Posted by Melissa at 1:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Link time! Here's a couple stories in the news:

Posted by Melissa at 1:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Link time! Here's a couple stories in the news:

Posted by Melissa at 1:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Fiction writer Lan Samantha Chang, whom we talked to in issue 4, has been named the new director of the Iowa Writers' Workshop, the most pretigious creative writing program in the country. Awesome. Not only is she the first Asian American, but she's also the first woman to lead the workshop in its 70-year history. Associated Press story here.

Posted by Melissa at 12:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Fiction writer Lan Samantha Chang, whom we talked to in issue 4, has been named the new director of the Iowa Writers' Workshop, the most pretigious creative writing program in the country. Awesome. Not only is she the first Asian American, but she's also the first woman to lead the workshop in its 70-year history. Associated Press story here.

Posted by Melissa at 12:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Fiction writer Lan Samantha Chang, whom we talked to in issue 4, has been named the new director of the Iowa Writers' Workshop, the most pretigious creative writing program in the country. Awesome. Not only is she the first Asian American, but she's also the first woman to lead the workshop in its 70-year history. Associated Press story here.

Posted by Melissa at 12:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Is anyone else tired of Gwen Stefani parading around with an entourage of Japanese girls?

Ah, appropriating other cultures, so cool and fun.

Posted by Melissa at 11:45 AM | Comments (99) | TrackBack

Is anyone else tired of Gwen Stefani parading around with an entourage of Japanese girls?

Ah, appropriating other cultures, so cool and fun.

Posted by Melissa at 11:45 AM | Comments (99) | TrackBack

Is anyone else tired of Gwen Stefani parading around with an entourage of Japanese girls?

Ah, appropriating other cultures, so cool and fun.

Posted by Melissa at 11:45 AM | Comments (99) | TrackBack

Sorry about all the action alerts (especially when it's not on my blog day) but there's a spate of scary legislation being voted on right now. I just received an action alert about the bankruptcy bill currently before congress. It's being voted on tomorrow (Wednesday) so call your representative tonight and leave a message. Below I've pasted what moveon.org says to do, and below that I've pasted a NYTimes article on the bill.

To find out who your representative is, go to this web page:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

When you call your representative, tell the staffer who answers that you are a constituent and that you would like Rep. NAME to vote against the bankruptcy bill because it sides with big banks and corporations over middle class families. Ask the staffer to send you a letter explaining the representative's position.
After you call help us keep track of how many calls are made to which representatives by clicking on the link below.
http://www.moveonpac.org/bankruptcycalls?id=5346-5166246-_KYvIyJ_oRHgdFOYIgJWmg

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
March 8, 2005 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Column 5; Editorial Desk; Pg. 23

LENGTH: 744 words

HEADLINE: The Debt-Peonage Society

BYLINE: By PAUL KRUGMAN.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

BODY:

Today the Senate is expected to vote to limit debate on a bill that toughens the existing bankruptcy law, probably ensuring the bill's passage. A solid bloc of Republican senators, assisted by some Democrats, has already voted down a series of amendments that would either have closed loopholes for the rich or provided protection for some poor and middle-class families.

The bankruptcy bill was written by and for credit card companies, and the industry's political muscle is the reason it seems unstoppable. But the bill also fits into the broader context of what Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, calls ''risk privatization'': a steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity.

The bill would make it much harder for families in distress to write off their debts and make a fresh start. Instead, many debtors would find themselves on an endless treadmill of payments.

The credit card companies say this is needed because people have been abusing the bankruptcy law, borrowing irresponsibly and walking away from debts. The facts say otherwise.

A vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the United States are the result of severe misfortune. One recent study found that more than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

To the extent that there is significant abuse of the system, it's concentrated among the wealthy -- including corporate executives found guilty of misleading investors -- who can exploit loopholes in the law to protect their wealth, no matter how ill-gotten.

One increasingly popular loophole is the creation of an ''asset protection trust,'' which is worth doing only for the wealthy. Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment that would have limited the exemption on such trusts, but apparently it's O.K. to game the system if you're rich: 54 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Schumer amendment.

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.

None of this should come as a surprise: it's all part of the pattern.

As Mr. Hacker and others have documented, over the past three decades the lives of ordinary Americans have become steadily less secure, and their chances of plunging from the middle class into acute poverty ever larger. Job stability has declined; spells of unemployment, when they happen, last longer; fewer workers receive health insurance from their employers; fewer workers have guaranteed pensions.

Some of these changes are the result of a changing economy. But the underlying economic trends have been reinforced by an ideologically driven effort to strip away the protections the government used to provide. For example, long-term unemployment has become much more common, but unemployment benefits expire sooner. Health insurance coverage is declining, but new initiatives like health savings accounts (introduced in the 2003 Medicare bill), rather than discouraging that trend, further undermine the incentives of employers to provide coverage.

Above all, of course, at a time when ever-fewer workers can count on pensions from their employers, the current administration wants to phase out Social Security.

The bankruptcy bill fits right into this picture. When everything else goes wrong, Americans can still get a measure of relief by filing for bankruptcy -- and rising insecurity means that they are forced to do this more often than in the past. But Congress is now poised to make the bankruptcy law harsher, too.

Warren Buffett recently made headlines by saying America is more likely to turn into a ''sharecroppers' society'' than an ''ownership society.'' But I think the right term is a ''debt peonage'' society -- after the system, prevalent in the post-Civil War South, in which debtors were forced to work for their creditors. The bankruptcy bill won't get us back to those bad old days all by itself, but it's a significant step in that direction.

And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed.

Posted by claire at 5:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sorry about all the action alerts (especially when it's not on my blog day) but there's a spate of scary legislation being voted on right now. I just received an action alert about the bankruptcy bill currently before congress. It's being voted on tomorrow (Wednesday) so call your representative tonight and leave a message. Below I've pasted what moveon.org says to do, and below that I've pasted a NYTimes article on the bill.

To find out who your representative is, go to this web page:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

When you call your representative, tell the staffer who answers that you are a constituent and that you would like Rep. NAME to vote against the bankruptcy bill because it sides with big banks and corporations over middle class families. Ask the staffer to send you a letter explaining the representative's position.
After you call help us keep track of how many calls are made to which representatives by clicking on the link below.
http://www.moveonpac.org/bankruptcycalls?id=5346-5166246-_KYvIyJ_oRHgdFOYIgJWmg

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
March 8, 2005 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Column 5; Editorial Desk; Pg. 23

LENGTH: 744 words

HEADLINE: The Debt-Peonage Society

BYLINE: By PAUL KRUGMAN.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

BODY:

Today the Senate is expected to vote to limit debate on a bill that toughens the existing bankruptcy law, probably ensuring the bill's passage. A solid bloc of Republican senators, assisted by some Democrats, has already voted down a series of amendments that would either have closed loopholes for the rich or provided protection for some poor and middle-class families.

The bankruptcy bill was written by and for credit card companies, and the industry's political muscle is the reason it seems unstoppable. But the bill also fits into the broader context of what Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, calls ''risk privatization'': a steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity.

The bill would make it much harder for families in distress to write off their debts and make a fresh start. Instead, many debtors would find themselves on an endless treadmill of payments.

The credit card companies say this is needed because people have been abusing the bankruptcy law, borrowing irresponsibly and walking away from debts. The facts say otherwise.

A vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the United States are the result of severe misfortune. One recent study found that more than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

To the extent that there is significant abuse of the system, it's concentrated among the wealthy -- including corporate executives found guilty of misleading investors -- who can exploit loopholes in the law to protect their wealth, no matter how ill-gotten.

One increasingly popular loophole is the creation of an ''asset protection trust,'' which is worth doing only for the wealthy. Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment that would have limited the exemption on such trusts, but apparently it's O.K. to game the system if you're rich: 54 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Schumer amendment.

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.

None of this should come as a surprise: it's all part of the pattern.

As Mr. Hacker and others have documented, over the past three decades the lives of ordinary Americans have become steadily less secure, and their chances of plunging from the middle class into acute poverty ever larger. Job stability has declined; spells of unemployment, when they happen, last longer; fewer workers receive health insurance from their employers; fewer workers have guaranteed pensions.

Some of these changes are the result of a changing economy. But the underlying economic trends have been reinforced by an ideologically driven effort to strip away the protections the government used to provide. For example, long-term unemployment has become much more common, but unemployment benefits expire sooner. Health insurance coverage is declining, but new initiatives like health savings accounts (introduced in the 2003 Medicare bill), rather than discouraging that trend, further undermine the incentives of employers to provide coverage.

Above all, of course, at a time when ever-fewer workers can count on pensions from their employers, the current administration wants to phase out Social Security.

The bankruptcy bill fits right into this picture. When everything else goes wrong, Americans can still get a measure of relief by filing for bankruptcy -- and rising insecurity means that they are forced to do this more often than in the past. But Congress is now poised to make the bankruptcy law harsher, too.

Warren Buffett recently made headlines by saying America is more likely to turn into a ''sharecroppers' society'' than an ''ownership society.'' But I think the right term is a ''debt peonage'' society -- after the system, prevalent in the post-Civil War South, in which debtors were forced to work for their creditors. The bankruptcy bill won't get us back to those bad old days all by itself, but it's a significant step in that direction.

