander the Great conquered the Punjab in 326 B.C. The Romans were inveterate kissers, and along with Latin, the kiss became one of their chief exports. Not long after, early Christians invented the notion of the ritualistic "holy kiss" and incorporated it into the Eucharist ceremony. According to some cultural historians, it is only within the last 800 years, with the advent of effective dentistry and the triumph over halitosis, that the lips were freed to become an erogenous zone. For Freud, kissing was a subconscious return to suckling at the mother's breast. Other commentators have noted that the lips bear a striking resemblance to the labia, and that women across the world go to great lengths to make their lips look bigger and redder than they really are to simulate the appearance of sexual arousal, like animals in heat. A few anthropologists have suggested that mouth kissing is a "relic gesture," with evolutionary origins in the mouth-to-mouth feeding that occurred between mother and baby in an age before Gerber and still takes place in a few parts of the world today. It can hardly be a coincidence, they note, that in several languages the word for kissing is synonymous with pre-mastication, or that "sweet" is the epithet most commonly applied to kisses. But kissing may be more closely linked to our sense of smell than taste. Almost everyone has a distinct scent that is all one's own. Some people can even recognize their relatives in a dark room simply by their body odor (some relatives more than others). Kissing could have begun as a way of sniffing out who's who. From a whiff to a kiss was just a short trip across the face. Whatever its origins, kissing seems to be advantageous. A study conducted during the 1980's found that men who kiss their wives before leaving for work live longer, get into fewer car accidents, and have a higher income than married men who don't. So put down this newspaper and pucker up. It does a body good.

Great Op/Ed Piece

2006-02-10T12:50:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post February 10 2006 Hope Beyond the Rage? by David Ignatius Looking at the cartoons, a non-Muslim wonders how they could possibly have given such offense. How could a few juvenile, satirical drawings of the prophet Muhammad have created a global crisis? It seems inexplicable, until you think about American reactions to a word we hesitate even to write for fear of giving offense, calling it instead the "n-word." The African American experience reminds us that there is a rage so deep and abiding that it can be triggered by a small comment, an unintended slight, a remark perhaps meant as a joke but heard as a grievous insult. The legacy of slavery left behind that residue of anger. It created taboos that protect what Sigmund Freud described as the sacred totems of cultural identity. It established boundaries where outsiders -- in this case, white people -- are not allowed to venture. That's why the n-word is so powerful -- it is the symbol of the suffering that a people experienced at the hands of others. By drawing this comparison, I don't mean to condone what Muslims are doing in their violent, deadly overreaction to a provocation by a foolish newspaper editor in Denmark. And I think the Muslim world could learn something about tolerance from African Americans. The United States still abounds with racist images, but blacks are no longer rioting in the streets or burning down buildings. With time, people have learned to deal with their anger in less self-destructive ways -- even, sometimes, to laugh about it. This week, the African American cartoonist Aaron McGruder is running a series in his taboo-busting strip "The Boondocks" making fun of civil rights leader Al Sharpton's protests about racism. In Monday's strip, Huey Freeman muses to his friend: "Give me news of hope, Caesar. Tell me of the leaders who dare to stand against the grave dangers faced by this world. I crave inspiration." His pal Caesar looks up from his newspaper: "Says here Al Sharpton is protesting a cartoon for using the n-word." To which Huey responds: "I'm going back to bed." Maybe the Muslim world will someday be able to laugh off slurs against the prophet Muhammad, but not now. The wounds are too raw; the sense of victimization is too immediate. I travel often to Muslim countries, and I am sometimes astonished at how hundreds of years of history can seem condensed into the present, so that every current injustice is magnified by the weight of every past one. I don't understand it, but then, I have to remind myself, I'm not a Muslim. I haven't lived it. Hoping to understand this blood-knot of rage and intolerance, I called Randall Kennedy, a prominent African American professor of law at Harvard University. He is the author of a 2002 book that explores the intense emotions aroused by the n-word, which he actually dares to spell out in the book's title. He says he's not surprised that a cartoon, like a taboo word, can become a focus for rage. For African Americans, he explains, "there are all sorts of indignities and insults, but they're momentary and ambiguous." But when white people say the hateful word, "it crystallizes something that's often hard to discern." "When people feel they're being disrespected, they respond in all sorts of ways, including very self-destructive ways," Kennedy observes. That said, he finds the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons unacceptable -- just as he thinks people overreact to the n-word. "Are we going to bleep out Richard Pryor's album? Are we going to scratch out every reference to the word in 'Huckleberry Finn'? I would say with respect that's what is happening here with the reaction to the cartoons." Whenever I'm feeling really pessimistic about the world, I remind myself of the American civil rights movement. In the space of my lifetime, America has gone from a country of brutal racism and outright segregation to a place where black folks and white folks pretty much get along. We haven't abolished racism, but by working honestly at the problem, we've made real progress. Along the way, we experienced rage and violence: Our cities burned; our nation sometimes felt at war with itself. But we passed through that dark period into a brighter one. I want to believe that Muslims and the West are in that kind of transition. We're in the rage phase -- the part of the story where black folks are torching cities, white governors are sending in the National Guard and the problems seem insoluble. But if people keep their heads, we will eventually pass from this crazy moment into a different one where a genuine reconciliation is possible. Let's face it: We are living the clash of civilizations, and it's likely that things won't get much better until they get a bit worse.

Read: Clarification on my religious views

2006-02-08T21:30:00.000-08:00

Maybe its because of the excessive violence in the Middle East due to a certain Danish cartoon. Perhaps it is because of the excessive amounts of religious literature I get walking through campus each day. Or maybe its because of our discussion today about Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation. Either way, I feel compelled to clarify my thoughts on religion. Many view me as a bitter atheist who lacks any respect for religion, fueled by his antidisestablishmentarianism ideals. Well, this is an oversimplification. Allow me to explain. Religion is a sensitive subject because criticizing religion is tantamount to criticizing one's own morals or way of life. In class recently, a Muslim student tried to rationalize with the violent mobs in Beirut and Damascus, citing that Islam, unlike Christianity, is more than a religion; its a way of life. Problem number one, religion is self-righteous and self-justifying. Is it fair for Muslims to consider their religion more of a way of life than Christians? Last I checked, both prayed, attended weekly services, and read a similar religious text. Often times these stark similarities are looked over, taken for granted amidst a sea of subtle differences and historical injustice. This is where I look back to history and realize that Martin Luther's protest of the Catholic Church was the first step to liberalizing an greater overbearing institution and create a more individual based relationship with God. History will proudly say that Martin Luther was one of its greatest revolutionaries. The problem I have with Martin Luther is that he had an ambitious vision, but he only got halfway there. Luther's main qualms in regards to the Church dealt with its elitist view of religion; that only a priest could explain and decipher the word and message of God. The church itself developed a hierarchical system where the lower class was helpless and powerless compared to the more learned and empowered religious elite. One of such unfortunate circumstances could only find salvation through a man of the cloth. What did this lead to? Corruption, greed, struggles for power, and the other fuzzy things that come with human nature. So what did Luther proclaim? Actually, it was quite revolutionary at the time: salvation could be found from within, with a personal relationship with God and reflection. Anyone could communicate with God and search their soul and question their own morality, without the influences or commentary of an arbitrary religious icon. This is the point of Luther's reformation that I fully appreciate. But what happened? The Protestant Church (and its variations) were taken hostage by supposed divinely ordained European Monarchies (case and point, the Anglican church). In this sense, Luther failed to realize his true message, that religion is truly an individual endeavor. Let me say that although I am a self-proclaimed agnostic, I am by no means a closed-minded one. I appreciate religion and its philosophical and moral value. What I cannot stand is extremism, which is true of everything in life, I suppose. Religious extremism was the cause for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, and every other religious crime. Extremism also led to abuses in the Catholic church, the ones that Martin Luther proclaimed were unethical and wrong. Extremism on a large scale has caused religious riots, bombings of abortion clinics, and murder most foul. But extremism can also be seen in a more narrow lens. Specifically, I refer to those religious extremists who hound me on Sproul Plaza for being a (gasp!) Korean who has not yet accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. These modern day missionaries take it upon themselves to preach the word of God, to perhaps save those who are still lost. This is that self-righteous attitude I was talking about. These people (yes, there are way more than one) corner me with their gospel, I'm sure the whole while thinking about how pathetic I am as a being lost on this lonely and cruel planet. This is their crusade, their mission: to convert the heathen. They are convinced they are right, and I am wrong. This is simple indoctrination, what we see from Totalitarian dictatorships like Nazi Germany and North Korea. But the question I always ask is: why can't I be the heathen? What if I like being the heathen, for whatever reason. To question my own morality and judgment is to question my own upbringing, my culture, and my preferences. This is an insult to my own personal choices and priorities. It is that kind of arrogant mindset, that elitist pig shit that really grinds my gears, because it shows utter disregard for diversity, cultural differences, and the possibility of subjective morality. And the worst thing is, they think (sorry, they know) they are doing the good work of God. I can see how this mindset can lead to most of the world's problems, especially in the Middle East. Look at how riled up it got me. Religion, in a very structured and established basis, justifies any action if spun the wrong way. We cannot simply judge others on our own ideals of faith, because our own morality might be different than the next guy. It is important that we draw the distinction between the true word of God and the institution that propagates itself through missionary work. I respect the former, I vehemently despise the latter. Preaching the gospel and missionary work is simply trying to spread the institution, not the true word of God. These repulsive actions are unnecessary, destructive, and wrong. According to one of my professors, true faith cannot be attained unless one has lost faith and searched elsewhere. Good point, how do Christians know they are Christian if they are brought up that way from birth? We live in a country where we pride ourselves on our right to practice and choose our religion freely, yet I rarely see people choosing their religion. It is brought upon them, usually by family or community. Until one has studied or at least attempted to learn about the other forms of faith, how does one know that they are truly righteous? Because the Koran says so? Because my minister says so? Who's the close minded person now? Thus, I have a proposal for a theological revolution: take Martin Luther's reformation a step further and make religion a purely individualistic relationship between worshipper and God (or Gods). I thus proclaim my own reformation, except of established religion in general. If you are Christian, read the Koran, and vice versa for Muslims. In fact, read the Torah, and Confucian doctrine, and Buddhist scripture at the same time. If I ever work for the Department of Education, I propose bringing religion back to schools. But when I say religion, I mean all religion, not the Southern Baptist Creationist crap they spew out in Alabama. If we want our children to understand diversity and this complex world, they can start by learning about diverse faith, the building blocks of human society. When I was seven I went to church, for two years. When I was nine, I stopped, mostly because my father said it was unnecessary and also because I simply lost interest. I did not enjoy the procedure and archaic ceremony of Church services. This was when my mother suggested I read the Bible for a few hours each Sunday instead of going to Church. Within a year I had completed the Bible, gaining more perspective than I ever could. My mother was onto something, as I now realize. Later she would give me books about Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. All have broadened my perspectives on world religion, and morality in general. I wish she had given me the Koran as well. You do not need the institution of religion to find truth. Instead of fretting, try breathing and thinking about the world you live in, inhaling the pain and suffering of others and exhaling relief and comfort for the universe (from the chapter on Meditation in a Buddhism book I read). Create your own religion, have true faith in your decision, and have comfort in knowing that your decision is in fact your own, unadulterated and personal. Remove the middle man: religion needs no institution, no minister, no weekly meetings in temples. All you need is a religious text and an open mind, with the latter heavily emphasized.

Bush: We must avoid isolationist attitudes...

2006-02-01T19:55:00.000-08:00

Another year, another unintelligible description of President Bush's agenda for our nation and the world. This year, President Bush decided to obscure his plan's shortcomings even (and the recent flak both he, his party, and his projects have taken) by emphasizing the idea of isolationism, confounding many in this country, myself included. President Bush spoke about America's role as a leader of the global community, happily burdened with the task of economically and politically developing the backwards nations of this world. Bush cited that this was no time to adopt an isolationist policy, as it would "end in danger and decline". More specifically, President Bush emphasized that it was necessary to stay the course in Iraq and work for a global economy that can develop and benefit all. I'm assuming President Bush was attempting to illicit memories of US "isolationism" from the 1930s, so negatively attached to the rise of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism and a direct cause of the Second World War. Many historians attribute President Roosevelt's isolationist policy allowed the initial successes of the Axis powers and the continuation of mass murder in both Europe and Asia. While this is a noble but futile attempt to justify, glorify, and relate his cause, I would argue that the United States was being neither isolationist then as it is now. If we are assuming that the United States stood by and watched Europe and Asia destroy itself starting in 1937, we are denying a historical truth: the United States was the strongest and most productive country in the world. US products were shipped to the entire world and its economy dictated the global economic environment (see Great Depression), as it does today. What does this mean? The United States was far from neutral during the early years of World War II simply because it had national interests abroad. Even before Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, full scale war had existed for two years in Asia, where Japanese troops marched into major cities in China. America, fearing a threat to its interests in the Far East and a powerful Japanese Empire, placed an oil embargo upon the Japanese, severely limiting its navy and national ability to produce. America's aggressive actions toward Japan, while not direct, forced Japan into an unwinnable situation where it was forced to advance south to aquire another source of oil. Standing in their way? The US Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Now ask yourself again who started the Pacific War? How about the lend-lease program, where US material was sent to England and the Soviet Union for use in the front against Nazi forces. While the United Stgates remained diplomatically neutral, they obviously had an agenda. It was in America's best interest to defeat Fascism, and I suspect that President Roosevelt was simply waiting for the right moment to rally the nation around this goal. Pearl Harbor seemed to do the trick. What kind of isolationism is that? Seems to me that the United States was very heavily involved in foreign affairs, even though US troops were not technically fighting and the nation was not at war. I say that isolationism is not an appropriate way to describe US foreign policy in the 1930s and the early 1940s. I can go on...how about US troops being sent to the Phillippines and Cuba during the Spanish American War? Whoever says America has never pursued an imperialist agenda must have missed the American banana plantations and US military bases in the early 20th Century in Havana and Manila. US troops were sent to China to quell the Boxer Rebellion; was it for suffering Chinese people...or for rights to ship US goods to Shanghai? My point is that the United States has never adopted an isolationist attitude toward the world: they have too much going for them, even at its inception. Isolationism then was not the same as the isolationism now that Bush condemns. Bush's isolationism is almost a sense of apathy toward world affairs and a desire to remove America from foreign affairs and global markets. This is simply an ideal, not to be confused with the misnomer from the past. In this sense, President Bush is trying to instill an unnecessary ethic of sacrifice into Americans, that it is somehow our full responsibility to oversee the development of this world and to ensure the freedoms and rights of all (see Kipling's White Man's Burden for the British version from 100 years ago). I can't completely disagree with these statements. I have no problem with globalization; in fact, I think its a great idea, benefitting everyone with the ingenuity of not just American but everyone's goods. In this sense I agree with President Bush that American should strive to produce and sell abroad, because in the end it benefits everyone. I'd go futher into this, but that's for another post. America must look to its best interest, and it is President Bush's job to do just that. But Bush has warped this idea of best interest a long time ago, invading a country that posed no threat to our nation and prolonged a war without purpose. Whats more, instead of trying to fix his mess, Bush has instead looked to future campaigns in order to further his dream of "pax-americana". He mentioned Iran, emphasizing that America wanted to be the "closest of friends". But he alluded to a religious elite that held the nation hostage and its people down. President Bush: friends don't pursue regime change for its friends. Especially if they're closest friends. Maybe what I'm trying to say is we need to reassess our idea of global involvement. Granted, the United States is the most powerful country in the world and its technology can benefit everyone, whether it is helping cure AIDs victims in Africa or developing genetically enhanced food for starving people in India. But my bold claim for the day is perhaps America is being too bold in also pursuing regime change in nations deemed "rogue", because this demonstrates the problem the globe has with us: our arrogance has led us to assume that our way is the only way, that democracy, this western notion we know and love so much, is the prescription for everything, and that alternative states are outdated, misguided, and ultimately wrong. We are currently teetering between pursuing our own national security abroad and establishing an American hegemony. As this next year unfolds, we have to look to past precedent and ask ourselves: is our selflessness truly for those we want to help, or for American interest abroad?

State of the Union: Unnecessary and Archaic?

2006-02-01T18:36:00.001-08:00

From the New York Times, January 31 2006 Song of Myself by Francis Wilkinson IF there is a bandwagon in the works to eliminate the president's State of the Union address, I'm jumping aboard. There has always been something uncomfortably imperious about the speech. Originally known as the Annual Message, it mimics the "speech from the throne" that opens Parliament. Thomas Jefferson abandoned the spectacle when he became president, preferring to send his constitutionally mandated message to Congress in writing. His republican example succeeded in killing the ritual for more than a hundred years. It was Woodrow Wilson, Anglophile and world-class meddler, who revived the custom of delivering the address in person, prompting one senator to lament "this cheap and tawdry imitation of English royalty." Cheap, tawdry and mediocre. As oratory, the speech's record speaks for itself. When presidents exhale the breath of history — "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," or, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" — they invariably do it someplace other than in the State of the Union. A rhetorical omnibus making all local stops, the speech conveys a year's worth of departmental hackwork. In "Lend Me Your Ears," William Safire's compilation of great speeches, not one State of the Union address makes the table of contents. Lately, things have grown worse. President Bill Clinton's final State of the Union expired after 9,000 words and more kitchen sinks than you'll find at Home Depot. The Gettysburg Address, by comparison, was 266 words. It's perhaps not too early to predict which of the two speeches the world will little note nor long remember. President Bush has been less fortunate. Not one but two of his addresses have produced entries for the books. The first was the over-greased "axis of evil" in 2002 — alluring alliteration made memorable by inadvertent inanity. The second, in 2003, consisted of those 16 words about Saddam Hussein's uranium safari — and yes, even the "has" and "of" turned out to be false. The speech's cheap theatricality is finally beginning to grate, with some people calling it meaningless and ready for extinction. But the real problem with the State of the Union is not vapidity. The problem is fraud. Because the address has increasingly little to do with the union — that is, the 300 million of us who represent the temporal sum of these United States. The speech instead has to do with the state of just one of us. The State of the Union is all about His Majesty, the president. Is he master of Congress or supplicant? How far will his poll numbers rise? How did he perform? Mr. Bush may not like French, but the address is the embodiment of "L'état, c'est moi," transforming citizens into subjects, much as Jefferson feared. To hammer this point home, each year the White House peppers the gallery with "Lenny Skutniks," the trade name for the human props deployed to underscore the president's applause lines. The real Lenny Skutnik rescued passengers from an airline crash before serving as a visual aid to President Ronald Reagan's 1982 State of the Union. Skutniks have orbited the Capitol dome ever since. Those of us watching at home also have a role. First, we're meant to respond to the president's new proposals as enthusiastically as a representative sample of us did when the ideas were poll-tested weeks before. Second, we must keep in mind that the address works best if we conclude, after hearing the full inventory of marvels the president has done, is doing and will do, that we like him more than we thought we did last week. Hang onto those good vibrations when the phone rings. It could be a pollster! Manipulation is the essence of the game, after all, and because no one ever stops playing it, the president is expected to exploit his free shot at the goal for all it's worth. The speech's solipsism is even endorsed by the innovation of an opposition response, institutionalizing the old Broadway joke: "Enough about me, what did you think of my performance?" Only in Washington, the irony is always lost. Jimmy Carter, wearing his cardigan on his sleeve, dispensed with the royal treatment for his last annual message, in 1981, sending Congress a report in writing instead. In this, President Bush would do well to emulate the least emulated of our recent executives. As the presidency grows more imperial by the hour, the State of the Union address is an hour more than we the people can bear.

