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.