Read It and Believe It

Countdown to Burma (Mynamar)

2010-04-28T10:53:00.001+01:00

I’m rearranging my suitcases hopefully for the last time today.

I’ve mastered several tricks to get most of my books on the plane in spite of those pesky weight limits. (This is where my fairy godfather interjects, “I will get you an iPad.”) We’ll see if it works tomorrow.

For the next few months my coordinates will be 16° 46' North longitude: 96° 09' E.

Why Yangon? Rangoon? Or whatever derivative you choose to call it.

In May 2008 Cyclone Nargis blew through 37 townships. The low-lying Irrawaddy Delta was the hardest hit region. The cyclone left 140,000 dead or missing and affected about 2.4 million people.

I will write about certain aspects of the humanitarian response of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN, and its cooperation with the UN and other organizations, particularly its success in getting two mistrustful sets of stakeholders (the government and donors) to work together. The second piece will be about the ASEAN mobilization of volunteers. This is where I should be able to clock some time in the field.

In the meantime I better get back to re-arranging. This won’t be the first time I’ve been to Yangon. I travelled there twice for UNICEF Myanmar in 2006 so I know what to expect: No luxuries! I also expect to have an awesome time because I am one of six international writers who will all need some form of company on most nights of the week. This means that I won’t be holed up in a hotel bar listening to chics with too much make up sing the Rivers of Babylon (for the third time that evening).

I also just finished my MA in Anthropology so I hope that I can put some of theory and practice to use. Ah, I just remembered. I have to go to the market once more tonight. I need to find an anthropology-ish hat so that I can look the part.

Once I have the look down the rest should be easy.

Lisa Woods Fan Page

2010-04-28T04:24:00.004+01:00

Does anyone remember MySpace?

Friendster?

How about Hi5?

According to the laws of trendiness, Facebook will one day become obsolete.

Until then, I've added a professional Fan Page to keep everyone updated with as much info as possible while I'm away in Burma. While I won't have access in the country, I'll update the page via other means (telepathy anyone)?

Don't worry, I'll take care of my part -- but you need to "Like Me" on the fan page entitled "Lisa Woods" to get updates while I'm away this summer.

Like me to become a fan of my facebook fan page. Simply CLICK HERE.

Blessed are the Peacemakers: Obama and the Nobel Prize

2009-10-09T23:13:00.003+01:00

President Obama got an early morning phone call – but it wasn’t the kind that Hillary Clinton envisaged.

Early Friday morning Robert Gibbs woke Obama to the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

Talk. Act. Talk, act?

The Hutus referred to the Tutsis as Cockroaches.

The Nazis called the Jewish people “untermenschen” or sub-humans.

Did the words precede the genocide or did the genocide precede the words and murderous climates?

Can you have war without incitement? Can you have peace without engaging the enemy?

Did Obama’s kumbaya approach to Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and some States in the Middle East earn him piece of the peace, or was the Norwegian Nobel Committee blinded by his star power?

In all fairness, the prize is only for the past year’s effort. It’s not a lifetime achievement award. As the Committee said: “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

While some say this award is too soon I say that it’s right on time. This “call to action” comes at a crucial moment during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, during talks with Iran and North Korea and the rest of the world. This prize will serve as constant reminder to Obama that – to whom much is given, much is expected. As Thorbjorn Jagland, the committee’s new chairman, said: “It’s important for the committee to recognize people who are struggling and idealistic.” I believe Obama genuinely walks these two separate paths each and every day and attempts to do the right thing, each and every time.

While the choice of a sitting head of State is odd, I believe the Committee is making a bold statement. President Obama was elected POTUS, yet he is the leader of the free world and as such his actions are not geographically bound. Like it or not, American presidents have the Power to change the world, for better or for worse. Publically holding the President of the United States of America to the highest standard of Peace is the first step to world Peace.

In a mere eight years George Bush wrecked havoc on the world, severed diplomatic ties with formerly staunch allies, and turned international opinion against America, seemingly forever. In a mere nine months America has fast become the world’s new BFF (best friend forever). Does that not have purchase on world peace? Are we so fascinated with time (or Obama-bashing) that we can’t see that it takes so long to affect change because we lack a real determination to do so?! We say that we want Peace but few of us are really that interested to actually do something about it. For example, Hitler was chancellor of Germany only a few months before the infamous Buchenwald concentration camp was built. In 102 minutes the Twin Towers fell in New York City. These individuals were committed to destroying the peace. But would anyone deny the impact that those events had because they occurred in such a short space of time? What has time got to do with it?

As Desmond Tutu, the retired Anglican archbishop from South Africa who won the peace prize in 1984, said: “It’s an award coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young president that anticipates an even greater contribution toward making our world a safer place for all,” Mr. Tutu explained. “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.”

Congratulations on helping us hope for peace again. Hoping for peace is a crucial step to acting for peace, although I’m sure that Obama is somewhere groaning in private. This award is the coat of many colors and Obama is the Biblical Joseph. While Obama’s jealous rivalries are plotting against him, let’s pray that he continues to have the audacity to hope – and the will and support to act on those hopes – for the good of humankind.

PETA, I'd Rather be Naked with Less Photoshop

2009-08-13T22:23:00.025+01:00

I started not to reply to this message because it is clear that whoever read the complaint didn't read my complaint. The response reads like a form letter that PETA sends out anytime someone complains. I will position myself in this statement: I do NOT have an issue with nudity. I don't feel like I have the right to morally judge anyone. I live in Europe and have enjoyed myself on the topless beaches of Italy, France, Greece, and Spain. What I have a problem with is PETA's censorship of real women's bodies with the excess use of photoshop. Before you moan -- I know the reality of advertising -- we all like to be retouched. But there is retouch, and then there is RETOUCH. I've answered some of the scattered responses of PETA below:

Dear Ms. ________,

Thank you for your letter sharing your thoughts about our ads and campaigns. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns. First, please know that, as an organization staffed largely by feminist women, we would not do something that contributed to the serious problems that women face.

Judging by the commodification of women’s bodies, I find it hard to believe that your organization is staffed with “feminist women.” What feminist man/woman would perpetuate the beauty myth that women are only beautiful after pounds of their flesh are hacked off by professional photoshop artists?

We feel that there is nothing shameful or “wrong” about being naked or choosing to use one’s body, and we believe that women—and men—should have the choice to use their own bodies as political statements.

The problem is not explicitness; the problem is censorship. You have censored what it looks like to be a real, nude woman -- and even the women that we all know to look one way, you've photoshopped them to look completely different! What choice did Nia Long, Kourtney Kardashian, or Eve Mendes have in the amount of photoshop PETA deemed necessary to use their bodies in these publicity stunts? Show me a real naked woman, without TOO MUCH photoshop, and I will support PETA! As far as using bodies as political statements, posing nude next to a metro pole, resembling a stripper pole doesn’t count. The monk in Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) who set himself on fire to protest the Viet Nam-American war; Rosa Parks who refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white man, spurring the Montgomery Bus Boycott; American track athletes Tommie Smith (first place) and John Carlos (third place) who used their wins in Mexico City's 1968 Olympic Games to show their opposition to the American apartheid, by raising their black-gloved fists to rally for black unity -- are examples of people using their bodies to make political statements. Parading around naked means very little in a country where it is DONE (in varying degrees) ALL OF THE TIME.

This tactic has been used since at least the 11^th century, when Lady Godiva rode naked on a horse to protest taxes on the poor. Far from being exploited, our “naked” demonstrators and billboard models choose to participate in our actions because they want to do something to make people stop and pay attention to animal abuse.

