Main

World events Archives

May 5, 2003

Catching up

I'm off travelling in Europe and it's hard to always get to a computer to make updates. I do have some thoughts backlogged to share though.

I've come to realize that part of the reason that Americans and the French and Germans don't agree about Iraq is that they are not basing their opinions on the same information. Before I left for Europe I watched Deutsche Welle TV and they did a story about the sorry state of an electrical power plant, discussed its critical importance, and noted that the US had done nothing to help nor allowed for anyone else to come in and help. Several days later (a few days ago now) I saw the same story on French TV news, and nothing had changed.

Meanwhile, in the US we get to see all the touchy-feely feel good stories about the random good things that did result. I don't doubt that there were in fact some, and I never doubted that there would be. But a handful of good things doesn't outweigh a pile of bad things and we need to be aware of them. We can't steer a legitimate policy if we have no concept of where we should be steering it to.

May 8, 2003

Someone else's words

I've admired Johnny Colla for a long time as the saxophonist/guitar player/singer/all-round important guy in Huey Lewis and the News. In addition to playing with the News he is also stretching out to leading his own band and doing his own material, which is quite good. One CD is out, and I can't wait for his next one so that I can have a recording of the great new songs he's done. They are the kind of songs that creep into your head and stay there. Which on the one hand is fine with me because they are good songs, but on the other hand is driving me up the wall because I haven't caught all the words and so I can't sing them. They simply rattle about my brain in a recursive loop.

What I hadn't necessarily realized about him in all the years that I've followed the News is the extent of his talent and intellect. Because the News play as a blended ensemble, it's hard to separate each person's contribution. With his solo work it's clear what he can do. Not only does his voice come through loud and clear, but his songs are well-crafted melodically and lyrically. The crafting of the words is what I find most interesting. I am poorly equipped to judge the relative technical merits of a musical piece, but I find that the finesse with which one can manipulate words tends to reveal a sophistication of thought behind them.

It's always nice to discover that someone you admired is so much more worth the admiration. And in the last few weeks as I've watched several solo perfomances and several performances with the News I feel like I've gotten to know him all over again and feel quite comfortable in calling myself an admirer. He also has written comments on his own web site, and hence the point of this post. Huey Lewis and the News as a band are apolitical, and that's fine. Music can play a role in uniting people, but it generally needs to be politically neutral to successfully pull it off. It doesn't mean, however, that the individuals behind it need to vacate any political consciousness of their own. So, like my blog here, Johnny used his web site as his soapbox to comment on the state of the world, particularly with regards to the Iraqi situation.

I'm mentioning it here because I agree completely with his position, and it's nice to see someone else express so eloquently many of the thoughts in my own head.

For posterity (I hope he doesn't mind - the link will probably break the next time he posts):

...

"Do I feel any different now that we've 'won the war'? No. Like getting a bad tooth drilled, I'm glad the pain didn't last too long, and it feels great now that it's over. On the other hand, for a few of us the pain will last a lifetime. I think we just cooked up a big pot of something extremely unsavory. It's just begun to simmer and it won't be done for a long time (if ever!) and in the end it may not taste very good.

The anti-war, peace movement mindset my generation embraced forty years ago was a wonderful ideal, and still permeates our part of the world. Unfortunately back then we believed, naively, world peace would be within our grasp in short order, possibly in our lifetime. In our youthful exuberance of the sixties we wanted quick results. In some instances we even used violence to make our point! The fact of the matter is war and violence is an everyday, ingrained part of life in a large part of our world and within our own country. It is the everyday occurrences against women and children or the old and helpless, and moves out into the big-city battlefield of perceived enemies, real or imagined. It's a tragic human condition passed on from generation to generation. I think I've lived long enough now to know change in the world, that is, a serious shift in consciousness, is a very slow-turning screw. But I try and remind myself daily that peace, love and compassion starts or stops, lives or dies, every day in the home behind closed doors. Keep an eye out for the enemy within, and be patient."

...

Edit 7/19/03: The link to his comment did change so I updated this post.

May 26, 2003

Taking Things for Granite

This past weekend my mom and I went to Yosemite. I'd been there before and had once climbed Half Dome, but she hadn't seen the valley and all of its glacier-molded gigantic granite topography.

She has seen lots of granite before though, particularly in New Hampshire, known as the Granite State. She's vacationed there nearly every year since I was in elementary school so I've seen a lot of it as well. One of the things I remember seeing is the Old Man in the Mountain. The Old Man was an over-hanging rock formation on the side of a mountain that when viewed from the side looked like a Lincoln-like profile of an old man. There were lots of legends about the Old Man, some dating back at least hundreds of years.

At Yosemite's nature centers there was a lot of emphasis on the slowness of geologic time, explaining how it took millions of years for the features of the valley to be shaped. So imagine my shock to have learned that a few weeks ago the Old Man in the Mountain collapsed. It fell off. It's not there anymore. Somewhere in the scale of geologic time, a seemingly permanent feature of the landscape disappeared in my lifetime. I hope this is some random coincidence and not a harbinger of other geographic traumas to be suffered as a result of me somehow being cursed...

July 14, 2003

France

It's Bastille Day and a great time to comment on all things French.

On Friday the Sofitel Hotel in Redwood Shores hosted a party to celebrate an early Bastille Day. It wasn't all that much fun - way too American! (The band should have played French music!) - but I got to catch up with my friend Valerie, an actual French person, and there were fireworks afterwards. We spoke French a little as well and I was happy to see I haven't forgotten it all despite not having been in France since March. When I'm in France my French skills sort of warm up and I get more fluid with my speaking. But I don't practice much when I'm in the US because it just doesn't seem intuitive to describe life in the US in French. French fits France: the roads, the buildings, the people, the food, the life, the light, the French ambience in its entirety. But in the US, and maybe California in particular, the spaces are broader and, how shall I say it, differently colored? There is a rhythm to life which requires the English vocabulary and its broader phoenetic syllables to describe. Whereas IN France the opposite is true and English feels clunky and ineffectual.

Apparently last year for Bastille Day the Sofitel Hotel hung a gigantic French flag off of their building. This year I guess they've chosen to be more subdued. I think it's an absolute shame that they think they need to. There was a recent article in the New York Times about how American families were refusing to host French foreign exchange students. Such behavior is absolutely appalling.

  • Even if we assume that the French have done something unforgivable, what sense does it make to penalize students?
  • Given the rift between our respective cultures, what sense does it make to deny ourselves the opportunities to build bridges between us that foreign exchanges afford?
  • Even if we accept the most cynical assessment of Chirac's motivation for not agreeing with the US on Iraq, I don't believe, from my experience meeting real live actual French people in France, that the French reluctance to invade Iraq was based on anything other than reasonable, rationale, and humane concerns.
  • If either country has behaved in a way that requires apologizing, it's not France. All things considered I think the French have been tolerating tremendous American arrogance with astonishing equanimity. I've not heard of an example of the French being nearly as inhospitable to Americans as we are being to them.

Not to mention how foolish this attitude is if it turns out that the French were right about Iraq.

I just find it unfathomable that there are Americans who would tell me that to support my country I need to now hate the French. I didn't go to all the trouble to learn their language just so I could lord myself over them in a misplaced sense of haughty patriotism. I think, rather, that it would be advisable for more Americans to go to the trouble to try to see things from the French perspective. And rather than continue to resent them for WWII, if we are determined to rely on history to justify our contemporary relationships, perhaps we would be better served by recalling the contributions of Lafayette, or perhaps the gift of the Statue of Liberty, or any other of a number unsung occasions of the French supporting Americans.

August 15, 2003

Outage of '03

I'm chagrined that it's been a week since I last posted. I think I'll blame it on this whole law school transition thing... Actually, that's not too far-fetched. By the end of last week I'd gotten myself and all my stuff to Boston, but I hadn't quite finished the unpacking when last Sunday I drove down to New Jersey to see my family (and in the interests of full disclosure, another Huey Lewis and the News concert...)

I've come back to visit periodically during the 10+ years I lived in California, but this time it feels different. Those times I felt very detatched, and I also felt like I had to zoom around to suck up all the things about the East Coast that I missed on the West Coast (food, seasons, etc.) This time I have this sense that I can take my time. Boston is close enough that nearly all the things I like about NJ can be experienced up there. I was talking with my dad the other day about getting some Jewish deli, when I realized as though by epiphany that I didn't need to knock myself out to get it down here since I could get it at home! The awareness that I could get things I liked NEAR MY HOME suddenly made me feel much better about having made this move.

With regards to feeling detatched, though, that was a much harder emotion to work through. When September 11 happened, I wasn't there. I was sleeping in California. Though the tragedy was a blow to the entire nation, the real impact was born by New York (and its surrounding area). It used to be MY city, that used to be MY World Trade Center, but after nearly a decade of being away, I wasn't sure they were still mine anymore. It was one of the seminal events that will forever define New York, but I wasn't there to be defined with it. The place changed, and I was left behind. I wondered if I would ever be able to come back and call this place home.

My dad says I'm thinking too hard about this and that of course I can come back. It's not like there are rules for who gets to live here and who doesn't. But regardless, yesterday I got something resembling redemption. I was at my mom's house, where I grew up, playing with the computer (in fact, I was trying to update my blog!), when suddenly the computer rebooted (it ate my blog entry!). It came back on for a few minutes, and then the screen went blank again. And stayed that way. Eventually I wandered outside and chatted with my next door neighboors, who I haven't talked to in years, and we tried calling the electric company. The line was busy, and then another neighbor across the street came over to tell us he'd heard on the radio that most of northern New Jersey and New York were out.

At first everyone thought it was another 9-11. What else could have caused such a vast area to lose all their power? I remember when I lived in California getting teased about the rolling blackouts. People joked it was a third world nation. But at least there the power "rolled" with some warning, lasting only short duration and sparing the hospitals and other mission-critical institutions. Whereas yesterday it all went kaput with no warning.

People came out of their houses and started milling around on the street. Sensing the scale of it meant that it would probably be a while before we got power back, we decided to have a Clean-Out-Your-Refrigerator Potluck Barbeque Block Party. It was a good chance to meet the neighbors and feel like part of the neighborhood again. It was always a nice street to grow up on, although when I was about 6 most of the other families with kids had moved away. It's only recently that it's become a vibrant neighborhood again with lots of kids (in fact, nine boys were born on the street the same year - they'll be able to field their own baseball team in a few years.)

The neighbors had a generator so we were able to watch tv and see scenes of utter pedestrian gridlock in New York. It was a rough place to be, but New York has changed since 9-11. It functions much better as a unified community, something I think it struggled with in 1977 and the last major power outage.

Just as we were about to eat the lights came back on (figures.) But people stayed for a while and enjoyed the occasion as one of the little gifts adversity sometimes brings.

September 28, 2003

L'Shanah Tovah

Rosh Hashanah has come (and nearly gone) again. I have not managed to make it to services for the holiday, but I am trying to maintain a sense of newness in all other things.

On Friday evening I met my sister and some friends at a Bosnian/Mediterranean restaurant to fete the new year. Then last night my friend and I threw a potluck party, ostensibly to celebrate the new year. But we'd planned it very late and most of our Jewish friends already had other plans (or didn't get the invitation in time.) So we opened it up and included anyone who wanted to come for a party. We had a small crowd and lots of food, including jambalaya which I now think is a required staple for any party.

The eclectic nature of our party led to some interesting discussions. We got around to talking about President Bush. Nearly everyone held him in tremendous disfavor, except for the guest who brought the jambalaya. Born and raised in Kansas, with close ties to New Orleans, his cultural centering contrasted with the sensibilities of those of us who grew up on the urban northeast or west coasts. Respect for his opinion kept the evening from becoming a Bush-bashing fest. Rather, I asked him if he could explain why Bush has such traction in certain parts of the country. He thought it had something to do with Bush appearing (albeit perhaps falsely) as an Everyman. We want a President we think we could go have a beer with, he said, not someone who's an academic lording his credentials above us. (paraphrased, but that was the gist.) Part of that makes sense to me - who wants a sense that they are being "ruled" by a president with nothing in common with them? On the other hand, would you not want someone with some sort of qualification to deal with the important issues that a president needs to deal with? The conversation turned to discussing what these qualifications might be, then wandered to gun control, then airline security...

It was invigorating and frightening to hear these other opinions. Invigortating in the sense that exchanging ideas so frankly helps lead you to improve and refine your own. And frightening in the sense that it exemplifies why there is so much discord in the world: even the issues that seem so simple and solveable to you have proponents who think they are simple and solveable to the contrary. How do you figure out who's wrong and who's right? And what if, in some way, everyone is right? Then what?

November 10, 2003

Naming things

In the days where naming rights to every civic structure are routinely sold to the highest bidder, it's nice to see things get named after a deserving and appropriate person.

