Trial 101: TINDER!

I hate myself when I'm being judgmental. But, when you have a gang of badass trashy-mouths supporting your unjust judgment and made fun of the type of activity you judge, I might say my best efforts have failed in honor -- it was socially deconstructed.

So out of my curiosity, I installed Tinder. Yes, yes, Tinder, the hookup apps! Yes, yes, yes, that one that motivate people to only take into account physical impression for their yay or nay and degrade the importance of meaningful conversation to the much lower place than sexy-open mouthed-horny faces pictures. Oh please don't look at me like I'm a hopeless bitch or some virtual freak, or like how my friend expressed it:

"QUIN NGAPAIN LO MAEN TINDER?!?!?"

Seriously, I have a noble mission for using it. First, I have some friends who are cool in real life and are using Tinder. So, I know that eventually there are cool people in Tinder. Second, I wanna disprove my belief that Tinder is an app so low you that can't use it for a neutral, engaging and meaningful conversation with strangers regardless of their faces and their dating motive. It should be really up to the user, and if my first point is proven to be true (even to some small percentage of Tinder population assuming I can correctly choose them), there's a good chance I can have some fun convo.

So the Tinder hunt started. The first time was quite difficult -- out of some 100 photos I swap in some 20 minutes, I only picked three people. Well, 2 of 3 matched. Then I complained to my boyfriend that there's no interesting dude in Tinder -- in reply, he told me, "You're way too picky!" At that moment I realize that I have followed the Tinder way: let the photo tell you who they are. Alas, I feel disgusted at myself. In real life I talk to random strangers regardless of their faces. I walk with travelers regardless of how they look in pictures. As a person who traveled enough and understand real human interaction enough, that's a shame that Tinder dictated me with the pic-looking policy.

Then I broadened my criteria: Regardless of whatever human exist in the picture, anyone with awesome background, pics of outdoorsy activities or sport, whose pose doesn't look like harming the environment -- and one additional touch: who looks like having a strong character, I pick them. Not a good progress too, in my second 30 minutes, I picked some 6 dudes - all matched. Anyway, I also have a woman preference in my phone, but I eyed no one because of the "character" consideration.

Match done, now what? Messaging! So in Tinder, after you matched, and only if you matched, you can message each other. The first dude who message me had an awesome picture in mountains and playing drums and so on. The convo in my head would be like:

Tinder guy (TG): So when will you do your next via Feratta?
Me (Q): No idea! It's in Malaysia anyway, and way too pricey.
TG: Yeah it's too bad that our government does not manage the national park like Sabah-Sarawak does. But it's quite good, make it cheap! Wonder if the money go to the local community, though.
Q: Nope nope, it's a pretty high stake investment. Surely they take all the money. But the porters get a pretty good deal and certain limitation to maximum carriage they can bring up there.
TG: [continue with interesting social/ecological/whatever shit stories or ideas]

That's the kind of convo I have in real life, with real traveler. IN CONTRAST, the shit I talked about with my awesome-looking matches: some asked for phone number straight away (how rude!), some asked my occupation, some asked if your age is real or fake, one even made explaining about Motorcycle Diary and what or where Machu Picchu is. Oh my great-pic dude, GET SOME EDUCATION! As an avid Capricorn who believe no conversation or small talk should happen unless it's super genuine, really exciting, have a value to test or to add some perspective, I see these Tinder convo nonsense. Well, I mean, for me it's nonsense. I'm not a kind of patient angel who can manage talking with some 5 guys virtually and bragging the same shallow shit over and over again without talking about any interesting ideas.

Maybe it's because I traveled. Maybe the pressure to get in touch to new people and keep some targets in conferences. Maybe the community organizing I did in rural villages. Maybe the life overseas. Maybe because I couchsurfed and met awesome personalities who backpack the long way. Maybe it's the weird, all environmentalists Portland. Maybe I have meet too many strangers and befriend them and I had learned the hard way about real life engagement -- because I had to. Oh well, maybe it was not real, in fact, Jakarta made me anti social and multiply my people screening a hundred times. But still, virtual conversation, Tinder like? Not for me, not for me. I'd rather take care of my shit in my laptops or read some geeky science fiction animal books. In my forever alone, anti social apartment unit. I'D RATHER, SERIOUSLY.

I gave up without even proving any of my noble mission above. Quitter, yay!

So I put an end to my Tinder life and decided to focus replying my cellphone messages from my family, friends, relatives that I constantly abandoned. Tinder was just three days in my phone, two times sliding around, and I found nothing but disgust. If there's a way of meeting new people that I can appreciate -- I'm pretty sure it's not by algorithm that counts at your interest and let you choose by looking at pictures. I might not be able to interact more than a conventional traveler's way -- or, activist way maybe?

But to be honest, I pity myself for not being able to give some just judgment for such a personal choice of which I should not have judged. For my cool friend who happen to use Tinder, seriously, it's just a reflection for me. I still love you the way you are but please love me although my virtual capacity and tolerance is definitely need some additional schooling.


