Playing for Change's "Stand By Me"

On Stupidity and Elections

It's a common refrain, but I've been hearing it more and more of late from the American politics people at my Ph.D. program: American voters are stupid. They make poor decisions, they support parties and politicians who manifestly do not advance agendas that would help them. They elected Bush. What's the matter with Kansas, anyway?

And of course, the common response to these points is to throw one's hands in the air and shrug.

Now, I can certainly appreciate the frustration. I think certain voters have been making idiotic statements about how it was the Democrats that were ruining the country for the past eight years (nevermind that Republicans controlled all branches of government). However, I can't go along with the idea that Americans are dumb (at least when it comes to voting). There are a lot of smart people out there, certainly smarter than me in their own areas of expertise, and definitely more knowledgeable about the matters that affect their lives directly.

So, I want to claim that Americans are dumb, I have to include myself in that measure. The more I get into this Ph.D. program, the more I am convinced that people don't know all that much more about the consequences of political decisions. Sure, I may know more than the average person about the debates, facts, and theories surrounding a political question. But that doesn't mean that I necessarily know more about who will ulimately make a better president, whether a particular decision will turn out for the best.

It's like forecasting the weather. Sure, it helps a lot to have more information. But that doesn't mean you're going to be right. And so I'm wary of painting other Americans as stupid without recognizing my own limitations.

Jet Man

I hate to dumb down the blog with popular video, but I think this is the neatest thing. If only I could combine these wings with an exoskeleton or something... are mechs right around the corner?

Spicy Eggplant

Here's a decent slap together eggplant dish. It's based on a recipe my sister-in-law likes to make, though I've made a few strategic alterations. For example, she like to cook the eggplant with dried chili peppers and spices like anise. I prefer fresh pepper to the dried, and I can do without the anise, so I leave it out. She also prefers to cut the eggplant into large flat pieces, whereas I think cubing it makes things easier and cuts down the cooking time.

Of course I'm keeping things pretty simple here. It could be fun to experiment by adding cilantro or other fragrant herbs, or some other meatier vegetables like mushrooms, squash or zucchini. Try it out.

Ingredients:

• Three long Asian eggplants
• one large juicy tomato or two small tomatoes
• 2 long green peppers (Found in Asian markets. Are these wax peppers? Experience shows that the heat in these things can vary substantially, so watch out)
• one medium onion
• sichuan pepper corns
• small hunk of ginger, about the size of the first knuckle on your ring finger.
• two to three cloves of garlic
• Scallions. There should be enough to give you two hand fulls after you dice them up.
• Shanxi mature vinegar (chencu) or white vinegar or cider vinegar
• Lao Chou--dark soy sauce
• optional mushroom essence (granules)
• salt
• cooking oil
• wok

Precook:

1. Cut up the eggplant into small pieces. I prefer to cut them into small cubes, but you can also cut them into thinnish half-dollar sized rounds and then slice the rounds into halves or quarters. Throw the cut eggplant into water, and let it soak while you prepare everything else.
2. Dice the onion
3. Dice the scallions
4. Wash and slice open the hot peppers. Take out the seeds and remove the stems. Slice each individual pepper in half, flatten it out onto the cutting board, and then cut them diagonally into thin small rings or thin ribbons.
5. Dice the tomato, and set it aside in a bowl along with the seeds and the juices that gushed out when you cut it open.
6. Mince the garlic and ginger separately. Keep them separated.
7. Throw the soaking eggplant into a colander and let it drain out for a few minutes.
8. Carefully rinse the sichuan peppers under cool water.

Cook it up:

Throw two tablespoons (or even more if you can take it) of oil into the wok and turn the heat all the way up.

Put the ginger, green peppers, and sichuan peppercorns in first. Let them sit for a couple of seconds and then stir them up for another 20 seconds or so.

The onion goes in next. Stir the onion in with the hot peppers for about 40 seconds before piling the eggplant on. Put all the eggplant in, make sure you mix it in well, and take a breather. Eggplant can take a while to get going, but you'll need to keep an eye on it. If you let it sit for too long without stirring, it will burn. You want to keep everything moving inside the wok. What you're looking for is for the eggplant to begin to look wet or wilted, as if it has finally begun to absorb the cooking oil. If your eggplants have purple skin, they may begin to turn green.

Now it is time to toss in your cut tomato and your garlic. Mix it in well again, and keep stirring as you wait for the tomato to cook down.

