Kazakhstan vs. Borat: How Not to Handle Borat

Here's something I can't help but share. As someone with a soft spot for the country of Kazakhstan, and someone who is on the KZ embassy's mailing list, I couldn't help but share this note from the embassy--sent by the embassy's Roman Vassilenko. Roman is the communications director for the embassy and has himself been named in one of the many ramblings by the notorious "Borat" character (as Borat stood outside the KZ embassy last month).

I share this bulletin with you (below) because I find it a case study in "how a target government should not handle Ali G and publicity stunts to launch a film" like this one. The KZ embassy would have best handled the PR crisis that is Ali G by steering clear of the controversy rather than feeding the fire.

Here's the excerpt from the a bulletin from the embassy of Kazkhstan, emailed by the Kazahkhstani embassy's Roman Vassilenko, KAZAKHSTAN News Bulletin October 27, 2006:

"Our Take on “Borat” The upcoming movie “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan”, and the Borat character, of course, have nothing to do with the real Kazakhstan. The only actual fact about Kazakhstan in the movie is the country’s geographic location. At the same time, we hope the movie will spur increased interest in the real Kazakhstan among those who see it.

Here are some reasons:

Kazakhstan is the world’s ninth largest country located in Central Asia between Russia and China. Being at the heart of the Great Silk Road for centuries, Kazakhstan has been and continues to be a link between the East and the West.
Independent since 1991, Kazakhstan, under President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s prudent leadership, has turned into an economically strong and dynamically developing democratic nation.
Kazakhstan, a Muslim majority country, is home to 130 ethnic groups and 40 religious faiths. Pope John Paul II, who visited Kazakhstan in 2001, called our country “an example of harmony between men and women of different origins and beliefs.”
Kazakhstan shut down the world’s largest nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk and voluntarily rid itself of the world’s fourth largest nuclear arsenal, eliminating its infrastructure in partnership with the United States. Today, Kazakhstan is a recognized global leader in the fight to stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Kazakhstan is a strategic partner of the United States and supports the U.S. in the war on terrorism since the first days after the 9/11 tragedy. Kazakhstan is the only Central Asian country with troops in Iraq who have already destroyed more than 4 million pieces of deadly ordnance and continue their mission.
With oil reserves estimated at 100 billion barrels, Kazakhstan expects to be one of the world’s top ten oil producers within a decade.
More than 400 U.S. companies work in Kazakhstan and have already invested more than $15 billion in our economy.
Everyone who wants to know Kazakhstan better will discover a diverse, fascinating and hospitable nation. Welcome to the true Kazakhstan yet to be discovered!"

Evangelicals of Globalization

I heard Joseph Stiglitz speak for the World Affairs Council here in Seattle this evening, down at the town hall. Some notable quotes from the evening:
"One famous economist once said, 'In the long run, we're all dead'," "The IMF is poorly managed, it's not one country one vote, not even one $ one vote. It's more like one $ back in 1944, one vote." He raised some interesting points. Notably, the market failures that make government critical (at the national level), are only more pronounced at the global level. He painted a picture of MNCs with big interests, smart lawyers and well-funded lobbyists at in the driver's seat of globalizatoin. He pointed out that voting at the IMF is based on old, out-dated centers of power. And why is the head of the World Bank is always appointed by the US president w/o even congressional approval?

His critique of the global system hinges on equity, in the context of 'developed' and 'developing' nations. He noted how the pharma-lobby has kept generic drugs out of Africa, how NAFTA is 1000+ pages long (it's drafted to protect US special interests and has made life even harder for many Mexican small business owners, environmentalists, regulators), how 'globalization' increasingly makes it more difficult for state governments to correct market failures.

He made the case for why the 'global system' is even more corruptible than domestics systems, or domestic politics. It all comes down to who has money, who makes policy and who cares to spend that money to influence policymakers. Where are the checks and balances to the global system? Why are trade negotiations dominated by the rich countries, who are intern controlled by big money? The global system is a classic case of haves and have-nots. It's about a smaller number of the politically-motivated and organized dominating policy. MNCs and special interests are are clearly behind the wheel of the global system. How, otherwise, would agricultural subsidies be so built into the system? The sad reality is, just like in domestic politics, money is king. And again, just as in domestic policy, it's a question of who has the most to gain and who has the money. As in domestic politics, this tends to result in a small group of folks who speak louder and sit in the driver's seat... heading towards the non-optimal outcome.

How could we ever get the money out of policy-making? That's so fundamental to everything.

White and Nerdy

It's pledge time at our local NPR station, KUOW. I finally, finally made my first pledge to public radio, just this weekend. I consider this a big event in my life. It's recognition that public radio is a true public good, that I indeed value, but have taken advantage of over the years w/o stepping up to contribute (just as I take advantage of clean air, public education, the police). You know you're a public radio junkee when you actually consider planning vacations around future fall pledge drives. Well, yes, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I must say I've been pretty annoyed all week. Yet, it took me until just this Saturday to pledge... a full 6 days into the pledge drive! I hope you all contributed too, so we can get back to Morning Edition as always.

