waxpolitical

The Headline Says It All

2007-10-24T12:30:00.000-07:00

From the BBC:

Alleged Maori plot against whites

Maori activist Tame Iti remains behind bars after the police raids
Prosecutors in New Zealand have accused a group of Maori activists arrested on Monday of planning a violent campaign against the country's white majority.

...

Police arrested 17 people on Monday, during anti-terror raids targeting Maori and environmental activists.

Whoa...serious business. Environmentalists are getting caught up too! So why exactly are the Maori (or at least, a fringe group of Maori) waging war on the white man?

Police Association president Greg O'Connor said the operation was a "reality check" for New Zealanders who dismissed the threat of home-grown terrorism.

"This operation has been triggered by credible intelligence of a serious threat to New Zealand's safety and security, and the Police Association fully supports the actions taken by police yesterday," he said.

"We need to realise there are fringe elements in our society, as in all others, that draw inspiration and encouragement from extremist activities overseas that most of us would find horrifying," he added.

No mention of why the Maori in New Zealand might be motivated to take such actions...hmm....

{Note: No, I am not condoning terrorism in any form. Protest is cool, but not when you start endangering others. But I find it a bit strange to discuss a plot against White New Zealanders and then reveal no motive...}

Who Killed the Radio Star?

2007-10-24T12:20:00.000-07:00

The RIAA was the first and the Copyright Board is getting in on the action.

One would think that will all the problems arising from the decline in CD sales, all parties in the music industry would be willing to embrace new technology and work with consumers to find solutions, right? Wrong!

From today's Washington Post:

Web Radio Seeks Resolution
Senate Hearing to Take Up Royalty Fees for Online Stations

By Catherine Rampell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 24, 2007; Page D02

Internet radio webcasters are hoping a Senate hearing today will renew legislators' interest in their negotiations with the recording industry over royalty fees.

The hearing, held by the Senate Commerce Committee, will focus on the future of radio, the number of women and minorities who own radio stations, expansion and protection of community radio, and other aspects of a medium that is rapidly changing through technological advances and the recording industry's crumbling business model. The most contentious of these issues, though, involves what online radio stations will pay in order to sustain both innovations in radio and the artists whose music they feature.

Webcasters have argued that a royalty fee schedule set by the Copyright Royalty Board last spring would put online radio stations, and the independent musicians whose work they often play, out of business. This spring, legislators from the House and Senate proposed legislation to set Internet radio royalty rates at the lower levels used for satellite radio and jukeboxes, but then asked webcasters and copyright holders to try to negotiate a compromise.

Webcasters have been negotiating since July with SoundExchange, the organization that collects royalties on behalf of music copyright owners, over a new fee schedule. Webcasters say they are growing impatient with delays in the discussions.

"We made a royalty rate proposal on Aug. 23, and we have not heard a reply back," said Jonathan Potter, executive director of the Digital Media Association, which is negotiating on behalf of a group of 27 large Internet radio providers. "With this hearing we're now working to gather support for the Internet Radio Equality Act." The House version of the bill has 143 sponsors; its Senate counterpart has five.

SoundExchange said that discussions are continuing and that the organization has been meeting with individual webcasters to better understand their finances.

"We're moving as fast as we can considering there are so many parties involved," said Richard Ades, a spokesman for SoundExchange.

SoundExchange has already proposed a fee schedule that is lower than the Copyright Royalty Board's rates for commercial webcasters whose annual revenue is less than $1.25 million, and Ades said about 30 companies have accepted it. SoundExchange and the Digital Media Association also agreed in August to cap the total amount of per-channel fees that a Web service would have to pay, an issue that was of particular concern for webcasters such as Pandora that have millions of channels set up by individual users.

Still, webcasters say that even if there are favorable results to the negotiations, they are hoping for long-term legislation that will force all radio platforms -- including traditional AM/FM radio, which does not currently pay any royalties to SoundExchange -- to pay the same rates.

"We are in a strange situation of offering services that compete directly with terrestrial and satellite radio but have a different rate structure," said Tim Westergren, chief strategy officer and founder of Pandora. "There needs to be parity if we are going to survive."

Can we be honest for a second? My generation has gotten accustomed to hearing music for free. Through radio, through music videos, online, illegally downloaded, borrowed - we are accustomed to it. Sure, we might pay a token rate to listen. I'm happy to shell out a few dollars on Itunes, or pay less than $5.00 a month for services. But all these schemes to monetize online music and make crazy money are just going to end up biting the music industry in the ass.

Just my two cents.

Californians Taken Care of During Time of Crisis; Evokes Bitter Memories of Katrina

2007-10-24T12:13:00.000-07:00

dnA has it so right.

From the Washington Post article (title linked):

In Washington, President Bush said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had assured him that he was receiving the help he requested from federal agencies.

"I assured him that if he needs anything and we're able to provide it, we'll do so," Bush told reporters. He called the relief effort "well coordinated."

Too bad Hurricane Katrina was the testing ground. Oh, and what does the article say about Katrina?

Bush, who was sharply criticized for his sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, will visit the region on Thursday

Just...why?

2007-10-24T12:11:00.000-07:00

If I lived in the Philly, I would be pissed at Yahoo and Travel & Leisure:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Philadelphia is home to the least attractive people in the United States, a survey of visitors and residents showed on Friday.

The city of more than 1.5 million people was also found to be among the least stylish, least active, least friendly and least worldly, according to the "America's Favorite Cities" survey by Travel & Leisure magazine and CNN Headline News.

About 60,000 people responded to the online survey -- at www.travelandleisure.com -- which ranked 25 cities in categories including shopping, food, culture, and cityscape, said Amy Farley, senior editor at the magazine.

For unattractiveness, Philadelphia just beat out Washington DC and Dallas/Fort Worth for the bottom spot. Miami and San Diego are home to the most attractive people, the poll found.

Just beat out DC? Blow me! DC is not ugly!

But Farley pointed out the results don't mean people in Philadelphia are ugly or the city is a bad place to visit.

"We were asking people to vote on attractiveness, not unattractiveness. Travel & Leisure editors believe there are a lot of attractive people in Philadelphia," she said.

"The relative attractiveness of its residents is only a minuscule factor in evaluating a city's merit."

Philadelphians' self-esteem has been undermined by national surveys showing they are among the fattest people in the United States. The American Obesity Association ranked the city in the top 10 for overweight people every year between 2000 and 2005.

And sporting pride in a city known for the fierce loyalty of its fans has been hurt by not having had a national champion in any of its four main sports since the 76ers won the National Basketball Association title in 1983.

Hugo Chavez and Venezuela

2007-10-24T12:02:00.000-07:00

Is Hugo Chavez turning into a dictator?

The current issue of Adbusters seems to think so. While I am not well versed enough in Latin American politics to comment, but I have been checking out the headlines to check out what is happening in Venezula.

I came across this piece in the BBC news feed (title linked) that seems to confirm some of the dictator worries:

Venezuela's parliament, dominated by supporters of President Hugo Chavez, has begun its final debate on proposed changes to the constitution.
The changes would remove term limits for the presidency, and extend the term of office from six years to seven.

Mr Chavez on Tuesday added 25 amendments to a previous 33 passed by Congress, including proposals to detain citizens without charge in emergencies.

If passed, all the measures will be put to a popular referendum in December.

If Venezulean voting is free and democratic, then extending the term of the presidency should not be a problem. (Then again, does any country currently have free and democratic voting? I know the USA lost that title a while ago...)

The article continues:

There are no opposition politicians in the Venezuelan National Assembly, since most of the anti-Chavez parties boycotted the last election in 2005.

However, several members of parliament have questioned the way these late changes have been introduced, calling it constitutional fraud.

And what does Chavez want? According to the article:

Among the other changes to the constitution proposed by Mr Chavez are:

*Bringing in a maximum six-hour working day

*Cutting the voting age from 18 to 16

*Increasing presidential control over the central bank

*Strengthening state economic powers, allowing the government to control assets of private companies before a court grants an expropriation order.

New News on Obesity

2007-10-24T11:47:00.000-07:00

The UK has decided that "Obesity 'not individuals' fault.'"

Or at least so says the BBC, in the title linked article. The article goes on to explain:

Individuals can no longer be held responsible for obesity and government must act to stop Britain "sleepwalking" into a crisis, a report has concluded.
The largest ever UK study into obesity, backed by government and compiled by 250 experts, said excess weight was now the norm in our "obesogenic" society.

Dramatic and comprehensive action was required to stop the majority of us becoming obese by 2050, they said.

[Side note: Umm...isn't there the chance these standards are slightly off? I read recently that the WHO lowered the threshholds for overweight and obese in the USA after comparing our standards to that of other countries. But how do we start comparing Americans to other countries? I was reading a manga recently in which one of the title characters was an abnormally tall girl. Her height? 5"7.]

Obesity, the authors concluded, was an inevitable consequence of a society in which energy-dense and cheap foods, labour-saving devices, motorised transport and sedentary work were rife.

If Bloggers Don't Mean Anything to the News...

2007-10-24T11:32:00.000-07:00

...then why are we being censored?

Quite a bit of the mainstream media likes to turn their noses up at the blogosphere, even as more and more mainstream figures launch their own blogs, or begin blogging for profit. Go figure.

The title linked article from the BBC is actually a special report, detailing the crackdown on blogging across the globe:

Bloggers are now finding themselves prey to censorship from repressive governments as much as journalists in traditional media, a report says.

