Monday, December 29, 2008

Defining the word "Ambition"

The word "ambition" will often stir scorn or even fear in the minds of those who consider themselves too intellectual and too principles to possess this quality.

That is stupid.

The first order is to define ambition. By my calculations, there are four different, broad categories which fall under the general term "ambition," which I will herefrom cease putting in quotes.

The first is social ambition. In bald terms, this is the kind of social climbing often associated with people who often are financially ambitious, as well. However, social ambition is one that vies for and hungers for social prestige. Admiration from others. The ability to make others envious, which is different from jealous. Jealousy, in case this is unknown, is the fear that others are detracting from oneself. Envy is desiring what others have.

So social ambition often is accompanied by the desire to inspire envy in others. It is, briefly, achieving social position.

Then there is financial ambition. As stated above, this is often seen in conjunction with those who harbor social ambitions. However, financial ambition can be satisfied not only by marrying into it, which is often a way social ambition is achieved, but through one's employment. This in the popular consciousness is often associated with rapacious and unprincipled men and women in "Business" with a capital "B": people who hold MBA's and little else, who have no ethics and no principles and certainly no desire to advance society or their own communities. The sole concern is, stereotypically though not necessarily in reality, one's own pocketbook.

Then there is professional ambition. This may or may not result in financial success. But for those who do not hold (graduate) degrees in some specialty that does not end in "M.D." "J.D." or "M.B.A." pursuing one's professional interests and satisfying one's professional ambition may or may not result in financial success. Witness the average pay a professor receives: $60,000. That is less than people without even a Bachelor's degree who work for one of the Big Three Auto Companies under the $70/hr union contracts. And professors have a four year degree, plust another 6-8 years for their Master's and Ph.D., plus another few for completing their dissertation.

But I digress. Then there is intellectual ambition. That is obviously an ambition that is geared towards learning and increasing one's knowledge-base. It is often driven by a combination of curiosity, ethics, and a desire to improve the world around oneself.

The problem with people with graduate degrees that aren't M.D.'s (who are inevitably socially and fiscally conservative--the worst of Nimbyism), J.D.'s or MBA's is that they scorn people with the degrees just mentioned. People with MBA's are viewed as unprincipled, selfish, self-centered and rapacious. Like Bush and his ilk. M.D.'s are too conservative. And J.D.'s are viewed as overpaid hired guns. They can be bought and sold.

This is the wrong outlook. People are naturally ambitious. They want to improve their lot. Based on their principles. After all, do we really think that Obama is not ambitous? Of course he is. And he's a lawyer. The difference between him and Bush is that he has principles that include taking care of other people. Who are not exactly like him. Something that Conservatives just don't understand. He doesn't care if they aren't Black, he doesn't care if they aren't educated, and he certainly doesn't care if they voted for him. He still wants to take care of them as their President.

That's something that annoying intellectuals just don't understand. That they need to take responsibility for their ambition. Just because one doesn't desire to rape a small country of all its resources, including its labor force, does not mean one doesn't "have ambition." It merely means one doesn't have a particular kind of ambition, the kind that cares nothing for anyone else but oneself.

Ambition is not something that only people who work on Wall Street have. Activists have it. Professors have it. It is the principles and ethics one chooses to guide that ambition that matters. That is the crux of the issue. If one wants to be wealthy, that in itself is neither good nor bad. It is the way one achieves that wealth, and what one does with it that is the issue.

And it is not that desiring to attain social prestige, or even power in one's work is bad. It is how one acquires it and how one wields it that is at issue. I often hear people who consider themselves "above" having ambition aver that they want to be rich. They want to have the power to sway opinions about social issues they deem important. That is ambition. The question is, are you clear enough to achieve it? And that means can you take responsibility for having ambition, and wielding it in a socially responsible way?

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Taking a Walk With the Family on Christmas Day

I noticed something around the neighborhood as we left for a quick trip to the other side of town for dinner: adults taking a walk together.

I remember this was a frequent occurrence when I was young. Indeed, it seemed that Christmas, whether one celebrated the day or not, was one of the few days that one could see adults taking a walk together here in the U.S. Most of the time, people are too busy rushing towards their next destination--work, shopping, out somewhere--to take the time to walk with their relatives, let alone their partners. But Christmas, along with Thanksgiving, was a day that one saw this often.

Part of the reason was that all stores were closed except for liquor stores. There was always a moment of panic, "Oh, no, the stores are closing at
six in the evening on the wednesday before Thanksgiving!" and there would be a last mad rush to get the whipping cream or some more sugar.

And precisely because no consumerism could occur on the day of those holidays, there was an enforced quietude the following day. A day of rest. Calm. There seemed to be nothing
to do except eat, talk with one's relatives and perhaps watch some tv if one was so inclined. But the inability to shop had a great influence on the quietude that settled on the collective mind. And so, one would often see groups of adults, walking together. At a leisurely pace.

The enforced day of quietude. The day when adults alk together in the street because there is a collective acceptance that nothing else can bedone except spend time together. No distractions such as shopping. No going somewhere to avoid each other. Just being together. Americans don’t do enough of that.

It's been years in urban cities since Thanksgiving has shut down stores. Now if one forgets whipping cream, the local grocer is open for business. No need to visit the liquor store and pay an inordinate amount of money for disproportionately small amount of cream. And it's been years, as well, that New Year's shut stores down. Christmas was the last day that this enforced contemplativeness could be experienced.

Except for Armani A/X. Apparently they think that last minute shopping is something one can do on the day of gift-giving. The cynicism of this decision is so great that they really deserve no more thought.

But I not only say it is a shame that we can not at least have one day of quiet. I think that stores who promote that mindset are shameful.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Transferring Eudora, Firefox, Thunderbird and Netscape Settings/Mailboxes to New Computer

I scoured the web for directions on how to transfer Eudora and Thunderbird mailboxes, settings, filters, and also how to transfer Firefox and Netscape settings, bookmarks and passwords. Every set of directions was flawed, and each time I tried them, some things would be missing: mailboxes, or passwords, or bookmarks.

This is foolproof and idiot proof.

You need an external drive, either a physical one or a backup online. Do these simple steps. Works every time.

1) Copy the entire program from the program file onto the external drive. The entire folder, like Eudora.
2) Copy the entire Eudora folder in the application settings folder. It will look something like this:
C:\Documents and Settings\[your user name]\Application Data\Eudora in XP. In Vista, you will find the application settings folder under: [your user name]\appdata\roaming
3) This second folder will contain your profile, your mailboxes, passwords, filters and attachments.
4) Copy the program folder onto the new computer in the "program files" folder
5) Then go into the application data folder, and locate, the Eudora folder, and open it. Find the profiles folder and profile configuration setting document. Replace these with the old profile folder copied from the old computer.
6) The profile.ini configuration setting document may need adjustment. Open it with Notepad. Locate the line that has a file that resembles this: vtue7nve.default. The important part is the series of letters and numbers.
7) This has to match the default folder which is located in the old profile folder you just pasted into the Eudora profile folder in application settings. If it doesn't, then type in the correct name of the folder labeled "default."
8) You're done. Open up Eudora and you will have your mailboxes, filters and password all transferred.

This process works for Thunderbird, Firefox and Netscape, as well.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

New Ageists Undermine Legitimate Environmentalism

Environmentalism has become extremely trendy in the past decade. And while many scientists have spent years contributing to our storehouse of knowledge, their research and their credentials are severely undermined by New Ageists who claim that they know what is happening to "Mother Earth" better than all else.

What is their source? Their "feelings," their "connection" with the Earth with a capital "E" and their ability to be in tune with all things that are "earthy" unlike practically anyone else on the planet.

These people never have any credentials. It is shocking if they even hold a Bachelor's degree, and often that is in something that is completely unrelated to the rigorous sciences, something fluffy and often incomplete. They claim expertise in other, nebulous fields of "knowledge" such as "wholistic nutrition" or "Amazonian herbal expertise."

The problem with these people is severalfold. First, they over-identify with the Earth. Again, the point is not that the Earth should not be valued--indeed, there is much proof that humans undervalue the Earth and Americans in particular are seemingly incapable of exercising restraint in exploiting natural resources if their own gain is in the balance. Nevertheless, at issue is that New Agey people think themselves to be undervalued. They feel marginalized. Disrespected. They are convinced that if people only listened, they would see wisdom rather than mere charlatanism.