And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed.

Posted by claire at 5:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sorry about all the action alerts (especially when it's not on my blog day) but there's a spate of scary legislation being voted on right now. I just received an action alert about the bankruptcy bill currently before congress. It's being voted on tomorrow (Wednesday) so call your representative tonight and leave a message. Below I've pasted what moveon.org says to do, and below that I've pasted a NYTimes article on the bill.

To find out who your representative is, go to this web page:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

When you call your representative, tell the staffer who answers that you are a constituent and that you would like Rep. NAME to vote against the bankruptcy bill because it sides with big banks and corporations over middle class families. Ask the staffer to send you a letter explaining the representative's position.
After you call help us keep track of how many calls are made to which representatives by clicking on the link below.
http://www.moveonpac.org/bankruptcycalls?id=5346-5166246-_KYvIyJ_oRHgdFOYIgJWmg

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
March 8, 2005 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Column 5; Editorial Desk; Pg. 23

LENGTH: 744 words

HEADLINE: The Debt-Peonage Society

BYLINE: By PAUL KRUGMAN.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

BODY:

Today the Senate is expected to vote to limit debate on a bill that toughens the existing bankruptcy law, probably ensuring the bill's passage. A solid bloc of Republican senators, assisted by some Democrats, has already voted down a series of amendments that would either have closed loopholes for the rich or provided protection for some poor and middle-class families.

The bankruptcy bill was written by and for credit card companies, and the industry's political muscle is the reason it seems unstoppable. But the bill also fits into the broader context of what Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, calls ''risk privatization'': a steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity.

The bill would make it much harder for families in distress to write off their debts and make a fresh start. Instead, many debtors would find themselves on an endless treadmill of payments.

The credit card companies say this is needed because people have been abusing the bankruptcy law, borrowing irresponsibly and walking away from debts. The facts say otherwise.

A vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the United States are the result of severe misfortune. One recent study found that more than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

To the extent that there is significant abuse of the system, it's concentrated among the wealthy -- including corporate executives found guilty of misleading investors -- who can exploit loopholes in the law to protect their wealth, no matter how ill-gotten.

One increasingly popular loophole is the creation of an ''asset protection trust,'' which is worth doing only for the wealthy. Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment that would have limited the exemption on such trusts, but apparently it's O.K. to game the system if you're rich: 54 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Schumer amendment.

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.

None of this should come as a surprise: it's all part of the pattern.

As Mr. Hacker and others have documented, over the past three decades the lives of ordinary Americans have become steadily less secure, and their chances of plunging from the middle class into acute poverty ever larger. Job stability has declined; spells of unemployment, when they happen, last longer; fewer workers receive health insurance from their employers; fewer workers have guaranteed pensions.

Some of these changes are the result of a changing economy. But the underlying economic trends have been reinforced by an ideologically driven effort to strip away the protections the government used to provide. For example, long-term unemployment has become much more common, but unemployment benefits expire sooner. Health insurance coverage is declining, but new initiatives like health savings accounts (introduced in the 2003 Medicare bill), rather than discouraging that trend, further undermine the incentives of employers to provide coverage.

Above all, of course, at a time when ever-fewer workers can count on pensions from their employers, the current administration wants to phase out Social Security.

The bankruptcy bill fits right into this picture. When everything else goes wrong, Americans can still get a measure of relief by filing for bankruptcy -- and rising insecurity means that they are forced to do this more often than in the past. But Congress is now poised to make the bankruptcy law harsher, too.

Warren Buffett recently made headlines by saying America is more likely to turn into a ''sharecroppers' society'' than an ''ownership society.'' But I think the right term is a ''debt peonage'' society -- after the system, prevalent in the post-Civil War South, in which debtors were forced to work for their creditors. The bankruptcy bill won't get us back to those bad old days all by itself, but it's a significant step in that direction.

And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed.

Posted by claire at 5:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Here's the story as I see it: Japan had a real imperialistic streak going and decided to conquer China. It invaded and did brutally nasty things to the population --well chronicled by Iris Chang in The Rape of Nanking. Japan lost but now, 50 years later, has become the world's second largest economy. It's trying to erase the ugliness of it's history by eliminating that chapter (literally) from its history books. It wants to be recognized as a world leader by its inclusion in the UN Security Council.

So China's pissed off. People are protesting in Beijing and Guangzhou. They're angry that their great-grandma was raped and killed and their uncle was flayed, and Japan never said sorry. They seemed to get off scot-free.

So the protestors demanding an apology. That's what seems to be the big issue --Japan's unrepentent attitude. My uncle forwarded me the message below that calls for a boycott of Japanese goods and links to an online petition.

As a Chinese American girl who lived 3+ years in Japan, I can tell you, a lot what the protesters say is true. Japanese leaders all visit Yasukuni Jinja, the shrine where many of the generals who are considered war criminals by China are interred. They downplay their culpability in the war and focus a lot of attention on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, sites of their own horrific suffering.

So why does this call for boycott sound quaint to me? Maybe because Japanese products are so ingrained in daily life I don't know how I could just stop using them. My car, my facial scrub, my electronics, and whoops, my boyfriend, all trace their origins back to those little islands. It's where my mom grew up and where my grandma still lives --not to mention a bunch of dear friends who are just as horrified as I am at the atrocities of the war.

And I can't help thinking, what good will an apology do, anyway? I remember the first time I genuinely felt "saying sorry isn't good enough." Will an apology make China shut up and go away? Should it? Saying sorry, even paying reparations, doesn't undo mass graves.

Moreover, though the US has apologized to Japanese Americans for internment and even paid them for their trouble, it's hard to say that it reflects a repentant attitude. We're seeing the same kind of discrimination played out every day at Guantanamo, in DMVs apparently, in airports, in immigration offices, basically at every level of government. So what does an apology mean, really?

Of course I see the point of protesting. I'm glad China is standing up and not letting the world forget what happened. I hope it does veto Japan's bid for the Security Council, even though it and everyone else on the council are guilty of plenty themselves --I think i just like dramatic gestures. Japan, like the US, has some right-wing nut jobs that still have a lot of power (--though less than our nut jobs. Ours become president. Japan remains a country that has a non-aggression article in its constitution).

But I think we have an ackward balancing act --we ABCs, sanseis, adoptees-- when it comes to troubles in the homeland. We band together here for political expediency and kinship, but it's an disingenuous to say that overseas rifts shouldn't affect us. I don't want to be so "modern" that I discard the suffering of my father's mother.

So I'm at a bit of a loss. Do I trade in my cute little Honda for a sand colored Chevy Prizm? Should I stop buying music produced by Sony? Should I forward this letter to everyone i know? Do i get credit for including it in this blog?

Posted by jennifer at 1:44 PM | Comments (42) | TrackBack

Here's the story as I see it: Japan had a real imperialistic streak going and decided to conquer China. It invaded and did brutally nasty things to the population --well chronicled by Iris Chang in The Rape of Nanking. Japan lost but now, 50 years later, has become the world's second largest economy. It's trying to erase the ugliness of it's history by eliminating that chapter (literally) from its history books. It wants to be recognized as a world leader by its inclusion in the UN Security Council.

So China's pissed off. People are protesting in Beijing and Guangzhou. They're angry that their great-grandma was raped and killed and their uncle was flayed, and Japan never said sorry. They seemed to get off scot-free.

So the protestors demanding an apology. That's what seems to be the big issue --Japan's unrepentent attitude. My uncle forwarded me the message below that calls for a boycott of Japanese goods and links to an online petition.

As a Chinese American girl who lived 3+ years in Japan, I can tell you, a lot what the protesters say is true. Japanese leaders all visit Yasukuni Jinja, the shrine where many of the generals who are considered war criminals by China are interred. They downplay their culpability in the war and focus a lot of attention on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, sites of their own horrific suffering.

So why does this call for boycott sound quaint to me? Maybe because Japanese products are so ingrained in daily life I don't know how I could just stop using them. My car, my facial scrub, my electronics, and whoops, my boyfriend, all trace their origins back to those little islands. It's where my mom grew up and where my grandma still lives --not to mention a bunch of dear friends who are just as horrified as I am at the atrocities of the war.

And I can't help thinking, what good will an apology do, anyway? I remember the first time I genuinely felt "saying sorry isn't good enough." Will an apology make China shut up and go away? Should it? Saying sorry, even paying reparations, doesn't undo mass graves.

Moreover, though the US has apologized to Japanese Americans for internment and even paid them for their trouble, it's hard to say that it reflects a repentant attitude. We're seeing the same kind of discrimination played out every day at Guantanamo, in DMVs apparently, in airports, in immigration offices, basically at every level of government. So what does an apology mean, really?

Of course I see the point of protesting. I'm glad China is standing up and not letting the world forget what happened. I hope it does veto Japan's bid for the Security Council, even though it and everyone else on the council are guilty of plenty themselves --I think i just like dramatic gestures. Japan, like the US, has some right-wing nut jobs that still have a lot of power (--though less than our nut jobs. Ours become president. Japan remains a country that has a non-aggression article in its constitution).

