Author Archive

I detest hot weather.  It’s too hot for jogging, one can’t legitimately drink hot drinks without confessing to a  caffeine addiction,  and my extensive scarf collection goes to waste.  But even more than all of these things, I hate it when people turn their air conditioning on so high that I get cold inside!  What do I wear when I leave the house: something that’s comfortable for the outside or the inside?  What does it say about our nation that I’ve taken to carrying sweaters with me in steamy Tallahassee, Florida, in July?

I would like to proudly publish here that our own thermostat at home rarely goes below 83.  At night, we use ceiling fans and a box fan in our respective rooms to stay nice and cool.  Yes, it gets rather too warm sometimes, but it saves a lot on utilities.  A recent article in Time by Joe Klein proposed that everyone immediately adjust their thermostats up 5 degrees in the summer and down 5 degrees in the winter.  If everybody in the country did this, we’d save roughly 20% of our energy devoted to heating and cooling.  Granted, put together that’s only about 11% of our energy expenditure, but it’s a relatively small sacrifice for individuals to make.  Additionally, that’s something we can all do right now, even though the dreaded GWB is still in office.

Klein claims that in 2006, the US spent 4 quadrillion BTUs on AC, which is more than the total energy usage of all but 21 countries.

So, what’s your thermostat set on?

And, anybody got any more suggestions for living greener?

(Coming soon: the case against frequent showering…….Gotcha.)

I recently had the privilege to hear Mark Schneider, former Peace Corps director and Senior Vice President of the International Crisis Group, speak about human rights and US involvement in Afghanistan. He came to FSU’s Center for Human Rights as a part of their summer lecture series, so of course I jumped at the chance to hear him. (Don’t you just love college towns?) I thought that his take on our current situation overseas would be very interesting for all of you, as well.

In a nutshell, the news from Afghanistan is rotten. Mr. Schneider said that the insurgents are more powerful now than they were two years ago, and since 2005, there has been a 600% increase in suicide bombings. The opium industry is the only one that thrives, and the judicial system is completely corrupted by drug trafficking. Apparently, the drug lords tell poor Afghan farmers that they’ll buy their crops come harvest time if the farmers allow them to cross their fields without turning them in. So the poor people are trapped in a vicious cycle: often, they’ll get a better deal on their crops from the opium dealers than from any sort of aid coming from the international community, so of course they’ll choose the option that gives them the most income. This is in spite of the fact that everyone would be much better off if drug trafficking did not exist.

Mark Schneider calls this a problem with “Rule of Law.” In order to provide real justice to the people of Afghanistan, the international community must scratch the current police force and court system and begin rebuilding from the bottom up. The current force consists of highly underpaid, under-trained young men who used to be drug traffickers themselves. So he wants to take everyone out of the field, put UN troops in their posts as they are trained for eight weeks, and then put them back into place with several “police mentors” who could oversee operations for a few years. Schneider acknowledges that this would be a huge operation, in scope and expense. But the best long-term solution is never easy in the short-term. The international community has a responsibility to protect the poor people of Afghanistan, who are among the poorest in the world.

Schneider also mentioned that Afghanistan has not received nearly as much attention as it deserves. He considers Afghanistan and Pakistan, as harborers of the Taliban, to be the most dangerous places in the world to the US. In what might have been the biggest understatement of the year, he said that he deeply regrets that they have “failed to receive proper resources” because of US involvement in other areas, such as Iraq.

Just for some background: The International Crisis Group is an NGO that was founded in 1995 after the Bosnia crisis. They have workers in the field conducting interviews and doing research, and this data is eventually translated into briefs which even the UN security council reads. Schneider said that they offer strategic thinking where diplomacy isn’t working, and they always support rule-based, not force-based, international order.

This morning, the Myanmar Cyclone Nargis victim estimates reached 1.5 million displaced people and nearly 200,000 dead. Almost 2,000 square miles are still under water, and rain is in the forecast for the Irrawaddy Delta region. People are gathering in tiny makeshift refugee camps, which means that the spread of diseases such as diarrhea and malaria will spread very quickly. In one extreme case, there are exactly 5 latrines for 3,500 people in a camp. A bag of rice costs upwards of $35.

In spite of these horrendous numbers and the accelerating deterioration of the situation, the government of Myanmar is still wary of foreign aid. They are very reluctant to accept assistant from a country like the US, for fear that we are working to sabotage their military regime. A vast majority of the world would doubtless like to see the junta ended, but this is not the time to consider politics. Humanitarian aid should come without strings attached. It should be delivered and accepted with no question when so many lives are at great risk. We cannot do anything to prevent natural disasters from occurring (except perhaps shrink our carbon footprint), but we can at least respond to them quickly and efficiently.

Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) works exclusively in regions facing natural disasters, war, or anything that creates a health crisis. MSF, along with many other NGOs like World Vision, is working tirelessly to distribute the resources necessary to keep the Burmese refugees healthy, but their efforts are continuously blocked by the junta. In order to keep a favorable image, the military regime wants all aid to be channeled through themselves, so they’re blocking visas and keeping supplies for themselves. In the face of such irrational behavior which is further endangering Burmese citizens’ lives, what are our other options?

1. Deliver aid from Thailand. Yesterday, Admiral Keating and Harriet Foreman, the head of the US Agency for International Development, flew into Myanmar from Thailand to meet with the top Burmese naval officer in what the Washington Post called “the highest-level military contact between the two countries in decades.” Fore reported that the discussions were “a good first step” toward further US aid. The US will have three naval ships, each stocked with helicopters and aid supplies, off the coast of Burma within 48 hours. The helicopters can begin air-lifting supplies into Burma as soon as they receive permission.

2. Look at diplomatic options. The US should avoid anything that remotely resembles a unilateral intervention. This should not be about politics, but the junta’s policy of retaining power at all costs, regardless of lives lost, forces the world system to consider them. Probably, nothing can be accomplished politically unless China* begins to lean on their neighbor. Unfortunately, they have already forbade the UN Security Council from acting, stating that the Council is supposed to be used for threats to international peace.

*(Of course, China’s got it’s own problems now: an estimated 12,000 died in an earthquake this morning. Fortunately, the relief efforts began quickly and the government is doing everything it can to aid survivors and find victims trapped under the rubble.)

3. Consider a coalition. Burmese authorities are much more likely to allow aid from a Western coalition than from any single Western state. Safety in numbers.

Hopefully the junta will relent and allow aid to flow unchecked over its borders. Until then, the US, ASEAN, and the UN should think outside the box and find a way to relieve the suffering. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims in Myanmar and China today.

I’ve been reading up on the Dalai Lama lately because of all the Olympics hype. I had no idea that this man is so incredible– he’s been kicked out of his homeland and separated from his people for decades, but he still refuses to call the Chinese his enemies. A recent Time magazine article quotes him as saying, “Before, destruction of your enemy was victory for your side. Now, destruction of your enemy is destruction of yourself.” In an increasingly shrinking world, needless fighting only hurts everyone. One disrupted economy, one deployed military, affects everyone in the global system. This is why the Dalai Lama is calling not for independence from China, but for more autonomy so that they can protect their own unique culture. He believes that, as a people, they can still exist culturally without specific rights to land. They share a common foundation that is not necessarily tied to the ground. Tibetans serve as an inspiration to refugees all over the world.

The following quote was taken from the Tibetan exiled government’s website, and I believe it is a cry for global action. These people have been denied many basic freedoms for decades, and their beloved leader lives in exile. How long will the West keep turning a blind eye? To support the oppression of innocent people is to harm ourselves.

” We hope the international community, led by the UN, and all the major countries will give due importance to human lives instead of to temporary economic gains when dealing with China. If the current trend of many countries bowing down to China’s pressure continues then we fear for the future of humanity as a whole. What is happening in Tibet is not “an internal affair of China”; it is a part of the global problem. “

Give due importance to human lives…that phrase has been haunting me. How easily we forget.

Occasionally, I become a little discouraged by the obvious, daily differences in the treatment of men and women at my school, in my church, and in my country.  But that’s all for another blog post on another day, because when we’re compared to Iraqi women, American women are so incredibly blessed and free.

According to a Newsweek article, with the rise of the Sahwa movement, tribal sheiks are gaining positions of power and religious law is being enforced again.  Mature, responsible, hardworking women are told to wear headscarves, occasionally not allowed to drive their own cars, and given a 5 p.m. curfew.  Their antagonists?  Young, uneducated Iraqi men with weapons and no sense of decency.  If an Iraqi man kills his wife or daughter because of suspected sexual promiscuity, he can be imprisoned for no more than three years.  If a woman kills an adulterous man, she is tried for murder.