Conveniently, they share certain qualities with the Earth, which is also undervalued, often not "heard" and is too easily dismissed. Lo and behold! They are the same, these people think. And so they become the collective "voice" for Mother Earth, and begin adopting "native" monikers for both themselves and for various icons of Mother Earth. Though they mispronounce "Himalaya"--the accent is on the second, not third, syllable--they pride themselves on not calling Everest "Everest." They call themselves pseudo-Indian names, though they don't know what they mean. And occasionally, they subscribe to some gutted, white, milk-toast religion they claim is originally "Indian" since that, evidently, is the root of true spiritual authenticity.

Not much has changed from the Colonials of 18th century Britian. These people still view India for some strange reason as the center of white spiritual salvation, though their interpretation is actually a corrupt projection of their own value system. Indeed, it is the ultimate narcissistic gesture, the ultimate contemporary colonialism, though it is of course not seen as such.

Somehow, Mother Earth/Nature gets caught up in this cultural colonialist discourse.

It's a shame, really, because true, science-based environmentalism is the way to if not reverse, at least slow, the rapacious appetite of humans around the globe. Science will offer the technology and clear techniques to address the fundamental ills wrought by Western appetites. The last thing needed is a bunch of nitwits who know nothing, projecting their own needs and desires, onto the environmental cause.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Big Three Auto and Congress

it may be old news, but there are still some issues regarding the Republican Senate's refusal to help these three automakers.

1) The hypocrisy of being willing to help the financial world with $700 billion, which demanded absolutely no oversight in comparison with a paltry $14 billion is truly shameless and shocking

2) The demand by Republican Senators for concession from unions is somewhat justified because, after all, some of their workers get $80/hr. Most people with Ph.D.'s don't even get that. But here is the problem: the issue at stake was not that unions should "bend" and be more transparent for these Republicans. It was that these senators came from southern states who didn't have those automakers in their states, so they didn't care if tens of thousands of newly unemployed men and women might join the unemployed rolls. It wasn't happening in their backyard. It was the worst kind of Nimbyism combined with a not-so-subtle attempt to gut unions.

3) What happened to all the other news out ther? Like what's happening to other economies around the world as a result of Bush running our country into the ground? What is happening to state economies?

4) As for the automakers themselves, here is what I would like: stop being arrogant. Design cars that people want. If Honda and Toyota are more successful, don't you think there is a reason for it? Stop designing stupid cars with giant engines that get 14 miles to the gallon because in America, "bigger is badder and better." Stop being arrogant and offering what you want. Design what the people want: cars that are fuel efficient and sleekly designed. What is wrong with American designers designing bulky gas-guzzlers with dipping noses that supposedly connotes "sleek" in all American cars. Why does it appear as if American car makers always pick their industrial designers from the dregs of classes from ArtCenter while Honda and Toyota get their best and brightest?

5) In terms of layoffs, the automakers might consider beginning with laying off its management, since they are the incompetent people who have made these decisions that have led to your current crisis?

6) As for Senate Republicans, the hypocrisy of their decision to save the financial industry but not to save the auto industry at a mere fraction of the cost, is glaring and unconscionable. And the protest that what they want is "oversight" rather than that they merely wanted to gut the unions is equally repugnant.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Household Tips: Water Marks, Toilet "Snake" Marks, Frizzy Hair

1) Watermark Removal: If one scours the web for suggestions on how to eradicate water marks, many suggestions arise. Amongst them include mayonnaise (??) and other oil-based treatments. These do not work. The issue is that there is a thin layer of polish/wax, minimal though it is, that protects a wooden table's color from being easily removed. Yes, this is even in the case of those older tables.

What will remove a water mark is paste toothpaste. Trader Joe's provides an excellent choice, inexpensive--$2.99. It is also just a really good, low-chemical toothpaste that is a great-tasting alternative to Tom's of Maine toothpaste which is far more expensive.

Use a washcloth. Wet it lightly. Put a dab of toothpaste on the cloth. Then rub the watermark--circular or back and forth is not relevant. What is being removed is that thin top coating that protects the actual color of your table. Use another part of the washcloth, also lightly dampened, to wipe off the excess toothpaste.

Once the table is dry, polish your table as normal.

2) Toilet Bowl Scratches from a Plumbing Snake: Again, lots of useless suggestions on the web for removing them. They include chastising the person for scratching the bowl in the first place--akin to saying, "Why didn't you use your best judgment?"--and draining the bowl and painting it--ugh and again really useless. The only real solution is Barkeeper's Friend for about $2.99. It is a type of cleanser that you can get at your local hardware store rather than buying it online. Save the environment from all that packaging and keep your local shops in business while you're at it.

Do not mistake this for any kind of cleanser, such as Bon Ami or Comet, which have their uses. Barkeeper's Friend is not earth friendly like Bon Ami, but it is also the only cleaner that will work.

Again, opinions vary on the web regarding Barkeeper's Friend. Some say you need to scrub after letting it soak. Some say to combine it with bleach to create a really toxic blend. Neither of these are true. For a toilet that was covered in scratches from multiple snakes, this was all that was needed:

Shake the canister a few times. The water will be cloudy. Let soak for 15-30 mins, depending on how much of a clock-watcher you are. Flush.

The metal stains--which is what those scratches really are--will be gone.

3) Frizzy hair: There are a lot of solutions, including Bumble and Bumble, Frederic Fekkai olive oil glossing collection, and Sebastian Laminates. Or you can turn once more to Trader Joe's, who sells their own brand of Refresh Conditioner that smells vaguely like oranges. In itself, it is alright but doesn't help those with frizzy hair. However, add 1/4 cup of olive oil. You will need to pour some condition out initially in order to accommodate the olive oil. Shake well. The olive oil will stay suspended throughout the conditioner--no need to worry about separating.

The result? For $2.99, you get conditioner that smooths your hair, makes it shiny and healthy. Sure, if you want to spend $30-$50 on name brand products, you can. Or you can be smart. And maybe donate some of that money you saved to a better cause.

Monday, December 8, 2008

It's "Terrorism" Not "Terror"

It took the media how many years before they admitted that the Bush/Cheney axis duped them into believing that the Invasion of Iraq was based on falsities conjured by Cheney and his cohorts? Let's see, was that five long years?

And how much longer is it going to be before the media admits that they have again been the slaves and dupes of Bush, Cheney and the Bush administration? In what way? By thoughtlessly, mindlessly repeating the word "terror" when they mean either "terrorist" or "terrorism."

This is not an issue of grammar. It is an issue of the way the issue of terrorism and the war on it are framed.

If you accept that this is a "War on Terror," then you are accepting a set of terms which believes that "terror" is not an abstract concept but is somehow a concrete definition of a discrete set of conditions that is universal. It isn't. Aside from a definition that might come from the dictionary, Bush's intentional use of the word "terror" rather than "terrorism" is meant to strike terror in people's hearts.

And he's succeeded. Rather than examine the issue as one of terrorism, perpetrated by discrete groups, terror evokes a global sense of peril, that no matter where one is, one is unsafe. This is patently untrue.

After all, Al Qaeda did not send all that anthrax through the mail. That was domestic. Terrorism. Not "terror."

It is actually quite shameful the way that Bush has chosen to frame the subject in this way, to create fear-mongering and perpetuate a sense of imminent peril. Shameful. We have more to fear from what he has done to our economy. And the fact that we will continue to pay for these mistakes by the big businesses that supported him--think big auto and big oil.

Indeed, Bush was quite successful in making people fear for their lives four years ago, which is how he won the re-election. People felt unsafe, though it is clear that they had nothing to fear. Nothing has happened to the American people over the last four years on our soil that was not instigated by Big Business and the mentality of The Rules Don't Apply To Me.

So when is it that the media, including NPR shows like All Things Considered and PRI shows like The World, are going to demand that their reporters report accurately.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

The Correlation Between Bush and Aggressive Americans

The holiday season just seems to bring out the worst in people. Did you read about the poor man who was trampled to death in a Long Island, NY, Walmart? That's right. On Black Friday, people were just sooo anxious to spend as little money as possible that they lined up before 5 am, started getting antsy and angry and when the doors opened, they trampled an employee to death on their ways towards those all-important bargains in Electronics and whatever other useless items they don't need.

But that isn't the point. The point is that ever since Bush has instituted his policy of "The Rules Don't Apply To Me (or My Minions)", Americans of the less-intelligent, less-humanistic, less-inclined-to-care-about-anyone-else-in-the-first-place stripe have been taking their cues from him.