California just completed a new suspension bridge (in the Bay Area, crossing the Carquinez strait carrying eastbound I-80 traffic) and named it the Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge. According to CNN:

It is named for an ironworker who fell from the Golden Gate Bridge during its construction in 1936 and survived to help build six more bridges in the Bay Area.

Zampa died in 2000 at 95, weeks after turning the first shovel of dirt for the bridge.

He sounds like a worthy recipient of the honor of naming a bridge after. Much more worthy than others who've had civil engineering projects named after them, say, like Ronald Reagan. Someone wrote on the Internet somewhere (I forget where) that it was tremendously ironic to name an airport after the man who fired all the air traffic controllers.

I think that it would be advisable to make a rule (codified, or simply a hegemonically and tacitly socially agreed upon tradition) not to name things after people until 50 years after their death. This would give us a chance to really reflect on their contribution to society and decide if, on retrospect, we still feel highly enough about them to justify the honor. Also, particularly in the case of political figures, it eliminates the partisan quality to naming structures that everyone shares, even people who don't favor the political contributions of the naming honoree.

Granted Zampa died only a few years ago, but it's not like he was a political figure whose supporters called in the favors to have the structure named after him. And his story seems to make naming a bridge after him seem very appropriate. Maybe if it was a baseball stadium I would feel differently. Then again, if it would prevent another recurrence of an Enron Field...

Edit 3/9/04: There's an interesting and related comment pertaining to this post here.

December 7, 2003

Still snowing

A few days ago a friend of mine nonchalantly commented, "I like snow." And now look what happened. We're up to a foot and a half of it! So I think he should comment, "I like money," and see if he gets a similarly voluminous result. Other friends are skeptical about whether he truly has any sort of cosmic power or if this isn't some sort of coincidence, but I think it's very important that we test the theory in case he should happen to comment, "I like manure," or something else that would be unpalatable in large quantity.

March 13, 2004

The Rain in Spain

A few days ago I was comparing notes with my friend about our travels in Europe. I've been many times, including after graduating college when I had a month-long Eurail pass. I milked it for all it was worth, heading as far south as Rome and as far north as Narvik; west to London and east to St. Petersburg. I generally took night trains, as it seemed most cost effective and time efficient to take care of sleeping and traveling at the same time. I traveled by myself for the most part and had no problems doing so at all (contrary to the skepical comments I received from people I met there who couldn't imagine doing the same.) In fact, the whole trip went swimmingly with just two minor exceptions in Rome and Madrid.

On the one hand, with train travel in Europe, you want to be somewhat prepared before beginning. It's good to know where the trains go, when they go, which destinations are reached by night trains (if that's what you plan to take), and consequently to have some sense of the places you want to visit. On the other hand, you don't want to over-plan and end up forcing yourself to miss out on unanticipated adventures while you catch your pre-booked train. Like many other things in life it's all about balance. I had a general idea of the places I wanted to visit and carried around xeroxed train schedules so that as I decided where I wanted to go I could easily figure out how to get there. Generally I would book my reservations a day or two in advance as my plans firmed up, trading off a wild adventure that might crop up in the current city for the certainty that I'd have a berth on the train I wanted. (The Eurail pass covers the ticket portion of most trains - the part that pays for the distance traveled - but not sleeping berths which are good to have if you plan on taking a night train and want to be in any way well-rested upon arrival at the next city.)

By the time I got to Salzburg I knew what night I wanted to go to Venice. I also knew that the following night I wanted to go to Rome, and the night after that to Nice. The clerk in the Salzburg station spoke English well so it was a good place to get organized, but for reasons he couldn't explain he could only book me to Venice. This seemed odd because elsewhere in Europe I'd been able to book for any other train anywhere else. I decided to take my chances and go to Venice anyway, figuring it would be easier to sort out the Italian trains once I was in Italy. My hunch seemed to pay off when in Venice I was able to reserve the night train to Rome, but still no luck with the train to Nice. Ah well, it worked out with this train, so I'll go to Rome and take my chances.

Unfortunately, no one in Rome could book me on the train out that night, nor explain what the problem was. In fact they could not explain whether there just wouldn't be sleeping cars, or if there was to be no train at all. So I had a problem. I could wait around and try to catch the hypothetical train, but I ran the risk of being stuck at the train station at 11:30 at night if it didn't materialize. I still wasn't sure what to do when I bumped into an American woman who invited me to join her on her trip to Florence in 2 hours. I decided it would be better to start heading north so I agreed to join her. "It's too bad, though," I said, "Because after studying all that Latin I really wanted to see some ruins." So we jumped on the metro, took it two stops, hopped out at the Coliseum and took pictures, then got back on the metro and caught the next train to Florence. Where I spent a few hours in the lobby of her hotel wiping honey off of everything in my daypack (the jar I was carrying had leaked) before wandering around the city, trying out Florentine Chinese food for dinner, and then catching a midnight train to Nice, as planned.

Sometimes the misses end up the best stories but, as I told my friend the other day, I was having trouble construing my minor mishap in Madrid positively. Earlier in my trip I had met my sister in Paris and we went to Spain together, first stopping in Madrid. At mealtime things got interesting. She's a vegetarian, and a picky one at that. And we were both poor students. So choosing a restaurant required extensive studying of menus to strategize the best offerings of tapas for our budget and tastes. (It had to be tapas, because boorish Americans that we were, we got hungry well before most Spaniards began to consider eating dinner.)

We found a nice place, we thought, on the Plaza Major. A waiter caught our eye and sat us down at an outdoor table. But then he disappeared for a while, which was too bad because the table was dirty. We caught another waiter's eye and we told him about the table. "Sucio," I mumbled in my long-forgotten Spanish. So he moved us to a different table. His table. As opposed to the other waiter's table. In the U.S. this kind of move would be no big deal, but judging by the argument the two waiters got into I think it was a very big deal in Spain. From what I gather, each waiter is sort of an entrepreneur for his tables. The second waiter, with our ignorant help, had essentially stolen the first one's customers. The manager emerged to sort out the scuffle and apologized to us, and eventually one of the waiters came to take our order.

We carefully pointed out which things we wanted. Many of the dishes came in two sizes, and cheapskates that we were, we ordered the smaller plates. When the order came out we thought one plate looked larger than we expected but after discussing it, we decided that it was reasonable and assumed that the waiter had gotten it right. He hadn't, which we discovered to our horror when we got the bill. This led to another discussion with the manager, this time much less pleasant. My Spanish skills were taxed to their limit and beyond - I had to use entire sentences and consequently conjugate on the fly - as I made our case (which was much more convincing than I've articulated here, now 8 years later and fuzzy on the details). I won the argument but it was clear that we wouldn't be welcome in these parts again. I was fine with that, for a few reasons. For one, I felt conned. We had been clear, and the waiter had either screwed up or pulled a fast one. But even beyond the sense of justification, I also felt mortified. To the extent that the trouble was my fault, particularly in failing to account for cultural differences, I was embarrassed and not eager to show my face there again. Until this week, I was happy to steer clear of Madrid altogether.

In the few days since telling my friend that story, everything changed, including my antipathy toward Madrid. It now seems petty and small, and I feel more compelled to visit again as a show of solidarity. The location of the bombing – at the train station – was particularly significant to me. I took a lot of trains in Europe, including in Madrid. I even remember having noted then how Spanish train stations in 1996 showed the most obvious signs of security. I frequently checked my luggage in lockers before heading out for the day (necessary when taking night train after night train) and Spain was the only country that required passing all bags through an x-ray machine. "Because of the bombings," I remember thinking to myself. Pretty similarly to what I also thought to myself in June 2001, when passing through the lobby of the World Trade Center and seeing all the security apparatus. "Because of the terrorism." This nonsense has got to stop; I'm tired of these bitter ironic thoughts.

April 29, 2004

Today there are leaves

I wasn't going to post on my blog until exams are over, but I opened my shades today and saw leaves on the tree and felt it needed to be noted.

Happy spring.

May 13, 2004

Reservists in Iraq

I got the following email from my dad yesterday, and I think more people should be aware of the points he raised. With his permission I'm posting it here:

Here's the link to Seymour Hersh's current article on the Abu Ghraib prison. It's very enlightening and, after listening to the Senate hearings on this issue, is even more disturbing for its implications and the damage done.

"TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?"
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

The article raises some very strong points, primarily about the breakdown in command and is another example of the many ways we were unprepared for handling post-war Iraq.

The whole situation at this prison emphasizes something I've objected to from the very beginning: We should not be sending reservists into the combat zone.

Reservists (which includes both the regular reserve and the National Guard) are by their very definition not professional soldiers in the way the enlistees are. They are older, hold full-time civilian jobs not necessarily related to their military roles, are less trained, and, in general, did not volunteer for what turned out to be combat service. The reserves are really meant to fill in the domestic gaps when we ship our regular military overseas. In the case of WWII and Korea, the reserves were used as cannon fodder (with disastrous casualties) until the time a regular army could be drafted, trained, and sent overseas.

I was in the National Guard for six years. My service overlapped the time of the riots in Newark, Detroit, etc. during the mid-sixties. I went through the farce of what was called riot-control training. If we had been called out for riot duty I would have had pity for us, the rioters, and any civilians who looked to us like rioters.

We were frightened, ignorant, poorly disciplined, and inadequately trained. Our officers were a joke who lacked capability, leadership ability, and respect. Few had seen active service and most had been through, at best, National Guard officers training (4 weeks total). They were comic book soldiers. In fact we all were. If we were called out and issued live ammo we would have had needless casualties on both sides. I'm fortunate that I wasn't put into that sitiuation.

Reservists still train a weekend a month and two weeks during the summer. That's the total. MP units in my reserve division did traffic control for the most part. To send folks like that over to guard jails in a very complex political-social and dangerous situation without a lot of special training is asking for trouble and victimizes the soldiers who in turn end up victimizing their charges.

Poor discipline, lack of clarity of one's duties and responsibilities, plus being in a situation in which one feels unprepared is a bad mix. Add to that what seems like an organizational breakdown based on a nudge, a wink, and contradictory authority, and what happened could have been expected.

I don't condone the behavior of the guards, but nailing them alone is like picking up the dope pushers on the street corner and claiming to have broken the narcotics trade. What they did wasn't done in a vacuum. The buck stops a lot higher up.

June 13, 2004

Reagan

Since I'm currently living in Washington, it's been hard to ignore the fanfare over Reagan, though I've certainly tried. The jets that flew over his Capitol procession also flew over my house, and the ceremonies on Friday were on TVs all over the city. DC was also very quiet that day as Bush had given a lot of people the day off. Meanwhile I just held my breath and waited for it to be over.

It's not that I want to jump up and down and spit on his grave - he was a father, a husband, and he leaves behind loved ones and I'm sensitive to their loss. And I agree with what I overheard someone else say, that as a US president his death was due a certain ceremony.

My objection is to the posthumous deifying of the man. I don't want to change the money in his honor, or anything else for that matter. And I don't want to pretend that he was the greatest president ever, although I admit that his presidency did have lasting effects. Whether all of them are effects we'd like to have, though, I'm not so sure.

There are a couple of things that come to mind most strongly when I reflect on Reagan. One, that he gassed the students at the University of California at Berkeley. (He called out the National Guard as governor of California and they gassed the student protestors.) I wasn't there, but I don't need to be - nor do I need to be an alumna of the school (though I am) - in order to feel that it was a violent over-reaction to dissent. Given the degree that he's being feted for having "defeating" the Soviet Union it might be nice if we didn't forget how he acted in such a Soviet style himself.

I also question whether he really did "defeat" the Soviet Union in the Cold War. I remember being terrified when I was in elementary school that he was being so provocative that he was going to get us all blown up. It may have been an oversimplified perception, but as I've gotten older I've noticed that fifth graders, with their less convoluted outlooks, often get things more right than adults who tend to get more lost in complexities.

(Gorbachev, who I do tend to think is more deserving of honor for ending the Cold War, himself credits Reagan for helping to end it. I don't deny that Reagan played a crucial role, but it may have been more to create the political realities that allowed Gorbachev to do what he did. Perhaps if these actions had been part of a flawless design I could congratulate him for it. But my sense of the history was that it was, like so much else, more a fortunate accident.)

The thing that bothers me the most, though, is that in fourth grade he made me cry. There was some nonsense about bringing school prayer back to schools, and for a brief period this directive manifested in a moment of silence after the Pledge of Allegience. It was just a moment of silence, we were told, not a directive to pray. As if that made it ok. I knew its purpose was for a moment of Christian contemplation. I wasn't Christian, I knew it wasn't for me. It was a moment when I became an outcast in my own country. As if the fourth grade wasn't trying enough.

There are some conservatives who have lambasted critics of Reagan as being partisan in refusing to go along with the flow in feting his fictional flawlessness. It's an unfair criticism for the most part because it serves no one's interests if we can't evaluate his presidency thoroughly and honestly, to face down the mistakes if we wish to celebrate the glories.

Lest I be painted with the same critical brush, I also wish to point out that I grew up during the Reagan presidency. That I've become a Democrat is directly due to him because as I gained my political consciousness I looked around and knew there had to be a better way.