Ps. I can't help myself. But this is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw

Green Drinks

So I attended Seattle's Green Drinks tonight. Green Drinks is an "organic self-organizing network" of people who work in the environmental field. The self-stated purpose of the organization is: "Every month people who work in the environmental field meet up for a beer at informal sessions known as Green Drinks." Festivities are held at a new location each month and are typically hosted by "green-minded" companies, non-profits or organizations. This was my first Green Drinks. Apparently last month's Green Drinks in Seattle was the largest ever, for this city. Organizers attribute this to a listing in the local Seattle daily newspaper and increased buzz... just as more companies/organizations/individuals are drawn to the 'green' space.

I love the premise of the gatherings. They serve as a simple forum for like-minded Seattleites to meet and share ideas. And I love the idea that thinking 'green' has risen to such prominence on the national stage. Maybe I'm just prey to the trend, as this was indeed my first Green Drinks, maybe I'm just one of the many caught up in a fleeting trend. But I love that Al Gore has taken a stand on global warming in such a prominent way (he'll be in Seattle this month), I love that "Who Killed the Electric Car" gave a glimpse behind the scenes of why the best technologies and the best overall outcome (for society) may fall prey to parties protecting their wealth, I love that national magazines featured 'green' topics on their covers even in months other than April (Earth Day), I love that (yes, I know it may be election year politics) politicians near and far are endorsing renewable energy policy, I love that the BPs, Chevrons and GEs of the world are investing in renewable technologies, I love that solar is today's dot.com boom story... I like it all. I like that Green Drinks has grown. I like that Jay Inslee (representative from WA) mentioned Green Drinks in a speech he gave last week. It's all awesome.

So I was sitting at Green Drinks, and this is where the pragmatist, or realist, or whatever you'd call it, in me comes out for a chat.

I was looking around me (this week's Green Drinks was hosted by the Sustainable Style Foundation) at all this cool sustainable-yet-stylish furniture and I couldn't help but think about some of the fundamental contradictions in the environmental movement. Just to use this one example, environmentally-friendly home decor... on the one hand, we'd like to promote consumption of environmentally-friendly goods. But at the same time, that's still consumption, and consumption is counter to what we want. The best result would actually be no new consumption at all. So, the best option would be for Joe Schmo to continue using his old lamp, but replace the light-bulb to one that is more efficient, as opposed to buying a new lamp made of recycled cork. Because... it took energy, likely coal-fired electricity, and resources to create that new yet sustainable cork lamp.

While I commend all organizations/companies that help us take small steps towards reducing our impact on the environment, it's such a paradox because for them to "succeed" and "grow" as organizations, they'll have to... well, grow, which means more resource use, energy use, etc. OK, so that said, I suppose the goal of that Foundation is to affect change by changing consumption patterns such that all home decor products are produced in a green fashion with green inputs and a green afterlife. I can dig that. OK, here's another example. So the whole purpose of Green Drinks is to bring together people who will have a positive, collective, effect on the environment. Yet, we all drank our organic beer out of plastic cups. I hope those were recycled. Here's another one. What about green-living magazines that measure their success on circulation numbers? So in order to spread their message (for those that actually print as well as being online), they have to kill trees. But, you'd argue, that paper is recycled. OK. And you'd argue that message has an exponential effect on the environment because people who read that will affect greater positive change than the negative effect of printing the magazine.

Yes, I see your point. I guess my whole conflict here is there is so much inconsistency, irony in the 'environmental movement' and it runs so counter to what we'd typically call 'market principles.' In terms of the market, more is better, bigger is better, growth is good. Paper manufacturers want us to use more paper cups, print more documents, read more magazines. Green paper manufacturers want the same thing, yet they're green. It's not as if green paper companies want us to use less green paper. They want us to use more. So... whereas conservation might be key, any sort of green product, though green, fights against this key goal.

Sorry for the long, long, stream of thoughts.

But, in summary, I loved Green Drinks. And the plastic cups were clearly worth it. I drank from that plastic cup, maybe you'll go change the light bulbs in your house (not likely that this blog will affect any change anywhere, as I'm pretty sure no one reads it). And if you do, then the net effect on the environment will be a positive one.

So, yes, that plastic cup was a worthy sacrifice for getting you to change your light bulbs. Thanks for your help. (I still don't know about the green furniture-unless part of their message is just buy one lamp and hang onto it forever).

Living History

A fact of modern life is we're all so mobile. We don't think twice about moving across the country, or the world, for school or work. In the decade since I graduated university, I've lived in three cities in two countries. Of course, there are pros and cons to this mobile lifestyle. My circle of friends (at least those I actually see with any regularity) changes with each move. I've met some great friends, and I've left some great ones behind.