Case in point: at a Manhattan Beach, CA, Target, I espied an angry woman with a sheepish-looking husband in tow. In the passenger seat. As I walked to my car, I saw her on another aisle and a man who saw I was leaving decided to claim my soon-t0-be-vacant spot. He dutifully turned on his blinking lights and began the wait. I loaded my items and as I shut my trunk, I saw the angry woman driving up towards me. She saw me leaving and then turned on her light. I then saw the man who had been waiting point to her, himself and then my spot. Which triggered a spate of obscene gestures. He then pointed at her, himself and my spot. I added my two cents by nodding an ascent. She then decided to include me in the obscenities, but of course, as she passed, she didn't have the courage to actually look at me--she could only do this at a distance. Nor did she look at the man waiting for my spot.

And a year ago, I was actually run into a wall along PCH near Malibu because someone was impatient with me driving the speed limit. It was right out of some C-movie, this enormous truck of the type that people buy because they feel inadequate in other ways, was tailgating me. I was in the slow lane and at 9 at night, it wasn't like PCH was particularly crowded. Plenty of room and two other lanes for this person to drive in. But no. He decided it was better to flash his brights. At a stoplight, I figured, okay, now he'll finally move over. And he did. Once we started again, he decided that he wanted to teach me a lesson. He literally drove into my lane. Along a certain stretch, near Pacific Palisades, there is a retaining wall to keep the hill from turning into a mud river during rainy season. And there was just no place for me to go. So I jammed into the wall. I couldn't believe it. I was pregnant at the time, too. So that was particularly fun for me. When he realized what he'd done, of course he sped off and the police said there was nothing they could do. Of course not.

This aren't the only examples of aggression by people whom we are led to believe by the media are model citizens, i.e. they're white. In Cape Cod three years ago, I recall driving around the various towns and seeing stickers that said "Kill the French" simply because they think, rightly so, that our Imperialist Invasion of Iraq was wrong. I guess it's okay to kill, maim, or otherwise be aggressive towards anyone who disagrees with us. Must be nice to be Conservative and have such a simplistic, and yet terrorizing, view of the world.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

The Auto Industry's Woes

On the November 17, 2008 edition of The World, a story was heard on not only the future of foreign auto car makers, but what a Detroit lobbyist thought about the current woes of Chrysler, GM and Ford. The gist was that this lobbyist rejected the idea that the Big Three were out of touch with the American consumer. That the fact that over 40% of domestic car sales were for foreign-designed, but domestically produced cars was somehow not an indictment of American auto-makers' designs that emphasized gas-guzzling SUV's. The fact is, it isn't that American automakers are not making what American's want, but that somehow, Americans just want something different.

That would be the doublespeak they call a "distinction without a difference."

Because, frankly, the American automakers have not been serving their market. They have ignored the market, that thing that Big Business in America so often touts as the indicator and regulator extraordinaire.

But now that the Big Three have finally had to admit that they were not listening to the market, they don't want to take the consequences for their actions. In other words, these three, who would be so quick to sacrifice other businesses to failure don't want to take that responsibility themselves. Instead, they want a bailout.

It is clear how "Big Business" works: the rules of the "Market" apply to everyone else. But when we are failing, we want special treatment.

The Rafael Vinoly "Grant"

The premise of Rafael Vinoly’s research grant is to foster deeper understanding, one presumes, in the arenas of architecture, urbanism and material culture.

However, this premise seems to be a sham. This year’s competition explored the built environment of developing nations. The purpose was to understand and address problems inherent in countries like China, India, and presumably those in Africa. But China was the first area they specified as being interested in understanding.

So I submitted a proposal. It was a critique on the fact that Westerners, Americans and Europeans alike, assume that western designs in China, including the Nest, the Egg, CCTV Tower and the Cube, are representative of both the problems and the inadequate solutions for a unique Chinese urbanization.

The problem is that Chinese modernization supposedly victimizes the individual. It tears down “traditional” architecture like hutongs, which no one ever acknowledges are a uniquely Beijing typology.

Well, Beijing is not a stand-in for all of China. But it has become that.

As for Beijing “fatigue,” a phenomenon in which architects think they have fully explored Beijing, the problem is they haven’t explored it at all. What they have explored is themselves: Western architecture in Beijing. The editor in charge of Beijing at Architectural Record, for example, never actually explores Beijing. Instead, he helps people exoticize elements of Beijing that Westerners find interesting. Not coincidentally, these elements are the Western designs in Beijing named above.

But as for documenting the rest of Beijing, what Beijingers really experience, no, that’s not interesting. That does not reinforce assumptions westerners have about Beijing: that it dehumanizes people with its monument, that it is an out-of-control city developing with not regard for the people, and that Beijinger’s really miss their traditional architecture, which supposedly represents the pinnacle of Chinese architecture.

First, there are innumerable neighborhoods in Beijing of a human scale. No one ever bothers documenting those. And since Western architects can’t never speak the language when they go over there, how would they know what Beijingers feel about their city, anyway? Imagine if some Chinese person came over to the U.S. to study NY architecture, assuming it represented all of the U.S., and didn’t speak the language? Americans are so narrow-minded and gringoistic that they would immediately protest, “How can you study us without speaking American?” Yes, and the same goes for architectural tourists traveling in China who lament what’s going on without understanding the first thing about China. Like William Menking. The arrogance of his assumptions about China is mind-boggling: he knows nothing about it, doesn't speak the language, doesn't hold a degree in it, and has never visited there. But he sure is certain that the U.S. is superior, it doesn't trample people's human rights. Evidently, he has been out to lunch during this entire administration, doesn't understand how our prison system is racist, and knows absolutely nothing about institutionalized racism, sexism and classicism. But since he knows nothing of these problems in the U.S., it's alright to engage in architecture here.

Modernization is not defined by Western progress. It just isn’t. Other countries must necessarily define and determine their own trajectory towards a modernization that is uniquely their own. The West does not equal Modernization with a capital “M” but just typifies a modernization, one of many.

And the argument that “traditional” architecture represents the pinnacle of Chinese architectural innovation and that it should be saved? Well, as long as these people have access to other housing, do white Americans traveling as architectural tourists to Beijing know for a fact that they lament losing their housing? Have most of these hutongs actually been seen by superior Americans, or is that just a projected lament about our own inability to preserve our own monuments? Yes. That’s what these people do best: project.

Indeed, what is never specified is what elements of “traditional” architecture the hutongs represent that are so great. Never once is that specified. Instead, hutongs are used as an indictment of how the “Chinese government” is insensitive to the “people” and victimizes them. Of course, then when Americans begin talking about those “people” they begin talking about the ethnic minority, in a dizzying display of a lack of logic. These writers and architects don’t really care about the Han Chinese except as a symbol to indict the government. But as for actually understanding what these people want and need? No. That task is reserved for the ethnic minorities, the Tibetans and Uighurs are current favorite darlings of Westerners, but again, the discourse is “Isn’t the Chinese government awful?” The goal is never to truly understand but to reinforce the superiority of Americans and Western Europeans.

Finally, Rafael Vinoly grant doesn’t seem interested in people actually qualified to determine what is needed by Chinese people in order to propose architectural proposals that are not just projections. After all, in order to determine what is needed, one needs to speak the language. Have studied the history and culture so as not to exoticize. And have, finally, training in architecture. But one needs all those things. Speaking the language or living in China do not necessarily qualify one because again, one needs training in how to approach the problem.

In other words, one needs to know how to critically think. Something most architects lack. Critical thinking skills. They are too often seduced by surface. Which inevitably, always, culturally colonializes the Other.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Debunking the "Model Minority" Chinese-American Myth

There is a cohort of Chinese-Americans, of whom one suspects Amy Tan is one, who embrace the "Model Minority" mentality.

Here's how it goes:

We are Chinese-Americans in California. We have been oppressed since our relatives from the Toisan area of Southern China. Indeed, the racism and oppression was institutionalized by law that limited our status and our access. We are proud of being successful, law-abiding citizens whose ancestors hail from this very modest, indeed poor, area of Southern China, in Guangdong province. We like to wear "traditional" Chinese clothing to all events, drawing attention to our pride in our heritage. And we also try to make connections to each other wherever we can through last names.

1) We are Chinese-Americans who have been institutionally oppressed since our relatives came over from Toisan, Guangdong, China, in the 1800's.

That's true. Obviously. The issue is not merely about a singular oppression against Chinese Americans, however. In the rush to focus on "Chinese-American" issues, many of this particular generation of Chinese Americans ignore the larger issues of racism and bigotry that exist. Not in the naive sense that they don't know they exist or that something needs to be done about these issues. Rather, this particular cohort, who ranges from around their mid-50's and older, they tend to focus on how they are "special" and that this specialness has been ignored because there are so many other groups, such as Black-Americans and Latino-Americans, who have grabbed the spotlight of "We Are Most Oppressed by Whites" in this country.