But I think we have an ackward balancing act --we ABCs, sanseis, adoptees-- when it comes to troubles in the homeland. We band together here for political expediency and kinship, but it's an disingenuous to say that overseas rifts shouldn't affect us. I don't want to be so "modern" that I discard the suffering of my father's mother.

So I'm at a bit of a loss. Do I trade in my cute little Honda for a sand colored Chevy Prizm? Should I stop buying music produced by Sony? Should I forward this letter to everyone i know? Do i get credit for including it in this blog?

Posted by jennifer at 1:44 PM | Comments (42) | TrackBack

Here's the story as I see it: Japan had a real imperialistic streak going and decided to conquer China. It invaded and did brutally nasty things to the population --well chronicled by Iris Chang in The Rape of Nanking. Japan lost but now, 50 years later, has become the world's second largest economy. It's trying to erase the ugliness of it's history by eliminating that chapter (literally) from its history books. It wants to be recognized as a world leader by its inclusion in the UN Security Council.

So China's pissed off. People are protesting in Beijing and Guangzhou. They're angry that their great-grandma was raped and killed and their uncle was flayed, and Japan never said sorry. They seemed to get off scot-free.

So the protestors demanding an apology. That's what seems to be the big issue --Japan's unrepentent attitude. My uncle forwarded me the message below that calls for a boycott of Japanese goods and links to an online petition.

As a Chinese American girl who lived 3+ years in Japan, I can tell you, a lot what the protesters say is true. Japanese leaders all visit Yasukuni Jinja, the shrine where many of the generals who are considered war criminals by China are interred. They downplay their culpability in the war and focus a lot of attention on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, sites of their own horrific suffering.

So why does this call for boycott sound quaint to me? Maybe because Japanese products are so ingrained in daily life I don't know how I could just stop using them. My car, my facial scrub, my electronics, and whoops, my boyfriend, all trace their origins back to those little islands. It's where my mom grew up and where my grandma still lives --not to mention a bunch of dear friends who are just as horrified as I am at the atrocities of the war.

And I can't help thinking, what good will an apology do, anyway? I remember the first time I genuinely felt "saying sorry isn't good enough." Will an apology make China shut up and go away? Should it? Saying sorry, even paying reparations, doesn't undo mass graves.

Moreover, though the US has apologized to Japanese Americans for internment and even paid them for their trouble, it's hard to say that it reflects a repentant attitude. We're seeing the same kind of discrimination played out every day at Guantanamo, in DMVs apparently, in airports, in immigration offices, basically at every level of government. So what does an apology mean, really?

Of course I see the point of protesting. I'm glad China is standing up and not letting the world forget what happened. I hope it does veto Japan's bid for the Security Council, even though it and everyone else on the council are guilty of plenty themselves --I think i just like dramatic gestures. Japan, like the US, has some right-wing nut jobs that still have a lot of power (--though less than our nut jobs. Ours become president. Japan remains a country that has a non-aggression article in its constitution).

But I think we have an ackward balancing act --we ABCs, sanseis, adoptees-- when it comes to troubles in the homeland. We band together here for political expediency and kinship, but it's an disingenuous to say that overseas rifts shouldn't affect us. I don't want to be so "modern" that I discard the suffering of my father's mother.

So I'm at a bit of a loss. Do I trade in my cute little Honda for a sand colored Chevy Prizm? Should I stop buying music produced by Sony? Should I forward this letter to everyone i know? Do i get credit for including it in this blog?

-----
-----

TO ALL FRIENDS,

As the principal aggressor in World War II, Japan
committed numerous atrocities and war crimes in its
neighboring countries, and destroyed and looted an
astronomical amount of properties. Recent discoveries
have revealed its systematic slaughtering of prisoners
of war and tens of millions of innocent civilians,
from newborn to elderly, during those years. Its
government and parliament have never formally
acknowledged its wrongdoing, offered official
apologies or provided adequate reparation to
compensate its victims. Japan's war crimes include
also enslaving hundreds of thousands of women into
sexual slavery, killing nearly a million in its
biochemical experimentations and battlefield
deployments in direct violation of the Geneva
Convention.
For sixty years, Japan thus far shows no remorse of
its war crimes, refuses to repent, and even
white-washes its bloody history. Japan not only does
accept its responsibility for its war crimes but
continues worshipping its war-criminals and even
rewriting its history textbooks. The international
community cannot and must not seat Japan on the
Security Council.

WE SHOULD MORE THAN JUST CAST A PROTEST VOTE AGAINST
ITS SEATING ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL. WE ALL SHOULD
BOYCOTT JAPANESE GOODS AND SERVICES TO BRING IT TO
ITS SENSES. LET PLEDGE NOT TO BUY JAPANESE GOODS AND
DO NOT FORGET TO VOTE BY INTERNET.

Please cast your vote now by accessing the following
Website:
http://yahoo.1931-9-18.org/

You may cast on behalf of your family members and
friends who doubt have access to internet service.

Posted by jennifer at 1:44 PM | Comments (40) | TrackBack

I've been watching Grey's Anatomy, a new hospital drama about surgical interns. Sandra Oh has a prominent role as Cristina Yang, an uber-competitve tough cookie who looks out for herself and doesn't seem to have much interest in the human aspects of being a doctor -- she's in it for the amazing science of it. Nothing seems to make her more excited than the thought of scrubbing in and cutting some people up.

I can barely remember ER, but wasn't this the kind of character Ming Na played? Wasn't her character accused of being, well, too clinical? Those Asian robot doctors, so stoic and unfeeling, all about the science and not about the patients. Makes you kind of appreciate the stoner med student that Kal Penn played in Harold & Kumar.

Well, it's only been 3 episodes, so hopefully her character will flesh out some more and we'll get to find out what's going on beneath that hardened, tough-ass exterior. I've enjoyed the show so far. And I've really liked Sandra Oh in almost everything I've seen her in so far. I think this will turn out to be a good thing for Asian American representation on prime time. Yes, another Asian American playing a doctor, but hey, have you seen the kids at med school lately? Certainly based in reality. Now, how about adding some Filipino nurses on the show?

Posted by Melissa at 11:15 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

I've been watching Grey's Anatomy, a new hospital drama about surgical interns. Sandra Oh has a prominent role as Cristina Yang, an uber-competitve tough cookie who looks out for herself and doesn't seem to have much interest in the human aspects of being a doctor -- she's in it for the amazing science of it. Nothing seems to make her more excited than the thought of scrubbing in and cutting some people up.

I can barely remember ER, but wasn't this the kind of character Ming Na played? Wasn't her character accused of being, well, too clinical? Those Asian robot doctors, so stoic and unfeeling, all about the science and not about the patients. Makes you kind of appreciate the stoner med student that Kal Penn played in Harold & Kumar.

Well, it's only been 3 episodes, so hopefully her character will flesh out some more and we'll get to find out what's going on beneath that hardened, tough-ass exterior. I've enjoyed the show so far. And I've really liked Sandra Oh in almost everything I've seen her in so far. I think this will turn out to be a good thing for Asian American representation on prime time. Yes, another Asian American playing a doctor, but hey, have you seen the kids at med school lately? Certainly based in reality. Now, how about adding some Filipino nurses on the show?

Posted by Melissa at 11:15 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

I've been watching Grey's Anatomy, a new hospital drama about surgical interns. Sandra Oh has a prominent role as Cristina Yang, an uber-competitve tough cookie who looks out for herself and doesn't seem to have much interest in the human aspects of being a doctor -- she's in it for the amazing science of it. Nothing seems to make her more excited than the thought of scrubbing in and cutting some people up.

I can barely remember ER, but wasn't this the kind of character Ming Na played? Wasn't her character accused of being, well, too clinical? Those Asian robot doctors, so stoic and unfeeling, all about the science and not about the patients. Makes you kind of appreciate the stoner med student that Kal Penn played in Harold & Kumar.

Well, it's only been 3 episodes, so hopefully her character will flesh out some more and we'll get to find out what's going on beneath that hardened, tough-ass exterior. I've enjoyed the show so far. And I've really liked Sandra Oh in almost everything I've seen her in so far. I think this will turn out to be a good thing for Asian American representation on prime time. Yes, another Asian American playing a doctor, but hey, have you seen the kids at med school lately? Certainly based in reality. Now, how about adding some Filipino nurses on the show?

Posted by Melissa at 11:15 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Oh joy, more on immigration! This time, of the documented sort--documented, that is, until you go to the DMV and try to get a driver's license.

A Kirghiz American woman's legally obtained driver's license, as well as vital paperwork stating that she was a legal asylum-seeker, were confiscated in Gladstone, Missouri by a DMV clerk when the woman tried to arrange for a driver's permit for her teenaged son. Naturally, when the DMV called the State Department to confirm the woman's story, no one could be reached. Perhaps the scariest thing here is that the DMV clerk has not been trained in immigration issues and is not accountable to anyone for her actions. The woman's paper is still missing and the clerk can't/won't tell anyone what happened to it.

If the "Real ID Act of 2005", currently before the Senate, is passed, this sort of thing will happen all the time. Intended to prevent terrorists from obtaining IDs, the act effectively turns untrained DMV workers into decision-makers regarding the status of both legal and illegal immigrants. Check out the blog from two weeks ago "Save An Undocumented Immigrant" on this issue for more information.