Thoughts on Journalism and Media

2006-01-29T22:14:00.000-08:00

I have recently become very passionate/interested/devoted to journalism, rekindling my journalistic roots that have not been exposed in ages. In this past month, I have immersed myself in newspapers (The Washington Post and the New York Times), as well as countless blogs. (Side note: perhaps a future blog entry, but who else is absolutely appalled by the lack of quality newspapers on the west coast? Either the San Francisco Chronicle needs to come up with better headlines than "top 10 ways to jazz up your ipod" or the Washington Post needs to become nationally syndicated...Actually, they should do that anyway). I love the bare simplicity of an otherwise very complex field: everything in journalism comes from questions. This inquisitive nature that journalists have is romantic and adventurous, bold and daring, and ultimately necessary. We live in a country where it is both our civil right and birth right to question that we do not understand, whether it is a government action, a natural disaster, or a celebrity marriage gone awry. I have fallen in love with blogs (especially mine) for two reasons: one, the ease of conveying your message using the vast resources of the internet, and two, because it allows for someone as irresponsible like me to convey such a message. OK, I was being a little harsh, but then again why would anyone care about my thoughts on politics or religion; in the end I'm just a kid from a small town with no real world experience. Yeah, I have heard it already...Just because I'm a Political Science major does not mean I am the authority on American or global politics. This is true, and all the above statements are true...But if you fullheartedly believe that, then why are you still reading my blog? You must have something better to do with your infinitely more valuable time... That's the appeal of my blog, or the blog of anyone else who has tried to put in the time and effort to present an argument or a point: with such an egalitarian approach to expression, you will inevitably accumulate perspective, on a vast scale. And not only that, you'll get material and stories about every aspect of everyday life. But perhaps the greatest appeal of blogs is their ability to convey messages in such an unique and personal style. A blog is a glimpse of someone's views, unadulterated and stark. Blogs are not limited with any AP style of writing. Sarcasm, humor, or candor are as important journalistic tools these days as a computer or a pen and notebook. While I still consider David Broder and George Will my journalistic heroes, I proudly still claim that Tucker Max remains a literary inspiration that fuels my desire to write. Tucker Max's website, while having no real substantive news or current event related material, still has the witticism and intellect that I someday envision for my own site. While Tucker Max writes about drunken adventures and bathroom humor, his journalistic style is incredible (yes, I called Tucker Max a journalist). Tucker Max is a wordsmith, a master of the subtle nuances of the English language, and his writing style, while he claims is a simple amalgamation of other writers, has become his trademark, his charm, and his ticket to stardom. If you don't believe me, read any of his stories...hilarity usually ensues. A famous journalist once said that if he did not seriously upset at least one of his readers, than he did not do his job. I fullheartedly agree, consensus does not belong anywhere near my blog, or any major media outlet for that matter. I consider journalism to be the evolution of the town hall meeting, the pow wow for modern times if you will. To my readers: take advantage of the great print media and blogs in this country and educate yourself on the issues that matter. If you tremble with fear at the thought of an expanding executive branch, read the Washington Times and understand the rationale behind wiretapping. If you are curious about events in Iran, read about the global nuclear standoff and potential solutions in the New York Times. Or if you are interested to hear what a 21 year old college student thinks about all of these things, with ambitious optimistic eyes wide open, sarcasm and wit in all-you-can eat trays, and a great sense of pride that is overly exposed and paraded, then I recommend coming back here...

Rove's Republican Plan: Satanic Verses?

2006-01-26T21:02:00.000-08:00

With full respect to Salman Rushdie, perhaps Karl Rove's new Republican strategy should be the Satanic verses that we consider in this day and age. Rove's plan is fairly simplistic: Republicans should capitalize on two things--tax cuts as one, but more importantly, their firm stance on national security and the war on terror (soon to be renamed the Long War...). Republicans have stressed how their vision of an expansionist executive branch has guaranteed American security in a post-9/11 world. Rove has stated that we are facing a "ruthless enemy" and "need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in.". According to Rove, Bush realizes this grave threat to America....and Democrats do not. Most Democrats, according to Rove, have neither the nerve nor the competency to lead America in this dark time. Most? Does Rove give some credit to the left? Well, enough to drive a stake through his opposition come November. Rove cites the Democrats recent purge of Republican corruption and the K Street fiasco as simply sidestepping the real issues at hand, namely the threat to the American way of life from Islamic militants and the still perceived "Axis of Evil". Democrats whine about Medicare and Sam Alito while Republicans win the war on terror. I forgot, but isn't John McCain leading the charge against Campaign finance reform? It is a breath of fresh air to know that there are some sensible Conservatives (well, political moderates) on the Hill that realize the pertinent issues to this country other than this war on terror. Since when is national security not a priority for the Democratic party? In his fanatical pursuit of national security, Rove has threatened our way of life in the name of protecting our way of life. With the NSA requesting Google search information and the Bush Administration admitting to using warrentless surveillance, this administration has proven that they are willing to compromise the Constitution, the document President Bush swore to protect. I think its bold to claim that even Republicans agree with Rove's plan. Why do I always feel that al-Qaeda is overestimated and the war on terror has been blown out of proportion? In 3 years of war, the United States has lost roughly 2,200 soldiers; while this is tragic, it pales in comparison to past conflicts. 54,000 US soldiers died in that time during the Korean War. Terrorism simply cannot win this war. They have neither the resources nor the capabilities to inflict the damage Osama bin-Laden has proclaimed (something along the lines of 4 million dead Americans would make things "square"). If Republicans want to address national security, look to China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Within the next decade or two, China will equal if not surpass US production. And with the largest military in the world, I foresee more problems with China than Islamic militants in Central Asia and the Middle East. How is America going to continue spending freely and ignore events in East Asia? Palestine and Israel are blips on the radar screen compared to the possibility of the powder keg in the Orient, with a surging China, a paranoid and volatile North Korea, an independently thinking South Korea, and a Japan with aspirations to return to greatness. If there's a possibility for massive conflict and global disaster, there's your winner. Where's your plan for World War III Karl Rove? I shudder to think what kind of rhetoric Satan would come up with then. But that's not even the point. The point is that Democrats realize the urgency and immediate concern for terrorism, but they are not limiting nor ignoring their own agenda in pursuit of an elusive and tepid threat. Their concern is for the welfare of the American people, protecting them from both attacks on their homes from terrorists and on their liberty from the government. Rove did the Democratic Party a huge favor by outlining his parties strategy for the fall. That's 10 months for the Democrats to gather, unite, and strategize. A bold action deserves a bold response; time for the Dems to bite the bullet.

Anti-Abortion Marches in Washington DC

2006-01-23T23:36:00.000-08:00

OK, I have heard enough...I can't stand listening and reading about religious zealots who think the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court spells the end of Roe Vs. Wade. These people are demented. Take Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), who commented on the gloomy Washington DC day by exclaiming that he thought that it was "God's way of cleansing the world". I have never been a fan of religious people, and its because of statements like this. While Alito and newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts have not explicitly stated they intended to overturn the past decision, they have expressed their reservations of its ruling in the past. With the nomination of Alito to the Supreme Court, many anti-abortionists believe that the Conservative majority will finally have enough votes to overturn the case that legalized abortion in the United States. Many anti-abortionists are given a renewed sense of hope that God has given them their moment of vindication. Excuse my French, but this is fucking ludicrous, and I have two words to justify why: stare decisis, the legal principle that states that past legal decisions become precedent in the future. There is a reason why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing abortion in the mid-1970s. To remove this right, guaranteed by the Constitution, is another attempt by the Bush administration to bring old American values back to this country and bring America back to righteous bliss, when it was unadulterated and pure. President Bush gave a statement in Kansas today, saying that we should strive to fight for "the unborn child without a voice". His argument is that of every other anti-abortionist: the right to live, under every circumstance, is the right and indirect obligation of every human being. Interesting, I smell the Terri Schiavo case right now...wasn't this the same argument Terri Schiavo's family was making while she was enjoying her tasty IV from her hospital bed in her vegetative state (I was about to say extreme vegetative state until I realized that you can't get much more vegetative than vegetative). This is something I dealt with in a past post, check it out here. The anti-abortionist's pro-life conservative religious extremist view is narrow, shallow, and uncompromising. Its downfall is that it is based on religious dogma and not the knowledge of modern science, society, and conscience. It simply does not follow the changes of modern thinking and the dynamics of modern time. Justice Blackmun, who wrote the opinion for Roe Vs Wade cited that anti-abortion laws were "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage" with criminalization of abortion mostly occurring from law enacted in the latter half of the 19th century. This archaic mindset simply does not account for dire circumstances that can arise. For every teenage girl who wants to erase a past mistake, there is a rape victim or a person who is in such physical pain that life simply is not worth living anymore. But even this rationale is irrelevant. This might not even be an issue about morality but about liberty. This would not be a victory for God and the righteous; this would be a victory for the ever-growing government and their desire to intrude upon our everyday lives. The way I see it, by removing a woman's right to choose, the government is taking another step toward domination and direction of our everyday lives, instructing us on what our morality is, defining our priorities, and explaining what are limited options are for the future.

If you love Hawaii, read this...

2006-01-22T12:01:00.000-08:00

If you love Hawaii as much as I do and you have been there before, you will understand and appreciate this piece: From the Washington Post, January 22 2006: A Shore Thing by Bill Thomas It would not be a vacation! Never mind the palm trees, sandy beaches and all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet. It would be work. At least that's what I kept telling my wife when I found out I'd be going to Hawaii. "Oh, come on," she said. "Nobody works in Hawaii." After checking with a friend of mine who used to live in Honolulu, it turned out my wife might have been right. People in Hawaii don't work, he told me, or, if they do, they make sure to leave plenty of time for all the things Hawaii is famous for, like having fun. I'd never been to Hawaii, though I had thought about it. Who hasn't? So when I was asked to moderate a Defense Department conference at a hotel on Waikiki Beach, it was obvious the time had come. The two-day conference would be like hundreds of others that go on all the time in Washington, except this one was on Oahu, which is about as far outside the Beltway as you can go and still be in the United States. In getting ready for the trip, I was advised to prepare myself for a completely different reality. "Hawaii is just the opposite of Washington," said the friend who had lived there. "No one cares what you do or where you come from as long as your heart's in the right place." In Hawaii, he explained, "the right place" usually means the beach. Soon I was paying daily visits to Surfline, a Web site featuring weather forecasts for the prime surfing spots worldwide, from Zarutz in Spain to Santa Cruz in California (the closest to serious surfing I've ever been) to the North Shore of Oahu, home of the legendary Banzai Pipeline . . . Aloha, this is Kurt with the report for Sunset Beach Wednesday. Surf: 4-5 ft. with occasional 6 ft. Lumpy and bumpy but rideable. Sunny skies this afternoon. Northeast groundswell due late tomorrow . . . Surfline's motto is "Know before you go" -- information about wave conditions being the surfer's best friend -- and the North Shore, which Kurt was talking about, has some of the biggest waves in the world. Sunset Beach, I noticed, was hosting a $50,000 surfing competition the same week I'd be in Hawaii. I couldn't miss that. Three days before takeoff time, I downloaded the Ventures' greatest hits, including the theme from "Hawaii Five-O," anthem of TV's most righteous cop, played by Jack Lord, whose single-minded dedication to law and order meant wrongdoers were going down, as in, "Book 'em, Danno." But every reverberating twang and aquatic gurgle in the Ventures' repertoire of classics only reminded me of what a landlocked guy I'd become, surfing the Internet and hanging ten behind a desk. Suddenly, getting away from Washington, getting far away, seemed like the best idea in the world. My Hawaiian holiday, I decided, would be my own personal, if somewhat belated, surfin' safari. The plane was packed, but I came prepared for the nine-hour flight with a copy of From Here to Eternity. James Jones's novel, set on pre-World War II Oahu, was so thoroughly confused in my mind with the 1953 movie version of the book it was hard to turn the pages without seeing Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr kissing in the sand. Maybe that's what I was looking for, a romantic escape to someplace so exotic it might as well be fiction. Not that I'm the romantic type. But why else was I reading this book? Shortly after the seat-belt light went out, I was hooked, just as I had been the first time I read it. Jones had thwarted American manhood down cold. Pvt. Robert E. Lee Prewitt and all the other soldiers at Schofield Barracks wouldn't know what to do without the Army telling them, except when they got lucky and won enough money playing cards for a wild weekend in Honolulu. Which was nothing compared with what Sgt. Warden (Lancaster) and Capt. Holmes's wife (Kerr) were up to. "What are you doing?" she cried at him frantically. "I'm leaving," Warden said. "Wasn't that what you wanted?" "Don't you want me either?" Now what the hell, he thought. "Sure," he said. "Hell yes. I thought you wanted me to leave." "I do," she said, "if you want to. Go ahead. I don't want to force you into anything . . . I don't blame you a bit. Why would you want to stay? . . . There's nowhere in the world I'm needed." "You're needed," Warden said, coming back and sitting down by her. "In this world beautiful women are needed more than any other thing." Two chapters from the end, I looked out the window, and there were the Hawaiian Islands, like lush green mountaintops rising from the Pacific. Ten thousand feet above Oahu, I could see Honolulu, first Diamond Head high above the city, then the pastel-colored hotels along Waikiki Beach, and then, as the plane circled to land, Pearl Harbor. Probably like many people coming here for the first time, I imagined Japanese dive bombers swooping in from the north to attack the Pacific Fleet. In the distance was the USS Arizona Memorial on the spot where the sunken battleship had been anchored. But Pearl Harbor stayed in view less than a minute before we touched down and taxied to our gate under a big red "Aloha" sign. Because Honolulu is a tourist destination and one of the most expensive cities on Earth, the meter is always running, yet you don't get the feeling that everyone's after your money. Even the car rental people, decked out in shorts and sandals, were so mellow they could have been at the beach. And since it was mid-afternoon -- only three hours by the clock after we'd left the East Coast -- that's where I went. Conveniently one just happened to be located right next door to my hotel. From my room on the 12th floor, Waikiki looked almost deserted. With daylight fading fast, I tossed my bags on the bed and put on a bathing suit. Hawaiian sunsets in late October don't last long, and by the time I got to the water it occurred to me that swimming in the dark might seem a little desperate. Just the same, it felt good to spend a few minutes in the Pacific, even if my pale arms and legs screamed that I'd just arrived from the mainland. In From Here to Eternity, downtown Honolulu was the place everyone went looking for a good time. The problem was that downtown Honolulu had moved in the half-century since the book came out. Old downtown "is kind of shady," the concierge said. On the other hand, if I wanted to risk it, he said, Chinatown, which was still there, had some great places to eat. How shady could that be? And off I went. The dive bars and hotels James Jones wrote about had been abandoned long ago; in fact Chinatown looks like Detroit with palm trees. But the food at the Glowing Dragon restaurant was delicious, especially the shark fin soup. "Give you big energy," said the waitress. That I could use. The conference was scheduled to start at 8 a.m. the next day. The program said "business casual," clearly a term of little or no use in Hawaii, where casual seems to be the everyday rule. Half the men in the audience showed up wearing Hawaiian shirts. "Where's yours?" asked a woman in the front row. Having been here for such a short time, I didn't feel I'd earned the right to wear one, I told her. "Sure you can," she said, "Everybody does." She recommended a nearby store, and I wrote down the address. "We call them 'aloha shirts,'" she said. Sitting through a half-dozen speeches on military base closings and the impact of new Pentagon budget cuts, I planned how I'd spend the rest of my day. By 3:30 I was at Bailey's Antiques & Aloha Shirts on Kapahulu Avenue, several blocks from the beach. There didn't seem to be any tourists around, except me, and dressed in a coat and tie I must have looked like the neighborhood wacko. Bailey's not only carries aloha shirts of every color and design, it also sells hula girl lamps, palm-tree ashtrays and pineapple-shaped Christmas ornaments. "Shirts are what people come for," said Deena, the saleswoman. Actor Nicolas Cage, a Bailey's fan, once pulled up on a Harley and spent $5,000 on two shirts. Cage liked the vintage 1950s styles; taped to the cash register is a snapshot of him wearing one. I'm going to the North Shore, I told Deena, who took me to a display of expensive "Endless Summer" shirts with various scenes from the renowned surfing movie in color combinations that would have freaked out Gauguin. They're nice, I agreed, but I was looking for something in the $50-and-under range. "You're an XL," she said, pointing to a rack of used shirts in the far corner. There's nothing wrong, Deena assured me, with wearing used aloha shirts, which get passed down from person to person, accumulating more aloha spirit with each owner. I picked out a black one decorated with blue, green and orange banana leaves. Deena guessed I would be the second or third person to own it. "Lots of aloha in this." I didn't wear the shirt to the conference the next day. Maybe I hadn't gotten Washington completely out of my system, but with no tan and still coming to grips with the spirit of aloha, it just didn't feel right. The woman who had recommended Bailey's looked a little disappointed. Day Two went by quickly. The highlight was a speech by Yuri Maltsev, an economist who had defected from the Soviet Union in 1989. Several years ago, Maltsev told us, he was in San Diego and ran into a former cosmonaut who was driving a taxi. The man liked his new life in California and didn't see his job as a comedown after being in space. He made more money, he said, and it was a pleasure to drive something that really worked. I got up early the next morning and, after a breakfast of crushed pineapple and coffee, began driving north. With the "working" part of my vacation over, I felt like a free man. Maybe the aloha shirt helped, but so did the open road, which followed the mountains that divide Oahu into a windward side, where it rains a lot, and a leeward side, where I was, that's usually sunny. A half-hour out of Honolulu, I turned off Route 99 and into Schofield Barracks. At the gate one of the guards asked where I was going. "This might sound strange," I replied. "I came to see some of the places in From Here to Eternity." It happens all the time, he said. He checked the trunk and waved me in. James Jones served in the 25th Infantry Division during World War II and was stationed at Schofield before shipping out for the South Pacific. He wrote From Here to Eternity after the war. When it was published, in 1951, it became an immediate bestseller and two years later was made into a movie. Driving through the base, I began to notice buildings and backdrops that appeared in the film. In the quadrangle where much of the movie was shot, everything about the place looked familiar: the manicured lawns and parade grounds, the enlisted men's quarters. This is where Frank Sinatra, who won an Oscar for his role as Pvt. Angelo Maggio, was sweeping the sidewalk when Prewitt, played by Montgomery Clift, first arrived at G Company. Up on the roof is where Burt Lancaster as Sgt. Warden, the epitome of a soldier for life, grabbed a machine gun and started firing at Japanese planes on their way to bomb Wheeler Field. The barracks' museum has a wall devoted to Jones. I picked up a brochure that read: "A young infantry man named James Jones wrote an epic novel of those early days as he recovered from his battle injuries years later. From Here to Eternity became an American classic." I was surprised that only one of the nine or 10 soldiers I talked to had ever heard of Jones's novel -- and he had never read it. It could be that the problems of GIs in the old Army aren't that interesting to today's high-tech fighting men. Over in the barracks' recreation room, a soldier was playing a video war game with sound effects that made it seem like the real thing. "Unit destroyed!" a recorded voice boomed every time he hit a target. Jones wrote other books, many of them about World War II, but nothing to match From Here to Eternity. My guess is that Hawaii had something to do with it. In a way it was his paradise lost; nothing would be the same after Pearl Harbor, which gave him the perfect turning point in a story about men with a score to settle. Coming to Schofield was like visiting a part of America that no longer exists. From Here to Eternity was Jones's postwar analysis of life's basic pleasures and responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities, so obvious when Jones was a young soldier, such as doing an honest day's work and fighting for your country, have been debated and redefined many times since. As for the pleasures, they've hardly changed, and Hawaii still has plenty of them to offer. Back on the road, I remembered something Jones had written about the two Hawaiis, the fake one for visitors, "this happy land . . . the tourists saw from the outside," and the real one inhabited by the people who live here. With the real Hawaii said to be rapidly disappearing, finding what's left of it, I was told, can be a challenge, particularly on Oahu. But the farther north I drove, the closer I seemed to come to the Hawaiian reality Jones had in mind, or, if not, something very different from Honolulu. There were little villages in the hills, and people selling shrimp and pineapple along the road. I bought a $3 bag of pineapple chunks (plastic fork included) from a man operating out of the trunk of his car, under which several chickens had gathered for a siesta. "They're wild," he said. "And you should see them go crazy when there's a mongoose around." Chickens aren't the only ones. Oahu apparently has a big mongoose problem. The weasel-like creatures were imported years ago to help control the island's rat population. But rats are nocturnal and mongooses hunt by day, which means the two most likely have never met. It gets worse: The mongooses have been dining on some of Hawaii's rare birds. The small beach towns along the coast appear to be populated entirely by surfers. There were surfers in gas stations, surfers in grocery stores, surfers everywhere; male surfers, female surfers, young surfers, middle-aged surfers and senior-citizen surfers; surfers of every race and shade of tan, living in sync with the rhythms of the ocean, which is what brought them here in the first place. Waimea Bay fills a rugged cove at the foot of the mountains. Just up the road is a Catholic church, and as I pulled into the dirt parking lot next door, I noticed a sun-bleached statue of Christ wearing a lei, the ideal place to pray for surf. From the beach down below I got my first close-up look at the waves, which were so rough only a few surfers had the nerve to go out. The competition was several miles away at Sunset, but with so much "wind slop," as an off-duty lifeguard called it, there wouldn't be any "money surfing" today. When I told him it was my first trip to the North Shore, he gave me some safety tips. "Never turn your back on the ocean," he warned, telling me about a man and woman who were walking along the beach recently when they were caught by a wave. The man was saved, but the woman was never heard from again. What about sharks? I asked. "Sharks are like dogs," he said. "If you're not afraid, they won't bother you." But sharks are just one hazard, and for surfers they're not very high on the list. The waves can be deadly. Pushed up by winds that sweep down from Alaska, they are not to be taken lightly. A surfer can easily be killed if he wipes out on a coral reef. The best surfers are as fearless as bullfighters, the lifeguard said. And this time of year when breakers can reach heights of 20 feet, they put their lives on the line every time they ride one. The competition had been called off, but there were still a few participants gathered on the beach at Sunset. "This is the Mount Everest of surfing," said Rainos Hayes, coach of a team sponsored by Billabong, surfing's equivalent of L.L. Bean. Today, however, was a disappointment. "I'd give it . . . a two," declared Hayes. Heads nodded. "Rainos talks, people listen," said Guy Frazier, a surfboard designer who stopped by to hit the waves before going back to work. "I try to get in two or three hours every day . . . You surf?" When I admitted I hadn't in some time, Frazier frowned. "I guess you don't live around here." I said I was from Washington, which elicited what sounded like a gasp. He called the place "far out," then proceeded to list some of its many shortcomings, including a connection to "the industrialized, imperialist, capitalist world" he'd given up on when he moved to the North Shore after a hitch in the Army at Schofield. A respiratory therapist by training, Frazier, whose thinning sandy hair and beat-up wetsuit said he'd spent a good part of his life at the beach, thanked "the universe, or whatever, for directing me toward surfing." You're lucky, I said, promising I'd be back the next day. "Hey, if you want to surf, I'll give you a board." My brief encounter with surfing had consisted of a handful of summer weekends in California, where I lived in the 1960s. As a sport, surfing never appealed to me as much as the way of life surrounding it had, the laid-back beach culture, the goofy language and music, all of which made surfing the greatest babe magnet the West Coast had ever seen. Getting on a surfboard now would be suicidal, I thought, but watching surfers out on the waves made it seem worth the risk, until one of them flipped head over heels and I came to my senses. The times had changed, but surfing hadn't, and on the North Shore nothing short of an explosion in seaside development -- a remote possibility in this eco-obsessed area -- could alter the local way of life. The place is a tropical time warp. The cares of Washington -- terrorism, the trade deficit, the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court --make no sense. Here, no one seems to have anything more important to do than hang out, talk about the ocean and surf. That could get boring eventually, but it's hard to think of a better place for getting bored. At the Sharks Cove Grill, a roadside trailer with picnic tables, two women were drinking Kona coffee and talking about living on the mainland for a couple of years before moving back to the islands. One said she had a hard time being anywhere that's not 84 degrees and sunny every day. I could see her point. Why not live here? I've done crazier things, though not in a while. And besides, what was crazy about it? Later on, walking along the beach and trying to imagine how moving to Hawaii would change my life, I ran into a guy named Larry, playing with his dog, who said he also fell hopelessly in love with the place his first time. "I got addicted." Since then, he's been a cop, a store manager and a counselor for troubled youth -- "whatever it takes" to stay on the North Shore, he said, where he lives next to the ocean in a "studio garage." I went back to Honolulu and returned to the North Shore the following morning. The surfing competition was postponed again. Wave conditions hadn't changed much. But I had. Part of me was ready to pull up stakes and follow in Larry's footsteps. Who cares about living in a studio garage in these surroundings? Of course, I'd have to convince my wife first, which wouldn't be easy. Also, without any marketable skills in a place fixated on going to the beach, economic survival might be an issue. I searched for answers over a tuna burger at the Sharks Cove, where, after two visits, I was starting to feel like a regular. The best solution I could come up with -- and my wife wasn't likely to go for it -- was selling everything we owned. Sunset Beach was virtually empty, except for some sunbathers. The waves, puny by professional standards, were still impressive. Two hundred feet offshore, four surfers were bobbing up and down, waiting for breakers. As I took in the scene, I saw one of them heading into shore. He introduced himself as Steve Howells. We started talking about the surfing life, which he'd been pursuing for the past decade from South Africa to the South Pacific. "Searching for the perfect wave," he sighed, noting that the surfer's lot is never to be in one place very long. "I'm Welsh. It's my fate to wander." Howells said in his spare time he writes music inspired by the sea. We walked to his car, and he gave me a copy of his latest CD, "Into the Blue." When I confessed I'd been thinking about moving to Hawaii, he admitted that he'd been thinking about leaving to seek new adventures. "Play this," he said. "Maybe it'll inspire you." I can't say that it did, but listening to the CD the next morning as I drove around Honolulu did make me realize how little impact the Ventures and their twangy guitars had had on the sound of today's surfing music, which comes across like a cosmic tsunami. Before starting for the airport, I had to see the secluded beach, near the Blowhole, where Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr played the most romantic scene in movie history. Maybe it would help me resolve my Hawaii problem, get me thinking like Sgt. Warden, whose devotion to duty finally saved him from falling for Mrs. Holmes and taking the worst nosedive of his life. When I got to what looked like the right location, I asked a lifeguard just to be sure. "That scene in 'From Here to Eternity,' didn't it take place around here?" "Yeah, right over there," he said, motioning to a narrow stretch of sand and coral. The surf was too choppy to stage a reenactment, even if I'd had a stand-in for Deborah Kerr, but somehow just being here helped. Was I chasing an illusion, some hopeless love, the same way Sgt. Warden chased the captain's wife? Had I fallen for Hawaii and gotten in over my head? The more I thought about it, the more obvious it became. What the hell was wrong with me? I'm no surfer. I'm not even sure I've got the makings of a good beach bum. I don't belong in Hawaii. It was a good thing I did this, I thought. Thank you, James Jones. Now I could fly home in peace. At the airport, with an hour to kill, I was browsing for something to read on the plane. Flipping through some souvenir calendars, I made a startling discovery. There, in beautiful color, illustrating the month of July 2006, was a photograph of "the beach made famous in 'From Here to Eternity'"-- and it wasn't the beach where I'd just been! That lifeguard lied. Wait a minute. So what if it was the wrong beach? As much as I hated to admit it, the romance was finished. Sure, I'd be back, but any long-term commitment was out of the question. It's better that way. For me . . . and Hawaii. (BLOGGERS NOTE: That beach from From Here to Eternity was actually in Monterey, where I am originally from...interesting.)

