One of the most humiliating scenarios I can think of is having to stand on a street corner in a city and beg passers-by for change. For many, it's a reality of life. In urban centers I've been to all around the world, these are the people who can be easiest to find — and easiest to ignore.I'm as guilty of that as anyone else. Someone on this blog recently commented on how difficult it can be to understand or even acknowledge the suffering of others when we are not similarly afflicted. It's a salient point: To truly feel compassion for those who face such circumstances, would I need to face them as well? And what would that feel like? If I stood all day long on a street corner and asked every passing pedestrian for spare change, how many would simply avoid eye contact and pretend they didn't hear me? How many would cast a dismissive or patronizing glare? How many would smugly tell me to get a job? How many would cross the street just to avoid interaction with me? How many would lie to me? And how much of a human being would I feel like at the end of the day?Of course, there's always the age-old, textbook excuse: These are the same people who will just use the money to buy liquor, drugs, or cigarettes. On countless occasions, I've used it to rationalize my choice to decline those who ask me for change on the street. It's about time I viewed this for what it is — an excuse. I don't deny that some who seek money from others will indeed use it to get their next fix — but this reality in itself doesn't exempt me from showing compassion to those who are legitimately in need for reasons beyond their control. I haven't done so well in this regard, to be sure: When one has a warm place to sleep, clothes to wear, and food to eat, it's easy to lose empathy for those who do not.This isn't necessarily a call to break out our wallets for everyone who asks, and it's certainly not a guilt trip. It is, however, a reminder that need is everywhere — not just in Africa, or Asia, or South America, but right here on our cities' streets. It's easy to lose sight of this fact, especially when we're not the ones who have to rely on the generosity of others for our very survival.
This Web site provides a look at the U.S. Electoral College and allows the user to predict how each state will vote in the presidential election in November. It then tallies the results and shows which party would emerge as the winner if your predictions prove correct this fall.It's an especially interesting tool in an election year when a number of states once considered "safe bets" are now competitive and could make a profound difference in the outcome — states like Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, and even Georgia. If Barack Obama can claim victory in any of those — particularly one of the latter three — then he's in pretty good shape. It would give him breathing room should he lose any of the large toss-up states historically considered critical for White House contenders — Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.My prediction handed Obama a 273-265 victory over Sen. John McCain this November. But I took a fairly pessimistic approach, imagining a scenario in which McCain was able to clinch both Ohio and Florida as well as those other four previously mentioned states, while Obama took Michigan and Pennsylvania. So how did Obama win, you ask? The answer is Colorado, whose nine electoral votes tipped the balance in his favor. The Rocky Mountain State is another one whose shifting voter demographic could prove pivotal. (I also awarded Iowa and New Mexico to Obama; those two may be equally crucial on Nov. 4.)My scenario is fairly unlikely, I realize — Obama could potentially win by a much larger margin, depending on how the political winds blow between now and then. Still, I generally prefer to temper expectations and be pleasantly surprised than set them too high and be gravely disappointed. In any event, seeing a state like Virginia in Obama's column would be a Cinderella story — one that's perfectly within reach in an election year like 2008.
I did not go on the Mount Rainier hike this weekend for a variety of reasons — namely, I don't yet have the proper equipment, I'm not yet conditioned to hike up 5,000 feet in elevation on a glacier, and perhaps most convincingly, the peak was shrouded in clouds on Saturday, so the views would have been limited anyway. But I was able to take advantage of daylight that lasts until nearly 10 p.m. for an evening hike this week in the Cascade foothills.
Admittedly, it was hardly on par with the aforementioned — having an elevation gain of just 1,100 feet — but nonetheless, it was about a two-hour hike that afforded excellent views, such as the picture above, and we still ended up hiking back through the woods in the dark. (Luckily, several fellow hikers had headlamps.)
On Saturday, I went with some good friends to the Fremont Fair, an annual neighborhood festival here in Seattle replete with several blocks of tents containing local artisans, political groups, and other vendors, as well as live music and beer gardens. Oh yes, and naked people. We quickly discovered that this was a clothing-optional event. One tradition in the Fremont district this time of year is the naked bike ride, where cyclists peddle down the streets in their birthday suits. But the nudity was hardly restricted to that. It's rather memorable to cross paths with groups of naked men and women on a public street. Evidently, some are very comfortable with their natural appearances. It must be liberating for them.
All things considered, it was a relaxing — and revealing — weekend.