Meanwhile, back at the State Department, Dubya has authorized the admission of 70,000 refugees to the US in 2005, according to regional quotas. The largest allotment goes to Africa (20,000), and the second largest to East Asia (13,000).

However nice this may sound, Congress has only allotted enough money to resettle 40,000 refugees, despite the State Department's claim that they can find at least 60,000 refugees for resettlement this year. This is a setback from the climb in refugee admission since 9/11. In 2001 nearly 70,000 refugees were admitted prior to 9/11. This dropped to around 27,000 in 2002 but went back up to 53,000 last year. Because of increased costs of processing refugees, owing to new processes put in place after 9/11, holding the line at last year's budget won't mean holding the line in terms of numbers of people allowed in.

Can one hand really not talk to the other in our government? (Yes, I know that was a deliberately naive rhetorical question.) Since the State Department farms out the actual work of settling the refugees stateside to nongovernmental agencies, perhaps they really don't have a clue about the complexities and needs of people trying to settle into a new environment. You know, needs like being able to get to work, or get their kids to school, or being able to write a check. There are really two issues here: getting people into our country who need help, and then facilitating their settlement here when they arrive. It's complicated, but it's not rocket science. Why can't our government get it together?

Posted by claire at 2:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Oh joy, more on immigration! This time, of the documented sort--documented, that is, until you go to the DMV and try to get a driver's license.

A Kirghiz American woman's legally obtained driver's license, as well as vital paperwork stating that she was a legal asylum-seeker, were confiscated in Gladstone, Missouri by a DMV clerk when the woman tried to arrange for a driver's permit for her teenaged son. Naturally, when the DMV called the State Department to confirm the woman's story, no one could be reached. Perhaps the scariest thing here is that the DMV clerk has not been trained in immigration issues and is not accountable to anyone for her actions. The woman's paper is still missing and the clerk can't/won't tell anyone what happened to it.

If the "Real ID Act of 2005", currently before the Senate, is passed, this sort of thing will happen all the time. Intended to prevent terrorists from obtaining IDs, the act effectively turns untrained DMV workers into decision-makers regarding the status of both legal and illegal immigrants. Check out the blog from two weeks ago "Save An Undocumented Immigrant" on this issue for more information.

Meanwhile, back at the State Department, Dubya has authorized the admission of 70,000 refugees to the US in 2005, according to regional quotas. The largest allotment goes to Africa (20,000), and the second largest to East Asia (13,000).

However nice this may sound, Congress has only allotted enough money to resettle 40,000 refugees, despite the State Department's claim that they can find at least 60,000 refugees for resettlement this year. This is a setback from the climb in refugee admission since 9/11. In 2001 nearly 70,000 refugees were admitted prior to 9/11. This dropped to around 27,000 in 2002 but went back up to 53,000 last year. Because of increased costs of processing refugees, owing to new processes put in place after 9/11, holding the line at last year's budget won't mean holding the line in terms of numbers of people allowed in.

Can one hand really not talk to the other in our government? (Yes, I know that was a deliberately naive rhetorical question.) Since the State Department farms out the actual work of settling the refugees stateside to nongovernmental agencies, perhaps they really don't have a clue about the complexities and needs of people trying to settle into a new environment. You know, needs like being able to get to work, or get their kids to school, or being able to write a check. There are really two issues here: getting people into our country who need help, and then facilitating their settlement here when they arrive. It's complicated, but it's not rocket science. Why can't our government get it together?

Posted by claire at 2:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Oh joy, more on immigration! This time, of the documented sort--documented, that is, until you go to the DMV and try to get a driver's license.

A Kirghiz American woman's legally obtained driver's license, as well as vital paperwork stating that she was a legal asylum-seeker, were confiscated in Gladstone, Missouri by a DMV clerk when the woman tried to arrange for a driver's permit for her teenaged son. Naturally, when the DMV called the State Department to confirm the woman's story, no one could be reached. Perhaps the scariest thing here is that the DMV clerk has not been trained in immigration issues and is not accountable to anyone for her actions. The woman's paper is still missing and the clerk can't/won't tell anyone what happened to it.

If the "Real ID Act of 2005", currently before the Senate, is passed, this sort of thing will happen all the time. Intended to prevent terrorists from obtaining IDs, the act effectively turns untrained DMV workers into decision-makers regarding the status of both legal and illegal immigrants. Check out the blog from two weeks ago "Save An Undocumented Immigrant" on this issue for more information.

Meanwhile, back at the State Department, Dubya has authorized the admission of 70,000 refugees to the US in 2005, according to regional quotas. The largest allotment goes to Africa (20,000), and the second largest to East Asia (13,000).

However nice this may sound, Congress has only allotted enough money to resettle 40,000 refugees, despite the State Department's claim that they can find at least 60,000 refugees for resettlement this year. This is a setback from the climb in refugee admission since 9/11. In 2001 nearly 70,000 refugees were admitted prior to 9/11. This dropped to around 27,000 in 2002 but went back up to 53,000 last year. Because of increased costs of processing refugees, owing to new processes put in place after 9/11, holding the line at last year's budget won't mean holding the line in terms of numbers of people allowed in.

Can one hand really not talk to the other in our government? (Yes, I know that was a deliberately naive rhetorical question.) Since the State Department farms out the actual work of settling the refugees stateside to nongovernmental agencies, perhaps they really don't have a clue about the complexities and needs of people trying to settle into a new environment. You know, needs like being able to get to work, or get their kids to school, or being able to write a check. There are really two issues here: getting people into our country who need help, and then facilitating their settlement here when they arrive. It's complicated, but it's not rocket science. Why can't our government get it together?

Posted by claire at 2:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A white male Princeton grad student has confessed to cutting locks of hair from nine Asian American female students without their knowledge, as well as pouring his urine and semen into the drinks of Asian female students on more than 50 occassions. Real smooth.

If you really want to, go see the video (article here, too).

Story below:

Graduate student arrested
Mathematics student admits to about 60 incidents of lewd behavior toward Asian females on campus
By Chanakya Sethi

A graduate student in the mathematics department has been charged by Borough police with reckless endangerment and harassment in connection with more than 60 incidents targeting Asian women on campus. President Tilghman has barred the student from campus.

Michael Lohman, a third-year student in the applied and computational mathematics program, was charged last week by Borough police with two counts of reckless endangerment, two counts of tampering with a food product, one count of harassment and one count of theft.

Lohman, 28, cut and took locks of hair from about nine Asian female University students without their knowledge or consent and poured his own bodily fluids into the drinks of Asian female students more than 50 times, according to police reports.

Lohman lives in the Butler apartments with his wife of four years, who is Asian, a graduate student who knows him told The Daily Princetonian Tuesday.

The investigation began on March 3 when an Asian female student riding a campus Green Line shuttle bus on Washington Road reported to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that an unidentified man had cut off a lock of her hair, University and Borough officials said.

Public Safety officials believed the incident was related to others dating back several years, DPS deputy director Charles Davall said Tuesday. The department had received three reports -- in October 2002, April 2003 and May 2004 -- of an unidentified man pouring substances into the drinks of Asian female students.

Those incidents occurred in the Graduate College dining hall serving line and in the Fine Hall library when the women's drinks were left unattended, Davall said.

A joint investigation between DPS and Borough police revealed that Lohman was on the Green Line shuttle when the female student's hair was snipped. In January, a witness from one of the earlier drink incidents identified Lohman in a photograph as the man who had poured an unknown substance into a woman's drink in April 2003, Davall said.

Upon interrogation, Lohman confessed to cutting the woman's hair and to cutting the hair of Asian female students at least eight other times, University communications director Lauren Robinson-Brown '85 said. All of the hair-snipping incidents occurred on campus, Davall said.

Lohman also admitted to pouring his bodily fluids into the drinks of Asian female students on more than 50 occasions, Robinson-Brown said. The fluids poured into the drinks were semen and urine, Lt. Dennis McManimon, the Borough police's spokesman, said in an interview Tuesday.

"In my 23 years in the department, this is clearly the most bizarre case that I've seen," McManimon said.

The Graduate College drink incidents in 2002 and 2003 occurred while Lohman was living there. Since the fall of 2003, however, Lohman has neither held a meal plan nor worked at the Graduate College dining hall, a graduate student who knows him and University officials said.

Borough police also reported that Lohman may have squirted bodily fluids on Asian female students as they rode on University shuttle buses.

A search of Lohman's apartment revealed "a quantity of women's panties and numerous mittens," according to a statement from Borough police.

The investigation, McManimon said, "has been leaning" toward the conclusion that Lohman stuffed the mittens with the hair he had obtained from students and used them for personal sexual gratification.

The full extent of Lohman's activity may not be known for some time, University and Borough officials cautioned. "The investigation is far from over. It's in its infancy," McManimon said.

Barred from campus

On Tuesday afternoon, University officials were finalizing paperwork to bar Lohman from campus. A section of "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities" -- the University document on disciplinary polices and regulations -- gives the president the authority to expel an individual from campus in circumstances "seriously affecting" the health, well-being or physical safety of any University person.