Love,
Trashy Mouth Agent 009
From the Dark Side

Some prosecutors might be drunk when writing this:

Weekend with Dad: making too much laugh of a horribly hilarious summon letter of a criminal case, written by a South Sumatera prosecutor and approved by his THREE supervisors. Maybe they’re drunk, high, KHILAF, or just stupid. Think through the text above,

Logic 1: 50,000 m3 + 65,403,180,788 m3 = 144,014,473,880 m3 --- This is why I support math to be one of the subject in our national exam. Math, NOT meth, your honor…

Logic 2: the price of 144,014,473,880 m3 of fill material is ONLY IDR  2,433,844,002 --- MEANS, a cubic meter of fill material equals IDR 0.0169/m3. Hell yeah, 1.69 CENT for ONE METRIC of fill material (soil), AWESOME!

Logic 3: If 1 cubic meter of soil is IDR 38,000 -- then 144,014,473,880 m3 suppose to be IDR 5,472,550,007,440,000 (NOT only 2 million-ish!). It's 2.68 TIMES Indonesia's total spending OR 3.15 TIMES Indonesia's total revenue for 2015 fiscal year, dude!

ANYWAY, can you imagine how much is 144,014,473,880 m3? --- Logic 4: 

It’s 3,599.64 TIMES the circumference of the earth at the equator (which is the fat side -- 40,075 km loop each) if we use 1m x 1 m surface. Means, we can build a 1m x 1m-surfaced long block passing through Indonesia, Atlantic Ocean, northern Africa, Middle East, South Asia, and the Pacific Ocean (the whole equator) as much as 3,599 times!! (OR, a 1m thick wall as high as 3,599m along the equator. Ready for a new great wall?).

We can make a 1 m fill for 194.54 TIMES the total area of DKI Jakarta (which is 740.3 km2 in total) – OR, you can fill that amount of soil to DKI Jakarta and make the whole province 194.54 m higher.

Anyway, we can fill the whole area of Java (138,794 km2, the 13^th biggest island on earth) by 1 m, and still have a surplus of 7 DKI Jakartas (5,220.47 km2)

Assuming one dump truck can load 20 m3 of soil (2m x 2m x 5m – which is HUGE and might not be factual), we will need 7,200,723,694 TIMES loading and unloading the materials. Even if we can provide 1,000 trucks to load and unload the materials, with each truck can do 10x loading and unloading per day (which is a totally arbitrary assumption – but whatever), it will still take 720,073.2 days to complete the task. Anyway, 720,073.2 days means 1,972 years and 9 months and 18 days. The faster way to complete the task is to provide each person on the earth a truck of 20m3 capacity to perform the loading and unloading.

I really start thinking we need a dedicated blog for this shit. HAHA.

Regards and cheers from those who are responsible for making us laughing SO HARD,

Some kids just... have too much energy!

So in a sweet afternoon when I was sipping my coffee, an Australian friend told me,

"Quina, I don't think you should ever drink coffee. You have too much energy, and when you drink coffee, you go crazy!!"

So I told my boyfriend with a hope that he will give me some nice words that I'm okay drinking coffee. But the reply that I got was... evil.

"He has no idea how monstrous you can be," that's what my boyfriend told me.

Thanks, lovely BF. I guess I pick the right person to deal with my superfluous "monstrous" attitude. Shiva granddaughter I am, like how they called me... couple of years ago. Or, bandit, like how my dad's clients used to call me and my sister. OH BIG THANKS, I thought I'm a grown up lady.

Ozama binNa(ga)Ragawati

Meet Ozama, our new pet! He's from Afghanistan, dropped by to our house by an Afghanistan shipping company which happen to be on its way to deliver incinerator ash to Tuvalu, so he's been buried pretty long inside that incinerator ash before hatched in Pandji's house. He said he wants to be a hipster kiddo dragon. He adores both Kurt Cobain and Osama bin Laden. We're having a problem controlling his smoking habit, pretty sad since he's just hatched and already took Pandji's cigarette without permission. Please pray for us to grow a healthy generation of dragon without cigarette!

Towards the land of monsters

I wanted to marry a mafia, like for real. The kind of future family I had in my dream was a stressful one, full of blood, surviving conflict after conflict, with him managing the dirty business and me managing the family charity. Allocate the dirty money to the least marginalized, who will never get funded for typical charity projects. Search for long-term solutions for the worst of the worst. Sounds like a really beautiful cooperation in this imperfect world.

But as I dated "dirty" people and bad guy (I've never dated a real mafia though), I realized that those kind of ethical contractions are only beautiful in hypothetical. My ethical voice inside just couldn't survive their stories, seeing them doing injustice in front of my eyes killed my emotions faster than I thought. While sometimes they just need an ear to hear, I couldn't help to be less than a judge to punish them and adding their stress. One "dirty lawyer" in my past really did what I imagined, really charitable, but play all the dirty cards. I enjoyed the mental exercise of being his diary, but realized that it's no more than a curious journey for me.