Viva Cuba!

2006-01-20T19:12:00.000-08:00

Today the US Treasury Department allowed the Cuban national team to participate in the World Baseball Classic this March in the United States. The World Baseball Classic, brainchild of Major League Baseball Comissioner Bud Selig, will feature 16 teams from around the world. Cuba, winner of the past two olympic gold medals in baseball, should be one of those 16 teams. Thank God the US Government did not screw this one up. I know President Bush has an affinity towards baseball, but somehow this World Baseball Classic would have not been the same had the United States not allowed Cuba to participate. And I don't say that because there are many famous Major Leaguers from Cuba. I believe that sports is and should always remain unadulterated. Sports are pure, simple, and in the end a passtime. There is a universal truth to sports; that anyone with the right amount of determination and training can hit a home run or shoot the winning basket. Sports should always remain free from politics. In the 1998 World Cup, the United States played Iran, much to the chagrin of the Arab world. Op/Ed pieces talked about increased tension between Iran and the United States following the game, and how the players represented two different worlds. But really, how different were they? Sure, they spoke two different languages, came from two different cultures, and had different hometowns, but they all were united through a universal equalizer: soccer. There is something relieving and refreshing about making life, with all of its complications and complexities, simple for 90 minutes. War, religion, poltical strife, and domestic policy get put aside and the only goal is to score that goal. Que bella! I love sports. I love the olympics. I love how it brings people together. And even though we have our alliegances to our respective teams, in the end sports bring us together on one team.

In defense of warrantless surveilance (care to read?)

2006-01-20T14:33:00.000-08:00

From Investors Business Daily, January 19 2006 The Real Threat War On Terror: After reading the latest message from al-Qaida, in a tape purportedly from Osama bin Laden himself, our only fear about presidential power is that it's not being used enough. Bin Laden, if in fact that's who it was, actually has done our nation something of a favor. By taping a message that warns of an attack by his followers on American soil, he has helped put the debate about warrantless wiretaps and other supposed excesses of the Bush administration in proper perspective. Let's start with the obvious: Al-Qaida aims to kill Americans, while George W. Bush claims broad powers to tap our overseas phone calls. So far, al-Qaida has killed close to 3,000 in the U.S., while there is no confirmed case of a wiretap hurting anyone. Al- Qaida can blow us up. The National Security Agency can eavesdrop. So which is the greater threat? Also, the latest tape implies that bin Laden or other al-Qaida leaders are in contact with operatives in the U.S., plotting a new attack. This being the 21st century, we can assume they are in touch via electronic means such as cell phones rather than, say, semaphore flags or carrier pigeons. We hope the feds are tapping those phone calls. We fear that crucial calls will go undetected. With a little work, we could construct a scenario in which our fears are unfounded and we can spend our time fretting instead about alleged abuses of presidential power. Bin Laden might be bluffing, or the voice on the tape might not be his at all. Al-Qaida might be too weak or disrupted to strike the U.S. Reports from Pakistani sources suggest that the missile strike last week in the border village of Damadola killed several top al-Qaida operatives, if not the No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The organization's top bomb maker, Midhat Mirsi, may have been among those killed. If all this is true, the strike initially written off as a failure turns out to be a major victory. On the other hand, even a weakened al-Qaida can be dangerous. Its cells in the U.S. might be ready to act even if bin Laden, Mirsi and Zawahiri are all dead. And the new tape, which appears to have been made sometime in December, drops an ominous hint. It offers a truce, just as a tape before the July 7 bombings in London offered a truce to Europe. Al-Zawahiri later said the London attack was carried out because that truce was not accepted. Again, this could just be smoke, signifying weakness. But should we bet on that and let down our guard? Should Bush give in to the ACLU, The New York Times, Al Gore and other worthies who want a diminished presidency just when a strong presidency is needed? We sense that most Americans would opt for the prudent course and give Bush the free rein he needs, just in case al-Qaida has the means and opportunity to act. As long as we are at war — and the latest tape reminds us that we are — we must insist that the president make full use of the war powers inherent in his constitutional role as commander in chief. If he does any less, he's not doing his job.

Mr. Bush: How about finding Bin Laden...

2006-01-20T14:26:00.000-08:00

From the Palm Beach Post, January 17 2006 The letter "Bush's reason for espionage simple; Democrats don't get it" (Jan. 2) is typical, party-line Bush administration propaganda and smearing of anyone who disagrees. The bombers of the Twin Towers could have been caught without any wiretapping. There were many leads that were overlooked by uncoordinated administration officials. President Bush took office in January 2001, and the bombing took place on Sept. 11, 2001, leaving eight months for the new administration to get its act together. Would the writer of this letter favor wiretapping the White House in trying to find out why, after four years, Osama bin Laden has not been captured? He was the one who attacked us, not Saddam Hussein. Why were our efforts to capture bin Laden stopped and switched to Iraq? Donald Trump, in an interview in the August Esquire magazine, stated that he would fire George W. Bush if he worked for him. Mr. Trump added that if he were in charge, bin Laden would have been caught a long time ago. He said: "Tell me, how is it possible that we can't find a guy who's six-foot-six and supposedly needs a dialysis machine? Can you explain that one to me?" Will wiretapping President Bush's telephone provide answers to these questions? The Democrats do get it.

A failure of Nerves?

2006-01-19T16:12:00.000-08:00

Today Professor Gregor cited that the current administration and the United States in general suffered from a "failure of nerves". Gregor was responding to the idea that the Bush administration was taking liberal steps to ignore Constitutional rights of US citizens by employing the NSA to use wiretaps and other devices without a warrant.

Gregor cited a time when fascism and totalitarianism posed a greater threat to this country than global terrorism does today, explaining that it was through bold decisions such as the carpet bombing of major cities in Germany and Japan that won the war, despite the millions of innocent civilians killed. Professor Gregor explained that the failure of American foreign policy following World War II can be explained by a failure of nerves: US forces were unwilling to use the atom bomb or attack Communist Chinese bases in Manchuria during the Korean War and they were unwilling to fully commit to a large war in Vietnam. Most blatant of this failure of nerves was the air war over Kosovo, where the Clinton Administration was more concerned with popularity at home rather than effective military action on the ground. The loss of American lives could not be handled because of the reprucussions at home. The top priority of every politician is to be reelected, and this became more evident in US policy abroad since World War II.

Gregor compared the current Bush strategy of liberal bending of Constitutional rights of suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathizers with the Japanese internment during World War II, in which thousands of loyal Americans were removed from their homes on the west coast and placed in concentration camps for the duration of the war. Gregor explained that this was a necessity for national security, and an iron resolve on part of the Roosevelt administration helped win the war.

What? Now I don't know if I had the nerve in lecture at 9 in the morning, but I should have raised my hand and retorted. The internment of Japanese Americans was the first large scale violation of Constitutional rights in the United States; a blatant and racist effort to separate an alien group of Americans because of their ethnic relation to Imperial Japanese forces who were advancing in East and Southeast Asia.

This was done because of the threat of espionage, which was cited as a main reason for the sucess of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. However, there was not one act of espionage recorded throughout the war in both the Continental United States and Hawaii, even with Japanese nationals living in the Hawaiian islands. Clearly, their loyalty to this country was questioned because of their heritage. Many Japanese Americans were eager to prove their alliegance to this country, joining the military and forming the most decorated military unit in the history of the United States. They did this modestly, simply asking that the country recognize that just because they were ethnically Japanese did not make them any less American.

Today we see instances of these Constitutional infractions as a result of Bush's War on Terror. Racial profiling had existed as a policy the Department of Transportation had advocated until Director Norman Mineta, a Japanese American and former resident of an internment camp during World War II, ordered that airlines could not "discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or nationality". All were subject to increased airline security, as it should have been.

Is it a failure of nerves or a reassessment of our own morality that explains the change in American policy abroad and domestically? Gregor remembered being outraged after Pearl Harbor, eagerly waiting until he turned 17 so he could join the military. He asked why he has seen no such response today after September 11th. Were we not outraged by this blatant attack on our country?

I, along with almost every other American, am outraged by September 11th. It was an act of cowardice and infamy, and it remains a defining event in this post-Cold War era. But I realize that we must be cautious with our fight for national security and global freedom. Terrorism seeks to compromise our own values, to create distrust and strife in our own society. We must not allow them to win. With President Bush allowing the NSA to violate our Constitutional rights, he has already done what Al-Qaeda desires: to remove what is American about us as Americans.

President Clinton appologized to Japanese Americans for the grave mistake the United States made sixty years before. Since the end of the war, Congress has worked hard to protect the Constitutional rights of its own citizens, even during times of war. Senator Daniel Inouye, a Japanese American who volunteered to fight during the war and lost his arm, fought to ensure that what had happened to fellow Japanese Americans would not happen again. It was not nerves that led to the internment of Japanese Americans, it was paranoia that was an inevitable result of full scale war.

Our nerves must be even stronger in this day and age, where our own livelyhood is being challenged. But perhaps its a different type of nerve that we must contend with and strive for; not the nerves a nation must stomach as it carpet bombs and destroys city after city in an enemy country, but the nerve to boldly stand by American values when they are challenged, to remain patriotic when the rest of the world despises us, and to speak out against injustice, both domestically and abroad. I see nerves with members of Congress who are outraged with President Bush's expansion of his presidential powers. I see nerves with protesters who are sickened with what is happening in Guantanamo Bay. Nerves protect our rights; without these rights, we cannot exist as a nation. Without these rights, we reduce ourselves to something far less than Americans: we become them, and then we lose.

Multi-religious?

2006-01-18T19:50:00.000-08:00

Its the beginning of another semester here at UC Berkeley. Amidst a sea of students, books, flyers, and noise an interesting point was brought up in my Human Rights class. Professor Zook brought up the idea of multi-culturalism, citing that these days people identify with multiple cultures or ethnicities. For example, I identify myself as a Korean American because I am an American by nationality but ethnically Korean. This is commonplace, especially in a diverse land like the United States. But then Professor Zook asked whether it was possible to be multi or poly-religious. We can imagine a Mexican-Italian American, but can we imagine a Buddhist-Muslim? Why does this idea seem preposterous to us? They say you learn something new or think about something uniquely fascinating every day, and this was my tidbit, food for my budding intellect. Why do I find it difficult to imagine an individual of multiple theological identity? I immediately thought about Life of Pi and its main character Pi Patel, who identifies himself as a Christian-Hindu-Muslim. Pi asks the same question Professor Zook asked, but quickly points out that all religion seeks a common truth: life should be lived with virtue and ethics. While religion often gets clouded with its ideals of supremacy and its omnipotent diety (or dieties), it looses sight of the fact that in the end its a set of morals and inspirational anecdotes to improve the lives of its followers. In this case, why can't one take the good and bad from each religion and form their own hybrid religion? This is what Pi did in the book, and it seems like a marvelous idea. Religion is fading in this age of modern technology and information. I think its time that religion takes a more adaptive approach, making it more appealing. Religion is stooped in history and procedure, making this even more difficult. Religious people are adament about definition: there is us, and then the rest. We are virtuous and right, everyone else is misinformed or ignorant, but worthy of being saved. By maintaining this close minded ideal, religion in general propogates the same segregated system. I suppose we need more pioneers like Pi Patel, who can fit Professor Zook's idea of a multi-religious individual, whose life is improved by the tenants of not one, but many different religions.

Iraq: Another Somalia?

2006-01-18T15:26:00.000-08:00

A recent Washington Post editorial compared the Iraq War to the 1993 war in Somalia, where 19 US soldiers were killed and over a hundred wounded fighting thousands of Somali militia in Mogadishu, made famous with the book and film Black Hawk Down. Scenes of dead US soldiers dragged through the streets by angry Somali mobs on CNN only exacerbated the situation and created great political pressure on the Clinton Administration to withdraw the US presence in the region. The editorial explained that the failure of the US expedition into Somalia arose from their lack of understanding and knowledge of the situation in Somalia. All the United States understood was an unstable African nation ruled by warlords who were controlling the supply of UN food shipments. What they did not understand was the deep rooted civil conflict that existed in Somalia; years of civil war had hardened the Clans in and around Mogadishu. This was a conflict that had existed decades before the United States arrived, what gave America the idea that they could somehow stop it? In fact, the arrival of American forces only angered the Somalis, who put aside their civil war and united to fight off the foreign invaders. Perhaps this is a testament to Somali nationalism, however skewed that might be. The same thing is happening in Iraq. With an increase in violence within the past two weeks, President Bush gave a statement explaining that these were Iraqi growing pains, simply part of the democratization process and a necessary side effect of freedom. How brazen, President Bush, that you can claim an understanding of such a deeply rooted conflict. Like Somalia, the Iraqi conflict today exists between Sunni and Shiite factions of Islam who have a vested interest in the creation of a new government in Iraq. This is not a conflict that grew from the invasion in 2003, or even the Gulf War. Steeped in philsophical differences, Sunni and Shiite Muslims have fought for over a thousand years. American forces, no matter how technologically or strategically superior, will not solve these issues in Iraq. These are historical and cultural issues that no fighter plane or tank can resolve. American missiles can destroy factories and bunkers, but they cannot destroy the collective will of a nation or a religion. American forces greatly underestimated the Somali's capability to fight. What they did not account for was the Somali's desire to maintain their way of life and their bold hatred of foreign invaders. The same is true in Iraq. Iraqi insurgents will continue to fight, if for anything because they will not allow a foreign nation to interfere with their own cultural issues. Two batallions were already ordered to withdraw from Iraq. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end. History has a funny way of repeating things. But I look at Iraq and I see a situation that cannot be resolved by US military forces. Only time and bloodshed unfortunately will bring some sort of conclusion to a thousand year struggle.

