Today marks Chinese New Year, the year of the ox. The ox is my zodiac symbol, so I am particularly partial to it. Thanks to seeing many decorative paper placemats in Chinese restaurants growing up, I have the following horoscope burned into my memory:
Bright, patient, and inspiring to others. You can be happy by yourself, yet make an outstanding parenthood. Marry a snake or a cock. The sheep will bring trouble.
Pretty good for a beast of burden. I will try to write about inauguration soon. It was awesome and I have a lot to get down, but have been busy lately. For now, happy new year!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Somewhat less than warm
This is another photo of Alaska's Harding Icefield, taken from a different angle (farther down the mountain) than the one that I shared earlier. It's bordered by Exit Glacier, which adventurers use as a way to descend from the vast expanse of snow back down to civilization. I am posting about Harding Icefield again today because it was 10 degrees when I left for work this morning... in downtown DC.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Eight years of stubborn nonsense
This Tuesday, when Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th president, I'll be excited for a number of reasons. His election is historic and inspiring, and watching it all take place on the National Mall is going to be very, very cool. Perhaps more important, however, is who he is going to replace in office.
George W. Bush gets criticized a lot (often rightfully so) for a plethora of reasons - alienating our international allies, lying to advance a secretive agenda, appalling acts of torture, the reduction of domestic civil liberties, his perceived stupidity... I could keep typing for hours. One of his most aggravating traits, to me, is his stubborn refusal to consider opposing viewpoints. Conversely, what I think is, at least partially, so powerful about Obama is his diplomatic nature. He makes an effort to understand various perspectives on controversial issues, even if his ultimate stance remains unchanged. This attitude is important both because of its inherent pragmatism and because, projected onto the US as a whole, it makes us look good.
Anyway, reading Bob Woodward's piece in the Post made it even more clear to me just how ineffective and frighteningly closed-minded the Bush administration has been. It details how he didn't respect contradictory advice from even his closest advisors (including Colin Powell, whom I like a lot). We will probably never know the extent of the reprehensible things Bush did while in office, and that's most likely for the best. Even reading these ten "lessons to take away from the past eight years" makes me extremely uncomfortable. I find numbers 1, 2, 5, and 8 to be particularly offensive.
I don't have any guarantee that Barack Obama will be an effective president. But based on his attitude alone, I'm positive he'll be a major improvement over Bush.
George W. Bush gets criticized a lot (often rightfully so) for a plethora of reasons - alienating our international allies, lying to advance a secretive agenda, appalling acts of torture, the reduction of domestic civil liberties, his perceived stupidity... I could keep typing for hours. One of his most aggravating traits, to me, is his stubborn refusal to consider opposing viewpoints. Conversely, what I think is, at least partially, so powerful about Obama is his diplomatic nature. He makes an effort to understand various perspectives on controversial issues, even if his ultimate stance remains unchanged. This attitude is important both because of its inherent pragmatism and because, projected onto the US as a whole, it makes us look good.
Anyway, reading Bob Woodward's piece in the Post made it even more clear to me just how ineffective and frighteningly closed-minded the Bush administration has been. It details how he didn't respect contradictory advice from even his closest advisors (including Colin Powell, whom I like a lot). We will probably never know the extent of the reprehensible things Bush did while in office, and that's most likely for the best. Even reading these ten "lessons to take away from the past eight years" makes me extremely uncomfortable. I find numbers 1, 2, 5, and 8 to be particularly offensive.
I don't have any guarantee that Barack Obama will be an effective president. But based on his attitude alone, I'm positive he'll be a major improvement over Bush.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The grass is always greener in Seattle
Sometimes, when I’m having a bad day or feeling particularly stagnant, I like to fantasize about living in Seattle. There’s something about that city that I love, though I have little actual reason to feel that way. After the Orioles, I’ve always rooted casually for the Mariners, dating back to the days of Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez, and Randy Johnson. But it wasn’t until I visited Seattle, at the tail end of a two-week family vacation to Yellowstone and other national parks of the northwest, that I decided that I would like to live there.
While we were there, we went to a Mariners game. The team had a new star by then - Ichiro Suzuki – and was in the midst of a ridiculously successful, 100-some win season. They won the game my family attended, and I bought a Mariner’s t-shirt and a decorative flag. The next day, we had dinner at an Italian restaurant (where Kayla got scolded by our waitress for mixing food into her water, leading me to very maturely retaliate by blowing out all of the candles at the unoccupied tables as we were leaving). In the bathroom, a man commented on my Mariners shirt, saying something like, “they sure are having a great year, huh?”