I never thought of future family again until this morning suddenly I talk with my boyfriend about another hypothetical. I said to him I want to learn pole dance. He always knew I want to move to rural areas where environmental conflicts get no advocate, so practicing pole dance would normally be weird. But we like to imagine stuffs, so we continue the story. I said I want to work more closely with religion groups, including MUI (Majelis Ulama Indonesia), basically religious leaders. And we're joking about me being a pole dancer while pursuing my Ph.D. and doing environmental religion law reform, and while I'm working on my paper and advocacy somewhere he will clean up the mess sent by Islam extremists to our house. Like, seriously, the terror you can imagine for going against the communal norm can be as chill as threatening phone call to dead chicken sent to you in package. We won't be married, and I don't imagine having children but I'll be interested in adopting one. He's totally fine with both options, but he wants dogs. I want monsters, so we'll name our dogs after monsters and dress them like ones. He still wants to be a movie critics, and I'm so supporting him to be more irritating to stupid filmmakers. We both will have lots of enemy, and our daily life will discuss strategies to protect our dogs and children from terrors. Maybe if we get bored with Indonesia, we will go to South Asia or post-Soviet countries or Africa, but he wants to go to Iceland. Either way is fine, but Iceland got to be chaotic first, maybe some revolution before we're going there.

Hmm, an interesting fiction already. I've never got a partner who can't being imaginative, and he's being a nice one, we're still living our childish dreams. I hope we'll really live it :) Ah, already on our way, kiddo.

Public Trust Symposium Panel 4: Future Development of the Public Trust

John Dernbach from Widener University Law School started this session with the Robinson Township case and the potential meaning of Constitutional Public Trust. As many environmental lawyers in the US might reckon, Robinson Township is a groundbreaking case which strikes down a fracking statute under the Pennsylvania constitution. However, this is still potential, because there are many meanings and implication which might be taken from the case.

Prof. Dernbach broke down Penn's environmental amendment in Article I, Section 27, into two big part: (1) right to environment; and (2) public trust language. However, like other environmental rights constitutional provision, it gets buried right away, with the former case saying it is not self-executing. It was followed with other of the litigation which did a remarkable judicial activism, giving three balancing test to the right, the "protect and conserve" test. Next, entered the Robinson Township, challenging Marcellus legislation, and decided using a public trust framing of its environmental rights amendment!

On his words, what the court saying was, "We know that industry needs predictability, but also the people who's living under the place vulnerable to this oil and gas exploration - they need predictability, too! Their interest and expectation must be protected!" -- A totally quotable words!

Pre-Robinson Township, the PTD in Article I, Section 27 might be: (1) Confirm and extend governmental authority; (2) Guide statutory interpretation; (3) Provide constitutional authority for laws which legislation/executive enacted against. And, the potential effect of Robinson Township will bring these three functions further: (1) Strengthens each of these; (2) Imposes duties on government, not just confirming and extending governmental authority. And hey, it might happen in Indonesia, too, if we can do some test case!

After him, Richard Frank took the floor, pointing to the groundwater pumping that affect navigable waters and the PTD implication to that. He begun with the Waiahole Ditch case from Hawaii and some other cases, also some states' legislation which give trust language in protecting groundwater. His primary focus is the Scott River litigation in NW California, regarding the Klamath & Scott Rivers, which getting dried because of more and more wells being drilled around the river for the agricultural purposes. The case was filed in 2010 in the Sacramento County Superior Court, the main argument relying on Mono Lake's decision, that the government have an affirmative duty to do something about the water, and the agencies have disclaimed authority/obligation to do so, and asking the court to issue order requiring management consistent with PTD. The litigation is still ongoing, but a positive development is signalling.

And here comes the man, Michael Blumm, my PTD Professor in Lewis & Clark, and I enjoyed the way he used his first 7 minutes to give entertaining rebuttal to the previous panels! If there's one skill I adore from lawyers, is their ability to use the rightest words to give mean rebuttal. And finally he started, bring a light to the Lake Oswego case, a private lake just three miles from the law school. Relying on two preposition: (1) the water is navigable; and (2) there should be public right to access based on the Statehood Act right. Again, the case is still on going, but if they lose, they'll just get to the Supreme Court. And then things get mushy, I can't remember how, but then he start to talk about the Federal PTD, which I think actually just an impromptu "lecture" to the previous panelists. That was fun, old man!

The next speaker, Mary Christina Wood, is the co-writer of the PTD textbook that Blumm wrote, and she's one of "the guy" in the US PTD world. She started with a really romantic method, brought all the audience to imagine what climate and PTD might look like at the end of the century... and think about how our childrens' life right then. She really get into the point when she mentioned that we lawyers tend to be trapped within the statutory analysis, discussing what might fit to be brought to court and which fits for the other branches, and forgetting that the nature is actually already working so much faster than we anticipated. And then she got back to climate change, comparing how the regulations have been the micro approach, while the trust litigation are macro approach, basically saying "government need to have a plan"! She also mention about the "Our Children's Trust" where children brought petition to the government, saying that the agencies must have a plan. One of the case that got through the court was brought in Eugene, OR, and you can google about it.

That's kind of the end of this Symposium for me. Totally cool, but definitely cooler if we can try it back home ;)

Public Trust Symposium, Panel 3: Perspectives from Governance

So this is the 3rd Panel of the Public Trust Symposium in Lewis & Clark Law School on this sunny Friday, April 10, 2015. It was really interesting to see the perspective of government in responding to Public Trust Doctrine (PTD). I skipped the first speaker, a really interesting lady who practiced law for 23 years before work for the Department of Interior with a policy hat, Janice Schneider, Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals Management., U.S. DOI, nominated by Obama and approved by Congress.