Martin Luther King Day

2006-01-17T00:43:00.000-08:00

Today is Martin Luther King Day, a day where we honor the greatest civil rights activist in the history of the United States. Dr. King adopted Gandhi's non-violent form of protest to convey his message of equality and brotherhood in the United States. He strove to end segregation and bridge the gaps created by years of racism and hatred. Did Dr. King set out what he wanted to accomplish? What was this "dream" everyone keeps talking about?

According to Dr. King, he wanted to see a world where black and white children could play in harmony, in a world where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

What saddens me about this day is how Dr. King's beautiful dream has been tainted or dishonored by impatience, hatred, and anger. Instead of brotherhood, America is still divided racially, with great economic inequality among minority populations in inner cities.

Two events come to mind when thinking about King's thwarted dream: the LA riots and the recent riots in Paris. The LA riots came about because of a lack of understanding and trust among LA's inner city black, Latino, and Korean populations, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people, the destruction of property and lives, and creating a sense of shock and urgency in America. The LA riots was a wake up call, letting Americans know that life for poor minorities and inner city folks was not OK. Hatred blinded these different minority groups, who fought each other instead of the malfunctioning system that had propogated their own plight.

The Paris riots more recently displayed the frustration and pain a minority group can express if put into a compromised situation in a country that neither trusts nor wants them. The French in particular have always been xenophobic and jingoistic, leading to the mistreatment of their large Arab and African populations within Paris. Pain simply produces more pain.

As I saw images of cars being torched in Paris, I thought to myself this is the worst way to bring about change. If an Arab in France wants to be seen as an equal, surely there is a better way to convey their frustration than on a car or a street light. What good does that do, to burn ones own neighborhood down? Its already downtrodden, don't make it any worse.

This might be brazen for me to say, being as I have never lived a life of poverty in a poor community. True, I suppose I am being the realist rather than the idealist.

Watching a video of the LA Riots, I saw interviews of black rioters and Korean merchants, both minorities struggling to survive in the same city under similar financial duress. However, the rioters blamed the Korean merchants for their dire situation, and the Koreans blamed the black rioters for their damaged stores and stolen merchandise.

Hatred and racism is a vicious cycle that propogates itself. Dr. King's dream was that all races could empathize with each other: only then could everyone understand universal suffering and pain. Perhaps this is the Buddhist in me, but pain and suffering is ultimately what unites all living things, including human beings.

My solution? Its bold to say I have one, but I have a humble suggestion: increase education towards understanding different ethnic groups and encourage diversity in all public endeavors. This should start from the bottom up, with school children and up through the working environment. Communities like LA should eliminate a black, Korean, or Latino brand from its own citizens. Fear leads to hate. Only when we stop fearing others because they are different then we can move forward as a community. Once this happens, these black or Korean citizens in Los Angeles lose their veil and become something higher and greater: an American. That's it, just American. The American that you and I are, united by the same American dream, which was Martin Luther King's dream: to live in a world without definition or arbitrary judgement, where one can succeed if they put their heart into it and work hard.

Marcus Vick: A Good Kid?

2006-01-11T20:41:00.000-08:00

Let me be up front with this: I hope Marcus Vick fails in all he does in life. OK, let me rephrase because that is a little acrimonious, even for a skeezer like Marcus Vick: until he reassesses his priorities and goals, this guy deserves no praise or sports accolades. How is Marcus Vick going to do what he did over the past few weeks and still expect to retain the dignity and respect he believes he deserves? Exhibit A: Freshman year at Virginia Tech, Marcus Vick is suspended for a year for holding a party with underage girls and is charged with having sexual relations with one of them. Strike one. Exhibit B: After gaining his starting position back, Vick decides its OK for star NCAA athletes to disobey the traffic laws in Virginia, and proceeds to pick up 9-10 speeding tickets, all with a suspended license. Um...Strike two. Exhibit C: During the 2006 Gator Bowl against West Virginia, Vick intentionally stomps on the leg of All American Elvis Dumervil. Great reflection of personality, character, sportsmanship, and teamwork. Strike three, you're out! Wait, exhibit D: Marcus Vick turns himself in after brandishing a gun against a group of teenagers. Strike four? With that, Marcus Vick was permanently kicked off the Virginia Tech football team, with the coach citing "a cumulative effect of legal infractions and unsportsmanlike play." In response, Vick nonchalantly replied, "Its not a big deal. I'll just move on to the next level, baby". What? How arrogant, conceded, and oblivious can an individual be? First off, you're not your brother Marcus. You have accomplished nothing, and are forecasted to accomplish nothing. According to ESPN analysis, Vick is predicted to be drafted late in the second day if at all. Not the number one draft pick his brother Michael was a few years ago. What bothers me about a guy like Marcus Vick was that he was told throughout his life that he was a good kid despite a horrible attitude and horrendous acts of immaturity. Is this the example we want to display for our own society? That certain people are above the law and social standards because they can run fast or throw a ball far? Vick's coach would often refer to him as a "good kid" who was misunderstood or under immense pressure. I'm misunderstood and under immense pressure, but I would not even dream of stepping on an opponents body after a victory. That's disrespect, not only for your opponent as an adversary, but as a human being as well. Maybe we should consider reevaluating sports stars as heroes. Over the last playoff weekend, Redskins safety Sean Taylor spit in the face of Buccaneers running back Michael Pittman. These are the heroes our children should look up to? Screw the NFL United Way, if these are the guys building my house, I say no thanks. No thanks to burly ill-mannered barbarians who mistreat their wives and abuse their own bodies with substances most foul. No thanks to an athlete who climbs into the stands and attacks his own fans for taunting him. No thanks to a college athlete who thinks he is better than the school or team he/she plays for. And definitely no thanks to a society that condones such action, even though they know its wrong. Do the athletes of this world, even amateur and high school, deserve the credit they deserve. I admit, I admire athletic accomplishments because I realize the difficulty of such actions. But I will never give my respect to someone unless they deserve it, and someone who does not respect his/her own opponents or fans deserves no respect or praise. They don't deserve our respect, they must earn it, on and off the field. When we remember this fact, we cannot forgive a character like Marcus Vick. I hope Marcus Vick does not get drafted. I hope he sits at home this summer with no job prospect, no academic prospect, and no social prospect. And then I hope he realizes that perhaps he is not better than everyone else. That he should take responsibility for his actions. His life needs serious reevaluation. That his priorities should switch from being a hot head athlete to a person of reputation and character. If he wants respect and dignity, he should try earning it instead of hastily expecting it. How could he start down this path of redemption? He could start by doing something of great moral fiber: appologizing.

Quote from today's Washington Post

2006-01-10T19:48:00.000-08:00

"Before evolution produced creatures of our perfection, there was a three-ton dinosaur, the stegosaurus, so neurologically sluggish that when its tail was injured, significant time elapsed before news of the trauma meandered up its long spine to its walnut-size brain. This primitive beast, not the dignified elephant, should be the symbol of House Republicans"---George Will, Washington Post Columnist

Numbers Down at Japan's North Korean Schools

2005-12-28T21:03:00.000-08:00

From Yahoo News, December 28 2005 TOKYO - At a run-down Tokyo junior school, portraits of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il cast a watchful gaze over the pupils. But after the bell, the kids share frank opinions about the so-called Dear Leader. "Perhaps this is a little rude, but he's kind of fat," second grader Lee Miyong Hee says of the pudgy, bouffant-haired Kim. Second Chosen Elementary is one of some 120 schools in Japan funded by Kim's regime for emigre Korean families who live in Asia's richest capitalist society yet see the communist "workers' paradise" as their homeland. For decades, the schools indoctrinated the children in the glories of North Korea, the evils of Japanese imperialism and the revolutionary exploits of national founder Kim Il Sung, the "Beloved Father Marshal." But enrollment has fallen to 12,000 from 40,000 in the 1970s, parents are disenchanted, and the dream of one day returning to Chosen, as Korea is historically known, is dying. So the schools are phasing out the Kim-worship and dipping a toe in the Japanese mainstream. The change highlights deep changes in an enigmatic minority that has stood by North Korea through the Korean War, the Cold War and the entrenchment of one of the world's most rigid and secretive dictatorships. "If we kept doing it the old way, parents won't send their children here," laments the Second Chosen's principal, Song Hyon Jin. Some 600,000 ethnic Koreans among 127 million Japanese, most of them descendants of people who moved here voluntarily or by force during Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula. About 200,000 are affiliated with Pyongyang, the largest concentration of North Koreans outside the homeland or China. Their residents' association, Chongryon, functions as a de facto embassy because Japan and North Korea have no diplomatic ties. Its walled compound is guarded by police. In recent years, Its offices have been firebombed by right-wing extremists, and its members treated like social pariahs. Now it is being dunned by the state-backed collection agency over bad debts, while Second Chosen is fighting to stop the Tokyo city government from taking over its playground, which stands on public land. The relationship has always been prickly; Japanese society shuns outsiders, and many of its Koreans have refused Japanese citizenship out of loyalty to their homeland. In this fraught situation, the schools have long been an anchor of Korean identity. Classes are led in the Korean language, pupils wear traditional dress and teachers train annually in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital. The high school rite of passage is a ferry trip to the impoverished North. Pyongyang has also used the schools to build a loyal base that rakes in tens of millions of dollars a year from Korean businesses in Japan. The schools are so important to North Korea that it has paid $380 million since 1957 to keep classes running. But today's Koreans in Japan are mostly third- or fourth-generation, barely speak Korean, are taking Japanese citizenship in growing numbers, and don't read much Karl Marx. "We have eyes and ears and can decide for ourselves what the truth is," said Che Heng Sun, 41, mother of a Second Chosen first grader. "Love for one's country is good, but there is a better way to teach it." The loyalty started fading in the 1990s when North Korea's economy flatlined and famines killed an estimated 2 million. Then, in 2002, Kim Jong Il shocked the world by admitting North Korean agents had been kidnapping Japanese citizens to train communist spies. Kang Chang Hun, Chongryon's education chief, acknowledged the waning interest but blames it on the money shortage. Annual subsidies from Pyongyang are half what they were in the 1990s, meaning school fees at Second Chosen have risen to about $800 a year. Second Chosen had to hold a flea market this year just to buy a new videocassette recorder. Another problem is that most Japanese public universities and employers do not recognize the schools' diplomas. "Most people think their families will never return to North Korea," history teacher Kim Song O said. "They want an education that will prepare them for lives in Japan." So out went the parables about Kim Jong Il; in came computers, South Korean history and Japanese language. Some schools have taken down Kim Jong Il's pictures, while others have traded in traditional Korean garb for blue blazers.

Men and Women: Friends?

2005-12-28T17:49:00.000-08:00

From When Harry Met Sally: Harry: You realize of course that we could never be friends Sally: Why not? H: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way. S: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved H: No you don't. You only think you do. S: You say I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge? H: No, what I'm saying is they all WANT to have sex with you. S: They do not. H: Do too. S: How do you know? H: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her. S: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive? H: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too. S: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU? H: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story. S: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then. H: Guess not Question: Do you agree with Harry or not? My friends know my opinion. Whats yours?

50th post and retrospect

2005-12-18T12:29:00.000-08:00

This is my 50th post. Since I started this blog in November of last year, I have documented everything from the political situation in the Korean peninsula to my adventures in Washington DC to my thoughts on religion and philosophy. What does it all add up to? Does my blog have a theme? Some have called it a stream of consciousness blog, a simple reiteration of my own thoughts and feelings. Others have called it a sincere critique of life through news and stories. I don't believe I ever write entries or stories in my blog with a consistent purpose. Maybe its a little bit of both. Life, it seems, throws curve balls at every turn. How can one have a consistent outlook on life if this is the case? I by no means expect people to take my blog personally (or as a legitimate news source)...simply take my advice or my opinion with a large helping of salt and a pinch of understanding...this is how reading blogs should be... But if you do enjoy my blog, then my job is done...I have given you a taste of what it is like to think and act like me...I am a unique soul, like everyone else (is that an oxymoron?) Within a years time (a little over that), I have discovered a new direction in life, made new friends, fallen in love, learned about things I couldn't even begin to imagine, laughed until my stomach hurt, and all with no regrets. This is life, no? Its weird in retrospect to go over a year and assess its successes. How would I rank 2005? Productive? Beneficial? Detrimental? I have felt a wide range of spectrums emotionally, from elated and high to sullen and gloom...my heart has beaten like a conga drum and has been destroyed in a split second...I think time will determine how this year ranks in the years of my life. I know its cliche and corny (so then why am I using it?), but that song 525,600 from Rent comes into mind...its question runs through my mind this time of year: how do you measure a year? Sure, there are arbitrary measurements our society has created (my arch nemesis time), but perhaps there are different ways...raindrops, sunshine, photographs. Ultimately, it is you that decides how to measure your year. I say life is measured in moments. Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. While this sounds like a Hallmark card and I feel like I should tie this post with pink ribbon, I think its true. Life, for me, has always been about the people you meet, the accomplishments you worked so hard for, the photographs that can be both incriminating and expressive, the sites and cities you see while traveling, making this large world that much smaller, the books and movies you read/watch that change even a little bit of your overall perspective, and the kiss (or kisses) that linger, both in your mind and on your lips. Perhaps W. M. Lewis was right when he said, "the tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it".

History

2005-12-06T17:23:00.000-08:00

People often ask me why I like history so much, so here's my answer: What is history? Originally, history was simply oral tradition that described past action, usually in glorious splendor. In this case, history has, and always will have, a human aspect to it. History combines fact with emotion. The appeal of history is its extraordinary circumstances that are, in fact, real. History can be exaggerated and interpreted differently, but there are certain aspects of it that cannot be discounted. Nobody can deny that Aristotle and Socrates were teaching philosophy years ahead of their time that would shape the Ancient world. Nobody can deny that millions would die during the black plague in Europe, exacerbated unfortunately by the Church's paranoia and xenophobia. And nobody will deny that thousands of Allied soldiers rushed out of Higgins boats onto Normandy Beach during D-Day, meeting a wall of steel that cut the first wave in half. These are extraordinary stories, and they're all true. History is romantic. It takes you back to times you can only imagine. Knights in shining armor. Mongol horsemen riding along the steppes of Central Asia. Pharaoh Ramses II overseeing the construction of the Pyramids. Sir Isaac Newton explaining his theories of gravity and multivariable calculus to royal courts in England. We can only wonder what was going through their heads as they experienced such splendor. Maybe they were thinking about the future they were creating. This is the final aspect of history that I love: these events we learn about and remember were crucial to shaping our modern world. What if the Normandy Invasion failed? Would Europe (and the world for that matter) have fallen into the darkness of a fascist state? What if Shakespeare was not able to write his epic plays and sonnets? Would our notion of romance be different, if not lackluster? What if Gutenberg was not able to perfect his printing press? Would we still live in a world of ignorance where we would blindly follow men of the cloth, who preached "God's word" in a foreign tongue that could have been Martian for all we knew? History is also defined by individuals, who took arms against overwhelming odds and won. Some of my favorite include Winston Churchill, who led the free world against the most tyrannical empire. Or Mohandas Gandhi, who had the patience and discipline to lead a non-violent protest against a Colonial power who would grant no such mercy in return. Or John F. Kennedy, who led America during its darkest hour of the Cold War by asking "not what our country could do for us, but what we could do for our country". History is also defined by darkness and despair. The Holocaust showed the world what human beings are truly capable of and the full horrible effect of racial paranoia. The Spanish inquisition showed the determination of the Christian Church to "purify" the populous. Millions have died in war, slavery, and disease. But perhaps these moments define the strength of the human spirit; in the end, we survive. History is never as simple as right or wrong. Human beings and cultures always act on their own interests and righteousness. History's flaw is perhaps that there is not enough of it to go around. Everybody should have a say in history, because it involves everyone. Unfortunately, history is usually written by the winners, usually at the expense of the losers, the downtrodden, and the enslaved. Perhaps this is something that needs to be changed. History is defined by moments and individuals. They will be remembered forever for their accomplishments and achievements. Kids read about them in awe (or in immense boredom). Adults read about them to learn more about the world they live in. What a great accomplishment, to be able to live forever in the annals of history as someone of great importance. How will history remember you?

A New System of Democracy?

2005-12-05T21:04:00.000-08:00

From Life of Pat: "Partisanship and corruption are increasing problems in America. Our two party system dictates that people are assigned one of two viewpoints. Depending on their congressman, a one dimensional viewpoint is then represented in congress. In Athens, citizens made up the representative arm of the government and voted in "congress". The Internet could enable this system today. Here's the idea: everyone who can vote gets 10 points. They either vote all ten points themselves in weekly sessions, or assign an amount of their points (decided weekly) to delegates (Senators, Commentators, Celebrities, or Neighbors/Friends, etc.), who would then have more points to vote. Representatives themselves would have a large pool to start with (5000), but they would no longer hold as much power, nor be a bottleneck for corruption. If people are displeased with their Senator, they don’t have to wait to vote him out of office, they can dramatically reduce his power by moving their votes. Everyday Americans would now be able to affect change in Washington, not just shudder as politicians mess things up." This is a novel and idealistic concept; however, it has its flaws. While I love the idea of giving individuals more power and political efficacy, this system would actually do the opposite, promoting more corruption and inefficiency in government. How so? The theory predicates itself on two assumptions: (1) people actually want political efficacy and (2) people are selfless, educated, and concerned about the welfare of the greater nation. By granting everyone 10 (or however many) voting "points", we are giving people a great political tool; however, we are assuming that they will want to use it to fight for causes that are important to them. By the authors standards, these points could be used to support political figures or intellectuals who best express his views. However, this is the view of an educated college graduate who closely follows the news and greatly concerns himself with political issues. But how is someone living in poverty and obscurity in a nameless inner city going to use his or her points? Are we assuming this individual will fight for more welfare funding and job opportunities at weekly town hall meetings? Or is their greater concern trying to make the next month's rent? What am I getting at? It would seem that come election time, it would be in the greater interest of lower America to use their newly aquired political power to their financial incentive, and politicians and corporations would greatly oblige. What is stopping a person living in poverty from selling their voting points to the highest bidder? Are they really concerned about the political environment in this country? Also, what is stopping corporations from supporting a candidate to lobby for their own cause. Votes can be purchased and decisions could be swayed. Lobbying would transform from lobbyists promoting causes in Longworth and Rayburn to lobbyists writing checks to people trying to make a quick buck off of their voting points. This system would be perfect if everyone were educated and politically and socially aware. However, many people in this country are not, for whatever reason. Why did such a system exist in Ancient Athens? Athenian Democracy was skewed and by no means an egalitarian system. How so? A citizen, by Athenian standards, was a male with social status or land and of Athenian stock. Foreigners, women, laborers and slaves were excluded. By these standards, such a system could work because the pool of political opinion is very homogenous and standard. There is little diversity in ideals or identity. These people had time to venture into politics, because those politics dealt with issues that were relevant to them. Democracy in this case simply existed to reinforce the status quo, something that probably won't occur in today's world. The concept of citizen in this country has been greatly expanded to include everyone, despite color, creed, gender, or any other categorical identity. This is the difference between Athenian and American Democracy. This is and always will be America's greatest strength. Democracy in my mind is appreciated by those who understand its inner workings. While I as a self described moderately prepared and somewhat intelligent citizen of the United States that would love to see a socially equal and powerful populous exert its political muscles in government, I know it is simply impractical. This is why we have representatives: while corruption and inefficiency surround life in Washington DC, American democracy is, and always has been, based on faith. Americans vote for the people they feel will best represent their best interests, despite any shortcomings or problems. They vote for who they believe represents themselves, often because they don't have the time or the effort to learn up on these issues that will affect them. It is a sad truth, but nevertheless a truth. I still remember a lecture during my stennis program this past summer on Capitol Hill. A lecturer addressed the idea of corruption and lackluster work from members of Congress and an inefficient political system. "This is true," she explained. "But for every under the table deal, rambling, and mismanagement on part of many members of this institution, think about Brown v Board of Education or the establishment of the 19th Ammendment. For every ten, hundred, or thousand dead bills or countless hours of bickering in this obviously screwed up system, we sometimes, sometimes get it right...and that is why I have faith..."