You'll know when the eggplant is just about done. The tomato and eggplant chunks will be completely cooked down and there will be a sizable amount on broth down at the bottom of the wok. As you reach this point--it will be a few minutes after adding the tomatoes--throw in a half teaspoon of the mushroom essence if you have it, a teaspoon of salt (or more to taste), a small splash of soy sauce for color (Keep it small. This isn't Kikkoman; a little goes a very long way), and a splash of vinegar--say, twice as much vinegar as soy sauce. Just before you are ready to take the eggplant out of the wok, throw in half your scallions, fold the mixture a couple times and then empty it out onto deep serving dish. Throw another handful of scallions on top for garnish.

Serve with quality white rice.

This dish goes well together with stir fried dark greens and cheap red table wine.

When they read this...

Do you think they regret sounding like the way they do? Or do they not even notice?

I like pools, though I would expect them to make it a bit smaller.

Buyer's remorse?

One thing I am absolutely certain of is that Hillary Clinton wouldn't sit by and let a weak Republican candidate run his pickup truck all over her campaign.

September is almost here. Drop the freaking hammer already. Sheesh.

New Used Laptop

As it turns out, I'm going to be inheriting someone's laptop this weekend. This makes three computers for a household of two. The question is: what do I do with it? I'm thinking that I'll format the hard disk and turn it into a Linux machine. I'll then dedicate it purely to internet and minor word processing. Hopefully, the newly uncluttered hard disk will keep the computer fast.

I was previously thinking about doing the same to one of the two laptops that we already have, but I was too lazy to sort through and back up the data on the hard disk. Now I can completely bypass that potential hassle by working on computer #3.

Before going through with any of this, does anyone have any other suggestions of what I can do with a potentially creaky computer? Am I getting the most out of the computer with a format/Linux install?

Speaking of Chinese accomplishments...

Hobs forwarded this over to me. A nice interface I think for my Popo's favorite piece of art. It doesn't look like it at first, but it's a great segue for testing whether or not her grandchildren remember World War II.

I'm trying to find those one-wheel carriage things I keep hearing about.

Olympic Fever

Much of the world is currently in the throes of Olympic fever. The pageantry, the athletics, and of course, watching your country in the medal race.

But, you know what? I'm just not that interested.

I'm sure part of this is my anti-China bias. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that I've lost interest in the Olympics more generally. The jingoism gets to me for one. And then there's the fact that my youthful dream of being an Olympic swimmer will never come to pass (although the 41-year old athlete with two kids is making me reconsider this).

But I've been far more interested and concerned with the war between Georgia and Russia than I am with Team America, Team China, or Team Korea (which is surprisingly high in the early medal count right now - good for them).

Anyway, I want to call your attention to this article. Tim Wu discusses the non-Chinese media (I refuse to call it Western because, let's be frank, this kind of coverage isn't limited to just the "West") and whether it's being too harsh on China.

Now, I agree with much, if not all, of what he's saying. Just because the Chinese have put in a lot of hard work to prepare for the Olympics doesn't mean it should be immune from criticism, particularly if all that hard work was geared towards cleaning up their treatment of laborers, minorities, or the environment. And as a good friend of mine said, if China wants to be a leader on the world stage, it's got to be able to accept the criticism. Just because you're great doesn't mean you're faultless, and it's perfectly legitimate for people to point out your faults (they do it all the time to the U.S., EU, and Russia. Indians do it to themselves.)

However, I think there's also something to the Chinese complaint. It's difficult to separate legitimate criticism from a wider cultural disdain, but I think some of the reporting falls into that. Of course, there is the gap between Chinese expectations and everyone else's reporting, driven in many ways by the high expectations that the CCP set for both itself and the rest of the world. But, while I may dislike China, I think our criticisms must be tempered with this recognition of all its people have accomplished in the past 30 years (as well as being mindful of all its people destroyed in the 30 years before that).

The criticism is getting tied up with the jingoism, and I draw a line there. It's fine to point out (massive) faults in the system and history, but the arguments are stronger (and sometimes more chilling) if they're grounded in a more rational assessment of the country.

I own too many books, y'know?

I missed a chance to post not-filler. Alas.

Also, now that I recognize scenery music so often used on This American Life as being from Philip Glass's score for Mishima--a fact both obvious and unexpected--I can't hear it without picturing someone committing seppuku.



And because I want it on dvd and when I think of Glass I think of Nyman and I was on youtube, Prospero's Books:

You're kidding, sir!