But my love of Seattle isn’t really about sports. Rather, eager support of a successful home team is just part of what appeals to me so much about the spirit of the city. Everyone (except that waitress) was so friendly there. In some cities, tourists stick out. You can spot them in DC, ogling the Metro map, taking pictures with the monuments. And, for some reason, DC natives are not that nice to them. Granted, I try to help people who look lost, but who hasn’t had the urge to run over a segway tour in disgust? I’m sure that people could tell that we were tourists in Seattle, but no one treated us that way.
While there, we walked through the bustling Pike Place Market, visited the Rock ‘n Roll History Museum, posed for pictures with statues of pigs (think decorated Testudo’s for Maryland’s 150th), rode the monorail (unnecessarily), and watched an annual parade. We hiked some trails on nearby Mt. Rainier and enjoyed views of the Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Coming from oppressive DC humidity, we all appreciated the region’s mild summertime weather. Everyone liked Seattle. I, however, was the only one who wanted to pay $11 to go to the top of the Space Needle to take scenic photos. Unrelated: I was also the only one who a homeless woman told, “you’re a beautiful man, yes you are.”
Maybe I just claim to want to move to Seattle because I had such a good time there and it’s so far away – when I’m feeling stuck in life, moving across the country with a melodramatic flourish is kind of appealing. I don’t really know much about everyday life in the Emerald City, and the weather was uncharacteristically sunny during our vacation. But I’d like to believe that it’s more than just wishful thinking – that I was drawn by something legitimate while I was there.
Usually I can acknowledge that this whole fascination with Seattle is pretty frivolous. I love living in DC, and I’m not sure I could tear myself away from all of my local friends and family. But there are times when I think the only things holding me here are the practical, financial consequences of moving – finding a new job, a new place to live, and a way to lug my stuff 2,764 miles. And judging by the moods I’m sometimes in, if figuring out those details were easier, I’d probably be living on the west coast by now.
While we were there, we went to a Mariners game. The team had a new star by then - Ichiro Suzuki – and was in the midst of a ridiculously successful, 100-some win season. They won the game my family attended, and I bought a Mariner’s t-shirt and a decorative flag. The next day, we had dinner at an Italian restaurant (where Kayla got scolded by our waitress for mixing food into her water, leading me to very maturely retaliate by blowing out all of the candles at the unoccupied tables as we were leaving). In the bathroom, a man commented on my Mariners shirt, saying something like, “they sure are having a great year, huh?”
But my love of Seattle isn’t really about sports. Rather, eager support of a successful home team is just part of what appeals to me so much about the spirit of the city. Everyone (except that waitress) was so friendly there. In some cities, tourists stick out. You can spot them in DC, ogling the Metro map, taking pictures with the monuments. And, for some reason, DC natives are not that nice to them. Granted, I try to help people who look lost, but who hasn’t had the urge to run over a segway tour in disgust? I’m sure that people could tell that we were tourists in Seattle, but no one treated us that way.
While there, we walked through the bustling Pike Place Market, visited the Rock ‘n Roll History Museum, posed for pictures with statues of pigs (think decorated Testudo’s for Maryland’s 150th), rode the monorail (unnecessarily), and watched an annual parade. We hiked some trails on nearby Mt. Rainier and enjoyed views of the Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Coming from oppressive DC humidity, we all appreciated the region’s mild summertime weather. Everyone liked Seattle. I, however, was the only one who wanted to pay $11 to go to the top of the Space Needle to take scenic photos. Unrelated: I was also the only one who a homeless woman told, “you’re a beautiful man, yes you are.”
Maybe I just claim to want to move to Seattle because I had such a good time there and it’s so far away – when I’m feeling stuck in life, moving across the country with a melodramatic flourish is kind of appealing. I don’t really know much about everyday life in the Emerald City, and the weather was uncharacteristically sunny during our vacation. But I’d like to believe that it’s more than just wishful thinking – that I was drawn by something legitimate while I was there.