Reporters Without Borders' annual study of press freedom says China is one of the worst offenders, having imprisoned 50 people for postings on the internet.

I surfed over to the Reporters Without Borders site to see where America ranks.

48 United States of America

WTF? I didn't think it was that bad...

The report goes on to say:

There were slightly fewer press freedom violations in the United States (48th) and blogger Josh Wolf was freed after 224 days in prison. But the detention of Al-Jazeera’s Sudanese cameraman, Sami Al-Haj, since 13 June 2002 at the military base of Guantanamo and the murder of Chauncey Bailey in Oakland in August mean the United States is still unable to join the lead group.

*sigh* Fucking...well, there are a few people I could curse, but I'd rather not end up in jail unless it is worth it, so...

Blogging is serious business. Let's keep an eye out to make sure our rights aren't being compromised...

So, the unanswered question is...

2007-10-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

What is going on with white kids?

Why are they so quick to shoot up a school?

MTV News has a headline that makes the sad irony of this situation screamingly obvious:

Cleveland School Shooter Fit Sadly Predictable Profile: Bullied Loner From Troubled Home

The obvious warning signs were all there: a troubled, violent young man who had been teased by peers and vowed revenge, who fit the stereotypical image of a "goth" loner and who warned some peers that he would shoot up his school.

Asa Coon, 14, the young man who went on a shooting spree at Cleveland's SuccessTech Academy on Wednesday morning fit the profile we've come to know from previous deadly school shootings. Schoolmates told CNN that after Coon was beaten up on Monday for saying "F--- God" during an argument with another student, he threatened, "I got something for y'all" (see "14-Year-Old Gunman Shoots Four, Commits Suicide At Cleveland High School").

Check out all the warning signs leading up to this:

While officials have not said definitively what might have set Asa Coon off, neighbors told CNN that the young man had been constantly teased and may have snapped because of the bullying. "Shut up, shut up! I hate this school!" Coon said as he began firing, according to an account given to The New York Times by a SuccessTech sophomore who was in a fourth-floor classroom during the spree. The 5-foot-5-inch teen was described in 911 calls as a "kind of chubby" goth who wore long black trench coats and black fingernail polish and was often mocked by his peers for his style of dress, prompting him to brag frequently about his plans to target those who teased him. As a white teen who dressed in black clothing, a dog collar and chains at a predominantly black school, Coon stood out among his peers, according to reports.

According to the Times, court records show that Coon's mother called police after he slapped her and swore at her when she tried to break up a fight between him and his twin sister in February 2006. A juvenile-court magistrate said Coon was ordered to anger-management sessions and he continued to be abusive toward his mother, at one point ramming his body into his mother's head during a meeting with his probation officer.

Records also show that he was rushed to the hospital a month later following a suicide attempt at a mental health facility he'd been sent to after he was charged with domestic violence in the altercation with his mom. He was suspended for 10 days in April 2006 for trying to injure another student and Cleveland CBS affiliate WOIO TV also reported that court records show that Coon exhibited bipolar tendencies and that he refused to take medication for his condition.

So, let's see...

We have bullying.

We have depression.

We have suicidal behavior. (And if you don't care abput your own life, how can you care for the life of others?)

Prior instances of violence.

Possible mental health problems.

Unstable family environment.

It appears that no one is wondering what would motivate this kid to shoot up his school. Apparently, all the signs are there.

What saddens me is I feel this epidemic will still get worse. With social services and arts programs being cut from budgets, and the increased pressure to achieve at all costs, I really feel for the kids coming up in this era.

George Bush Doesn't Care about the Children

2007-09-28T03:38:00.000-07:00

Browsing through my BBC newsfeed this morning, I came across the following item:

Child health bill faces Bush veto

The US Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bill to expand a children's health care insurance scheme, setting up a policy showdown with President Bush.

Mr Bush has threatened to veto the bill which he argues takes the programme beyond its original purpose of insuring children from low-income families.

The legislation would raise tobacco taxes to provide an extra $35bn (£17bn) to insure some 10 million children.

I am a non smoker, so the tax would not affect me, but I think it's a good idea. Maybe even expand it a little and start taxing soda sales. I'll pay $1.59 for a coke if that means children get health insurance.

Unfortunately, the bill is not a done deal:

The SCHIP was set up to help working families who could not afford private health insurance but who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid - the government health care programme for the poor.

Opponents of the legislation said the increase in funding was too large and expanded government-subsidised health care.

They also accused the legislation's backers of attempting to win political points ahead of 2008's presidential and congressional elections.

"Democrats are counting down the hours so they can tee up the election ads saying Republicans don't like kids," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

"Meanwhile, they're using SCHIP as a Trojan horse to sneak government-run health care into the states," the Associated Press quoted him as saying.

Sponsors of the legislation rejected criticism that it would expand coverage to families of four earning up to $83,000.

The criticisms don't hold water in my book. Looking at the figure quoted, it seems very very high - how could someone who makes $83,000 a year not be able to afford health insurance?

Unfortunately, quite easily. Assuming you live in a major metropolitan area, salaries are high - but so is the cost of living. So that $83,000 for a family of four does not explain the realities of what it costs to feed and clothe a family - particularly if you are one of the millions of independent contractors who has to pay for insurance out of their own pocket.

So, if your 80K is tagged for rent (40%) and taxes (25%), you are really only working with $28,000 a year. Now account for food, clothing, and transportation across 4 people, with $28,000. See? The situation starts to look bleak.

And with independent health care options for a family of four STARTING at around $350 a month (esurance has some current quotes) it is no wonder why people banking $80K might struggle trying to afford the crippling cost of insurance.

I am surprised at the short memory of President Bush. At the beginning of this year, the DC area was shocked at the revelation that a child had died for the lack of proper dental care. The child had an abscess in his tooth which allowed bacteria to seep into his brain. Due to limited finances, his mother had to choose which child could receive emergency dental care - his brother was deemed a higher risk.

Fund the damn bill.

Why Food Politics is an activist issue

2007-09-13T15:07:00.000-07:00

Sorry for all the gaps between posts - it's been a weird summer. Things should straighten out by October.

In the meantime, the Louisiana Weekly has an interesting article on the Farm Bill and Urban Food Policy. (See the title link for the full article.)

The article states:

The nation's capital leads the nation in childhood obesity, according to a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services survey. This fact comes as no surprise to the National Urban League. We studied D.C.'s 8th Ward, where more than one-third of residents live in poverty and more than one-third of its children are obese.

The neighborhood is a classic food desert. Saturated with fast food outlets, it doesn't offer a single full-size chain supermarket, and the three small grocery stores that do business there offer outdated meat and tired-looking produce. Fast food and convenience stores make up 81 percent of food resources. The Food Research and Action Center, a D.C.-based nonprofit working to eradicate hunger in the United States, has even given the neighborhood a grade of "D" for community food security.

This is something I've witnessed first hand. In many parts of DC, there is no major grocery store for 20 mins in any direction. It might sound like a minor inconvenience to suburabanites, but that time and distance really add up - especially if you need to haul groceries on the metro, or ride a crowded city bus with bags at your feet.

The article continues:

As 8th Ward residents struggled to find a decent apple or a non-wilted bunch of collard greens, only one mile away the U.S. House of Representatives was writing its 2007 Farm Bill, the nation's most vital piece of food legislation. Calls for reform in farm-support programs and significant increases in nutrition and conservation spending made little progress. While the House included new programs and increased spending for existing ones, their size and scale simply do not measure up to the scope of the problem.

Over 300 doctors and other health professionals asked Congress to write a farm bill that will improve access to healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, and help to build the infrastructure to get healthy foods to low-income communities.

This is sorely needed as most affluent US kids do not get the nurtition they deserve. What about the kids with no access to health care, dental care, or basic green leafy foods?

With 35 million Americans classified by the USDA as food insecure, the House passed a bill that made only marginal improvements to the Food Stamp Program, the nation's most important defense against hunger. It increased the minimum monthly allotment from $10 per person-where it has been now for over 30 years-to a stingy $18.

That's just pitiful. Think about how much it costs to eat each day. I can blow through $10 at the local deli, on a breakfast sandwich and juice. And someone is trying to survive on that?

Since 1985 the actual price of fruits and vegetables has risen 40 percent, while the price of sugar and fats has fallen as much as 14 percent. These disparities in the cost of healthy and unhealthy food reflect U.S. farm policies that give nearly nothing to fruit and vegetable producers but pass along the lion's share of public support to commodity crop farmers.

Let there be no mistake about it-urban America wants farmers to succeed. We have watched with delight as 4,500 farmers markets have blossomed nationwide. As those farmers have brought their abundance to urban consumers, we have brought our demand for healthy locally grown food. The synergy between city and country has never been so robust and the market opportunities so immense. That is why our farm policies must do more to strengthen the viability of local and regional farming to help meet the surging demand.

Underserved communities cannot be denied access to the same healthy and affordable food that is available to more affluent Americans. With good food and farm policies, we can realistically expect that our future generations will be free of the dietary challenges that now confront them.

Agreed.

DC and the Continuing Dance of Gentrification

2007-09-03T20:06:00.000-07:00

Browsing the blogs, I stumbled across this piece in USA Today:

Much has changed since Ben's Chili Bowl opened nearly 50 years ago on a bustling strip known as America's Black Broadway for its thriving black-owned shops and theaters.