"I took the unusual step of barring Mr. Lohman from campus because the nature of his actions as we have come to understand them are not acceptable behavior on this campus, and are deeply disrespectful of the rights of others," Tilghman said in an e-mail Tuesday afternoon.

University officials are encouraging victims to come forward. "We are concerned that there are victims who have not come forward," Robinson-Brown said. "Anyone who feels that they were a victim should immediately contact Public Safety."

By the end of the day on Tuesday, the Borough police had received "at least a dozen" phone messages regarding the case, McManimon said, though he was not certain that all calls were from alleged victims.

Mental health questions

Borough police reported that Lohman was taken to Capital Health Systems, a hospital in nearby Trenton, after being arrested. Davall, the deputy director of DPS, said he could not say "whether [Lohman] is still there or why he was hospitalized."

It remains unclear whether Lohman suffers from a mental illness.

An e-mail message sent on Monday to students enrolled in MAT 308: Theory of Games, the course for which Lohman is a grader, explained the delay in returning student homework by saying that "Michael Lohman is sick."

Michael Litchman, a visiting professor in the psychology department who teaches a course on abnormal psychology, said, "Obviously [Lohman] has some extremely serious issues regarding interpersonal relationships, self esteem and socially acceptable behaviors in public."

"It may be that he does, indeed, like Asian women and may have been rejected by one or more, and he's angry and hurt. That's one possibility, but there are many other possibilities," Litchman, a clinical psychologist by training, said, stressing that he has not met with Lohman and thus cannot make a specific diagnosis.

"It might also go back to something that has happened to him prior to his entry to college, perhaps even during his childhood. At this point in time, it's difficult to pinpoint with any degree of certainty exactly what happened to this man other than to conclude that he needs intensive psychotherapy and that he shouldn't be allowed on this campus until such time as he's been successfully treated," he added.

A gifted mathematician

In interviews with the 'Prince,' a friend and former professors of Lohman painted a portrait of him as a gifted mathematician and friendly individual.

"I was shocked," a graduate student who knows Lohman said. "I couldn't believe [the news] because . . . how can one prove that he really did that?"

Lohman received his bachelor's degree in mathematics from Louisiana State University (LSU) in 2001 and was awarded a scholarship on the basis of his academic performance, professorial recommendations and accomplishments in math.

While at LSU, Lohman met his future wife. They were married in the summer of 2001, just after Lohman graduated, the Princeton student who knows him said. When Lohman moved to Princeton in 2002 after a year of graduate work at LSU, his wife stayed in Louisiana to finish her doctoral degree.

For the year during which they were separated, Lohman lived in the Graduate College, the Princeton graduate student said. When Lohman's wife joined him in Princeton, the couple moved to the Butler apartments, which are intended for married couples.

"They seemed happy," the student said. "The relations between he and his wife were excellent."

LSU mathematics professor Robert Perlis, who taught Lohman and was on the committee that decided to offer him a scholarship, said he was "absolutely shocked and almost in disbelief that [Lohman] could do something like this."

Another LSU professor, James Oxley, said that though his interaction with Lohman was confined to the classroom, he "had no reason to believe anything other than he was a normal student, except very gifted mathematically."

Oxley said he "was really impressed with [Lohman's] mathematical ability" -- so impressed that he recommended that Lohman go to Princeton for graduate school. He encouraged Lohman to work with Paul Seymour, a University professor he considered "the best person" in the field of graph theory.

Perlis added that Oxley "thought Michael would perhaps do better in the Princeton environment" because of the opportunities to work with some of the strongest minds in applied and computational mathematics.

When Lohman wasn't admitted to Princeton, according to the graduate student who knows him, he stayed at LSU for another year and reapplied to Princeton -- this time successfully.

"Princeton is the place he really wanted to come," the graduate student who knows him said. "He wants to be a professor, surely, in academia. He had a lot of progress on his research project, so it's a pity that he cannot continue his work . . . I will be so sorry about it."

Seymour and other members of Princeton's mathematics department declined to comment on Monday, citing a desire to respect Lohman's privacy.

Posted by Lisa at 10:37 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

A white male Princeton grad student has confessed to cutting locks of hair from nine Asian American female students without their knowledge, as well as pouring his urine and semen into the drinks of Asian female students on more than 50 occassions. Real smooth.

If you really want to, go see the video (article here, too).

Story below:

Graduate student arrested
Mathematics student admits to about 60 incidents of lewd behavior toward Asian females on campus
By Chanakya Sethi

A graduate student in the mathematics department has been charged by Borough police with reckless endangerment and harassment in connection with more than 60 incidents targeting Asian women on campus. President Tilghman has barred the student from campus.

Michael Lohman, a third-year student in the applied and computational mathematics program, was charged last week by Borough police with two counts of reckless endangerment, two counts of tampering with a food product, one count of harassment and one count of theft.

Lohman, 28, cut and took locks of hair from about nine Asian female University students without their knowledge or consent and poured his own bodily fluids into the drinks of Asian female students more than 50 times, according to police reports.

Lohman lives in the Butler apartments with his wife of four years, who is Asian, a graduate student who knows him told The Daily Princetonian Tuesday.

The investigation began on March 3 when an Asian female student riding a campus Green Line shuttle bus on Washington Road reported to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that an unidentified man had cut off a lock of her hair, University and Borough officials said.

Public Safety officials believed the incident was related to others dating back several years, DPS deputy director Charles Davall said Tuesday. The department had received three reports -- in October 2002, April 2003 and May 2004 -- of an unidentified man pouring substances into the drinks of Asian female students.

Those incidents occurred in the Graduate College dining hall serving line and in the Fine Hall library when the women's drinks were left unattended, Davall said.

A joint investigation between DPS and Borough police revealed that Lohman was on the Green Line shuttle when the female student's hair was snipped. In January, a witness from one of the earlier drink incidents identified Lohman in a photograph as the man who had poured an unknown substance into a woman's drink in April 2003, Davall said.

Upon interrogation, Lohman confessed to cutting the woman's hair and to cutting the hair of Asian female students at least eight other times, University communications director Lauren Robinson-Brown '85 said. All of the hair-snipping incidents occurred on campus, Davall said.

Lohman also admitted to pouring his bodily fluids into the drinks of Asian female students on more than 50 occasions, Robinson-Brown said. The fluids poured into the drinks were semen and urine, Lt. Dennis McManimon, the Borough police's spokesman, said in an interview Tuesday.

"In my 23 years in the department, this is clearly the most bizarre case that I've seen," McManimon said.

The Graduate College drink incidents in 2002 and 2003 occurred while Lohman was living there. Since the fall of 2003, however, Lohman has neither held a meal plan nor worked at the Graduate College dining hall, a graduate student who knows him and University officials said.

Borough police also reported that Lohman may have squirted bodily fluids on Asian female students as they rode on University shuttle buses.

A search of Lohman's apartment revealed "a quantity of women's panties and numerous mittens," according to a statement from Borough police.

The investigation, McManimon said, "has been leaning" toward the conclusion that Lohman stuffed the mittens with the hair he had obtained from students and used them for personal sexual gratification.

The full extent of Lohman's activity may not be known for some time, University and Borough officials cautioned. "The investigation is far from over. It's in its infancy," McManimon said.

Barred from campus

On Tuesday afternoon, University officials were finalizing paperwork to bar Lohman from campus. A section of "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities" -- the University document on disciplinary polices and regulations -- gives the president the authority to expel an individual from campus in circumstances "seriously affecting" the health, well-being or physical safety of any University person.

"I took the unusual step of barring Mr. Lohman from campus because the nature of his actions as we have come to understand them are not acceptable behavior on this campus, and are deeply disrespectful of the rights of others," Tilghman said in an e-mail Tuesday afternoon.

University officials are encouraging victims to come forward. "We are concerned that there are victims who have not come forward," Robinson-Brown said. "Anyone who feels that they were a victim should immediately contact Public Safety."

By the end of the day on Tuesday, the Borough police had received "at least a dozen" phone messages regarding the case, McManimon said, though he was not certain that all calls were from alleged victims.

Mental health questions

Borough police reported that Lohman was taken to Capital Health Systems, a hospital in nearby Trenton, after being arrested. Davall, the deputy director of DPS, said he could not say "whether [Lohman] is still there or why he was hospitalized."

It remains unclear whether Lohman suffers from a mental illness.

An e-mail message sent on Monday to students enrolled in MAT 308: Theory of Games, the course for which Lohman is a grader, explained the delay in returning student homework by saying that "Michael Lohman is sick."

Michael Litchman, a visiting professor in the psychology department who teaches a course on abnormal psychology, said, "Obviously [Lohman] has some extremely serious issues regarding interpersonal relationships, self esteem and socially acceptable behaviors in public."

"It may be that he does, indeed, like Asian women and may have been rejected by one or more, and he's angry and hurt. That's one possibility, but there are many other possibilities," Litchman, a clinical psychologist by training, said, stressing that he has not met with Lohman and thus cannot make a specific diagnosis.