Let’s start with historical accuracy: the story of Lady Godiva is undocumented, therefore a myth. The chronicler Florence of Worcester mentions Leofric and Godiva, but does not mention her famous ride, and there is no firm evidence connecting the rider with the historical Godiva (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/godiva_01.shtml). But, for argument’s sake, let’s go with the tale of Lady Godiva ditching her 12^th century Victorian gowns to parade through the streets of London to “protest taxes on the poor.” The story goes that she ordered the town people to look away, and one man named Tom (hence the name peeping Tom), was blinded as he turned to see her nakedness. You can look at this two ways: 1) She was courageous for going through with the act; or 2) She was exploited because her husband refused to lower taxes on the poor unless she ashamedly rode through Coventry in the nude (according to the legend she felt shamed because she tried to cover herself with her hair and she ordered the town people not to look). This, by the way is also a stereotypical notion of womanhood, as she was very religious, and therefore the play on the binary oppositions of Madonna vs Whore.

Take Traci Bingham, for example, who posed for our “All Animals Have the Same Parts” ad campaign (http://www.GoVeg.com/feat/tracibee/). She is a deeply committed vegetarian who is known to millions for her television work, such as beating out a platoon of men to excel in an endurance test called Boot Camp. She chose to use her body to bring public attention to a serious animal issue. In this case, Ms. Bingham felt offended by the traditional “meat” posters that treat animals as “parts,” and she wanted to make the point that neither they nor women should be viewed as parts—we are all precious. Consider that it is the societies that allow women to wear revealing clothing in which women have the most rights and the most power. Likewise, it is the societies that punish women for wearing revealing clothing in which women have the fewest rights and the least power—they are considered chattel who must do as they are told.

Islamist feminists (I’m assuming that these are the societies that you are referring to) would strongly disagree with you. In fact, they pity their Western sisters who are caught up in the viscous cycle of silicone, botox, and maxed out credit cards. They pity the women who are afraid to eat because if they do, they won't fit into this summer’s latest skimpy dress. Saba Mahmood says that many “modern Egyptian women” have started wearing the veil again and studies say these women cite practical reasons such as: the veil makes it easy for women to avoid sexual harassment on public transportation, lowers the cost of attire for working women, and so on. “Other analyses identify the veil as a symbol of resistance to the commodification of women’s bodies in the popular media, and to the hegemony of Western values more generally” (Mahmood). In Pakistan and countries where purdah is practiced, the burqa is traditionally an issue of class, i.e., the wealthy women could afford to stay indoors and wear the burqa, while the poor women could not. In many cases, Islamic dress is a counter-resistance that the Western feminists have labeled, oppression!

Isn’t it dangerous to tell young women that their bodies and sexuality are shameful and must be hidden or repressed? Should women only be allowed to participate in activism if they promise not to show their bodies or use them to make social statements? If a person chooses to use her physicality to convey a message of his or her choosing, aren’t those who would censor him or her—even if their motives are well-intended—also somewhat guilty of disrespect and repression?

What’s dangerous is an organization who believes that the wellbeing of one population (women) must be sacrificed for another (animals). What’s dangerous is a 10-year-old girl looking at an OVERLY photoshopped image of her favourite actress, and not being able to intellectually reason that she doesn’t really look like that. Repression operates as a regulator: it tells something to disappear, it silences that something, and is an affirmation of non-existence -- nothing to see here folks -- a little photoshop will do the trick! By pushing these OVERLY photoshopped images of women, you are contributing to the repression of a young girls' sexuality and healthy view of their body image. You are telling them that real women’s bodies are something to be ashamed of and covered – PETA takes away the clothes, but censors with photoshop.

Although our use of “nudity” is attention-grabbing, we don’t rely on it for the majority of our outreach, nor do we use it gratuitously; it is intended to underscore our message, whether it is “I’d rather go naked than wear fur,” to emphasize the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, or to show the vulnerability of animals in laboratories or circuses. We would also like to note that we do not feature only women in our more provocative ads; please see the following examples:

Your use of nudity was NEVER the issue. Using nudity to grab attention is lame, quotidian – not radical. Hip-hop videos use half naked girls shaking their butts to drum up hype for an empty song; cosmetic lines use orgasmic-like faces to pimp out lipstick, underwear ads use augmented breasts and butts to draw attention to their logos – and all manner of capitalistic ventures use nudity, or various states of undress to get their 15 minutes of fame. Using soft porn as an advertising ploy doesn’t make PETA unique, or radical, it just makes PETA like all of the rest. Take a number. Stand in line.

The second part of your tagline which admonishes a person to “Be Comfortable in Your own Skin,” is as dishonest as it comes. How can a woman be comfortable when she can never live up to the Mariah Carey-esque photoshop jobs PETA is financing? The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/ is an example of women, not fully dressed, still sending a corporate message – a positive one no doubt.

Our purpose is to stop animal suffering, and we use all available opportunities to reach millions of people with powerful messages. The current situation is critical for billions of animals, and our goal is to make the public think about the issues. Sometimes this requires tactics—like naked marches and colorful ad campaigns—that some people find outrageous or even “rude,” but part of our job is to shake people up and even shock them in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and of course, action. After PETA publicized our 2007 “State of the Union Undress,” for example, we were rated the number one “mover” on Yahoo’s search engine, meaning that PETA received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day. We have found that people do pay more attention to our racier actions, and we consider the public’s attention to be extremely important.

Although we understand that some consider our projects that include nudity to be controversial, many express support for these tactics. However, PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from the most conservative to the most radical and from the most tasteless to the most refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful—in the more than two decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with over 2 million members and supporters worldwide. For more information about PETA’s vital work for animals, please visit http://www.PETA.org/abou.

We respect your right to disagree with our strategy but hope that you will continue to work for the animals in whatever way you feel comfortable (http://www.PETA.org/actioncenter); they are counting on all of us.

As I said before, when PETA uses REAL naked women for their adverts, I will support its cause!

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to explain our position on this important topic and for all that you do to help animals.

Sincerely,

The PETA Staff

http://www.SupportPETA.com

Hmmm. Wonder if they will really read my email this time?!? Or will I get another chain letter :-) If PETA wants to do something "radical" it will use the bodies of transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and others who have been marginalized from the "sexy" body debate!

People for the Ethical Treatment of Women

2009-08-12T12:34:00.005+01:00

An open e-mail to PETA, sent on 12 August 2009:

I watch with fascination PETA's campaign showcasing nude celebrities. I like the idea, I think human bodies are to be admired.

What I don't get is PETA's tag line: Be comfortable in your own skin!

How is this possible when all of your models are photo-shopped a new body image? How can women be comfortable in their own skin when you are presenting images of Nia Long -- a 39-year old woman with a child -- made to look like a 19-year old with no cellulite, stretch marks or previous children? Does this make women comfortable in their own skin? I won't go into Khloe Kardashian's image that was so heavily photo-shopped that without a photo-caption no one would recognize her.

I think PETA is hypocritical for this. You are so concerned about animals but what about women who are daily assaulted with images of perfect bodies that even the models themselves cannot achieve without retouching, airbrushing, and other photographic tricks? Photo-shop violence = violence against women's emotional health.

Does PETA know that as many as 10 million women and girls suffer from anorexia and/or bulimia, in the United States alone

Does PETA know that 86 per cent of people with eating disorders report the onset of the illness by the time they reach the age of 20 (by no means is an eating disorder "less severe" when the eating-disordered person is above the age of 20).

Does PETA know that an estimated 81% of 10-year-old girls are concerned with being fat?