Back then, the red-and-white diner was a popular hangout for black bankers, doctors and blue-collar workers who lived and worked along U Street. Even jazz greats Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald could be found devouring chili half-smokes and milkshakes after performing at nearby clubs.

Now, on some days, the crowd at the Washington landmark is mostly white, reflecting a neighborhood metamorphosis that has brought in high-end condominiums and businesses like Starbucks.

"Sometimes you look around and wonder, 'Where are all the black people?"' said Virginia Ali, who opened the diner with her husband, Ben, in 1958.

Stephen Colbert had once joked "DC is the chocolate city with the marshmallow center." Unfortunately, it is becoming a situation where the marshmallow center is slowly overtaking the whole city.

Now, taken individually, I do not have a problem with more white people moving to the city.

I have no problem with the city undergoing some much needed structural improvements.

And I see no issue with revitalizing neighborhoods.

However, this quote illustrates my reservations:

Change also is happening near the new convention center on the edge of downtown, where Shirley Williams is trying to hold on to the apartment she has lived in for 33 years. Her landlord recently agreed to sell to a developer who plans to tear it down.

"I've been here through all the rough times and now that it's getting better they want me to leave," the retired school teacher's assistant said. "I don't think that's right."

Why do these changes have to come at such a steep cost to historical residents?

Why am I priced out of my own city?

The CIA Presents...A Space!

2007-08-21T18:51:00.000-07:00

You can't make this shit up.

From the mouths of the BBC:

The CIA is to open a communications tool for its staff, modeled on social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, the Financial Times reports.

The project, known as A-Space, aims to improve the way that intelligence agents communicate, it said.

Officials believe that the online workplace will allow staff to better analyze information together.

However to ease fears of undercover workers having their cover blown, participation will be voluntary.

...

So, the fate of the free world may be in the hands of a modified social networking site? Have they seen MySpace lately? Are they going to start a Facebook group like "terrorist-hataz 202?"

We are so screwed...

Death Knells on the Way for Cheap Fashion?

2007-08-10T13:00:00.000-07:00

Robin Givhan, fashion writer for the Washington Post, covers an interesting turn of events in fashion - the formulation of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.

Givhan reports:

The end may be near for easy access to cheap, unauthorized knockoffs of designer clothes. Capitol Hill has taken up the cause of fashion.

New York Democrats Sen. Charles Schumer -- in a dark suit, red tie and pale blue shirt -- and Rep. Jerrold Nadler -- in a dark suit, red tie and white shirt -- took the stage Wednesday at the Fashion Institute of Technology, along with designers Narciso Rodriguez, Nicole Miller, Richard Lambertson and others, to champion the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.

[...]

For designers, knockoffs have always been an aggravation. They cut into sales, tarnish a brand's luster and knock the wind out of young designers trying to establish their identity in the marketplace.

But seeking out a bargain basement version of a designer frock has always been considered a frugal shopper's right. Perusing the wares of street vendors for a fake Marc Jacobs or Kate Spade bag is part of the tourist experience in New York. And scouring department stores for the prom version of a one-of-a-kind Oscar gown has become a seasonal tradition.

Back in the days when the world moved at a slower pace, the impact of knockoffs was more modest. There was more lag time before high-end designs trickled down to the world of copies, homages and send-ups. By the time they did, designers had reaped whatever profits they could from their original work and had moved on to the next trend. Hoi polloi were welcome to the season-old designs. Besides, the masses were never going to spend a thousand dollars on a designer day dress or a handbag.

Now, the Internet gives knockoff artists nearly instant access to designers' most recent work -- long before it ever reaches stores. Super-fast and cheap manufacturing in places such as China make design piracy especially efficient and lucrative. And now that designers themselves are launching their own less expensive lines and licensing their names to mass merchants, their customers are no longer limited to those with vast sums of disposable income. They are looking to appeal to everyone: Bergdorf customers to Kohl's shoppers. Imitation is no longer flattering; it's a direct assault on a designer's bottom line.

Hmm...I'm kind of torn on this issue.

On one hand, I understand and sympathize with designers. I mean, after creating a wonderful design rife with personal touches, it would be gut-wrenching to walk into a knockoff imporium and see my dress hanging there. And some things are blatant copyright infrigement.

However, as a budget concious shopper, I am a bit worried about the implications of this band. I rely on stores like H & M and Forever 21 to give me fashionable wardrobe updates for under $100 - if they are forced out of business by a wave of lawsuits (like the ones currently leveled at Forever 21) what would be their replacement?

While Target has the right idea about designer tie ins (getting expensive designers to do a low end line for their stores), I feel like someone has to draw a line about claiming artistic rights - after all, a sheath dress is a sheath dress...so I worry about classic designs being staked out as a "classic design."

I know I am not trying to live in a world devoid of cheap hobo bags!

Is Cultural Assimilation Even Possible?

2007-08-07T08:10:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post provided an article on Bush's new immigration task force:

Ruiz's idea lies at the heart of a question that has recently entered the national immigration debate, one some researchers say is important as new trends challenge old integration patterns: Should the government encourage assimilation?

The Bush administration is taking steps to do that. The Task Force on New Americans, created by executive order last year, recently presented initiatives that supporters say will help immigrants "become fully American."

Among the government initiatives is a Web site to direct immigrants to information on benefits, English classes and volunteer work. Another site offers resources for English and citizenship-test teachers. More than 12,000 copies of a tool kit containing civics flashcards and a welcome guide in English and Spanish have been distributed to libraries. This fall, the government has scheduled eight regional training conferences for civics and citizenship instructors. The task force is to deliver more recommendations to President Bush after convening discussions on assimilation with immigrant advocates, teachers and local officials around the nation.

The push to assimilate is interesting, particularly immigrant perspectives on what it means to be an American.

However, I am beginning to wonder how exactly one defines "American." I think it extends far beyond the simplified definition often given - an English speaking patriot.

With our collection of cultural habits and quirks, what does it mean to be uniquely American?

Why I Want to Be a Librarian

2007-07-11T08:24:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has an article titled "A Hipper Crowd of Shushers" (see title link) that discusses the new librarian.

Personally, the coolest people I know are librarians, so as far as I am concerned the NYT is late.

The article mentions:

Librarians? Aren’t they supposed to be bespectacled women with a love of classic books and a perpetual annoyance with talkative patrons — the ultimate humorless shushers?

Not any more. With so much of the job involving technology and with a focus now on finding and sharing information beyond just what is available in books, a new type of librarian is emerging — the kind that, according to the Web site Librarian Avengers, is “looking to put the ‘hep cat’ in cataloguing.”

When the cult film “Party Girl” appeared in 1995, with Parker Posey as a night life impresario who finds happiness in the stacks, the idea that a librarian could be cool was a joke.

Now, there is a public librarian who writes dispatches for McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, a favored magazine of the young literati. “Unshelved,” a comic about librarians — yes, there is a comic about librarians — features a hipster librarian character. And, in real life, there are an increasing number of librarians who are notable not just for their pink-streaked hair but also for their passion for pop culture, activism and technology.

...

How did such a nerdy profession become cool — aside from the fact that a certain amount of nerdiness is now cool? Many young librarians and library professors said that the work is no longer just about books but also about organizing and connecting people with information, including music and movies.

And though many librarians say that they, like nurses or priests, are called to the profession, they also say the job is stable, intellectually stimulating and can have reasonable hours — perfect for creative types who want to pursue their passions outside of work and don’t want to finance their pursuits by waiting tables. (The median salary for librarians was about $51,000 in 2006, according to the American Library Association-Allied Professional Organization.)

“I wanted to do something different, something maybe more meaningful,” said Carrie Klein, 36, who used to be a publicist for a record label and for bands such as Radiohead and the Foo Fighters, but is now starting a new job in the library at Entertainment Weekly.

Michelle Campbell, 26, a librarian in Washington, said that librarianship is a haven for left-wing social engagement, which is particularly appealing to the young librarians she knows. “Especially those of us who graduated around the same time as the Patriot Act,” Ms. Campbell said. “We see what happens when information is restricted.”

Ms. Campbell added that she became a librarian because it “combined a geeky intellectualism” with information technology skills and social activism.

One of the things the article neglected to mention was all the cool OLD librarians there are. Outside of the library, I thought seniors were too busy drooling into their oatmeal to do anything.

I get to the library and seniors are rolling to "hotlanta," discussing the new Kama Sutra spin offs, hangliding, and deciding between Bali and Indonesia as vacation spots.

Since I want to be a cool old person, I have to stay in the library system.

What can I say? It's my destiny.

People Still Ignorant about HIV/AIDS

2007-07-05T07:54:00.000-07:00

The BBC News posted an article (see title link) publishing the findings of an independent charity dedicated to HIV/AIDS awareness:

There is still widespread ignorance about HIV, particularly among young people, research has suggested.
A survey by the HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust found more than 20% of people aged 18 to 24 mistakenly thought there was a cure for HIV.

Among the same age group almost a quarter believed condoms have holes in them which let HIV through.

And more than one in ten young people thought the virus could be passed through kissing.

This is only a theoretical risk, and possible only if both parties have open sores, cuts or bleeding gums which bleed into each other. There has only been one suspected case of HIV being passed on in this way.