So I started with Geoff McQuilkin, Executive Director of Mono Lake Committee, who shared his experience with implementing the famous PTD case, Mono Lake, which declared as victory by environmentalists some 20 years ago. A photo he shown to us told us how standing at the same edge of Mono Lake can look so differently in some two years in different timing - drought time and normal time. It's pretty heartbreaking to see the hard work to raise the Mono Lake water to certain level finally ends up with the nature's power. "What we're still doing to protect this public resource to be ecologically sound. But if we're heading towards getting the water level to its 'normal' level as set out in the case, we might be heading to the wrong direction,"

Richard Wisman, the Director of Oregon Governor's Natural Resources Office, took the floor afterwards, "You might remember that Montana has the right to clean and healthy environment. But you might not remember that in Oregon, in 1970s, people enacted Scenic Waterways Act," he started, talking about the PTD implementation in Oregon. However, the real challenge right now is real: the water reservoir level in Wilammete basin goes down to 1/3 of its normal level, and its beyond direct human action - it's nature. He pointed to California's Preposition 1: the $7.5 bond dedicated for water storage, water recycling, and many other holistic approach to deal with the drought that threat them. See what Oregon has been doing is fascinating, although environmentalists will probably demand more. Coordination with tribes, protection and restoration of fisheries, groundwater apportionment water right scheme (which is pretty unique water right system in the west as oppose to prior appropriation), CFS through in-stream leasing, and the public investment, all is ongoing. He even pointed that people power to demand is needed, full engagement with executive and judicial system.

All of them comes with the same message: the challenge of climate change is a huge chunk of additional homework. We're talking about drought in the west right now, which might be problematic if we want to see PTD in its traditional sense. We also take into account changing condition of nature, which completely different with 20 years ago.

Erin Ryan raise a really interesting question about how these executive people worry about the separation of power posed by the PTD. Wisman points to the possible backoff caused by overreaching judgment by the judiciary, which might frustrates both parties in the end with its unintended political consequences. McQuillin made a point about the balancing of special interests, where there's always be people who are not satisfied and then the court step in, put a hammer on what's actually been satisfactory for some groups. He pointed that PTD really have its role working when government fails to take certain actions. Scheider points that the agencies' objective to work in a collaborative action to make sure they're not get sued, and nodding to the points raised by her co-panels. She also points about hoping people realize how open the executive branch is to have conversation from the stakeholders -- the more they hear from people, the better decision they can make. Additional issue raised by Wisman on the climate change issue: the court will not make a sound decision on the climate, especially related to the complicated science involved in that, and only by locking people together in the room a sound solution can be reached.

LAW 101: Loving Your LAW Jobs

I love cases. 

I can't say enough how I LOVE observing people's story in cases: the more heartbreaking it is, the more interesting it is. Like one of the complicated case about defining "wetlands" in Rapanos v. United States, decided in a rare 4-1-4 split decision by the US Supreme Court. The case, and the judges opinion, is just about "water of the US" and CWA jurisdiction -- and I was not that interested to the case until I found out the story behind the case,

"After seventeen years of protracted civil and criminal litigation and a denial of certiorari in the criminal trial, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Rapanos' civil case." (68 La. L. Rev. 983)

There you go. A single definition of a single WORD has ruined someone's life for seventeen years, and a small (or huge, depends on your perspective in seeing that) shift on interpreting that word can affect everything from a huge sum of penalty to criminal conviction.

The way law dramatize people's stories is simply fascinating.

In the name of Cultural Understanding

There are some classes that can make you emotionally wasted. Like, really, it makes you eat raw vegetables like monster or typing your stubborn subjectivity into blog post while feeling so mixed up you badly need somebody to hug or something to punch.

Last year the trophy went to Animal Law. And as much as I hate it, as much as I thought about it -- wrote about it. It became a complicated love-hate relationship between me and the subject. Or the cases. Or... whatever. And to Environmental Justice, as it triggered more questions in my troubling mind and brought so much ethical contradictions to my early twenty head. I was fucked, emotionally.

Now, International Environmental Law fucked me up. That developed-developing countries distinction, and all the framing and sharp clash of values, sometimes made me lose my lawyering objectivity to be neutral, heartless, in my legal argument. But, can it be really, really neutral?

Why is it hypocritical for environmentalists from a country without CAFO problem to choose to eat meat, BUT it is NOT hypocritical to enact a statute as strong as CERCLA and RCRA to protect public health while exporting the waste to other countries like India and let people inhale asbestos everyday without any safe equipment?

I really envy Prof. Johnston everytime he said "The beauty of CERCLA..." or Prof. Ostar when he promoted transit justice for people in Portland. Maybe I've got too bitter that Indonesia might not ever be there, because our own inability. Or, I used my heart too much over my head. Or, all I need is my debating mate giving me more and more rebuttal until it kills my emotion. Maybe.

But that's why I love this subject anyway... because it hurts.

Sweetness Level: Godzilla!!

Again, about American food. If you start hating me, fine, shut this window down. I know I've been talking too much about food when I'm here.

When I can talk for hours about Portland's great local coffee and cool microbreweries, I can't resist to raise a concern about some intolerably unhealthy sweetness level in some of the beverages. Everytime I forgot to say "LESS SUGAR," the rest of my day will be a bad turbulence in my tummy - yes, that kind of sweetness that you think gonna give you instant diabetes.