About a month ago, I received in the mail an official-looking envelope containing a return address listed as none other than the White House itself. Inside was the note pictured above.
At first, I was perplexed by the letter. Then I remembered that, some months back, I had sent an e-mail to George W. Bush, asking him to support reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), an initiative that would extend U.S. funding for the care of AIDS orphans. The response I received was a bit off-topic: "The President is committed to working with the Congress to continue our economic progress, defend our freedom, and uphold our deepest values of family and faith." Was there any mention of the AIDS pandemic in all of that?
Evidently, if you write to Bush, you'll receive a form response that unsuccessfully attempts in one typed letter to address a full gamut of issues about which constituents routinely write. It's almost like calling an automated answering system:
- Economic progress: for those inquiring about housing, tax cuts, unemployment rate, and gas prices
- Defend our freedom: for those inquiring about the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and warrantless wiretapping
- Family and faith: for those inquiring about gay marriage, abortion, abstinence-only education, and prayer in schools
So, what do you dial if you're contacting the president about, say, the environment, or yes, the AIDS crisis? Perhaps I should simply be satisfied that I received in reply an official White House letter printed on high-quality paper. Never mind that it made nary a mention of the issue for which the correspondence was sent in the first place.
It's good to know that the president takes his constituents' views so seriously.
The church I've been going to lately has a group called the wilderness ministry, which offers regular trips to naturally scenic and wild locations near Seattle for camping, hiking, rafting, and other similar outdoor activities. The idea is to leave behind the activity of the city and immerse oneself in nature for a unique spiritual experience. The expeditions are led by trained and experienced guides, who show you how to safely commune with the wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest.
Next weekend's trip happens to be a day hike on Washington's Mount Rainier (shown above on the blog's head banner), the state's highest peak and a dormant volcano about 60 miles southeast of here. At 14,411 feet, it's about as high as any of the peaks in the Colorado Rockies and has a much greater elevation gain than any of them. Its dominant profile on days when the clouds lift has tantalized me for as long as I've lived out here. The hike would lead to Camp Muir, a climbers' stopping point at about 10,000 feet in elevation on the south face of the mountain. I'm extremely tempted by this opportunity. We wouldn't reach the summit, of course, which is fine — I doubt I could make it there anyway. Camp Muir, however, is high enough to make the hike "very rewarding," as the trip leader puts it, and I'm sure the views even from there would be tremendous.Nevertheless, I have to weigh these benefits against some fairly serious reservations I have, namely:
- Physical exertion. The hike would involve an elevation gain of more than 5,000 feet. I simply don't know whether I have that in me. I'm about as spry now as I'll ever be, but am I spry enough?
- Altitude. Reaching 10,000 feet is nothing to sneeze at. It may be something to gasp at.
- The elements. We'd be climbing exclusively on snow and glaciers, so I'd have to spring for some high-quality boots. Plus, there's the weather factor. Earlier this month, one hiker lost his life and several others were stranded up there in a blizzard. Needless to say, I wouldn't even think about going if the weather was anything less than perfect — meaning clear and sunny. Seriously, I wouldn't. Don't worry.
Truly, if I considered the drawbacks and risks of such an endeavor without regard for its potential rewards, there'd be no point. But the potential sense of accomplishment and utter spirit of adventure implicit in such a trip cause it to merit legitimate consideration. So, the question remains: to climb or not to climb? I'll use this week to decide.
Recent meteorological events across the United States should serve as powerful evidence that the consequences of the human-driven global warming crisis are much broader in scope than just hotter average temperatures. More than that, these events should lend credence to the notion that, as the crisis escalates, no corner of the globe will be left untouched.In the past week, the East Coast has roasted under temperatures approaching triple digits with stifling humidity in places like New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Meanwhile, in the Midwest, heavy rains combined with high water levels from last winter's memorable snows are creating floods that rival those of the summer of 1993, while several deadly tornadoes have touched down in the same region. Here in the Pacific Northwest, it's the exact opposite situation of the East Coast. Record cold temperatures are causing early June to feel more like late November and are responsible for more than a foot of fresh snow that fell across higher elevations in the North Cascades and Olympic Mountains.It's easy to assume that man-made climate change simply equals warmer weather and that any exception to the rule disproves the entire concept. The aforementioned examples, however, should illustrate that higher temperatures are just the tip of the iceberg. Global warming throws climatic patterns into a state of flux, creating erratic meteorological phenomena across the planet that may range from violent weather like twisters and hurricanes, to more widespread and prolonged disasters like flooding and droughts. Unseasonably cold temperatures are part of the equation, too. The bottom line is that climate change disrupts the planet's natural rhythm, and no population or location will ultimately be left unaffected. That's why everyone should be concerned and take action now to slow the potentially catastrophic effects of this crisis. It is, after all, everyone's problem.One could argue that these weather-related events across the United States are merely part of an unusual climate pattern representing a departure from the norm. Maybe so, but I recall there was once a time when I heard the Great Floods of 1993 described as a "100-year flood." And it hasn't quite been 100 years since 1993.
