Sunday, April 30, 2006

A future worth voting for

Since Republicans occupied both Congress and the Presidency, there has been a lot of discussion as to how the Democrats can reclaim political ground. A wonderful essay in the Times today looks to 20th century history and illustrious Cold War liberals to find answers. It's long, but so worth it!

One paragraph, in particular, embodies my feelings about how America should conduct itself in the wider world. It's a call for modesty and level-headedness that I hope--against all the odds--the Democrats will capitalize on, and American voters will support, in the coming elections. (You might remember an earlier post, The Potential for Greatness, discussing a similar sentiment.)

Americans may fight evil...but that does not make us inherently good. And paradoxically, that very recognition makes national greatness possible. Knowing that we, too, can be corrupted by power, we seek the constraints that empires refuse. And knowing that democracy is something we pursue rather than something we embody, we advance it not merely by exhorting others but by battling the evil in ourselves. The irony of American exceptionalism is that by acknowledging our common fallibility, we inspire the world.
You may not want to believe this, but while I was studying abroad in Beijing, one of the info packets distributed to the students suggested that American students err on the side of caution by introducing themselves as Canadian. They weren't kidding, either. The backlash against America's "imperialist" policies was that intense, despite the many thousands of miles separating Iraq from China.

A future in which we can go abroad and proudly to tell people we're American--now that's a future worth voting for, don't you think?

Stephen Colbert: Lampooning the Prez

Stephen Colbert ripped the President a new one at the White House Correspondent's Dinner tonight. A couple choice excerpts from Editor&Publisher via the Huffington Post:
Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
...
Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
...
Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops” on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face.
...
Observing that Bush sticks to his principles, he said, "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."
The press didn't emerge unscathed either:
Also lampooning the press, Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides—the president’s side and the vice president’s side." He also reflected on the good old days, when the media was still swallowing the WMD story.

Addressing the reporters, he said, "You should spend more time with your families, write that novel you've always wanted to write. You know, the one about the fearless reporter who stands up to the administration. You know-- fiction."
Ouch.

Colbert has really come into his own lately. I certainly wasn't the biggest fan when the Report first started on Comedy Central, but he's kicking some serious ass now. Man, I would've paid good money to see Dubya's expression as Colbert performed his "tribute."
------------------------
Update! Watch the video here.

Pirates! Comics! And Manga!

Pirates! Comics! What more could a Johnny Depp-adoring Japanese girl ask for? (I bet you didn't know that fully 1/3 of the publishing industry in Japan is dedicated to comics! I was raised on that stuff, my friends.) El Pacifico features the work of three L.A.-based artists who are executing "comic book improvisation." What's fascinating is that they each produce great work but with a very distinct style. I have such deep respect for comic book artists because the good ones must provide a vivid, (usually) hand-drawn, visual representation of the story in addition to the already-difficult task of producing a complex plot with engaging characters and believable dialogue.

And, I simply could
not post on comic books without sharing some of my favorite Japanese manga:

Dragonball: The all-time, number-one, hands-down- most-influential- to-my-growing-up favorite by world-class cartoonist Akira Toriyama. And it really is a shame that most people only know it in its
anime version, because I personally find the comics much more compelling. And by compelling, I mean incredibly addictive. A must-read for anyone who wants to know anything about recent Japanese pop culture, in my opinion anyway.


Ranma 1/2: The plot for this series runs a bit on the bizarre side, but it's still fantastic. The author, Rumiko Takahashi, is one of the most prolific Japanese comic book artists--and for good reason. Her comics often appeal to both boys and girls, by combining teenage love, angst, and martial arts in pretty much equal proportions. Good times.

Yuu Yuu Hakusho: Slightly darker than the above two, as this series starts off with the main character's death and his turning into a 'ghost fighter' (for lack of a better word) to avoid the less appealing path of going to hell. Definitely a boy's comic filled with martial arts, gory images, and very crass jokes, but that never bothered me. The inconsistency of the drawing style, a uniquely Japanese trait in comic books, manifests itself in droves.

There are so many more! But I'll stop there before I scare y'all away. Some time this summer when I'm back home in Tokyo, I'll post about comic books geared for adults, which is a whole separate ball of wax--but is
also a very interesting cultural phenomenom.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Ageism hurts the young, too

One of the things I'm truly excited about when it comes to leaving college is that I will no longer be surrounded solely by people in my own age group. Having people to look up to really does improve my quality of life, and I've missed that type of interaction since leaving high school, where I had sports coaches and social studies teachers who were my friends and mentors at the same time.

I'm a frequent visitor of so-called 'elderblogs' (see Blogroll to the right for some links) for similar reasons--there's a whole lot to learn from people who've lived twice as long as I have. Ronni Bennett's Time Goes By gives insightful and penetrating commentary on "what it's really like to get older." Having watched my own mom struggle to find a new job earlier this year--she thankfully now has a fantastic position at the British School in Tokyo--and hear her talk about how difficult it is even for people in their early 50s to find meaningful work, Ronni's post on the worsening condition of ageism in this country really hit close to home. According to a new study by the International Longevity Center:

  • Negative language describing elders is in abundant use: fossil, old biddy, codger, over the hill, old goat, greedy geezer, coot, etc.
  • Medical slang is equally prejudicial. GOMER means “Get Out of My Emergency Room” and usually refers to elders. People in hospitals awaiting transfer to nursing homes are referred to as “bed blockers.”
  • On television, only two percent of characters are older than 65 (that age group represents 12 percent of the population and is growing rapidly) and they are usually portrayed as foolish, weak and confused.
  • About 20 percent of workers report that age discrimination in the workplace is increasing.
Marginalization of the elderly doesn't just hurt them, it hurts the younger generation too. I lost all four of my grandparents before I really had the chance to talk to them about their lives, and as a result, will always feel slightly hollow about my "roots" and ancestry. Do we really want the same thing to happen on a national or even global scale?

I'm feeling lucky

I'm feeling lucky today! Within an hour of waking up, I discovered these fantastic blogs:

Ambivablog:
"The swing state of the religious and political blogosphere."
In a two-sizes-fit-all culture, you're expected to sign up for one of two prefab sets of ideas. Just pop one or the other cassette into your brain, and you're good to go on automatic. Your friends, enemies, media choices, soundtrack, opinions, political candidates, pet pundits, pat peeves, team logos, and votes are all preselected for you. America is turning into a huge Super Bowl with only two teams and fans as rabid as Brit soccer hooligans. If you're neither of the above, if you're equally turned off by knee-jerk liberals and sanctimonious conservatives, you're a misfit, and I want to know you.
Unwilling Self-Negation: A thoughtful, lyrical blogger (from Punjab? I think?) who posts on a wide range of topics from Islam to women's rights to philosophy. One post, featuring an excerpt written by a female soldier in Iraq, gave me shivers.