Chengora asked me my opinion on this slate piece about action scenes in movies. He further sent me this:

Interesting analysis. I was going to post a comment about martial arts movies, but the analysis already takes that into account. I wonder if the central focus of guns in action films set in more modern times requires more cuts in order to obtain the most visceral part of a fight. Whereas in martial arts movies you can do a close up of a face to establish the character's emotional state, then zoom out to a full body frame - in both cases you still have a sense of emotional/personal expression. I don't know if you can do that with gunfights, where the individuals are performing a much more limited set of actions.

To which I say, kidding, yes?

The gunfight, tension filled, is the hallmark of the western, the action genre of western cinema. Real gunfights take seconds, less than minutes certainly, they've always been extended so you can cat and mouse it, so you can linger on their faces. Heck, Once Upon a Time in the West is 60% extreme closeup, or some other exorbitant ratio.

That said, the post wanted to talk about fighting more than just action, and non-martial arts (this includes boxing) has typically ignored the skill part, endorsing showing mainly the physicality of fighting (ideally), and sometimes just the effort of it (grunting a lot). Some of this comes from a professional wrestling like obsession with big immovable men in their action stars--so much so it's interesting that they pin point Bruce Willis, the only action star out of the 80's to be built like a fit man, instead of a, well, professional wrestler.

I think it's funny that Bourne Ultimatum is such a high watermark, since that's the Bourne movie that conceded it's shaky cam aesthetic with a capoeria inspired fighter. You don't add that style in film if you aren't conceding to aesthetics, to the appreciation of the body and skill.

I think the piece finished with a very good fight, with Cronenberg's set piece in Eastern Promises. Possibly though, the other true fight on film is the one in Casino Royale, in the bathroom. The graceless but skilled killing of another person, in particular contrast in the most glamorous of movie franchises. If anything, the Bourne movies fetishize the skillful killer more than any other. It disorientates exactly when death is going to be inflicted.

Yowch.

A month and a half. This is insulting casual disregard for even the low bar of mediocrity is appalling...

On a sidenote, I think the New Yorker cartoonists' blog proves that they are funny, but normally not allowed to be.

King City Vol. 2 is being posted...due to the well documented woes of Tokyopop.

And I hear that in the next Harvest Moon you can ride an ostrich (which you presumably raise for eggs). Japan, you know my every weakness.

Onwards!

Primary Colors

I’m an Obama supporter, but only lately come to the game. Up until the whole gas tax thing, I was perfectly fine with either Clinton or Obama getting the nomination. But that move (and the whole combined ticket thing) solidified my sense that Clinton panders too much and is greedy for power, rather than the public good.

And Saturday’s shenanigan’s demonstrated that amply. I can certainly understand why Clinton’s doing what she’s doing. But having Democratic Party members shouting “McCain in ‘08” is just plain bad for the party and the prospects for a real renunciation of the many mistakes made during the Bush years.

So, here’s a message for all the Clinton supporters (who also read this blog – surely a hefty number). First, this nomination contest is an internal election for a private organization. The DNC doesn’t need to count your vote if you didn’t follow their rules. There was no vote fraud, no manipulation. You knew going into primary booth that your vote wouldn’t count. You gambled that the state party could stand up to the DNC, and you lost. This is an apt time to use the Chinese phrase “huo gai”, or “You deserve it.” In 2000, people went to the ballot box thinking that it would. That makes this an entirely different ballgame.

Second, this whole talk about “reassigning” votes. You’re assuming that people who voted for Clinton support Clinton, and the DNC is undermining the will of the voters by giving Obama a higher percentage than he deserves. That’s only partly correct, but you’re forgetting a cardinal rule of elections. Elections are contests between the people on the ballots. So in Michigan, a vote cast for Clinton was not a vote against Obama. To have that, he would need to actually have been on the ballot. After all, the will of the voter could easily have been “Well, I can’t vote for my candidate, so I might as well vote for Clinton.”

Now, of course in Florida, Obama was on the ballot. But then, it wasn’t an even contest. From all the elections that my organization has looked at internationally, there emerges a simple rule. When you can’t campaign, name recognition wins. And at the time, that clearly went in Clinton’s favor.

Democratic elections (small “d” ones) are hard. They require a lot of different elements to be balanced and respected: campaign time, equitable access to fundraising, equitable positioning on the ballot, etc. You can’t pick and choose the way the Clinton people are doing and still proclaim yourself on the side of democratic elections. It then just becomes a means to obtain power, and that’s exactly why Clinton turned me off.

When I Grow Up...

A lot of changes happening for me this coming summer. I'm quiting my job in a month's time. I'm moving to New York City right after that. I'm starting a Ph.D. program in the fall. And just before that, I'm going to propose to GF.

