Nice try, gamers...now go vote

As one might suppose, going back to skoooool in a math-heavy area isn't the easiest thing when you haven't touched that math for 6+ years. Unexpectedly, that coincides with me not blogging very much at a time when I should be running my yapper nonstop. If I had time to dictate here all the ways in which the McCain campaign has spiraled into the abyss of dishonesty and dishonor, I'd probably exhaust Blogger's server space. So let me just add this: Obama has placed ads inside videogames that link to the internet. These ads will run through the election, and will then be removed. Now that's change we can believe in.

A shallow show

I'll give John McCain credit. He acknowledges an ugly situation when it confronts him.

The political waters have finally started to shift away from the vacant smile of Governor Palin and focus on the potential governance of the presidential candidates. Almost across the board, the issues favor the Obama campaign and nowhere is that more true than in the economic arena. For all my ideological love of capitalism--and suffice it to say that Ayn Rand is one of the foremost influences in my adult life (in a positive way!)--I still believe, in this imperfect world, that the role of government in the financial sector is crucial. In particular, oversight must be firm when taxpayer dollars are involved and this has been a cornerstone of Obama's message since the beginning.

So now comes John McCain's utterly politically-motivated move to forestall the first debate. McCain's notion that he and Obama's presence in Washington would help and not hinder the process is ludicrous. The injection of presidential politics into this crucial piece of legislation can only hurt and McCain is again risking the well-being of american taxpayers after his irresponsible choice of vice presidential running mate. Furthermore, the idea forwarded by McCain here is that he's indispensable in solving this problem, which is the one laughable aspect of this otherwise grim scenario. He does have quite the economics background... I 100% agree with Obama that this is the ESSENTIAL time to have a presidential debate and talk about big solutions. Economics is deeply intertwined with national security and foregin policy, so it should be probed deeply in tomorrow's debate. The over-presence of those two individuals in Washington will be damaging, while the presence of those two in Mississippi will be illuminating and instructive for american voters.

A Falling Soldier

Strangely, school is very time-consuming. Who'da thunk it?

Like everyone else, I've been watching the presidential campaign play out over the last few weeks. I made no bones about my disgust regarding Sarah Palin's speech at her convention. But much more dangerous is her selection in the first place. She is so grossly unprepared for the enormity of the vice-presidential position and, most especially, the higher-than-normal possibility of transferring to the Oval Office that anyone serving under a septuagenarian McCain with a history of cancer will be assuming. This is an appalling move by John McCain to risk the well-being of the country for political expediency. Regardless, I still think this selection is actually a misguided step and won't ultimately play out to his advantage.

Anyways, I recommend taking a minute to read this article by Elizabeth Drew who penned a sympathetic biography (i admittedly haven't read it) about McCain a few years back. I agree with the things that she used to admire about McCain and wholeheartedly agree with the deterioration of those qualities as he's pandered to the Republican base, increasingly compromised his character to ugly campaign tactics, and demonstrated disturbingly spur-of-the-moment behavior with crucial decisions.

It's easy to caricature a politician running against your favored candidate as races tighten and draw towards a close. The difference here is that these aren't exaggerations. The McCain campaign deliberately lied about Obama's positions to blacken his name and deliberately lied about Sarah Palin's positions to make her look like an actual reformer. This cannot pass. Any moderately inteligent American voter will have to see through this. The Palin spark is now starting to recede as any ephemeral sugar rush does and some dose of reality is returning.

In my opinon...

...you should check out my buddy Evan's Op-Ed piece published in the Seattle Times yesterday. He write stuff good.

Painful Palin

It looks like it's about time for some politics to surface here again. After hearing the substance and the optimism in Biden and Obama's speeches last week, Sarah Palin's speech was a miserable experience to behold. After spending the first significant portion dwelling on family minutiae to "introduce herself" followed by a laundry list of lines to perk the ears of different elements of the Republican base, Palin launched into an unapologetically vicious attack on Obama. The attacks were roughly half and half personal and issue-oriented. The personal attacks were many and varied. For instance, she managed to discount Obama's community organizing days in an acidic and mocking manner with a blase dismissal of anyone involved in such an undertaking. The issue-oriented attacks largely seemed half-truths phrased to blacken or distort Obama's intent. One example of this is how she talked about Obama wanting to raise a number of taxes...but she failed to point out that those will be raised for a small, wealthy percentage of the population while the overwhelming rest of us can anticipate decreases.

