Off to See the Wizard

There was much hullaballoo when George Bush popped up in Saudi last week, palm out, hoping for a free pass to the end of his presidency. In other words, for a promise to pump more oil. The Saudis, conventional in their capriciousness, turned him down.

But let's not forget the ridiculousness of this situation. The United States is first in the world for oil consumption, with about 25.2% of world demand originating between sea and shining sea. We're headed, according to all predictions, for a serious crisis, considering as this pit is hardly bottomless. Meanwhile, our President is playing the mendicant in a country famous for its oppressive and unpredictable politics, and incidentally, one whose extreme Wahhabi sect has known connections to many of the world's deadliest terrorists (the rest, of course, were once the toast of Reagan's Rose Garden). Sometimes, there is no difference between sleeping with the enemy and being the enemy. Or, in the case of the Saudi royal family, failing to control the enemy and being the enemy.

Nonetheless, assuming that all the reports are true, and we are facing the so-called "end of oil," and that future predictions by IEA and EIA continue to be gloomy (and how exactly is it that in the case of a commodity with a fixed supply we have up until now only modeled based on demand?) In the words of the Godfather, "'What can I do?' What is that nonsense?"

Hence all the hand-wringing. If production peaks before demand, we are in for a serious catastrophe, the proportions of which will dwarf the economic credit crunch and the physical water shortage.

Let me be blunt: my grandparents live in a prosperous suburb of Mumbai, where for the past several months now they get two hours of water a day. Note I did not say clean water, note I did not say drinkable. I said, Two hours of water a day.

Meanwhile, I use more water in two hours than they use in two weeks. To return to the Godfather, an epic that for some reason seems so applicable to the oil crunch, "That is not justice." In another ten years, assuming demand has outstripped production, it will be my grandparents who get two gallons of gas a week, whereas I'll still be eating food that has a negative energy output ratio.

A utilitarian might wash his hands of the whole affair on the grounds that it's working out for the best. Assuming Americans are the most efficient people on earth (a faulty assumption to begin with, for reasons of energy usage and, on a financial level, market failures) then who cares about global access? I, for one, have trouble accepting that one life is worth more than another, but I admit that's how the world works.

Nonetheless, people talk about energy efficiency as if it's a jaunt, or a philanthropy, but Al Gore (not the Godfather) may be right that there is a moral dimension to this whole situation. It is not just a matter of dollars and cents and futures traded on commodities exchanges the world over.

When one person uses a lot of oil, someone else has to go without. That someone else has a face and a name and a life. What does he deserve? It is interesting that Americans, not God, will be deciding the answer to this very difficult question.

Double Standard

You can now watch the trailers for "You Don't Mess with the Zohan." It looks bad. It looks very, very bad. But it also makes me realize that we still operate in the existence of a double standard.

I'm not talking about gender. If Tina Fey is any example, female comedians can make bad movies with the same lack of talent as any late-night stand-up on Comedy Central. (And Baby Mama was bad. It was catastrophically bad. The premise was banal, the jokes were predictable. Hiring a surrogate mother for a 30-something woman whose career consumed her life? How Lifetime. Tina Fey should do something very weird - like build a space station out of pretzel sticks and the hair of llamas. She could make a great movie about that.)

At any rate, I'm not talking about that double standard. I'm talking about Zohan. An Israeli "anti-terrorist" agent. We can laugh comfortably about a man whose mission and training is to eliminate suspected terrorists Bond-style.

Who is Zohan's Palestinian counterpart? Wait, you'll say, there are no Israeli terrorists. There are certain people within Israel who believe that there should be one state, and that state should be Israel, and the Palestinian Arabs who have lived in the region for years should suck it up and become Jordanian citizens (because, you know, it's merely a hop, skip and a jump to Jordan on election day and therefore, at least, a Palestinian vote will count for something even if this system is not, strictly speaking, the most democratic). There are people who believe this. Some of these people train other young people to create settlements beyond Israel's political boundaries for the express purpose of building Israel, while perhaps deliberately antagonizing the Palestinians. But it's a stretch - naturally - to call these people terrorists. After all, they haven't bombed anybody.