Edit 6/15/04: What did happen in 4th grade? An article in today's New York Times says that unlike Bush, Reagan didn't mix religion and politics. That's not my recollection, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The article talked about comments made by his son at the funeral, trying to differentiate Reagan and Bush's invocation of religion into politics. Of course, from my understanding, Ron Reagan Jr., whose views I generally do respect, often didn't see eye-to-eye with his dad. But I admire the son for having tried to bridge the ideological gap between them.

Edit 7/10/04: Here's something I wrote about Reagan during his presidency. I was about 11 when I wrote it.

July 3, 2004

A Day in DC

Every day on my way to work I pass a red brick building. It's been empty, which sort of seemed odd for such a prime location. But I'd noticed other empty buildings around the neighborhood so I didn't think much about it.

On Wednesday morning, though, I noticed a camera crew setting up in front of it, with their microwave truck in the street. More interestingly, there was a FOX News truck around the corner. But other than that everything looked just as it had every day for the past month and a half.

While at work, my friend IM'd me that Tears for Fears, his favorite band (he nicely ranks Huey Lewis and the News as number 2), would be having a free lunchtime show at a nearby club. Apparently Tears for Fears had broken up for a while, but they now have reformed and have an album coming out in September, Everybody Loves a Happy Ending. Since my friend has let me share HLN concerts with him, I decided to come along to check out his favorites.

It was a good show. They played a lot of the new songs, and closed with some of their famous hits from the 1980s like "Everybody Wants to Rule the World."

For me it was interesting being at a concert where OTHER people were the big fans. At HLN shows I'm always the one who knows all the words, all the history, who all the people are. I'm so involved with it that I have no idea what it's like to be at a HLN show for someone new to them. So it was a nice change to be at this Tears for Fears concert where all the other people were the hardcore fans and I got to experience them for the first time.

And there I was, right in the front row at a show by people who've filled stadiums. All one day at lunchtime in DC.

On the way back to work I walked past the red brick buiding, which now had crowds of people in front of it (and several more microwave trucks) and by now it was clear what was going on. It was the Iraqi Embassy that had now been reopened. The flag had gone up just minutes before.

It was a moment of historical significance at an otherwise nondescript building in a nondescript neighborhood. A couple of city busses passed by, dropping off their commuters while hemming in the diplomats' vehicles on the narrow city block. The ordinary juxtaposed with the extraordinary.

All in all, just a typical day in DC.

July 5, 2004

Connecting some scary dots

FYI: for any friends and relatives reading, do not panic. I'm fine. I will continue to be fine. And maybe, because of my phone call, so will other people.

Late, late on Thursday evening I eventually realized that the person outside screaming was seriously screaming for help. It took a while to notice because one of my roommates frequently is absurdly loud at late hours so I've learned to ignore her. But eventually it seemed like some investigation was warranted.

It turns out that as she was coming home, right in front of the house, she was accosted. A shiny black car had pulled up and a short hispanic-looking man wearing a long white t-shirt had gotten out and brandished a knife. He took her purse and touched her inappropriately, but then ran off. We found her in the aftermath when she was giving the description to the police.

It was concerning because from time to time I walk home after dark. Not too often because it gets dark so late these days and I get sleepy so early... but sometimes. I'm not stupid or reckless about it, but it's my world and I refuse to cower from it. Still, all weekend I felt sort of squeemish about asserting my independence so overtly (ironic, I thought, given the Independence Day celebrations.) For instance, when I came home late on Friday I took a cab from the metro. What a stupid waste of money: $6 to go 4 short blocks. Otherwise I feel completely safe in my neighborhood. I might worry about petty crime, of things being taken if they aren't nailed down, but I have no reason to fear violent people lurking in the shadows.

Today I happened to have been watching the local news - something I rarely do - and I caught a mention of an assault on Friday on a woman in Alexandria. I didn't pay much attention until they included a description: two hispanic-looking men... long white t-shirt... shiny black car.

The similarities were too striking to be coincidence. But who was going to make the connection? This assault was in Virginia. On Thursday it was in DC, and the 911 call would be recorded on Maryland's tapes.

I used to work in a newsroom and I knew that there were certain kinds of calls from viewers that would actually be helpful. (So many weren't: every 5 minutes people would call objecting to something I had no power to do anything about.) So I tracked down the number for the station's newsroom (which took quite a bit of research since they don't publicize it) and let them know about the other assault. The woman who took the information was interested and will go call the DC police to confirm the connection, if there is one.

I think this was the right way to handle it. I could have called the police, but which police? And since I wasn't a party to it they might not take me seriously in the same way that they would a news desk (something I else I learned from my former job). Plus the news would have an incentive to break a story about a serial predator, whereas I got the distinct sense, judging from the lackadaisical comportment of the cops when they came on the scene, that they might be unmotivated to do the same. The different jurisdictions, plus being busy with ordinary holiday mischief, would also make it harder to put these pieces together on their own accord.

I actually feel much better about the situation now though, having made this connection. I didn't feel comfortable before when I was worried my neighborhood was being targetted. Knowing that the entire metropolitan area is being targetted is almost a strange relief.

July 18, 2004

On second thought, let's just blame the Port Authority

Previously I posted about the futility of not having Metro Card dispensers at LaGuardia Airport. I'm starting to wonder if that has less to do with any decision on the part of the MTA (who runs the buses and subway) or if it's a Port Authority decision.

The Port Authority runs LaGuardia Airport. It also runs bridges and tunnels that connect New York and New Jersey, including the George Washington Bridge (the original "GWB"). The George Washington Bridge has two levels, and unlike the Bay Bridge in California, each level has traffic in both directions. I remember when I was a kid always nagging my dad to take the upper level, where the view would be better, and how most of the time we'd end up on the lower level anyway. Sometimes it was because the traffic was better, sometimes it was because we missed the turn-off, and sometimes it was because the exit routing for where we were going was easier to follow on the lower level than the upper.

It seems, however, that recently the Port Authority got the brilliant idea to make the tolls for the lower level EZ Pass-only at night. A huge mess has naturally ensued, as people have ended up in the wrong place with only cash, which apparently the Port Authority doesn't want to trouble themselves to take (the toll is expensive, so it's quite a bit of money to be turning down.) People who end up in the wrong place are stuck with either having to make moronic driving maneuvers, or to drive through the tolls without paying (which then gets them a bill for the toll and a $25 fee.) It's a dangerous situation, and a loud one as well that's been waking the people who live nearby with all the honking and police loudspeaker announcements and such.

Sounds like an idea that should be revisited, right? Apparently not.

"If we start making exceptions," said Ciavolella, the Port Authority spokesman, "then it would defeat the purpose of what we're trying to do."

Exactly what is it that the Port Authority trying to do? Is it something more than collecting money and keeping traffic flowing smoothly, things you'd expect the Port Authority to do? Because it's clearly not doing those things well. What is it that it thinks is more worthwhile?

Port Authority insists that people will learn. OK, maybe regular commuters will figure out this arrangement, but what about the people who aren't? The people who are most likely not to have EZ Pass transponders? These people won't learn the system, and the system is going to make them scofflaws with large penalties to pay for an innocent mistake made due to no fault of their own.

When I was a webmaster I had to learn all about usability. It wasn't enough to make my web site the way I thought it should be designed. I had to make it in a way that the USERS thought it should be designed to suit their needs. It was amazing how many web sites ignore that very basic principle and stubbornly cling to their own myopic way of trying to "reach" people. There has to be a compromise between the provider of a system and its users. If the system's design prevents some users from using it, it's a complete failure that requires a redesign and not merely the obstinate hope that the users might somehow change.

When the system in question is a public utility (roads) such a failure is particularly inexcusable. All people, as they are, have the right to use the roads. Locals, one-time visitors, everyone. It's enough of a burden that any toll needs to be paid at all (poor people should be able to cross the river too) but if the arrangement essentially obstructs people from legitimately using a public system in a legitimate way, it must be changed.

Since the lower level of the George Washington Bridge is sometimes the only effective way to travel to one's destination, it needs to accommodate people without EZ Pass.* And the Port Authority should adjust its attitude. It's raison d'etre is not make the system it thinks it wants to make. It's purpose is to make a system that all people can use.

* People like me. Don't even get me started on how the police can find you wherever you are on the roads by tracking your EZ Pass signal. You think it's just to pay a toll conveniently? Think again.

Edit 7/21: Well, the Port Authority has made an improvement. Sort of. Now two lanes are "escape valves." If you end up there they tell you they will bill you for the toll and waive the fee, as long as it's the first offense. Lovely. So this presumes that occasional travellers won't make the same mistake twice. Or that more confusion won't be caused with more jockey-ing through confusing lanes and signs. Plus the admin costs of doing the billing. WHY DON'T THEY JUST TAKE THE DAMN MONEY!!!! I can't imagine it take more than a handful of cars per hour to pay for the manpower required to accept the cash. This is a major thoroughfare across a major river to a major city. I'm inclined to think that even in the middle of the night there are still likely to be more than a handful of cars looking to cross.

December 18, 2004

Not the A.N.S.W.E.R.

On Ambivalent Imbroglio there was a post about the National Parks Service allowing only Bush supporters access to the inaugural parade, permitting dissenters only if there's space left over. I find it incredibly plausible that there would be such a policy, given similar preclusive behavior by the sitting administration towards protestors attending his campaign rallies.

But the dissenting group whose difficulty in obtaining a permit was cited was A.N.S.W.E.R. Although I don't think their particular views should affect whether they can be present at the parade - just as I don't think anyone's views should be vetted before being allowed to attend - it would be a mistake to permit A.N.S.W.E.R. to be the proxy for all those who disagree with Bush, particularly in his foreign policy, for they are not the ambassadors of peace they purport to be.

What I posted on the other blog:

The access issues are important, and I don't trust this administration to not clamp down those who disagree with its policies.

But be careful about holding up A.N.S.W.E.R. as the epitome of progressive thinking. I went to a huge protest of theirs once, just before the war in Iraq when ~100,000 people marched through the streets of San Francisco to a rally at the Civic Center. We came to lend our mighty presence against the imminent war, but at the rally we were instead regaled with an anti-semitic attack against Israel. That our tremendous turnout now appeared to be supporting.

At best, it was a confusing of the issues counter-productive with making headway on the matter at hand.

It was also imbalanced and inaccurate, and full of hateful invective and uninformed bias against anyone Jewish. Even the thousands and thousands who were there in attendance, committed to the cause of peace.

It was so clever of them, to use a rally where everyone in attendance was attuned to nodding affirmatively and saying "Amen" to every cheer that was led, and then using that momentum to trick people into cheering for their anti-semitic rhetoric.

We need more protests against the war, and more demonstrations for peace. But we should not be lending A.N.S.W.E.R. the legitimacy of organizing them. They're little more than a hate group in disguise.

It didn't make sense why, at a protest against the war in Iraq, A.N.S.W.E.R. had invited a panel of speakers whose mission was to rail against Israel. While in a rigorous discussion of Middle East politics it's worth including Israel in the analysis, to do so here confused the issue. We had a singular purpose: to stop the war in Iraq. Even if the Israeli issue had been fairly and accurately represented (and it wasn't) it still would have been ill-advised. As it was the US still went to war in Iraq despite this huge protest - all that civic energy needed to have been directly applied to stopping it. Diluting it by focusing on other issues simply wasn't constructive towards that overall goal.

Of course, it's not that I would have expected perfect hegemony among the protestors. Of the 100,000 people in attendance there were probably just as many agendas represented. Different people were there for different reasons, and that's fine. But the organizers of the rally, A.N.S.W.E.R., had a responsibility, to its purported mission and to the people who had answered its call to be there, to live up to its advertised promise of being against the war. Pure and simple. Dragging in the other issues derogated from its duty, and allowing hatemongers to take advantage of the crowd to derive tacit support for their politics was inexcusable.

We who had attended had been duped. We had been lured to the rally by false pretenses. Thinking we were going to weigh in for peace, we found out to our horror that our weighty presence was instead going to be thrust in favor of unpalatable, inaccurate, and hateful rhetoric. Peace turned out to be the last thing on the agenda.

It was truly terrifying as the speakers ranted about Israel and Jews. In addition to misrepresentations, the rhetoric contained a tone of "nudge, nudge, wink wink," that anyone who thought they were for peace would also need to adopt these biases. It made my skin crawl, and I wavered between shouting out against the speakers and fearing for my physical well-being. The crowd was thick, and I couldn't tell just how much the people besides me were buying into the Jew-hating invective. It was like the speakers, and A.N.S.W.E.R., were playing "whack-a-mole" with the Jewish protestors, making us feel like we needed to duck away from the crowd and crawl into a hole. It was also confusing: I thought I had been invited to the rally to lend my support in the quest for peace but it turned out I wasn't actually welcome there at all. Except to the extent that my presence was able to be co-opted to facilitate my own persecution.