"It might also go back to something that has happened to him prior to his entry to college, perhaps even during his childhood. At this point in time, it's difficult to pinpoint with any degree of certainty exactly what happened to this man other than to conclude that he needs intensive psychotherapy and that he shouldn't be allowed on this campus until such time as he's been successfully treated," he added.

A gifted mathematician

In interviews with the 'Prince,' a friend and former professors of Lohman painted a portrait of him as a gifted mathematician and friendly individual.

"I was shocked," a graduate student who knows Lohman said. "I couldn't believe [the news] because . . . how can one prove that he really did that?"

Lohman received his bachelor's degree in mathematics from Louisiana State University (LSU) in 2001 and was awarded a scholarship on the basis of his academic performance, professorial recommendations and accomplishments in math.

While at LSU, Lohman met his future wife. They were married in the summer of 2001, just after Lohman graduated, the Princeton student who knows him said. When Lohman moved to Princeton in 2002 after a year of graduate work at LSU, his wife stayed in Louisiana to finish her doctoral degree.

For the year during which they were separated, Lohman lived in the Graduate College, the Princeton graduate student said. When Lohman's wife joined him in Princeton, the couple moved to the Butler apartments, which are intended for married couples.

"They seemed happy," the student said. "The relations between he and his wife were excellent."

LSU mathematics professor Robert Perlis, who taught Lohman and was on the committee that decided to offer him a scholarship, said he was "absolutely shocked and almost in disbelief that [Lohman] could do something like this."

Another LSU professor, James Oxley, said that though his interaction with Lohman was confined to the classroom, he "had no reason to believe anything other than he was a normal student, except very gifted mathematically."

Oxley said he "was really impressed with [Lohman's] mathematical ability" -- so impressed that he recommended that Lohman go to Princeton for graduate school. He encouraged Lohman to work with Paul Seymour, a University professor he considered "the best person" in the field of graph theory.

Perlis added that Oxley "thought Michael would perhaps do better in the Princeton environment" because of the opportunities to work with some of the strongest minds in applied and computational mathematics.

When Lohman wasn't admitted to Princeton, according to the graduate student who knows him, he stayed at LSU for another year and reapplied to Princeton -- this time successfully.

"Princeton is the place he really wanted to come," the graduate student who knows him said. "He wants to be a professor, surely, in academia. He had a lot of progress on his research project, so it's a pity that he cannot continue his work . . . I will be so sorry about it."

Seymour and other members of Princeton's mathematics department declined to comment on Monday, citing a desire to respect Lohman's privacy.

Posted by Lisa at 10:37 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

A white male Princeton grad student has confessed to cutting locks of hair from nine Asian American female students without their knowledge, as well as pouring his urine and semen into the drinks of Asian female students on more than 50 occassions. Real smooth.

If you really want to, go see the video (article here, too).

Story below:

Graduate student arrested
Mathematics student admits to about 60 incidents of lewd behavior toward Asian females on campus
By Chanakya Sethi

A graduate student in the mathematics department has been charged by Borough police with reckless endangerment and harassment in connection with more than 60 incidents targeting Asian women on campus. President Tilghman has barred the student from campus.

Michael Lohman, a third-year student in the applied and computational mathematics program, was charged last week by Borough police with two counts of reckless endangerment, two counts of tampering with a food product, one count of harassment and one count of theft.

Lohman, 28, cut and took locks of hair from about nine Asian female University students without their knowledge or consent and poured his own bodily fluids into the drinks of Asian female students more than 50 times, according to police reports.

Lohman lives in the Butler apartments with his wife of four years, who is Asian, a graduate student who knows him told The Daily Princetonian Tuesday.

The investigation began on March 3 when an Asian female student riding a campus Green Line shuttle bus on Washington Road reported to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that an unidentified man had cut off a lock of her hair, University and Borough officials said.

Public Safety officials believed the incident was related to others dating back several years, DPS deputy director Charles Davall said Tuesday. The department had received three reports -- in October 2002, April 2003 and May 2004 -- of an unidentified man pouring substances into the drinks of Asian female students.

Those incidents occurred in the Graduate College dining hall serving line and in the Fine Hall library when the women's drinks were left unattended, Davall said.

A joint investigation between DPS and Borough police revealed that Lohman was on the Green Line shuttle when the female student's hair was snipped. In January, a witness from one of the earlier drink incidents identified Lohman in a photograph as the man who had poured an unknown substance into a woman's drink in April 2003, Davall said.

Upon interrogation, Lohman confessed to cutting the woman's hair and to cutting the hair of Asian female students at least eight other times, University communications director Lauren Robinson-Brown '85 said. All of the hair-snipping incidents occurred on campus, Davall said.

Lohman also admitted to pouring his bodily fluids into the drinks of Asian female students on more than 50 occasions, Robinson-Brown said. The fluids poured into the drinks were semen and urine, Lt. Dennis McManimon, the Borough police's spokesman, said in an interview Tuesday.

"In my 23 years in the department, this is clearly the most bizarre case that I've seen," McManimon said.

The Graduate College drink incidents in 2002 and 2003 occurred while Lohman was living there. Since the fall of 2003, however, Lohman has neither held a meal plan nor worked at the Graduate College dining hall, a graduate student who knows him and University officials said.

Borough police also reported that Lohman may have squirted bodily fluids on Asian female students as they rode on University shuttle buses.

A search of Lohman's apartment revealed "a quantity of women's panties and numerous mittens," according to a statement from Borough police.

The investigation, McManimon said, "has been leaning" toward the conclusion that Lohman stuffed the mittens with the hair he had obtained from students and used them for personal sexual gratification.

The full extent of Lohman's activity may not be known for some time, University and Borough officials cautioned. "The investigation is far from over. It's in its infancy," McManimon said.

Barred from campus

On Tuesday afternoon, University officials were finalizing paperwork to bar Lohman from campus. A section of "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities" -- the University document on disciplinary polices and regulations -- gives the president the authority to expel an individual from campus in circumstances "seriously affecting" the health, well-being or physical safety of any University person.

"I took the unusual step of barring Mr. Lohman from campus because the nature of his actions as we have come to understand them are not acceptable behavior on this campus, and are deeply disrespectful of the rights of others," Tilghman said in an e-mail Tuesday afternoon.

University officials are encouraging victims to come forward. "We are concerned that there are victims who have not come forward," Robinson-Brown said. "Anyone who feels that they were a victim should immediately contact Public Safety."

By the end of the day on Tuesday, the Borough police had received "at least a dozen" phone messages regarding the case, McManimon said, though he was not certain that all calls were from alleged victims.

Mental health questions

Borough police reported that Lohman was taken to Capital Health Systems, a hospital in nearby Trenton, after being arrested. Davall, the deputy director of DPS, said he could not say "whether [Lohman] is still there or why he was hospitalized."

It remains unclear whether Lohman suffers from a mental illness.

An e-mail message sent on Monday to students enrolled in MAT 308: Theory of Games, the course for which Lohman is a grader, explained the delay in returning student homework by saying that "Michael Lohman is sick."

Michael Litchman, a visiting professor in the psychology department who teaches a course on abnormal psychology, said, "Obviously [Lohman] has some extremely serious issues regarding interpersonal relationships, self esteem and socially acceptable behaviors in public."

"It may be that he does, indeed, like Asian women and may have been rejected by one or more, and he's angry and hurt. That's one possibility, but there are many other possibilities," Litchman, a clinical psychologist by training, said, stressing that he has not met with Lohman and thus cannot make a specific diagnosis.

"It might also go back to something that has happened to him prior to his entry to college, perhaps even during his childhood. At this point in time, it's difficult to pinpoint with any degree of certainty exactly what happened to this man other than to conclude that he needs intensive psychotherapy and that he shouldn't be allowed on this campus until such time as he's been successfully treated," he added.

A gifted mathematician

In interviews with the 'Prince,' a friend and former professors of Lohman painted a portrait of him as a gifted mathematician and friendly individual.

"I was shocked," a graduate student who knows Lohman said. "I couldn't believe [the news] because . . . how can one prove that he really did that?"

Lohman received his bachelor's degree in mathematics from Louisiana State University (LSU) in 2001 and was awarded a scholarship on the basis of his academic performance, professorial recommendations and accomplishments in math.

While at LSU, Lohman met his future wife. They were married in the summer of 2001, just after Lohman graduated, the Princeton student who knows him said. When Lohman moved to Princeton in 2002 after a year of graduate work at LSU, his wife stayed in Louisiana to finish her doctoral degree.

For the year during which they were separated, Lohman lived in the Graduate College, the Princeton graduate student said. When Lohman's wife joined him in Princeton, the couple moved to the Butler apartments, which are intended for married couples.

"They seemed happy," the student said. "The relations between he and his wife were excellent."

LSU mathematics professor Robert Perlis, who taught Lohman and was on the committee that decided to offer him a scholarship, said he was "absolutely shocked and almost in disbelief that [Lohman] could do something like this."

Another LSU professor, James Oxley, said that though his interaction with Lohman was confined to the classroom, he "had no reason to believe anything other than he was a normal student, except very gifted mathematically."

Oxley said he "was really impressed with [Lohman's] mathematical ability" -- so impressed that he recommended that Lohman go to Princeton for graduate school. He encouraged Lohman to work with Paul Seymour, a University professor he considered "the best person" in the field of graph theory.