Reasonable individuals can debate the motives behind the publication of "What Happened," a memoir recently released by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, which offers a stinging and controversial critique of the Bush administration from an insider's perspective. We've already heard the expected chorus of outcries — the harshest of which so far may have come from former presidential candidate Bob Dole, who called McClellan a "greedy opportunist" and "miserable creature." I won't comment on the rationale or timing of the publication of this memoir. Frankly, I don't have enough information on either to be credible.McClellan's motives aside, though, the saddest part of this story is that I don't doubt a word of what he asserts in his book (which I haven't yet read but have heard discussed at length in the media). Ironically, when he served as press secretary, I commonly referred to McClellan as the "Bush propaganda puppet" because it was painfully obvious that's precisely what he was. Now, regrettably, his book probably serves as mere confirmation of what millions of Americans already knew about the personality of George W. Bush: an intellectually incurious man who decides up front what he believes — without regard for evidence to the contrary or varying perspectives — and then works overtime to convince himself and others that his desired version of reality is true, to the point of waging a campaign of propaganda and deception. It should be a surprise to no one that Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq long before the "weapons of mass destruction" talk even began.Setting aside the content of McClellan's book, let's recognize this memoir for what it truly represents: an open democracy whose protection of free speech and expression is still strong. America may be reeling from eight years of a reckless, incompetent, arrogant, and dishonest president, and the controversy over McClellan's claims may grow quite heated before it dies down. Either way, though, let's not forget that many societies would view such unbridled and biting criticism of a public official as taboo or even criminal. Here in the United States, we cherish that as a fundamental right. Whether McClellan's words resonate with you or not, remember that he was able to publish them freely. That alone should be a source of hope for Americans like myself who grow weary of hearing nothing but bad news.
I suspect I wasn't alone Tuesday in relishing the notion that the protracted, often bitter battle for the Democratic presidential nomination may finally be at a close. Hillary Clinton indicated that she wouldn't make any decisions about her campaign on the evening that voters in Montana and South Dakota cast ballots in the final primaries. But even her closest supporters were saying that the time to do so was drawing near. Indeed, it would be the least she could do at the conclusion of a period marred by unexpected hostility at a time when Americans should have been celebrating the choice between two presidential candidates who made history simply by virtue of their identities.That's what disappointed me most about a primary season that started off with a decided aura of hope for change. It quickly devolved into a divisive match in which the non-issues became the only issues. Whether it was Obama's "bitter" remark or the comments of his former pastor, or whether it was Clinton's lie about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia or her alleged insinuation behind mentioning the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, our attention was co-opted by petty headlines that had no bearing on what is most consequential to the future of this country.As a voter, I didn't care that Obama made a poorly worded comment about voters in Middle America. I'm sure I'd also make a host of speaking gaffes if I had to constantly operate in the spotlight with as little sleep and personal time as he has had. And I wasn't even fazed much by Clinton's lie. I've never met anyone — myself included — who hasn't been dishonest at some time or another for the sake of personal gain. Either way, her lie pales in comparison to the catalog of outrageous, destructive whoppers told by the current White House incumbent, whose departure we should all anticipate the way a 7-year-old anticipates presents on Christmas morning.Therefore, as we finally transition into the general campaign season after a long and arduous string of primaries and caucuses, let's hope that the focus shifts away from "gotcha" sound bytes and trivial bickering, replaced by civil discourse on the most pivotal issues facing Americans in a critical election year. There's simply too much at stake for this nation to waste any more time debating an ill-conceived remark or the words of someone whose name won't even be on the ballot in November.
One of the most humiliating scenarios I can think of is having to stand on a street corner in a city and beg passers-by for change. For many, it's a reality of life. In urban centers I've been to all around the world, these are the people who can be easiest to find — and easiest to ignore.