Most of this was to be expected. Palin certainly held her own as far as speaking and established herself as the Republican attack-dog. She accomplished well what was set out by the McCain campaign and the Republican party and she seemingly relished responding forcefully to the media storm last week. However, one can't help but feel that palpable difference in tone and message between the Democrats and Republicans this year. One side has ideas, optimism, and positive energy, the other side has energy to attack these things. I know the anger and excitement is high on the other side for the moment, but I can't help but think this will backfire in the end.

I'm an independent voter who will side with the better campaign and the better message. This year's contest is so starkly one-sided. She may have fired-up the Republican base, but she's going to fire up Obama's supporters even more. I'm donating as we speak.

purrrrrdy good

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Thanks to Kim W. for this...and (afterwards) every news organization on the planet.

A better face

As expected, Clinton showed a much different side today with her concession speech. It was the best speech I've ever heard her give, and that has nothing to do with the fact that she endorsed Obama. She was natural, heartfelt, eloquent, and poised. This is the higher ground that Clinton is capable of achieving, but this is not what she exhibited during the majority of her campaign. If she could be so admirable when in the midst of battle, I would have a different perspective on Senator Clinton. Unfortunately, these brilliant moments come too rarely and too late. This is why Senator Clinton ran such a close race, but ultimately finished behind a superior candidate.

She also relinquished any hesitation in declaring her boundary-breaking campaign as historic. Many observers think this realization came late and she could have saved her campaign by trumpeting this earlier. I think it was a cold calculation (and likely the correct calculation) to not do so earlier, because they likely would have alienated many male voters. Now, in defeat, is the only time she could be so forceful on this point. It sets her up perfectly for her next move, whatever that may be.

Anyways, Clinton deserves much lauding and I don't seek to diminish that. But the fact remains that this is one side of a multifaceted politician, and her other faces have not been so honorable. Whatever road she takes in the future, I hope she marches forward in this fashion. She would gain a fan in me.

In the end, a real contrast

As even the most absent of bloggers, I’d be remiss to not punch out a couple thoughts today. Firstly and most importantly, given all the daily microscale drama, it’s pretty easy to forget the monumental feat just accomplished by Barack Obama. Imagine the odds of a candidate virtually unknown before 2004…actually let’s not sidestep the obvious…imagine the odds of an African-American candidate virtually unknown before 2004 arising victorious over the Clinton dynasty’s juggernaut of political connections and fundraising dominance. I think many of us are so caught up in the daily news cycle, that it’ll take some time before that reality fully sinks in.

In victory and in defeat, respectively, I thought Obama and Clinton showed their essence.

I found Obama’s speech gracious, humble, focused, and magnanimous towards Clinton’s historic achievements. He didn’t gloat in his speech. As a matter of fact, he spent little to no time in self-congratulatory mode. He barely touched on his own historic accomplishment. He was inspiring and unifying, while expressing that this is only a stepping stone to the real prize.

Now to the other side. Through all of the egregious acts of political ugliness I’ve seen out of Clinton and her camp since late February, I cautioned myself to not become a number. I saw how the polls showed the increasing polarization of Clinton’s supporters against Obama, and vice versa. Somewhere, I found a reserve of restraint to tell myself, “be practical, keep the big picture in mind, don’t get visceral.” I didn’t. Even as of yesterday afternoon, the pragmatist in me thought that a gracious denouement (on both sides) to the primary season, might channel nicely into Obama offering Clinton the VP slot.

Then I watched Hillary’s speech last night.

Clinton barely acknowledged Obama, offering a few curt and cursory words. She MOST CERTAINLY did not acknowledge that he’d obtained the 2118 delegates for the nomination. She then proceeded to do everything within her power to stoke the anger of her coalition and, incredibly, convince them that the race wasn’t over. She said she wanted their input to determine her next step. While mouthing the requisite line that she’ll do whatever’s necessary to seek unity, there was absolutely no substance to the words. Her speech was utterly self-involved, divisive, and defiant. A pan of the audience showed some supporters in a rabid fury, almost militant. Although I imagine the majority of her supporters are actually level-headed people who will vote in their own best interest in November, there's an undeniably large group of Clinton supporters who only cement their largely reactionary anti-Obama stance every time Clinton fans the flames.