In what had otherwise been a triumph of civic participation, to have had so many people there at the rally, we should have all been standing strong in solidarity. But instead A.N.S.W.E.R. chose a path of divisiveness and hate. We should not support their efforts to do it again.

Edited 12/19/04 and 2/7/05.

December 28, 2004

The Day the Earth Fought Back

When I went to Cambodia last summer, instead of Thailand, I thought that Thailand would still be there to visit. It is, in large part, of course. But not as much as before.

It's a strange and horrible tragedy, the tsunami. It affected so many countries, so many peoples, so many cultures, so many religions, so many languages. In an age where mass tragedies are so often human-inflicted, it's unfamiliar to have one where there is no one to blame.

February 26, 2005

Kosovo

There is a really irksome letter to the NY Times today regarding Kosovo's independence. It says that Kosovo should not be "rewarded" with independence because it has not learned how to protect the minorities in its community. True, last March there were terrible riots against the Serb minority. Kosovars shouldn't have done that, and relations remain tense. But the letter rubbed me wrong because it implies that the Kosovars are blood-thirsty and vindictive, and should not get autonomy until they learn not to be. When the reality is probably much closer to the Kosovars becoming increasingly resentful as long as their autonomy is withheld.

(It also seemed grotesquely ironic that the letter was written by the Serb Ambassador. "Serbia remains committed to a multiethnic and multicultural Kosovo that is safe for all its citizens..." he wrote. Great. But unfortunately Serbia wasn't so committed 7-8 years ago when it tried to cleanse Kosovo of the Kosovars, thus creating this mess in the first place.)

The situation isn't good, and Kosovar leaders may be culpable in the attacks. But the major defect of the situation has to do with the incredibly inept and unconstructive governing of the region by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). UNMIK governs Kosovo, not the Kosovars. They still don't have their autonomy, and UNMIK is hardly an effective ruler. It is supposed to help keep the peace, but it fails. The March riots last year happened on UNMIK's watch, and many reports suggest that the greatest damage occurred right under UNMIK's nose. (For example, UNMIK was supposed to protect the historic monestary in Prizren, but seems to have abandoned its post when the rioters showed up.)

I wrote last summer about the fact that it was impossible to find anything in Kosovo that was made in Kosovo. There is no economic growth, and there can be no investment as long as Kosovo remains in this limbo. So people remain poor, villages remain ruined, electricity and water remain off, and people become increasingly desperate and bitter. And yet we seem surprised by all this.

I saw a telling quote in an article from last summer:

"'The international community is not here to develop Kosovo’s economy,' one senior official told IWPR. 'We are a temporary peacekeeping mission that answers to the Department of Peace Keeping Operations in New York, not a government answering to the pleas of voters or citizens.'"1

It is absurd to pretend that there is no connection between economic and political stability. Consciously failing to develop the former inherently dooms the latter. Even the most cheerful, optimistic, peaceful Kosovar is going to become frustrated and embittered after years of no electricity, no water, and constant poverty. While there may very well be "extremists" among the Kosovars, they wouldn't have such traction if people weren't so desparate.


1. "Kosovo Braced for Autumn of Discontent," by Arben Salihu, Muhamet Hajrullahu and Zana Limani. From the Institute for War Reporting Balkan Crisis Report #509, July 30, 2004.

Bushisms

At Nuts and Boalts Armen has been taking issue with Eugene Volokh taking issue with Slate taking issue with the inadvertantly comedic things Bush so often says. (Follow that?)

To be fair to Volokh, he might be right that sometimes people are too quick to find an excuse to make fun of Bush. Some of the things he says can be fairly understood to be innocuous unless you're really trying to find something to make fun of.

On the other hand, sometimes Bush makes it so easy. I remember hearing him on the radio giving a speech from O'Hare shortly after 9/11, when he was giving an update on the state of things. Including that "border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." It was news to me that they were adjacent...

March 1, 2005

And who will go to bat for Kosovo?

There was yet another letter to the editor of the New York Times today completely ignoring (and I suspect misconstruing) the Kosovar perspective regarding their still-withheld autonomy. It touted the same nonsense as advanced by the previous letter, that because the Kosovars reacted harshly against the Serb minority within its territory, it should be denied autonomy.

I tend to at least glance at the NY Times letters every day, and I don't think I ever saw a letter articulating the Kosovar point of view. Very likely because there's no one to do it. Serbia, as a sovereign nation, can represent itself on the world stage (and in the NY Times letters section), but without its autonomy Kosovo lacks the same ability.

What's really galling about the letters, however, is how they talk about withholding Kosovo's autonomy. Serbia has a legitimate concern about Kosovo becoming a separate nation in that it would involve officially splitting Kosovo off from Serbia, something that has not actually happened yet (at least not officially). But the Serb letter writers camoflauged that interest with patronizing language about how the Kosovars, being naughty little children, should be sent to bed without dessert and not get their autonomy until they learn to behave better. True, no Kosovar should be violent towards anyone. But as I've already pointed out, the violence has stemmed from a very real sense of frustration that has resulted from still not having their autonomy, even all these years after the war that nearly destroyed them.

It's further repugnant that anyone would claim the right to exercise such paternalism in deciding when a local population would "deserve" to get the right of self-determination. If democracy is a value the global community wants to foster around the world, presuming the authority to deprive a local population of it is a serious straying from that ideal.

March 14, 2005

And who will go to bat for Kosovo? (Part II)

Part I

It turns out it's Wesley Clark. See today's New York Times letters section.

Excerpt:

"You also reject independence for the province. Does this mean that the Kosovo Albanians would just live in the international limbo of United Nations administration indefinitely - with no access to foreign lending and investment, and thus very high unemployment?

The riots last year against Serbs and other minority groups were indefensible. But recognizing that social unrest has underlying causes and charting a path to a settlement to begin dealing with those causes does not "reward bad faith." Independence may well be the best way to get a functioning state that produces real benefits for people, including Kosovo's Serbs. When people have responsibility, they tend to behave more responsibly."

April 19, 2005

The Pope

I was thinking about the new pope, noting in particular how notoriously conservative he's known to be. I worried consciously, in the following terms specifically, that perhaps he wasn't going to be able to "represent the interests" of many Catholics, liberal American ones and possibly ones from developing countries as well.

Then I caught myself, because I realized I was thinking about the pope in political terms. The pope isn't democratically elected, so having expectations of him as if he were might be inappropriate.*

But then I wondered again if that were really true. I'm not a Catholic, so in one sense the doctrinal dogma of the religion is none of my business. The problem is that I think it very much becomes my business as that dogma winds its way into my civic institutions. If dogmatic pressures are going to be placed on the laws and officials governing me then it is my business to care what they are.

This is not to say that because fellow citizens hold certain beliefs I should have the ability to scrutinize those beliefs and force them to conform to mine. Personal preference is personal preference, and individual political will should be freely expressable, regardless of the source from which it is drawn. What I am addressing is the much more vast political pressure placed upon my supposedly religion-neutral government by religious institutions as institutions to use its civic might to enforce the dogma of the church. When that happens it is my prerogative to make sure that dogma suits my interests.

There are two possible solutions which might ensure that my interests get served. One, to give non-Catholics like me voting rights in the Catholic Church to make sure that the dogma suits my will. Or, to ensure that no church, Catholic or otherwise, as an institution gets to set the policy of my government.

* There is another circumstance under which I think religious dogma is a legitimate concern of mine. I have had several good friends who are Catholic, for whom the tension between what they believe in their hearts to be right, and what they are required to believe is right, has been heart-breaking. They love their faith, they love their church. They see a beauty in their religion, in their faith, and in the general relationship Catholicism enables with God. But they can't just enjoy all those wonderful things without also abiding by the dogma, no matter how wrong, immoral, or contradictory they think it is. Instead they are forced to suffer in irreconcilable grief and guilt, whether they try to stick with the church or feel compelled to leave. So I do think it's my legitimate interest to care about the dogma because I care about my friends, and I don't want to see them keep getting hurt by the church they so love.

May 5, 2005

Chiune Sugihara

There was another excellent show on PBS this evening on Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese diplomat in Lithuania who wrote visas for thousands of Jewish refugees during World War II. He suffered for his actions personally afterwards - his foreign career effectively destroyed as a punishment (a true shame, given his remarkable linguistic and cultural acclimation skills) - but today thousands and thousands of people and their descendants are alive because of his sacrifice, to risk sanction from his superiors and write all those visas.

The show was also interesting to me on another point: examining the relationship between the Jews and the Japanese. In particular it explained a comment I had heard in my family that previously had no explanation.

I've written before about my great-grandmother's brothers who had escaped Russia in the early 1900s by running east to China. There they settled in Harbin, a city full of expatriate Europeans, including many other Jews. They thrived there, even through World War II. And that was the comment - that the Japanese treated the Jews very well. Unfortunately during that period the Japanese army treated the Chinese people very poorly, which is why there was such confused marveling over why my relatives had no problems themselves.

There seems to be two explanations: one, that there were industrialists in Japan who actively wanted to settle Jews in China, to develop industry using their skills and education. In fact, at one point the Japanese, at the urging of these industrialists, offered to Jewish leaders that it would accept all the European Jewish refugees, with or without passports, so that they could settle in Japanese territory. This offer, however, was unfortunately declined by an American Jewish leader in the misplaced hope that if the European Jews had no viable options left, Roosevelt would step in and finally let them come to the United States and England would let them enter Palestine. Sadly neither of these things came to pass. Boatloads of refugees were turned back at Palestine, many to end up immediately shipped off to concentration camps upon return to Europe, and largely at the urging of anti-Semites in the State Department, America's borders stayed shut as well.

The other explanation stems from a conversation between Japanese officials, by then allied with the Germans, and a Jewish leader representing the large population of Lithuanian refugees who by now were temporarily settled in Tokyo. Their numbers and the irregularities surrounding their immigration were cause of some concern to the Japanese officials, and Germany was heavily lobbying for Japan to adopt its policies of Jewish extermination. So the Japanese officials asked the Jewish leaders why they should not abide by the Germans' wishes.

"Because we are all Asians," was the response. You from the eastern side in Japan, and we from the western in [Israel]. Besides, when the Germans talk about the population they aspire to have, it is all Aryan. It's all about blonde hair and blue eyes, which the Japanese don't have. Believe us, they said, when they're done with us they'll come for you next.

Whether this explanation was the reason or not, the Japanese chose to resist the Germans' urgings and let the refugees stay. And Mr. Sugihara was eventually vindicated by history, being honored by the survivors, the State of Israel, and also his native Japan. In Israel, like Schindler, he is known as a righteous person, and more people should know of his deeds.

Edit 10/25/08: See more at this post.

July 7, 2005

Sunny California

I remember exactly where I was when I heard about 9/11: in bed, asleep, until the ringing phone woke me up. It was my dad. "Bad news, kid," he started. "Someone just flew a plane into the World Trade Center."

At that point it was only a horrific accident. As I woke up it got much, much worse and people came to realize that it had been no accident.

But it was very surreal for me. It was another gorgeous day in California. New York was a world away. While my dad ended up spending the day trying to get out of Manhattan by bus and by foot, in California everything was exactly normal. Completely calm, sunny, perfect. And essentially untouched by the tragedy.

There were certain ways it was touched, of course. Some of the flights, for instance, were to the Bay Area. But in the days that followed the news almost seemed to try to manufacture connections, to manufacture injuries to the local community. Normally I would regard such efforts cynically, but here, in the face of a tragedy of such magnitude whose scope could only be imagined - and barely, at that - people needed to have their own injuries to salve in order to feel as connected to the event as they felt they really should.

There is something though about California - isolated, beautiful, unique, and in some ways completely naive and unspoiled - which makes being detatched from these tragedies even more disorienting than I think it would be anywhere else. I was in California when Spain was attacked and now I'm here with London. And it still feels like it all took place on another world.

July 17, 2005

Hitting close to home, again

Last year it was a mugging and attempted sexual assault.

This year it's a murder. Last night, three blocks away.

For various friends and relatives reading this, I'm totally fine and not in any danger. This seems to have been a targeted shooting, which, while no consolation for the victim or her family and friends, is a relief for the neighbors. It should also be pointed out that I lived in the same neighborhood for six years, completely unscathed.

In fact, had I not caught a mention on the evening news, I wouldn't have even known about it. I even drove past the scene this morning, completely oblivious to what had happened. I think I must have heard sirens last night, but since the fire station is three blocks in the other direction I often hear sirens during the night and so usually think nothing of them.

So rather than feeling nervous about the state of the neighborhood, I think my unease stems from the strange sense of isolation I can't help but feel. Something so serious happened so close, and yet I'm totally unaffected. That seems wrong somehow: one of my neighbors, however erstwhile, was just killed in our midst. We may not have known about it, or even known her, but we still should care. Right?