First, let's examine this jar of coffee. I swear it's huge! At least you can drink 5 *NORMAL* cup of coffee and it's still sweet enough if you add ice as much as 20% of the volume you have in your cup. And where is it come from?

A grande Starbucks Java Chips Frappucino. More precisely, 3/4 of the grande frappe.

So in a beautiful grey day of Portland, I ordered my coffee, chatted with the server, and made the most fatal mistake of that day: forgetting to say "LESS SUGAR" for my order. Voila, what I got is a *NORMAL* sweetness level according to that server (or maybe any other server in particular places in particular country). So what happened next was I almost thrown up, and after couple of sips I gave up drinking it and bought a cup of regular Stumptown instead. But... I brought my frappe home.

And to satisfy my curiosity about my normal sweetness level, I made another coffee and added it to the grande frappe. It was 5 spoons of coffee with 16 ounces (yes, a full medium cup) of water. And I mix them. The result: it's still too sweet. But it's tolerable enough because I can add ice blocks as I drink that later. So, moral of the story: Even though I have added amount of water DOUBLE the original volume, American Starbucks is still too sweet (for me).

And today, I made the same mistake again. But, this time, with bottled juice. (How am I supposed to say "less sugar" to something bottled??). Anyway, this is a really healthy juice: 4 fruits blend, no GMO, not from concentrate, gluten free. So it's supposed to be awesome!!

But again, I got an instant "ding" in my head as I started sipping. Disaster!

As I flipped the bottle and see the sugar level, and it's well explained why the sweetness level is crazy: this 450ml juice contains 44 grams of sugar. In other words: 11 teaspoons*) of granulated white sugar!! While, according to AHA (American Heart Association), the maximum intake of sugar for woman is only 25 grams per day, and for man 37.5 grams per day.

Anyway, just a random statistic based on this page:

"According to data from the U.S. in 2008, people are consuming over 60 pounds (28 kg) of added sugar per year and this does not include fruit juices (1). In 2008 the average intake was 76.7 grams per day, which equals 19 teaspoons or 306 calories. According to this study, sugar consumption went down by 23% between the years 2000 and 2008, mainly because people drank less sugar-sweetened beverages"

Meanwhile, a *not so* recent opinion in Jakarta Post raised a concern about the opposite trend growing in Indonesia: more sugar! You can see the opinion here, written by the vulnerability assessment officer for the UN World Food Program (WFP) in Indonesia and East Timor in 1998-2002.

So, think your own sweetness level, and have a good day, sugar!

*) one teaspoon of white granulated sugar equals to 4 grams of sugar

Lost and Damage Climate Compensation

DISCLAIMER: It's not a legal argument, at all. In one of the International Environmental Law class, my Professor raised a question about the CC's lost and damage climate compensation -- somewhat in a way discrediting developing countries' position in demanding that. For a quick reference about loss and damage climate compensation, see Saleemul Huq's writing in UNEP's CC website. So when I worked on my paper I couldn't stop thinking about that, and before I realized I already start writing this in the class' forum, wasting my precious 1 hr to write this non-legal response. Here it is, copied verbatim:

So I was curious about the lost and damage and I researched more about this since I couldn't believe something as non-sense as our discussion in the class could go as far as reaching an agreement to be considered. It makes more sense to me after reading more sources.

I think there's a big difference between (a) "any kind of damage that adaptation won't be able to answer" with (b) "unavoidable damage that already occurred and no matter what we do, adaptation is too late".

Lost and damage sounds more like (b) for me, if I understand it correctly. It might be easier for developed countries to be technology optimistic, but for the poorest parts of the world where electricity & fridge not even accessible for some of its citizen? Not so -- it should be predictable that adaptation tends to come too late for them, leave them with no option but to losing more and sacrificing their chances to improve their already-screwed life (see: Guardian, Climate Change, the Poor Will Suffer Most). At least from my limited knowledge, it doesn't sound like unimaginable scenes to lost too much before adaptation finally arrive. Sounds fair, especially for those country whose historical emissions are among the lowest, but forced to live with disaster for years before some foreign aid come and safe them with adaptation project. Does it sound fair for 39 millions of Bangladeshi citizen who live below $2/day to face constant flood that made their food security worse and cause more water-borne diseases, in addition to their already-low living standards? If you were Bangladeshi citizen, will you be patient enough to wait some 2 years being homeless or live in the disaster camp until your new adaptation house built without being compensated a single penny? If you're the government, how will you manage your low budget to ensure these people get just compensation? Or maybe it's their cross to suffer a bit, no compensation is needed since everyone's suffering in natural disaster, no? Sounds like natural disaster, but with some historical proof on who should bear the most responsibility.

My biggest concern, however, is that the state being the subject demanding the compensation, while that the people impacted with these kind of situation are usually the ones whose voice are the least heard by the state, especially in the developing world. These are the kind of people who don't trust government because they have been forgotten by government too many times. And suddenly developing countries' governments stand up for these people in the name of climate justice? Sounds fishy. Maybe, developing countries governments are predicting a big wave of angry citizen who will blame governments for their failure in promptly implementing the adaptation plan -- that's why this loss and damage compensation being advocated.