I See invisible People
: Seeks to give us "
news, views and reviews of the people and places overlooked by the world at large." Definitely worth a read, especially the Carnival of Feminists.

Persephone's Box:
"Like Pandora's Box, but messier." Lots of variety in this one, from rants about baby-sitters to political commentary. I especially enjoyed, and agreed with, her defense of profanity and its use in blogs:
And I really don't understand why we can say feces, scat and poop, but not shit, or why we can say fornicate, copulate, and have a go, but not fuck. And why is "f*ck" okay, but not "fuck" - ahhh, my eyes! It's this one "F" word that stops even the most lenient teachers in their tracks even though it's permissible to say something "sucks" which is also sexual in nature. Why do we give that one word so much power? It baffles me that it's so offensive in this day and age.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Politicking Over High Gas Prices

High gas prices are causing a ruckus in Washington D.C. as politicians scramble to please constituents disgruntled about having to pay more at the pump. The Republicans have cobbled together an eight-point plan which includes a $100 rebate to to approximately 100 million Americans, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling by oil companies, investing more resources in renwable energies, increased tax breaks from hybrid car owners and increased taxes on oil company profits when prices are over $55 a barrel. (Bush has said he will veto any bill that includes this last provision.) The price tag of this bill has been approximated by aides at $20 billion.

What's unfortunate is that I do support the Republicans on many of the proposals, but the bad still seems to far outweight the good. Go ahead and increase tax breaks for hybrid car owners--I've heard rumors that these cars don't pay for themselves in cash saved on gas anyway, so let's at least reward people for being good to Mother Earth. And investing heavily in renewable energies is something the federal government should have done long ago. However, I have serious issues with the other points outlined above. Taxing oil companies sounds great initially, but there seems to be some scholarship indicating that BigOil benefits the economy because for the past several years, they have been investing a greater sum of money than their reported profits. (I'll try and locate the article where I read this and post it here.) So I vote for a little bit more digging to be done before we do more harm by funneling dollars from the private sector to the notoriously-inefficient public sector. As for opening the Arctic to drilling--all I have to say is, hands off! We don't need oil badly enough to damage one of the last pristine areas left in this country. As for the price tag, is it really wise to be adding another $20 billion to the monstrous federal deficit? Finally, what is with the $100 hand-out? Is that supposed to make a material difference to people who drive to work every day? And for the rest of us, is that $100 supposed to provide some consolation? If it weren't such a pathetic gesture, it might actually be insulting.


...

There are some great articles about how a higher gas price may actually benefit American strategic interests, if we would only look further than the immediate short term consequences for our wallets. After all, if what we want is to reduce our dependance on foreign crude, the best first step might be to jack up prices and force ourselves to pursue alternatives. Thomas Friedman has a great piece in the Times discussing such a strategy, as does Virginia Postrel on the Dynamist blog. Friedman warns:
This is not your parents' energy crisis. The price of oil is not soaring just because of greedy oil companies. It is soaring because of structural changes in the global energy market that could have vast consequences for America and the world if we do not respond in a comprehensive manner.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Ladies, apparently we should know better.

I would have expected better things from a newspaper as widely read as the Wall Street Journal, but on April 14th, one of their columnists wrote an article called, "Ladies, you should know better: How feminism wages war on common sense," accusing rape victims of endangering themselves and not being precautious enough to prevent sexual assault. And what's to blame for such negligence? That's right folks: Feminism. Thankfully, a post on TPMcafe lead me to an article that "puts a stake in the heart" of that ridiculous argument:
The contention that men are essentially violent and women just have to learn to deal is a useless strategy for sexual assault prevention. In fact, it's downright dangerous, perpetuating the regressive idea that men can commit abusive, criminal acts with impunity and the only thing women can do to cope is to avoid alcohol, parties and miniskirts. It's a depressing view of the world that offers women no hope of societal change, only fear and disempowerment.
Yes, women should be careful and aware, because there's no getting around the fact that women are much more easily "taken advantage of" than men. But that absolutely does not mean women are to blame because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. In fact, most of these crimes are perpetrated by the victim's boyfriends, family members, close friends and acquaintances! I'd like to hear what that WSJ columnist has to say about that, instead of conveniently ignoring most of the facts about rape in America and the important efforts feminists have spearheaded to educate and empower women.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

BD42: Before & After

Trumbull's Senior Dinner was on Monday night, and my freshman year suite--the notorious BD42--was together again for the first time in ages! What can I say, time flies when you're hot like us...

I'll cherish the bass beats, the carpets, the not-so-lonely-Valentine's days, the walking in formation, the nice elbows, the yeah kansas-es, the photographing of many hot men, the many sketchy comments, the few not-so-sketchy comments, and everything else that made it to the Wall and the countless things that didn't, for the rest of my life. Or, at least until they're replaced by the even more ridiculous quotes which will doubtless be produced at future reunions.

"But we can't pull out now!"

Arianna Huffington argues on her blog that America needs to shift from hard power to soft power in Iraq. And that means pulling out troops and replacing them with more diplomatic missions, resources to rebuild the social and political spheres, and help the Iraqis build a civil society to overcome their ethnic and religious differences:
To win in Iraq, we need to leave Iraq. To win, we need to stop being the issue. To win, we need to give our money, our brains, our support in every way -- but no longer the lives of our soldiers.
The all-consuming focus on training Iraqi troops may actually be shifting resources from an equally if not more important goal: convincing "the people of Iraq...of the value of finally putting aside their ethnic and political differences." Let history once again be an important guide here--as "retired Gen. William Odom, former national security advisor to Reagan, has pointed out ...we trained the Vietnamese military very well, [but] in the end South Vietnam’s political leaders lost the war."

It's time for the politicians to ditch the "But we can't pull out now!" line and come up with some more creative solutions that will get Iraq back on track towards a stable democracy.

Keep Your Dirty Hands Off Our Net

From Save the Internet, quoting Rep Ed Markey's opening statement to his neutrality amendment, introduced to the House on Monday:

Good Afternoon. Tomorrow the Committee will take a historic vote. At stake, is the fate of the Internet as we know it.

Tomorrow, I will be offering a “Network Neutrality” amendment, cosponsored by Mr. Boucher, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. Inslee, to preserve the Internet and its open, non-discriminatory nature. Since the Subcommittee vote, dozens of web blogs have started talking about this issue. A broad coalition has launched web campaigns, such as www.savetheinternet.com, and www.dontmesswiththenet.com. These coalitions are diverse and growing hourly. They include leading Internet companies such as Ebay, Yahoo, Amazon, as well as entrepreneurs, small businesses, consumer groups, Common Cause, Gun Owners of America, the National Religious Broadcasters, moveon.org, the ACLU, and thousands of concerned citizens. I welcome the support of the Internet community in our legislative efforts.