Does PETA know that young women with anorexia are 12 times more likely to die than other women their age.

If PETA wants to be ethical it should stop presenting false images of women, while on the other hand telling others to be comfortable in their own skin rather than wear fur. Perhaps fur would cover the reality that women age, gain weight, have children, get stretch marks -- oh and can't afford a professional photoshopper to falsify their body image.

I'm all for the ethical treatment of women.

Aren't we worth it, or do you only care about dogs?

What's the Greek word for Racism?

2009-07-20T00:32:00.020+01:00

Racism.

I rarely write about "race" -- the product of racism because I think it’s a fiction. But allow me to think aloud this once. The equalities are real but the category, or box, is based on physical appearance alone. How can you honestly make a judgment based on skin color and hair type? Are those features really intelligible?

I rarely think about it, but every now and again, some human – or a group of humans – adds meaning to the brownness of my skin – a bodily organ with a physiological function. In this case, these mis-interpretations led to change being dropped on the counter instead of in my hand while I sat and observed white customers having change given to them in their palms. In areas where English was widely spoken, responses to the most basic questions was met with a fierce head-shaking and a tight-lipped no, and standing at the bar at tavernas took a great feat of perseverance to shame the waiter into taking our food order.

I’m no stranger to being the Other. For the most part, I relish my role in mixing up the situation. After years of living in Southeast Asia I know that you will immediately notice that I look different. I speak differently and I’m going to be the only black American you have probably ever met. So I expect curious stares. A bit of apprehension. Some child-like engagement. As I am cognizant of this, I work to engage people on a level that allows them to explore this thing called race, in the space that they are comfortable with. I’m guessing that it works 99% of the time.

I feel qualified to speak on "race" – not simply because of the color of my skin alone rather because of how I engage the world around me.

When someone of another color is caught in my gaze, I assume a benign person. I expect a positive outcome.

I believe that I am going to like you and you’re going to like me. So this had me wondering what to make of the descendants of the ancient world, the Athenians.

Before I sat down to write this, I wanted to make sure that I was being fair. I thought about the travel diaries of 15th century Brits who were shocked by the complexion of Africans, who wrote about it, and appropriated meaning. I wondered, was this reception in Athens tainted by unchecked racism, or did their reaction to me have to do with their largely homogeneous society and experiences with immigration?

In Athens I saw African and South Asian immigrants – the invisible people of the city – hawking pirated goods near the Piraeus port. They were only noticed when the police swept the area, arresting an unlucky salesman along with his tarpaulin of goods. This scene was disturbing no doubt, but I filed it away in the Google-later section of my brain. [The problem with this section is that its occupants are prone to rogue escapes into my consciousness]. I know it would be too simplistic to say that a whole-lot-of people in Athens are racist because of mis-representations of Africa and immigrant relations.

So then I thought about the economy. Before the credit crisis, Greece had amongst the lowest wages in the EU (and the Euro made the situation bleaker). As with Nazi Germany, it’s easy for the Greek to sip espresso in the café and blame the immigrant, toiling in the hot sun, for the tanking economy. Random raids by the militarized police force make the streets a little more homogeneous (aside from those pesky tourist chics who assert their right to equal treatment). Perhaps it’s an unfortunate cocktail whose ingredients are too sumptuously blended to separate. But this one thing I know for sure, there is an evident racism in Athens.

So many millennia, so little progress. And that's all the time and space I want to allot to this subject.

*P.S. The islands (Santorini and Crete) were fantastic! Skip Athens and fly straight there.

*Pic 1/The Parthenon, Pic2, 3/The Temple of Poseidon, Pic4/My sister and me, Santorini

Michael Jackson, death larger than life

2009-06-26T01:38:00.007+01:00

It’s not every day that I think on the subject of death but as both Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett have died within hours of each other, death has become larger than life. As it often does, the glare of celebrity has transformed the ordinary into something extra-ordinary. Last year in the United States there were 565,650 cancer deaths – still 9 million people tuned in to watch Farrah’s Story.

The circumstances surrounding the King of Pop’s death are still unknown but Tim Arango at the NYT compared the icon’s death to “The Kiss in Times Square” memorialized by Alfred Eisenstaedt, after the Japanese surrender ended World War II. A kiss is just a kiss, but some kisses are more memorable than others. Death is a part of life, but some deaths touch more lives than others. I will always remember where I was when I heard the news of Princess Di’s death, John F. Kennedy junior’s missing plane, and now, the gloved one’s untimely death. Perhaps our fascination with celebrity death’s is an attempt at voyeurism into the afterlife. A peak into the inevitable.

Be Back Shortly

2009-05-18T02:13:00.004+01:00

I'm taking a hiatus to write my exams. Will be back in June. Don't read and believe anything about the torture memos, the torture photos, or the military tribunals until I return!

Ten + One Rules to Subvert SOAS Library Regulations

2009-04-21T20:43:00.011+01:00

As I am a junior anthropologist, I take my job to participate-observe very seriously. In coming up with these rules, I, err, observed more than I participated.

1. Make sure your bag is sturdy enough to sneak in iced fountain drinks, fast foods, and other study survival foods not available on campus. (P.S. You might not want to bring in KFC because the smell cannot be concealed)!

2. Consider a waterproof bag (e.g. Longchamp) in case your Frappuccino spills out when you're walking through the security area.

3. TexMex Rice crackers that you buy from the Student Union might be too loud to snack on in the 'quiet zone.' Consider something soft and chewy. (Snickers work well)!

4. TexMex Rice crackers most definitely should not be munched on in the quiet zone if you asked your neighbor to watch your stuff while you ducked outside to get them. They might get annoyed and rat on you.

5. Enjoy your caffeinated beverage in an opaque water bottle. No one will ever know that it's not water -- not even the wicked witch at the main entrance.

6. Stretch your neck periodically to see if your snacking is being observed from the levels above. If you get caught, feign low-blood sugar.

7. Remember to collect all of your litter from around you. It's better to cover your tracks while you are making them.

8. Take wet naps to ensure that you don't get smudges on the rare books.

9. If you do get smudges on the rare books, quietly (and quickly) pack your things and flee the scene of the crime.

10. Avoid all of the cute guys who have been curiously absent from the library during terms 1 and 2 (unless you want to party, then by all means, do get the slackers' phone numbers).

11. Don't burn after reading! Politely return the books to the shelving cart.

As I said before, these are just observations of mine.

SOAS students should follow ALL of the library rules or it could take a long time -- even longer than the unusually high number of months after dissertation completion -- to receive your diplomas.

And, seriously, no eating around the rare books!

Somali pirates: A tale of the chickens coming home to roost?

2009-04-11T12:33:00.027+01:00

If Dubya, Chainsaw, and Rummy were in the White House we’d teach those pirates a good lesson on democracy by invading Guatemala.

We’d capture those enemy combatant pirates -- dead or alive.

We’d add Somalia to the “axis of evil.”

We’d huff and puff, “Fool me once shame on … shame on you ... eh … um… a fooled man can't get fooled again."

Then we’d blow the pirates to smithereens (along with our reputation).

There would be a war in the Gulf of Aden. Somalis would be further victimized. Humanitarian aid groups would appeal for safe entry. Women’s and children’s rights would provide the momentum; and nation building would occur. Civil war would break out. It would be deja vu all over again.

Then we’d claim victory and retreat to our ranch in Crawford.

But thankfully we don’t have to wear that dead albatross around our neck any longer. President Obama’s studied silence speaks volumes – and I am listening to every single utterance.

We're obviously paying careful attention to this issue. And I'm really not able to go beyond that at this point, said State Department spokesman Robert Wood.