The poll of 1,000 adults was carried out to mark 25 years since the death of Terry Higgins, whose battle with Aids inspired friends and colleagues to set up the charity.

I am assuming this is a British organization, and they polled youth in England.

I wonder how this story would turn out in America.

Playing Catch Up - Mega Post!

2007-06-30T19:00:00.000-07:00

I meant to blog, but it just isn't happening...

Here are some of the links I've found interesting in the past few weeks:

CIA to Reveal Decades of Misdeeds [Source: BBC World News]

The BBC writes:

The US Central Intelligence Agency is to declassify hundreds of documents detailing some of the agency's worst illegal abuses from the 1950s to 1970s.

The papers, to be released next week, will detail assassination plots, domestic spying and wiretapping, kidnapping and human experiments.

Many of the incidents are already known, but the documents are expected to give more comprehensive accounts.

To savvy readers, this should be nothing new. I am waiting for this to be made available through FOIA. Check out what will be included:

Among the incidents that were said to "present legal questions" were:

* the confinement of a Soviet defector in the mid-1960s
* assassination plots of foreign leaders, including Cuba's Fidel Castro
* wiretapping and surveillance of journalists
* behaviour modification experiments on "unwitting" US citizens
* surveillance of dissident groups between 1967 and 1971
* opening from 1953 to 1973 of letters to and from the Soviet Union; from 1969 to 1972 of mail to and from China

So there we have it - the government admits wrongdoing. What never ceases to amaze me is exactly how many Americans still refuse to believe documented truth.

***********

Australian Pub Bars Heterosexuals [Source: BBC World News]

A gay pub in the city of Melbourne has won the right to ban heterosexuals - the first time such a decision has been made in Australia.

[...]

The pub's management said the move would stop groups of heterosexual men and women abusing gay people.

Civil liberties groups have supported the decision.

Now, this seems like a very strange approach for a club to take. Banning heterosexuals outright? How do you propose to identify a hetero? Do we walk around with ID cards? Does this mean I can't party with my gay friends down under?

However, the reason for this ruling becomes glaringly apparent a little further down in the article:

The tribunal's president said groups of straight women found homosexual men entertaining but that such attention was dehumanising, the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says.

Managers complained raucous hen nights and stag parties created a poisonous atmosphere for its gay clientele, our correspondent says.

"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance," the hotel's manager, Tom McFeely, told Australian radio, according to the Reuters news agency.

He said while Melbourne had 2,000 venues catering for heterosexuals, his was the only bar aimed exclusively at gay men.

Only one gay bar in all of Melbourne? Daaaamn. There is more to gay life than clubbing, but it must be rough to be same gender loving in Australia.

***************
Message In a Bottle [Source: Fast Company]

This article should be subtitled "the dark side of bottled water" because it completely changed how I think about the water I drink. Ironically, as I was reading this article about the costs of bottled water I happened to look at my desk. No less than three different brands of bottled water [Aqua Panna, Eternal, Whole Foods] were sitting on my desk.

Some highlights from the article:

Bottled water has become the indispensable prop in our lives and our culture. It starts the day in lunch boxes; it goes to every meeting, lecture hall, and soccer match; it's in our cubicles at work; in the cup holder of the treadmill at the gym; and it's rattling around half-finished on the floor of every minivan in America. Fiji Water shows up on the ABC show Brothers & Sisters; Poland Spring cameos routinely on NBC's The Office. Every hotel room offers bottled water for sale, alongside the increasingly ignored ice bucket and drinking glasses. At Whole Foods (NASDAQ:WFMI), the upscale emporium of the organic and exotic, bottled water is the number-one item by units sold.

Thirty years ago, bottled water barely existed as a business in the United States. Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets--$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year.

[...]

Bottled water is often simply an indulgence, and despite the stories we tell ourselves, it is not a benign indulgence. We're moving 1 billion bottles of water around a week in ships, trains, and trucks in the United States alone. That's a weekly convoy equivalent to 37,800 18-wheelers delivering water. (Water weighs 81/3 pounds a gallon. It's so heavy you can't fill an 18-wheeler with bottled water--you have to leave empty space.)

Meanwhile, one out of six people in the world has no dependable, safe drinking water. The global economy has contrived to deny the most fundamental element of life to 1 billion people, while delivering to us an array of water "varieties" from around the globe, not one of which we actually need. That tension is only complicated by the fact that if we suddenly decided not to purchase the lake of Poland Spring water in Hollis, Maine, none of that water would find its way to people who really are thirsty.

Read the whole article - it is completely worth it.

As for me, I don't think I'll stop buying bottled water, but I will cut down on my intake. (I agree that most places in the US have clean water...so why do I work in an old government building that has "DO NOT DRINK" signs above all facets, spigots, and out of commission water fountains? Weird...)

Zimbabwe on the Verge Of Collapse

2007-06-22T04:38:00.000-07:00

This morning, I received another BBC newsupdate that the economic situation in Zimbabwe is dire (clickk the title link for the full text of the article).

According to the article:

Speaking to a UK newspaper, Christopher Dell predicted that inflation will leap to 1.5m% by the end of the year.

He said political discontent at Mr Mugabe's "disastrous economic policies" meant Zimbabwe was "committing regime change upon itself".

Zimbabwe has 80% unemployment and independent economists say inflation is running at 11,000% per year.

On Thursday, the value of the Zimbabwean dollar plummeted with black market exchange rates reaching 300,000 Zimbabwean dollars to one US dollar. The official rate is 15,000 to one.

I am personally wondering how the hell did this happen? I am a huge slacker when it comes to paying attention in my math and economics courses, but I need to go research this.

I - and I would presume most other Americans - happen to be woefully ignorant about the rise and fall of nations, and how actions like these impact the overall economic outlook of entire continents.

When I learn more, I'll post here. In the meantime, keep watching out for updates.

Why Bush Isn't Impeached Yet

2007-05-22T08:07:00.001-07:00

Salon.com explains the situation much better than I can:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/22/impeachment/?source=rss

A Nobel Peace Prize Will Not Earn the Respect of the GOP

2007-05-20T14:46:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post just broke an article (see title link) quoting former President Jimmy Carter as saying Bush was "the worst in history" when it came to fostering international relations.

The Post article quotes Carter's interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, in which Carter generally rips Dubya a new one on most of standout actions of his presidency. The War in Iraq, environmental initiatives, the dubious "faith based initiatives" program, and the failure to continue with peace talks in Israel.

The Post contacted Amber Wilkerson,the spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, who responded:

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said that it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

It appears that Republicans are working really hard to ignore all facts in the case of the Presidency. Bush fucked up. Seriously. On multiple initiatives. With the 2008 elections staring us in the face, when are Republicans going to wake up and realize that their credibility is being flushed down the toilet? Undying loyalty in the face of failure is a noble thing, but it is also foolish - it ruins the reputation of all involved.

What this says to me, a vocal voter, is that Republicans refuse to take responsibility for their actions in office. That they are willing to sink with the ship, that they are willing to squander all the positive gains their party made in 2000. It is sad. And disheartening.

To the Democrats: the Republicans are handing you the 2008 elections on a silver platter. Please do not squander this opportunity.

New Ways of Thinking About the Pro-Choice, Prolife Debate

2007-05-15T08:11:00.000-07:00

A toddler aged 3-4 years has been left at a Japanese "baby hatch" aimed at mothers wanting to put their newborns up for adoption, reports say.
The child was said to be old enough to tell medics at the hospital in southern Japan that his father had left him.

The drop-off at Jikei Hospital, which opened last week, has been criticised by some, including the government.

The Catholic-run hospital has said it is aimed at helping new mothers who would otherwise resort to abortion.

Abortion rates are relatively high in Japan, while adoptions have traditionally been rare.

--BCC Morning News Feed

I read this this morning (full article linked in post title) and pondered it for a few minutes.

First of all, Japan does not have the religious foundations that we have in the US. This does not mean that Japan is atheistic - they are just founded in a different belief system.

It is also interesting to find that abortion rates are so high in Japan, but adoption rates are so low. I have to admit, the pro-choicer in me rejoices to know that women in Japan excercise their right to choose. However, it appears from the tone of the article that adoption is somewhat stigmatized. The article quotes Japan's Prime Minister, saying:

But the plans were heavily criticised by government officials, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who said parents must bring up children themselves.

Secondly, I also find it sad that a TODDLER was dropped off into the adoption hutch, when the intention is for newborn children.

The child was old enough to talk and identify himself.

I like the idea of the adoption hutch, particularly considering how many young women try to abandon their children away after birth. Still, it seems like one small solution to much larger problems.

The Gaming World Vs. The Real World

2007-05-10T09:20:00.000-07:00

Regina Lynn, the Sex Drive columnist for Wired Magazine, put forth an interesting editorial on the idea and execution of sex crimes in the online gaming world. (The article is linked within the title).

Titled "Virtual Rape is Traumatic, but Is It a Crime," Lynn examines the recent allegations of a rape occurance in Second Life, reported in Brussels, Belgium.

She writes:

Our laws say that an adult subjecting a teenager or child to sexual words, images or suggestions on the internet is preying on their mental and emotional state in a sexual way. Even if you never try to meet the minor in person, and even if you never touch them or expose your naked self to them, it is a crime to attempt to engage sexually with a minor.

If it is a criminal offense to sexually abuse a child on the internet, how can we say it is not possible to rape an adult online?