Che?

2005-11-29T18:21:00.000-08:00

I cannot understand why American's idolize Che Guevarra...was he not a Communist Revolutionary who helped establish a dictatorship in Cuba and ruthlessly eliminated his opponents? People admire Guevarra because he supposedly fought for the poor and downtrodden people of Latin America...thats fine, but didn't all the Communist revolutionaries do the same thing? It seems to me that Che became a cultural icon because he was so outspoken about his crusade to help the poor in his homeland...however, perhaps had this media attention been directed elsewhere (and perhaps no major proxy wars had been fought), we might be seeing posters of Ho Chi Minh or Kim Il-Sung on college dorm walls. Weren't they just as vocal and determined as Guevarra? In the end, Guevarra's quest to bring social justice and equality to his people led to years of bloodshed and strife. He is no different than any other Communist "martyrs", say what you will. But if you are going to sport his poster on your wall (as I had before), understand what it is you are supporting. I have no problem with people supporting Communism or revolution, but perhaps we should consider why we admire Che. Is it because we truly admire his dream and goals, or is it because we see everyone else with Che Guevarra posters and t shirts on.

Two Koreas to Compete as Unified Team in Beijing Olympics

2005-11-01T21:49:00.000-08:00

From Yahoo News November 1 2005 SEOUL (Reuters) - North and South Korea agreed on Tuesday to compete as a single team for the first time at the 2006 Asian Games, and at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, a South Korean official said.North and South Korea have been bitter ideological -- and sporting -- rivals for more than 50 years and are gradually building closer relations across the Demilitarised Zone. "We had discussed making a single team since we jointly marched in such international events six times," Baek Sung-il, a spokesman for South Korea's Olympic Committee, said by telephone from Macau." As exchanges between South and North Korea have been progressing, the mood was ripe for reaching such an agreement."Both Koreas are taking part in the East Asia Games in Macau. They marched together at that opening ceremony and more notably at the Sydney and Athens Olympics, but have not competed as one team at such major events. Baek said the two sides would meet again in Kaesong, a city just north of the Demilitarised Zone, on December 7 to discuss the details of how to form a joint team. Prior to the East Asia Games in Macau, North Korea suggested that the sports officials from the two Koreas try and thrash out details of forming joint teams on the sidelines of the event, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported. The selection process for the joint team and its budget have yet to be worked out, Yonhap cited South Korean sports officials in Macau as saying. The communist North and capitalist South formed a single table tennis team and a soccer team in the 1990s but the experiment did not continue.At the 2004 Athens Olympics, North Korea won five medals while South Korea won 30. Their joint total of 35 would have been good enough for seventh on the medals list between Japan and France.

China steps up pressure on North Korean weapons program

2005-10-30T13:43:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post October 28 2005 By Joe McDonald, AP BEIJING -- North Korean leader Kim Jong Il promised Friday to take part in the next round of nuclear talks in November, Chinese state TV reported, as China's president made a rare personal visit to Pyongyang to lobby for progress in disarmament efforts. Kim reportedly told Chinese President Hu Jintao that the North was committed to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. It was the Stalinist dictatorship's highest-level commitment yet to push ahead with talks aimed at stripping North Korea of its nuclear programs. "The North Korean side will participate as scheduled in the fifth round of six-nation talks," the state TV news quoted Kim as saying. "North Korea is committed to the denuclearization of the (Korean) peninsula." North Korean media did not immediately report on Kim's remarks. Hu flew to Pyongyang on Friday in an apparent effort to push for progress in the Chinese-organized nuclear talks, which also involve the United States, South Korea, Japan and Russia. China didn't disclose his Hu's agenda in advance, but analysts said he was certain to push Kim on the nuclear issue, possibly offering aid in exchange. Hu told Kim that Beijing wants to see a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, Chinese state television said. Despite the polite tone, China's status as the isolated North's last major ally and aid donor gave Hu's plea special weight. China is under pressure from Washington and other governments to do more to push Pyongyang for concessions. Beijing has refrained from publicly confronting the North and says it has less influence than outsiders believe. North Korea promised at the end of the last round of talks in Beijing in September _ the fourth since 2003 _ to give up its nuclear programs in exchange for aid and a security guarantee. But Pyongyang immediately raised doubts about its willingness to carry out that pledge, saying it wanted a civilian nuclear reactor for power generation before it dismantles its program _ a condition that Washington has challenged as possibly unworkable. Hu is the first Chinese leader to visit North Korea since 2001. Kim, who rarely travels abroad, last visited Beijing in 2004, when he studied Chinese economic reforms. Hu was greeted by thousands of cheering North Koreans in Pyongyang. Kim met him at the airport, and Chinese TV showed the Chinese leader being driven into the capital past throngs of people who waved flowers and small flags. Many of the women wore traditional Korean gowns and some appeared to have tears of joy in their eyes. Chinese TV and China's official Xinhua News Agency put the size of the crowd at 100,000. Meeting later at a government facility, Hu praised Kim's leadership and assured him of China's friendship and support. "Pushing forward friendly, cooperative Chinese-North Korea relations and continuously deepening development is our common responsibility," he said, according to Xinhua. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, who accompanied Hu to Pyongyang, spoke by phone Thursday night with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Foreign Ministry said. It said they discussed international affairs but did not give details. The nuclear dispute erupted in late 2002 after U.S. officials said North Korea admitted violating a 1994 deal by embarking on a secret uranium enrichment program. Hu, whose visit lasts through Sunday, is also expected to lobby Kim to pursue Chinese-style reforms more aggressively in hopes of reviving its decrepit, government-controlled economy. Beijing is eager to see a more robust North, both to reduce its reliance on Chinese food and fuel aid and to reduce the risk of a political collapse and chaos on its border. Thousands of North Koreans fleeing famine and repression live in hiding in China's northeast. Beijing has been frustrated by asylum bids by North Koreans at embassies and other foreign offices.

uh oh...

2005-10-26T14:27:00.000-07:00

Russia, China looking to form 'NATO of the East'? By Fred Weir, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor MOSCOW - Russia and China could take a step closer to forming a Eurasian military confederacy to rival NATO at a Moscow meeting of the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Wednesday, experts say. The group, which started in 2001 with limited goals of promoting cooperation in former Soviet Central Asia, has evolved rapidly toward a regional security bloc and could soon induct new members such as India, Pakistan, and Iran. One initiative that core members Russia and China agree on, experts say, is to squeeze US influence - which peaked after 9/11 - out of the SCO's neighborhood. "Four years ago, when the SCO was formed, official Washington pooh-poohed it and declared it was no cause for concern," says Ariel Cohen, senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "Now they're proven wrong." Wednesday's meeting is expected to review security cooperation, including a spate of upcoming joint military exercises between SCO members' armed forces. It may also sign off on a new "Contact Group" for Afghanistan. That would help Russia and China - both concerned about increased opium flows and the rise of Islamism - develop direct relations between SCO and the Afghan government. While this will be highly controversial given the presence of NATO troops and Afghans' bitter memories of fighting Russian occupation throughout the 1980s, the Russians have an "in" because they still have longstanding allies in the country. In attendance Wednesday will be prime ministers of member states Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, as well as top officials from several recently added "observer" states, including Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, and Iranian Vice President Parviz Davudi. The SCO's swift rise has been fueled by deteriorating security conditions in ex-Soviet Central Asia, as well as a hunger in Moscow and Beijing for a vehicle that could counter US influence in the region. "Moscow is seeking options to demonstrate - to Washington in the first place - that Russia is still an important player in this area," says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a partner of the US bimonthly journal Foreign Affairs. "China's ambitions are growing fast, and it also wants to turn the SCO into something bigger and more effective." Russian leaders blame the Bush administration, with its emphasis on democracy-building, for recent unrest, including revolution in Kyrgyzstan and a putative Islamist revolt in Uzbekistan. "Washington wants to expand democracy, which it sees as a panacea for all social and geopolitical evils," says Sergei Karaganov, head of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policies, which advises the Kremlin. "But it is clear to us that any rapid democratization of these countries (in Central Asia) will lead to chaos." An SCO summit last June demanded that the US set a timetable to remove the bases it put in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan with Moscow's acquiescence in the wake of 9/11. In July, Uzbek leader Islam Karimov ordered the US base at Karshi-Khanabad to evacuate by year's end. But two recent visits to Kyrgyzstan by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appear to have secured the US lease on that country's Manas airbase indefinitely - albeit with a sharp rent increase. "There is nothing to cheer about," says Mr. Cohen. "Washington has signaled to the Russians that we won't be seeking any new bases in Central Asia. Basically, we are doing nothing to counter the moves against us." In joint maneuvers last August, Russian strategic bombers, submarines, and paratroopers staged a mock invasion of a "destabilized" far eastern region with Chinese troops. This month, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov proposed holding the first Indian-Chinese-Russian war games under SCO sponsorship. "In principle, this is possible," he said. "The SCO was formed as an organization to deal with security issues." Should states like India and Iran join, the SCO's sway could spread into South Asia and the Middle East. "India sees observer status [in the SCO] as a steppingstone to full membership," says a Moscow-based Indian diplomat who asked not to be named. But he added that India, which has recently improved its relations with the US, does not want to send an anti-US message. "We would hope the Americans would understand our desire to be inside the SCO, rather than outside," he says. While the SCO's potential looks vast on paper, experts say internal rivalries would preclude it from evolving into a NATO-like security bloc. "What kind of allies could Russia and China be?" says Akady Dubnov, an expert with the Vremya Novostei newspaper. "The main question for them in Central Asia is who will gain the upper hand." Still, the idea of a unified eastern bloc has strong appeal for some in Moscow. "It's very important that regional powers are showing the will to resolve Eurasian problems without the intrusion of the US," says Alexander Dugin, chair of the International Eurasian Movement, whose members include leading Russian businessmen and politicians. "Step by step we're building a world order not based on the unipolar hegemony of the US." Says Cohen: "Eventually they'll wake up to this challenge in Washington. But will it be too late?"

Thoughts on previous post...

2005-10-25T18:42:00.000-07:00

Is South Korea and China's anger toward Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi justified? I often wonder if I would view this situation differently as a Japanese citizen. Unfortunately for me, I have two strikes against me, being a Korean American and all. Yasukuni shrine is a holy place in Japan that memorializes Japanese soldiers who lost their lives in foreign wars, especially World War II. The problem is among those memorialized are fourteen war criminals who were responsible for some of the most heinous war crimes in human history and were eventually executed at the Tokyo War Trials. Yasukuni has a memorial for fallen Japanese soldiers during World War II, honoring their sacrifice in their struggle to "free Asians from the tyrranical grip of European Colonialism". While we might smirk at the supposed Japanese militaristic propoganda we might sense, I stop and challenge you as an American (or whatever nationality you are) to think for a moment in terms of a Japanese mindset. If you do, you realize that it cannot be as simple as black or white. Were the Japanese simple Asian barbarians who enjoyed killing Chinese people and raping Korean women? No, these are the stereotypes we are bombarded with in history classes in America. Why not: the US war against Japan was a brutal war that created emotional and national scars that are still painful to this day. These wounds fester into emotional and aggressive action that blind any sort of rational judgement. Japanese propoganda depicted American people as the epitomy of cruelty, describing their horrible treatment of Native Americans and Filipinos under their rule. Perhaps Japanese people were concerned with liberating Asia from European hands. But the thought of Japanese imperialism signals that Japan simply wanted to remove the European yoke from Asian people and in its place a Japanese yoke, rising sun and all. My proof? Japan granted the Philippines independence (it was liberated from hundreds of years of Spanish/American rule) only to force Filipino laborers to work in plantations and work yards. What about the Korean comfort women, who were forced sex slaves who were sent to remote corners of the empire to "service" Japanese soldiers. Or the Rape of Nanking, which saw the murder of over 300,000 Chinese civilians in a matter of weeks at the hands of Japanese infantrymen. But war is never one sided, nor is it simple enough to be explained in a matter of sentences. Can we assume that all Japanese soldiers were responsible for these heinous acts? That not one had a conscience or perhaps was disgusted with such crimes? The majority of these young Japanese men were forced into military service and indocrtinated. Most had no choice in their actions and their untimely death. In war I always blame those in charge or with power for heinous crimes or terrible action, never a group or race. I blame the Japanese higher command for their careless campaigns and malicious policy, but never the Japanese private who was ordered to do something he believed was wrong. In the end, millions of young men died in their prime for a cause most did not understand. At Arlington Cemetary, we honor the American war dead who sacrificed their lives for this country. We don't prod or brand any of the young men as bloodthirsty murderers even though many could have possibly killed civilians or committed other crimes. Why can't Japan honor its fallen as we do? To honor their soldiers with a shrine is their right as Japanese people. Something tells me that Korea and China's anger comes from a greater pain of past conflict. Unfortunately, it seems that time is running out, as the memory of World War II is slowly fading. Discussing international appologies is a topic I cannot fully delve into at this moment, but let me reiterate my point: to judge Japan's desire to honor its war dead is to use a close minded World War II identity that existed sixty plus years ago. To acknowledge their desire and right is to use not a national identity but a human identity.

Read now, more later...Koizumi right or wrong?

2005-10-17T23:23:00.000-07:00

TOKYO, Oct. 17 -- China and South Korea on Monday angrily protested Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's decision to make a controversial visit to a shrine that honors Japan's military dead, including convicted World War II war criminals. After Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, the Chinese government canceled a meeting with a visiting Japanese envoy and effectively scrubbed a trip to Beijing by Japan's foreign minister, according to the Kyodo News Service. China's ambassador to Tokyo, Wang Yi, decried Koizumi's move as a "grave provocation to the Chinese people." And the Chinese foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, summoned the Japanese ambassador to lodge a formal diplomatic protest. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon, likewise, summoned the Japanese ambassador in Seoul to issue his protest. Other officials in Seoul said that Koizumi's visit to the shrine would probably cause postponement of a summit intended to ease strained relations. Koizumi had hinted for months that he would worship as planned at the sprawling Shinto shrine. The annual visit took place Monday morning despite charges both at home and abroad that his appearances there amount to official veneration of Japan's militaristic past. Because of worsening relations between Japan and other Asian countries, opposition politicians and even some leading members of Koizumi's governing coalition have said they fear the prime minister is unnecessarily rekindling animosities to appease nationalistic supporters. Public opinion polls in Japan indicate an almost even split between approval and disapproval of his visits to the shrine. "His visit shows that he puts more priority on his personal principle than on national interest during this special year marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II," Kazuo Shii, the head of Japan's Communist Party, told reporters. "His attitude symbolizes the justification and glorification of World War II. His conduct also ignores the sentiment of the people of Asia." Koizumi's visit to the shrine was his fifth as prime minister. On Monday, he eliminated much of the pomp of his prior appearances there, wearing a dark suit and blue tie rather than the ceremonial kimono he donned last year. Among the more than 2.5 million war dead honored at Yasukuni are Gen. Hideki Tojo, Japan's principal wartime prime minister, and other convicted World War II criminals. Koizumi bowed and clasped his hands in prayer while standing silently in front of an outer shrine before striding back to his car as a crowd watched in the rain. He did not enter the inner part of the shrine as he has in the past, worshiping instead in a section where all visitors are permitted. Previously, he also signed his name in a shrine register along with his title, "Prime Minister." This time, he wrote only his name. Later, Koizumi told reporters he had gone to the shrine to "pray for peace" but also insisted that other countries had no right to "tell Japan how it should honor its war dead." Analysts have said the growing economic interdependence of China and Japan make improved ties essential. But experts have also noted that South Korea, once considered a relatively close Japanese ally, is enjoying increasingly warmer relations with China even as both have had problems with Japan. "The danger is that these visits will isolate Japan in East Asia," said Satoshi Amako, professor of Asia-Pacific studies at Tokyo's Waseda University. "This is obviously not in the best interest of Japan."

Crumbling pillars of archaic values (or my past reading of same sex marriage)

2005-09-25T22:45:00.000-07:00

What is marriage in a social and practical context? It is the answer to this question that will ultimately help us better understand the issues of same sex marriage. The ultimate problem with marriage is that it is inheriently tied in with religion. There can be no discussion of marriage without first understanding the reasons for marriage and the ideals of morality. Marriage in the eyes of morality is a spiritual bonding between two people with a child usually being the consumation of their vows and devotion. Religion emphasizes loyalty, purity, and love with one person in a marriage (barring certain Mormon sects that would otherwise argue that the Old Testament suggests that polygamy is a commandmant from God). The connection is what is emphasized ultimately and universally. So what if your connection is with one of the same sex? Is this something that is shunned or wrong? Well, what context are we examining? Biologically, males and females come together to procreate, but this is relationships at its most basic and primordeal form. Spiritually, marriage involves a connection. However, religion does look down upon homosexuality as a sin. But we do not live in a religiously dominant society anymore. Our definitions of society have changed over time. It was not but 160 years ago that Africans in this country were slaves. How much our perceptions have changed (or not, this is something I should discuss in the future) is an example of our misconceptions and how we learn from past mistakes. So we must ask ourselves before we move further, if we live in a society where religion is not a totally social encompassing force (as some might argue), what is the purpose of marriage? This is where the law steps in, citing that marriage leads to a collaboration of incomes and a merging of personal capital and resources. Is it the idealist in me that cringes every time I understand law's view of marriage, which is simply seen as a financial tool that binds people together. But this makes sense; from an anthropological approach, many cultures have used marriage as a social tool to bind two families together. Consider it a formal contract, recognized by everyone and blessed by God. The context of marriage existing in our society to protect the best interest of children can be considered, but then consider those married couples who never have children. This is a personal choice, yet their marriage was not in the intention of their children, or anyone's children. And what about the fact that we allow same sex couples to adopt children? Surely in the best interest of the child a state recognized tax break would surely help pay for his eventual public education at UC Berkeley, even if he does have two dads. Is society really that willing to hold desperately onto something that arbitrary? Or is it arbitrary? If it is not about children or religion or morality, and we can legally define marriage through financial and legal terms, then why can't it be extended to same sex marriages? Some believe that idea of marriage is sacred and that it must be kept safe and clean. They believe that people that desire same sex marriages should get a legally recognized and equal relationship, but they won't allow it to be called a "marriage". This would break down what they have, they suppose. But what would this new category be? Would they call it a "pseudo-marriage"? A separate but equal form of marriage? Hmm, smells like a violation of the 14th Ammendment if you ask me... We have seen the holes in the now crumbling concept of marriage, we can understand that it exists for people and an ideal of happiness. Forget that one out of three marriages end in divorce, when I think about the concept of marriage I don't think about the financial, legal, religious, or social definitions and problems, I can only think about the journey that two people are setting out on that could potentially last the rest of their lives. Nobody enters marriage in this country with the intention of ending their relationship in three years with three more years spent in court battling out for possession of the dog and visitation rights to the children on Thanksgiving. They enter by vowing to "spend the rest of their lives together". This is what marriage is ultimately about, and when people finally understand that, they will begin to understand how my view of same sex marriage comes from...

Open Mindedness

2005-09-23T17:38:00.000-07:00

I don't know how many times I have been questioned for reading a conservative paper or attending a conservative rally. Berkeley's ultimate problem is political hypocracy and institutionalized closed mindedness. It is shunned to even express conservative values here in Berkeley, and anyone who grabs (or dare I go so far as to say reads) the Patriot is branded a heartless rightest extremist. I have and will claim to be a liberal, but this does not mean that I do not have the right to hear and understand the views from the right of the spectrum. How can liberals say they truly understand the issues if they simply shun what the other side says? That is not politics: thats choosing ignorance and sticking to one's own moral story and convictions. In order to make a proper decision on an issue, I believe one must be informed on all sides and factors in order to make an unbiased decision. Don't hold liberal values because you are supposed to be liberal. Berkeley liberals have also fallen into the trap of believing all the political crap that comes out of the minds of extreme leftists. The twin towers were filled with little Eichmanns on September 11th? How dare someone say that while familes still grieve for their loss. President Bush destroyed the Gulf Coast? Please, if we are going to be critical of the regime, lets put some substance into our argument rather than accuse the administration of having some weather controlling machine. And when it comes to the war and foreign policy, lets remember that more Democratic presidents have led our country to war than Republican presidents. If you don't like Bush, thats fine, but tell me why you don't like him rather than the typical Berkeley response, which goes along the lines of Bush being a war-mongering redneck murdering capitalistic ignorant and emotionally devoid monster. I'm ready, no eager, for another response. Wait! Eugene, are you a conservative now? No, I believe I fall into the socially liberal and fiscally liberal-moderate. Every time I hear someone chide someone for discussing something with a LaRouche volunteer or who reads an editorial in the Washington Times, I cringe and think to myself "you look twice as stupid as that person for propogating ignorance and demanding that people blindly follow your beloved ideals. I for one choose to flex my rights and political muscles and read and learn about everything out there? Yes, because I want to be able to proudly say who I am and what I am affiliated, instead of blindly following the masses of self-proclaimed liberals, extreme for extreme's purpose, who in the end become everything they loathe so much: mindless drones who repeat what they have been told. More on North Korea in the next post...