The problem is that it's hard to know what our feelings of concern are really connected to. Are they sincere concern for the victim, or are they born from our desire to overcome our anonymous urban estrangement and feel connected to horrible events? Of course, does it matter? Is feeling a manufactured an emotion somehow worse than not feeling any emotion at all? Somehow I get the feeling that the answer is yes.

September 3, 2005

Red states, blue states

One of my friends here is Turkish, and though she's familiar with the US (having done an exchange there in high school), she's not fluent in all of its nuances, political and cultural. She hadn't before heard, for example, the labels "red state" and "blue state," so I explained to her where the references came from (and how the electoral college worked) and the political cultures they are thought to represent.

She also, like I think many people here, did not grasp the enormity and scope of what has been happening in the Gulf Coast. Even I'm struggling with it, although my struggle is twinged with a shadow of guilt, from feeling like I've run away to this new, exciting place while my country I left behind is in trouble. It was barely a week ago when I spent the weekend in Atlantic City, where on Sunday as I popped in and out of the motel I saw all the news reports queuing up for the storm watch on Monday. On Monday, while it hit, I was driving back up north, packing, and then heading out to the airport. Sitting in the airport that evening, waiting to fly out, the news showed the first glimpses of the aftermath. But I don't think it was until the next day that everyone realized the full enormity of the consequences. And by then I was in Europe, and completely disconnected – geographically and technologically – from everything in the US.

But even without seeing any news, I knew it was going to be bad. I worried in particular about Bay St. Louis, the tiny town on the Gulf shores of Mississippi I'd visited on my trip two years ago. That was such a great trip, one of my Huey Lewis and the News-inspired adventures, rewarding to me in every way possible, not the least of which was the opportunity to meet one of my best friends. And on that trip I not only got to see New Orleans for the first time, but I also took a walk through this Mississippi town. They were having a big street festival that day, with tons of classic cars and hot rods sitting out on display on all the curbs, parades, and children selling lemonade on the sidewalks. I walked through this all, Americana everywhere, all the way to the shore, where I stood on the beach as the Gulf gently lapped at the shores.

But all of that now must surely be gone. And so the region, and the nation, reels. Evacuating New Orleans? An entire city? When I explain to people the enormity of what has happened, I try to make them realize what it means to have everybody leave a city. When they stop and think about it, they start to get it. But I think it's hard, because the scale is unprecedented. I think it's also hard because there's a lot of frustration at America. Our behavior in the world is so brash, perceived to be so arrogant, that I think there are people who are glad to finally see America's bravado tempered.

As a person from a blue state, sharing a blue state sensibility, I tend to agree with the criticisms others in the world lob at the US. I think they are often well-deserved. But I can't bring myself to allow the red and blue political dichotomy cloud my reaction to this disaster. Sure, it's red states that were affected. Red states that politically and culturally I have so little in common with. But they are in my country, and they are not strangers. At least not since 2003, when my plane landed in Gulfport, and these mysterious, strange places on the map turned into places that I knew.

Posted 9/4/05.

September 4, 2005

Slow news day?

I wrote the preceding posts before reading any of the news today. The Katrina news is so awful, and then on top of it is the news about Rehnquist. I can hardly keep up, and it's so weird to be so far away from everything that's happening.

And if I felt a little guilty before, I feel very guilty now... Remember this post from 2003?

"Great. Just great. When I moved to France a few years ago they impeached the President. Then when I moved from California I was hardly gone more than 2 months when they recalled the governor (and installed Arnold Schwarzenegger?!?!? Oy gevalt...).

It just goes to show that if you turn your back on democracy, all hell breaks loose..."

I've been out of the country for less than a week. I really didn't think things would get this bad this soon!

But in all seriousness, I do care about what's going on and feel bad being so detatched. Now that I have more Internet connectivity and more routine I will read the news more regularly, and I'm sure I'll have more things to say about everything soon. But for now, I think I'll just join everyone else in general concern.

(Meanwhile, the big news in Germany is the upcoming election. Apparently tonight there's going to be a big debate with the leading candidates that many of my German friends will be off watching.)

September 12, 2005

Generation gap

My roommate and I were discussing traveling to Russia. She was interested in going but didn't know what was involved. I, however, have been there three times (mostly to St. Petersburg).

I told her that she'd need to get a visa, and she'd probably want to go with a tour because there wouldn't be a lot of English spoken there, etc.

She blurted out that she hadn't realized it was such a shlep to go to Russia.

To which I exclaimed, "You think going to Russia's a shlep??? At least it's POSSIBLE!"

And therein was the generation gap. She was born in 1980, and by the time she'd attained her global consciousness, maybe around age 9 or 10, Russia was already opening up. It was now a country under construction, an eager recipient of foreign aid. That it was still so difficult to travel there all these years later must have seemed to her somewhat inexcusable.

Whereas for me, at the same age, Russia (as the Soviet Union) was still an Avowed Enemy Ronald Reagan kept giving me nightmares about. Notorious for being closed off from outsiders, the idea that one could now go in and out even remotely freely strikes me, by contrast, to be an enormous achievement to celebrate.

September 18, 2005

German friends

One of my German friends yesterday took me to a Joshka Fischer rally at Gaensemarkt, a plaza near the school. Joshka Fischer is the head of the Green party, and also currently the German foreign minister and deputy chancellor as a result of the coalition between his party and Chancellor Gerard Schroeder's currently-ruling labor party. He's a very popular politician because he's so very un-politician-like. As a result it's probably easier for him, more so than for other politicians, to be candid in his public statements.

He spoke for maybe 45 minutes, his voice somewhat hoarse from the intense schedule the campaign and his public duties have demanded over the last few weeks. But he patiently painted his picture of his view of Germany, of where it is and where he thinks it should be. He addressed the basics – economic policy, unemployment, the environment – and then he talked about America.

"It was very difficult to say 'no' to the US [when it asked about invading Iraq]," my friend translated him as saying. The mood in the crowd became somber and serious as people listened intently. "We will never forget what America did for us 60 years ago."

I listened to him say these things, standing in the middle of a city that had been almost completely destroyed by the Allies at the end of World War II. Everything around me had to have been rebuilt. Countless people lost their lives, and hundreds of years of history in architecture and artifacts were surely lost. And yet, the prevailing German attitude to the party that wrought all this destruction seems to be one of undeniable gratitude for having been saved, I guess you could say, from themselves.

But a true friend, Fischer continued, is one who can say "no" to one's friends when it needs to be said.

October 3, 2005

Bay St. Louis

In posting about my experience where I accidentally packed a pocketknife in my carry-on luggage, it reminded me of my trip to Bay St. Louis, Mississippi two years ago, when the knife-packing error occurred. It had inadvertently been caught in my backpack, and I hadn't noticed it was there until the X-Ray found it. From the check-in counter I was able to acquire a tiny box, placed it in the box, sealed it, and then checked it as luggage. Coming home, however, I decided to mail it on ahead and so went to the post office in Bay St. Louis to do it.

Bay St. Louis, like most of the Mississippi Gulf Coast was incredibly hard-hit by Katrina. I can remember, in my mind's eye, the quaintness of the town. And I can't begin to imagine the devastation, how everything I saw there has suddenly been undone.

Last week the New York Times ran a portrait of the victims. I think it's good that the New York Times does things like that, because it gives victims of tragedies back their humanity that summation in the news otherwise strips from them. Reading the news it always seems like it's strangers that bad things happen to, but in reality it's people just like those you know.

I was also thinking recently, as a result of something posted on the Conglomerate, about the Gulf Coast casinos. I'm not really a fan of building casinos all over the place. I think they can do more harm than good so easily. Some are far cries from the economic panaceas they are touted to be, and some put more strain on the local communities than cash into the coffers.

Mississippi apparently had a rule that casinos could be built, but only if they floated. I guess that was to keep them from really being "connected" to Mississippi, but it seems like a distinction without much difference. Their impacts on the communities were the same as if they'd had an actual foundation, and without it they were much more vulnerable to Katrina's destruction.

So I was thinking about whether the casinos should be rebuilt, and if so, how. Again floating, or attached to land? And I was thinking about all the problems incumbent with casinos, and then I started to wonder how much that mattered. The fact of the matter is that a casino is what brought me to Mississippi. I had never been there before and had little impetus to go, had it not been for the Huey Lewis and the News concert, which was at a casino. Now, one traveler, especially one like me, hardly justifies building casinos. But maybe there are lots of travellers like me. My friend whom I met on the way back, for instance, had also just spent some time on the Gulf at its casinos, and I doubt he's the only one who had ever travelled there to do so.

I guess the question is whether on balance they are truly an asset to the area, or only a burden. And if it's a close call, how much of an asset or how much of a burden. Mississippi, for better or for worse, gets to start over. It seems unlikely that the casino companies, even if they want to come back, would want to rebuild as floating establishments (unless it was vastly cheaper to do so). If they are to come back, they may insist on building on solid ground. Assuming so, to what extent should Mississippi encourage them to?

These is a question I can't answer, but I hope somebody does.

Edited 10/4.

October 13, 2005

Neuengamme

The concentration camp at Neuengamme is just a few kilometers outside of Hamburg. In fact, it was established in 1939 as a result of a partnership between the city and the Nazis. Back then the city was in the middle of a building boom and needed lots and lots of bricks for the construction. The Nazis, meanwhile, wanted to find a place to put all the people it deemed incompatible with society. So the city gave the Nazis the land it owned outside the city, land rich with clay deposits, and the Nazis used it to build its Neuengamme camp. In exchange it then gave back to the city all the bricks the camp's prisoners produced.

The Neuengamme camp was one of the many such camps built across Germany. Like Dachau, which began in the early 1930s, it served as a place for Hitler to isolate his political adversaries. But whereas most of the Dachau prisoners initially were German, Neuengamme contained people pulled from societies all over Europe. It also housed POWs from the Soviet front. Unlike Auschwitz it wasn't designed to summarily execute its prisoners, but they were often summarily worked to death anyway.

(There was also at least one instance when Soviet POWs were locked in a building and gassed with Xyclon B. Survivors from Neuengamme who were there at the time remember this occasion vividly. They'd all been assembled in the adjacent main square for roll call and could hear the screams of the dying soldiers.)

As a work camp, Neuengamme contained two main production facilities: a small munitions factory, and a brick manufacturing plant. One of the better jobs prisoners could have was in the munitions factory because the work was indoors and could be done while seated. However, if prisoners were even slightly suspected of slow or bad work, or sabotage, the omnipresent SS guards would kill them.

Meanwhile the production of bricks involved digging up the clay and hauling it to the factory, where it would be pressed into moulds, cut, and baked, and then loaded onto barges for shipment to Hamburg. Again, one of the better jobs at the camp was one on the inside of the brick factory, although the people who had to remove the bricks from the ovens had to do so without any protective gear. The outside jobs were the hardest: exposed and physically grueling. With poor clothing, meager rations, and forced effort at gunpoint, prisoners rapidly wasted away. In the summer they might last 2-3 months; in the winter, 2-3 weeks. The barracks were also overcrowded and unhygienic, and provided prisoners little ability to wash. Disease therefore also claimed many lives, either directly or as a result of Nazi euthanasia of unproductive prisoners.

The camp itself was also a product of prisoners' labors, and its brick factory and canal can still be seen today. Hamburg sits on the Elbe, a river whose natural flow runs about 600 meters away from the camp. The Nazis decided it would be great to float the bricks to Hamburg, so they made the prisoners dig a canal connecting the factory to the river. A huge undertaking, requiring the manual digging through clay, it claimed many more lives than the SS's propagandist photos would suggest. Most of the pictures from the camp at that time show able-bodied men working without any coercion, but this depiction was far from accurate.

On the other hand, while the Nazis tried to keep the local citizenry in the dark about what was going on at Dachau, obscuring it with a large wall, they were not similarly surreptitious about Neuengamme, which was merely bordered by a fence. Although the area is fairly rural, people could easily see what was going on inside it. Or at least smell the stench from the crematorium eventually built. Or see the prisoners who were lead out on urban details, like ordinance recovery after the bombs started falling on the city. The prisoners would be made to dig through the rubble and disarm any unexploded bombs. One advantage to the job was that prisoners could sometimes scavenge food, but at the same time it was also extremely dangerous. The thing is, though, everyone in the city could see these haggard people pass through their midst, sometimes even riding the streetcars. Though today people who lived through that time maintain they didn't know what was going on, it's a specious claim.

After the camp was liberated by the British they used it temporarily as a facility to house displaced persons. In 1948 the then-mayor of Hamburg razed the wooden barracks and build a "conventional" prison where they'd stood. In retrospect doing so looks like an incredibly insensitive act, although at the time it may have seemed more reasonable. The mayor himself, a Social Democrat, had fled the Nazi state. His thinking behind razing the camp seemed to be based on the impulse to remove reminders of this dark period in order to be able to move on.