Lynn the points out that while virtual rape is quite traumatic (and points out a few examples of the argument, it still does not compare to the physical and psychological trauma of actual, physical rape.

She ends the piece by saying:

The truth is, anywhere people gather, we bring all of our potential with us -- for love, for sex, for community and creation, and for violence and destruction, too. That's why we still enjoy pondering whether cybersex is real sex and whether an online affair is more or less damaging to a relationship than a physical affair. It's a tacit acknowledgement that while the time-space continuum may change, people don't.

Rape is the ultimate perversion of sexual intimacy. Like sex, rape has mental and emotional elements that go beyond the body and the damage to the mind and spirit generally takes much longer to heal than the body.

But that doesn't make the psychological upheaval of virtual rape anywhere near the trauma of real rape. And I can't see us making virtual rape a matter for the real-life police.

It's a shitty thing to do to someone. But it's not a crime.

As I was mulling over the concept of rape in online gaming a few days later, I came across an article from BBC world news discussing a German investigation into a group on Second Life that was dealing in child pornography.

Obviously, this is not looking good for second life.

However, it is also a blow to everyone who lives, works, and plays online. The virtual world has done so much for so many - and yet, there is a very dark undercurrent taking root.

The fact that the virtual world provides so much anonynmity allows people to open up as they could not do so in the real world...however, the other edge of the sword happens to people like Kathy Sierra (note, link takes a while to load) and others who have found themselves on the business end of threating images and messages.

In an age where I can GoogleMap the exact location of someone's home, and get an aerial view of the surrounding area, it becomes harder and harder to laugh off crude remarks or semi-veiled threats. Even in the area of gaming, in which trash talking has been elevated to a high art, we need to take a moment to re-examine why we allow such abusive language to continue unchecked.

I'm not talking about normal jokes that come out in competition - phrases like "that ass is mine bitch!" are relatively begnin compared to people who make threats against a person's health or well being outside of the game. Or spewing misogynistic/homophobic comments simply because they are cloaked in anonymity.

We, the online community, have got to step up and start policing ourselves. If we do not, we may find that the real world will try to do it for us.

Get White House Public Relations - STAT!

2007-04-25T10:33:00.000-07:00

Ooooh snap.

I'll just let this speak for itself (Thanks Blogging Sheroes/American Blog):

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/04/laura-bush-wants-you-to-know-that-when.html

Quick Thoughts on Don Imus

2007-04-10T09:47:00.000-07:00

Originally, I wasn't going to post anything about Don Imus and his "nappy headed hos" comment. To be honest, I haven't paid attention to shock jocks since the Greaseman (remember him?) made his comment about James Byrd when I was still in high school.

Besides, why do I need to comment? The bloggosphere has exploded, providing excellent posts from Kim Pearson on blogher, Al Roker , Liza from the Feminist Bloggers Network, and Jill Nelson from WIMN online.

My favorite posts are from Mrs. J over at Our Kind of Parenting and the fabulous Debra Dickerson over at The Last Plantation.

However, in discussing the facts surrounding the controversy with some friends, I decided that I would hit on five quick points:

1. If Don Imus is making a sincere apology, the answer is NOT Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

This morning, MSNBC reported that IMUS was going to meet with the Rutger's team.

Tuesday morning, Imus said his focus was on meeting with the Rutgers women who were the target of his barb.

"Next time I apologize is going to be these women, their family and the coach," said Imus, adding, "I need to stand in front of them and say I'm sorry."

Umm, yeah. Why did you bother talking to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson first? I know that they are getting a reputation for absolving racial sins, but come on. If you really thought that you were wrong, you would have apologized FIRST to the people who were hurt by your comments.

To those who say, "It was just a joke!" - yeah, that is what it was meant to be. A joke. But sometimes, jokes hurt people. If you crack a joke, and offend one of your friends, you don't go apologize to a third party. You apologize to the person who you offended.

2. Feminists, as always, are notably absent from this one.

Blogger Roland S. Martin posted about the lack of response from the organized feminist body - which is terrible. It seems that most major feminist organizations are still dropping the ball when it comes to women of color.

While I must give props to the feminist bloggosphere - some of whom jumped on this with a quickness - feminist organizations are still dropping the ball. Don Imus attacked more than just the black women on the team. He made a distinct division between the types of women playing college basketball, and indirectly implied that "rough" girls don't win. What message does that send to girls who might be interested in the benefits of Title IX, but are now worried about being publicly judged for not being feminine? Having their hair texture commented on instead of athletic performance?

Yet again, feminists saw something controversial that happened to relate to women of color, and decided to pass. Thanks for the solidarity in sisterhood.

3. Shock Jocks intend to shock - being an asshole is in their job description.

As Ms. J wrote in her blog:

And to whittle it down even one degree further, there are a lot of ignorant racists throwing their hands in the air like they just don't care, 'cause they really don't think they're racists. I'm fairly certain Don Imus is one of those clueless types. The type that thinks that having a couple of black drinking buddies gives them free reign to say whatever and end up getting left at the bar (or in the studio) wondering "Hey...where did everybody go??"

I bet none of Imus's listeners would categorize themselves as racists either. Being a racist is so passe, it's embarrassing. It's much easier to brush it off as political incorrectness, and savor little racist moments when you can get them.

But whatever - that's his job. Imus supposed to be offensive, so that his listeners - people who would probably face severe consequences/a punch in the face if THEY advocated those ideas - can cackle in their cars, feel like they're getting over on "the PC nazis" and hide their true feelings when they go out in public.

Shock Jocks are popular because they have an audience. If Imus lost listeners because of this, maybe he would be worried. But I'll bet that about half his listeners were pulling into their carports, still chuckling about those "nappy headed hos" later in the evening.

4. Would Code-Talking work?

Mrs. J also talked about going back to code talking, which amused me greatly. I love that concept - to be able to switch at will into some pre-determined black vernacular when "the others" are around.

Unfortunately, we as Americans can't even agree on a set basic terms. (How many words can you think of as slang for money?)The hip-hop generation makes it harder with regional designations (Are we trying to stack cake, scrilla, cheddar, or bread?)

Plus, codes are meant to be broken. A couple enterprising people with time on their hands will eventually crack the code and have it online faster than we can say www.blackcodetalkdictionary.com.

5. Call me black and cynical, but I'm not surprised.

Over on the Field Negro Blog.

As the blogger states:

I can't get all bent out of shape over the Imus comments. Why? Because I have come to expect it from his ilk. I refuse to act like the police inspector from Casablanca and be "shocked, shocked", that such racism exists in America.

...

Here is a news flash; this is exactly the type of shit many of these folks sit around and say when your black ass isn't around. So don't get it twisted; all the marching in the world and all the preaching by Jessie and Al won't change that.

Like I said, maybe I'm just black and cynical, but this is just something I have come to expect from white people over a certain age. It's just one of those things. People think they are superior because you are different. They think they can say whatever they want to about your hair, your skin, your sexual orientation, your ethnicity, and feign ignorance when they say something offensive.

"Oh, I didn't mean it THAT way."

Riiight.

Maybe I should stop assuming that all older white people are just a martini (or a level of comfort) away from sharing their bigotry with me. However, it would be easier for me to challenge that assumption if it didn't keep happening.

*sigh*

I really wish, as a society, we were past this, instead of pretending we are.

So what can we do as black people? I'm going to go with Mos Def on this one:

But I'ma live though, yo I'ma live though
I'm puttin up the big swing for my kids yo
Got my mom the phat water-front crib yo
I'ma get her them pretty bay windows
I'ma cop a nice home to provide in
A safe environment for seeds to reside in
A fresh whip for my whole family to ride in
And if I'm still Mr Nigga, I won't find it suprisin'.

The Far Side of Gentrification

2007-03-19T09:40:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, the Washington Post published a new article about the H street corridor in downtown DC. The article detailed the thoughts and opinions of the historical residents, who had seen H street through riots and a depressed economy, and spoke with the new residents who had moved to H street after the city slated the area for economic revival.

What interested me more than the article was the surrounding chat about gentrification, proctored through one of the Washington Post’s “live online” sessions (linked in the title above). The discussion quickly dissolved into an argument about the events at a local bar, where some new residents picked up some of the sidewalk chalk sitting in a decorative basket and began drawing on the tables.

The black proprietor objected to them using the chalk. The white party at the table asked why they couldn’t draw with the chalk, since you generally use chalk to draw. The proprietor responded, saying you shouldn’t draw on a place where people eat – no one wants a bite of chalk dust.

This is where the story gets a bit blurry. The white kids assert that the proprietor became shrill, telling them that they didn’t belong in her neighborhood. The proprietor states that the white kids became hostile, saying she should be lucky that they were spending money in her “ghetto” neighborhood.

This is the delicate dance we do around gentrification. Class divisions and race divisions tend to pop up, turning neighbor against neighbor. The revitalization of an area isn’t always bad – many people enjoy living in luxury condos, having shops within walking distance, and having a nicer, cleaner neighborhood. Gentrification, however, is revitalization in a different stripe. While revitalization seeks to improve a blighted or run-down area, gentrification aims to attract people with higher incomes to live in the community.

Obviously, when two different world views collide the end result is friction. And while most of us may dream of a day when mixed income communities are the norm, it does not appear that developers seem to think the same way. Revitalizing a neighborhood doesn't have mean that the previous residents are priced out of housing options. The question is how do we reconcille development interests with the interests of a neighborhood?