Therefore, this cohort consistently draws attention to the institutionalized ways in which they were oppressed. Good. Fine.

How about thinking of ways to draw attention to themselves other than proclaiming that "We Are Oppressed, Too"? How about focusing on how to mobilize institutionalized agency and power? How about training Chinese-Americans, from wherever they originally hail, including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, to not be so narrow-minded as to think that, simply because they have a job as a Doctor or Attorney that they don't experience racism and oppression? That racism is an institutionalized phenomenon, not an individual one. That it is not something that happens to you as an individual, but as a member of a group. Therefore, even if you are personally not a victim now that this does not preclude that possibility in the future because you are part of that group. Moreover, it does not help combat the other, more vulnerable members of your group that you yourself are personally doing alright for now--by being passive and disengaging yourself from the larger discourse, you are aiding and abetting the continued marginalization of Chinese Americans?

How about teaching people that fact instead of just focusing on historical wrongs?

2) We are from Toisan, Guangdong Province, China, and we are proud of that fact, which makes us law-abiding.

Every time this is averred by some self-proclaimed member of this group, it makes one think of Shakespeare: Methinks he doth protest too much.

The issue is not that your relatives were from a very poor part of town in a poor part of the country at the time and that, wow, look at us now, we're successful! The issue is, what can you do to raise agency, not just individual success, but agency, of all Chinese Americans? Does drawing attention to your ancestors' humble beginnings, and the fact that you are a fourth-generation American do that? No. How about focusing instead on how Chinese Americans are too focused on individual success, to the detriment of the collective? How about shifting the focus to the collective? How about teaching the new generation about getting involved in the community, rather than pounding into their heads that they have to be doctors who, by the way, have absolutely no power in the community and change nothing for the status of Chinese Americans in the eyes of White America? Gee, what a concept!

As for law-abiding, again, that's good. But it's not good to be docile. And passive. And not willing to engage the larger community that is non-Chinese American. Until we get White American to listen, we will continue being the "pet" that is really what model minority means. Model Minority was a moniker coined by Euro-Americans to emasculate and ultimately to keep the Chinese Americans down--it's a verbal pat on the head. Don't wear it like it's a good thing.

3) We like to wear "Traditional" Clothing to every event.

Don't. Unless you enjoy exoticizing yourself and reinforcing that yes, those Chinese (and believe me, they don't think Chinese Americans, they only think "Chinese") are so traditional. Read: so marginal. So backwards. They do make lovely clothing, but you know, they haven't contributed to the global society in hundreds of years, except by polluting the air--did you know that America gets China's polluted air?

Actually, America produces its own polluted air. All those factories back East. And we pollute Canada's air, too. I mean, really, how in the world can that air travel half-way across the globe just to target American airspace? Americans need to get over themselves on that one.

But Chinese Americans need to stop wearing that stuff unless making an ironical statement is the intent. Amidst lots of hipster White people who might appreciate it. Otherwise, it just reinforces how Chinese people just used to be "so clever but they haven't done anything significant in years." Truly powerful people always dress accordingly. When in Rome and all. They never wear Edwardian tea dresses to fancy balls or Consulate General gatherings. Don't do the Chinese equivalent.

4) Making connections with other Chinese Americans through last names.

Short and sweet. It's like asking someone who went to UPenn, so I have a friend so-and-so who went there--know him/her? It's not necessarily bonding to discover you have the same last name as someone else that this person you just met knows and yet you aren't related. How is that empowering? It's just annoying. Why not make connections about something more significant, like asking what the person does, what they want to do. How that contributes, etc, etc. In other words, how about making substantive conversation about real issues?

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Zimbabwe and The Elders

A few days ago, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan and Graca Machal held a news conference in South Africa regarding the refusal of Robert Mugabe to actually follow through on his power-sharing deal with Morgan Tsvangirai. They were quite critical of Thabo Mbeki, amongst others, to exert more pressure on Zimbabwe in general and Mugabe in particular to stop his rabid handlling of his country and its citizens.

Carter, Annan and Machal are part of a group called The Elders who consider themselves in a way beyond politics because they have been so involved in politics, but because of their age have transcended the regionalism inherent in nation-state-based politics. In other words, they no longer act in the interests of a particular region since that would undermine their credibility but instead can descend upon different regions of the world, as necessary, to exert pressure and share their wisdom.

The irony is that one of the members of The Elders, Bishop Tutu, was quite vociferous in the ouster of Thabo Mbeki, who was ousted as president in part because of his corruption by the African National Congress party of South Africa.

But one of the most glaring components of the passivity of Mbeki's presidency was his constant blocking of the Pan African Coalition to censure Mugabe. Mbeki's continued support of Mugabe, even during the particularly heinous period of killing of all opposition members--the description of the way these people were killed was particularly grisly--essentially allowed Mugabe to continue on in this way and refuse to first deal with Tsvangirai and then honor his deal with him.

It is understandable that Mugabe does not want the interference of The Elders, primarily because many of them have lost credibility by either hailing from Western Europe/America or having been leaders who dealt with them. Unless one has grown up in a colony as a colonized person, one cannot understand the insistence of former colonies to not have the interference of white people. However the passivity of Mbeki has legitimized reasoning about his dictatorship and genocide that should have been addressed long before now.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Let's Talk About The Other Jobless Rate

I want to repeat again that the media needs to address the invisible cohort of those entering the job market after pursuing higher degrees: without any sign of work in their specialized fields, this cohort will have an even more difficult time than those who have just lost their jobs because of the following reasons:

1) They do not qualify for unemployment benefits
2) They have typically very high student loans they need to begin repaying
3) Their training is very specialized and thus there are fewer jobs available to them
4) Because they do not qualify for unemployment benefits, they do not qualify for any other government aid, either

It would be nice if both the media and the government were to address these issues.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Pets Reflect Their Owners

It has long been a trope that people's pets resemble their owners. That isn't all. Their temperaments, as well as the type of pet they choose, is extremely revealing.

I will draw one example and let conclusions be drawn: owners of Pit Bulls. Enough said.

Monday, November 17, 2008

On the Economy

Kenneth Rogoff, Professor at Harvard, had some interesting commentary to make today on The World regarding the inadequacy of the G-20 summit.

Some highlights include that he places today's global economic recession--let's not call it a "downturn" anymore, shall we--on the shoulders of the U.S. The last twenty years, yes, that implicates the vaunted Clinton years, of a U.S. economic policy that made certain all the other Western European countries knew that the U.S. thought its own policies were superior. Eminently superior. And that, moreover, our version of irresponsible deregulation, one that begin with Clinton but was embraced far more stridently by Bush and his cronies in the Administration, as well as its supposed superior free market, has actually failed. What was lacking, according to Rogoff, was the unwillingness of the U.S. representatives to the G-20 summit should have at the very least acknowledged the U.S.'s looming role in creating this global recession.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

The Unspoken Cohort of this Recession

It is irritating that people are constantly talking about the "downturn"--who was the brilliant person who came up with that euphemism?--always talk about people losing their jobs.

But not about those people who have not been able to find jobs over the past year. These are people who hold multiple degrees. They are not competing in the job market with the people who just lost their jobs at Linens 'n Things or even will be losing them at GM, DHL, or any of these other corporations. No. These are people who occupied upper tier management positions in specialized fields. And hold multiple graduate degrees within those specialized fields.

And the worst part of this particular cohort is that they don't qualify for unemployment benefits. Instead, they live on their 401k's or what little savings they have left. While it is devastating that people are losing their jobs, from where I stand, at least they have benefits they can look forward to. And Congress is contemplating extending unemployment benefits for those who have already been on them for a while. Again, relatively speaking, the appear "lucky."

But not being able to find a job after going to school at least seven additional years to the four for a B.A. is absolutely devastating. Because the likelihood is that while receiving that additional education, that person was not being paid, or if they were for being either a Teaching Assistant or a Research Assistant, the actual pay is enough to qualify one for food stamps and other Federal Aid.

It would be nice if, finally, the mass media would address this very significant cohort of the population in their stories, rather than just focusing on the easy, sensationalist stories regarding lay-offs in large corporations.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Facebook: Anonymity Masked as Keeping in Touch

The most pernicious effect of Facebook is that it is a forum that encourages narcissism, anonymity and social irresponsibility. But it masks all of these effects by allowing people to fool themselves into thinking that they are "keeping in touch with others."