Perlis added that Oxley "thought Michael would perhaps do better in the Princeton environment" because of the opportunities to work with some of the strongest minds in applied and computational mathematics.

When Lohman wasn't admitted to Princeton, according to the graduate student who knows him, he stayed at LSU for another year and reapplied to Princeton -- this time successfully.

"Princeton is the place he really wanted to come," the graduate student who knows him said. "He wants to be a professor, surely, in academia. He had a lot of progress on his research project, so it's a pity that he cannot continue his work . . . I will be so sorry about it."

Seymour and other members of Princeton's mathematics department declined to comment on Monday, citing a desire to respect Lohman's privacy.

Posted by Lisa at 10:37 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Memoirs of a Geisha, the film, wrapped shooting at the end of January. I know we should stop bitching and moaning about mainstream media --because it just gets old. But dammit, the COMPLETE LACK OF PROGRESS also gets old.

Maybe I'm the last one to hear (since i tire of mainstream Hollywood I ignore it as much as possible) but the all-star cast of Memoirs includes, get this, Michelle Yeoh, Gong Li, and Zhang Ziyi.

That's right! Chinese actors. Who don't speak english. In an American film. Written by Arthur Golden, some white guy.

Then the whole thing seems too ridiculous to even get angry about. Clearly these people are totally confused.

Michelle Yeoh defended the casting, saying,

"Director Rob Marshall said he cast actors and actresses who are perfect for the roles rather than by their nationalities...And some of the biggest Japanese names are in the movie, too, like Ken Wanatabe and Koji Yakusho."

So now Japanese actors are tokens in a movie about Japanese people - geisha, for God's sake- set in Japan?

I read Memoirs of a Geisha. It was a pretty good book. Who knows how accurate it is --most Japanese people probably don't even know. There's a lot more to Japan than geisha and samurai, and most people don't get all obsessed by it the way some do here.

I have no problem with the fiction, except that yet again it is a white man telling the story. Of an exotic, economically, socially and sexually oppressed young girl. Japanese girl. Which would also be okay, if it weren't the time we'll see Asians on the big screen this year.

But it is. A few years ago it was The Last Samurai. Now this. Plus Crouching Tiger, Flying Daggers. The only represention of modern Japan in recent Hollywood memory is Lost in Translation, and that whole "lip my stockings" scene blew it.

So here we go again. Chinese, Japanese, what's the diff? They'll be speaking in English anyway. Zhang Ziyi doesn't speak english? no problem, she just has to look pretty. It's about geisha, it'll sell. White guys will flock to it like vultures to a carcass.

Posted by jennifer at 11:38 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Memoirs of a Geisha, the film, wrapped shooting at the end of January. I know we should stop bitching and moaning about mainstream media --because it just gets old. But dammit, the COMPLETE LACK OF PROGRESS also gets old.

Maybe I'm the last one to hear (since i tire of mainstream Hollywood I ignore it as much as possible) but the all-star cast of Memoirs includes, get this, Michelle Yeoh, Gong Li, and Zhang Ziyi.

That's right! Chinese actors. Who don't speak english. In an American film. Written by Arthur Golden, some white guy.

Then the whole thing seems too ridiculous to even get angry about. Clearly these people are totally confused.

Michelle Yeoh defended the casting, saying,

"Director Rob Marshall said he cast actors and actresses who are perfect for the roles rather than by their nationalities...And some of the biggest Japanese names are in the movie, too, like Ken Wanatabe and Koji Yakusho."

So now Japanese actors are tokens in a movie about Japanese people - geisha, for God's sake- set in Japan?

I read Memoirs of a Geisha. It was a pretty good book. Who knows how accurate it is --most Japanese people probably don't even know. There's a lot more to Japan than geisha and samurai, and most people don't get all obsessed by it the way some do here.

I have no problem with the fiction, except that yet again it is a white man telling the story. Of an exotic, economically, socially and sexually oppressed young girl. Japanese girl. Which would also be okay, if it weren't the time we'll see Asians on the big screen this year.

But it is. A few years ago it was The Last Samurai. Now this. Plus Crouching Tiger, Flying Daggers. The only represention of modern Japan in recent Hollywood memory is Lost in Translation, and that whole "lip my stockings" scene blew it.

So here we go again. Chinese, Japanese, what's the diff? They'll be speaking in English anyway. Zhang Ziyi doesn't speak english? no problem, she just has to look pretty. It's about geisha, it'll sell. White guys will flock to it like vultures to a carcass.

Posted by jennifer at 11:38 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Memoirs of a Geisha, the film, wrapped shooting at the end of January. I know we should stop bitching and moaning about mainstream media --because it just gets old. But dammit, the COMPLETE LACK OF PROGRESS also gets old.

Maybe I'm the last one to hear (since i tire of mainstream Hollywood I ignore it as much as possible) but the all-star cast of Memoirs includes, get this, Michelle Yeoh, Gong Li, and Zhang Ziyi.

That's right! Chinese actors. Who don't speak english. In an American film. Written by Arthur Golden, some white guy.

Then the whole thing seems too ridiculous to even get angry about. Clearly these people are totally confused.

Michelle Yeoh defended the casting, saying,

"Director Rob Marshall said he cast actors and actresses who are perfect for the roles rather than by their nationalities...And some of the biggest Japanese names are in the movie, too, like Ken Wanatabe and Koji Yakusho."

So now Japanese actors are tokens in a movie about Japanese people - geisha, for God's sake- set in Japan?

I read Memoirs of a Geisha. It was a pretty good book. Who knows how accurate it is --most Japanese people probably don't even know. There's a lot more to Japan than geisha and samurai, and most people don't get all obsessed by it the way some do here.

I have no problem with the fiction, except that yet again it is a white man telling the story. Of an exotic, economically, socially and sexually oppressed young girl. Japanese girl. Which would also be okay, if it weren't the time we'll see Asians on the big screen this year.

But it is. A few years ago it was The Last Samurai. Now this. Plus Crouching Tiger, Flying Daggers. The only represention of modern Japan in recent Hollywood memory is Lost in Translation, and that whole "lip my stockings" scene blew it.

So here we go again. Chinese, Japanese, what's the diff? They'll be speaking in English anyway. Zhang Ziyi doesn't speak english? no problem, she just has to look pretty. It's about geisha, it'll sell. White guys will flock to it like vultures to a carcass.

Posted by jennifer at 11:38 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Once again, our fabulous Art Director has pulled an all-nighter to get an issue of Hyphen to the printers. For the last week, I've been working the equivalent of two full times jobs. After my real job (you know, the one that pays), I head over to Stef's house and the two of us stay up all night making all sorts of adjustments and changes, trying to get everything just right. Sometimes we were joined by one of our designers, Andy.

This is going to be the best looking issue yet. Full color inside and out. Big, beautiful photographs. Matte paper. We've got some good stories too -- a look at Korean adoptees returning to Korea, interviews with M.I.A and IQU, and a first person account by David Miyasato, who sued the Army for trying to get him to serve in Iraq via a backdoor draft. We're very excited!

Subscribers, expect issue 6 to land on your doorstep in a month (and sooner for those of you in the Bay Area.)

On a personal note, I've been stressing over someone in my family who just discovered she has hepatitis B. Here she is, an adult well into her 50s, and she's probably had this her whole life and didn't even know it. Lots of people carry hep B without symptoms -- their liver function test results are A-OK. But left untreated, hep B can turn into liver cancer. And you don't even get symptoms with liver cancer until you reach a late stage. Then, it's too late.

Hepatitis B is not a big concern to the general American population, however, Asians and Asian Americans are particularly at risk. My family member only got diagnosed because she went to get a second opinion about something else from an Asian American doctor. And he runs hep B tests on all his patients, even those who don't request it. Her liver function is fine and she seems healthy, so who knew how long she would have gone on without getting tested? He probably saved her life.

I encourage all of you to get tested -- even if you've been vaccinated. You could have gotten Hep B at birth from your mother and not even know it. Getting the Hep B antibody test to see if you have the vaccine is not enough. You need to get the antigen test to see if you've been infected.

For info, the Asian Liver Center is a good resource and has a handbook that you can download.

You can also read this story by our own Jennifer Huang that ran in the very first issue of Hyphen.

Posted by Melissa at 4:24 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Once again, our fabulous Art Director has pulled an all-nighter to get an issue of Hyphen to the printers. For the last week, I've been working the equivalent of two full times jobs. After my real job (you know, the one that pays), I head over to Stef's house and the two of us stay up all night making all sorts of adjustments and changes, trying to get everything just right. Sometimes we were joined by one of our designers, Andy.

This is going to be the best looking issue yet. Full color inside and out. Big, beautiful photographs. Matte paper. We've got some good stories too -- a look at Korean adoptees returning to Korea, interviews with M.I.A and IQU, and a first person account by David Miyasato, who sued the Army for trying to get him to serve in Iraq via a backdoor draft. We're very excited!

Subscribers, expect issue 6 to land on your doorstep in a month (and sooner for those of you in the Bay Area.)