Usually I can acknowledge that this whole fascination with Seattle is pretty frivolous. I love living in DC, and I’m not sure I could tear myself away from all of my local friends and family. But there are times when I think the only things holding me here are the practical, financial consequences of moving – finding a new job, a new place to live, and a way to lug my stuff 2,764 miles. And judging by the moods I’m sometimes in, if figuring out those details were easier, I’d probably be living on the west coast by now.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Tastes great with rice
This is a recipe for curry chicken, a dish my mom makes frequently and that goes really well over a lot of white rice. It was originally my grandfather's recipe, and probably his adoptive parents' before that. "Farmer's food." The portions are kind of flexible.
- Brown a large family package of chicken thighs (I prefer boneless/skinless) in a pot with peanut oil and salt. Remove from pot and set aside, draining most of the grease.
- Chop 1 onion, 1 green pepper, 2 stalks celery, and garlic and cook until just soft in the chicken grease remaining in the pot.
- Add ~2 tbsp curry powder and a generous swish of soy sauce. Stir and cook briefly.
- Mix in 4 large potatoes, peeled and chopped, the cooked chicken pieces, 2 c. water, and 2 cubes chicken bouillon.
- Bring to a boil, then cover, reduce heat, and simmer for about 20 mins, until potatoes are tender.
- On the side, make a paste by mixing a couple tablespoons corn starch and a few spoonfuls of the broth. It should be the consistency of half and half.
- Pour corn starch mixture into the pot to thicken the sauce. Stir well and allow dish to return to a boil.
- Serve hot, with rice.
A temporary cop-out
Israel and the rest of the Middle East have been fighting intermittently for decades. To be completely honest, I've never bothered to learn much about the conflict. For as long as I can remember, it's been a part of the news, either on the front page or lurking just beyond it. Over the past couple weeks, as tensions have again escalated into outright violence, I feel obligated to have an opinion, but am having trouble taking an educated stance.
My gut reaction is to blame Israel, because they seem kind of like the bully in this situation, invading with ground troops and slaughtering civilians. No matter the underlying factors, 600-some dead Palestinians stands in ridiculously unbalanced contrast to fewer than 10 dead Israeli soldiers. The humanitarian consequences of living in a war zone without utilities, ample food supplies, and access to medical facilities also concern me. But I also know that the more radical, militaristic members of Hamas deny Israel the right to exist, and strafe their cities with rocket fire. If Canada or Mexico frequently peppered the U.S. border with missiles, I would probably favor an immediate invasion as well.
I realize that the history of this conflict is much, much deeper than this, but the point is, I don't know what to think. Andrew Sullivan has done a good job covering various aspects of the debate. One posting that particularly caught my eye was this, in which a reader argues that it's tough to evaluate the actions of either side using the guidelines of just war because it's impossible to pass moral judgment until all consequences are known. In other words, only the hindsight of history will reveal what actions are justified by their success. It is the burden of policymakers to take their best shot.
Granted, this stance is, somewhat, a cop-out. But until I feel more informed about the situation, I'm happy to be able to claim humble uncertainty.
My gut reaction is to blame Israel, because they seem kind of like the bully in this situation, invading with ground troops and slaughtering civilians. No matter the underlying factors, 600-some dead Palestinians stands in ridiculously unbalanced contrast to fewer than 10 dead Israeli soldiers. The humanitarian consequences of living in a war zone without utilities, ample food supplies, and access to medical facilities also concern me. But I also know that the more radical, militaristic members of Hamas deny Israel the right to exist, and strafe their cities with rocket fire. If Canada or Mexico frequently peppered the U.S. border with missiles, I would probably favor an immediate invasion as well.
I realize that the history of this conflict is much, much deeper than this, but the point is, I don't know what to think. Andrew Sullivan has done a good job covering various aspects of the debate. One posting that particularly caught my eye was this, in which a reader argues that it's tough to evaluate the actions of either side using the guidelines of just war because it's impossible to pass moral judgment until all consequences are known. In other words, only the hindsight of history will reveal what actions are justified by their success. It is the burden of policymakers to take their best shot.
Granted, this stance is, somewhat, a cop-out. But until I feel more informed about the situation, I'm happy to be able to claim humble uncertainty.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Across the Danube
At the top of Castle Hill in historic Budapest is, among many other things, a monument dedicated to the founding of the city. It features a gigantic statue of the bird that, according to legend, dropped its sword into the ground. I don't remember how the rest of the story goes, but it probably involved "battling against the Turks." Looking out across the Danube River, you can see the ornate building that houses the Hungarian Parliament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)