The reason for the heightened interest is that tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of American businesses use and rely upon the Internet every day. In addition to its vital economic role, the Internet is also an unparalleled vehicle for open communications by non-commercial users, for religious speech, for civic involvement, and our First Amendment freedoms.

Yet the Internet is at endangered because of the misguided provisions of the bill before us, which put at grave risk the Internet as an engine of innovation, job creation, and economic growth. The bill permits the imposition of new fees, or “broadband bottleneck taxes” for Internet sites to access high-bandwidth consumers. This will stifle openness, endanger our global competitiveness, and warp the web into a tiered Internet of bandwidth haves and have-nots. It is the introduction of creeping Internet protectionism into the free and open World Wide Web.

Tomorrow’s network neutrality debate will present members with a choice. It is a choice between favoring the broadband designs of a small handful of very large companies or safeguarding the dreams of thousands of inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses. Tomorrow we will either vote to preserve the Internet as we know it, or instead, vote to fundamentally and detrimentally alter it.
I don't want to simply buy into the fear-mongering on this issue, but a lot of reliable sources seem very concerned. Let me know if I can relax. Or if you know why most of the politicians on the Capitol seem okay with passing a bill--pushed by telecom giants--to end the neutrality and equality that is the hallmark of the Internet, please fill me in on their rationale, because they've really stumped me on this one.
---
Want to know why you should worry? Read this.
Want to support web neutrality? Sign this
petition.
Want to read more? Check out this article from TPMcafe or this one from dmJournal.

Cocky Conservative = Bestselling Author = Depressing

The blogosphere is full of some (re: millions) of interesting characters, and I came upon another one today at HotAir, which heralds itself as "the world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network." Apparently the founder, Michelle Malkin, is a best-selling author and conservative columnist, and unsurprisingly, a regular contributor to Fox News. Anyway, if you want your liberal blood to heat up a bit, check out her most recent episode of Vent. Perhaps if more Americans watched it, they would vote Democrat just to wipe that cocksure smile off her face.

Malkin has also written such awe-inspiring titles as
In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror and Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. For purporting to "bring ideological diversity to the video-blogging world," she sure seems close-minded to me. How depressing to think enough people purchased these books and read her columns to make her a best-selling writer.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Ben Folds Does Yale

Ben Folds came to play at Yale for Spring Fling. (Ludacris came too, but Ben Folds has my undying loyalty.) I had the unfortunate luck of being stuck behind the tallest dude in the audience until the very last song, so my calf muscles got a good workout from standing on my tip-toes throughout the show--but it was awesome regardless! He had the audience join in on a couple songs and you could just tell how much music means to him. And I commend him for getting us to participate in three-part harmony. Anyone who can lead a huge crowd of drunken Yaleis into crescendos and decrescendos wins my respect!

A Media Revolution?

We're on the brink of a new era, according to a recent article in the Economist, where mass media is giving way to a new form that is much more personal and participatory. Media will no longer be a sermon received by a passive audience, but a conversation over a network of empowered individual voices:
What is new is that young people today, and most people in future, will be happy to decide for themselves what is credible or worthwhile and what is not. They will have plenty of help. Sometimes they will rely on human editors of their choosing; at other times they will rely on collective intelligence in the form of new filtering and collaboration technologies that are now being developed. “The old media model was: there is one source of truth. The new media model is: there are multiple sources of truth, and we will sort it out,” says Joe Kraus, the founder of JotSpot, which makes software for wikis.

The obvious benefit of this media revolution will be what Mr Saffo of the Institute for the Future calls a “Cambrian explosion” of creativity: a flowering of expressive diversity on the scale of the eponymous proliferation of biological species 530m years ago. “We are entering an age of cultural richness and abundant choice that we've never seen before in history. Peer production is the most powerful industrial force of our time,” says Chris Anderson, editor of Wired
magazine...
With 57% of teenagers producing new web content themselves, and a new blog being created every second of the day, it's only a matter of time before this revolution drastically changes both media companies and societies. And for this newly-minted blogger, that sounds like a pretty exciting thing.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

America: Eating More, Enjoying Less

The Pew Research Center recently published a report of interest to the ever-widening waistlines of America.

The report, "Eating More; Enjoying Less," shows that Americans don't enjoy eating as much as they used to. The survey indicates that while 48% of Americans enjoyed eating "a great deal" in 1989, that number has now decreased to a paltry 39%. Meanwhile, the percentage of the population categorized as "obese" by the government's Body Mass Index classification system increased to 32% from 23% between 1994 and 2006. Another third of the population is overweight." (Interestingly, the number of people who enjoy cooking has not decreased-- although the gender split has evened out a bit, with a greater percentage of men enjoying cooking now than in 1989.)

So, let me get this straight. The majority of Americans are now overweight or obese. But only a minority of Americans actually enjoy the food that contributes to this sad state of affairs? That's pretty disturbing. And it speaks to the need for for a real dietary turn-around in this counry--one that will get people enjoying wholesome meals so they don't have to binge on fries and Snickers bars anymore.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Noises Off

On a completely unrelated note--if you haven't already seen it, get your butt over to the University Theater today (Saturday) to catch one of the last performances of the Dramat's spring mainstage, Noises Off. It is hilarious. Truly. It's by Michael Frayn, and has a stellar cast, and is two-and-a-half hours of nonstop comedy. What's not to love?

Friday, April 21, 2006

Hu Jintao does Yale

President Hu Jintao of the People's Republic of China came to Yale today, and I was fortunate enough to receive one of the coveted tickets to attend his address at Sprague Hall!

The University treats heads-of-state at the same security level as the American president, which meant that the blocks immediately surrounding Sprague were barricaded up and
staffed with armed, forbidding security men (at a concentration of about one per three feet) along the perimeter. The Falung Gong protesters--who'd been making a ruckus since 6am--were chanting in Chinese, waving signs in Chinese and English, and generally condemning everything the Chinese government does wrong. This includes harvesting organs from prisoners, banning the practice of Falun Gong in China, suppressing free speech, censorship of the press, and more. They lined the streets around SSS and the eastern side of the Green, and the New York Times reported about 1,000 protesters total. In addition, there were a significant number of Chinese and Chinese-Americans on the streets to show their support of Hu Jintao and his government. It was, in a strange way, refreshing to see both the supporters and the opposition--it seems that so often, protests get to be one-sided condemnations that do little to move a more moderate agenda forward.

