 |
  |
 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
Longing
for Chaos I failed my driving test today. After the examiner walked away, I immediately handed the car keys to my husband and told him to drive to the nearest IHOP. This needed a pancake antidote.
See, I'm not a bad driver. I didn't fail because I'm unsafe on the road. In my eyes, I failed because I'm too safe. I thought the test had been going pretty well, actually. And then, I stopped when I shouldn't have before a left turn, because I was afraid I'd get in the path of an oncoming SUV. What I didn't know was that some schmuck was speeding behind me and had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting me. (Didn't you see my left turn signal, you jerk?) He honked, I noticed the SUV had a stop sign and wouldn't have hit me if I'd just turned, and so, reassured, I turned left. I was stationary for perhaps five seconds. That was five seconds too many, apparently, and got me an automatic failure. This brings me to a sore point. There are too many stop signs in this country. Let me go further. There are too many rules on the road in this country. In Pakistan, where I come from, you go forth on the road armed with common sense, the ability to read traffic signals and little else. Your safety lies in your ability to see oncoming maniacs and stop before they intercept your path. (See why I waited for that SUV?) You learn to navigate in between colorful hand-decorated buses and lumbering donkey carts and wobbly bicyclists, and learn the art of the slow crawl on busy streets where at any given time there are 10 pedestrians crossing in front of you. There are the insolent young men who deliberately saunter in your path, the protective father who hustles his sleepy school-uniformed child forward. There's the young couple riding pillion on a motorcycle beside you, the woman's shawl trailing behind her and making you slow down and pray it doesn't catch in the wheel. There are the potholes in the street you learn to avoid, and the speed bumps whose heights vary from mountain to molehill street to street. You learn to judge each situation for itself — do I stop, slow down or keep going? If you want to make a U-turn, you look to make sure no one's going to get hurt and make a U-turn. If you want to turn left, you look around you and turn left without any of this "turn lane" business. And here we come to another sore point about this driving in America thing. What is a turn lane except a blatant waste of asphalt? I don't get it. There's an entire strip of road lying vacant in the off chance that someone will want to turn left. Why can't you just drive on that and turn left when you want? I guess in Pakistan we can't afford to waste money on empty strips of road. Every inch must be used — even the pavement. Come to think of it, we can't even afford pavements.
The only thing I enjoy about driving here is the freeway, but that's taken me some time to get used to. I remember the first time I drove on the freeway from Eugene up to Washington. Holy cow. The fastest I've ever driven in Pakistan is 60 km an hour. There is no room to drive any faster, living in the middle of Karachi, a sprawling metropolis of 12 million people and lots and lots of cars. But here, now, I'm expected to do 60 miles an hour, and even then there are people behind me blinking their lights. But at least there are no stop signs or left turn lanes on the freeway. The freeway doesn't try to control you with endless rules but leaves much up to your driving judgment. On our frequent weekend road trips, my husband and I cruise down an endless stretch of highway listening to Sherlock Holmes radio plays from the 1940s. This morning, I got a bad feeling the minute I saw I had a female driving examiner. I've always gotten along better with men. This woman, lean, blond and tough, was a little like sugar-coated steel. See, that's attractive in a man. In a woman, it's just bitchy. At the end of the test, the examiner tried to make me feel better by saying it had taken her three tries to get her license. Yes, but she was also 19 at the time. I'm seven years older than that and I've survived chaotic Pakistani traffic and I should know better, no? She gave me an overly bright, sympathetic smile and walked away. Sigh. Oh, for a stick shift. Right-hand drive. Waiting while a shrill, tinsel-bright bus cuts me off at a traffic signal. That is home. That is driving. Not this oh-look-stop-sign-left-lane-one-way shit. I miss my crazy Pakistani traffic. Kaukab Jhumra Smith is a Pakistani journalist and teacher, educated at Brandeis University and currently an intern at EW.