Here is how it works. The page that you see after initially logging in is the page that shows all the other posts made by your other friends. And the content of these posts? All about ME. The definition of narcissism. And they are usually fatuous entries if they aren't photos. About people drinking coffee at that moment. Or about how they just got into work and they must prepare for the games, or some stupid entry. Entries that used to be part of one's diary. As in, a venue that was private.

But now? You can publish those thoughts! You can feel that your pathetic thoughts are witty! You're so "avante garde" and "cutting edge" and all those things you really are not. Because other people are reading these insignificant posts.


Then there is the ability to read other people's posts and think, "Gee, I know what so-and-so isdoing
right now." You don't, really, because usually the content of these posts is unsubstantive and silly, but you can pretend that you know. And hey, you know they use Facebook a lot, just like you, so there is that knowledge.

The effect of logging in to Facebook to "find out what others are up to" is that you never actually have to communicate with those people on your friends list. It takes a lot of times less time to email a quick note. Not a phone call, no, just a quick email. Because the amount of time people spend self-aggrandizing themselves using Facebook in order to make themselves appear more cool and witty is much longer than they would sending a quick email. But they never do. Because they console themselves with the thought that they are really keeping in touch with their friends and their friends are also in touch with them, via these stupid posts that say nothing substantive.


What a great tool.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Alito, Roberts, the Navy vs. Whales and the Environment

Who says that Roberts and Alito aren't conservative? From the LA Times, on the issue of the Navy being forced to turn off its sonars when within 1.2 miles of espied whales. It is a display of blatant disingenuousness:

"Roberts faulted judges in California for "second-guessing" the views of Navy leaders. "Where the public interest lies does not strike us as a close question," he said.

Roberts also questioned whether whales have indeed been harmed by sonar. He said the Navy had been operating off the California coast for 40 years "without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal."

The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups strongly disagreed. They say studies conducted around the world have shown that the piercing underwater sounds cause whales to flee in panic. These studies said some whales have beached themselves and have shown signs of bleeding in their ears as a result of high-powered sonar."

The Washington Post offers further details:

"At issue in the case is the Navy's use of a type of sonar that can detect quiet new submarines deployed by China, North Korea and other potential adversaries. Environmental groups sued the Navy to demand restrictions on 14 training exercises scheduled from February 2007 to January 2009 in the waters off Southern California, which are shared by 37 species of marine mammals including whales, dolphins and sea lions.

Roberts noted in his opinion that the parties strongly disputed the extent to which the Navy's training exercises harm the marine mammals or disrupt their behavioral patterns. The Navy claimed it has used mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar in such exercises off the Southern California coast for 40 years "without a single documented sonar-related injury to any marine mammal," Roberts wrote. At most, that type of sonar might cause temporary hearing loss or brief disruptions of the mammals' behavioral patterns, the Navy asserted.

The plaintiffs in the case, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, contended that sonar can cause much more serious injuries than the Navy has acknowledged, including permanent hearing loss and decompression sickness, and that it can lead to mass whale strandings. Certain species such as beaked whales are especially susceptible to mid-frequency sonar, but the Navy would not necessarily be able to detect their injuries because these whales dive deeply and spend little time at the surface, the environmental groups argued."

As for worrying about China and Korea, they just really don't care about the U.S. except insofar as they can make money of the U.S. economy, which is a really long shot right about now. Why is the U.S. always searching for scapegoats to justify unnecessary expenditures that pad the coffers of their flunkies, lobbyists and others who have these politicians in their pockets? Oh, perhaps that is the answer.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

How Will Obama Engage His Volunteers

It's a simple question. With a very complicated answer. After all, many of his volunteers are his contemporaries and older, not the Gen-Yers and younger who can move to D.C. because they don't yet have families.

And if this new administration is to truly represent the people, and it is built by those same people, then how can these same people all converge upon D.C.? Will that not make them representative of D.C., and a very self-selecting cohort at that, rather than representative of the place from whence they come? Because after all, if you live most of the time in D.C., it's rather easy to forget what happens in, say, a small town in Virginia like Appomattox Court House. Or in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Of course, that is what Congress is for, to represent the needs of its constituents. But not in the Executive branch, those people represent their constituents in the Legislative Branch. If Obama truly wants to involve these new volunteers, he needs to do it in a more substantive way than merely by making a "digital suggestion box" available to people across the country. He needs to establish an infrastructure that can incorporate people around the country into a system that will utilize their unique skills, visions to contribute to the shape of this new Administration within the Executive Branch of government.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Identity Politics

Whenever I begin discussing race, the double bind of hyphenation in the U.S., I am often told by some extremely smart person who is inevitably Euro-American (read: white) who scoffs and says s/he just hates identity politics.

And the other day, I was having a conversation with a woman who teaches Anti-Bias Curriculum to budding teachers and therapists, as well as classes on how to deal with identity issues in K-12 classrooms. So I asked her how she would respond to such scorn in re: identity politics. She replied that it is not something that you can have a single conversation about and change another person's mind. Rather, she would point out inherent particularities in that other person, who is most likely white, has in his/her identity. They aren't just "white," but they are from Idaho. Their parents immigrated from Ireland. And so on and so forth. Because normally these people don't have to think about their identities, because they are part of the dominant culture. Actually, that's my observation because she seemed to think that white people are not. But so long as they are in control of all the institutions in our society, so long as they dictate the rules, they are the dominant culture. Hey, I don't like it, I just tell it like it is.

So anyway, her point was that over time, this person would realize that his/her identity was also particular, and that just because s/he doesn't have to defend him/herself by explaining that yes, actually, I'm American and my family is a fourth-generation fill-in-the-blank, that they, too, have a quite possibly contested identity.

This answer struck me as fundamentally unsatisfactory. It was, for one, far too touchy-feely. It had no strength behind it. No academic credentials behind it. No one like Susan Stanford Friedman arguing for the fluidity of constructing identity. A constructed narrative of identity that is simply that: a construction. And it is a relational construction defined in terms of the other. Consisting of intentional deletions, insertions and highlights. No one like Ella Shohat to give us a resounding, often extremely, painfully incisive summary of the problems of equating Euro-American definitions of self, agency with authoritative, either when trying to understand people from other countries and especially those in this country but who have different racial, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. No one invoking Anne McClintock or Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.

So now, I'm doing it. To reject identity politics is to reject the idea of a dominant white culture. To reject that is to not understand that there is privilege in the ability to ignore that identities are constructions. After all, if you're part of the dominant culture, no one questions your identity. But identities are narratives that depend upon not just a careful selection of what gets included in that narrative, but also upon systemic, institutionalized constructions of self and other. And those, in turn, rely on the silencing of minority narratives. They rely on the false assumption that identity is fixed, rather than fluid. Indeed, if it were fixed, not so many people who wanted to silence the Obama presidential run would have been quite as threatened as they were.

I intend to keep refining my understanding of identity construction. And next time, if some friend tells me s/he hates it, I will have a few things to say.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Obtuse, Ignorant Republicans

I was just at a symposium at UCLA and I was accosted by a woman named Halie who asked me why I liked Obama. I said that I had liked him since 2004 when Bush won re-election, I had made a bumper sticker for Obama. What did I like? That he was smart. I then told her about an Op-Ed letter in the L.A. Times in which I paraphrased a woman who said many people like her cared about others, wanted policies on Health Care and Education that did not just serve themselves. And that there were many others like her. They were called Democrats. She laughed.

And then this woman named Dolly (can you believe that name??), turned to me and began lecturing me. Did you know that Chris Rock was a Republican? Did you know that Republicans vanquished the KKK? They didn't. They aren't vanquished and certainly were not during the 1960's, when they hung black people at will. And did you know Don King was a Republican? And that means what?

First, I wonder why she kept bringing up all these black examples of Republicans. And then referencing the KKK. If you think Don King is your best example of what a Republican is, you are two things. You are a bigot. Another word for racist. Because you automatically assume that simply because a few black people are part of the Republican rolls, that fact somehow mitigates racism. And she also proved her racism because she was evidently assuming because I am colored, though not black, I MUST have voted for Obama because he is colored, too. Because she kept saying things about black people in trying to prove me "wrong"--of what, I have no idea. And it was shown by the Pew Research Center that this year's Republican National Convention had the lowest number of black people in recent history: less than 6% black. Just for comparison, the Democratic National Convention had over 40%.

And she also proved her unrepentant, uninformed obtuseness. Because what does Don King being in your political party mean? You have bad taste in hair? Oh, right, you're not very smart. I forgot.