And anyway, even if they had, even if the Israeli government of 1948 had followed an ethnic cleansing policy that left 800,000 Arabs as homeless refugees (or dead!), even if the United Nations had issued a report condemning paramilitary settlers responsible for multiple Palestinian deaths in the West Bank and Gaza, even if Palestinians were routinely treated up to the present day with such brutality by Israeli checkpoint soldiers that even President George W Bush felt compelled to weigh in: even if these absurd hypotheticals were true,

Who would make a movie called "Don't Mess with the Abu Bakr?" Who would laugh at it the way they laughed at "Borat"?

Let me be clear - I have no reason to side with Islamic militants. As a first generation American whose parents and grandparents grew up in majority-Hindu India, members of my family and friends have lost their property and sometimes their lives to religious extremism. But for me, my family, or the Indian government to suggest that the Hindus and Muslims did not each play an equal part in antagonizing the other would not just be naive - it would be criminal.

But the violence in the Middle East ebbs and flows, while Hollywood endures.

Sweet Home Anywhere But West Virginia

In much the same way that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews (say some!) and Palestine is the ancestral homeland of the Palestinians (hmm...say others...), and Georgia is the ancestral homeland of felons, West Virgina is the ancestral homeland of the idiots. It is their Promised Land. It is the place where they can go when no other state in the Union will have them.

I realize that is an offensive generalization. Not everyone in West Virginia is unintelligent. In fact, some West Virginians are quite smart, and also not married to their immediate relatives. And also probably do not keep assault weapons in their homes.

But I digress. People from Maryland may subscribe to unfortunate stereotypes where their Southwestern neighbors are concerned, but every so often, I read an article like this. In general, I approach political journalism warily, maybe because it's so prone to sensationalism. In fact, the real story might not be the fact that West Virginia's voters went against Obama, but the fact that Pat Healy waits until halfway down page two to mention that those who did so also felt, in large part, that the economic slowdown had affected them. West Virginia, unlike Maryland (a state with which it shares almost nothing except a slave-owning past) is not a rich state. West Virginia may be the whitest state in the nation, but blaming that for the entirety of their prejudices may not be fair.

Then again, I may just feel guilty that West Virginia ranks behind every other state and all US territories when it comes to places I'd want to live.

109.

I noticed something about the Democratic nomination race while looking through the Financial Times' interactive delegate map.

From state to state, region to region, the race between Clinton and Obama has been far from close on the local level.

In New Hampshire, Clinton beat Obama by 3%. Same story in Texas. But except for those two states, the votes have been sharply divided. It's common for the winner to have scored in the 50's or 60's, with the opponent trailing scores of points behind. Such was the story in Washington (68-31 Obama), Wyoming (61-38 Obama), Arkansas (69-27 Clinton), and Maine (59-40 Obama). Even Maryland - my home state - went for a Obama by a whopping 22% over Clinton.

What does this mean? Well on the surface, of course, it suggests that Clinton and Obama are not interchangeable. In past elections, I've heard voters moan that the candidates all bear an eerie resemblance to each other, even across party lines. One of the reasons may be the median voter theorem (as any adequate political science student knows) but the other may just be that politics is a factory from which everyone emerges looking roughly the same. (Or did I just say the same thing twice?)

Nonetheless, it seems that the states that want Obama really want Obama, whereas the states that want Hillary will brook no opposition either. This could be a problem for the Democrats when the time rolls around for a national election. By then, unlikely as it seems, the Dems will have one candidate, who will face the unpleasant task of quelling the dissent in his own ranks long after McCain has quelled the dissent in his. Of course pundits are calling on Dems to unite behind their man/woman/etc, but the question is, do they know if they even can? Maybe the differential between Clinton and Obama suggests vastly divergent opinions on where America should head, or what it should look like, or any other irreconcilable difference. Since the days of FDR, the party has specialized in covering as many people as possible with its vast and growing umbrella. After all, how could progressives turn anyone away? How could the people not be heard?

Well, they've been heard. And they don't all want the same thing.

Of course, one could argue that Reagan and to a greater extent W have turned conservatism into a populist - even revolutionary - movement, and that inclusivity is no longer a purely Democratic problem.