However the survivors couldn't forget and didn't want others to either. And so began a decades-long process to try to preserve what remained of it and its dark memories. Which was a hard task. The Cold War had set in, and Germany was preoccupied and divided by that. Meanwhile, in the 1970s another prison was built on the grounds, this time over the clay pits. But finally in 2003 the camp became a monument. The staff tore down the 1948 prison -- which itself had been made by bricks earlier produced in the camp -- and turned some of the remaining original brick buildings into museums. They also excavated the foundation of the building were the Soviet POWs had been killed. The staff decided not to rebuild the wood barracks, fearing that whatever they built would be far too sterile, and instead outlined the foundations where they once stood with the bricks from the dismantled prison. The staff also decided not to restore the camp leader's house.

In this quaint wooden house adjacent to the grounds, Max Pauli, the prison commander, lived with his wife and 5 children (or at least 4 of them -- the wife died delivering the 5th, at which point her sister moved in). After the war he was tried and executed. The children went to live in other parts of Germany, changed their names, and have no contact with the museum staff. The house, however, had since been occupied by whomever was heading the post-war prison. (One of these people had a questionable sense of "humor," however, and had a new front gate installed at the end of his driveway. One side of the gate includes an icon of a ladder, referring to "leader." The other contained the silhouette of the main buildings at concentration camps like Auschwitz. So his gate could be read as "camp leader," just as Max Pauli's front gate had decades earlier.) The museum staff has chosen not to show the comfortable life Pauli had lived out of concern that it would further encourage the neo-Nazis, who already like to come there and celebrate this dark history, by making the Holocaust seem like a good, cushy situation they should try to recreate.

These neo-Nazis may be the exception -- although the tour guide fears they are a growing exception -- to modern German attitudes towards the Holocaust. But even in the mainstream there is resistance to effective Holocaust memorialization. The museum is well-done and excellent, yet surprisingly new. And due to limited funding, only open limited hours. Also, the second prison is still there and still operational. With its light gray concrete walls it looms there in eerie silence. Though still occupied, hardly a sound escapes from behind its walls. In 1990 the Hamburg major acknowledge that it had probably been a mistake to have built any prisons at all there, but it is a slow process to have it decommissioned.

It's hard to feel though, with a prison still there, that the trouble from the past has yet taken its proper place in history. The camp was built to isolate people from society, and that's what the prison continues to do. It does so more humanely, of course, and with due process protections unavailable during the Nazi reign. In fact, many German legal codifications and instruments exist as they do today in response to what had happened before, in order to guarantee that it never be repeated. However, to look at a modern incarnation of a prison on the site of an earlier, horrific one, does not give one much hope that as much was learned from the past as there ought to have been.

Posted 10/18, written 10/13. Edited 10/28/08.

October 23, 2005

POWs

At both Neuengamme and Auschwitz last week it was pointed out that the Soviet prisoners of war were treated just like the other prisoners in the camps. In other words, inhumanely, subject to deplorable conditions and executions. Whereas POWs from other countries were housed in regular POW prison camps. Which is not to say that they were spectacular, but they at least nominally were in compliance with the Geneva Convention, which the other countries had signed.

But not, apparently, the Soviet Union, which seems to be why the Nazis took such liberties with the incarcerations of the Soviet POWs it captured.

In a modern context it raises the concern any soldier should have if fighting for a country that doesn't abide by the convention's terms. Whether because it didn't ratify it outright, or because it gets a reputation for not obeying it.

Edited 10/24.

November 19, 2005

Robert Kagan

As part of a continuing series of "Transatlantic Lectures," Bucerius invited Robert Kagan to speak last week. I admit, I was wary of his presentation going into it. He had been described to me as being a Neocon, someone whose world views I often find quite frightening in their obstinate and isolationist arrogance.

But while I think his argument requires rebuttal, I don't think it requires excoriation. He didn't present himself as the kind of Neanderthal conservative who threatens allies with "either you're with us or against us" admonitions, or rushes to rename foodstuffs in protest of those who would resist acquiescing to all of America's wishes. Rather, Kagan impressed me as one of those all-too-rare Americans who understands there is a world out there beyond our borders and actually has made an effort to get to know it. Moreover, he recognized that Americans and Europeans are different, and that there are very good reasons - historical and cultural - for those differences. He didn't therefore rabidly insist that Europeans do things the American way, but at the same time, his argument entailed the proposal that Europe should be more like America in a key way: by becoming an equivalent military power.

Actually, it's not quite clear how equivalent Europe needs to be. It would not make sense, for example, to expect a country like Germany to devote the same percentage of its GDP to its military as the US does to its own, particularly not while it is devoting such sums to the development of the former Eastern Bloc regions. When pressed on this point during the Q&A period, Kagan seemed to accept that as long as Europe actually met the targets for military investment that it has already publicly articulated as being its desired policy, he would be satisfied.

However Kagan's overall point does not rest on quibbling over numbers. It is a much more substantive argument, which boils down to the request that Europe expand militarily.

As he laid it out, I was surprised with how comfortable I personally felt with his proposition. I suspect this is partly due to the reasoning that, to the extent I do believe it is necessary for the military to resolve a crisis, it would be better if the US military didn't have to do it alone. Not only would Europe be able to share in the costs, but the solidarity could also provide more pressure on the opponent, which could potentially speed up the conflict's resolution.

Still, there are a couple of problems with this suggestion. And one very serious one is the historical irony of asking Europe to militarize. Didn't we just get done with making them DE-militarize? Didn't we see how much destruction always follows when Europe has built up its armies?

Indeed, many Germans in the room seemed to find the prospect of regaining military power extremely disquieting. Several essentially asked him, "Did you not see what we did with it the last time?"

Even the most well-meaning American, eager to know and understand his German neighbors, can easily underestimate the revulsion many Germans have with the prospect of being a military power again. Thousands of miles away, Americans are better able to relegate the last world war to history's black and white attic. But the Germans, even those born decades hence, must constantly face the horrible reality that was once wrought in their name just a few generations ago. And many of them desperately said, "Please don't give us the capacity to do it again."

It's a self-aware pleading that must be acknowledged and responded to. Granted, I'm sure there's variation among Germans themselves for how much they share this concern. But I have heard it from several quarters, this tremendous trepidation about once again uniting state and military power.

Perhaps some of this trepidation is partly based on the concern that no country can ever be politically unanimous. I am certain that most Germans would not want to repeat their aggression, but at the same time, the NPD (neo-Nazi) party is still alive and well. There seems to be a fear that combining a little political disaffection with a strong military capability could lead to trouble once again. Whether this fear would actually be realized is of course not certain, but it would be glib for Americans to ignore these concerns just because the militarization might seem to serve our current interests.

On the other hand, Kagan wasn't specifically asking Germany to be a military power. He was asking Europe on the whole to. And he explained that it was this pan-European sense of cooperation and consensus building that made us as Americans feel so comfortable with the prospect of Europe on a whole to being a military power.

And he's right - it is impressive. Who can look at a the European history of war upon war and not be impressed by the maturity, stability, and peacefulness of the modern European project. Were it only that Europe had figured this out years ago... But of course it didn't. This harmony is an incredibly recent development. Europe has spent far more of its history warring that working together. Might it not then be wise to make sure that Europe can sustain this transformation for some period longer than the historical blink of an eye it so far has?

Answering that question brings us to the second objection to Kagan's request. To the extent that European unity is durable, it may well be because of that modern European tendency to resolve conflicts through multilateral agreements rather than military engagements. It is a tendency that Americans do not seem to possess, or at least not on the same scale. From the first coal and steel agreement between Germany and France, which ensured mutual protection from each other by sharing control of the resources either would need to go to war with the other again, necessity dictated that Europe develop this tendency. And, as Kagan acknowledges, it has developed it expertly, providing a sphere of stability adjacent to a world of conflicts.

Still, it seems that Kagan would ignore the true value of this tendency by instead recommending that European return to its more belligerent instincts. Because it's not just that he wants Europe to have a military; naturally he also wants Europe to use it.

The presumption, of course, is that Europe would only use it judiciously. "I trust Europe not to conquer Africa," Kagan noted. But does Europe trust the US not to? Particularly with the Iraq war, Europe has looked on with grave concern at the American tendency to take it upon itself to militarily address conflicts in other parts of the world. Now, perhaps if Europe were a military power itself, it might actually put a check on America's aggressive foreign policy. Not only might the US might act more cautiously if it thought it could be stopped, but because there would be two military forces, if America acted alone, the lack of solidarity could inadvertently send an encouraging message to its opponents and therefore make America's goals that much harder to achieve.

But I think what Europe really wants from the America is much like what America, as articulated by Kagan, wants from Europe: for the other to do things its way. Some European Kagan-equivalent could be making a similar impassioned plea in the US: for the sake of the world, please equip yourself as we have and engage in the world accordingly.

And there was no reason raised by Kagan, nor one that would otherwise be apparent, why the European way not might turn out to be the better one after all.

Edited 11/20 and 11/22.

Mario Savio

Ambivalent Imbroglio posted a quote from Mario Savio, of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement:

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

I'm reminded by an occasion when I worked at the assignment desk of a Bay Area TV news room. In the evening, someone from Fox News would call us for the run-down (a list of stories we'd be doing). If they thought one sounded interesting, they'd ask us to send it to them so that they could incorporate it into their national newscasts.

The problem with this situation: the two lowest people on the totem pole were having this conversation. Me, and the desk assistant at Fox News in New York. Now, the guy was very nice – I actually met him once – but he was obviously occupying a position where comprehensive historical literacy was not a prerequisite. And for that matter, neither was I.

Yet I remember having one of these run-down listing conversations after Mario Savio had died. The Bay Area station had naturally covered the story, but as I listed it off to him I was surprised when he didn't ask for it. Apparently he'd never heard of Mario Savio and had no idea why his death would have been important. I finally had to say to him, "Trust me, you want this story."

Which illustrates the problem that results when people with gaps in their awareness of the world end up making the decisions about what the world will get to be aware of.

January 17, 2006

Happy Birthday to a true Renaissance Man

Ben Franklin would be turning 300 today, had he not inadvertantly died a few centuries ago.

(It always strikes me as weird to celebrate how old people would be if they were still alive. It's not like "Happy 300th!" is anything like, "Congratulations! You're old enough to drive!" I don't mind celebrating the birthday itself as a way to honor their memory, but it seems a little pointless to continue to keep score.)

All flippancy aside, he's someone I admire not just because of his specific contributions in various areas of import (eg, science, diplomacy, public services, etc.) but because he was able to achieve so much in so many. Franklin was not one to be bound by the limitations of a single discipline, which in and of itself is something I personally find inspriational.

Ann Althouse recommends that in honor of his birthday we should all "go accomplish something."

Me, I'm working on it. (&%^ing moot court brief!)

Still, as we celebrate the life story of this great man, I can't help but notice the particular fact that Franklin got the hell out of Boston at the earliest opportunity...

Edited.

Edit 1/19: Let me rephrase - he left Boston to go on to do big things. Sounds like a good plan to me.

February 5, 2006

A headline that speaks volumes

The headline on CNN.com:

"Consulate set afire over cartoon."

Sometimes headlines (often on CNN) betray their biases in how they phrase the event they describe. But I don't think this one betrays anything. True, the arsonists might prefer to phrase the cause of their anger as the blasphemous image contained in the cartoon, but it is a cartoon that has them so worked up. And true, the part of the world that looks on with horror might prefer to say it was set afire as a result of an irrational overreaction. But still, it was a cartoon that sparked it.

The headline reflects the absurdity that something so ordinary could have such effect. In doing so, in articulating that absurdity, it in five words encapsulates the great conflict of the 21st century: the vast gulf between two cultures in their respective senses of what is reasonable. Until it is traversed, the conflict will remain.

February 13, 2006

When the jokes write themselves

By now everyone must have heard about Dick Cheney having shot his hunting companion. Since everyone involved seems to have lived through the experience, and is expected to continue to,* it seems fair game to joke about.

Some have made reference to lawyers apparently being in season. Mine might be that this is a strange way to go about tort reform.

I also liked Eric Muller's observation that if, as has been asserted, getting shot while hunting is a routine accident, what has the Vice President been doing all this time by putting himself in harm's way? (And what would the result have been if the shooter and the victim had been the other way around, as apparently is so likely to happen?)

But what's really funny to me is the hospital's listing of the victim's condition as "very stable."

When I was an intern at a news station I often had to call hospitals to get updates on the condition of people who were the subject of the stories we were going to run. I was carefully reminded, "Don't just accept it when they say a victim is stable. Remember, 'dead' is very stable."

Hence my snickering when I read that.

* (on edit 2/14) Um, I think...

April 2, 2006

Schools superintendent forbids students from crossing the street

"They might get hit by a car!" he said.

No, actually that wasn't quite what happened. But what did happen is pretty much the same thing (well, except that getting hit by a car is much more likely):

FORT MYERS, Florida (AP) -- School officials in southwest Florida said terrorism concerns led them to keep a high school band from marching in a London parade, but now angry British officials are telling travelers that Fort Myers is no safe haven, either.