But like I said, evidently she thought that I was just voting for Obama because I'm not white. Even though I never said anything about race. I said I thought he was smart. Twice. That's it. And that Democrats vote on policies, even if it does raise their taxes, because they want to help other people. Today. Not 100 years ago. What kind of argument is that if you have to say that your party helped squash the KKK over a hundred years ago? Especially if you're wrong?

Clearly, this woman does not know history. Does she know that, statistically, immigrants who become citizens become Republicans? Because they read the original ideals of Republicans. No, she says, she did not. Does she know that it was the 1960's that turned the Republicans into the kind of Neo-Cons they are today? That it was part of a grand strategy to retake the South (boy, did they ever) as Republican territory? No, she did not. Did she know that Republican politicians have made it a dirty word to be "smart?" And that is what I and the letter-writer (which admittedly I have probably decontextualized) were referring to in asserting that "we care": because Republicans are always labeling Democrats, and not just the politicians but everyone else, as "Limousine Liberals" and that we're intellectuals. As if policies like Healthcare for ALL children--which Democrats want but Republicans don't--is not humanitarian but merely "Elitist."

How did this conversation with this bigot begin? Because she overheard me say Democrats value taking care of others and that I thought Obama was smart. So she just HAD to say something "because I have been standing here listening to her and I have some things to say!" Again, my question is, who asked her? This wasn't her conversation. But, like so many white people, she just feels she is entitled to intrude on any conversation. So she evidently objected to my observation that Democrats care? Or that Obama is actually smart? Gee, you're right. If you're a Republican, evidently those things are offensive! They aren't true!

I am so sick of rabid idiots who are rude and intrude on other people's conversations. And I'm sick of Republicans. Not coincidentally, they seem to go together.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Aftermath...

So Obama won. Seeing a Black U.S. President is an emotional thing, for sure.

But of course Gay Marriage took a big hit nationally.

Affirmative Action (or what's left of it) was banned in two (more) states.

California (the big, blue, leftist state) decided to continue its project of criminalizing and subjugating people of color. (If we didn't have prisons, what would we do with them all?)

And I'm not even sure what other nefarious state measures were passed...

So what direction is this country headed in again?

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Cynical, But True

I've been hearing some rumblings about the campaign, now that it is a presidency, which trouble me.

The issue of a black man being elected has now become associated only with black people, i.e. it will raise black people. Amazing that all other people of color have become, well, insignificant. They have faded into the background. Who cares about them? That's the problem with this country: too focused on black and white. Not enough focus on all those other, inconvenient minorities.

And the hypocrisy of Hillary supporters is also disturbing. They hated Obama during the primaries all the way to the end of the election. They were quite vocal in their criticism, from his naivete/inexperience to his wife's comments. But now they are clamoring for their old Clinton-era positions. Not the high-level cabinet positions, all those other, less visible, but well-paying nevertheless, positions. Working their "connections." Disturbing.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Some Thoughts

In an article in the LA Times, which is a far more liberal newspaper than any of the other national newspapers, including the Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times, I read an article about race, white voters and Obama.

I thought this one quote, by a 47 year old man whose ancestors were slave owners, was really on point. Bear in mind that while this was in the context of voting, it is generally relevant to Euro-Americans and their approach and reluctance to discuss racism.

He says: "For me, the Obama thing is a giant step forward for America," he said. The 47-year-old's ancestors once lorded over black slaves as owners of one of the Old South's largest plantation empires. Electing a black candidate, he said, would show that "we're not just the slavery nation, the Jim Crow nation." He then later observes, that Obama, if elected, would quell overseas critics who accuse the United States of racism. If critics like Steele called that "white guilt," he said, then so be it.

Guilt, he said, "has a place and a role. Those who fail to feel guilt are sociopaths."

It is good to see this kind of article in a national newspaper that can also be accessed online. Though whether people will read this, and whether more importantly it will spark the kind of critical self-examination needed, is another question.

Too long, those of color have been forced to dance around the "politically correct" position of not raising the issue of racism, or indeed even mentioning the word, around Euro-Americans. Too long. It is as if we must acknowledge that, "Hey, if I feel guilt, isn't that enough?"

No, it isn't. Changes must be wrought, not simply in individual minds, but collectively. So that the Neo-Nazis who hatched a plan to assassinate Obama are not merely brushed under the media rug. This is not a mere blip on the screen of information. This is a postule that reveals a much deeper, systemic rot underneath: the systemic, institutionalized racism that is symbolized by Palin's followers. Immoral. Radical. And yet, knowing that they are referencing hundreds of years of domestic terrorism, otherwise referred to as racism, that they are buoyed still by institutions that inadequately address Neo-Nazism, racism, and "hate-based" crimes. Because today, these crimes are treated as individual acts, rather than collective acts that reference history. And becuase of that referencing, have a greater deleterious and pernicious effect on the psyche of its victims: people of color.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Scrambled Eggs Recipe

This recipe thought up by my brother. He is now a professional chef, years later, but he came up with this in college, when he was not a chef but just a "cook" at Love's--remember them? So this was before he worked for people like Ming Tsai in Wellesley, MA, and Ians in New York.

Scrambled eggs, American style are, in my opinion, awful. They are rubbery. Overworked. And dry. Why chop them up and keep turning them over? Ugh.

Instead, they should be done Chinese style. It is similar to the classic French-style omelette, where the egg is moved from side to side only a few times and then slid off the plate. But it's even better than that. A friend, who hails from New Orleans and who says that there, a man isn't a man unless he can cook, said of these eggs: "I have discovered a whole new respect for eggs."

One to two cloves of garlic, crushed
Salt and Pepper to taste
A dash of white wine
Small chunks of cream cheese

Add these two twe eggs and beat together

The key is the cooking. Heat an omelette pan on high for several minutes. The oil, whether you use Olive or butter or a combination, should be what Americans call "shimmering."

When you add the eggs, it should make a very loud crackling sound--if it doesn't, the eggs won't turn out right. Tip the pan to spread the eggs around the entire bottom evenly. Let cook for no more than 1 minute. Using a spatula (I use chopsticks--it really can work) or a spoon, whatever you have on hand, move one-third of the egg to the middle of the pan and then tip the pan to spread more of the uncooked egg around the pan. The cooked part of the eggs you have moved to the middle should be brown.

Repeat the process of moving a third of the eggs to the middle twice more.

Quickly transfer the egg onto a plate. The eggs should NOT be fully cooked--they should be what is translated from Chinese as "smooth". No chopping of the egg. No rubber. Not overworked.

Just divine.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Joseph Ellis on Conservatism and Liberalism

In reading Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, Professor of History at Mt. Holyoke Joseph Ellis defines Conservatism and Liberalism.

On liberalism, Ellis says, "The core revolutionary principle...is individual liberty. It has radical and, in modern terms, libertarian implications, because it regards any accommodation of personal freedom to governmental discipline as dangerous. In its more extreme forms it is a recipe for anarchy, and its attitude toward any energetic expression of centralized political power can assume paranoid proportions," (2000: 14).


On conservativism, he says, "...the American Revolution [was seen by some] as an incipient national movement with deep, if latent, origins in the colonial era...The core revolutionary principle in this view is collectivistic rather than individualistic, for it sees the true spirit of '76 as the virtuous surrender of personal, state, and sectional interests to the larger purposes of American nationhood, first embodied in the Continental Army and later in the newly established federal government. It has conservative but also protosocialistic implications, because it does not regard the individual as the sovereign unit in the political equation and is more comfortable with the governmental discipline as a focusing and channeling device for national development. In its more extreme forms it relegates personal rights and liberties to the higher authority of the state, which is "us" and not "them," and it therefore has both communal and despotic implications," (2000: 14).

As soon as I read this, I thought again of the irony of the Republicans having usurped the mantle of "Conservatism" since according to this classical definition, they are actually quite liberal (!!) and I'm sure that those radical, right-wing jackanapes who think plotting to kill leaders based on their skin color is a good idea would cringe at the thought.

But another implication that I'm certain not many have thought of is that these diametrically opposed interpretations of the purpose of the American Revolution is how they apply to dominant Euro-American understandings of China. Many a Euro-Am will lament at the lack of freedom in China and the lack of understanding of "Democracy" not only the government, but regular Chinese people in China have. They immediately attribute this condition to the oppressive government: if not for the oppressive regime, Chinese people would understand "Democracy, U.S.-style" and indeed, they would validate the Euro-American value system, i.e. they would be more like "us."