In addition to the (b) situation, as absurd it might sound, I also can imagine permanent loss situations in point (a). Culture and way of living is one of them -- when an indigenous tribe is separated from their subsistence way of living because of climate vulnerability, what is the right adaptation plan? When Pacific Islanders tribes have to be evacuated from their indigenous lands to the city, is it as easy as city people moving from one apartment to another? It might be really, really difficult for city people to understand, but indigenous people's connection with their lands can be as stubborn as 'better to stay and die in my land than living somewhere else'. As they flee somewhere else, an irreplaceable value that money can't ever cover have lost (I'm not romanticizing, these stubborn people have caused me some troubles in real life evacuation). It make sense that Pacific Island nations take a pretty strong position on this, since some of the proponents are small nations with strong cultural identity. If culture sounds too absurd, non-use value, as we have seen a lot in ESA litigation, might be more imaginable for us, although this will be more universal and not unique to developing countries. However, these non-use value loss can be really tricky in its threshold and limits, as I raised yesterday.

PS: Viv raised the issue that adaptation will be needed eventually. Loss and damage compensation does not come as substitute of adaptation, but in addition to that. This is what makes it so controversial, because anyway, every nations are impacted. 

Public Interest Environmental Lawyer Conference 2015, Eugene, OR

So I skipped a class and dropped my Fulbright seminar opportunity in order to attend this conference. I've heard about this conference quite a lot, and since Lewis & Clark's biking squad has started their practice since months ago, I knew I must make my best effort to attend. And it turns out to be really worth it: they have 10 parallel panels, and each panel consisted of 16 different panels that you have to choose. Aside from that, they have amazing keynotes.

I really have no idea how grassroot activists will see this conference, but since I am not grassroot activist, all I can say is: PIELC is not for mediocre. It's serious, man. Not necessarily you must be lawyers, but you must be an environmental activists in order to fit within the crowds. My conclusion was not without some reasonable rationale. Look at these grandmothers.

Raging grannies and a Fransiscan eco-activist

Yep, as absurd as it sounds, it's the Corvallis and Eugene Raging Grannies who sang against XL Keystone, modifying the tone of Are You Sleeping into provoking but funny lyrics, bringing protest signs with them so bold and provocative. And those grannies really know what's at stake! I spoke to some oldies, and how they know so much about the XL Keystone advocacy makes me feel like a baby.

We also chanted a lot during keynote speeches, as you can see in one of the picture above (top left) - that's Gary Nabhan, a Fransiscan brother who happen to be an ethnobotanist and agricultural ecologist. He asked us to chant a line (that sounds like prayer) stating a totally demanding commitment in environmental advocacy, basically avoiding adversarial tactics when we can compromise, avoiding harm to the least-powerful community.

Another funny greeting came from Bill McKibben, who joked around with his "see you in jail". Even with this subtle kind of greeting, we know that true activists do not say "see you in other conference" and instead picking a place like street and organizing efforts - even jail. Also, these activists throw jokes around without trying to be politically correct, like when Antonio Oposa from Philippines bragging about how bad the western world is in front of a white majority who attended the conference.

The other interesting stuff is the combination of nature and session. We went hiking at McGowan Grove, a pretty off-trail hike (and that's why they suggest 'moderately experienced hikers') with a Congressman and a Senator as our guide. And yeah, they're badass either as a guide and as a field speakers. I don't think Indonesia's congressman would ever do that.

Congressman DeFazio and Senator Wyden lead the walk in the grove

Eugene's awesome McGowan Grove

Another funny speaker was this 14 years old climate justice public speaker, a cute indigo kid named Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez who sang some awesome environmental justice hip-hop songs and spoke about public trust doctrine like it's he knows all about it. Here's one of his song with his kiddo gang: Take You to Court. Okay, kid.

I guess that would be sufficient since it's impossible for me to tell you all about each and every panels. Just if you're in the US and want to network with real activists, learn great strategy about stuffs and really implement it back home, know some people who keep doing great without funding, this conference is definitely your place.

See you somewhere on the earth! (Hopefully not in a boring conference room)

Portland 9th Annual Chowder Challenge

Today I did my first chowder tasting ever! And voted for my favorite chowder. Totally important information.

I've been crazy about chowder since the first time I tasted it in the US - it's kind of my favorite of all western soups. So when I saw this even somewhere among my trashy surfing activity, I commited myself to go there and try various kinds of the city's best chowder. So there I was this afternoon: Portland 9th Annual Chowder Challenge!

I don't know if this kind of activity is popular enough in Jakarta or Palembang, but for it's a really nice process to legitimately determine which chowder is "The Best Chowder in the town"! So the idea is, upon paying $10, the committee will serve you 12 sample chowders (2 ouces each) from various bars/restaurants in a numbered tray, you blind-taste all of them, pick which one is your favorite, write it in your ballot, and submit it to the committee. After everyone's done with their ballot, the committee will count the vote (just like in all types of vote counting) and announce the winner. To make it easier to imagine, here are some pictures of my blind-tasting joy:

Here is the rule!

It's also amazing how Portlanders are so enthusiastic with this kind of thing. Portland is a city where everyone's willing to spend 30 minutes or more in a long line to try "what's hip in the town" - and apparently this annual challenge draws many voters each year!

The famous Portland long line

In the entrance, the committee will collect the $10, and then give us an empty tray and the ballot. Unfortunately I did not take the picture of them, but it's not so hard to imagine a tray with a paper divided by lines into 12 squares, each numbered from 1-12. What for? Since it's blind-tasting, so instead of revealing the names of the bars/restaurants cooking each chowder, they give us numbers so we can consider our favorites easily. And the ballot also provides a place to take a note in the back side!