Maritime law is murky and as I am not a lawyer I won’t attempt to analyze it. What I will do is pose some questions as to how this situation has actualized – over and over again.

It appears that the chickens have come home to roost. That’s right, I said it, and I will say it again: The chickens have come home to roost.

It is unfortunate that Capt. Phillips is being held hostage -- the pirates are his physical takers but Western ignorance of the plight of Somalis led to his capture. Phillips must’ve known the risks – 66 vessels around the Horn of Africa have been overtaken by pirates since January 2009. In 2008 there were 130; in 2007, 31; and in 2006, 10 (while Bush was in office fighting "terrorists" the pirates were emboldened). As such, I question the use of American military might to protect private commercial interests.

What’s also very unfortunate is that during the Somali civil war firms from several European countries made a deal with warring factions to dump processed industrial waste off the Somali coast. The toxic waste –and shipping vessels – has poisoned the fish, restricted the movement of fishermen, and taken away their livelihoods. If the fisherman can’t fish, he might look to you to feed him!

I concur that piracy is illegal. Phew! I’m so glad we cleared that up and now we can move on to the issues really at hand like the legal and the morally reprehensible -- i.e making a deal with one faction of a country in the middle of a civil war. The war was real convenient for these companies. Now vessels from the West are being inconvenienced from piracy.

Now the question remains: What to do about these particular pirates who are holding Capt. Phillips, and what to do about piracy in general?

Violence won’t solve the problem this go around. If the pirates are attacked it won’t stop other pirate attacks, neither will it save the lives of the hostages on board. It would only create the awful spectacle of a US Navy destroyer using disproportionate force against a small boat of rag-tag men from a failed State on the verge of implosion.

Rashid Abdi Sheikh, Somalia analyst with the International Crisis Group in Nairobi, says using military options could only make things worse if they did not go hand-in-hand with political solutions.

“Most of these pirates are operating from the region of Puntland, which is essentially a failed state within a failed state,” he says.

“Nothing will change until we see more stability on land.”

Pirates are not a threat to you or me. They are not suicidal jihadists. They are only a threat to big-shipping companies. Let them deal with it. Once a sovereign power gets involved there are Egos to be protected and international rules of engagement that sometimes trump common sense.

If *we* want to address piracy at sea, we have to address the pirates on shore. That would be the West who continuously plunders Africa for its economic benefit and balks when a pawn captures its king. That would also be the warlords governing Somalia who make it necessary and lucrative for pirates to operate. I won’t quote statistics but it only takes half-an-intelligence to reckon that Somalis are among the poorest of the poor.

Do the ends justify the means? It’s not my place to say. A better question might be, what would you do if your family needed food and life-saving health care? Would you quote maritime law or take the law into your own hands? In a country where medical care is poor and doctor visits cost a day’s wage – the pirates are sending their wives to foreign countries to deliver their babies.

Do you blame them? If not, who is to blame?

*Image source: NYT/Huffingtonpost.com

Madonna, the Baby-buyer

2009-04-07T16:18:00.014+01:00

Madonna shouldn’t be allowed to buy children.

Even poor and destitute ones.

On the other hand, said-orphaned children should not be prevented from a bright future based on the hypothetical risk of child trafficking.

In nailing the coffin shut on Madonna’s adoption plea, the puppet-to-delirious-human-rights-groups *judge* explained that:

By removing the very safeguard that is supposed to protect our children, the courts by their pronouncements could actually facilitate trafficking of children by some unscrupulous individuals who would take advantage of the weakness of the law of the land.

The risk to trafficking is hypothetical to four-year-old Chifundo "Mercy" because Madonna is clearly not a child trafficker. And would this "unscrupulous individual" be Madonna who already adopted a son from Malawi under its "weak" law? Sounds like punishment for the first adoption.

Although we can tick off child trafficking as a threat, Mercy isn’t safe from growing up in an orphanage without family members to provide her primary care. This means that in a country such as Malawi she will also have scant access to education as a girl, and probably-never as a girl child without a family. Girl children without education don’t educate their children; have less means to promote the survival of their infant children; and are more at risk to AIDS – a huge problem in Malawi. (And this is the short list). Although the former is the worse case scenario it is a real possibility.

Obviously there is no cut-and-dried solution to orphans (in Africa in particular). Groups who are calling for people to donate money to aid agencies as a solution, seem to have selective memory regarding the process and politics of humanitarian aid. That is, Mercy may never get the aid. Unscrupulous relatives (like the ones who are coming out of the wood-works to suddenly claim her) may exploit her for the aid. The orphanage will also not be able to give just to Mercy, it will have to spread the aid around. (That's the short-short list).

Although it's uncertain whether Madonna will win the appeal she can still do more (than the school she already has) to help orphans in Malawi. Madonna can set up a trust for Mercy to justify her love (and prove that she really cares about the child) as if she were her own daughter.

Meanwhile there are many countries that don’t impose a residency requirement for the legal adoption of children.

Madonna should stop trying to break the rules, fuel up her jet and adopt there.

The Three Stooges of the G20

2009-04-02T16:25:00.014+01:00

Where were the French and the Germans when financial execs worldwide were looting the coffers? In ecstasy they were shouting: Gimme’ more, gimme’ more -- as their GNP steadily climbed higher.

Yet French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s quip that “The crisis didn’t actually spontaneously erupt in Europe” shows that *some* global leaders have failed to recognize their own part in the risky game of virtual finance that has led to this global financial melt down. Instead everyone is content with letting President Obama immolate himself on the world stage. (Obama should repeat ‘Forgive me father for I have sinned’ 20 times and retreat to Air Force One).

While I share the view of Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that more oversight is needed, I think their solution is quite cultural (as is Obama's pre-occupation with spending our way out). Merkel’s pre-occupation with inflation harks back to 1920s pre-Nazi concerns, and Sarkozy’s insistence-to-the-detriment of cooperation on a global watchdog (State solution) is very short-sighted at best.

Perhaps it was a poorly worded phrase, but Sarkozy’s call for a “global regulator” that would be able to reach inside the borders of the United States and other large nations to deal with international financial firms — is not-ever going to be possible, not-ever. Even citizens of the world don’t like the idea of some third-autonomous party from with-out regulating those with-in.

The idea of a “global regulator” also sets a bad precedent for future crisis. If we start granting power to a third party from with-out just this once, sooner or later another world leader will be calling for a external “global regulator” to address issues that affect the body social by gazing at multi-national institutions and meting judgments -- on foreign soil.

Sarkozy et al should stop the grandstanding.

Regulation is an old concept and countries need to have the chance to clean their backyard first before inviting visitors. Many of the financial institutions in New York also have branches in London; regulation, therefore, can take place on an institutional level with the oversight of the federal government.

Finally, if the communiqué that is taking place this week in London is to have any credibility it has to be followed by actions on State and global levels in a manner that respects State sovereignty.

Anything short of that is bound to cause more problems than it solves.

Should Rihanna and Chris Brown be Poster-children for Domestic Violence?

2009-03-22T14:17:00.018Z

The twist and turns of the Chrianna scandal ebbs-and-flows from outrage, disbelief, indifference, boredom, and finally, a whole lot of denial.

Like most people I am sick of hearing about these two. What's the big deal? In Hollywood people are arrested, permanent tourists in posh Rehabs, publicly shamed, unrightfully glorified and vilified -- all in a day's news cycle.

But with the never-ending saga dominating blogs I've decided to respond, again. I guess there is something about this incident that hasn't happened to our satisfaction. I guess this is why we keep recycling a litany of possibilities, hoping that one sticks.