On a personal note, I've been stressing over someone in my family who just discovered she has hepatitis B. Here she is, an adult well into her 50s, and she's probably had this her whole life and didn't even know it. Lots of people carry hep B without symptoms -- their liver function test results are A-OK. But left untreated, hep B can turn into liver cancer. And you don't even get symptoms with liver cancer until you reach a late stage. Then, it's too late.

Hepatitis B is not a big concern to the general American population, however, Asians and Asian Americans are particularly at risk. My family member only got diagnosed because she went to get a second opinion about something else from an Asian American doctor. And he runs hep B tests on all his patients, even those who don't request it. Her liver function is fine and she seems healthy, so who knew how long she would have gone on without getting tested? He probably saved her life.

I encourage all of you to get tested -- even if you've been vaccinated. You could have gotten Hep B at birth from your mother and not even know it. Getting the Hep B antibody test to see if you have the vaccine is not enough. You need to get the antigen test to see if you've been infected.

For info, the Asian Liver Center is a good resource and has a handbook that you can download.

You can also read this story by our own Jennifer Huang that ran in the very first issue of Hyphen.

Posted by Melissa at 4:24 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Once again, our fabulous Art Director has pulled an all-nighter to get an issue of Hyphen to the printers. For the last week, I've been working the equivalent of two full times jobs. After my real job (you know, the one that pays), I head over to Stef's house and the two of us stay up all night making all sorts of adjustments and changes, trying to get everything just right. Sometimes we were joined by one of our designers, Andy.

This is going to be the best looking issue yet. Full color inside and out. Big, beautiful photographs. Matte paper. We've got some good stories too -- a look at Korean adoptees returning to Korea, interviews with M.I.A and IQU, and a first person account by David Miyasato, who sued the Army for trying to get him to serve in Iraq via a backdoor draft. We're very excited!

Subscribers, expect issue 6 to land on your doorstep in a month (and sooner for those of you in the Bay Area.)

On a personal note, I've been stressing over someone in my family who just discovered she has hepatitis B. Here she is, an adult well into her 50s, and she's probably had this her whole life and didn't even know it. Lots of people carry hep B without symptoms -- their liver function test results are A-OK. But left untreated, hep B can turn into liver cancer. And you don't even get symptoms with liver cancer until you reach a late stage. Then, it's too late.

Hepatitis B is not a big concern to the general American population, however, Asians and Asian Americans are particularly at risk. My family member only got diagnosed because she went to get a second opinion about something else from an Asian American doctor. And he runs hep B tests on all his patients, even those who don't request it. Her liver function is fine and she seems healthy, so who knew how long she would have gone on without getting tested? He probably saved her life.

I encourage all of you to get tested -- even if you've been vaccinated. You could have gotten Hep B at birth from your mother and not even know it. Getting the Hep B antibody test to see if you have the vaccine is not enough. You need to get the antigen test to see if you've been infected.

For info, the Asian Liver Center is a good resource and has a handbook that you can download.

You can also read this story by our own Jennifer Huang that ran in the very first issue of Hyphen.

Posted by Melissa at 4:24 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Love it! Hard on the heels of the United States' supremely condescending and hypocritical "report card" on other countries' human rights records (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices) comes China's annoyed and reactive response: Human Rights Record of the US in 2004.

Here's the US's summation of China's human rights record for 2004:

"China’s cooperation and progress on human rights during 2004 was disappointing. China failed to fulfill many of the commitments it made at the 2002 U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue. However, at the end of the year, working level discussions on human rights, which had been suspended when the U.S. supported a resolution on China’s human rights practices at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), were resumed. During 2004, the government continued to arrest and detain activists, such as individuals discussing freely on the Internet, defense lawyers advocating on behalf of dissidents and the dispossessed, activists arguing for HIV/AIDs issues, journalists reporting on SARS, intellectuals expressing political views, persons attending house churches, and workers protesting for their rights. Abuses continued in Chinese prisons. The Government continued its crackdown against the Falun Gong spiritual movement, and tens of thousands of practitioners remained incarcerated in prisons, extrajudicial reeducation-through-labor camps, and psychiatric facilities. The National People’s Congress amended the Constitution to include protection of human rights, yet it is unclear to what extent the Government plans to implement this amendment."

"Disappointing"? "Failed to fulfill commitments"? Wow. Paternalistic much?

For contrast, here's a sampling from the very first paragraph of China's report on the US:

"In 2004 the atrocity of US troops abusing Iraqi POWs exposed the dark side of human rights performance of the United States. The scandal shocked the humanity and was condemned by the international community. It is quite ironic that on Feb. 28 of this year, the State Department of the United States once again posed as the "the world human rights police" and released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2004. As in previous years, the reports pointed fingers at human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions (including China) but kept silent on the US misdeeds in this field. Therefore, the world people have to probe the human rights record behind the Statue of Liberty in the United States."

Ouch!

Believe me, from there the fur (and quotation marks, and misplaced articles) only flies all the furiouser. Although Bushites have been guilty of some heated prose themselves, they have yet to reach the Euripidean heights of this epic accusation. Too bad it's the wok calling the melting pot black.

Posted by claire at 1:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Love it! Hard on the heels of the United States' supremely condescending and hypocritical "report card" on other countries' human rights records (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices) comes China's annoyed and reactive response: Human Rights Record of the US in 2004.

Here's the US's summation of China's human rights record for 2004:

"China’s cooperation and progress on human rights during 2004 was disappointing. China failed to fulfill many of the commitments it made at the 2002 U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue. However, at the end of the year, working level discussions on human rights, which had been suspended when the U.S. supported a resolution on China’s human rights practices at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), were resumed. During 2004, the government continued to arrest and detain activists, such as individuals discussing freely on the Internet, defense lawyers advocating on behalf of dissidents and the dispossessed, activists arguing for HIV/AIDs issues, journalists reporting on SARS, intellectuals expressing political views, persons attending house churches, and workers protesting for their rights. Abuses continued in Chinese prisons. The Government continued its crackdown against the Falun Gong spiritual movement, and tens of thousands of practitioners remained incarcerated in prisons, extrajudicial reeducation-through-labor camps, and psychiatric facilities. The National People’s Congress amended the Constitution to include protection of human rights, yet it is unclear to what extent the Government plans to implement this amendment."

"Disappointing"? "Failed to fulfill commitments"? Wow. Paternalistic much?

For contrast, here's a sampling from the very first paragraph of China's report on the US:

"In 2004 the atrocity of US troops abusing Iraqi POWs exposed the dark side of human rights performance of the United States. The scandal shocked the humanity and was condemned by the international community. It is quite ironic that on Feb. 28 of this year, the State Department of the United States once again posed as the "the world human rights police" and released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2004. As in previous years, the reports pointed fingers at human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions (including China) but kept silent on the US misdeeds in this field. Therefore, the world people have to probe the human rights record behind the Statue of Liberty in the United States."

Ouch!

Believe me, from there the fur (and quotation marks, and misplaced articles) only flies all the furiouser. Although Bushites have been guilty of some heated prose themselves, they have yet to reach the Euripidean heights of this epic accusation. Too bad it's the wok calling the melting pot black.

Posted by claire at 1:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Love it! Hard on the heels of the United States' supremely condescending and hypocritical "report card" on other countries' human rights records (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices) comes China's annoyed and reactive response: Human Rights Record of the US in 2004.

Here's the US's summation of China's human rights record for 2004:

"China’s cooperation and progress on human rights during 2004 was disappointing. China failed to fulfill many of the commitments it made at the 2002 U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue. However, at the end of the year, working level discussions on human rights, which had been suspended when the U.S. supported a resolution on China’s human rights practices at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), were resumed. During 2004, the government continued to arrest and detain activists, such as individuals discussing freely on the Internet, defense lawyers advocating on behalf of dissidents and the dispossessed, activists arguing for HIV/AIDs issues, journalists reporting on SARS, intellectuals expressing political views, persons attending house churches, and workers protesting for their rights. Abuses continued in Chinese prisons. The Government continued its crackdown against the Falun Gong spiritual movement, and tens of thousands of practitioners remained incarcerated in prisons, extrajudicial reeducation-through-labor camps, and psychiatric facilities. The National People’s Congress amended the Constitution to include protection of human rights, yet it is unclear to what extent the Government plans to implement this amendment."

"Disappointing"? "Failed to fulfill commitments"? Wow. Paternalistic much?

For contrast, here's a sampling from the very first paragraph of China's report on the US:

"In 2004 the atrocity of US troops abusing Iraqi POWs exposed the dark side of human rights performance of the United States. The scandal shocked the humanity and was condemned by the international community. It is quite ironic that on Feb. 28 of this year, the State Department of the United States once again posed as the "the world human rights police" and released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2004. As in previous years, the reports pointed fingers at human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions (including China) but kept silent on the US misdeeds in this field. Therefore, the world people have to probe the human rights record behind the Statue of Liberty in the United States."

Ouch!

Believe me, from there the fur (and quotation marks, and misplaced articles) only flies all the furiouser. Although Bushites have been guilty of some heated prose themselves, they have yet to reach the Euripidean heights of this epic accusation. Too bad it's the wok calling the melting pot black.

Posted by claire at 1:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Recent Entries