Why Kenneth Eng Will Never Get It

2007-02-28T10:16:00.000-08:00

In my mind, the day stands out clearly.

A couple years ago, I was sitting in my apartment with my friend Hae, browsing through articles on my laptop while watching anime reruns and chowing down on Popeye's fried chicken. An article I skimmed made me laugh out loud, particularly considering the circumstances I found myself in.

The article had the suspect title of "Fried Chicken and Kimchi: Black and Korean Leaders Sit Down to Discuss Their Communities." The article described how a small set of Korean community leaders (mostly pastors, if memory serves) and African - American leaders (again, pastors) sat down to a community barbecue to discuss how to work together more effectively. Searching the LookSmart Archives and Washington Post Archives today, I find no trace of the article. However, that article, with that title, had to have existed somewhere. I remember it precisely because its existence sparked an interesting exchange.

"Hae," I started, interrupting her mission to demolish her mashed potatoes, "Why don't Korean people like black people?" The question was tossed out somewhat ironically, because Hae is Korean (generation 1.5 to be exact) and I am African-American (or black to be more precise, since I have not traced where exactly I came from.)

"Huh?" Hae looked up from her food with a dazed expression.

I repeated the question.

"Oh, well...I dunno. I'm fine with black people. The only people I hear of that don't like black people are my friend's parents, and that's because they have a store in the inner city."

Hmm...Hae probably had a point. After all, if the question was reversed, I would probably have the same answer. For the most part, I have co-existed pretty peacefully with Asian people in my 23 years on earth. No real incidents of note, no real animosity - particularly not against an entire group of people.

So, when I first heard about Kenneth Eng's little rant "Why I Hate Blacks" (check the above referenced link) it got one skeptical eyebrow raise. Kenneth Eng's logic is questionable, at best. Citing a high school debate, where you are supposed to argue both sides of a point and using it as proof that black people "don't get it."? Yeah, real credible source Ken. Good job.

That mess aside, I must admit I was heartened by the quick response from the pan-Asian community. Before I could even finish reading the text of the article, I was quickly directed to angry blog postings and online petitions all saying the same basic thing: Asians wanted no part of that racist mess.

The aftermath of the discussions however, bring up a sore spot in both communities - why don't blacks and asians get along? A few posters referred to poor communication between the two groups, and others have gone even further to suggest that African-Americans are equally as guilty of spouting racist speech toward Asians.

As one commenter stated:

"All we do is have blacks bitching about Asians to other blacks and we have Asians bitching about blacks to other Asians."

Somehow, I doubt that.

I don't doubt that African-Americans have said a lot of ignorant things to Asian people directly and about Asian people as a whole (most famously, Ice Cube's rant on his album Amerikkka's Most Wanted). It's one of the reasons I posted Beau Sia's response to Rosie O'Donell on my hip-hop blog: maybe it will make someone else think before they joke around in that manner.

But I am not sure that the tension that once existed between blacks and asians is still as prevalent as people make it seem. One reason is that asian people and black people interact a lot more than before. When I was in middle school and high school, I came into regular contact with Asian kids in my classes. Through my friends how I learned how to pronounce "Nguyen" properly, that Asian grocery stores had cooler candy and school supplies, and what real Asian food tastes like. I still can't eat carry-out Chinese food.

I suppose I could have held on to my one questionable impression of Asian people - when a kid in 4th grade called Black History month "Hershey history" and I stomped on his foot. But again, after that incident, that was it. I believe we were friends again the next day, splitting an Oatmeal Pie and making faces through the cream.

Do black people need to publicly apologize when one of our major figures (or even minor, in this case) says something ignorant about Asian people? Hell yeah. The whole "black people can't be racist" argument does not hold water with me. And the next time I come across something like that I remember to blog about it and do my part in raising hell until they rescind their racist statements.

Still, I feel like the increasing globalization of our society is actually benefiting cross cultural relations. Hae and I did not become friends because she is Korean and I am black. We became friends out of a mutual love of video games, food, and anime. As our friendship grew, she introduced me more to her culture, and I introduced her to mine. She gave me Korean hip-hop, I explained basic American politics. And our friendship moves on.

Maybe, just maybe, if Kenneth Eng spent less time in his house and more time out in the world, he would make more friends (maybe even some black friends) and realize that you can't judge an entire group of people based on the selected actions of a few.

Why Is Black History Month Necessary?

2007-02-14T06:50:00.000-08:00

This morning, I woke up, looked at the icy roads outside of my building, and found out my office was opening late. I logged on to racialicious.com to get my daily fix of how race impacts pop culture.

However, I was not prepared for the lead article this morning.

Apparently, a woman named Lisa Stallings, from Leonardstown, MD was incensed enough at the utter injustice that is black history month to write a letter to the Enterprise (a Southern MD newspaper), calling parents to action.

Stallings writes:

"Many children in the schools are not black and therefore have absolutely no reason whatsoever to celebrate Black History Month. This is the exact same thing as many children are not Christian and therefore are not required to celebrate Christian holidays."

She continues:

"I no longer want my child to be forced to do a report about a famous black person just because of the month.

I do not want my child to have to listen to stories about Harriet Tubman and George Washington Carver every single year during February.

The whole idea of Black History Month is for black people. There is no Asian History Month or English History Month or Middle East History Month or Russian History Month or Australian History Month.

Therefore, none of these groups has the chance to celebrate their heritage or famous people from their heritage."

I wanted to puke. Not only is she wrong (Asian - Pacific American History Month takes place in May) and a bit off base in her assessments of the situation (England, the Middle East/UAE, Russia, and Australia are OTHER COUNTRIES and hence covered in other courses like Modern World History) but her logic is completely skewed.

Her children are not black, and they should not be "forced" to learn about black history?

I'm not white - should that exempt me being "forced" to learn about White History? I didn't see any black people in the pictures of the Boston Tea Party. The Founding Fathers were not black. Am I exempted from learning about Susan B. Anthony? She wasn't black. There were not many black suffragettes - does that mean that her contributions have no impact on my life, as a woman who exercises her right to vote?

I am not Jewish, yet I know most of the major Jewish holidays, the name of their holy book, and how and why Hanukkah is practiced. I am not a Muslim, but I know who Muhammad is, what Ramadan is, and how the Nation of Islam differs from the traditional Islamic practice. I do not identify as a Christian, but know of the traditions and the basic story of the bible. And I was not alive in the Greco-Roman era, but I know the mythology of their Gods and Goddesses. All these things I learned IN SCHOOL. When I was growing up, learning about different cultures was simply something that educated people were expected to do. You learn about others different than yourself.

Why a parent would want to advocate for her children's ignorance of other cultures is beyond my ken.

What scares me the most is that this woman believes she is doing the right thing by her children. That this woman believes that black history can be encapsulated in Harriet Tubman and George Washington Carver. It scares me to think that in a global society, there are still people who would advocate for the segregation of education by ethnicity.

That's right - the segregation of education by ethnicity.

That is what Lisa Stallings has advocated. If her white children are exempted from learning about black people - since "black history month is for black people" - then logically, my black children would not have to learn about white history. We'll just start from the kingdom of Kush and move on. And I suppose that means Asian children can get their own history class as well - hmm, but how would that work? Would Chinese-American children sit in a different class from Japanese-American children? Would Filipino kids split their history lessons between the Spanish (from Spain) kid's class and the Asian history course? Would Latin Americans be required to take an African history class, based on the color of their skin? Would mixed kids have to take extra history courses?

I also wonder if Stallings is just ignorant of the historical whitewashing that went on with the story of American history, and how black history month (and the subsequent additions of Hispanic Heritage Month, American Indian Heritage Month and Asia Pacifc Heritage Month) was created to rectify the willful editing of historical fact to minimize the achievements of people of color. Or maybe, just maybe, she believes that all this black history is detracting from "real" history.

My stomach is still turning.

However, I must admit that I too am sick of black history month.

I am sick of this band-aid solution to a long standing issue. People like Lisa Stallings need to realize that black history should not be confined to a month. Black history is AMERICAN history. I am sick of it being segmented out and highlighted in a month - as if the tumultuous history of African-Americans could be summarized with neat sound bytes and biographical information.

I want black history month scrapped. Done away with. Because it simply is not good enough.

American history needs to be rewritten. It needs to show an accurate portrayal the people and events that went into the foundation and creation of this country.

The history of Native Americans did not end with the settlement. The Trail of Tears did not kill them all. Where is the history of the Native Americans? Why are there still reservations? Why is their community plagued by alcoholism? What have they accomplished (besides casinos)? Those questions should be answered and recorded in our history books!

If Columbus is still getting shout-outs for "discovering" America, can we please add a section that discusses the Vikings and China landing here first? And can we also throw in some Latin American history, and their perspective on the Columbus situation?

Can we add in the section on Asian-Americans? Something beyond that one sentence "They helped build the railroad?" Can we talk about the issues and discrimination they encountered? Can we talk about the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, not as a historical "my bad" but as a time when the United States of America persecuted a section of its citizenry?

Can we really talk about the Louisiana Purchase, and what that meant for the indigenous people in that region? Can we really discuss the Alamo, and the Panama Canal, and how that impacts how other people around the world perceive us?