Many would like to see that *boy* in jail. But as America is always in a rush to put black boys in jail I am strongly against this option. Secondly, many are waiting for Rihanna to step up and be the cover girl for teenage domestic violence. My response to this is, why Rihanna? Why not Halle Berry, whose first ex-husband beat her so badly she lost part of her hearing in her left ear. Why not Nancy Wilson, Janet Jackson, or Tina Turner?

Finally the biggest question of all, who is responsible for the morality of our (collective) youth?

I am responding to a post in the Atlantic, re-posted on facebook, in which the writer appears to imply that the Crihanna situation is not a useful model of dating violence: It's a bad idea to assess your society through lens of people whose business is fame, s/he writes.

I can infer what s/he means that since their image is constructed so is the response. What this writer seems to take for granted is that we are all constructed. There is no such thing as self -- only subjectivities. The fact that so many young girls approve the physical abuse of women provides hard evidence that something has gone horribly amiss in our society. It often takes the plight of celebrities to wake people from their slumbering consciousnesses, and I'm all for the resurrection.

What happens in famous relationships, under the glare of the spotlight, provides some insight on what happens in any given household across America. Though I wasn't there the night of the Crihanna incident, I was in a similar situation when I was 19. I also knew other young women in identical relationships. And I'm sure there are other people reading this who can name a few women they know in a similar situation.

Let the assessment begin!

I don't think the Crihanna scandal is far from reality at all. So why shouldn't we be alarmed at the results from the recent survey of 200 teenagers by the Boston Public Health Commission:

Forty-six percent (46%) said Rihanna was responsible for what happened; 52 percent said both bore responsibility, despite knowing that Rihanna’s injuries required hospital treatment. On a facebook discussion, one girl wrote, “she probly ran into a door and was too embarrassed so blamed it on chris.”

The reaction of adolescent girls in this Boston school and elsewhere prompted Oprah, Tyra, and a dozen other pop-media gurus to pose the question, what is going on with our girls? Yet the author in the Atlantic called the outcry a rush to judge today's youth.

There is a lot of alarm over the fact that some study found 40 percent of kids "blame" Rihanna. This strikes me as the age-old tactic of marrying the latest controversy to the ever-present sense that our kids are more amoral than we were.

While this may not be a representative sample, I think it's enough to ring the alarm. Numbers don't lie although they can be misleading, but how about the increase of Chris Brown's albuym sales since the night of the incident? His fan base is solidly female, mainly pre-teens and adolescents. The author doesn't want to base the conclusion that teens don't take dating violence serious enough based on surveys and albums sales; but what can awe infer from this?

Surely we can infer something. Since society and family units are responsible for the subjectivities that people embody, could we infer that the misogynistic structures of society have been internalized by girls and boys? Could this internalization be the root of the mis-recognition of gender-based violence as the fault of the victim?

Could we say the absence of men in the home has led to the increased vulnerability of girls? Could we say that these girls are willing to tolerate abuse to become the *official* girl of any Body, even if that some Body threatens her life with abuse and risk to STIs because of unequal knowledge-power to negotiate condom use?

We could say a lot of things but as writers we have a responsibility to say something [of use]! We should shy away from knee-jerk reactions and the response to this incident as one having to do with the fictional construction of generation. There is no true line between generations, we all are existing in the same time and situation, and parents of teens are the ones who should be ultimately advising their children on how-to-do-the-right thing.

This soap opera has opened up an opportunity to talk about teen violence.

Let's talk before more girls get hurt.

In Seeking Bonuses AIG Execs Need A Dose of Shame in the Japanese Sense

2009-03-16T20:02:00.019Z

If the American International Group executives were Japanese in Japan they would resign in disgrace.

The worse case scenario would be 'karoshi' or suicide.

A never in your lifetime scenario would be to stand in line for a collective bonus of $165 million!

With that said, American culture is operating in full force with the latest financial debacle. First; contracts are more important than life itself (e.g., Rihanna staying with Chris Brown after he beat her so badly because the contract probably says promote, tour, couple-up together no matter-effin-what). As such, AIG claims the bonus is part of the remnants of an already-shady contract. Ugh-hugh. I say that AIG is hiding behind the law which it didn't think twice to break in order to enrich itself.

Second; America will continue to be a name-and-shame culture. New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is stepping up the pressure on AIG to release the names of the execs slated to receive the bonuses, job descriptions and details about their performance. Time will tell, but I am willing to bet that these execs are the same characters who orchestrated the virtual accounting system that got AIG in this mess to begin with.

Fortunately, Obama et al is not having it:

Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay,” Mr. Obama said. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat? All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses,” said Mr. Obama, who called the issue one of “fundamental values.”

I'm all for blocking the 'personal bail out'; and as my mother says, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Method 1: Give them the bonus and tax them at a rate of 100%. Take the taxes and redistribute it.

Method 2: When they go to pick up the bonus slap handcuffs on them, charge them with criminal wrong doing which precludes them from receiving any benefit from the crimes committed. Redistribute the money to taxpayers.

Method 3: Give them the bonus and deduct that amount from the bail out they received from taxpayers' money. Redistribute the money to taxpayers.

Et voila! Cat skinned!

Update: Outcry Builds in Capital for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses

Senate Democratic leaders demanded on Tuesday that the insurance giant American International Group reverse the $165 million in bonuses that the firm had paid to executives after receiving more than $170 billion in bailout money. Alternatively, lawmakers said they would seek to reclaim the money by adopting new tax legislation. (NYT, 17/3)

Thoughts on the Technolog-ization of Life

2009-03-10T22:16:00.016Z

It’s been a long time.
Seems writer’s block has taken hold of my mind.

It has even prevented me from, gasp, tooling around with my new MacBook.
After back-to-back sessions of sweating it out in Bikram Yoga...
Bouncing around on a new contraption in the gym...
Reading in the SOAS library...
Shopping at FCUK...
I decided to turn to facebook for inspiration.

You shouldn’t be surprised. After I huffed and puffed about the new privacy policy that was eventually 86-ed, I never got around to deleting my account.

As the rare sunshine in London has failed to break the writer’s spell, I’ve been musing on what it is about technology that makes humans feel more connected when in actuality we are as disconnected as ever.

From what I can gather, it’s the perception of connectivity that seems to do it for many of us. With friends and family all over the world I am comforted by seeing all of my loved ones in the left hand corner of the “Friends” section. All 95 of whom I personally know. Here is where perception and reality fail to meet, as many times I simply post news to my profile and expect that people will magically understand the script.

With that said, my favorite function of facebook is the “delete friends” option. Though my girlfriends say I am too quick to act, I can say for certain that I’ve never deleted a person that shouldn’t have been deleted. Sigh. If only life could be that simple.

Then there is this advent of text messaging, the big Kahuna of communication. The major problem with text messaging, which appears to be cross-cultural, is a) texting while drunk; and b) the inability to leap into cyber-space and intercept a message that you later decide wasn’t such a good idea. Seems like technology has found a solution to drunk texting, that is, LG has cell phone that can also be programmed to block selected numbers in the address book – bosses, exes, et al – if the breath analyzer records a blood-alcohol concentration over 0.08. Text messaging with a time delay could solve most other text-ual healing. The rest will have to be remanded to the cyber gods for mediation.

When it comes to technolog-izing life, I think that the worse offender is the iPhone. Someone please tell me why on earth you need to update your facebook status in real time, check your email, text, talk, and Google as you walk down the street? It seemed like a good idea at the time but I am seriously considering stepping away from the gadgets for a well-deserved break, and logging some face time with humans on the other side of virtual reality.