I could very well be proven wrong, but if Clinton intended to make a play for the VP with her defiant speech last night, I sense that speech ensured she won’t get the offer. The tone and tenor of Obama’s campaign is unity through harmony, open-mindedness, and hard work. Clinton would be offering unity by withholding war. In other words, “take me on or lose the army of supporters whom I control and meet your demise.” Hillary Clinton had an unparalleled opportunity last night to raise herself to exalted status in the Democratic Party by playing the role of unifier after an epic battle, which she has unequivocally lost. Much of the ugliness of her campaign would have dissipated in a heartbeat and Obama supporters, like myself, would have recognized the brutality of politics and forgiven many of her transgressions in pursuit of the greater good. Instead, she made herself small in defeat and craven for power. Her 18 million votes may or may not go to Obama. But they shouldn’t be obtained by her barely concealed threats.

As someone who tries hard to keep a balanced, objective perspective, I was appalled and sincerely disappointed by Clinton’s performance last night. I wouldn't be surprised to see a more gracious side of Clinton in the near future, but last night she missed a precious chance. Those kinds of opportunities are moments that shouldn't be pilfered away by Obama's VP. Juxtaposed against that tasteless backdrop, one couldn’t help but see Obama as a huge step forward in our nation's journey through history.

Why not? A personal plug: Barack Obama

Family, friends, foes, funkadelic-fiends,

At the risk of conveying unearned (and unwanted) self-importance, I think this presidential election is too important to remain close-lipped. My influence is scarce, if existent, but I figure it's worth doing anything in my power to get out a couple votes.

If you favor a rigidly conservative agenda, you needn't read on. Our differences are likely unbridgeable right now, and we can chat later (plus, you can't vote in the primaries of interest, anyways...Correction, you CAN vote in a few states' democratic primaries if you forgo your vote in their respective Republican primary). On the other hand, if you're anywhere from moderate to liberal, Independent to Democrat, I urge you in the strongest words to vote for Barack Obama in your respective state's Democratic caucus/primary.

I don't consider myself a political expert, by any means. Some of you far outpace me in your obsession with these things. I have, however, followed the campaigns closer-than-most in the last 3 months. Before that, I read what the newspapers told me. We could argue about the almost imperceptible policy differences that separate Obama and Clinton (such as Health Care approaches, if illegal immigrants should get drivers licenses with their citizenship, what world leaders they'll converse with in the first 12 months of their administrations, etc.), but those aren't the distinguishing items between the two candidates.

I'll even spare you my heartfelt stump-speech that does explore the differences between the two: that sound judgement (ie. Clinton voted to authorize Iraq; Obama made an historical speech against doing so) and character (Obama's ability to galvanize the electorate is uncanny) eclipse #years of Washington/political involvement…that no (wo)man is an island, and any president will have legions of policy aides and advisers helping them make decisions, not to mention the legislative apparatuses that temper any executive's ruling fist.

I'll just say this:

IF IT'S CLINTON VS. MCCAIN, MCCAIN IS VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED TO WIN IN NOVEMBER. On a personal level, I can't even claim this would be Armageddon. I like McCain's candor and perseverance compared to Clinton's disingenuous political-persona-of-the

-moment. His policies, however, have gravitated dangerously to the conservative end of the spectrum that's devastated our country over the last 8 years. Although the Republican base has been hesitant to jump behind McCain, they're increasingly willing to do so. Unless Mitt Romney pulls some miracle out of his deep pockets on Tuesday, McCain will essentially secure himself the Republican nomination.

The crucial point is this: even with McCain's gravitation rightward, he maintains his maverick credentials and will likely sweep moderates and independents his way in a general election. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, and the unavoidable baggage that comes from her husband's administration, so inspires the ire of significant decisive voting blocs, that her polarizing effect will only catalyze the flood of votes going McCain's way.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has the personal appeal, demonstrated ability to sponsor legislation that bridges the left/right divide and, most importantly, a clear stance against the Iraq war, which will likely once again vie with the economy as the defining issue in the general election. IN EFFECT, OBAMA VS. MCCAIN ALMOST CERTAINLY GOES TO OBAMA. As a matter of fact, adding to the tally of high-profile endorsement for Obama is President Eisenhower's granddaughter (recall, he was a Republican president) in an op-ed piece published in today's Washington Post. And I quote: "If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help." That's indicative of the kind of moderate support Obama is gathering.