No, they wouldn't. China and its value system, without falling into essentialisms or transhistoricisms, consistently subscribes to this principle: sacrifice of the individual for the greater good of the state. For stability to reign, each individual must sacrifice, and that doesn't mean literally they need to sacrifice certain things--horror to your average American. They mean that people must know their roles. And for each situation, there are appropriate roles to play. If everyone maintains those, then society will not experience upheaval. It is when people do not understand these roles that chaos ensues.

And frankly, what's happening in the U.S. culturally and politically, with skinheads plotting to kill the next president and the V.P. pick by McCain demonstrating that, once again, Americans can be unimaginably, shockingly stupid at the highest levels of government, seems to be a testament to what happens when people do not understand their place, their limitations, have no decorum, manners and basic honor. And if that isn't enough proof that America's way isn't so great, can we just once more contemplate how the U.S. singlehandedly ushered in a GLOBAL DEPRESSION by sanctioning an 8-year period of rapacious, hey-if-the-president-can-steal-an-election-why-can't-I-do-a-little-stealing-of-my-own mentality? I don't think we should be pointing fingers at how inferior "they" are or looking for validation for our way of being "free." W have been steadily losing our freedom under Bush for the last Eight Years, and for those who object to the Democrats controlling Congress and the
White House, it was the 6 Years of Republican Congress that helped Bush along.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Race, Racism and McCain

Watching the debate last night, one thing became clear: McCain is desperate. For fear of alienating the extreme right wing, bigoted members of his party, he will not condemn those who say "Kill him" in referring to Obama. Instead, McCain points the finger at Obama for not condemning his supporters who "say the same thing."

First, none of the Obama supporters say that. Because they are actually respectful.

Second, it is unrepentantly amoral and disingenuous to draw a comparison between epithets flung at McCain (of which he had yet to name any) and those by McCain's extreme white, racist supporters.

There is no history of communities of white people being terrorized (yes, that favorite word of Conservatives) in their own homes, neighborhoods and communities by a dominant ethnic group. For Afro-Americans, they were terrorized for hundreds of years through to very very recent history by white people people. This same group was also repeatedly oppressed, exploited and terrorized by governmental institutions (think the police) who either partook in active violence or stood idly by and did nothing while entire communities were terrorized and Afro-Americans were burned, hung, beaten and otherwise physically and mentally exploited and oppressed. For hundreds of years, this has happened.

And recall James Byrd, Jr., in Jasper, TX. This was in 1999, people. He was dragged over three miles. And not, as for some weird reason most white television networks were reporting, along a "lonely country road." No. It was in a black neighborhood and as one reporter had the courage to observe, was meant to terrorize the entire neighborhood of Afro-Americans. Hmm. Imagine if that happened in, say Beverly Hills. To some white guy. And imagine if that sort of thing had happened throughout history and not a lot was done about it and moreover, that you felt no matter what, you couldn't protect yourself? Think it would freak you out?

So to have a bunch of people shouting "Kill him" is not idle commentary that can be ignored, though McCain is just the kind of morally reprehensible jackanape that wants to. Words are incendiary. If the leader of your party doesn't think it's a problem for you to say words that reference a long history of domestic terrorism of an entire population of the U.S., then it is easy to think that he would condone just about anything.

And frankly, that's what George Lewis was saying. That words are incendiary. And as the leader and Presidential candidate of your party, you have a fundamental responsibility to keep your followers in line. That's why people can go to jail for inciting violence through their words. Because words can inflame and incite action. For McCain to turn all hypocritical and actually praise his followers, no matter what they say, is another sign of his complete lack of character. I have never been so turned off by any candidate before as I am by McCain. He shows not only a complete absence of character, but a basic meanness, a small-mindedness coupled with an ambition that embraces lying, cheating and obfuscation to get what he wants. And he thinks that isn't more of the same?

Monday, October 13, 2008

Project Implicit at Harvard

This is really an interesting cognitive study being conducted at Harvard. After reading a previous post, I decided to give the test a try. I discovered that I have a strong automatic preference for Justice vs. Injustice, Democracy vs. Fascism (that surprised me a little, with my critique of the Ameri-centric "Democracy"), but this surprised me, a strong automatic preference for the Present vs. Past. You may not learn anything new about yourself, but it will amuse you for around five to ten minutes.

Study Shows People Equate White with American, Colored as Foreign

An article in the Washington Post demonstrates what colored people have known for years: colored people are often considered foreigners. Hence the question, "So, where are you from?"

Here is the beginning of the article:

"A few years ago, psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Thierry Devos showed the names of a number of celebrities to a group of volunteers and asked them to classify the well-known personalities as American or non-American. The list included television personality Connie Chung and tennis star Michael Chang, both Asian Americans, as well as British actors Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. The volunteers had no trouble identifying Chung and Chang as American and Grant and Hurley as foreigners.

The psychologists then asked the group which names they associated with iconic American symbols such as the U.S. flag, the Capitol building and Mount Rushmore, and which ones they associated with generically foreign symbols such as the United Nations building in Geneva, a Ukrainian 100-hryven bill and a map of Luxembourg.

The psychologists found that the participants, who were asked to answer quickly, were dramatically quicker to associate the American symbols with the British actors, and the foreign symbols with the Asian Americans. The results suggest that on a subconscious level people were using ethnicity as a proxy for American identity and equating whites -- even white foreigners -- with things American.

The psychologists initially assumed that this bias began and ended with Asian Americans and would not apply to other ethnic groups. But in another experiment involving famous black athletes around the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympics, they found that the same pattern applied to African Americans. Although white volunteers agreed explicitly that hurdlers Allen Johnson and Angelo Taylor, who won two golds at Sydney, "contributed to the glory of America" and "represent what America is all about," they were slower to associate photos of black athletes than white athletes with American symbols. Black participants, on the other hand, were as quick to associate black athletes as white athletes with being American.

"The reason this is powerful is it shows our minds will not just distort our preferences but distort facts," said Banaji, who works at Harvard. "African Americans in their [own] minds are fully American, but not in the minds of whites."

The experiments, based on tests that are accessible at http://implicit.harvard.edu, have provoked controversy -- especially in terms of what they mean. It may embarrass people when they subconsciously associate whites with being American, but does that matter? If people have no trouble distinguishing Americans and foreigners in their conscious minds, why should we care about their subconscious tendencies?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Clinton Backers Resist Palin and Debate Audience Unimpressed with McCain

These articles show the arrogance and meanness of McCain, the one in highlighting his cynical move to co-opt not just women, but Alaska by having Palin be his running mate (boy, I bet Republicans are really regretting his decision right about now), but the other article highlights his attitude, towards his opponent and towards the audience he supposedly wants to impress. Just peppering your speech with "My friends" does not make people your friends, nor does it make you appear sympathetic. McCain's handlers should tell him that. It is quite condescending.
"Palin Meets Resistance Among Clinton Backers"
and
"Debate Audience Members Talk About Candidates"
Some observations by audience members:

"The Republican, Lindsey Trella, a family business consultant, said she was disappointed that both men used her question – should health care be treated as a marketable commodity? – to lay out their own health care plans and take jabs at each other. Neither gave her a Yes or No.

“I came away thinking John McCain has a position that supports marketable health care, whereas I think Obama supports affordable health care in a universal sense though he wasn’t really specific,” Ms. Trella said. “Personally I don’t think health care should be a marketable commodity – under the current system, too many people are excluded, and I think that’s sad in this country,”...

Both women, as well as the third audience member, were especially emphatic about their feelings on the two men’s performance after the debate. All three said that Mr. McCain shook hands with several audience members and then left fairly quickly. Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, stuck around to shake far more hands, pose for pictures, sign autographs, and answer more questions, including from people who had been on stage but did not get a chance to ask their questions. Only when Secret Service agents told them it was time to go did the couple leave (upon which they headed for a post-debate fundraiser at Al and Tipper Gore’s house nearby)."

Ms. Trella said that on the whole, she was more impressed with Mr. Obama during the debate, and that she now planned to vote for him.

“Obama talked at one point about responsibility, Americans have acted responsibly or should do so, while government really hasn’t – I liked that,” she said. “McCain, I felt more like he went over points he had already made, and went over some set answers. There wasn’t anything he clarified, in terms of what he would do.”

Bear Baiting

It is so easy to judge cruelty in other cultures: about their people, the way they treat their minorities and the way they treat their animals. Oftentimes, those judgments are projections: those things we despise in our own culture but are too passive, afraid or just plain ignorant about, to change.