My invitation said I should get there "up to an hour early" and that all guests had to be seated by 10:30am. The President's massive, 55-car motorcade was due to arrive between 11 and 11:30am, which left a significant amount of time to fill between b
eing seated and the meat of the program. Thankfully, Yale's administrators outdid themselves--they kept the approximately 600 students, faculty, press, and officials seated in Sprague entertained and happy through several performances by Yale School of Music students. (As way of explanation: Sprague Hall is a part of the Music school.) This included a flutist, a violinist, and an a cappella solo of a eardrum-piercing Chinese folk song, but the most memorable by far was a guitar duet that truly took my breath away. (One of these days I'm going to check out classical guitar albums and buy a few, because the music is so soothing and melodic and intoxicating--without being pretentious or stuffy, like a lot of classical music sounds to me.) Anyway, I have a new-found respect for the Yale School of Music. Did you know that fullyone-third of Pulitzer prize winners in musical categories graduated from or taught at YSM? Crazy!

Throughout these performances, President Hu's entourage was slipping in to the Hall through a door to the lefthand side of the stage. It was quite literally an unend
ing stream of dark-suited Chinese men, with a tiny sprinkling of Chinese women dressed in blindingly bright hues of oriental red and shocking pink. (Well, not all of them. But those two certainly caught my eye.) Every now and again the audience would fall silent, as if we collectively anticipated the arrival of the President in the next ten seconds..... until we would realize (again, collectively) that the stream of dark-suited Chinese men would continue for another long length of time and we should stop holding our breaths. This cycle was repeated four or five times until suddenly, and without any warning, he had arrived, walked out on stage and stood shaking Richard Levin's hand, gazing out into the audience with his characteristic, rather-chagrined-looking smile coupled with his comicly robotic wave--both of which completely belie the immense power and prestige embodied in his position as President of the most populous country on the planet. After a heavy dose of applause, we all settled into our seats, switching on the radio transmitters that would be delivering a simultaneous English translation of the President's speech, delivered in Mandarin. A heavily-accented female voice crackled through my earpiece, and the address had begun: "Dear Mr. Richard Levin, President of Yale University, dear students and faculty members, ladies and gentlemen..."

The audience had been told that the President's address would be on the topic of China's "peaceful development." Whether I agreed with the adjective "peaceful" or not, I understood the central focus of his speech to be about the future of Chinese development, and how development policies will shape not only China's domestic affairs but its role in the international arena. Hu outlined his government's new concept of development, which hopes to bring together a "scientific outlook" and a "people-oriented approach." He emphasized the continued need for economic growth while implicitly recognizing the increasing inequality that casts shadows over that progress. By applying this new concept, Hu explained, the government hopes to achieve a per-capita GDP to $3,000US by the year 2020. If that seems modest, let's remember that "any figure divided by 1.3 billion will necessarily become a smaller one" and it still means doubling the current GDP, which is now about $1,700US per capita. Development in China had always been and would continue to be "for the people, and by the people."


Hand-in-hand with this policy of scientific development, Hu also said, was his vision for China to embrace a greater role in international relations for the promotion of peace--but not just peace for its own sake. He gave justification for China's investment in world peace by explaining that a lasting peace would allow the domestic agenda of development to be pursued without hindrance. China would continue to push an "independent foreign policy" to achieve these two goals, world peace and domestic development. In this respect,
the relationship between the U.S. and China is key. Though both countries have vast territories and many ethnicities, and both Americans and Chinese are hard-working and talented peoples, there are also significant differences in history that open doors of opportunity: "The Pacific Ocean is vast, but not so vast as to preclude mutual learning and help." The President even went so far as to say that the closer China-U.S. relations are, the better off the world will be.

Despite these positive overtones, however, the President also emphasized that for the Chinese government and the country's citizens, ethnic harmony and national unity would remain the foundations for their socialist democracy. He noted that since the "opening up" since 1979, China has--despite what its critics may say--embarked on economic reforms as well as political and social reforms on a vast scale that have had a great impact on improving the welfare of the Chinese people. While "building a democracy, rule of law, fraternity and integrity" were important pillars of China's development policy, the importance of ethnic harmony and national unity remain paramount. China will learn from the example of foreign countries and their histories, but will not simply copy their institutions and styles of democracy. With a history that is over 5,000 years long, China will chart its
own course on its path to development and democracy.

To sum it all up, the message seemed to be:

- China will continue to pursue a people-oriented development of its economy

- China recognizes the importance of China-U.S. relations and seeks a greater role in the promotion of international peace in the future. But its foreign policy will remain "independent"

- China will not be told what to do, and will become a democracy when the time is ripe--and that time will be decided by the Chinese and their leaders


Certainly, it's a mixed message. But what more can one expect from a politician? A Chinese president no doubt has many constituents within China and its government to please. My personal take on it is simply hopeful--in that I hope his future policies reflect his positive comments, and that his Sino-centric comments will prove nothing more than an act to satisfy conservatives. But past experience seems to indicate otherwise. Hu has systematically cracked-down on the small amount of freedom gained by the Chinese media since taking office; his stand towards Taiwan remains unwavering; and elections in Hong Kong have been delayed time and time again as a result of Beijing's intervention. (The woman sitting next to me during the address was a Hong Kong reporter following Hu on his trip to to the U.S., and when I asked her what the people of Hong Kong thought of Hu, she gave me a rather sarcastic look and snorted, "We like him a lot." That being said, Wikipedia's article on
Hu seems to say that Hong Kongers are generally supportive of him. Hmm.) On the other hand, he has emphasized a more egalitarian approach to development, sacking many corrupt officials, and dismantling the egregious practice of holding annual party meetings at the Beidahe beach resort.

In the end, it makes sense that Hu's words should embody certain contradictions. Anyone who has ever been to China knows that it is a country chock full of contradictions--contradictions that make it frustrating and fascinating, infuriating and intoxicating. And while I think he probably has better things to do than read this humble blog, I'm going to thank him anyway, because even if I disagree with some of the things he said, it was pretty damn cool that he came up to Yale.

So here I go, in my now-weak grasp of Mandarin, which has steadily deteriorated since I left Taiwan last summer:


Hu xiansheng, wo hen ganxie ni lai Yalu Daxue gei women xuesheng he jiaoshimen jihui ting ni de yanjiang. Wo zhen xiwang, tongguo nianqingren de jiaoyu he jiaoliu, jianglai Meiguo he Zhongguo de guanxi hui yuelai yuemiqie. Duo xie! -He Huimei

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Bush's Next War?