I'm voting for Obama on his own merits. That decision was made before this race became so incredibly close and fluid. Never has a politician inspired me with such a potent combination of intellect, candor, and charisma as has Obama. But if that's not enough, or if you disagree, please atleast think strategically about your vote. Your vote for Clinton could ring the death knell for Democrats' chances in November. With every passing day, Obama closes the slight lead Clinton maintains in the polls, but Super Tuesday, and the subsequent round of states in early February, is closing in fast.

If you agree with this, GET OUT AND VOTE IN YOUR STATE'S DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS! Talk to your friends and family too. I'm not personally spearheading any of this, I'm just playing my small part. I've been inspired by other people who've already played their small part and I want to keep this movement going.

So many dead

The violence in Iraq baffles the imagination. Another 90 + killed in mosques. Another 6 + killed in hotels. Atleast 4 more people obliterated their bodies in the name of religion and politics and hate and desperation. No one needs another tirade launched about the war’s legitimacy and it’s execution, so let me keep this brief. Suffice it to say, the Hussein regime and it’s brutal repression needed to go, but this was not the way to do it. The hubris, ideological distortion, and selfish motives that led our current administration into this quagmire have destroyed so many lives unnecessarily and alienated us for generations from so many people it makes you nauseous to consider. The soldiers in Iraq are doing incredible things by building the infrastructure for modern development, opening schools, and giving oppressed people a ballot. But those actions are overshadowed by the instability that’s a direct offshoot of our essentially unilateral approach. It’s cynical and ridiculous to characterize the Bush administration as purely evil. Those who do see the world in black and white, and that’s bullshit. Aside from the oil reserves and callous geopolitical strategizing, those who masterminded and directed this campaign also considered 100’s of thousands killed or maimed by chemical warfare and wanton slaughter at the hands of the Hussein regime. But moral indignation doesn’t justify brash, irresponsible retaliation that, in many ways, compounds the misery. We should have the whole goddamn world playing a part in this enterprise and ensuring that instead of strapping nails and wire to their chests, those people reap the benefits of democracy and freedom. This never was a job for such a limited military contingent, and maybe not a military contingent at all. Regardless of how positive the ultimate outcome-and I truly hope stability and democracy prevail-those who calculated this assault and reconstruction have erred on an unforgivable scale and can now only hope to save face, and a few innocent, war-torn lives.

Always good to know

So i was looking at my world map yesterday (seriously) and focused in on that ever-neglected country Burma (Myanmar). I was thinking how odd it is that a country of fairly significant size (slighly smaller than Texas) in an ever-increasingly important region in the world receives hardly any press. So i was thinking, what the hell's going on in Burma?

Well, today I found out. Apparently, the ruling military Junta packed up their supplies (and government) and headed out of the capital, Yangoon (alt. Rangoon), northward into the mountains. Somewhere about 200 miles north of Yangoon now sits the Burmese government. Just chillin'. Chillin' up in the Burmese mountains at their new pad called Pyinmanaa. This is weird, right?

But it's really not that big of a deal, though, because "foreign diplomats said they were told that if they had urgent business with the relocated government, they could send a fax but that no number was yet available." So it's not like they're completely outty-5. Offering the explanation that they needed to find a "more centrally located government seat", alternative theories seemingly now abound. At the top of the list sits speculation that top Burmese officials fear an imminent invasion by the United States, and hence, withdrew to their fortified bastion in the mountains.

Is this what will finally push the US and China over the brink and into the potentially catastrophic throes of WWIII. Burma? Myanmar? According to them, maybe. As young military recruits in Burma are instructed by their superiors, "you are the holding action against the Americans until the Chinese come to our aid".

And now I know what's going on in Burma.

Good luck, indeed

If you haven’t seen Good Night and Good Luck [produced and written by George Clooney, screenplay by Grant Heslov], go see it. Now.

For those who don’t know, the movie focuses on a narrow period in the career of pioneer broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow. Although Murrow’s legacy extends far beyond this window to include historic reporting during WWII and afterwards, this film concentrates on the battle that he and his production team at CBS waged against Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. As a junior senator from Wisconsin, McCarthy terrorized the fabric of America’s social landscape by launching spurious crusades against people he suspected to be associated with Communism, hence, the ensuing Red Scare. Largely due to the editorial pieces written and read on-camera by Murrow, McCarthy’s credit was debased and the Senate ultimately voted in 1954 that he performed "conduct that tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute".