Kanye West and Hurricane Katrina

2005-09-07T19:31:00.000-07:00

Kanye West shocked the nation by saying "George Bush doesn't care about black people" in the wake of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Were his comments excessive? Check it out here: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Kayne-West-Bush-Black-People.wmv

Perhaps West is correct, the delay and seemingly lack of concern for the residents of Mississippi and Louisiana by the Bush administration is a sign of disinterest toward a certain group. Needless to say, the media is portraying the victims in a mostly colored light. Media, as West has correctly stated, has portrayed the white and black victims of this disaster in different terms. Why are black people stealing food when whites are finding it? Simple racist tendancies still exist in our media unfortunately, and it needs to be dealt with.

But perhaps this issue is deeper than that. The lack of preparation and support for the southern states affected by this disaster shows a lack of concern by the current administration. While I will not go on an extreme edge as many Berkeley Communist papers have gone and say that Bush killed these people, he did not exactly deliever many of them from destruction. While helicopters and armored tanks are being shipped to Iraq every week, people in New Orleans were dying of thirst and malnutrition. Where are our priorities?

An interesting thought was brought up today at work. My boss pointed out that she did not appreciate the Daily Californian calling the victims "refugees". Upon further review, we discovered that "refugee" refers to someone who is forced from their home and seeks asylum or "refuge" from another state. Are these victims refugees because they must travel to Texas? No, Cubans sailing to this country are seeking asylum and are thus refugees. People forced from their homes in New Orleans are simply victims of a terrible tragedy exacerbated by a lack of support from their government.

Political Analogy

2005-08-02T11:47:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of my roommate, who is working in Senator Ted Kennedy's office (maybe it was his staffer)... People who proceed to climb up the ladder to success only to pull it away afterwards and say, "You're welcome to join me up here if you can make it" are called Republicans. People who proceed to climb up the ladder to success and then lower it to those less fortunate and say, "Let me help you join me up here" are called Democrats Simple enough?

"A Different China Syndrome"

2005-08-01T06:44:00.000-07:00

By Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly I routinely read polls after dousing them in a full heaping of salt, but a recent Associated Press survey gave me disturbing pause: 60 percent of Americans expect to endure World War III in their lifetimes. Indeed, such a lopsided answer to such a frightening question is worth more than a pause. It should be the main issue in the nation’s coming elections — not only in next year’s midterm battle for control of Congress, but also in the 2008 race for the White House. The questions voters would use to frame their choices are simple: Which candidates or parties have the best plan to avoid the sort of global catastrophe that three out of five Americans expect they’ll witness? In electing the 110th Congress and the 44th president, is it preferable to seek continuity with the Big Planners of the Bush war team, or would it be better to make an entirely new set of plans for avoiding World War III? Sadly, there is little guidance for answering such questions now, for they are not even on the table as politicians bicker back and forth about homeland security, troop levels in Iraq and what to do about North Korea. The AP poll (1,000 Americans were interviewed between July 5-10, and the results have a 3 percentage point margin of sampling error) brought to mind a startling dinner I had several years ago with some very powerful men who spent hours discussing, with alarming certainty, the likelihood of war with China in our lifetimes. Long before the Sept. 11 attacks intensified the nation’s necessary obsession with Islamic terrorists, I had been invited by the publisher of an influential magazine to dinner at his Washington mansion with a former director of the CIA, a top executive of one of the nation’s largest defense contractors, and a former congressman-turned-lobbyist. I sat slack-jawed as these authoritative sources matter-of-factly analyzed U.S. strategies for defeating China. Most remarkable was their unanimous view that such a war is inevitable — that the only debatable question was how to win it. I don’t recall much about the military scenarios, including the horrific estimates of U.S. casualties, because in return for the invitation I agreed never to report such details. So my main memory is of leaving with the unsettingly distinct impression that the Big Planners of Washington were seriously gunning for a war that could provoke a worldwide calamity. Many more dinners like this, I thought, and I might have to join a self-sufficiency cult in Idaho. The last time that evening came to mind with such urgency was when I was listening to an interview that ABC’s Charlie Gibson had with George W. Bush in April 2001. In it, the new president defended his backing of the largest U.S. arms sale to Taiwan in history by seemingly issuing the most specific military threat to China of any recent president. He vowed to respond “with the full force of American military” if China ever attacked Taiwan, saying he would do “whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.” Saber-Rattling There was much hullabaloo at the time about this apparently new — and more strident — policy toward China, accompanied by the usual White House guidance, on background, that the president didn’t really mean to change what had been the longstanding and intentional vagueness of our commitment to defend Taiwan. But there was no mistaking that this new administration was not shy about saber-rattling with China, especially in the wake of the collision of a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet earlier that month. Five months later, terrorists struck on U.S. soil, and China was all but forgotten, as war in Afghanistan and Iraq consumed the world’s attention. Now there is reason to wonder if Bush’s Big Planners are ready to return to the saber-rattling of their pre-Sept. 11 stance against China. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld recently touted a new Pentagon assessment of China’s military power, noting that its defense spending is much higher than Chinese officials have reported publicly and that China is expanding its missile forces “allowing it to reach targets in many areas of the world.” The Air Force’s top military officer, Gen. Michael Moseley, said at his Senate confirmation hearing in June that lining up American firepower for a possible war with China is “at the top of my list.” But it was a Chinese military leader, the hawkish Major General Zhu Chenghu, who really stoked the embers recently when he seemed to answer Bush’s 2001 threat by saying China would “respond with nuclear weapons” in a conflict over Taiwan. “If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond,” he said. “The Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” Such incendiary talk justifies the public’s fear of a world war. It is hard to imagine anything more crucial for public debate in the elections ahead. Is this more militaristic propoganda or is China a serious threat we should be cautious about? Their economic policy might say otherwise, but a war with China would nevertheless be disasterous for the world

Correction

2005-08-01T06:24:00.000-07:00

I appologize, earlier I stated that the war on terror had been changed to the struggle against religous extremism...however, the Bush Administration's new approach to the situation is now the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism". Same thing, I suppose...sugar coat it any way you want, its still the Christian conservative crusade to me

One more joke...

2005-07-29T13:13:00.000-07:00

A woman in a hot-air balloon realized that she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. As she got close enough, she shouted to him; "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I'd meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am." The man consulted his portable GPS-device and replied, "You're in a hot-air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes North latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes West longitude." She rolled her eyes and said; "You must be a Democrat." "I am," replied the man, "How did you know?" "Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me." The man smiled and responded; "You must be a Republican." "I am," replied the woman. "How did you know?" "Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

New England Humor and Political Advice

2005-07-29T11:40:00.000-07:00

John Kerry addressed the Capitol Hill interns last Wednesday with a riveting speech about his life in politics, the recent election, and thoughts about the future. As any good speech would go, he started with a joke:

JK: So there I was in Iowa during the campaign...one day I visited a barn house in a rustic farm, and I came across an old lamp in the hay, so I rubbed it and out popped a Genie...He said to me, "Alright John, you know the deal...you freed me so you get your wishes..."

JK (Cont): I had to think about this one...so I thought really hard, what do I really want? After a while I said, "Genie, I know my wishes." This was easy for a New Englander like myself. "Number one, I would like the New England Patriots to win the Super Bowl." The Genie said it was done, and low and behold, in February of this year, they won. So then I said, "Genie, this might be a stretch, but I would like the Boston Red Sox to win the World Series." And he said it was so, and they won. So finally, I said, "Genie, my third wish is to become President of the United States of America." And the Genie frowned and said, "I'm sorry John but with the recent Bush Administration budget cuts, we can only give you two wishes now."

With this light joke in mind, the interns listened closely as John Kerry spoke about the recent campaign, citing that he had defeated Bush in most political debates, but still lacked in decisiveness in the murky "war on terror", or as they are calling it "the struggle against religious extremism". Kerry was very bold, staunch, and determined; might we see another presidential run?

It's possible, but I was more struck by his advice to the interns in regards to political careers, which was that the most important skill a politician needs is the ability to listen to people. This is the advice I was also given by Rep. McIntyre of North Carolina at the end of our Stennis Internship Program, as well as Rep. Sam Farr, the current member I work for. Listening, it seems, is something politicians forget as they settle into their comfortable positions in Washington. How is it that politicians continue to work as representatives of people when they cannot understand or listen to their concerns. This seems like common sense to someone like me, but it cannot be more emphasized.

Rep. McIntyre told us about his idea of a 3-D world that we live in, where success can be achieved through three D's: dreams, determination, and dedication. Through dreams, one can realize a goal and potential, and determination and dedication to a cause will help you through. His words were inspirational yet unclear. Focus, it seems, must be achieved through direction. But how does one realize one's purpose so early in life? I think it is amazing that there are members who are in their mid 20's...politics seems like a game that requires experience in life. This adds to the wisdom and understanding that will ultimately shape a member's view of society and laws in general.

I used to think I had the three D's. I have a general goal, a general purpose, but perhaps a fourth D should be added to my otherwise 3-D world: doubt. Doubt circles my mind all the time...am I undertaking a worthy cause? Is this for me? Are people as sincere as they seem? This fourth D seems to dissapate with time, as experience will mold me from a shapeless naive boy to a worldly and sharp man.

UPDATED BLOG

2005-07-29T10:19:00.000-07:00

I finally figured out how to add links to my blog, so I have added a few that I find interested and stimulating...a workout for your mind if you will. Do yourself a favor and check out TheDCIntern's blog. Great satire and an interesting perspective of politics and life on the Hill (from the very bottom)...Check out the post on his recent trip to Philadelphia...he really cannot make this up

Korean Christians and the downfall of North Korean Foreign Relations

2005-07-25T20:36:00.000-07:00

There is a major problem with the North Korean human rights campaign in the Korean community, and it must be realized before any substantial steps are taken towards alleviating the current situation. Koreans must realize that God will not save their Northern brethren; rather, hard work and individual efforts will reap the benefits they seek. At the conclusion of the North Korean human rights conference, a Korean minister gathered his fellow ministers for a large prayer session. They began to chant in Korean, asking for God's blessing and that through his grace atrocities will be averted in Korea and the people will be saved.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not what Europeans did as they entered the New World and colonized most of Africa and Southeast Asia? Saving these people? If we believe Colonialism is over, then we are wrong; Koreans are simply perpetrating their own attachment to its colonial chains. Christianity in my mind is not wrong unless it is forced upon someone. This is not God's desire, nor is it any good Christians. When one seeks God's grace, they must first ask why...If Korean Christians are seeking the grace of God to help those in need, are they looking to actively improve the lives of their Communist brothers or are they looking to improve their own lives through charity?

North Koreans are Communists: by this virtue, they are ardent atheists and will resist any sort of religious movement. We cannot force them to worship a God that saved them when it is the rice from South Korean farmers and medicine from US pharmacies that will save them. I am not in any way insulting or degrading religion, but I am aware of the difference between Church and State, especially in terms of foreign relations. Humanitarian efforts must remain just that, human, and the second we mix any sort of religious overtones to the mix, we will get problems.

The largest problem is that religion will alienate support for a universal cause. When Jews were being slaughtered in Nazi death camps, Allied nations rallied for their cause, including the United States, Great Britain, France, and the USSR. This was a humanitarian cause that needed a solution; these nations, despite their different cultural and religious backgrounds, fought off tyranny and saved many more lives. We see the same sort of support in other humanitarian efforts, such as the Tsunami relief and the current situation in Darfur. So how is North Korea any different?

To classify it as a genocide might be a stretch, as I have discovered after much debate and discussion with my fellow interns....but nobody can deny the disgusting human rights violations. I full heartedly say that something must be done, and I agree that Koreans should take the first step toward alleviating the situation...however, the second Koreans march under the banner of Christ, they march alone, without Christian support, without the support of the larger international community, and most importantly, without me...

North Korean Human Rights Conference 2005

2005-07-19T15:57:00.000-07:00

This picture above perhaps best symbolizes the inherent foreign relations problem with North Korea. North Korean Juche can be best attributed to their stubborn approach to the west. Their nuclear weapons program and their abuses of their own citizens is a simple testament to the Confucian/Communist ideals of their great leader Kim Il-Sung, on which the status quo was created. At this years conference, we were bombarded with images of starving children and mass executions of political prisoners. As I looked around, I realized that this is not completely North Korea's fault. They were put in this situation by the west; their seemingly irresponsible actions stem from their position in global politics. To understand North Korea is to understand Korean culture in genereal. Koreans are very steadfast and stubborn when it comes to their culture and international issues; keep in mind that they were colonized by several different nations throughout their history. In this case, the Kim regime in the north is actually fulfilling the desires of the Korean people. As we perceive the starvation and lack of resources as uncivilized, they see it as a necessary step to defeat the oppressors. How can we convince them that their leaders are wrong when they believe so strongly in them? I believe this is the inherent problem with our approach to North Korea. The Bush administration has taken a hardline approach to North Korea, insisting that they give up their nuclear arms and join the peace talks with their southern counterpart. This seems to be the worst approach, as Kim Dae-Jung acknowledged in 2000 when he began his "sunshine policy" toward the North. In this case, by approaching North Korea and through negotiations were things able to be accomplished. By pushing them into a corner, the United States is doing what the regime has predicted: imperialists imposing their agenda on an unsuspecting innocent country. No wonder why they are so steadfast with their weapons. This seems to be the more important issue than the human rights, for I see one preceeding the other. When the nuclear weapons issue is finally dealt with, then the human rights issue can be amended. But until we can acknowlege and respect North Korea as an equal and sovereign state, then the mass murders will continue and the threat of nuclear weapons will continue. More to come.

NORTH KOREA

2005-07-15T09:17:00.000-07:00

For those of you who are interested and in Washington DC FREEDOM FOR ALL KOREANS Conference on North Korean Human Rights Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:30am-9:00pm The Mayflower Hotel :: Grand Ballroom 1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 I am also very excited for the tentative agreement between the North Koreans and the rest of the six party talks about disarmament/food delivery/power. This is the start of something good. Eugene

More Stennis and July 4th

2005-07-06T21:05:00.000-07:00

Recently, we have been discussing influence on politics, specifically from the media and lobbying groups. These groups can shape the rather malleable ideal of politics through financial and bureaucratic strings. In this case, one must wonder how these groups work, how they survive, and how they maintain their identity amidst the bustle and struggle of hill life. With the thousands of letters, events, and rallys planned around Congress, an ideal or meaning can get lost. While I am happy that we are discussing these issues, many pertenent questions remain unanswered. Specifically, I wonder how much of an influence money really has on politics. How noble is the game? It would be naive to say that it is completely unadulterated, but then it would be pessimistic to say it is completely based on money. How many good politicians are left, I wonder, and how many are sold to an interest group? July 4th in the Capital reminded me about how important DC is toward America and its establishment. After sitting in the Jefferson Memorial during the fireworks show, I came to realize that Jefferson was only in his early thirties when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. That was truly America's best generation, with Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Franklin leading this great nation ahead. I wonder if anyone will ever reach their prowess or potential again? Who is the greatest American, I jestfully asked during a happy hour conversation. I said Teddy Roosevelt, all American boy growing up to become a great statesman and firm believer in American values and traditions. Others said Benjamin Franklin, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Lance Armstrong. Each has their good and bad points, which makes the question even more imposing and difficult. Maybe a better question would be who is the most famous recent American? Colin Powell? Ronald Regan. It seems to me that John Kennedy was the last great President and American, and nobody has reached his own level. Maybe this is a better question left unanswered, or perhaps left to be answered later. Perhaps it will be a statesman of the future. What does the future hold for us? This is a different world than that of the multipolar post-World War I frame or the bipolar Cold War. This is the information age, where the internet and global markets will set the stage. The greatest American of the future might end up being the greatest human being of the time, for he will truly have a global affect on the world.

Stennis Congressional Internship Program

2005-06-22T20:46:00.000-07:00

I attended the first of several Stennis Congressional Internship Discussions. The program, which was established in honor of Senator Stennis of Mississippi, sets out to educate interns in the inner workings of political jargon and the machine that we are so entangled in. I have met so many people already, but this program stresses close interaction and networking among the 2 or 3 dozen interns from across the country. I have met people from Washington State, Pennsylvania, and Florida, among a few. They have discussed their experiences on the hill, exchanging their ideas and concerns. This is a great venue for those of us who are interested in a world of politics. I often wonder where this desire to become involved in politics came from. I wonder if it came from my father: he often told me that there are two types of people in this world, those who lead and those who follow. Those who lead will be remembered ultimately by those who follow. In this case, I want to be one who leads others, instead of being lead by someone. This seems to be my lot in life and I appreciate the opportunity to learn from such great internship programs such as the Stennis internship program. For more information, check it out at www.stennis.gov. Pushing on completing my third week...

Asians in politics

2005-06-16T17:30:00.000-07:00

After working on the hill for two weeks, I have come to realize that representation is the name of the game for politicians. Lobbyists have come to fight for their various causes. LATV fought for Latino youth entertainment, women for equality in the global market. This is the venue for causes to be voiced. I was discussing the dynamics of politics with my roommates when we discussed Asian politicians. I quickly thought of Paull Shin, State Senator from Washington State and the first Korean American politician. He is one of my heroes, and I still remember what he told us at his speech in Seattle. This is a noble cause we are undertaking, for we are fighting for our people's voice. Koreans in particular, he said, have traditionally been persecuted throughout history; this is why Korean culture values public service and politics above all other fields. With political and legal discourse come true power and justice. What better way to serve our community than to fight for it on the greatest state in the world. Koreans have spent the past fifty years integrating with American culture, yet they have remained unique as a social entitiy. We remember Sa-I-Gu, or the 1992 LA Riots, as one of the dark times in Korean history. Senator Shinn reminded us that we as the future generation have an obligation to continue building the bridge across the figurative stream that our parents started when they came to this country. His final piece struck me more than anything I had ever heard. He recalled a moment when former President Ronald Regan held hands with then prime minister of Canada Brian Mulroney. Together, they both embraced their Irish heritage and sang an Irish folk song. Senator Shinn was quick to point out that the Irish were a discriminated and hated race in this country a century and a half before. Within that time, these two giant nations had embraced the culture and even elected two of them to office. Shinn quickly pointed out that his dream was that a century from now a Korean American president and a Korean Canadian prime minister can embrace each other and sing Areyang together. With this, the audience rose to their feet, and my heart sank. This was patriotism and humility, honor and sacrifice, and everything else I had believed to be my purpose. Was I to be the next Korean American president? That might be a bold step, but am I somebody who might set the stage for someone else to succeed? Life works in ways we cannot understand. But when my friends asked me what I thought about Asian American politics, I simply smiled. I am Asian American politics, as are all the other Asian American interns on the hill, all the Asian interns in non profits and think tanks, and all the other Asian Americans who are simply interested in their community and country. We should look to the past, to Senator Daniel Inouye and State Senator Shin for inspiration, but we must continue to look forward to our ultimate goal: to build the bridge for our families and our future that they had worked so hard to build.

Reflections and Prospectus...