Fantastic article in the San Francisco Chronicle today by Mark Morford, which I was directed to by georgia10's post on Daily Kos. Don't think a nuclear war with Iran is a real possibility? Read this stinging, eloquent op-ed and perhaps you'll reconsider.

My favorite excerpts:
Sound far-fetched? Don't think even Bush could be capable of using nukes to slap Iran? Perish the thought. All reports from underground White House sources -- most notably by way of Sy Hersh's horrifying report in a recent New Yorker -- indicate that Dubya and his remaining team of war-happy flying monkeys have been secretly laying out plans to attack Iran for months, possibly including the use of tactical nuclear weapons to get at those deep Iranian bunkers, all because Iran just celebrated its entrance into the world's "nuclear club" by finally enriching some uranium for the first time. Cookies all around!
...
With Bush in power, there is no waiting. There is no thought of avoiding another hideous war at all costs. To the Bush hawks, diplomacy is a failed joke. Negotiation is for intellectuals and tofu pacifists. In the Dubya worldview, the planet is a roiling cauldron of nasty threats, crammed with terrorists and hateful Muslims and foreign demons suddenly growling on our doorstep...
Perhaps Bush could start listening to what everyday Iranians have to say about all of this--since he purportedly supports spreading democracy in the Middle East and giving the Iranian people a voice. Lend an ear, for example, to Mr. Behi, an Iranian blogger:
am starting to believe that we are living in a haphazard time of human history! Can still not be live what I hear about the talks of using nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites! Hey, do you hear me? we are people down here! can you understand that?

I couldn't agree with him more. Maybe Bush and his arrogant/ignorant hawks should stop by a Hiroshima or Nagasaki peace museum before launching a nuclear war, which would have far-reaching consequences not only on the bunkers they're trying to destroy, but the Iranian people as well.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Cookbooks for the Ignorant

One of the most important skills a recent grad needs upon entering the real world is cooking. But if you're anything like me, cooking is a mysterious art--mysterious and a bit intimidating, because sometimes it seems like the people who know how to do it have known since birth, and those of us who don't...sorry, we're just out of luck.

Well, I've decided to take my culinary destiny into my own hands. And the guru who will lead me there is
Alton Brown.

You're probably asking yourself, Alton who? But if you flip on the Food Network, chances are you will eventually catch an episode of his award-winning program,
Good Eats. So what sets this guy apart from the other celebrity chefs dotting the network? In short, he doesn't have a stick up his butt about teaching the basics. His shows are a well-balanced mix of the science behind cooking, a step-by-step approach to cooking techniques, and random but fascinating factoids from the long history of cooking. And while I grant that he doesn't brach out very much into non-American or non-Western-European dishes, I appreciate that his show is geared towards people who haven't been cooking all their lives. He makes even the most ignorant of aspiring cooks feel confident in their ability to conquer both kitchen and ingredient.

So seniors--if you are afraid of a) starving or b) spending a small fortune by eating out all the time next year, due to your inability to cook a decent meal, bite the bullet and buy these two books:

Gear for Your Kitchen
Trust me, you will make back the price of this book ($17 on Amazon.com) in the amount of kitchen things you will NOT buy as a result of this guy's sound advice. We live in an era where the kitchen is the new living room--but buying huge sets of pots, pans, knives and the like will cost you a bundle when you don't need the half of it. He also covers appliances both electric and manual, kitchen sanitation, and how to care for your new gear so that it will last you a lifetime instead of just a couple years.

I'm Just Here for the Food: Food + Heat = Cooking
Alton refers to himself as a culinary mechanic as opposed to a chef, and this book is written from that same practical angle. It covers a ton of cooking techniques and how to do them safely and correctly, accompanied with simple recipes to try out and widen your
repertoire.


Call me a fool for buying into the Food Network's marketing and merchanding ploys--but these books are worth it. They arrived yesterday in the mail and I spent the entire evening reading and looking at the funky illustrations, and I have felt not one tiny shred of buyer's regret.

If you haven't got a clue about how to cook but want to learn, there's no better place to start.

Monday, April 17, 2006

A Woman's World

A surprising (or, upon reflection, perhaps completely unsurprising) article in the Economist about the importance of working women in the global economy. Females have been the driving force behind economic growth over the past several decades, outdoing even new technology and the emergence of China and India in their contributions to prosperity. (I wonder how they measure something like that? And is it wrong that I'm not skeptical simply because I trust the dude/ttes at the Economist to do their homework?) And despite a thoroughly entrenched parental preference for boys over girls--present both in the richest and poorest of nations--the tide may turn in the near future:
Girls get better grades at school than boys, and in most developed countries more women than men go to university. Women will thus be better equipped for the new jobs of the 21st century, in which brains count a lot more than brawn. In Britain far more women than men are now training to become doctors. And women are more likely to provide sound advice on investing their parents' nest egg: surveys show that women consistently achieve higher financial returns than men do.
In fact, the Economist seems to be saying the world would be a better place if more women got out of the house:
What is clear is that in countries such as Japan, Germany and Italy, which are all troubled by the demographics of shrinking populations, far fewer women work than in America, let alone Sweden. If female labour-force participation in these countries rose to American levels, it would give a helpful boost to these countries' growth rates. Likewise, in developing countries where girls are less likely to go to school than boys, investing in education would deliver huge economic and social returns. Not only will educated women be more productive, but they will also bring up better educated and healthier children. More women in government could also boost economic growth: studies show that women are more likely to spend money on improving health, education, infrastructure and poverty and less likely to waste it on tanks and bombs.
It's never been a better time to be a working woman, ladies. Let's get out there and change the world.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Tribute to OOTB

Out of the Blue's big annual concert, "Pirates: A Jam Event," took place last night in its traditional venue, SSS 114. Jam (originally short for 'jamboree' from back in the day when words like that didn't sound utterly ridiculous) is a special event for an a cappella group, both because of the amount of rehearsal and the size of the audience. In the weeks leading up to jam, it's not unusual for a group to sing multiple hours every day of the week, in addition to the time put into producing ancillary pieces like comedic skits and film segments (both of which usually turn out much less funny than desired--but the groupies appreciate the effort). As for the audience, jam is the one concert alumni make a serious effort to see, and that means it puts the spotlight on the current group but is also a celebration of an on-going tradition. (In ootb's case, that tradition is pop/rock a cappella since 1987.)