But I confess that this was just too sad: bear baiting in Pakistan. Not that I have a serious problem with what goes on in Pakistan--I'm not a fear-monger or racist or worse, stupid. And I frankly think our policy regarding Pakistan borders on the same old American hegemony. But this issue of bear baiting seems unnecessarily cruel. Rather like poaching (hunting) elephants in Africa for their tusks. Or tigers in India to sell their furs to the nouveau-riche in China. Or like bull-fighting in Spain and Mexico.

So here's one website that helps with bear baiting, the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

For anti elephant poaching, here are a few sites to donate to: The Friedkin Fund and the African Wildlife Foundation.

Anti tiger poaching: the World Wildlife Foundation. The Tiger Foundation was interesting, but perhaps needs more investigation.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Chinese Gymnasts' Age Cleared

It was reported on October 1, 2008 that original documents including family booklets, passports and identity cards verify that the Chinese athletes He Kexin, Yang Yilin, Jiang Yuyuan, Li Shanshan and Deng Linlin, whom Americans protested were "too young" were, actually NOT too young, according to the International Gymnastic Federation.

That must irritate some Americans who look for any reason to critique China. Human rights violations being the most obvious. But funny how these same Americans don't care about Chinese people who are exploited. Only minorities in China.

Steve Lombardo, Republic Analyst, Says McCain is Heading for Defeat

That's two people, one, the pundit David Brooks of the NY Times, and now a former Mitt Romney advisor, Steve Lombardo.

Published in The Guardian, Mr. Lombardo says that McCain is heading for near-certain defeat barring a "crippling error" by Obama or terrorist attack on the US.

During the debate, it was also ironic that the talking head who claims Obama is all for "big government" in terms of his health care plan, McCain himself proposed a huge big government plan for helping individuals with their mortgages. Hypocrisy much?

And this excerpt from the article cited above is particularly satisfying:

"McCain saw fresh signs yesterday of the damage to his prospects in polls showing him trailing in four battleground states and fighting to keep Indiana and North Carolina. He suffered another blow when the wife of a retiring Republican senator seen as one of the Republicans' experts on national security officially endorsed Obama. "We're in two wars, two of the longest we've ever been in. We've run up a third of our nation's debt in just the past eight years. We're in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression," said Lilibet Hagel, whose husband, Chuck, is a senator from Nebraska."

No wonder he has been sicking Palin on Obama.

McCain is no "maverick"--he's a mean, unpredictable, volatile old man. Maybe he should just pack it in.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Further Evidence that China's Modernization Doesn't Just Ape the West

From PRI.org comes this article on China's renewable technology.

China might be one of the biggest polluters on the planet, but it's also a world leader in renewable technologies.

China is bigger than the U.S. but does better in investing in renewable technologies gleaned from all over the world. I know so many people critical of China "taking our oil"--who says it's ours and btw, haven't you heard of the futures market that took off when Bush came into office--and that we get all their pollution. Maybe we should stop pointing the finger outside and take a look at ourselves. For a change.

The IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species

This is just too important to not get involved with. The IUCN, which stands for the International Union for Conservation of Nature, just convened it's congress in Barcelona today. From an exhaustive study about the world's mammals, which is still incomplete because of a lack of data on some mammals, they reveal some frightening statistics.

They say that at least 1,141 of the 5,487 mammals on Earth are known to be threatened with extinction.

The reason? Man. Shrinking mammalian habitat and hunting.

" The results show 188 mammals are in the highest threat category of Critically Endangered, including the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), which has a population of just 84-143 adults and has continued to decline due to a shortage of its primary prey, the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)... Habitat loss and degradation affect 40 percent of the world’s mammals. "

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Even Conservative Pundit David Brooks is Pessimistic About McCain

Even David Brooks thinks that the tide favoring Obama was inevitable: it's simply that our finally acknowledged Recession has sped this process considerably. Listen to his weekly assessment on NPR.org

Why racist conservatives refuse to acknowledge that Obama actually has policies that would benefit them (like the tax cut for them--you know none of the middle class protesting Obama make near $250,000--is testament to just that: the racism in this country.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Volunteering at the SoCal Obama Campaign HQ

The inclusiveness is evident in the campaign HQ located on Motor Avenue in LA. Attempting to volunteer for the Kerry campaign in 2004 was futile. I couldn't even locate the HQ in Century City and once I did, evidently I wasn't allowed in because I hadn't been added to some list.

The Obama campaign is different. Everyone is invited. Do what you can. No one cares what you do outside--it isn't a forum to network and it isn't a venue to brag. Indeed, I've often overheard that many of these people are in the "Industry" which means the entertainment industry. But nothing like that matters, which is unusual in a city whose many inhabitants often care a great deal about such things.

Instead, you bring your passion. Your skills. And you contribute what you can, when you can. It is what I had thought of when I was much younger, that this is what politics was: a collective. On the ground. Contributing what you can. And that contribution is valued.

I enter data. I type quickly. So I enter a lot of data. And then I leave. And I'm always appreciated. And I feel good. Inspired. This is a campaign I can finally believe in.

A Good Summary of Polls

From Real Clear Politics.

And About Race...

Still think that race is not an issue in America? Or embarrassed that it is? This new poll, conducted in conjunction with Stanford University, shows that Obama would lead by 6 more points than he is now if he were white.

Some excerpts:

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey."

"The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain."

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

About this last opinion, wow. And perhaps if whites hadn't enslaved black people, raped their culture, their women, exploited their labor, split apart their families, and then systematically terrorized them and disenfranchised them for over another hundred additional years to the present, maybe they would be better off.

Ignorant people have no idea what it is like to be systematically terrorized and to have governmental institutions support that oppression by criminalizing that same entire social and ethnic group. Because they are ignorant and most often white.

Until the late '60's, lynching was still prevalent. Ignorant people will often say, "Well, I feel scared walking down such and such a street." What they don't understand is that is an individual experience, it is not institutional. It is not on a collective, social level. Your entire neighborhood isn't terrorized while authority sits back and does nothing. People who go abroad and experience racism, they know. They can imagine what it is like to grow up with that feeling of fear, because not only does everyone feel that they can victimize you with impunity, but you also fear the supposedly authoritative, protective government institutions which are meant to protect people but not you if you're colored.

However, there is some hope that despite racism, people are seeing that Obama will do what is in their best interests, while McCain will merely continue the rapacious streak of exploitation and cronyism that Bush/Cheney have instituted. Read the story of one Pennsylvanian's change of mind, if not heart.

But then there is the other side. On Patt Morrison's show on KPCC 89.3, there was a man who said that on the one hand, he was concerned about Obama's lack of experience. But then in a dizzying display of circular reasoning, he thought that even though McCain had exactly the kind of experience that led us to this crisis (actually, McCain, Bushites and Cheneyites) it was alright that Palin had no experience because she was "like me." If that isn't a code for racism, what is?

McSame Pulls out of Michigan

McCain has conceded the state that has the highest unemployment rate in the country, Michigan. He also lags in several states that were contested but are leaning more heavily towards Obama given the current economic meltdown and McCain's unrepentant incompetence in the area.

A Pew Research Center poll also finds that the initial "bounce" Palin gave McCain's candidacy is clearly backfiring. Over 50% of those polled think Palin, surprise, is unqualified to be President should something happen to McCain. The presidential debate helped undecideds realize that McCain is more of the same unprincipled ambition as Bush. For McCain and Palin, the "rules don't apply" so that even still, Palin's husband refuses to answer the court summons regarding Palin's firing of a former brother-in-law.

Similar to this administration's actual VP, Cheney, as noted in The Nation who refuses to turn over the records he has generated during his term because he claims he is "not part of the executive branch" because he is also President of the Senate. Again, if you are the party that has

Karl Rove
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
George W.

why in the world would you think the rules apply to you? They hijacked the election and it was smooth sailing from there. Except that we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and that our problems are reverberating throughout the world. Because if you can hijack the presidency and get away with it, then you can create home loans and sell them in a bundle to other investors at incredibly inflated prices, exploit people by persuading them to take out multiple mortgages and then threaten states with withholding banking services if they implement legislation that demands proof of income.

Palin represents the kind of racist incompetence that Republicans embrace: cover up the incompetence with constant shouting and attacks and hopefully no one will notice you are not only incompetent, but a rapacious, unrepentant, exploitative nincompoop who represents the worst of corruption, cronyism, and amoral dissolution. Yes, that's what Republicans who think Palin is a "fox" (yes, she is, and she's in your hen house) will be voting for.

park

wing #1