108.

On the bleary morning-after Clinton's campaign unofficially bit the dust, I've been pondering the significance of a female president of the United States. I realize I'm late to the game. It was Betsy Reed who introduced me to the history of the "Clinton as feminist icon" debate with her piece in the Nation, and that was about two hours ago.

Which reminds me of the infamous line from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, when Shylock the Jew says of his people, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" It seems the question Clinton has been forced to answer on behalf of all women with political aspirations is, "if you elect us, do we not lead?"

But why was this ever in doubt? A quick search through history reveals that the US would hardly be the first nation to offer its highest office to someone who has two X-chromosomes. In fact, among the G8 nations, we join Russia, Italy and Japan as the nations which haven't. Considering that Russia's recent democratic history has been none too impressive, and that the last two countries are known for their more rigidly patriarchal cultures, what does that say about the United States?

The British elected Margaret "if you want something done, ask a woman" Thatcher in 1979. The Canadians had Kim Campbell for all of five months in 1993. Edith Cresson served the French for barely a year, although her career was far from distinguished, and Angela Merkel still holds power in Germany.

Among the rest of the world, India (Gandhi), Israel (Meir), the Philippines (Arroyo), Nicaragua (Chamorro, in between various juntas) and numerous other nations have had female leaders.

Against this background, what's more startling is the fact that the United States hasn't elected a female president. The exclusion seems deliberate. Interestingly, none of the G8 nations have had a recent president from a "racial minority" group, an omission that has been deliberate. On this front, at least, the US need have no qualms: Barack's half-black half-white half-Arab half-blue half-red half-Moses half-Carter all-American style has struck a chord with us.

Hurray.

I also wonder how much of the pandering that has gone on in the press over Clinton's gender might have been much, much better applied to other issues and concerns. There has been much debate recently over the decline of the dollar and the end of the so-called "American empire." Although these terms are simplistic at best and useless at worst, looking at the hash that's been made of Clinton's candidacy reveals a depressing tendency among all parties to look at the issues of the day on the most superficial level possible.

Since when is "black" "white" "man" "woman" a stand? Since when is it anything besides an observation of fact?

In adapting Hillary for The Hills generation, we've lost something. And I don't just mean the chance to finally elect a female President.

107.

So Obama finally condemned Rev. Wright. I'm not surprised he did it, I'm just sad. I thought a man like Obama, who not only confronts but seems to thrive on ambiguity, would be able to straddle the fine line. I cheered a little when I read his speech on race. I thought, here's a guy who understands the need to understand.

Well, too much too soon, it seems. Yes, so Wright seems to be a bit of a firebrand - but the course of true faith has never run smooth, as demonstrated just this month by the visit of another dignitary - the Pope. Americans fell all over the pontiff, in spite of the fact that this Nazi-turned-cardinal once referred to all of Mohammed's teachings as "evil and inhuman." It's true he apologized, and I'm not trying to knock the Pope.

My question is, if respect for the office means that in spite of his intolerant history Benedict warrants a presidential airport pickup and a White House dinner, why can't the world step back a little from Rev. Wright? Yes, he's a man of God, but since when does that mean he is perfect? And why does Wright have to be perfect, when so many other religious figures aren't?

I don't blame him for saying that an attack on him is an attack on the black church - after all, isn't it his right to speak up for the institution he serves, regardless of whether or not I agree with him? Inasmuch as it is the Pope's job to condemn abortion and birth control, isn't it also Rev. Wright's job to condemn injustices faced by minorities in America?

Yes, he said the government spread AIDS as a way of getting rid of black people. Believe me, Wright is not the first to think these thoughts. Perhaps a black American, familiar with the history of white scientific "interventions" as the mainstream is not, would not find Wright's theory so hard to believe.

I'm not trying to say that the man is an angel, or even that I agree with him. I'm asking why Wright doesn't get the same right to disagree as the Pope? Why is it that Benedict nee Ratzinger recently spoke at Nationals Park, while Wright faced a rescinded degree offer from Northwestern? (Clearly the fight has left these Methodists)

Is it just that the majority of Americans, in their hearts, believe what the Pope said about Islam? Or is that we've had a Catholic president, you know, but it's still a big deal that Obama is running for the highest office in the land?