And can we please stop advocating the same five pinnacles of African-Americana - Slavery, Harriet Tubman, Jim Crow, MLK, and George Washington Carver? There was a bit more to things than that. Start asking people you know: Who was W.E.B. Dubois? What did Booker T. Washington contribute to African-American history? How do the positions advocated by Dubois and Washington equate to the modern African American? What did Ralph Ellison write? Why were the Black Panthers so militant?

This is all American history.

And even if Lisa Stalling and a few other members of her generation do not recognize that, it is up to us to ensure that the next generation will.

Have They Finally Seen the Light?

2007-02-07T18:23:00.000-08:00

In the linked article above, the Washington Post reports that Apple CEO Steve Jobs has issued an open call for music companies to abandon DRM software, and allow music to be licensed and distributed in without anti-piracy controls.

Job's declaration comes as a welcome endorsement to the millions of internet savvy music fiends, who find that their appetite for music and variety vastly outpaces their resources to spend on musical download services who can charge up to $1.50 per song. For music enthusiasts, whose song catalogs can number over 10,000 tracks, the low per song price is a deceptive lure. Other enthusiasts find that their chosen MP3 player is incompatible with whomever is licensing the music. For example, music sold through the Apple Itunes store is not compatible with Sony Walkman MP3 player. However, if one is attracted to the design of a Sony Walkman Mp3 player over that of the Ipod, you are limited to purchasing music from the Sony store - which carries a much smaller song collection than Itunes.

In addition, people with off-brand MP3 players (like Creative Zen's offerings, or Iriver or Toshiba products) also have to contend with problems legally purchasing music that is compatible with their players. Efforts to offer cross compatibility (like when Real networks began to support Itunes m4a format) are swiftly met with litigation.

Another complication to the online music debate is the actual ownership of the content. Licensing music between countries is unbelievably cumbersome. To illustrate, take popular R & B artist D' Angelo. D'Angelo has released an album in Japan - for US fans of his work, actually acquiring this CD will be about $50, after import fees and shipping. And the content is not available online, as it was produced by a Japanese label. Purchasing music online is just as difficult - Itunes Japan does not carry artists on the Sony label. The Sony and Mura networks only carry music from specific labels.

This provides a headache for consumers: there is a will to legally purchase the music, but the means simply are not there.

The only recourse, in many cases, is to use the file sharing networks to obtain the songs. It is relatively quick, painless, free, and compatible over different networks and platforms.

The music industry is shooting itself in the foot. With its Nazi-like devotion to protecting their royalties and publishing, they have alienated many of their core consumers.

Steve Jobs' call for the end of DRM (or the potential open licensing of the most popular DRM software) is definitely a breath of fresh air for consumers who refuse to choke on the bitter rhetoric of the RIAA.

The Declining Worth of a College Education

2007-01-29T10:24:00.000-08:00

A college education is no longer the golden ticket to prosperity.

With education costs soaring and financial aid dwindling, many people still see college as a necessity for success in America - failing to note how many of America's most successful people are college drop outs.

While a college education is certainly valuable - after all, college is about learning skills that can advance you in the workforce - it is starting to seem like the price for post-secondary education is entirely too high.

Annys Shin recently blogged in the Washington Post Business section about her impressions after spending a decade to pay off loans she had accumulated in college. Shin writes:

"When I finally paid it off about three years ago -- 10 years after I graduated -- it was a bittersweet moment. I had loved my college experience. I value the education I got there. And, of course, I adore the friends I made there, but I had to face it: Financially, it wasn't worth it. "

As an independent student, it has always been a struggle to reconcille college costs against real world application. After a great school career, ending in a lackluster senior year, I launched myself full on into the workforce, grabbing my first office job paying $10.00 an hour and handing the HR director a work permit on my first day at work - as a 17 year old, I was still a minor, and subject to stricter work laws. After about 8 months toiling in a cubicle for $400 a week, I was ready to gouge my eyes out with a Bic. While I had passed on college to try to support myself as an adult, the work world was pretty bleak. As I looked around the call center at all of the older people relying on this job as a means for supporting entire families, I realized this was not the life I wanted. I resigned from that job, took a part-time position, and enrolled in school full-time.

The next few years consisted of volleys between working full time to save money for school, and attending school with a combination of grants and the money I saved. In 2004, I left the community college circuit and entered an online college program that hosted the major that I felt fit me best: Global Business and Public Policy. The program was more expensive than community college, but a lot more rewarding.

And a lot more challenging. My grades began to suffer, and working part-time became less and less of a possibility now that I was fully independent and learning to enter the adult world. For the last year, I finally sat out from school, to try to get an idea of what I wanted to accomplish while I was there.

I am currently paying off last semester's remaining balance and preparing to return to school in the fall. So far, my education is halfway complete, and I owe 3, 400 in student loans. I currently pay the bulk of my educational expenses completely out of pocket. If I continue this way, I will not complete school until 2010 or 2011, but will emerge with about $10,000 in student debt. At my current salary level, it will take me less than 5 years to pay off my loan in full, paying an average of $200 a month on the loan.

Is the extra time and hard ship worth the lower debt level? After all, if I just charged my whole education, I could probably finish in the next year and a half. However, I find myself hesitating to commit fully to school.

Many of my friends graduated college in 2005 or 2006. Many of them are toiling in the kind of entry level jobs I held right out of high school - often for the same rate of pay I held then. Some of my friends are frustrated because they cannot find jobs in their chosen field, or that the jobs pay so poorly. Graduates come out of school anticipating salaries of $40,$50, and $60,000 a year. Unfortunately, many employers are using a college degree as a screening tool, and the positions that require a college degree are starting lower and lower - I recently saw a job ad that required a candidate to have a college degree and offered a starting salary of $25,000.

I think the time may have come to re-examine the role college plays in success. In the net-savvy world of web design, self-publishing, and the ability to generate buzz based on a cool website or Internet clips, and rising class of nouveau riche dotcom millionaires, more and more people are finding out that you can be successful without college.

Personally, I am sticking with the college education bit - after doing the research, finishing my degree will lend me more credibility in my field and help me iron out some of the wrinkles in my current writing style. However, it looks like I will continue to work my way through. This gives me both work experience and education, with a minimal impact to my take-home pay.

Still, I have to wonder - how much are all these 100,000 educations really worth?

Legislating the Fantasy

2007-01-22T13:29:00.000-08:00

No one could ever accuse the modeling industry of being realistic.

From the overly campy, bordering on costumey couture offering to the emaciated silhouettesthat make their way down the runway, to the actual price of couture offerings, fashion and reality are happy to exist upon separate planes.

Despite criticism from most laypeople about the price of clothing to the size of models, the fashion industry was seen as something outside of our collective ken - a self-governing entity that has completely unconventional approaches to how they created and displayed their wares.

All that changed in August of 2006, when the death of fashion model Luisel Ramos (attributed to complications from anorexia nervosa) rocked the fashion industry, and led to widespread calls for reform. The government of Madrid has since set a minimum body mass index for all models who walk the runways, much to the chagrin of certain designers and prompting a wave of media attention toward the fashion industry.

Last Friday, Robin Givhan provided an excellent follow-up piece to the washington post, detailing the "efforts" of the fashion industry to raise model awareness of eating disorders. She goes on to state:

"A PowerPoint presentation on the symptoms of anorexia and bulimia is not the solution to getting rid of sickly thin models. Nor can the answer be found in a crudites platter. As one model agent put it, the industry needs to start at the top of the pyramid. If there's no demand for skeletons on the runway, there won't be any skeletons.

I find her statement completely true. While in general, the last thing America needs is more legislation, people are dying for someone else's unrealistic standard of beauty.

My friend Edina is a fashion designer in New York. We had a conversation about fashion a while ago that put somethings into perspective for me. Edina had made a comment about almost being finished with her sample clothing, and I asked if she was going to model any of her fashion. She laughed, and with the my-god-how-dense-can-you-be tone she has perfected, stated, "Honey, I can't fit any of the sample clothes. Those are for the models."

I asked her why she would make clothes she could not wear, expecting to hear some spiel about working to fit a model's shape. She instead told me "Fabric is expensive. Smaller clothes are cheaper."

While I am sure it is not that simple for the major couture houses, Edina's explanation made sense. Sometimes, a lack of resources dictates what you present and who you use to present. However, the fact that designers have accepted size 0 and 00 as normal is a bit disturbing.

Givan goes on to say:

The fashion industry has to ask itself: Why do we want to be represented by a model who the average person would suspect is sick? Why shoot an advertising campaign using a model that women would pity rather than envy?

The fashion industry likes to point out that a lot of these models are naturally super-skinny because of their metabolism, age or genetics. So what? Pear shapes are natural, too, but the industry has no trouble rejecting them.

The industry needs to think of models as women -- not as girls, mannequins, coat hangers or any of the other terms typically used to describe them. Think of them as women, and perhaps that's what they'll more often resemble.

Another valid point made. Flipping through the pages of Elle magazine this month, I found that the fantasy had lost quite a bit of its luster. I remember looking at the two or three outfits profiled in their pages, and noting how the model didn't seem to fit the clothes. Some clothes (like wrap tops and dresses) are designed to accentuate womanly curves - so why don't the models reflect that? Dresses with detailing in and around the chest look ridiculous hanging against a 32AA bust.

Maybe the fashion industry would benefit from learning to create a range of fantasies, as opposed to rigidly defending one waning ideal.