With that history as a backdrop, Clooney drew on his first-hand experience in the newsroom (his father was news anchor) to produce an incredible film. If listening to one of Murrow’s understated responses to McCarthy’s tyrannous crusade doesn’t make your skin tingle, I really don’t know what will. This was the essence of free speech and it was using a new medium (television) as the conduit-a medium most people didn’t understand had the capability of serving such a role. This was the internet, video/satellite phone of the age and the possibilities were just surfacing.

Plus, it was cool how they used so much actual footage, but the transfers were smooth because the film wasn’t in color. You watch as David Straitham (playing Murrow) views a video screen showing an actual McCarthy clip. It’s seamless and convincing. Seriously.

But beyond the story and the acting, I loved the way the movie looked and felt. A simple elegance pervaded throughout that found its expression in unique ways. To attribute this simply to the film being black-and-white doesn’t do it any justice. Many of the scenes involved a single camera panning around a room, tracing the development of a conversation. It was cool because it was crude but it wasn’t dizzying; you felt like you were sitting in the room. Another technique I liked was how many close shots of the face they used. Black and white has this amazing capability of capturing skin creases and eye communication. And skin creases were found aplenty! I’m sure this has something to do with the fact that everyone smoked like frickin’ chimneys (Mr. Murrow, apparently, outsmoked even the most assiduously dedicated, which was evidenced best by his untimely lung cancer demise). The scene interludes used a single woman, with background instruments, crooning out different songs (depending upon the transition). Again, simple and elegant.

I loved this film for all this and more. Go see it and try to convince me that Murrow’s speech from 1958 couldn’t be more relevant on November 10, 2005. If you succeed, I’ll buy you some popcorn and rejoice that we’ve come farther than I thought.

Sports: the real barometer

Somebody explain this to me: North and South Korea have forged a pact to compete as one team in the 2006 Asian Games and the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. I mean, the Demilitarized Zone separating the two countries might constitute one of the tensest regions in the world, where the threat of war-possibly nuclear war-casts a perpetual shadow. Maybe Kim Jong Il and his totalitarian dictatorship continue to starve their own people while adhering to the faltering and ideologically driven tenets of a Marxism/Leninism run awry. But hey, let’s think about what really matters here: medal counts.

In all seriousness, I’m excited about this small, but notable development in the relations between North and South. Not only would a thaw in those tensions serve the international community as a whole, but the more attention drawn to the situation in North Korea the better. It gets us one step closer to feeding starving mouths and reuniting families that haven’t seen each other in half a century. I think this political decision, channeled through the guise of athletics, will do less to legitimize the impotent, but dangerous, rule in the North and more to draw that stagnating region back into the international community. I don’t think we need to worry about justice coming to those who begged its swift hand; that will happen when the people in the North are empowered by their own revelations. Therefore, although it struck me as incomprehensible and conciliatory at first, I now see this as a calculated (correctly calculated, in my opinion) move to achieve the ultimate goal of democratic unity.

Also, China better rethink their Table Tennis odds when they’re playing at home in 2008.

Truth be told?

In Salman Rushdie's latest work, Shalimar the Clown, Rushdie forwards a theory-that's probably already popular in some circles-regarding JFK's assassination through one of the characters in the book:

The date is 1965. The place is India. A Kashmiri beauty seduces the recently appointed US ambassador to India, Max Ophuls, with her entrancing dance at a festival honoring the diplomat's visit north. As with all Ophuls' lustful conquests, he turns to his loyal assistant, Beaver Wood, to organize an opportunity for Max and Boonyi (the dancer) to, ummmm, 'meet'. Beaver replies with an unexpected question and comment:

"Do you have a bad back?.....because too much sex and a bad back is what got the president assassinated".

Through Wood, Rushdie continues:

"The truss, sir," Wood explained. "Kennedy's back was bad to begin with, but it got so much worse because of all the screwing around that he had to wear the truss all the time. He was wearing it in Dallas and that's why he didn't fall over after the first shot hit him. he was wounded and lurched over and the truss just sat him up again, boing, and then the second bullet blew off the back of his head. You see what i'm saying, Professor, maybe if he'd had less sex, he maybe wouldn't have been wearing the truss, and then no boing, he'd just have fallen flat after being wounded; the first bullet wasn't fatal, remember, and he wouldn't have been as they say available for the second shot, and Johnson wouldn't be president. There's a moral in there somewhere, I guess, but as you don't have a bad back, Professor, it doesn't apply to you."