So, I'd love to get some input on what I should do for the summer. Duvall has suggested something fun like volunteering at a museum. GF has suggested that I do something that will advance my academic network (volunteer research). A coworker has suggested that I:

1. Write short articles everyday or week and try to get them published. Also, start a blog to house them all.
2. Tutor kids.
3. Help old ladies cross the street (or just something related to old people).
4. Work with illegal immigrants using language skills.
5. Assist a presidential campaign.

She came up with all this in the span of about five minutes. Needless to say, she didn't want to do her work.

So, what do you all think? My fallback is temping, which I'm perfectly happy with. I do want to stay in NYC and hold to a 9-5 or so schedule as much as possible, as this is GF and my chance to finally live together. And we're getting a Wii for some quality time together.

Old Friends

Turns out, being checked out at work has its advantages. Otherwise, I would never have been bored enough to discover that Fafblog has returned.

Fafblog - The best source anywhere for snarky politics and pie.

Political Reading

Since I'm completely checked out at work (even though I shouldn't be), I wanted to share some great political articles I've been reading. I often pick these up from www.aldaily.com.

Thunder from Tibet - An excellent article on the protests and violence in Tibet in March.

Obama on Zionism and Hamas
- Obama's thoughts on Israel and the U.S. in the Middle East more generally.

Confessions of a Sweatshop Inspector - Great look at the methods of ensuring corporate social responsibility.

Time to Let Go?

All the recent discussion of Tibet and today's primary in Guam got me thinking. Isn't it time for the U.S. to formulate a general plan to let the colonies go? What I mean by "colonies" is our Pacific and Atlantic islands, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa etc...? Of course, in prinicpal I would probably be willing to part with sections of the southwest, and I have always considered sections of the midwest to be expendible. Why not take the Dakotas, Montana, unpopulated sections of Wyoming, and other rather unimportant states and just give them back to the Native American populations who lay claim to the land?

Anycase, in the case of the islands, I suspect there would be quite a few logistic hurdles to pass before we can cut them free. First, every one of those places is heavily dependant on the US for direct economic aid. We would probably have to continue supporting these territories long after they formally declare Independence. In places like Hawaii with significant non-indigenous populations, rights of the "foreign" population would have to be guaranteed up to a certain point after Independence. Also, complicated legal issues like real estate holdings, business interests, and other claims of ownership would have to be clarified over a long period of negotiation.

Nevertheless, I don't see the US losing out on much in the giveaway. Key military installations could probably be maintained via special treaties. In return, the US gains a better moral standing in the world and has greater legitimacy as a non-colonial power.

Not meaning to bum-rush China...

but this particular happening came up during my morning crawl through comic news. It's not terribly surprising, but I'm always astonished how wholesale copying can be now, at least James Fry and the Stephen Glass and the like made stuff up--this is like that Opal Mehta nonsense with Mad Libs plagiarism. Not exactly lazier, I guess, since printing and layout is resource consuming. But damn. It reminds me that I have a friend who was based in Hong Kong for a while, as a lawyer, and looking to work in China specifically with intellectual property, but didn't stay for, amongst other reasons, the complete lack of IP law/enforcement/basis of trying that specialization in China right now.

But in the midst of all this pent-up bad Chinaness, I wanted to point to a Slate piece (which I can't find right now, but I will) that put should put some of their development in context (which, I'm sorry, I can't resist, is not something the Chinese media is every involved in doing). Namely that while the process of modernizing China is inarguably flawed , this is an undertaking that has dragged the largest mass of humanity out of poverty ever. The scale doesn't excuse the Reign of Terror style of politics that has often emerged, but likewise it's an achievement on its own merits.

Actually, I mostly think that economic development, Communism (not that they're really so Communist anymore) did force the leveling of gender rights in China. I doubt it's equal, much as it isn't in the U.S., but given the extremely male-centric culture there's been a lot down for women's rights by China. Whether this will progress into a leadership and advocacy role when the economic gains by such moves aren't so obvious (or even develop into self-awareness of it) is in question. Imagine if the Edison Chen stupidness had provoked a discussion about the obviously skeevy at best(consenting adults aside) fact that a popular and influential male star took advantage of his position over more than half a dozen women, and will likely be the only one with a career after.

Or if instead of responding to the U.S. State Department's annual list of human rights violations, China responded with not a relatively week list of America's own, but statistics about the millions they can raise out of poverty? I mean, when Chinese achievements aren't "scientists" scraping off the Intel logo off microchips.