105.

The WSJ has this to say about our generation: "A lot of today's young adults feel insecure if they're not regularly complimented."

Let's be honest, WSJ: this is hardly a social insight on the level of...well, actually, from the beer-goggled Lolitas of the hookup generation to the Ivy League virgins who just say no to Oxytocin, it seems like no one over the age of 30 knows jack about our generation. Certainly not the press. Any day now I expect Men's Health to win a Pulitzer for "Dorm Room Confidential" the last line of which reads (I am not making this up) "Remember, college is something you outgrow. College sex is not." Sounds like the sequel to "The Game."

And now the WSJ wants a piece.

So they say we need constant praise. And I'm gonna be honest: this may actually be the truth. The other day I went out with some friends to a bar, and one of my friends hit it off with this one guy, who apparently told her (I know this through hearsay) that she was "intimidatingly beautiful."

Instead of spotting this ass for the Mystery wannabe that he is, I was jealous of my friend's compliment. I wanted it. Seriously, is this what a college education does, turn you into a neurotic, praise-dependent hack?

Then I wondered how long it had been since anyone had said I looked good, and when I realized it was almost three years, I nearly had to seal myself in the ladies' for a self-indulgent sobfest. Ridiculous.

When I was in seventh grade, I went to nerd camp. I loved it. I learned how to pipe genetic code into blue gel and read it, which is, for a seventh grader, a little like conquering Everest. So there I was, one of seven girls in a class of 18. And one night after lights out, my roomie and I are lying on our bunks, and roomie starts complaining about how it annoys her that all the guys in our class are attracted to this one girl. Let's call her Joy, because that was her name. Well, Joy was cute. I did not need menthol blue to show me that.

But then, Roomie starts talking about how said boys had, in fact, made up a numbered list of the girls in our class. Can you imagine what the numbers corresponded to? At any rate, the tragedy of Roomie's hours was that she was ranked #6 on this list, whereas Joy was #1. The other girls, she said, were somewhere in between. She did not say (and did not need to) who was last. Can you guess who was last? I could.

And while this sounds really sad, I can honestly say I did not give a flying fuck at the time. I mean, I had just sequenced DNA! Pile on the haters, as far as I was concerned.

But at my three serious internships, I can recall every compliment I got for my work. They were not effusive, and they came towards the middle or end. I remember when my first boss told me I was a very good writer. I remember when the second told me I did excellent work. I remember when the third told me I had the makings of a great journalist. These compliments came towards the end of the term, and it's true, they resolved whatever performance anxiety I might have felt.

But the thing is: why do I need compliments from anyone? And this is what the WSJ article doesn't really touch on at all. What are compliments? Why was praise invented? I suspect that praise is a form of "social glue." We like people who say good things about us, even things that we know (on our better days) are untrue or grossly exaggerated. If someone said to me that I was "intimidatingly beautiful" or a "phenomenal editor" I would be simultaneously thrilled and weirded out. I know the first is simply not true, and I know the second absolutely is. But to hear it...somehow, it has reached the point where what is said about you is more important than who you are.

But even more importantly, praise is the social network of superficial people. Today I met a girl in the cafeteria. We used to be friends. I'll call her Joy, because although that wasn't her name, she's virtually the same girl I knew a decade ago. The first thing she said to me, after "hello," was "Oh, I like your shoes!"

Did she? Will I ever know? But at that moment I saw through her praise to a cold, hard truth. This girl and I would never like each other. She treated my feelings harshly back when we were friends, and what the hell were shoes when compared to that?

But nonetheless, meaningless praise has become a form of social coin for us, particularly women (I don't know about men). I often praise people I care about. I praise someone when I realize how hard they try to be a good person (a boss who always gives his employees the benefit of the doubt, a friend who bothers to understand your feelings, a professor who tries to keep lectures interesting). But here's one thing I realize, at the end of this article: praise is important. But the people who give it out for no good reason, and the people who rely on it to shore themselves up: well, we're the problem.