Did promiscuity kill Kennedy? Does anyone with a bad back understand the moral here?

Darfur, Revisited

Nicholas Kristof contributed a poignant article in Sunday’s New York Times addressing the Bush Administrations response to Darfur’s genocide. I like this article for a couple reasons. First of all, Kristof takes a bold, unequivocal stand against the Bush Administration’s insufficient response to the inhumanity still unfolding in Darfur. I think it’s important that a respected journalist writing for the most prominent publication in the nation, if not the world, voices such strong discontent obviously charged by real emotion. Erudition and academic-laced writing has it’s important place in those op-ed pages; however, it’s refreshing to hear plainspoken talk when somebody’s deservedly pissed off about something of utmost importance. I applaud Kristof for being relentless in has outspoken stand against the administration’s tepid involvement.

Also, Brian Steidle, the former Marine Captain mentioned in the article, participated in a panel discussion I attended at the end of August. Although accompanied by prestigious and war-hardened fellow panelists, Steidle’s gruesome pictures constituted the most compelling testimony offered that night. As Kristof describes Steidle’s pictures in this article, they show “men, women and children hacked to death. Other photos were too wrenching to publish: one showed a pupil at the Suleia Girls School; she appeared to have been burned alive, probably after being raped, and her charred arms were still in handcuffs.”

Regardless of the political repercussions and the delicate policy balance involved in antagonizing Sudanese officials by disseminating these photos, testimony like this should never be quelled. Instead, these heart-wrenching photos should be broadcast on all the major television stations, daily newspapers, and prominent websites throughout the world. We’ve had enough whitewashing, now it’s time to face the gruesome reality of human beings slaughtering other human beings with machetes.

What’s most dumbfounding to me is the fact that Steidle adamantly stressed that the United States government had surpassed most others in the world with their response to Darfur. Although not satisfied with the extent of US involvement, he unambiguously praised the few steps taken, especially a year ago when Bush explicitly characterized Darfur as a ‘genocide’. In return, Steidle’s been “blacklisted from all U.S. government jobs.” Something doesn’t add up.

I’m glad Kristof’s continuing to sound his note of discontent and I’m glad he’s doing it in a genuine and moving manner. (Thanks to K-Research Labs for vital input)

Darfur in DC

Here’s a summary I wrote from a Sudan program I attended last night that may, or may not, lead to something further: [New] Here's that something further...

Amid the reverent din of a standing ovation, Paul Rusesabagina-the man lionized for his heroic efforts to save over a thousand Rwandans from slaughter in the film Hotel Rwanda (2004)-took the stage last night at the National Press Club Ballroom. Within minutes, Rusesabagina's gruesome and tragic recollections from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda silenced the captivated crowd. And so began the program "Taking Action in Darfur: A Capital Alert" sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. Rusesabagina's opening comments served to draw distinct parallels between Rwanda's civil war and the tragedy currently unfolding in the Darfur region of the Sudan, both of which he has experienced first-hand.

Rusesabagina was joined by Charles Snyder, Senior Representative on the Sudan for the U.S. Department of State, and Brian Steidle, a former marine and eyewitness to the tragedy in Darfur. The panelists each offered their unique perspective concerning the crisis and responded to a slew of questions from the audience. While Snyder offered an analysis and justification for the U.S. policy in that region, Steidle's talk focused primarily on his photos of razed villages, parentless children, and mutilated bodies. Although the panelists differed somewhat in their analyses of U.S. and global intervention, they unanimously agreed that proactive engagement by more people outside the government and military is crucial for curbing the slaughter.

Luckily, the DC community hosts a number of groups undertaking this challenge. Galvanized by their shared outrage, The American Jewish Committee, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Jewish Community Relations Council, and the Greater Washington Jewish Task Force have banded together in an interfaith effort to raise awareness and offer direct support to the imperiled people of Darfur. The result: "DC (heart) Darfur"[website available 9/2: www.ajws.org/dclovesdarfur]. This campaign emphasizes that a refugee in Darfur or neighboring Chad could attain a daily food ration for 18 cents (US). In this way, the benefit of both small and large donations becomes apparent. The campaign will continue through October 13th.

Among the other DC area groups working to ensure a return to peace in the Sudan are the Salam Sudan Foundation and The Save Darfur Coalition .