Oops, sorry, can't help it.

It's all so stupid

I was planning to write a big post about Tibet this week, but now that I'm sitting down and writing it, it just seems like such a lame thing to do. The whole situation is just so weird and bad. Early in March, some Tibetans were arrested for a peaceful protests around Lhasa. On March 14th, violent ethnic riots erupt. Ethnic Tibetans were the main instigators of the violence, smashing Han and Hui stores and killing a few people.

Pretty bad, right? The thing is, that's not even the beginning. A few western media outlets picked up the story; several quoted sources (free Tibet groups), falsely blaming ethnic Chinese people for the violence. CNN and several French and German sites stupidly used cropped images of police arrests (the Tibetan rioters in the back ground were cut out), and images of police brutality from India and Nepal, which were attributed in the stories to China. Many of the western media outlets focused on China's history of brutality in the region, glossed over the fact that Tibetans were the instigators in this most recent violent outburst, and generally stuck to their talking points about China, human rights, and Tibet.

Now the fun begins. Overseas Chinese students-- the only mainlanders with access to western media stories because China at that moment was in total media blackout--were outraged at the shoddy reporting in western media and began a wide internet protest campaign. This website was created, among others.

The free Tibet folks, seeing an opportunity to grab the media spotlight, staged protests during China's Olympic tour in Europe and USA. They were violent, and they seemed to go out of their way to alienate by attacking elderly and disabled torch bearers. Western media outlets dropped the ball again by highlighting the protesters and "ominous-looking" Chinese security, and by deciding not to interview Chinese relay participants.

This has only increased Chinese outrage against the media, and western media in general. There have been violent blockades of the French chain, Carrefour, in China. Videos like this are easy to find.

There's so much going on here: hack journalism, angry nationalism, politics (come on, backing out of the opening ceremony is such a lame pointless move), oh yeah, and there is also the issue of oppression, which, while being constantly shoved to the front, often falls back out of sight.

Where to begin?

Senioritis

As I'll be joining the ranks of the unemployed in June, I've completely checked out of work. Instead, my days are filled with surfing of weird and interesting stories on the web. Sadly, the ones that have captured my attention are the whole Mormon splinter group cult thing, the related issue of forced marriage, the pro-Tibet/pro-China protests, and (on a lighter note) trying to figure out if it's a good idea to build a Tivo (doesn't look like it. Hey, NYC people - what are the cable providers up there?).

Being the political junkie that I am, I'm going to discuss the pro-Tibet/pro-China issue. I've already talked about the limitations on having a rational discussion about the situation in Tibet: no reliable information. But what's really surprised me are the pro-China protesters in the U.S. Granted, it seems like many of them are from China (the interviews have lots of foreign students, but I think that's just of function of it being San Fran). However, I can't help feeling a touch of sadness over the fact that they still believe the PRC line, despite massive evidence to the contrary. For example:

The Olympics shouldn't be political. Please - they've always been political. If they weren't political, then China shouldn't be using it to showcase its global emergence. The entire route was specifically designed TO BE political, like stamping PRC sovereignty over Tibet and Xinjiang.

Support for the PRC. I can certainly understand that people want to support their culture, etc. But, the pro-Chinese demonstrators go further. They support the PRC government. At least with many of the Arabs I know, they are proud of coming from a long culture, but recognize and denounce the human rights abuses, corruption, and general venality of political leaders in the Middle East. The pro-Chinese protestors don't display any of this self-reflection. Granted, some of this is probably just reaction to a perceived outsider critique of China. But honestly, this quote from a student? "The Chinese people are very peaceful. They wouldn’t do what they are accused of.” Come on, man. The Chinese have been doing that to others and to each other for thousands of years. Where's the rational perspective?

China has been helping Tibet. Similar to the last point. Fine, China invests a lot in Tibet. But looking at this purely from an economic perspective is idiotic. It's about politics and power: who gets the money, can Tibetans practice their religious beliefs, what about the side effects of a depressed economy for a certain group of people and second class status in their own territory (like drug use)? I understand that people in China don't get the information to acknowledge these issues. But pro-Chinese in the U.S.? In the wake of the riots, it's impossible to believe that they were carried out by a small "clique" of individuals. Those were massive, widespread, and expressed great frustration with the economic and especially cultural degradation by the PRC. At the least, there needs to be some sense of humility about this, that economic investment hasn't been particularly successful, and that Beijing has given something of a raw deal to minorities.

Ah, that was cathartic. Now, if only the pro-China protestors would read this.