2005-06-15T20:34:00.000-07:00

Here comes a long post, it has been too long since I have updated, and I have a lot on my mind... This year has been the most eventful and successful in my life...I changed my focus, for the better. I used to sit and wonder if I was wasting my time with my work, and if other people thought the same. Greatness, it seems, is something realized in time, but did Michael Jordan ever wonder if he should have played baseball instead of basketball? How can one be sure of one's path in life? When is there a point to change. Courage, it seems, is the emotion needed to make such decisions. Because when you switch your focus in life so drastically, you are essentially walking into a dark room, into the great unknown...It is exhilarating and frightening at the same time. Political Science and Legal Studies at Berkeley have treated me well. My classes this past spring have been great; I have learned a lot academically. But I think I have learned more about myself this past year than I ever could. Confidence was built, mentally, physically, and emotionally. Goals were created in my mind, and resolve was sharpened. This is my purpose, I assure myself every day as I open an LSAT book or ride the METRO to work. I am in Washington DC right now working for Congressman Sam Farr from my district (CA 17). This past week and a half has been very exciting and eventful. I have met so many different people and learned so many new things. This has given me the perspective in politics that I have always desired. I have always thought that politics was something I would consider later in life; now I feel that I understand some of the basics. After a week and a half at work on Capitol Hill, I learned the single most important goal of politics: reelection. Maintaining one's political power is the only goal and cause that politicians fight for. Constituents are contacted and pampered in hopes of votes come election time. Letters are addressed, issues are heard, and meetings are held ultimately to appease the voters. Is this how politics works? My ideals have consumed me with the thought that politics works through noble ambition; that one's concern for hometown and country allows him/her to devote their lives to public service. Congressman Farr sacrifices most of his time to help his community. This is a noble sacrifice: time with family and friends gone in exchange for cross-country flights and meetings. Washington DC is a busy and important city, as I quickly discovered. The East Coast has an aura on the west as a different country almost; granted, when I arrived at Dulles, it felt like a different world. However, I soon discovered that this country revolves this part of the country. Political decisions are made here everyday that shape our lives, economic decisions made up the Atlantic Coast in New York that change the global market. This truly is a powerful country, and I am beginning to see the intricacies of the political machine. This is where I want to come to work after I am done with Law School. This is where big decisions are made, and I hope to be a part of it. Big city life is definietly for me: I get a rush from riding the METRO in the morning and wearing a tie to work. This is something I have not yet experienced at home, but it is a bright future I hope to someday have. The climate here outside of work is amazing. This city is truly run by interns, and they all come out in droves when work is over. Every muscle relaxed, every smile shown, they have made my stay here most enjoyable. This summer has provided me with perspective, more specifically that my home in Northern California is a small and insignificant part of this overall country and world. Discussing life with people from Louisiana, New York, and New Hampshire has given me a new view on life. My job might be unpaid, but the reward is substantial and priceless. I am gaining maturity and respect, not only for myself but this country in general. This truly is the greatest country in the world, I say this because I have seen how hard people work and how willing people are to compromise and work together. On a lighter note, it makes perfect sense now that baseball should be in Washington DC. As I saw the firework show after the Oakland-DC game, I realized that these lights could be seen by the White House, the Monument, and the Capital Building. This is America's passtime; it thus deserves to be in the nation's capital. More as it develops...and I promise to update this more often

Humanitarian Intervention

2005-04-16T00:26:00.000-07:00

In my war and politics class we are discussing the rationale behind humanitarian intervention in times of dire need in the global community. We are hearing horror stories from the Darfur region of Sudan, where a supposed genocide is occuring at this present moment. People are outraged that the United States has not acted; are we repeating our inactive nature a la Rwanda in 1994? Although this has not been touched upon very much, I was wondering about a different side of humanitarian intervention. Consistency, it seems, might be the most important factor of such benign actions. Legitimacy and impartiality seems to be the most important factors within an intervention, but those are simply brushed aside by inconsistent action. US soldiers were sent into Somalia, yet they stayed clear of Rwanda. UN troops were sent to Korea during the Korean War, but nobody did a thing about the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Even today, the world rushed to the aid of Tsunami victims, but not to the aid of the Sudanese or the North Koreans. Politics has clouded our ability to morally judge situations. Now, humanitarian intervention occurs only when convenient. Should we strive for more? I believe so. Why is one life worth more than another? Why should 18 US soldiers die in Mogadishu, just so President Clinton can avoid political flak? Are their lives not as important as the ones they are trying to save? I suggest everyone watch Black Hawk Down. I gave this movie another watch over the week and it put the lectures in a great context. Thoughts on the KASCON conference in the next entry...I am tired

Thoughts on the Terri Schiavo case

2005-03-30T19:37:00.000-08:00

The Terri Schiavo case has been a recent development that has been disturbing and shameful as far as I am concerned. If we look at the meddling of the bueracracy, the right wings pushing religion into political situations, the left protecting their seeming vulernable rights, and different legal characters fighting simply to save face, then we lose sight of the fact that at the core of this case is a life, a human being, a wife, and a daughter. Terri Schiavo is dying a very slow death because a judge in Florida decided that it would be better to end her life, but in the most indirect way. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the 14 some odd days that Mrs. Schiavo will be starving and dying of thirst will be horrible, not only for herself (brain dead or not, nobody wants to deal with skin flaking off and fluid building up in the legs) or her family, who has to witness the utter deterioration of her body.

The truly unfortunate thing about this whole case is that nobody would compromise to make a decision. The parents would not listen to the husband's pleas, and vice versa. Now the media and interest groups are pushing their respective parties along, while Mrs. Schiavo must suffer. Does Mrs. Schiavo want to die? Maybe after seeing what is going on in the press.

And the worst thing is the rash decision the judge made at the end of the case. Remove her feeding tube so she can die of dehydration? Why did you not just send her to Darfur, they are doing the same thing over there. If the court sought the most humane course of action, which is a wish that was universal among those who cared for Schiavo, then they should have agreed on a decision, instead of bickering and protested the courts decision.

Is it murder? Murder, in a legal context, implies malicious intent of homicide. Manslaughter, on the other hand, deals with indirect homicide, of not necessarily malicious intent. So what do we have here? Neither, I believe. Some right wing conservatives might not agree with me, saying ending someone's life is murder, period. I believe its interesting that Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby came out a few months before this case came to light, because it definietly helped me put things into perspective and a new light. Euthanasia must be addressed by the legal system, because in a legal standard it cannot be construed as murder if applied to some situations. This is not murder. To end one's suffering is a blessing, a gift that can be bestowed upon someone. What right do you have to decide if one remains alive? Because you have hope? Thats great Billy Graham, but what about the person you are trying to save? What if they have lost all hope? What if their will to live has left them at about the same time that it takes a hour for them to get cleaned by a nurse and then fed through a tube, meanwhile wondering what it would be like to walk on the beach one more time. Faith, it seems, cannot satiate that hunger. Suffering can be too unbearable to some people, and it is unfair to think that they can last as long as they can because you have faith.

Maybe we need to readdress our moral values. Religion, it might seem, should not necessarily take the root in all of our legal decisions. It is time we sat back and thought to ourselves, what truly does define our society? Are we concerned with upholding an ancient faith, or should we be concerned about how to deal with a soul whose physical body is damaged beyond recognition and is true need of salvation...

thoughts on religion

2005-02-17T21:51:00.000-08:00

i was approached today in the courtyard outside of Dwinelle by a nice young man who wanted to talk to me about God. this was not the first time I have been approached and asked if I had heard the Gospel, but needless to say, I was interested to hear what he was going to say. He began to explain that our souls can be given eternal salvation by God's grace and His grace alone, and that if I gave my soul to God that I would surely live an eternal life. little did this guy know that my personal beliefs do not revolve around an afterlife in heaven (they revolve more around an afterlife as a dog or a cat). it was interesting, however, to hear his pursuasion: he was very convinced and determined, following me to the door of my discussion. I asked him many of those retorical questions agnostics and atheists ask religious people, like how can God allow so many attrocities and does a baby go to heaven. this was where i found his answers less than satisfactory. according to him, sinners can directly affect the innocent, causing needless suffering. but if God truly loves us, would He not shield us from danger that we have no control over? what is the point of life to a stillborn baby? according to him, the baby goes to heaven, because it knew no sin. my question was then what was the point of the nine months of development and the possible hours of labor the mother had to go through, only to be followed by immense grief and sorrow? maybe this is the agnostic, or the idealistic communist in me coming out, but shouldn't a God who wishes to give us his glory through his grace try to make our lives better here? i'm not saying give me a brand new computer, admission to Stanford Law School, and Kate Beckinsale...but how about an end to famine in North Korea, end to genocide in Sudan, and an end to those natural disasters that displace or kill millions. these seem like impossible tasks to me, even by the standards of a higher being, because these disasters and tragedies define the human existence. i wish i had more time to talk to him, because i would have explained how Buddhists interpret these disasters: according to Buddhism, suffering is the single thing all living things share. with this common feature, we are the same as the goat eaten by the mountain lion, the elephant killed by the poacher, or the poor drug dealer killed on the streets of oakland. we all suffer, not necessarily needlessly, but universally. therefore, we are what we have overcome. Nirvana, I believe, can be attained when we can put our suffering into perspective, understand why we must suffer, in order to move past it into a state of bliss and contentment that i believe cannot be given by any God, any book, or any Sunday service. I believe that salvation can only be found in ourselves, not in any diety

a thought on valentines day...

2005-02-14T19:16:00.000-08:00

today is valentines day, a commercialized holiday to make one day of the year special for two (or more) members of this consumer society by bombarding them with touching images of happy couples followed by the chocolates and the flowers and the movies and the little candies with the romantic words on them and the condoms and... valentines day's historical significance comes from st. valentine, a roman priest who is considered a martyr by the catholic church. february 14th is the day that he is to be honored with a feast, although throughout the middle ages and the early renaissance, european communities started including traditions of love and relationships within the holiday. however, there is no direct historical link between romantic love and st. valentine. i'll bet those british settlers who first came to this country and celebrated st. valentines day did not think that hundreds of years later it would come packaged with see's candy, halmark cards, and national condom day. i'm not bitter, if thats what you think; rather, i'm concerned with the intense commercialization of this holiday. it occured to me as i walked to my international law class today. as i walked in the rain, i happened to come across a blind girl, being led to class by her mother, carrying an umbrella over their heads. they were talking about something, i didn't care to listen, but i was taken back by this image. there was such care in the mother, who carefully led her daughter through the large, loud crowd of students, magnified in intensity i'm sure by her lack of sight. this made my valentines day, for that was true love. true love, i believe, is caring about somebody more than you care about yourself, and doing whatever you can to help that other person, because without that other person, you cannot live or function. i thought this mother was sacrificing time she could have spent working or relaxing to help her daughter go to school. to all the couples i know, don't take my story as advice to throw the "meaningless" candy in your date's face. there is love in that package as well. but i think we can all sit back and realize that the love that valentines day is speaking of is more than "boyfriend-girlfriend", "fiance", or "married". love is visiting your sick mother, helping your brother with schoolwork, calling an old roommate, wiping the tears from your friend's face. love cannot be simplified in a $12.99 box of assorted chocolate. love is ultimately going out of your way to make someone's life better, even if it is just a little bit.

50 years of history in 4:50

2005-02-05T22:06:00.000-08:00

We have Billy Joel to thank, I guess... WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnny Ray South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe Dimaggio Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, Television North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe Rosenberg’s, H-Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom Brando, The King and I and The Catcher in the Rye Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new queen Marciano, Liberace, Santayana Goodbye We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dacron Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Khrushchev Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Suez We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac Sputnik, Chou En-Lai, Bridge on the River Kwai Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle, California Baseball Starkweather Homicide, Children of Thalidomide Buddy Holly, Ben Hur, Space Monkey, Mafia Hula Hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go U-2, Synghman Rhee, Payola and Kennedy Chubby Checker, Psycho, Belgians in the Congo We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Hemingway, Eichmann, Stranger in a Strange Land Dylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs Invasion Lawrence of Arabia, British Beatlemania Ole Miss, John Glenn, Liston Beats Patterson Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British Politician Sex JFK, blown away, what else do I have to say We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, Punk Rock Begin, Reagan, Palestine, Terror on the airline Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, Heavy Metal, Suicide Foreign Debts, Homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz Hypodermics on the shore, China's under martial law Rock and Roller Cola Wars, I can't take it anymore We didn't start the fire, It was always burnin', Since the world's been turnin' We didn't start the fire, But when we are gone Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on... We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't...

A great quote

2005-01-28T21:32:00.000-08:00

"As a reductio ad absurdum, imagine a society of four members: an ogre twenty feet high, flesh-eating, preferably human; an Englishman six feet high, speaking no Japanese; a Japanese samurai, a military noble, speaking no English; and a Central African pygmy, early palaeolithic; and all on an island the size of Malta. This is a parable what is called international society."--M.Wight, a British Political Scientist

Savor the moment (and don't drop your wallet)

2005-01-18T22:24:00.000-08:00

What can I say about this movie, simply brilliant. Miles and Jack's adventure into wine country is the same journey that we simultaneously take into our own lives, examining our own self worth. What seems like a simple story on the outside of two middle aged men going on a road trip quickly expands into more: Miles, our protagonist, becomes more complex than the depressed oenophile we observe...he is at a crossroads in his life, crying out, hoping someone out there will listen. The performances are superb: Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church give the characters not only likability but a plausibility that makes you sit and think "that could be me and my best buddy". The movie is completely character driven, but its completely satisfying just watching Jack talk to Miles, about getting laid if nothing at all. The script is genius; one scene in particular in which Miles describes a certain type of wine and its delicate skin, tickles our metaphoric fancy. We soon discover that Miles, the same guy who wakes up every morning with a wine hangover, is discribing his own vulnerability in words that he knows best. If you cannot describe your own emotion, use what you know best to convey it. However, I found Jack to be the most fascinating character. Jack originally struck me as someone who knew exactly what he wanted, a colorful contrast to Miles and his depressed, passionless life. However, we see in Jack later in the film that demonstrates a truth that I believe Sideways tries to addresses: the veil of confidence simply covers the true pain and vulnerability that every human takes. Jack, despite his wisecracks, desperate acts of womanizing, and drinking, is suffering the same problems as his friend Miles. Thats what makes their trip so special: however different they commiserate, they still commisterate over the same things. Sideways is something I enjoyed watching, not only for the humor (it was hilarious), but also for the simple yet complex message it presented. This is a movie that does not try to hard to say what it has to say, for it is ultimately up to the viewer to take what it can from it. I know it changed me, cheered me up, and ultimately inspired me. Makes me want to pack up my bags, get my best buddy Pat in a car, and go up to Napa, in search of good wine, beautiful women, and answers to questions in my own life...

North Korea: US a "Nuclear Criminal"

2005-01-15T17:04:00.000-08:00

SEOUL, South Korea - A day after indicating a willingness to rejoin nuclear disarmament talks, North Korea returned to its usual anti-American rhetoric Saturday, accusing the United States of being a "nuclear criminal" with double standards. North Korea's state-run newspaper Rodong Sinmun accused Washington of "conniving at, patronizing and cooperating with the pro-American forces" in Israel, Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear arms while pressuring North Korea to abandon its program. "The U.S. policy of double standards assumes extremely partial and aggressive nature," the newspaper said. The report also denied that the North is running a clandestine uranium enrichment program, as the United States claims, in addition to its plutonium-based weapons program. The United States, North and South Korea, China, Japan and Russia have struggled for months to convene a fourth round of talks to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear programs. Previous rounds, held in Beijing, ended without breakthroughs. President Bush labeled North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and prewar Iraq. Experts say the isolated North may already possess two or three nuclear bombs, in addition to fuel that could produce several more. In an unusual overture Friday, however, the reclusive North offered to become a "friend" of the United States if Washington did not make inflammatory remarks about leader Kim Jong Il's regime. The softened rhetoric was highly unusual, as North Korean officials typically load their speech with harsh anti-American criticism, and followed a visit this week to Pyongyang by a bipartisan U.S. congressional delegation described by the Americans as a success. "They are ready to get back to substantive discussions," Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., who led the delegation, said Saturday at a news conference in Beijing. "Nothing is off the table." Weldon said they met with North Korea's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam; Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun; and Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan during their three-day visit, and the meetings were more positive than expected. "Without any hesitation, they have agreed that there will be a way in which the end result would result in them giving up their nuclear capability," Weldon said. "That's exactly what it was, overwhelmingly positive beyond our expectations." Weldon said earlier his delegation gave North Korea reassurances that Washington did not want a regime change in Pyongyang and was not planning to launch pre-emptive attacks. North Korea has said it needs a nuclear deterrent against U.S. invasion after the Iraq war. The nuclear dispute erupted in late 2002 when Washington accused North Korea of running a uranium enrichment program in violation of international nonproliferation accords and cut off free oil shipments. North Korea denied the claim, quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarted its mothballed plutonium weapons program. written by Sang-Hun Choe, AP Writer

A thought on airports

2005-01-12T18:22:00.000-08:00

National security aside, there is something fascinating about airports that I cannot stop thinking about. It is fascinating if you think about it: airports today are the major ports of the past, where pilgrims and adventurers would set out into distant lands. I love the feeling when you go to the airport, because you know that the next place you will be is far away. And I could never get sick of that kind of travel...SFO to LAX, LAX to JFK, the JFK red eye to O'Hara, O'Hara to Logan, Logan to...wherever you want! That is the greatest thing about the airport: given a situation without a limit on time nor money, the airport is the place where you could go anywhere...the world is at your fingertips, all you need is a passport/id/or both, a major credit card, and a sense of wanderlust to guide your travels. Airports also give you a sense of happiness; an eagerness to see ones you love come and go. Many a times I have given rides to people who have gone to the airport, and each time, there can never be animosity, never criticism, only the anticipation for the journey. Problems seem to be whisked away. Now, I know what you're thinking...this is for the casual traveler...for the business traveler, its stressful and problematic. I can only but think of sitting in the terminal, waiting for my flight, with my overpriced coffee and Washington Post in my hands, thinking to myself, what is the onflight movie and lunch today? There is no stress, only the thought of the mysteries that lie at the end of these places with strange names, names like SEA-TAC and DULLES. Maybe my point is simple. I am a person who does not fear the possible danger of riding the airplane. I enjoy the experience of flying, so the airport has been nothing but a romantic launching point for adventures, deep into the unknown. Maybe I just have this notion of the airport as a metaphor for events in life...once you go through the rigors of security, baggage claim, the overpriced peanuts, and the crying babies, the only thing limiting you is the sky...