Yeah, I am SMH too. Check back with me next week for an update on my resolve.

Pre-Chris Brown Reconciliation Rihanna No Role Model for Young Girls

2009-03-01T11:51:00.012Z

People and other less reputable e-zines (that would be you Bossip) are reporting that Rihanna and Chris Brown (CB) are holed up in a Miami mansion belonging to Diddy (Sean Combs).

They are definitely together and care a great deal about each other, says a Miami source. They feel like staying in and working through their issues. So far they have not wanted to go out. While Chris is reflective and saddened about what happened, he is really happy to be with the woman he loves,” the unnamed source tells the magazine.

As we can all recall that about three weeks ago CB was accused of beating her so badly that she had to pull out of performing for the Grammy awards. Shortly after a photo leaked to TMZ showing her badly battered and bruised. He issued a lame apology, and fans supported RiRi and dissed CB.

Now the public backlash has diverged from CB to Rihanna. In the midst of the storm we are expecting her to be the cover girl for battered women all over America.

Why do we expect her to shoulder this heavy burden? Being both abused and famous does not make her the mascot for abused women all over the world; it just makes her abused and famous that’s all.

Could this be a case of a good girl gone bad? Nope. I say that"Princess RiRi" has always been a bad role model for young girls. Since when has waltzing around in fishnets and booty shorts so tight that you can’t bend over been a good image for young girls? When has staying with a man that is obviously cheating on you been a good example for teens?

Rihanna is not a role model she is an entertainer who is suffering from Battered Wife Syndrome (BWS). She does not need to be held up/down for our castigation. She needs professional help. Furthermore she doesn’t have to live her personal life to satisfy other people’s sense of right and wrong. For that I am proud.

Otherwise I am disappointed (not shocked) at her decision to stay. She has a lot more money than the average person and she could seek personal help to overcome the underlying emotional issues that imprison her in this relationship. Her choice to reconcile with CB – before he has even finished a proper course of anger management – is telling. I just hope that both of these young adults get the help that they need before more damage is done.

And that’s the gossip moral.

Republicans Fold Hands While Economy Sinks

2009-02-22T23:56:00.016Z

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

There’s a hole in my pocket,

US government,

US government.

There’s a hole in my pocket,

Dear government a hole.

Well fix it dear citizen,

Dear citizen.

Well, fix it dear citizen,

It’s YOUR problem.

With what shall I fix it,

US government,

US government.

Can you please help me fix it,

Please support our President.

No way will I support him,

I won’t support him,

I won’t support him.

No way will I support him,

I won’t accept his money.

His money!?!

There’s a hole in my pocket,

US government ,

US government.

There’s a hole in my pocket,

And I’m falling in.

What else is there to sing, except for the blues? After failing to stop the White House's stimulus in the Senate and Congress, some of America’s preeminent clowns have decided to refuse the fed monies because debt is all-of-a-sudden morally reprehensible for Conservatives (never mind that Bush ran up the national deficit like a Macy’s charge card).

Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (site of Hurricane Katrina – in case he forgot), said he is ‘rejecting $100 million in unemployment assistance in the stimulus plan because it would force the state to raise business taxes to pay for the extra aid once the federal dollars run out. “It requires us to make a permanent change in our law. It’s like spending a dollar to get a dime.” OK, now we see (circa Bush): Some Harvard alums are super smart and others are super not smart.

Just ask Bill Clinton.

He raised taxes on the wealthiest 2% to slash the deficit and created 24 million jobs in the process. Bush ran through the surplus like his childhood weekly allowance and dug a black hole of debt with his $599009614761 war, estimated $929 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, and the deregulation of Wall Street. Now the Republicans have caught fiscal responsibility over the weekend like the flu? Someone needs to check the water in the Red States. It's either water contamination or the Republicans are posturing for the 2010 budget fight which threatens to raise taxes on the very rich (poor them).

If you want my vote I say let the Republicans have their own country (sorry Abe) and let the rest of the nation get down to the business of surviving the recession.

Governors' Fight Over Stimulus May Define GOP

Facebook's Privacy Policy Unethical in Every Way

2009-02-18T01:34:00.022Z

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

To facebook or not to facebook, that’s the burning question.

Tonight I walked into my room, grabbed a Diet Coke, and logged onto my facebook account. I wanted to see if there were any replies to the link that I posted on facebook, about facebook's new privacy policy that allows it to keep profile information in perpetuity, like forever. This means that even after you acknowledge you have a problem, somehow manage to find a facebook rehab, and delete your facebook account, this sleaze-ball corporation can pimp out your information to marketers, or hand over jokes that you made about the POTUS to the Secret Service (as one University of Oklahoma student found out).

Less than 24-hours ago I was faced with the consequences of my facebook addiction, and true to an addict's behavior, I have yet to delete my account. My rude awakening came as someone posted a link – you guessed it – on my facebook profile which confirmed that after years of holding out from joining this right-wing SNS - my last bit of digital privacy had been hijacked, overnight, and with no warning.

The new TOS says the following:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

That means holiday photos posted on your profile can be sold to the highest bidder and resurface as stock photos. Your artwork can be mass produced and resurface as prints. Your poems can be published without any profits or author credit coming your way. Your preferences, likes, interests, religious views, can be (and is) collected, number-crunched and auctioned off to market research firms. These firms then create advertising profiles to target you with goods and services. We won't go into the State implications of this, but let's just say I keep my religious views off facebook for a reason (and I am surprised that so many other people do not do the same).

To my credit until a few months I abstained from facebook because I had read about its extreme right-wing conservative origins. But due to peer pressure I finally acquiesced. Now I regret doing so because I realize that I've lost private information that I can never recover. As people are getting angrier and angrier about giving in to social pressure and the illusion of connectivity, a complaint has just been filed with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). At the same time, conspiracy theories have been unleashed in full force. The latter will undoubtedly disappear as mainstream media cannot afford the loss of face, nor the cost of pursuing matters of personal civil liberties against corporate interests.

I’m also not positing anything. I’m just giving you some insight into the real face behind facebook:

• Mark Zuckerberg, Harvard sophomore launched facebook in 2004 (even though he just paid out $65 million to his classmates for ripping off the idea).
• Venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel gave $500,000 to help start up facebook in 2004. In 1998 he wrote “The Diversity Myth” a polemic on liberalism. He is a member of the neo-con group TheVanGuard.org.
• Jim Breyer, partner in venture capital firm Accel Partners, invested $12.7 million in April 2005. Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Technologies a company responsible for the Internet’s rise.
• Dr. Anita Jones recently joined BBN. Prior to her joining she served on In-Q-Tel's, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Before the BBN she was director of the Defense Research and Engineering for the U.S. Department of Defense. She was also an adviser to DONALD RUMSFELD and oversaw the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is responsible for high-tech, high-end development.
• DARPA created the Information Awareness office (IAO) in January 2002 to bring together several DARPA projects focused on applying information technology to counter transnational threats to national security. "The IAO has the stated mission to gather as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralised location, for easy perusal by the United States government, including (though not limited to) internet activity, credit card purchase histories, airline ticket purchases, car rentals, medical records, educational transcripts, driver's licenses, utility bills, tax returns, and any other available data."
• A reporter started sniffing around and a public outcry led to Congress pulling its funding a year later, although several other unnamed projects still function under DARPA.
• Here is where the conspiracy theory begins – facebook is doing the job of the IAO (after Gitmo anything is possible right?).
• Most recently, Greylock Venture Capital, invested $27.5 million into facebook. Howard Cox, a senior partner of Greylock sits on the In-Q-Tel board.