Reception desk?

Volunteers filling the 2 ounces samples and put it in our tray according to their number

Welcome the chowders!

I started with a spoon for each of them, and it was amazing how chowders can really taste different! By tasting little by little and not finishing one at a time, I can go back to particular cup for a more narrow comparison when I need it. I did it repeatedly, each round dropping my least favorites until I end up with only 2 cups, and think carefully which one between the two is my favorite. Some people eventually made a mistake by finishing a cup before tasting all of them, making them can't go back to the other ones when they need to compare. My method eventually drawn attention from other people, some regretting their method and thought I'm a serious taster. I chatted with random people in my table, sharing our opinion and some of them even tell me particular ingredients they notice in each sample. Since my cooking knowledge is super tropical (and my chowder knowledge considerably zero), I enjoy the names they mentioned without really knowing what kind of thing they are.

Ah, and anyway, I finally done with my ballot and pick chowder no. 2 as my favorite and no. 3 as best with beer!

Comment section

This was the place where everyone sit together and share their thoughts on chowders! LOL.

Anyway, they just announced the winner for this year! Wilwood Cafe (no. 3), my pick for "Best with Beer" eventually get the title! But my pick for best chowder of the year did not make it, and the trophy goes to Lompoc Tavern (no. 5) - the one that I throw easily because I had a big chunk of potato instead of clam right there.

So when you visit Portland, don't forget to try 'em!

Cultural Understanding: Of Being Majority and Minority

I have been skeptical with Fulbright's mission to "promote cultural understanding" since the beginning of my involvement in this program. At the beginning, I thought that's just another slogan - as values are different, being that "cultural ambassador" thing will be limited with "introducing," or in other words, you can't do anything more than shallow compromise. I just realized how much "promoting cultural understanding" can mean after seeing my Indonesian Muslim brothers & sisters' reaction on Our Three Winners​. Yes, I'm pointing my fingers to you, brothers and sisters, on your outrage to the recently increasing hostility (or "incidents") to innocent Muslims, or Muslim-related attributes.

As politically incorrect as it sounds, here is my sincere reaction: folks, now you can understand how it feels to be a minority. Now you know how to put yourself in the shoes of those whose voice wasn't heard, whose case reported with heavy media bias, and who can't help but to feel insecure for some nonsense everywhere they go. Now you feel it.

Whoa, don't get mad at me at the first place. Now let's take a mirror.

I see some of you get really annoyed with "double standards" of the western media in reporting those cases, comparing Our Three Winners with Charlie Hebdo and you ask people to shout as loud as they did when whites are the victim and Muslims the villain. Now remember what happens back home. Do you ever notice how our mainstream media doesn't even care about the human rights violations and torture in Papua? How do you think they feel? And did you ever care how those Confucians and non-official religions feel for being "unrecognized" for decades, with the ignorance and acceptance from the majority? Ah, the more important: who were the majority? You! And where were you every time Christian community threatened by those stupid extremist? Do you know some communities struggle so hard to even pray? Ah, media doesn't really care to report that! Why? Maybe because the majority care more about shopping discount or discussing what's the newest MUI prohibition? Don't you think our media back home have done too much injustice to our minority? And did you find yourself shout out loud? Yeah, you, and me, are a part of the creation of "truth" - sacrificing the values not important to us to end up in silence. Like what you're accusing right now to the American media and society.

I see you're shocked with those people who shout on you just because you're veiled, you're feeling less safe wearing religious attribute. Welcome to the life of Chinese minority back home! How do you think it feels to be called "Cina!" "amoy" everytime you go to the market? They can't remove their eyes or skin like you can't remove your veil. And do you know how difficult it is to convince those Chinese mothers to send their children to public schools, even the best public university, just because feeling insecure of their childrens' ethnicity? And why do you think those rich Chinese kids always hanging out at expensive malls or within their community? Yes, it's a fear of discrimination and hostile treatment. If you're accusing Islamophobia, there's an unconscious pribumiphobia among them. How can I say that's unreasonable providing the fact of what harm our irresponsible society have done to them? Many of their daughters have been raped without proper trial. The mass pillage always targeting them. Public officials expect, and ask, bribes from them. Law and regulation has discriminate against them.

And I hear you're saying American laws have failed the Muslim community - that the state couldn't facilitate the peaceful existence of Muslim and guarantee their safety. What would you say about our country? Will your attitude differs when it comes to those incremental discrimination within our own society? Why don't you shout louder to our government, saying they have failed the rest of the society with their failure in controlling extremists back home? Are you now trying to say Indonesian government already tried to control FPI? And so does American government also tried to control that killing! And the fact that government fail to prevent that from happen at the first place does not justify anything!

I hate and I can't accept the religion or race-motivated hostility in any form. No matter what my religion. I understand your madness, but I hope you can take it as a lesson to build a majority who aware of the hurdles faced by minorities. In the global communication era like this, each of our voice might count and reach to the other part of the earth, but too many times majority's voices are shortsighted. And that's why this time, you, as a minority, speak loudly and ask the majority to listen. Now you know how it feels wearing the minority's shoes. The unheard voice, the people who have to accept the majority's truth. 