Intolerance at its finest moment

Military discrimination has, to my knowledge, facilitated exactly one positive development (I'd be happy to hear if i missed anything else). Apparently, Jimi Hendrix managed to avoid a stint in Vietnam in the early sixties by pretending to be homosexual.

In regular visits to the base psychiatrist at Fort Campbell, Ky., in spring
1962, Hendrix complained that he was in love with one of his squad mates and
that he had become addicted to masturbating, Cross writes. Finally, Capt.
John Halbert recommended him for discharge, citing his "homosexual
tendencies."

This would be hilarious information to unearth about any artistic legend, but with Jimi Hendrix, it couldn't be more ridiculous. An insatiable appetite for women remains one of the cornerstones of the Hendrix legend. Or maybe he was gay and just tried really, really, really, really, really hard to compensate for what he thought was a lack of traditional masculinity. He succeeded in tricking me. Besides that, it sounds like a pretty typical rags-to-riches-to-drugs-to-deathbed rock story...which means I'd find it interesting.

See, writers can talk

Here's some thoughts Hendrik Hertzberg shared at his talk yesterday. He’s the New Yorker journalist that I mentioned earlier in the week.

• Hertzberg sees the US form of democracy (the oldest surviving democracy on the planet) as an innovative, cutting-edge design for 1789, but something that needs to evolve for the 21st century. The Constitution itself, in his opinion, lives and breathes and shouldn’t be treated as sacred scripture. Those who drafted the original would be aghast to see it treated as such. He believes a more ideal political construction would incorporate more elements of a parliamentary system. He seems to think that an executive branch dependent upon the legislative branch makes more sense than two completely independent, self-serving branches. The checks and balances would come from the voters at election time, rather than from the other branches of government. Right now, the typical voter doesn’t believe he/she holds any power to determine the political course of the country. Even if they elect a candidate, it’s not guaranteed that the candidate’s proposed programs will come to fruition (think Universal Healthcare, Clinton administration). Instead, we should vote for a candidate and give them much freer reign to implement their programs. A referendum will come 4 years later when the populace decides if they like it or not.
• Using the essence of his own language, if DC was to turn into the modern Pompeii, those excavating the entombed remains of our city would characterize this society as Ancestor Worshippers. Think bearded dudes on huge chairs and 19-foot statues surrounded by rotundas.
• Elections (which he thinks we have way too many of, and nobody can keep up with them all) should follow a new model. There can be multiple candidates from multiple parties. The bottom one or two after the first vote get knocked off. Then we vote again. Knock off a couple more. Eventually we will have an election where one candidate gets a clear majority. Obviously there’s logistics that need to be addressed, most of which he didn’t have time to explore. According to Hertzberg, this model would allow multiple parties to participate, yet those with similar philosophies won’t destroy each other(think Bush/Gore/Nader ’00). Also, the person who does finally get elected will have a better idea from where his/her support comes from and might govern accordingly (if a libertarian candidate gets ousted in the second to last vote, it will be obvious in the next round where most of those libertarians votes go. Their votes might be enough to bring a certain candidate’s total over 50%. That candidate will have to keep in mind that without the libertarian block, he/she wouldn’t be in office).
• He has serious doubts about whether Hilary can overcome the electorate’s need for a candidate with a ‘macho’ image (gotta put a smack down on that terrorism, yo!) in ’05. He also thinks the irony of her standing as a feminist icon, yet having relied so heavily on the position of her husband to attain public prominence might prove troublesome.
• He doesn’t know much about CAFTA, but he supports globalization and free-trade
• His forty year career studying and working in politics has convinced him that most politicians have good intentions. The problem lies more with the system and less with the people.
• He thinks Jimmy Carter’s political benevolence surpassed that of other politicians by 10%, but his political adeptness lagged by 10%. He has Pres. Carter’s email address. He doesn’t use it very often. When he does, Carter responds within minutes.

So that’s a whole bunch of regurgitation and not much analysis. I’d be happy to share my opinions on his opinions anytime, but I gotta catch a really cheap bus to New York.

Also, I saw the Thievery Corporation last night. Quickly: their most recent album includes guest vocals on a number of the tracks, many of whom are too busyto tour with TC. Beyond that loss, the lead vocalist for their best-known hit "Lebanese Blonde" committed suicide. Finally, their music is diffucult in many ways to translate to a live-show, stage forum. Even dealing with all these impediments, I think they managed to pull off an overall spectacular show. But now i really have to go, so I’m going to trust that my buddy Jake and I had similar thoughts and let his review in DCist do the job.