Modern Day Slavery

2006-12-23T13:26:00.000-08:00

Though the Transatlantic slave trade ended nearly two centuries ago, the Middle Passage was not the beginning, nor end, of mankind's history with slavery. For some reason, the practice of enslaving and dehumanizing others seems to be encoded into our DNA.

In Colbert I. King's latest op-ed piece for the Washington Post (see top link), the issue of diplomatic immunity is explored. Apparently, diplomats and foreign service workers from abroad have been bringing along household help when they are placed in a Stateside position, and then denying them promised wages, adequate health and medical care, and stripping them of their working papers and passports - creating an underclass without access to basic human rights, and normally lacking the ability to find a way out.

King discusses the problem at length, and calls on Condoleeza Rice to help press the department that controls such matters into clearly defining what is covered by diplomatic immunity. King's piece ends by promising more pieces in the future, exposing this rising epidemic.

Sadly, slavery comes in many forms like the sexual enslavement of child brides and the modern day indentured servitude driven by debt.

When will we learn to free each other, and ourselves?

Paid Interests in Education

2006-12-13T11:35:00.000-08:00

According to the linked article in the Washington Post, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) turned down 50,000 free DVDs from the team behind the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" stating that they were concerned that "other special interests" would want to distribute items and materials as well.

Upon further investigation, the team behind the documentary uncovered that the NSTA was actually accepting financial support from a host of corporations with special interests - one of the main supporters being Exxon Mobile Corp. The article goes on to rail against the injustice being done to education by corporate interests.

Yes, the fact that freedom of speech and truthful information is being willfully camouflaged is a cause for serious concern. (And while we're at it, can we attack this Christopher Columbus as a hero myth, and start black history BEFORE the transatlantic slave trade?)

And yes, teachers should not turn down free materials that could impact the lives and choices of the students who would view these ideas at just the right age to make life altering changes.

However, let's keep some perspective here.

The people behind the documentary gave 50,000 free DVDs. Exxon Mobil has pledged 6 million thus far, and continues to do so. Teachers need resources, not just token shows of support. And for years before the documentary was produced, Exxon Mobil was there, filling a need for resources, and showing kids new ways to experience science - a tainted version, but science nonetheless.

The villian here is not Exxon Mobil, but a government system that allows our schools to be so strapped for cash that they are willing to present a coporate biased view of the world to ensure that the programs they want to promote will be able to continue year to year.

Africa's Development

2006-12-01T14:13:00.000-08:00

There is an article today in the NY Times (click title link above), covering the One Laptop Per Child Project.

The goal of the non-profit is to change the third world by providing technology at an affordable rate, and to put the necessary tools directly into the hands of the people who need it most - the people of the 3rd World.

There is not hard drive, no Microsoft OS, and a tiny screen. Detractors of the campaign are scoffing at the project, saying that these resources would be better put in the hands of teachers and more formalized instruction.

According to the Times, Bill Gates is even on record as questioning the principles of the project:

"And Bill Gates, Microsoft’s chairman and a leading philanthropist for the third world, has questioned whether the concept is “just taking what we do in the rich world” and assuming that that is something good for the developing world, too."

Speaking as a member of the "rich world," I cannot think of anything that would be better for the educational development of children than having access to a laptop and the internet. Having a laptop that you can use teaches a wealth of skills before you even hit the classroom - typing skills, search skills, and the responsibility that comes with taking care of something that you own.

Utilized in the classroom, it will give the resources of the world to students who may not be able to imagine a life beyond where they live. While education is important, I think it is folly to underestimate the impact of technology on the lives of students. How many bored students have created web pages, video games, and companies in their spare time, just fooling around on the tools they already have? The avenues of commerce and international trade are opened. You can correspond with people all over the globe. You can learn a language, a trade, a program, a skill - all using the internet, without the aid of a classroom.

With the internet, our favorite online library, one can get an education without formal instruction.

Personally, I am excited about the project. The potential for change is great - and at $150 a pop, what do we have to lose?

Why is Gay Marriage Even an Issue?

2006-10-31T09:26:00.000-08:00

I have been following the gay marriage debates with some interest since Bush made the topic a major policy item during his presidency.

Now, my gut reaction to the whole debate is that it makes no logical sense.

I understand that marriage was founded in a religious sense.

And that the church may define marriage in the context of a man and woman relationship.

I also acknowledge that religions (or cetain sects of religions) may not acknowledge homosexuality in general.

However - we do not live in a theocracy. So why should religious pricinciples that apply to one section of the population be applied to the entire populace? Does that mean athesists are not allowed to be wed? People of Islamic faith? Does that mean we do not recognize the union of Buddhists and Sihks? Marriage has evolved, in both a legal and a societal way. To deny a citizen the right of marriage based on their sexual orientation is akin to denying a citizen the right of marriage based on their skin color (which we have done in the past).

Since the constitution offers freedom of religion (and I assume this extends to freedom from having someone's religion forced upon you), I don't understand why this is even an issue period.

The idea of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage is absolutely ludicrous. It flies in the face of everything we stand for as a nation, and I cannot fathom how the so-called "debate" has gone on for this long.

If you want to say Christian churches will not recognize heterosexual marriage, fine.

If you want to guarantee homosexuals the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and call it something other than marriage, fine.

But stop fucking with the constitution.

To read the commentary from the Washington Post global blog (which sparked this little rant), please click here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bill_emmott/2006/10/yes_its_their_human_right.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/christine_ockrent/2006/10/marriage_for_homosexuals.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/william_m_gumede/2006/10/denial_of_same_sex_marriage_is.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/miklos_vamos/2006/10/why_have_marriage_at_all.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/nikos_konstandaras/2006/10/a_touchstone_for_where_were_he.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2006/10/legal_problems_in_a_global_vil.html

Run, Obama, Run.

2006-10-24T14:21:00.000-07:00

And so it begins.

After Barack Obama's infamous comment on Oprah about considering a run for presidential candidacy, I have been waiting for the various pundits to build him an altar of support and then sacrifice him upon a pyre of criticism.

Richard Cohen, one of my favorite Washington Post columnists, discusses why he is interested in watching Barack Obama run:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301033.html

However, I was left a bit cold by some of the implications what he used in his analysis.

What was the purpose of Cohen stating that "staying out of jail" was apparently the only requirement to serve in the Illinois Senate? There may be some kind of shoddy track record with Illinois senators that I am unaware of - however, it is interesting that "staying out of jail" was the phrase used with a black candidate.

Also, Obama's age is offered as a reason why he will not be taken seriously. At 45 years old, Richard Cohen states "On the world stage, he would be a child." Ageist implications aside, it should be pointed out that two of our most revered presidents - John F. Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt - were respectively 43 and 42 years of age when they stepped on to the world's stage.

(I also find it quite interesting that Cohen later compares one of Obama's speeches to one that JFK would have made - and yet the correlation between ages was never made.)

Cohen also analyzes how Obama's background would provide a much needed perspective on international diplomacy, and his strong record of consistently voting against the Iraq War .

The piece ends, and it seems that Cohen is interested in seeing Obama as a candidate - not because he believes Obama has a chance of winning the presidency and ushering in a wave of change, but because he believes that it would "sharpen the focus of the other candidates."

While Cohen is careful to avoid the issue of race in his analysis, I am left with the feeling if Obama was a promising young white candidate, Cohen would have hailed him as the savior of the Democratic Party. However, since Obama is a minority, it appears that he is no more than an interesting item to spur discussion amongst the real candidates.

Somehow, I feel as though this condescending tone from the mainstream news pundits is going to hold as long as Obama is considering running for presidential office. Apparently, Ellis Cose shares my sentiments - on MSNBC.com, he writes about "The Bradley Effect", describing a phenomenon where a black candidate led in the polls, but ultimately lost the election to the opposing white candidate. While discussing the potential election of Harold Ford Jr., which would make Ford "the first black senator since Reconstruction," Cose illuminates that challenges that black candidates face when appealing to a mostly white constituency.

Cose concludes his piece with:

Ford's entire career has been built on the assumption that we are indeed in a very different place than when Bradley loss his bid to become governor of California. It would be nice, and not only for Ford, if that assumption proves to be true.

Interestingly enough, Cohen also refers to a change in our country's collective consciousness, stating "For someone like [Obama] to be a presidential candidate -- maybe even president -- says oodles about this country."

Yes, it does make a statement about the changes in the American cultural landscape that Obama is able to hint at throwing his hat into the ring as a presidential contender, presumably without fear of unjust political persecution or an immediate assassination attempt.

And some would say that the somewhat muted reaction to the news means that America may be ready to seriously consider an African-American citizen to take the position to the highest government office in the land.

I believe a number of telling statements will be made by the American public if Obama makes a serious bid for the presidency. How will the Democratic majority react? Can they back a non-white candidate? Can white voters accept a non-white candidate as the President of the United States? Is the Democratic Party truly looking for a change in leadership, or is that just empty lip service? Every voter action, whether rejecting or affirming Obama's candidacy on several different levels, will present a clear statement about the current political and social climate of our nation. It is from these statements we can begin piecing together what statements America is making about what type of leadership they are looking for, and what factors are they looking for in a candidate.

All of this uncertainty is a fertile breeding ground for all the questions I raised above and more.

However, the most pressing question on my mind is: what is the statement that America will make back to Obama?