Anyone
But Bush As the 2004 Presidential elections approach, the chorus swells: "Anyone but Bush." Which of the nine Democratic presidential candidates is most electable? I brood about this, too. But with six months until the Oregon primaries, I think the question is still who we want to elect. I'm working for Congressman Dennis Kucinich. I admire his commitment to international cooperation, hopefulness, and grassroots power: "We are the change we've been waiting for." He is also realistic: We can't solve U.S. domestic woes without reducing the Pentagon budget. Many people I've talked to agree with Kucinich, but also with what Molly Ivins said in Eugene Saturday: "I resist supporting him because I don't want to back a loser." Kucinich hasn't raised as much money as some other candidates, and the media — including our local media — rarely mention him. Of course! His ideas are the most challenging to the status quo. And if all the people who say, "I like Kucinich's ideas best but I don't think he can win" actually vote for him, he might have a chance. The problem I've struggled with is this: Kucinich speaks what is in my heart and mind. But since I'm used to my ideas being outside the mainstream, I worry that he can't be elected. I've gradually realized that being unable to support the candidate I agree with is a sign of my despair, despair that comes from many political defeats and disappointments. Enough despair! I'm working for Dennis. Whichever candidate each of us decides to support, we don't have to settle for second-best. At least, not yet. What does each Democratic presidential candidate think about war/peace issues? Gleaning this information from mainstream media, or even Internet sources, isn't easy. Trying to be objective, I've collected as much as possible on candidates' positions. If information is missing, that means I haven't found it yet. Moseley Braun opposed the U.S. war on Iraq; supports keeping U.S. troops there; would reduce the Pentagon budget. Clark opposed war on Iraq but cheered as U.S. troops entered Baghdad (April '03); says U.S. troops should remain in Iraq. Clark "won't tolerate" financial waste in the military. Several Internet articles describe General Clark as a war criminal for bombing civilians and using depleted uranium weapons in Kosovo. Dean opposes Pentagon cuts and supports expanding police, intelligence, and special forces; opposed the Iraq war but said he would favor unilateral action if Iraq had WMD's (January '03); and now says U.S. troops should remain in Iraq. On pre-emptive war: "On my first day in office I will tear up the Bush doctrine and rebuild a foreign policy consistent with American values." Dean would cut one-eighth of Star Wars funding, redirecting it to international threat reduction programs; and supports Bush administration policy on Israel. Edwards has supported the current Pentagon budget, war on Iraq, keeping U.S. troops in Iraq. He received a low score of 20 percent from Peace Action for his 2002 votes on key war/peace issues. Gephardt has supported the current Pentagon budget, the war on Iraq, keeping U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and Bush administration policy on Israel. 2002 Peace Action score: 70 percent. Kerry voted for the 2004 Pentagon budget but against the recent $87 billion addition. He supported war on Iraq with ambivalence, calling for greater U.N. involvement. He believes we must keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Kerry supports the ABM treaty and opposes development/use of nuclear weapons and Star Wars missile defense. He backs Bush administration policy toward Israel. Kerry led the fight to study causes of war-related illnesses of 1991 Gulf War veterans, and introduced legislation to regulate U.S. arms trade. 2002 Peace Action score: 40 percent. Kucinich voted against the 2004 Pentagon budget and the $87 million. He advocates cutting the Pentagon budget 15 percent, redirecting the money to domestic needs, and demanding accountability for $1 trillion in misplaced Pentagon funds. He led an effort that persuaded almost two-thirds of House Democrats to vote against war with Iraq. Kucinich now wants the U.N. in Iraq and the U.S. out. He opposes pre-emptive war, use/development of nuclear weapons, and Star Wars. He introduced House bills to ban space-based weapons, and to create a Department of Peace. He supports the ABM treaty and International Criminal Court. 2002 Peace Action score: 100 percent. Lieberman voted for the 2004 Pentagon budget and strongly supported war on Iraq. About pre-emptive war, he says, "Some policies are best left undeclared." Lieberman supports Star Wars but opposes development of low-yield nuclear weapons. He strongly supports Bush administration policy towards Israel. He supports the International Criminal Court. 2002 Peace Action score: 40 percent. Sharpton opposed war on Iraq; wants U.S. troops home now; would reduce the Pentagon budget. SOURCES: candidates' websites, www.vote-smart.org, www.politics1.com, www.presidentialcandy.com, moveon.org/pac/cands (see interviews with candidates), www.peace-action.org,www.counterpunch.org, Beyond War 2003: Lane Co. Political Action Team (work-in-progress.) |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