This mobility also affects family. Just as we adopt new friends in each city, some of us also adopt new family as we go. A friend of mine has a husband from Nebraska. Her husband's parents have essentially adopted a young couple and that couple's son. They babysit and occasionally spend holidays with that young family.

Just this past summer, I came across the organization ElderFriends. ElderFriends introduced me to Yan nai nai, or grandma Yan. Yan nai nai has no children and was an only child. I visit nai nai each Tuesday after work. Nai nai is 100 years old. It's not an exaggeration to say she's living history. Born in mainland China, she witnesses the war with Japan, the rise of the PRC, and so much else. She was born at a time when the Chinese bound the feet of their young girls. Nai nai has so many stories to tell, but just no granddaughter to listen. I'm honored to serve as her granddaughter here in Seattle.

Inconvenient Truth

Again, late to the party, I just now finally saw Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. This might come as a surprise to many, as I'm clearly passionate about the environment in both work and life. I'm 'that guy' in the office who feeds discarded paper back into the printer to make use of the second side. I can't say I drive the best car, but I'm privileged enough to have the luxury of riding the bus to work. My line of work is also in the realm of environmental education. And here it is in October and I've finally gone to see Inconvenient Truth. I must say, I disagree with friends who have told me they walked out of the movie feeling Gore "never told them the solution to the seemingly insurmountable problem." Gore was very clear in telling us how to get involved, how to change our habits, how to push our policymakers. He made a compelling case of the problem and explained why public recognition of the problem is the first step to 1) changes in habits and 2) effective public policy. He told us why public policy is critical to fuel efficiency standards (China), forest protection (the DR), drilling in the Arctic, carbon emissions reductions on a wider scale, and more. The take away message was not how to change the world after eating your popcorn and walking out of the theatre. The take away was to be more informed of the issues, act accordingly, and write letters to your representative. Hats off to Gore for putting his notoriety and passion to good use following 2000. I thought it before seeing the movie, when I first saw Gore's face on the cover of Wired, and the movie only confirmed it, but I really think Al could be a strong force in '08. I just wonder if he could ever compete in the fundraising arena or if the dems would ever give him a shot. The inconvenient truth is that politics is about so much more than passion and ideas, it's about locking in the right donors at the right time.

Flat Daddies

A.k.a. "flat daddies," some military families are purchasing these life-size replicas (from the torso up) of soldiers who have missed birthday parties and soccer games while deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. According to the NY Times, some families prop up "flat daddy" at the dinner table and the playground. This photo struck me as just so ridiculous, so sad. Such a sign of the times.

Late to the Party

I feel a bit late to the party. The blogging party that is. Here it is, already October 2006, and I am only now jumping into the world of sharing my thoughts with whomever will listen. It's not that I've been against blogging, it's just that I've never thought myself a pundit on any one subject. But I was actually inspired to start a blog two nights ago, Friday, when I attended an opening party for the Bodies exhibit here in Seattle. It is a traveling exhibit intended to educate people about the human body. The display was actually quite well-done. But the whole 'launch party' experience was so surreal. It was surreal mostly because I knew the bodies were poor Chinese peasants whose bodies were never claimed at death. The stark contrast was so apparent to me, I was surrounded by wine-drinking, appetizer-eating members of the first-world who were preparing to head upstairs to see the skinless bodies of deceased, skinless Chinese peasants whose bodies were posed in various athletic positions. It was all just too surreal, and I had to put my thoughts down 'on paper' so to speak. I actually put my thoughts down at 2 a.m. that evening (I've included the original text in all its glory below).

As for the title of the blog, I started my life and education as very much a pragmatist. Trained as an economist, I graduated college with a firm belief in market principles and capitalism. It wasn't until I went back for more schooling that I realized everything I had learned in economics 101, so to speak, was footnoted with such comments as "assuming social equality, environmental degradation, third-world exploitation are not factors in measuring well-being." So today, I characterize myself as an idealist with strong pragmatic roots, if that jargon makes any sense.

Thanks for listening. I'm glad to be here at the party.

--------------

I was just at the launch "party" of the Bodies exhibit that will run here in Seattle tomorrow night through December 31st. It was so surreal. The whole time at the exhibit I kept thinking to myself, I should really, finally start a blog. I was standing in this lobby, among young, hip, Seattleites who were drinking wine and eating sirloin slivers off silver platters, preparing to go upstairs to view dead Chinese people who'd had the misfortune of dying with no one to claim their bodies. These formerly living humans were on display, skinless, for all to see. We visitors, invited to the launch, were participating in a wine-drinking "party" of sorts to celebrate dead Chinese people. It was so surreal to be drinking wine and eating spring rolls.