Yep, things that make you go hmm.

As a citizen of the world who hates to make phone calls I thought, hmm, now I can keep track of my friends, without doing too much legwork.

Hmm, I can get e-mail notifications of birthdays, tagged pictures, real-time status updates, my friends’ comments, and comments on my comments with a mouse click.

Hmm, at my disposal I have at least 100 people’s religious views, political affiliations, and networks.

Hmm, I can know their favorite, books and movies; address, hometown, phone number, email addresses, web sites, job, clubs, education history, sexual orientation, relation to friends, and interests.

Hmm, I think I’m going to have to find a way to shut down my facebook account and perpetuate the illusion of being connected (or create a bogus profile).

Hmm.... So, does that mean ... ?

Yep, big brother is definitely watching you; there is no hmm about it.

Terms of Use Update - facebook - 18 Feb
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

Obama "swaggers" on V-Day

2009-02-15T21:29:00.012Z

Ladies did your men “swagger” like President Obama did on V-Day? At first the story was really Superman-ish, with Obama, in the middle of the economic stimulus fight, stopping to order a special cake for his first lady, 10-days before Valentine's Day. But it turns out the two headed to a posh Chicago restaurant who shares a chef with Oprah. Not the same as ordering a cake in the middle of the stimulus bill fight but it still counts as “swagger.”

It's no wonder that Obama extends his “swagger” to Delusional City (DC) politics. Before the stimulus went for a vote Obama invited some Repug Senators and Congressmen aboard Air Force One as a super cool show of bipartisanship. Can you imagine Dubya flying Democrat lawmakers to Texas to watch the Super Bowl, all the while attempting to smooth talk them into seeing things his way? Didn’t think so: Emperor Bush did what he wanted without reaching out across the aisle first.

One Repug outright turned down Obama’s invitation to fly on Air Force One (I guess he doesn’t need anything whatsoever from the new POTUS); and the other flew, landed, and unceremoniously voted against the stimulus. The rest of the Repug lawmakers voted against the stimulus and patted themselves on the back. One conservative columnist for the WSJ wrote, "The House Republicans’ zero votes for the Obama presidency’s stimulus ‘package’ is looking like the luckiest thing to happen to the G.O.P.’s political fortunes since Ronald Reagan switched parties."

Lucky. How so? What the Repugs did was ante up a powerful zoom lens to the scrutinizing public. Now we can help identify all of this latest conservative maneuvering as simple classic obstructionist behavior. During a time when people are losing their jobs, homes and health care coverage, the Repugs have nothing more to offer the American people other than a big fat zero. They definitely have no “swagger.”

If we were to quantify “swagger” it would read a little something like this:

The stimulus package arrived with the price tag and on roughly the schedule Obama had set for it. The president’s job approval percentage now ranges from the mid 60s (Gallup, Pew) to mid 70s (CNN) — not bad for a guy who won the presidency with 52.9 percent of the vote. While 48 percent of Americans told CBS, Gallup and Pew that they approve of Congressional Democrats, only 31 (Gallup), 32 (CBS) and 34 (Pew) percent could say the same of their G.O.P. counterparts (NYT).

And as the chorus goes...

It seems no one in Washington
has swagger like Obama.
Swagger like Obama.
Swagger like Obama.

Image source: People

Chris Brown Alleged Assault on Rihanna Stokes Gender Debate

2009-02-10T19:00:00.035Z

Some of you may wonder why I am focusing on Chris Brown's alleged assault on Rihanna, (the Crihanna)scandal. Well, because it's more exciting than the economic stimulus and I've found the gender dynamics to be quite telling. Also, Chris Brown is the Usher of my generation, and the Michael Jackson (in regards to dancing) of the generation prior. Whenever I see a video of him I think two things: 1) Awww, he's so cute; and 2) That boy can dance!

However I must say that I wasn't surprised to hear about this incident. As I am a permanent member of the blogosphere I've seen reoccurring pictures of "Crihanna" having knock-down-drag-out brawls in front of cameras. The extent of the alleged assault I must say is a little shocking: Though Brown was not at the scene, the victim is believed to have visible facial injuries, including a bloody nose, as well as bite marks on her arms. It was not Rihanna who called 911. Someone in the area heard her screams and called.

Let's take a moment to remember Chris Brown before he was a "woman beater." (See the fancy foot work). Chris Brown/With You
OK, now that we've had a moment of remembrance, let's move on.

The Character Assassination of Rihanna
What's most interesting is that blogs have taken over the official news function (as news outlets are usually careful to report only what it confirms). In the place of news, you have millions of people clicking, commenting, and shaping perceptions before the "official version" is released. Someone has started a virulent rumor about Rihanna saying that she gave Chris herpes, which gives him an excuse for hitting her!?! Another rumor is that she is a Caribbean witch who bewitched him. Another rumor is that she is not sweet at all but a jealous *woman* who provoked him to hit her. In all cases her gender is implicated in the incident. Any moment now some thug entrepreneur will mass produce Team Chris and Team Rihanna t-shirts.

Gender Dynamics
So with that I ask, is male to female as culture is to nature? According to many of the comments in blogosphere, the weird new space that has been created to educate and/or mis-educate the masses, the M:F and C:N is true? Since man is naturally more aggressive than woman Rihanna shouldn't have confronted Chris on his alleged cheating. Since woman naturally is more passive than man Rihanna shouldn't have been dancing with other men that night. Since woman is naturally less confrontational than man, a woman who confronts a man is provoking the man to anger and violence. Since woman is naturally more inclined to monogamy than man, any woman who gives a man an STI is a whore. While a man who does it should've worn a condom. On the opposite side of that coin is the notion that a man should never, ever, ever, ever hit a woman. How does this affect the punishing of violence? And what about women going into armed combat? Are women equal in the United States or not? (Yes, it was rhetorical).

Relationship Matters
While gender dynamics are harder to pin down some relationship dynamics are crystal clear. For example, there are some women who GETTHIS close to men and shout in their faces in an argument. Sometimes they hit men believing that they won't get hit back. Sometimes they get lucky because after all the man is human and in the heat of the moment most humans react first and think later. If that man/teen comes from a home where he saw his mother constantly being beat then that woman should not allow arguments to escalate to that level. But since both that woman and man are young and inexperienced I think the best thing for them to do is move on since they cannot get on.

The Silver Lining
With that being said both Chris and Rihanna are young and that is extremely helpful. I'm sure both of their PR person's are fashioning a comeback as we speak. Rihanna will return from the Barbados, a more mature woman who sells millions of her break-up/heartbreak single; while Chris will go to counseling/rehab and dedicate his new album to the love of his life who he treated wrong (and his fans will eat it up). Since both he and Rihanna are cash cows, the record industry has an interest in both stars overcoming this very public spat.

As Chris is,19, I am hesitant to label him a so-called woman beater. My sincere evaluation of this situation is that this was an argument gone terribly wrong (sometimes you can't live with a person and you can't live without them [in which you case you might end up living in jail]). I also know what it's like to be held to very high standards and when you miss the bar, the fall is very long and hard (I'm sure Michael Phelps is glad to have this latest diversion away from his bong smoking).

The truth is, life is messy. As long as Chris continues to live and learn I believe he will come out just fine.

Note: Update 15 Feb 2009 (Chris Brown issues a statement).