I was particularly impressed with the performance of the freshwomen this year. They're some seriously hot stuff--not just in terms of their amazing vocals and range, but also their stage presence. (To give you some perspective, I was so ridiculously nervous during my freshman jam that people sitting four aisles away could barely hear me.) The group just keeps getting better and better, and it's hard to believe that ootb has grown so much in such a short period of time. It used to be we had trouble with recruitment! Now, rumour has it that our beloved ootb is one of the hottest mixed groups on campus. (Woot!) I'm proud to have played a small role in that development, even if it was three years ago. In true ootfashion, I've now turned into a drunken-and-debaucherous alum that shouts encouraging but inappropriate comments at soloists during jam. (I'm excited to hear the recording to see just how many of my cheers will be forever etched onto this year's jam CD.)

I miss singing. There's just something special about singing in and being part of a group that is a feeling that can't be replicated with any other activity. So ootb, be proud of yourselves. It was an amazing show last night. The true indication of a successful gig is when people in the audience wish they were on stage with you, and you certainly had me wishing that from first note to last.
...
Check out Out of the Blue's newest album, No Pun Intended.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Education Stratification

Another great article from the New York Times, and one that hits close to home--Japan's economic recovery is causing greater disparities in wealth, perhaps bringing an end to the postwar era of middle-class egalitarianism forever. The new society of winners and losers has its roots in the vast differences in the quality of education and the exorbitant prices for cram schools. In a society which remains rooted in Confucian ideology that links prestigious education with prestigious jobs, the inability of a child's parents to pay for private school and prep courses for college entrance exams can cut deep into an individual's career choices.

I think it might be hard to conceptualize just how suffocating a vice grip education has on a child's life in Japan. As soon as a kid hits middle school, any chance of a fun social life is eradicated by the need to cram for high school entrance examinations. These exams are pretty much a one-shot deal; screwing them up can endanger entire future life's worth of causal events starting from a good high school to a good college and a good job and good marriage prospects. (I'm being slightly over-dramatic here, but you get the idea.) These cram schools can last a solid four or five hours of additional classroom drudgery, in addition to the normal school day. Advertisements for these schools freely quote statistics of the past year's cram class and where they ended up going to university. And according to the Times article, they can cost upwards of $20,000. (If your kid's lucky enough to be in private school, you'll probably dish out another $20,000 for tuition every year too.) College entrance exams are fairly similar. And in a public display of cruelty that I deplore, universities will post the serial number of each admitted testtaker on bulletin boards on campus. You have to wonder just exactly what the Japanese are trying to accomplish through education when everything is centered around tests, tests, and more tests. No wonder the Japanese economy has been floundering for the past decade--we've hit an era when individual creativity matters even more in the global marketplace than it did before.

It's about time for some serious Japanese education reform. Let these kids have a childhood, for god's sake. And putting genuine effort and real resources into leveling the playing field among young Japanese will curtail the worst effects of an increasingly stratified society and economy.

Friday, April 14, 2006

The Waiter Rule

USA Today recently published an article on the "Waiter Rule." Apparently most CEOs in this country can't seem to agree on much except this rule, which states that you shouldn't hire someone who isn't nice to their waiter. In short, "A person who is nice to you but rude to the waiter is not a nice person."

How true that is! And I even encountered an episode just today to prove it. While working the lunch shift at my restaurant, I managed to knock over a full glass of water all over a customer. It was one of those moments where time slows down, and I could literally watch the frame-by-frame movement of the fluted glass topple over, angled perfectly towards the customer so as to drench his entire crotch. It was mortifying and completely unprofessional, and I wouldn't have blamed him if he'd yelled at me, or made a snide remark. But he didn't. As I ran around apologizing profusely and dabbing with napkins at the table-turned-lake and assessing the damage, he calmly righted the glass and actually joked about it, saying "If it had been hot water, I might be slightly more upset." I know nothing else about this dude, but I can honestly say with great confidence that he is a genuinely good human being. And I agree completely with the Waiter Rule--how you treat those who wait your table, or any job that creates a distinctly subservient--however unstated--role for another person, can really illuminate your character, or lack thereof.

Unfortunately, this brings me to a sad realization: I can sometimes be a really big bitch towards waiters and waitresses whom I find to be derelict in their duties. I'm going to work on that. There's no excuse--especially since I've been there and done that, and everybody has their bad days and makes mistakes. Just like my customer was understanding of my screw-up today, I'm going to endeavor to have a bigger heart for my fellow waitfolk in the future. Because that's how I hope to be treated, every time I go into work.
...
For quality commentary on the perils of waitering, written by a a full-time waiter with a talent for sarcasm, check out Waiter Rant.

Katie & Dan


I heart Katie and Dan. And because they poked fun at my new blogaholic tendencies over dinner tonight, I'm dedicating this post to them. Dan, you are the tallest grumplemonster I know. I will miss our rant-sessions next year. Katie, we must get gelato. And please move to Seattle next year so we can get a puppy, and name it Dramat, and have it fetch things and do our bidding in the way that we have done for a certain theater organization over the past several years.

And congrats to Bobby for cooking up a delicious meal tonight. Lamb chops, garlic mashed potatoes, salad, grilled eggplant and asparagus, with raspberry swirl cheesecake for dessert. Awesome.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

The Potential for Greatness

A lot of people think I'm anti-American. Sometimes, I think I am too. But when it comes to why I find this country so exasperating, "anti-American" isn't quite the right word to describe my stand. Having grown up in a country that places very little value on cultivating individuality and even less value on open and honest dialogue (whether the topic be personal or national in scope), I sincerely respect and treasure those American values which contribute to a healthy, vibrant, and tolerant society. When it comes to ideals--with a few exceptions--I'm a true American patriot.

It's when America falls short of those ideals that I feel justified in criticism and ranting. And as of late, the country has fallen
so short of these cherished principles that there's very little to feel good about.

In short: I hate America for what it is now, but love it for what it could be. I respect and admire politicians who make an active effort to bring this country closer to those ideals, and harbor naught but disdain for those who pay lip-service but do nothing. And I spit on those who drag America closer to the gutter through hypocrisy and lies.

A blogger at Daily Kos gave voice to this sentiment in a particularly emotional treatise, "A memorial to what we have lost" which has garnered enough attention to hit the 'recommended list' of Daily Kos diaries. Although it is written in highly partisan language, I think its a great piece that embodies that aforementioned patriotism- with-criticism attitude. The post highlights the timeless ideals of this country by quoting several famous presidential memorials in Washington D.C. It really hit the point home for me: this country's potential is being squandered, its ideals no longer anything but carvings in stone--and it is utterly unacceptable. I hope you'll take the time to read the whole post, but here are some of my favorite excerpts:

[O]ur ideals are set forth in stone all over our nation's capital.