...

District administrators nixed the trip in early March, citing the threat of terrorism in Europe -- especially the 2005 terrorist bombing of London's city buses and subway system, which killed 52 people.

...

Browder said he's not changing his mind and the band should stay within the United States.

What kind of "educator" teaches kids to be afraid of the world?

April 12, 2006

Growing up with Ramona Quimby

When I started reading as a little kid, some of my favorite first books were from Beverly Cleary's Ramona series. I read each one multiple times. I remember lots of things about them, like the whole "sit here for the present" snafu. And I remember some things that were more subtle, like Ramona's willful insistence on being herself. And her family's ability to weather some stresses and challenges without losing sight of the love they had for each other. These things in particular, when I think back on it, became reassuring models to me in my elementary school years, as I learned how to be true to myself, and also ride out some of the changes my family faced.

There is probably more, but this is what comes to mind most vividly today, on the occasion of Beverly Cleary's 90th birthday. She probably is the author who has had the most influence on me, describing a world that was a lot like my own and helping me grow into it. It therefore seems sort of fitting that I ended up following in her footsteps when I enrolled at UC Berkeley...

So to a Golden Bear of great distinction, happy birthday!

May 21, 2006

The Naked Bear

This is sad news:the Naked Guy just died.

The Naked Guy was a Cal student during the time I was there who became famous for being, well, naked. But not in a lewd way: he simply went about his life normally - and nakedly (or sometimes with a strategically-placed bandana).

But it sort of sent the Powers that Be into a tizzy. Even as non-conformist as Berkeley often is, it did trip up both city and university authorities while they tried to figure out how to react. My memory is that the city was much more flexible about it, but the University not so much and it expelled him for it.

Anyway, before that happened he'd become a minor celebrity around campus. I think he got to appear on Oprah or some such show and ended up inspiring lots of other people to embrace nudity. (I particularly remember an increase in the number of women who now felt able to walk around topless.) I never met him myself - Cal was a big place, and we had no classes together - but I did see him walking on the streets once. And actually, I should have seen him twice: I was walking around campus one day when a friend said, "Look, there's the Naked Guy!" and I looked around confusedly and asked, "Where?" Sometimes I guess I can be pretty oblivious, because I just didn't notice anything unusual…

But that's just it - it was Berkeley. If there's any place where challenging the norm can blend in, it's there. So I always thought it was a shame he got expelled for it. His nudity never struck me as problematic because it clearly wasn't sexual in its purpose. And although I'm not personally interested in being publicly nude myself, I do think it's noble and valid to challenge stodgy, old, restrictive and largely pointless puritanical conventions. Plus his presence in Berkeley helped enhance the place and make it more dynamic and interesting. Kicking him out therefore didn't make it better; it just made it more boring.

June 3, 2006

This American Life - Gene Cheek

A few weekends ago I caught a segment of "This American Life" on NPR where a man named Gene Cheek was interviewed about his childhood. He's also written a book about it.

The story on the radio show began with a young Gene coming home to find his mother crying. When he inquired what was wrong, she eventually told him that her boyfriend thought they should break up. Why was that? Because her boyfriend, Tuck, was black, she was white, this was North Carolina in the 1950s, and he was afraid of what would happen to Gene if they were found out. They didn't end up breaking up, though, and Gene then related the kind of decent man Tuck was. He also related the tremendous lengths they all went through to keep the relationship a secret. Like when Tuck wanted to give Gene a football as a gift and had to circle the block twice to make sure no one was following him, then throw it out the window and drive off. And how when he and his mom spent the evening at Tuck's house playing board games and such they were still vulnerable to the police barging in and breaking the party up.

But the pivotal moment in everyone's life came after his mom gave birth to Tuck's son. Once people took a look at the baby, once-close relatives immediately walked out of their lives. But that was only part of the problem. Gene's biological father, a hateful, irredeemable man, brought an action to have his mom lose custody of him. Not because he wanted custody of Gene, but because he didn't think his mom should since she would be raising him with a black child. The court was inclined to agree, and gave his mother a choice: either give up the baby, or give up Gene.

Before his mother could make this impossible choice, Gene, already a teenager, recounts how he leaned over and whispered to her, "At least I'm old enough to know where home is - so I'll go," and then he stood up and declared his intentions to the court. (By the way, Gene's mother's lawyer never appeared at the hearing, leaving her to fend for herself.)

So Gene was taken away to live with a foster family. At first he lived nearby, but he kept getting in trouble for running away. For running back home. Eventually he was sent to a boy's home a few hours away, but in a weird way that helped him. Since he couldn't run away anymore it forced him to make the best of the situation. And given the circumstances, everyone turned out about as well as they could, though his mom never could overcome her sense of guilt and died fairly young. And Gene never got over his anger at his dad's family, at least not until he wrote the book.

But this isn't the story of a family so much as it is a story of a time, a time when the unthinkable could take place. Where manifest, publicly-sanctioned meanness could be allowed, with all the force of the law and its institutions, to rip families apart and destroy good people's lives.

June 17, 2006

Maybe McDonald's can fix it

There's an article in the New York Times today about the USS Intrepid aircraft carrier needing to be drydocked for repairs. For some reason there seems to be an awful lot of secrecy about what repairs it might need, but if you happen to walk past it on a rainy day you'll get some idea. For instance, you can see water pouring off the upper deck and running down the side leaving a rusted streak. Given the discoloration and extremely visible corrosion it looks like this sort of poor drainage has been left unchecked for quite some time. Which makes me think that these major repairs could have perhaps been avoided had they actually maintained the thing. They certainly should have had the money for it, given the outrageous fees they charge for entrance. It would have been $12 if I'd shown my student ID card; otherwise it would have been $17.

I know this because I went by one of the days I was in New York. I'd never been to the USS Intrepid before and since I had an hour or two to spare so I thought I'd swing by. I took a look but there was no way I was going to spend that kind of money for a museum. Even if I'd had all day to spend there.

I found the whole thing disgusting. Between the prices, the large McDonald's logo adorning the signage(!), the metal detectors one had to pass through to even get to the McDonald's... American history, reduced to crass commercialism and paranoia. And yet while they were apparently so concerned that someone might try to do something dastardly to the ship that they had to set up privacy-violating barriers between Americans and their history, they were still content to let it sit there and rot...

June 26, 2006

Not exactly the Watergate tapes...

In a fit of procrastination I was going though some old cassette tapes. Most of what I found was junk, but there were a couple of interesting things, including a re-election campaign speech by then-mayor of San Francisco Frank Jordan. He had been making living room stops around the city, and for reasons I don't remember, I attended one of them. (I never lived in San Francisco so I had no personal interest in the outcome of the election. I suspect I ended up there having been sent by the college radio station to record it for a future newscast, but I'm not positive).

Anyway, a living room stop (or whatever they called it) involved a supporter inviting several dozen friends and neighbors over to their house, and then the candidate would stop by to make his pitch, answer questions, shake hands, etc. Given the particular office involved it seemed like a viable campaign strategy, and it seemed like a reasonable speech. And he might have won the election, had it not been for this, which happened shortly thereafter...

(It was sort of ironic, because the living room I saw him in belonged to an Asian household where everyone took off the shoes, and I remember thinking how charmingly humble it was to have the mayor speaking to us in his stocking feet. But I think he may have subsequently taken that charming humility just a little too far...)

July 4, 2006

Happy 4th of July

On this Fourth of July there's a lot about America that makes me unhappy. A lot of things that seem like a betrayal of what America is supposed to be about.

But the space shuttle launch reminds me of what's good about America: we can do that.

July 20, 2006

About that little thing in the Middle East

I may be sticking my head in the sand as deep as it will go, but I can't help but be worried about my cousins who live in Haifa.

Lest anyone think that this is happening to "other people" "far away," I thought I would mention that the train station was bombed. And that I was once at that train station.

August 13, 2006

Misplacing my toothpaste

Another quick entry because some of you may be wondering... I've been getting around China by flying. Flying in China is much like flying in the US, although with a few small differences. But there's still a metal detector/x-ray machine that everyone must pass through, even for domestic China flights. So far I've flown on 8/7, 8/9, and 8/12. On one of the first flights I saw a sign by the security check that said that the CAAC (agency in China that controls intra-China travel) had ordered that passengers be limited to two bottles of liquid in their carry-on, and that they had to total less than .5 liter. I figured this was because of a problem with drunkenness on board, and they wanted to make sure people weren't taking on lots of vodka and such. On my flight, however, I had a 1/3 filled bottle of water with me, and despite the sign no one cared.

But yesterday they made us open up our still-sealed water bottles to smell them. I figured they were still checking for alcohol. Then I saw the news... Chinese news, actually, talking about how China will uphold pretty much the same security standards that the US now has, at least for international travel.

What I'm less sure about is the shampoo/gel thing. Earlier in my journeys I'd ended up with a toothpaste snafu, where for some reason I'd removed my toothpaste from my toiletries bag and not repacked it properlly, instead throwing it into some other bag and eventually my pocket, then forgetting about it and thus not having any toothpaste when I went to brush my teeth. I remember laughing about it when I finally found it after our flight yesterday, because, really, who puts their toothpaste in their pocket? Unfortunately it seems this kind of absent-minded packing will no longer work...

Finally getting to read the Internet today I've now better caught up what's going on and see that there is something very specific they are concerned about and that the new rules are not the usual Homeland Security hysterics. Even security experts I trust whom can be counted on for an often-lacking sense of perspective think these temporary measures may be warranted. But only temporarily. Ultimately they won't truly make flying safe, and they'll only serve to inconvenience, rather than deter. More sensible, risk-appropriate measures will be necessary for the long term.

In the meantime, I'm not really concerned for myself. I have another intra-China flight ahead of me and then I come back. Interestingly, however, via Canada...

August 27, 2006

Diamonds for Lori and Me

I was sad to hear that Ralph Schoenstein died last week. The funeral is today. He was a radio (and erstwhile TV) commentator and author. One of his own books (he ghostwrote for many other people), which I read, was called Diamonds for Lori and Me, where he recalled sharing baseball with his young daughter during the Mets' 1986 run for the championship. I wasn't a Mets fan myself so I didn't quite relate… but it was one of those nice baseball books that understands why baseball is so meaningful to its fans. It's more than just an athletic contest; it's a vehicle for life.

I only met Ralph (and his daughter Lori) a few times in my life - they became cousins by marriage when my great uncle married his mom. I saw her many times (the last also being the last time I saw my grandma, when I drove her up so they could visit). But I did happen to hear him on occasion on the radio, and I couldn't help smiling to myself, thinking about how much the way he talked sounded like her.

You can hear him, and his humor, on this tribute to him on All Things Considered.

September 27, 2006

This land is my land

I was glad that on this most recent cross-country trip I took the time to actually see the country I was crossing.

The day I spent in Indiana turned out to be quite interesting. My friend and I went to a small country town where they were having a fair. But it wasn't a big fair, with midways and carnies. It was a small affair, with lots of local vendors and stalls selling local crafts and foods. It was also interesting because the community is full of Mennonite and Amish people, who were all represented there, but not "on display" for tourists as they might be in more well-known "Amish Country." I'm not sure there were any tourists there at all, actually, apart from us. It was just a corner of America, being itself, that we got to visit for the day.

I got to visit a few more corners by detouring up to I-90 and going through Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota. Especially South Dakota. Which happened to be where I was on the 5th anniversary of September 11. Where better to spend a day of American self-reckoning than smack in the middle of it? But the difference was striking: just a few days earlier I had been in lower Manhattan, within Ground Zero itself even, on one of those beautiful, clear, almost-Fall days like it had been on the day of the attacks. A sober energy was beginning to percolate within the streets, as people got ready to face the somber occasion of remembering the awful day their neighborhood changed.

By the time that day came, I felt like I was a world away, in the near-emptiness of South Dakota. I began the morning leaving Sioux Falls, driving through the vast flatness while listening to Native American chants on the radio. By lunchtime I'd reached the famous Wall Drug, perched at the mouth of the Badlands national park. I paid the $15 and drove through them, all the while listening to NPR's urban-broadcast coverage of the 9/11 remembrances and resulting state of the world. In the empty, sunny stillness the day's activities in New York and Pennsylvania it may have seemed a world away, but it was all still in these United States.

Exiting the area in Rapid City, from there it was time to head up into the Black Hills. Along the way I saw a lot of interesting wildlife: prairie dogs, mountain goats, and the most American of all animals - the turkey. Climbing up through the granite turrets of the hills I suddenly saw, there around the bend, Mt. Rushmore and its quartet of great American leaders. George Washington was particularly striking, with a small yet confident, fatherly smile on his lips that seemed to say, as he gazed out eastward over this great nation on this sad day, that, despite it all, we would be okay.