ANOTHER OLDIE BUT GOODIE

2005-01-10T19:43:00.000-08:00

Don't have time for another original post, so here's another one from the archives (Tusitalia from October 2001) In ancient China, there once lived a man who spent his entire life fishing. He went to the little pond near his house and fished, every single day, for forty years. He never worked, nor learned to read or write or anything. He just fished. He would settle down on his favorite rock and sit there, doing absolutely nothing for forty years. Word of this fisherman spread throughout the land but not because he was a remarkable fisherman. One the contrary: in his forty years of fishing, he did not get a single catch, mostly due to the fact that he had no hook on the end of his line. His wife soon left him after realizing that he was a complete failure in life. But he continued on, sitting on that rock, fishing. One day the Emperor of China sent for this man. In the presence of the Emperor, the man was asked if he would be the royal advisor to his majesty. The man gladly accepted, and after forty years of doing nothing, he was the highest-ranking official in China, making great decisions that eventually expanded the empire’s power. The Emperor realized that this was no ordinary bum; he obviously knew something that most normal people didn’t. The man ended up reforming China’s economic and legal systems, as well as creating diplomatic ties with numerous other nations. Ultimately, he brought a rare time of peace to a turbulent China. What’s the point of that story? It’s simple: slackers are more than they appear to be. Slackers are misunderstood in the sense that people believe that nothing good comes out of them. One can approach slacker philosophy in one of two ways. One, you can shun the slacker culture, and conform to the mold of modern society. Or two, you can embrace the slacker culture, and perhaps be as enlightened as the man who fished for forty years, only to become the Emperor’s advisor. Two of my favorite movies address this topic of people given with the name “slacker” for breaking free of social conformities and accomplishing great things. When given a choice of what to do, people go against their natural instincts and do hard, enduring work because it is socially accepted. It is when one goes against convention and decides to do only what they want to when they are branded with the moniker “slacker” or even “bum”. But, as I am about to explain, this unorthodox approach to life is, perhaps the healthier, more enlightened approach. The first movie is Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, a study in the life of an independent and rebellious teenager who decides one day that he has had enough school and meticulously plans a day off with his girl, best friend, and a red Ferrari. What initially struck me as an amusing comedy turned out to be something much more profound. It turns out that Ferris Bueller is the quintessential modern philosopher, who truly understands his limits and life in general. His witticisms should be published and read, perhaps in a new form of philosophy. “How can I go to school on a day like this?” Ferris asks while pointing outside to a beautiful sunny day. At first, this seems like a stupid comment inserted for a few laughs. But one then has to sit down and think for a minute. How many times have you and I said that, only to drive to school and sit in lecture or class while the birds chirp or the calm autumn breeze blows by? How many times have you sat there in class and thought of what you could be doing at a moment like this? Ferris is a rare case of someone who saw something they wanted and went after it. The struggle of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, though, is between Ferris and his best friend, Cameron, a slave to society. Ferris promptly notes in the movie that Cameron is an uptight nut who actually gets sick because he worries over things. We learn that Ferris doesn’t plan this day of fun for himself; he plans this day for Cameron, who desperately needs some help. Cameron is the typical atypical teenager: he is dominated by his parents, who dictate his every move and existence. He cannot stand the fact that his family, especially his father, is so dominating yet so superficial (“He loves the car, he hates my mom…”). Ferris tries to free Cameron’s mind from the chains of modern society, just as Plato explained in his Allegory of the Mind. Once freed, Plato explained, a mind cannot return to its primitive state. Ferris, with his mind freed from social expectations and boundaries, cannot demean himself further to his lowly existence at school and hopes to help his friends see the same. Ferris pushes Cameron beyond his comfort zone in order to incur a positive response. For example, he pushes Cameron to take his father’s beloved Ferrari, the symbol of his father’s superficiality and reluctance to understand. The end of the movie demonstrates Ferris’ true victory. The Ferrari is totaled, but not before Ferris finally gets to Cameron. He decides to take a stand against his father, fighting for his rights as a person with feelings and emotions newly discovered during a much-needed day off. And then there’s Office Space, an entertaining yet insightful film about what the American workplace has become and the affect it has on people. We focus on computer programmer Peter Gibbons, who comments that, “Each day at work is a bad day, and each subsequent day is worse than the day before. So actually every time you see me, you’re seeing me on the worst day of my life.” But through a revelation, Peter realizes that he has risen above his primitive obligation to be the slave to society, and he begins his crusade of “nothingness”, in which he does nothing. He doesn’t go to work. He doesn’t dress up. He doesn’t follow rules. And most importantly, he doesn’t care. This is the “nothing” that one of my good friends spoke highly of, the nothing that is watching a whole hour go by on a clock, watching second after second melt away into oblivion. The twist of the movie is when Peter is promoted because of his stark honesty and simple yet pure approach to things. He soon finds himself in upper management. Everything about this movie preaches the ability to be content with oneself. When one can be content with oneself, then one no longer has to live with the constraints of modern society. It is when we feel uncertain that we allow ourselves to be pulled in by societies demands. One of the most classic scenes in any movie shows our protagonist strutting into his old office building with an Aloha shirt on, the Geto Boy’s classic “Damn it Feels Good to be a Gangsta” blaring in the background. It is so fitting, because at that point, he has become enlightened. He has realized that his life is for him to live, and not for him to suffer in some labor that he despises. Although satirical, Office Space shows us a certain truth. It addresses a problem that our modern society has created: materialism, conformism, and ultimately what lengths we will go to achieve these. Americans strive to be the best, and in this highly competitive capitalist society, it is those who put in the time and effort who succeed. That means usually a 9-5 workday 6 days a week. What does this mean? It means that people have to deal with the unbearable work hours, even if they don’t want to. The message is simple (well, not really): if you are going to do anything, do something that you actually want to do, because if you don’t like what you are doing, you’re going to hate every single minute of your existence. Ultimately, you have to see the movies for yourself to get anything from them. They are great comedies if you need a laugh. But the difference than these two movies and the average load of crap that Adam Sandler puts out every year is that these movies attempt to address a certain topic that seems relevant in our hectic everyday existence. I don’t want everyone to think I’m some bum who does nothing. On the contrary, I believe that I am the antithesis of everything that Ferris Bueller and Office Space preach. A student at Stevenson, especially a senior, cannot afford to accept their philosophy no matter how hard they try. Don’t think I’m telling you to set aside what you are doing right now and do absolutely nothing. If you do that, then you obviously missed the point. The point is that we must not let ourselves be taken away by the hustle and bustle of our existence at this school, not to just simply rebel against the system and do nothing. We cannot be swept away by our obligations to academics. We must understand that there are a lot of other important things to do in this world. It is a person who can carefully balance both academics, social interaction, and personal reflection that I truly admire. It is he/she who truly embodies the spirit of Ferris Bueller of Peter Gibbons, for they understand life and do things for themselves. So what am I trying to tell you? Maybe a day off once in a while wouldn’t hurt. It is these days off that help you appreciate the good things in life. So if you are stressing over exams or college admissions, then quit what you are doing right now, get your o-face on, and ride in your best friend’s red Ferrari with your girl/boyfriend at your side with the speakers blasting “Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.”

A thought...

2005-01-06T23:24:00.000-08:00

While hearing about the devastating news of the tsunamis that are destroying many coastlines in Southeast Asia, India, and even Africa, I could not help but think of Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, which accounted for the rise and fall of civilizations and attributed ecological factors to success and failure of society. Race, Diamond said, was not the factor that lead to the rise of European imperialism and the subjugation of Asiatic and Negro races: simply put, it was hard luck of location and proximate resources. It is unfortunate that these giant waves crashed on the shores of Southeast Asia and destroyed millions of lives...can you consider if those waves crashed into the San Francisco Bay Area? Luck, it seems, has a profound effect on every aspect of life. Luck would have it that Mesopotamian and Chinese settlers would establish their cities near fertile land by rivers, reaping an abundant amount of livestock and agriculture once the appropriate technology was developed. And luck would also have it that the Incas would inhabit mostly unhospitable land in the Andes, where farming and other agriculture was almost impossible. This is why, according to Diamond, the Incans were eventually conquered by the Spanish and not the other way around. It seems like an antiquated idea in a modern sense, one civilization taking advantage of anothers for its own benefit. What can we say about this tsunami then? Unfortunate events unfold across the world every day, but I am not the only one who notices that flash floods, tsunamis, and famine strike that region of the world more than our part. Which makes me wonder...what have we (or will we) do as a fortunate society (in the general sense) to ensure something like this does not happen again? History undoubtable is about change and the cycle of power...it seems fitting that the strong survive and the weak perish, a la Darwin. But as conscious people with the potential to do great things, one must then wonder: are we going to take action, against that we have the potential to affect or we going to sit back and watch nations crumble, as has happened in the past, losing the majesty and glory of such ancient cultures as the Aztecs, Macedonia, and Byzantium.

BLAST FROM THE PAST

2005-01-05T19:30:00.000-08:00

here's an oldie but goodie from the archives: (FROM THE STEVENSON TUSITALIA, MAY 2002) Human beings should be ashamed of themselves, and I’ve got three words to explain why: The Glutton Bowl. In a ridiculous show of absurdity and public mockery, Fox (the network that brought such quality television programs as “when animals attack”, “celebrity boxing”, and “when police chases go bad”) broadcasted The Glutton Bowl, the Super Bowl of competitive eating. Competitive eating? I kid you not: there is, in fact, a competitive eating circuit in the world. The IFOCE (International Federation of Competitive Eating) has internationally sanctioned events occurring in numerous nations. There are official rules to these eating competitions, with professionally trained referees regulating the competitions. The commentators of the Glutton Bowl explained that the sport of competitive eating is the most difficult sport in the world, mostly because of the resistance the human body displays for food after a certain point. IFOCE board member John Garger said, "This is a spectacular production with enormous energy and unbelievable athletic performances.” Athletic performances? Hardly the words I’d use to describe it. But what is an athlete, one might wonder? Is a golfer an athlete? How about a billiards player? Would I be going on a limb to say a bridge player is an athlete? Webster’s Dictionary defines an athlete as a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength. Well, clearly a Glutton Bowl competitor fits these descriptions. But do we still consider him an athlete? The quickest reason to doubt the competitors athletic ability is due to the fact that overeating is a taboo of our modern society. We live in an age where thin is beautiful, and where we “eat to live”, not “live to eat”. However, this wasn’t always the case. In ancient cultures, huge feasts were held in order to show prosperity and wealth. Only the rich could afford such food; it was a benefit of being a member of the elite. Rich people even had vomitariums, where they would puke after overeating in order to consume more food. Ancient Hawaiians believed that eating a lot showed power and wealth in their society. If a man was big (the last king of the Hawaiian islands, King Kamehameha, was almost seven feet tall and weighed nearly five hundred pounds), it showed his dominance over the smaller and weaker workers or servants of the court. But in the status quo, our perception is different: one with money can afford a great personal trainer, a gym, and dietary supplements in order to maintain a proper figure. Anyway, back to what I was saying. What caught my eye initially was the professionalism of it all. The commentators actually gave play-by-play analysis of each round of competition, as well a diagnosis of each food about to be consumed or each competitor. It was almost as if the WWF was superimposed on a local eating competition. Huge pyrotechnics were used as each competitor strutted towards the table. I remember rolling on the ground laughing as they’d introduce each competitor, complete with his own vital stats and “food fact”. Imagine this: John “Mad Dog” Kowalski, from Brooklyn, New York, struts out on stage, donned with a wife-beater and grizzly shorts. Reigning quail egg eating champion of New York, they’d say. Food Fact: “Once ate an entire python.” I mean, how can you not laugh at this guy, who proudly struts onto the stage and pats his gargantuan belly, half covered with a wife-beater and a Budweiser hat covering his shaggy hair. Greatest athlete? Come on, I could throw a rock in a bar and hit ten guys just like that. But the way he can consume food is incredible, I’ll admit. Barry Bonds can hit 73 home runs, but can he consume an entire python in one sitting? Jesus Christ, those things are like 24 feet long! Rounds included timed consumption of various food groups, ranging from hard-boiled eggs (the winner at 42) and mayonnaise (the winner slowly consumed 8 pounds with his hands) to sticks of butter (the winner ate 4, with another caught in his bushy beard) and rocky mountain oysters (the winner ate 3 pounds…if you don’t know what they are, let me give you a hint: they aren’t oysters). Competitors and commentators were in the dark as to what the chosen food would be until they dropped a ton of it from a large container attached to the ceiling. So, a ton of mayonnaise slopped onto the ground from about 40 feet above, to the chagrin of the hundreds of fans attending the competition, screaming and chanting the names of their idols. Which brings me to my next point: what the hell were they doing there? Is it possible to cheer for something like that? I was laughing out loud to the point of involuntary urination, but it was because of the immense disgust I felt for the fools on the screen. I mean some people are blessed with true gifts. Einstein was given the gift to understand complex physics and mathematical problems. Michael Jordan was given the gift to play basketball like God. Shakespeare could capture the human spirit and essence of man’s complex personality in numerous stage productions. John Kowalski’s gift was being able to eat 5 whole extra large pizzas in less than 10 minutes. I’ll admit one thing: it was entertaining. According to the commentators, we were privileged to watch “the Tsunami” Kobayashi, the reigning world champion of eating and, according to them, the greatest man who ever lived. Kobayashi, at 5’3” and less than 130 pounds, was hardly the stature of the other competitors. However, his gift from God was his insatiable appetite and his ability to swallow food without chewing it. Watching that man shove hot dog after hot dog into his mouth had to have been one of the most amusing things I’ve ever seen, although amusing seems like an understatement upon reflection. Four hundred pound men would cry while this little man would shove handful after handful of food in his mouth. Maybe he was the greatest man in the world. But he wasn’t getting any respect in my book. In retrospect, the whole idea of competitive eating is stupid and absurd. With people starving in almost every country in the world, we here in America are watching a show depicting people gorging themselves on outrageous amounts of food that other people would kill for. It is sad to admit that I can be so easily amused. Originally, food- eating contests were performed at festivals in order to enjoy the extremes of life and to poke fun at people. The Bible states that gluttony, or the act of overindulging oneself with food is a sin; in fact, it’s one of the seven deadly sins. So why should we be ashamed with ourselves? It’s simply entertainment, right? Well, granted, it is. But then again, so is watching a guy in a shopping cart getting pushed off a hill, or watching somebody eat worms on a secluded beach for a million dollar cash prize. The problem is that we are so unsatisfied with our own lives that we search for extremes in almost everything. We go back to our animalistic instincts and almost “stupefy” ourselves in order to be entertained. Watching a guy shove egg after egg in his mouth with white residue slowly drip from his chin disgusted me, but in a way, it intrigued me because of its exoticness. Things and ideas as strange and foreign as that are appealing at first, but we must learn to be self aware of our actions. Although funny (at the cost of what little shame the competitors have left), the Glutton Bowl did not provide what I believe quality entertainment of any sort provides: something that both entertains and intrigues. A great movie with an ensemble cast and a great story. An interesting and involving novel. We live in an age where we watch TV shows about real life, when we have lives of our own to live. Why have we settled for such mediocrity? I guess what I’m incoherently trying to get at is that we should try better forms of entertainment. There are too many Survivoresque shows and other forms of dreadful crap on that seriously is a waste of time. I think we as Americans owe it to ourselves to not settle for something so degrading, stupid, and pointless as the Glutton Bowl to occupy one of our evenings. Although I’ll admit, it was pretty funny when that one dude bit into the wasabi section of his 14 foot long sushi roll. Man, did you see the way his face turned beet red and his eyes began to water, as he quickly turned to…

End of the Year Awards

2004-12-08T21:34:00.000-08:00

This will become an annual tradition for me...and I will add more categories as this goes on...but as of now, I've only thought of three 1) Movie of the Year: Tae Guk Gi Perhaps the greatest war movie I have ever seen, Tae Guk Gi addresses the issues Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, and Black Hawk Down attempted to touch on, but to a much more significant scale. Although this is a Korean movie about the Korean War, this movie has a universal message: war is hell and family is ultimately all that we have. The scenes are vivid and graphic; still, scenes haunt me from the battle at the Naktong River and the final scene with the reunion of the brothers 50 years later. But the greatest significance of Tae Guk Gi is its symbolic representation of the Korean people. Both Jin-Tae and Jin-Seok (the two brothers in the movie) are representative of Korea itself, torn from its innocence and family tie by war. The Korean War itself was a war fought by brothers. When people cried at the end of the movie, they cried not only for the sorrow felt by Jin-Seok, but they also feel the sorrow felt by the Korean people. Director Kang Je-Gyu does a marvelous job of maintaining political neutrality and presenting a story of Koreans, not North or South Koreans. He does not make monsters of the North Koreans; rather, he equally shows the suffering of all Koreans in war. Everyone should watch Tae Guk Gi, even if they have limited knowledge of the Korean War, because in the end it is a universal story about war and, ultimately, family. Other candidates: The Passion of the Christ, The Incredibles, Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring, The Motorcycle Diaries,Before Sunset, and Hero Event of the Year: the 2004 Presidential Election The next four years of this country were in the public's hands in November of this year, and there were many issues on the table. The war in Iraq, homeland security, and taxes were issues that incumbent George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry debated and spoke about in numerous speeches throughout the nation. Liberals across the nation united in an attempt to remove Bush from office. Huge political campaigns involving musicians, actors, and other celebrities tried to mobilize voters in an attempt to swing the election. And after months of campaigning, it came down to one of the closest presidential elections in US history, only to see George W. Bush grab the critical state of Ohio late in the evening on November 2nd. This assured another four years of President Bush, to the chagrin of Republics and the dismay of the Democrats. Here in Berkeley we had an overwhelming number of Democratic supporters, and obviously the majority was distraught following the announcement. However, we Democrats must not sit while important issues pass us by. Our voices can still be heard. Other candidates: The Pacer-Piston brawl, Abu Garib prisoner abuse, Mass murder and death in Sudan, Olympic Games in Athens 3) Person of the year: Curt Schilling I could have picked George W. Bush (because he won the election) or Kim Jong-Il (for remaining the most enigmatic person in the world), but I decided on someone with less political power and simply a more motivational story. Curt Schilling, the world series hero for the Boston Red Sox, took the mound in game 5 of the ALCS against the Yankees against surmountable odds. Not only did he get smashed in game one, but his ankle was busted and was in need of serious medical condition. But Schilling, as the gamer he is, asked the trainers to suture his ankle up so that he could play pain-free for a few hours. He would do this again in the World Series for the Red Sox. Schilling embodies the hero who does not give up and fights for his team. He is the American hero we were told about as kids, the ballplayer who plays for the fans and gives his all. Now we are bombarded with stories of BALCO steroid abuse from Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds that taints our national passtime. But it is important to realize that Schilling provides baseball (and this nation) the hero that people have to look to in dark times. We live in a world of strife and deceit, where wars tear nations apart, poverty leaves people to suffer, and bigotry leads to social instability. But baseball is a passtime, and it is through it that we can forget about life's problems and realize the potential of a boy's dream. Schilling, playing through his bloody sock, was living a boys dream, and for that, I commend him. Although I still consider myself a staunch democrat, i do consider George W. Bush a very close second. John Kerry lost the election for not being firm or true to his political roots...and as much as I disagree with some of Bush's ideals, I'll give him credit for being consistent and keeping with them. Bush has simply changed the American political spectrum, creating a pure division between liberals and conservatives, between hawks and doves, and between the extreme and the moderate. Through his administration, we have seen recession and growth, war and a rise in global terrorism, and whether I'd like to admit it or not, a united front against this enemy. I would like to see Bush embrace America's place in the world as a leader, but not the leader. North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are hot spots in the world right now that should be addressed with political savviness, not brute force. Bush must understand that while he has the united support of the majority of this nation, he must not confuse the ambition of his own agenda with the political agenda of this country. This country chose him, there is no dispute now, no recount, no protest. Now he must prove to us that he deserves to be around another four years. He needs to remember his constituents, the parents of a marine in Iraq or a doctor who wants more funding for health care. Bush must realize that people from all walks of life live in this country, and wheter we'd like to admit it or not, supported him during this past election. Things in this country must change or I forsee a darker time for this country... Other candidates: George W. Bush, John Kerry, Kim Jong-Il, Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google)

And the word of the year is...

2004-12-01T14:08:00.000-08:00

BLOG! BOSTON (Reuters) A four-letter term that came to symbolize the difference between old and new media during this year's presidential campaign tops U.S. dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster's list of the 10 words of the year. Merriam-Webster Inc. said on Tuesday that blog, defined as "a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments and often hyperlinks," was one of the most looked-up words on its Internet sites this year. Eight entries on the publisher's top-10 list related to major news events, from the presidential election -- represented by words such as incumbent and partisan -- to natural phenomena such as hurricane and cicada. Springfield, Massachusetts-based Merriam-Webster compiles the list each year by taking the most researched words on its Web sites and then excluding perennials such as affect/effect and profanity. The company said most online dictionary queries were for uncommon terms, but people also turned to its Web sites for words in news headlines. "That is what occurred in this year's election cycle ... with voluminous hits for words like 'incumbent,' 'electoral,' 'partisan,' and, of course, our number one Word of the Year, 'blog,'" Merriam-Webster President and Publisher John Morse said in a statement. Americans called up blogs in droves for information and laughs ahead of the Nov. 2 presidential election. Freed from the constraints that govern traditional print and broadcast news organizations, blogs spread gossip while also serving as an outlet for people increasingly disenchanted with mainstream media. It was mainly on blogs that readers first encountered speculation that President Bush wore a listening device during his first debate against Democrat John Kerry. The White House, forced to respond, called it a laughable, left-wing conspiracy theory. Bloggers also were among the first to cast doubt on a CBS television news report that challenged Bush's military service. CBS later admitted it had been duped into using questionable documents for the report. Last week CBS anchor Dan Rather said he would step down in March, although the network said the move was unconnected to the scandal. A Merriam-Webster spokesman said it was not possible to say how many times blog had been looked up on its Web sites but that from July onward, the word received tens of thousands of hits per month. Blog will be a new entry in the 2005 version of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. The complete list of words of the year is available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/04words.htm By Greg Frost