There is something about engraving words in stone that gives them a timeless authority. To engrave words in stone in a public place in the heart of a nation's government speaks, in many ways, to values that run even deeper than its temporary codes of law, dress, and behavior. Examining what our people have, over time, decided is worthy of engraving in stone in our nation's monuments speaks volumes about our values. It is an uneffaceable tattoo of our deepest desires, hopes and dreams.

...
FDR on the distrubition of wealth:

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

On war:

I have seen war on land and sea; I seen blood running from the wounded; I have seen the dead in the mud; I have seen cities destroyed; I have seen children starving; I have seen the agonies of mothers and wives. I hate war.

...
JFK on America as world's policeman:

What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by an American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living...not merely peace for Americans, but peace for all men and women; not merely peace in our time, but peace for all time.

How amazing it is that with all of these engraved reminders within plain view, the leaders of this country can't manage to do things a bit better. And I wonder how long it will be until I can be proud of what this country is, instead of merely what it could be.

excited

In one week, classes will be over. It's so strange to think that I've been at it now for four years and the rhythm I"ve grown so used to is about to be replaced by something completely and totally different. But there's definitely a lot to look forward to over the next couple months! The post-academic adventure will be starting with a short getaway down to Myrtle Beach--my first ever road trip!--and 10 days of Commencement musical insanity. And then I'll be joining my fellow 06ers in listening to Anderson Cooper give a speech on Class Day and donning blue caps and gowns to receive our (hard-earned?) diplomas. The summer will bring a trip to Seattle to visit Josh and do a preliminary neighborhood- and-apartment hunt, followed by five weeks in Tokyo with the fam, eating good food, and shopping for my new place. (Somewhere around here I might make an escape to a tropical Southeast Asian island, but that has yet to be fully decided upon.) In early July, I'll be flying back to Ft. Worth to join Bobby in his road trip through Arizona, up the West Coast, and to Seattle. I'm literally brimming over with excitement!!!! It's going to be a great time :)

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Iraq & Vietnam

The most recent post to the New York Times Front Lines blog by Capt. Will Smith sought to dispel the oft-mentioned parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. He shares a letter in which his father--also a Marine--writes of his experiences during the Vietnam War. Beyond their entry into the armed forces (both were volunteers), Capt. Smith asserts, there are hardly any facets on which his father's time in Vietnam can be likened to his stint in Iraq. He highlights the differences in military technology, the terrain, and the tactics of the insurgents. The level of support for the current war and the soldiers fighting to win it is incomparable to the hostility his father faced thirty years ago. The difference, Smith says, is that "[w]e are not fighting the war for Iraq; we are fighting it with them."
Iraq has its issues, don’t get me wrong. But when did Vietnam have elections and draft constitutions? Where were the Vietnamese army when my dad patrolled? We work side by side with the Iraqi security forces, and I see them getting bigger and stronger every day. Gone are the days when they would throw down their guns and run away. Believe it or not, there are often more people wanting to join the security apparatus in Iraq than the local government can supply and train. When one goes down, two more step up to take the fallen soldier’s place.
...
Think about this the next time you hear a talking head on TV or overhear someone at the supermarket making the comparison between the two wars. Iraq is not Vietnam. Both are insurgencies, but that is all they have in common.

But is it really so unreasonable to draw that comparison? A recent article in the New York Review of Books (I've been stealing Bobby's copy ever since he got a subscription) called "History and National Stupidity" by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., indicates otherwise:
Sometimes, when I am particularly depressed, I ascribe our behavior to stupidity--the stupidity of our leadership, the stupidity if our culture. Thirty years ago we suffered military defeat--fighting an unwinnable war against a country about which we knew nothing and in which we had no vital interests at stake. Vietnam was bad enough, but to repeat the same experiment thirty years later in Iraq is a strong argument for a case of national stupidity.
I agree with Capt. Smith that equating Iraq with Vietnam is to overlook many important aspects of our situation there, both past and present. And it is certainly true that there are vast differences in the caliber of the military personnel, the gear being employed by the soldiers, the level of cooperation we're getting from the Iraqis, and domestic support for the troops. But a close examination of the causes of both wars and the reasons behind our stymied progress in Iraq and failure in Vietnam reveals parallels that runs quite deep. Both were undeclared wars spearheaded by the Oval Office. Both wars suffered from a near-complete vacuum of preparation and understanding of the 'enemy.' In both cases, we stayed much longer and shipped home many more body bags than we ever imagined possible.

Perhaps the most telling sign is the similarity between the present-day American's response to updates on Iraq, and the nation's tumultuous reaction to Vietnam thirty years ago. This may be a result of where I live and who my friends are, but the general feeling I've encountered is one of appreciation and support for the troops coupled with a deep-seated anger at those who orchestrated the war and their complete lack of respect for the lives being lost as a result of their gross incompetence. There are two questions these Americans ask themselves when they read the escalating death tolls and view the bloody photos from the front lines: "Why are we over there?" and "Is it worth dying for?" And much to their disillusionment and despair, adequate answers have yet to be provided. To people who view Iraq in this light, the quagmire there is so like the one thirty years ago that we wonder if we've made any progress as a nation at all.

Because my senior essay was about historiography as it relates to portrayals of war in textbooks, I have to wonder if the American education system might in some indirect way have contributed to our current situation. While analyzing Chinese and Japanese history textbooks, I couldn't help but think that their distortions of World War II could have real and frightening consequences for the Sino-Japanese relationship in the future. (Note: When
I'm particularly depressed, I think it's only a matter of time before East Asia will erupt into nuclear war.) No country wants to parade its historical screw-ups to its young citizenry, but I really do believe--however naively--that fully empowering the population through unbiased history lessons is one of the best way to prevent those mistakes from happening again. As Schlesinger puts it:
History is the best antidote to illustrations of omnipotence and omniscience...A nation informed by a vivid understanding of the ironies of history is, I believe, best equipped to live with the temptations and tragedy of power. Since we are condemned as a nation to be a superpower, let a growing sense of history temper and civilize our use of that power.

Are you Dutch enough?

A post on RealClearPolitics lead me to a article by the Chicago Tribune on the way the Dutch have decided to deal with immigration:
ROTTERDAM, Netherlands -- The new test for foreigners who want to apply for Dutch residency is, well, very Dutch.

It features a DVD that illustrates various aspects of Dutch life, including, most notably, a topless woman frolicking in the surf and two men kissing warmly. The message couldn't be more explicit: This is who we are; if you don't accept it, don't come.

Although the DVD doesn't single out any particular group, the intended target of the message is clear. Growing numbers of conservative Muslim immigrants are seen by many Dutch as posing a threat to the Netherlands' liberal consensus and easygoing lifestyle.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. On the the one hand, I understand the rationale for putting these so-called "entrance exams" into place. One politician likens it to warnings on cigarette packs, and there's certainly something to be said for an up-front and honest portrayal to potential future citizens.