And that is the deepest cultural understanding that you can get. Cultural understanding on yourself. 

You can make a change. That feeling, that understanding of being minority, is a precious experience. It might be even more precious than all your efforts to spread and promote the justification of whatever the value you believe. Don't forget it when you're home. Don't use yourself to be that bad majority that you think you hate right now. If you used to be one of them, change. You can choose to be the people you accuse right now, or be a wiser person with more sensitivity in facing minority struggle.

Mt. Lascar, Afontogasta, Chile (5,592 masl/18,346 feet)

Even if you hike a lot, never, NEVER underestimate altitude. Mt. Lascar (5,592 masl/18,346 feet) is one of the popular volcano around San Pedro de Atacama, not the highest one, but big and easy enough to attract altitude seeker to hike it. So if you consider to hike it, here some basic info that might help.

View from the top of Mt. Lascar

How long? The tour starts at 5.30 AM and ends at 4.00 PM (normally) - we went back by 5.00 PM. Those 11 hours including 2.5 - 3 hrs (one way) travel by car and 2.5 hrs - 4 hrs climbing up, and 1 - 2 hrs going down, depends on your pace. The worst record is 6 hours for going up (one way), so unless you're really really not fit, you can expect faster than that. We began slowly, and there's a stubborn girl with plenty of health problems but an amazing mentality in our group, so we had frequent stops and waits. For us it took 3 hrs to reach the crater, 30 minutes (or more) of rest at the crater, another 30 - 45 minutes from the crater to the summit, and 30 minutes of rest at the peak. Going down was pretty easy, it took about 1.5 hrs.

Our guide, Freddy, functioned as leader and sweeper

Price & Agency: I booked with Mistica Atacama for 80,000 CLP (approximately US$133), and the tour includes nice breakfast (more than sandwich, coca tea / coffee / juice - that you can actually save for lunch), snacks (fruits and some energy bars), ONE supposedly English speaking guide (not so much in my experience, but it could work if you're so demanding), transfer to and from your hostel by car, basic medical equipment (altitude pills, motion sickness, oxygen - but bring your own tiger balm), mountaineering equipment (they lend me sunglasses, trekking pole, and even provide gloves etc if you request - for free!). My team was 4 people - and here's the trap: since they only have 1 guide, if someone is sick, the whole team has to go down. Someone in my group eventually went down, and upon ensuring our guide that she's okay, and considering we're not that far from the basecamp, she made her way down herself.

The lagoon at our breakfast, Lejia Lagoon?

If you're there, you'll feel smaller than this

The crater before summit

The trail: It's actually doable without guide. The trail is not dangerous and clear enough. You might need to walk slowly at the beginning and not rushing uphill since you need to adjust your breath. The ground are not really solid, the materials are gravel with occassional small-sized rocks, makes it quite difficult to make your next steps uphill. For Indonesian travelers, if you ever hike Mt. Rinjani / Mt. Kerinci, it's probably feels quite similar. It is not really steep until you reach the crater - elevation varies from 25-45 degree, and a bit steeper from the crater to the top. No vegetation at all, so be prepared with the strong wind and hot exposure of the desert's sun.

See how huge it is?

Getting along with the altitude? Yes, it should be an easy hike. Yes, it's less than a day. Yes, it's amazing view. But does the altitude really matter? The answer is YES. First, DON'T try to climb directly if you just came from the sea level, or have not acclimatized to at least 4,000 masl. Spend some days biking around the town (you can try to go to Laguna Cejar, Valle de la Muerte or Valle de la Luna) or take a tour to Laguna Altiplanca or Geyser del Tatio (and make sure you do some physical excercise right there). Second, don't feel weak if you don't go as fast as you use to be. It is perfectly normal. Altitude makes your heart beats faster, makes your lungs do extra effort to get oxygen, and impact your mood and spirit. You can google the normal symtomps so you don't feel bad about yourself. The ability to get along with the altitude varies between people - nausea, faster heart beat, and mild headache are normal. If you're vomiting violently, or having a terrible headache, it might be bad. Mine was perfectly normal until I completed the whole trail (I was even at a pretty nice pace), but upon reaching the car I could feel a strong urge to throw up and my head started to ache a lot. It might be a combination of altitude and sun heat. I pushed myself to get into the car and put tiger balm around my artery, and tried so hard to sleep. After 1 hr of really bad road (yes, the road condition was horrible for the first 1 hr, no wonder, you're in the middle of the desert!), I finally said to my guide that it'd be nice if he allow me to make an effort to puke on the side road. I thrown up the stuffs in my stomach until the very last drop, and I could feel it was filled with the gastric acid. My teammates suffer from a terrible headache as well, but did not throw up so bad. Since I have a bad gastritis, probably that contributes to how my stomach got along with the altitude (it affects everything - from anxiety to madness, so I presume it didn't get along well with the altitude as well, LOL)

You can see the trail clearly!

A gang of vicuna we met on our way back

The view: AMAZING!!! The breakfast took place in a really beautiful lake, with a perfect reflection of the mountains surrounding it. The trail itself expose you to a never ending desert - sea of sands, dunes, and dry mountain - a view like no ordinary places. A good contemplation to reflect on how small you are. Enjoy yourself through these photographs!