October 2, 2006

Guantanamo Bay Teach-In

Just got this email from the BU Law International Law Society about an all-day event discussing the various legal and ethical issues raised by Guantanamo:

Along with dozens of other law schools and universities around the country, we'll be simulcasting the event over a broadband connection -have a look at the program below and consider stopping in. In short: National Guantanamo Bay Teach-in Thursday, October 5th, 10am - 7pm Barristers Hall (ground floor, Boston University School of Law) For more information visit http://www.guantanamoteachin.com.

Follow the link to the schedule of panelists.

March 18, 2007

Subprime situation

The New York Times ran an article this weekend about the economic shudders being felt as a result of the rise in late payments and defaults in mortgages, particularly those taken by "subprime" mortgagees. Now, as this article and others have noted, there's great wringing of hands as people second-guess the soundness of the practice of have given mortgages to people with imperfect credit.

To be fair to the New York Times article, the second half of it questions whether homeownership in general has been too highly prized. Owning a home does have the effect of locking away disproportionately large portions of people's assets. It also immobilizes people, making them less able to relocate for jobs or relationships. Certainly there are upsides to homeownership, but as the article fairly points out, it's not a panacea.

But what the article didn't challenge was the notion that this increase in mortgage failures leads to the inevitable conclusion that mortgages should ever have been offered to subprime borrowers at all. In fact, the facts in the article themselves suggest something else is at the root of the problem.

And that is the exploitative terms by which these mortgages were offered. It seems that lenders only offered mortgages to these borrowers at impossible terms - variable rate mortgages that were inevitably going to become unaffordable just a few years later.

The theory, I suppose, is that mortgage lenders feel they need to offer more expensive mortgages - ones with a greater profit potential - in order to justify taking on the credit risk. If, for example, a lender lends 100 people with a 90% likelihood of paying the money back $100,000 at 10% interest, the lender will expect to get $10,000 in interest income from 90 people, or $900,000. Whereas if it lends $100,000 to 100 people with only a 50% likelihood of paying back the loans, it would only expect to get back $10,000 in income from 50 people, or $500,000. In order to make up that expected profit difference, the lender would have to offer the less credit-worthy people a more expensive loan - one, say, at 20%, which would result in $20,000 in interest from 50 people, or $1,000,000.

Obviously these numbers are made up and the example ignores other intricacies of the mortgage market - like the fact that the lender has a security interest in the property and can pursue foreclosure in the face of default (which, in a rising market, can itself be a profit center if the lender can sell foreclosed properties for more than the loan had been worth). But it points out a logical disconnect in the whole approach, for who can most ill-afford the more expensive loans but those less credit-worthy: the poorer people. If anything, they should be offered the least expensive loans - the ones they would best be able to repay on limited incomes.

It's a tremendous irony in American economics that life is always most expensive for the people least able to afford it. It makes poverty a virtually inescapable vicious cycle since by virtue of having fewer financial resources people are prevented from accruing enough to be fairly treated as respected members of the economy. Sure, we can throw platitudes around about how people who don't pay their debts get what they deserve. But poverty is not a character flaw. Wealthy people can be deadbeats, people who have the resources to repay their debts and simply refuse to honor them. But that is a far cry from people who intend to pay their debts and are simply prevented from doing so due to their exploitive nature. Furthermore, thanks to the lender, the person's inevitable failure to pay will simply make them poorer - in this case not only by wresting from them their house and any money they put into it, but also by jeopardizing their entire family's job and school performance through the stress and disruption of the eviction, and by further damaging their credit, thus making it even less likely that they will ever be able to get reasonable financing (or even a decent rental home) ever again.

April 29, 2007

Accidents that have happened before

A tanker truck crashed this morning in the MacArthur Maze (a complicated series of interstate connector ramps connecting major traffic arteries in Oakland, California), exploded, and destroyed a section of it. Traffic in the Bay Area will be a nightmare until it can be reconstructed.

I'm not sure if this specific piece is part of the new construction done to repair the damage from the Loma Prieta earthquake, where a large section of highway famously and tragically collapsed. But I'm reminded of another similar accident in the Maze twelve years ago, before it was redone as part of the post-quake repair. I'd had an internship with a local news station, which ended up turning into a job. I used to work on the assignment desk, answering phones, listening to scanners, following up with police/fire departments/hospitals, etc. Anyway, on my first day I walked in and the assignment desk director immediately threw some car keys into my hand. "Here, take this reporter out to the scene!" A tanker truck, early that morning, had crashed into a divider, exploded, and damaged the highway.

It was pretty exciting, getting sent out into the field, exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to be part of if you worked for a news station. We got to cross the police lines when we got there and walk around the roadway. The heat had been such that everything was melted, including things you would never imagine being meltable. The freeway suddenly looked a lot like a Salvador Dali painting.

In the accident that just happened today, the driver was injured but ambulatory enough to make it to a hospital for treatment. In the earlier accident the driver was not so lucky. The explosion had blown his cab off the freeway, where it landed several stories below on the ground. He was ejected, and I believe also decapitated. The cameraman I was with who was shooting footage said he always preferred to look at such scenes through the camera's viewfinder. Abstracted and black and white always made it easier to see.

June 4, 2007

Fortunately the evening commute was uneventful

I didn't manage to catch the 7:30am bus this morning, so instead I caught the 8am one. That bus always raises a dilemma for me, because I can either get off it downtown and take the ferry the rest of the way, or I can stay on and keep going into the city. Today my decision ended up being made for me because it turned out the street was closed off up ahead after the ferry stop, thus leaving me no choice but get off and take the ferry. That was unusual though. And unfortunate, because it turns out that all those fire engines and ambulances I saw from the boat on the cordoned-off street were unable to save the pedestrian that had been run over and killed by a garbage truck barely 15 minutes before I got there.

Eventually I got to downtown San Francisco and for lunch walked a block away to a Subway. I'd just filled up my soda cup and was about to walk back with my sandwich when suddenly a half a dozen police cars screeched up to the curb, and all the cops raced out with their guns drawn. Um, ok... Turns out a block away they'd cornered a car being driven by a suspect who'd just shot a different pedestrian and was now fleeing on foot.

I'm hoping tomorrow is a less newsworthy day.

November 11, 2007

Washed away

This past week a cargo ship hit the Bay Bridge. Fortunately it caused no damage to the bridge. Unfortunately it ripped its hull, causing an enormous amount of oil to spill into the Bay.

Worse, reports indicate that the amount of spilt oil was initially underestimated, thereby delaying the necessary response to contain it. Authorities initially said only 140 gallons had been lost, when it actually turned out to have been 58,000.

That oil has now spread throughout the north bay, washing up on all its shores. Volunteers and a few other dedicated agencies are working frantically to rescue oil-slicked birds, clean up the beaches, and keep the oil from further spreading into fragile marine ecosystems.

I find myself livid. As someone who paddles in the bay, who swims in the bay, who lives in the bay I am personally offended that this disaster has been allowed to happen. The birds and fish, seals and sea lions, they're all my neighbors. We wouldn't throw oil on our human neighbors, right? So why are we so indifferent about throwing oil on our aquatic ones?

Accidents do happen, and I doubt anyone deliberately intended to crash the ship into the Bay Bridge. But I do wonder, however, if there's not been a certain indifference to the potential effects of such an accident, which has resulted in those effects not being sufficiently minimized by the powers who could do so. It's sort of the notion that because open waters are rather large, anything bad that happens to fall into them will be diluted by their vastness before it can have an effect. A little bit of sewage, a few gallons of oil, maybe even some litter. Why worry? Who will know? Why rush to contain it? It will all soon be washed away.

When, actually, when things like this are allowed to happen as this one has it's really our world being washed away.

Edit 11/13: Like most posts I write in a fit of pique this one is a little unclear as to the target of my anger. But that's kind of the problem - I wasn't sure. (I'm not sure anyone was.)

The thing is, accidents do happen, and I'm not trying to encourage an over-reaction to what is essentially an extremely rare event (a ship crashing into the bridge). Rather, it's the reaction to the accident itself that has raised the concerns. It seemed so amiss. Lackadaisical, even. Everything from the failure to recognize that the oil release could be a problem to the failure to communicate that there was. There was a complete failure to recognize that the consequences could be so dire and respond to it accordingly by those in the position to do so. So as the extent of this tragedy (for I think that's really the word for it, even though no human beings directly perished) becomes apparent recriminations seem warranted.

But this is all I have to say on the subject at the moment. I'll leave it to others to follow it more closely. However for those who are wondering the oil does not seem to have made its way up to my houseboat marina, but I fear that doesn't mean it hasn't necessarily affected my local ecology.

January 1, 2008

News from not so far away

News headlines today reported on the murder of a US diplomat in Sudan. I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of such a headline, if it thinks about it at all. All over the world people get killed, Sudan is largely thought to be a dangerous place, and given America's reputation in the world it hardly raises an eyebrow that an American might have been targeted. For most people this news might seem so ordinary or abstract as to fade into the background.

But not for the people who knew John Granville, 33, or those who benefited from the important work that people like him do. US diplomacy is not always about warmongering; the federal government also employs a number of dedicated professionals committed to nation-building, and he was one of them. Nobody wins with his loss; the world is much poorer without people like him.

Thoughts to his family and friends, and also to those of his driver, Abdelrahman Abbas Rahama, 39, who was killed with him. Without the indispensable assistance of local drivers important humanitarian work all over the world would never get done. Their loss is to be mourned as well.

January 4, 2008

Stormy weather

Dawn didn't bother to come today. A storm came instead and pretty much broke the Bay Area with buckets of rain and tons of wind.

Up early, I saw it come in as rain and wind started lashing the houseboat. Inside everything was fine, for a while. The lights had gone off twice before when, around 7:30, they went out for good. Which was sad, since daylight never really came along to replace it.

Meanwhile the tide had come up and we were floating. In storms previous we've bobbed a bit, but you don't usually have any sensation of buoyancy unless you look out the window and see things moving. But today... today you needed your sea legs to walk to the kitchen.

At one point I looked out the window to see what looked like a giant vampire landing in our parking lot, which is always an alarming sight first thing in the morning. Fortunately it turned out to only be a giant green awning that had been blown away and was now attempting a landing on the overhanging powerlines. It bounced off the upper electric ones and landed on the lower telephone and cable ones where it flapped the rest of the morning, scraping all the cars parked below it with its aluminum framing.

Sensing today might turn out to be, um, a wash... I decided to make the best of it. So I decided to go out running. It seemed safe enough, seeing how the nearby bayside bike path was in open space away from power lines or other flying debris. I may have been wrong, however, seeing how as soon as I was past the parking lot I turned back in time to see part of the roof of a neighboring building peel off... But I was already past its zone of danger so I decided I might as well continue. Which I did, only to discover that the bay had overflowed its banks and was now all over the bike path. Which was fine, I thought, as I was wearing waterproof shoes and there's nothing wrong with a little wading. Until I realized that there were, in fact, nearby powerlines after all, and if any of them had fallen into any of the enormous bay-filled puddles and were reenergized I'd have a problem. At this point my premature Jewish grandmother instincts kicked in, I declared my adventure unsafe, and I went home.

To a home that looked about as bright as it was ever going to get. Realizing that I was insufficiently prepared for disaster, at least in the flashlight department, I began a quest to find one. The quest actually went pretty well: the next town up on the freeway still had power so I was able to buy a lantern at a hardware store. Batteries, however.... I ended up at a convenience store where I paid an arm and a leg for 4 D-cells. I suppose it's a good thing I did, though, as it may well ensure that there will be power this evening.

Which would be a very good thing indeed, as there's lots of things that we need power for. Heat, for instance, although since it's been more than a month since it last worked properly I've gotten used to living without it. TV and Internet, too, require power, so I'm currently sitting in a McDonalds in Mill Valley (itself leaking) writing this as I recharge my laptop and my phone.

At this point I'd say I'm set for whatever comes tonight, power or no power, except there's one other thing we need power for that there's really no getting around: plumbing. Water can come in, no problem, but to get it out again we need a pump, and that pump needs electricity.

Looks like it may be a long, annoying night...

Edit 1/5: Well, I'm fine. The power was still off this afternoon so I ran off to camp out at a friend's place in San Francisco where there was light, heat, Internet, and fully functional plumbing.

However the somewhat goofy atmosphere has been muted by sad news about a neighbor. He was a professional diver who was working in the storm to haul in a boat adrift and didn't survive the effort. It's hard to fathom that we won't be seeing Todd anymore. I hadn't seen a lot of him since the roommates he was closest to had moved out earlier this past year, but he was the first neighbor on the dock I'd ever met, and there was a time when he'd come by all the time. A Treo enthusiast he had beamed to me the Tide Tool he always used. I don't mean this to sound trivial, but I'm sure I'll think of him whenever I use it, which is actually quite often. He connected to all of us in the house differently, but that typified my connection with him.

About World events

This page contains an archive of all entries posted to The Great Change: Turning Cathy into a Lawyer in the World events category. They are listed from oldest to newest.

Travel is the previous category.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.