The thin, oxygen-deprived air in mountainous Kenya has required that lungs adjust to cope with this deficiency. As a result, Kenyans can process sparse amounts of oxygen into energy at an abnormally high rate. This means that when you and i are busy writing our wills in a 10K, they're collecting trophies. NPR ran an interesting story this morning describing how many of those prominent distance runners in Kenya are defecting to other countries in pursuit of lucrative training stipends. When i say 'lucrative', of course, i mean they make enough money to live (one representative runner has been offered $1000/month for the remainder of his life from Qatar, compared to the $1000 that many runners subsist on over an entire year in Kenya). Although the United States, Denmark, Finland and other wealthy, western countries have certainly gathered their share of these incredible athletes, a sizeable majority have jumped across the Red Sea to oil wealthy Gulf states such as Qatar and Bahrain. I'm guessing both money and locality contribute here.

The influx of international athletes into the US and other countries is nothing new. The NBA alone has a slew of players from other countries: Manu Ginobli (Argentina), Yao Ming (China), and let us not forget Manute Bol (Sudan...who apparently tried to start a DC area night club with some of his funds and failed miserably...and also only weighed 185 lbs upon entering the NBA...the guy was 7'7 for the love of god!). [Bonus: here's a list of international athletes taken in the 2005 NBA draft.] The difference with Kenya's defecting runners is that most of the athletes must change their citizenship in order to collect funds from their adopted nations. What does this mean for the Olympics? Does it mean that countries can essentially 'buy' teams?

We're heading towards a day when races essentially disappear as international travel and opened-mindedness (hopefully) accelerate and augment miscegenation throughout the world. Given long enough, the underlying racial component inherent in the Olympics will largely become a thing of the past. If one race or group of people has a genetic predisposition to excel at a particular sport, their seeds will someday spread across the globe. Therefore, although i don't like the idea of poor countries losing their most valuable assets, I think this is just the beginning of a much larger movement that, mostly, bears great promise for equal opportunity and remuneration.

this comes from someone whose idealistic bent sees more trouble than triumph in nationalism and, governance issues aside, would like to see an eraser wipe away those arbitrary divisions on geo-political maps. Imagine (sorry, had to). Every fourth August I spend hours staring at a television trying to keep up on all the juicy competitions (minus baseball and softball in London). The Olympics are incredible and i can't wait for Turin and Beijing, but I can't help but think that the nation-oriented structure of the games will need revision at some point in the future. At the very least, i think we'll have to focus less on the country and more on the individuals themselves in order to really understand how the best became the best. Athletes should have free-reign, just as any other human being, to improve their lives by defecting to another country. whether or not they support the development of their homeland afterwards, where their families and history remain, is another question they'll have to face themselves. I can only hope they'd answer in a certain way.

Something good

After the brutal yet ,sadly, unsurprising attacks in London yesterday, it's a natural next step to search for uplifting signs. The tired black-and-white Bushian rhetoric, even Tony Blair's eloquent and oft impassioned messages, didn't do much to offer inspiration. Instead, I found the stories from the ground to be most moving. USA Today ran this article detailing how droves of bloggers recounted their personal experiences and used the blog as a vehicle to relay their status to friends and family. Again, i find myself exhilerated to see how so many different people have both access and motivation to voice their stories. I think this is just on more telling example of how powerful this medium, and others like it, can be.

On another note, a sense of anxiety hung over much of New Orleans today. They just released the public announcement at 4 pm today that the city will not be evacuated yet. if the storm takes a last minute western veer, we might be hangin' out in cajun' country another day or two. Luckily happy hour has arrived the quelm those fears and propel sensible people to nonsensical calm. Judging by the latest forecast, NO rests well to the west of the eye and should only experience peripheral effects. I talked to a few people at our meeting today who live on the islands along the Florida and Alabama gulf coast. They're still struggling to piece their lives together from Ivan last year and now look down the throat of another major hurricane that threatens to annhialate their communities once again. i feel bad for these people and really hope the trip over the Gulf doesn't allow enough time for the storm to maintain high 4 or even category 5 potential.

I'm off to be nonsensical in that work-related-dinner-yet-still-hanging-out-in-new-orleans type way.