Words cannot begin to express how sorry and saddened I am over what transpired. I am seeking the counseling of my pastor, my mother and other loved ones and I am committed, with God's help, to emerging a better person. Much of what has been speculated or reported on blogs and/or reported in the media is wrong. While I would like to be able to talk about this more, until the legal issues are resolved, this is all I can say except that I have not written any messages or made any posts to Facebook, on blogs or any place else. Those posts or writings under my name are frauds.

Chris Brown "Run It" from the Cops amid Asssualt Probe - Rihanna Cancels Grammy Gig

2009-02-09T02:04:00.022Z

It looks like the Grammy’s is the night for come-ups and fall-downs. R&B star Chris Brown, 19, is on the run from the LAPD for allegedly assaulting a woman and fleeing the scene. “Brown and an unidentified woman were involved in an argument in a vehicle that escalated after Brown and the woman exited the car. The woman suffered visible injuries and identified Brown as her attacker, according to police. Cops say they are looking to speak with Brown and may arrest him when they find him” (Rolling Stones Mag).

The buzz in blogosphere is that the unidentified woman is fellow teen idol and girlfriend, Rihanna, 20. Rihanna cancelled her performance at the Grammy’s on Sunday evening. Unofficially she had a car accident and could no longer perform. Officially, “Rihanna is well. Thank you for concern and support.” Police won’t release the name of the woman but they have virtually given the scoop by saying the woman had a right to privacy because it was a “domestic” dispute (nice police work).

Sadly the chances of this being a rumor-come-true of the R&B teen duo are high. Chris Brown has spoken about seeing his step-father routinely beat his mother and the two are known to have a tempestuous relationship. From experience I can say that once a relationship turns sour – and a couple has been arguing non-stop – it’s better to split. If the anger continues unabated, violence is the most-likely outcome. This doesn’t excuse Chris Brown (if he did indeed assault Rihanna). But IF he did, let’s hope that Rihanna finds the courage to use her bad situation for good, and to encourage the young women (and men) affected by dating violence to seek help.

UPDATE (LA Times - 9 Feb):

After the gala, Brown and a woman drove through the upscale Los Angeles neighborhood about 12:30 a.m. Sunday in a rented Lamborghini and started arguing, police said. Brown stopped the car on North June Street, the two got out and the argument escalated, according to police. The victim, who was later identified by sources familiar with the case as Rihanna, suffered visible injuries and identified Brown as her attacker, according to the police report. Authorities did not describe her injuries or whether she was treated for them.The crime report gives the victim’s name as Robyn (Rihanna) Fenty — Rihanna’s given name.

Whitney Houston's Comeback

2009-02-09T00:02:00.005Z

It's official. White Houston is back -- minus Bobby Brown and the unforgettable 'crack is whack' comment.

Listening to the bootleg video on YouTube I must say her voice is not 100 per cent and that is a shame!

I remember dancing to Whitney's 'How Will I Know' at school dances when I was a girl, and marveling at her exquisite beauty. I would never have imagined that she could throw 10-plus years of her career down the drain with a drug addiction (and a busted man).

Let this be a lesson to all: Some boundaries (and oh how I hate them) are drawn for a reason; and when you step out of those lines you risk stepping into the pile of crap that those lines could've helped you avoid.

Crack is indeed whack.

Image Source: Getty Images via Daylife

Education Slashed in Stimulus Bill

2009-02-08T01:03:00.017Z

Knowledge is power. I wonder does this have anything to do with the Conservatives push for the following cuts from the stimulus bill:

$600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)
$16 billion for School Construction
$3.5 billion for Higher Education Construction
$98 million for School Nutrition
$100 million for Distance Learning
$2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization
$100 million for Science
$2 billion for Broadband

Sigh. When will we learn? Education costs money but ignorance costs that much more. The last thing we want is an entire generation of children whose learning was interrupted by a recession, which extends to the laying off teachers, inferior teaching materials, and an environment that is not conducive to learning.

Image Source: Getty Life

Pork and Barrel: Stimulus Targets Rich and Poor

2009-02-07T21:05:00.033Z

I started to comb through the 647-bailout laden with legalese but after a couple of pages I figured there are better ways for me to spend my weekend. So I took to the net to see if I could find out what the big fuss is all about.

I've finally managed to find a couple of stories that read the same, along with some funny trivia such as the stimulus specifically forbids former shady governor Rod Blagojevich from receiving one-red cent.

Aside from the play-by-play partisan bickering this is what I found out: Obama's bill (that's what I like to call it) was cut down to $819 billion. The AP reports that a chunk of the stimulus money would go to those hardest hit by the recession via items such as unemployment compensation, health care and food stamps.

Obama said in his Internet address on Saturday that, "Americans across this country are struggling, and they are watching to see if we're equal to the task before us. Let's show them that we are. And let's do whatever it takes to keep the promise of America alive in our time."

I know helping those in need is a difficult concept for the Republicans to fathom. After all this was the group in charge when Hurricane Katrina hit. They left some 80,000 impoverished people stranded in New Orleans while the levies broke, apparently unaware that not everyone could whip out a credit card and flee to safety. So it is again with this economic disaster: millions of Americans are drowning in debt while politicians are squabbling over who needs a life raft most.

Now the old guard is frothing at the lips about not having room to throw a bundle to their cronies who will in turn spread the wealth a little more densely. A major sticking point is that the Repugs (and some moderate Democrats) wanted (and still want) more tax cuts for the wealthy, as if Reagan's trickle down economics and Bush's Crony-economics haven't done is in already. They in essence have complained that helping the needy wont immediately stimulate the economy; so these people should just find another way to survive (although they wouldn't dare say it like this aloud).

I understand the greediness, really I do, but what I've yet to understand is how giving money to the rich will help to stimulate the economy when Bush has been doing that for the past eight years to no avail.

I'm gonna' have to write to Washington and ask them to explain that to me in plain American.

Source: Images Wikipedia and CC

Michelle Re-enlisted to the Front Lines

2009-02-06T16:15:00.022Z

For now it's Sayonara to mom-in-chief, and welcome back to "the closer."

Ms. O's husband is in trouble and she has agreed to come out of semi-retirement and serve on the front line.

As we all know Obama has been fighting for a stimulus package, which refuses to be neatly packaged. Opponents say it's pork. Proponents say it's not meaty enough. And I say, hey dude, where's my bailout!

The numbers have been all over the place from $920 billion to $800 billion (though it could change again any moment). The latest is that one lawmaker thinks it should be $880 billion -- specifically -- I guess he needs to get a project through.

You can change the POTUS but you can't change DC politics. From what I hear, the Republicans have been up to no good. The Washington Post reports that Obama has been courting the Repugs behind closed doors and they, in one solid bloc, voted against the measure. So much for bipartianship. So much for ... nah, too early to go that far.

From the Politico: As she [Michelle] makes a "get-to-know-you" tour of federal agencies, Obama is using her considerable platform to amplify the message coming out of the White House: pass the stimulus plan, and pass it now.... The White House seems to be betting that Michelle Obama can work some of her old campaign magic--she was nicknamed "the closer," because she was so effective at getting undecided voters on board.

In the ethnography, Rains Gone Bad, Women Gone Mad, the women of a People in Tanzania do highly ritualized rain dances when the droughts threaten their existence. The women are only deployed after the male chief and his rain making assistants have failed to make rain for one month. In this rainmaking ritual the women embody hypermasculinity and hyperfeminity in their dancing, and by doing so bring together male and fem

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

ale into a relationship of perfect harmony for the communal good.

I've always seen Michelle and Barack as the perfect complements to each other and his willingness to call on her when he is in trouble shows that he highly respects her ability.

With that said, the people say, put on your dancing shoes Michelle. You are needed for the common good.