But it also reeks of xenophobia. The DVD is clearly directed at Muslims, whose religion disallows public nudity and homosexuality. Instead of putting resources towards testing these immigrants, perhaps the Dutch should increase their efforts at integrating those immigrants (especially the Muslim population, which has a tendency to isolate itself in a religious cocoon) into their liberal and tolerant society? According to one Dutch councilman, they already tried that: "We used to think: Give people time and they will integrate. It's a nice theory, but it didn't work." How should a country deal with this sort of fragmentation? I have to be honest and say that I don't have anything constructive to add to the dialogue. But somehow, showing people a DVD of what they must learn to tolerate doesn't seem like the best way to invite an attitude of tolerance. Tolerance by its very nature is a voluntary and reciprocal act; telling people what to accept is bound to backfire.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Seattle: Smart. Washington: Ridiculous.

Wanting to know more about my soon-to-be-new home in Seattle, Washington, I started googling and poking around in the city's blogosphere. (By the way, I think "blogosphere" could be one of the most fun words to pronounce out loud. Go ahead, try it. Fun, right? And can't you just feel the Internet-savvy Generation X futuristic jargon fumes oozing from your pores now?)

My two discoveries of note were:

1) A post on Seattle Bubble highlighting the eminent intellectual faculties of the Seattle population: "Seattle, a new analysis shows, is on the top of the educated citizen heap." I knew there was a reason why I wanted to live there besides the great seafood, coffee, (relative) proximity to Japan, weather, the best Japanese supermarket in the country, and oh did I mention seafood? Apparently I'll also be able to enjoy stimulating conversations with anyone at any one of the hundreds of coffee shops and be blown away by the size of their brains. Awesome.

2) The state of Washington has the most ridiculous tourism slogan ever.

Finally, to all of my friends here at Yale who will be moving out to the Emerald City with me in the near future (shout out to Josh who's already there!), take a look at our beautiful new home. I'm so pumped!

Politicians v. the Web

It's simply astounding to me what politicians are capable of voting for. Daily Kos' highly-recommended diary entry for the day was one by blue meme titled "Snuck it past us: House subcommittee voted to kill Internet." I hope s/he won't mind if I quote liberally from the post:
There has been so much going on lately with plans to nuke Iran and the like, that a major story seems to have slipped under the radar for the entire blogosphere.We've been jawing for weeks about the plans that Big Telecom have for discriminating between the bits they like and the bits they don't flowing through their pipes into our houses. Last week Matt @ MyDD flagged the very dangerous bill working through the House right now.That bill took a big step toward being enacted into law last week, and it seems nobody noticed.

The San Francisco Chronicle provides the details:


A House subcommittee handed phone companies a victory Wednesday by voting 27-4 to advance a bill that would make it easier for them to deliver television service over the Internet and clearing the way for all Internet carriers to
charge more for speedier delivery.

The lopsided vote was a defeat for Internet and technology firms like Google and Microsoft, which had hoped to amend the bill to enforce a principle called network neutrality and preserve the status quo under which all Internet traffic is treated equally.

Earlier in the day, the subcommittee voted 23-8 to reject an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would have inserted specific language designed to enforce network neutrality and prevent the feared creation of fast and slow lanes on the Internet.

Markey said his amendment was necessary to protect the "Internet as an engine of innovation" and
ensure that new services had an equal chance to sprout.
...
Supporters painted defeat of Markey's net neutrality amendment in bleak terms.

"Members from both sides of the aisle endorsed a plan which will permit cable and phone companies to construct 'pay as you surf, pay as you post' toll booths for the Internet," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy in Washington.

But Sonia Arrison, director of technology studies for the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, dismissed concerns that the proposed bill would lead to a two-tiered Internet.

"There's plenty of competition," Arrison said. "The market will take care of it."

Don't they have more important things to be doing than impeding the democratic nature of the Internet? It's like they deliberately sit around on the Hill thinking up ways to fix things that don't require fixing, and completely
neglect those that are crying out for attention. (Re: The Deficit? Foreign policy? Healthcare? Bush's Incompetence?)

It's astounding, really, how poorly they manage the country's priorities. And truly upsetting that there's a chance a measure like the one described above could actually be written into law. I don't care if the "market will take care of it"--that's not the point. Why not just add Senator Markey's clause in as a precaution? Even if you believe the market will work its magic (which as blue meme points out, it often fails to do), just sign it into law to send the big bad telecom folks a message: the Internet will remain network neutral and democratic.

God made mud.

Shelly Kagan was on a roll today. The topic: what is a rational emotional response to have towards our own deaths? Should we be angry? Sorrowful? Grateful? He quoted the following poem from Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle as an illustration of why we might choose gratitude over anything else. It made my day, so I thought I'd share.

God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, "Sit up!"
"See all I've made," said God, "the hills, the sea, the sky, the stars."
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.
Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly couldn't have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud that didn't even get to sit up and look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!

Monday, April 10, 2006

strange but rather wonderful


Yes. It's spelled with a z. As in: laterz. When American Dreamz comes out in a theater near you, go see it. (Bobby and I caught it at an advanced screening hosted by the Yale Film Society.) It's hilarious--a twist on American Idol, a mockery of Bush's presidency, and a whimsical parody of terrorism. I don't think there was any moment in the movie where I wasn't laughing, making a shocked "Ohhhhhhh my God" expression, or pointing at the absolutely absurd dance moves of the terrorist-turned-contestant Omar. (We first meet Omar as a failing jihadist at terrorist training camp where his one clandestine consolation is listening to the records of Broadway show tunes in his tent.)

Of course, it'd be less depressing (and considerably less funny) if the film didn't mirror certain parts of our often ugly situation. The portrayals of an incompetent president are particularly bitter, especially to a Democratic audience. And I'm not sure if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me more people do vote for programs like American Idol than for our most important public official. The upside is that now at least we get a good laugh out of the craziness of it all. The film balances such unbridled criticism, though, with some really out-there but heartfelt characters---like Omar--that just smash through cultural prototypes, make us laugh until our sides hurt, and even manage to ask some important questions. (i.e. "Should Americans be held accountable for America?") Mandy Moore is a miserable and manipulative psychopath who will stop at nothing to win--but she also questions her motives for entering the competition and finds someone who truly understands her along the way. Even the terrorists are crying at the finale of the show. One line from Hugh Grant sums it all up--both the film itself and the world we live in: "That was...strange. But...rather wonderful."

Indeed. Because sometimes all you can do is watch, laugh, and move on.