As if this weren’t bad enough, the worst part of it is that conditions for women have actually worsened under the surge.  Under Saddam Hussein in the early 90s, “enforced secularism” was the law of the land, and women were largely free to go to college and marry who they liked.  But now, under the surge, the US is letting things like gender issues slide for stability’s sake.  Women are forced to wear headscarves for personal preservation, and some have quit their jobs because of pressure from Shi’ite groups.  If they are forced to be governed by Islamic law (which many of the tribal sheiks now supported by the US abide by), things like “honor killings” will continue unchecked. 

It’s incredibly ironic that an American surge in the name of democracy should actually worsen democratic conditions.  I understand that having to wear a headscarf isn’t such a bad trade for safety within your region, but we cannot let the little things keep getting by us like this.  It seems that we are betraying some of our dearest principles, and we are betraying the Iraqi people if we settle for such blatant oppression.  The next time I think about being angry because the female making an announcement in Harding’s chapel is not allowed to sit on the stage, I’ll think instead about Iraqi women and begin to feel a bit better about my own situation. 

Don’t you love multi-tasking?  You can get so much more done if you do everything all at once: it’s not that uncommon to find me doing homework while listening to music and watching a muted sports event and talking on the cell phone to whoever happens to call.  But I’ve got to wonder sometimes…is all this multi-tasking damaging the quality of some of my work?  Will attention spans shrink until we can no longer take the time to focus on just one thing for a solid hour?

Lately I’ve been finding myself drawn to activities that require isolated focus: running, playing piano, reading.  Sometimes it’s a relief to get away from being so connected.  I think our main problem is that we have so many choices to make constantly!  Will I listen to music on my computer, Ipod, or cd player?  What will I listen to?  What will I watch, and for how long, and what should I tivo while I’m watching something else?  Maybe a blog is the wrong place to bring this up, but isn’t it funny that we neglect talking to people face to face because we can do it so easily online?  And it’s not just technology, either– just take a Starbucks visit for an example: tall, grande, venti, non-fat, sugar free, flavored, decaf….I could go on forever. 

In his book Jihad vs. McWorld, Benjamin Barber suggests that although “the ideology of choice seems to liberate the body, it fatally constricts the possiblity of real freedom for the soul.”  Having 16 choices to make means that we no longer have the freedom to NOT choose.  Barber suggests that the widening of individual consumer choice actually shrinks those choices for communities.  For example, the consumer’s ability to choose between scores of vehicles mandates a society of suburbia and pollution and traffic jams.  No one really chose that; it just happened, and now the inevitable daily commute dictates countless lives.  Barber writes, “This politics of commodity offers a superficial expansion of options within a determined frame in return for surrendering the right to determine the frame.” 

 Oh, the irony of life.  What is this plethora of freedom of choice doing to our society?   

I was just thinking about how much it scares me sometimes that uneducated, apathetic people’s votes count as much as ours.  We spend our days progressively eating and breathing and drinking more and more politics as one of the most important elections in decades draws near.  So much is at stake in November.  However, regardless of who is elected, I know one thing that will not change: my vote will count just as much as David’s dollar store lady who thought Obama didn’t believe in saying the Pledge.

I’m suddenly really glad of that.  No one in America is disenfranchised for any reason (although this is historically arguable in Florida).  I wouldn’t have it any other way.  Yes, I desperately wish that more people paid attention to issues, researched candidate positions and watched debates.  However, those who don’t do any of these things are just as free to have a voice as those who make themselves ill living on three hours of sleep and bags of cheetos while stumping on the campaign trail.
 
Strange as the connection may seem, I believe that JD Salinger speaks right to the heart of this topic in his short work Franny and Zooey.  Franny is a young college student who becomes completely fed up with the academic scene.  She’s incredibly frustrated by the fact that she works so hard and earnestly, yet all around her she sees only crummy students and unbearably egotistical professors.  Franny is also quite a good actress, and she’s offended by the “unskilled laughter” in the audience.  No one is smart enough or good enough to deserve her own special genius.  But Zooey, her older brother, calls her out on this.  He says that we’re supposed to give our best every time, for everyone, regardless of whether we think our efforts will be properly appreciated. 
 
I apologize in advance for the longish Salinger quote which follows; no one writes quite like Jerome David. 
For a bit of background: Zooey, his older brother Seymour, and all of their family periodically appeared on a radio quiz show called “It’s A Wise Child.”  They’re sort of a family of geniuses who’ve grown up on a mixture of poetry (in every language), Buddist writings, the bible, philosophy…you name it, they’ve read it.  In this passage, Zooey is telling Franny one of his memories from a radio show appearance:
“Seymour’d told me to shine my shoes just as I was going out the door with Waker.  I was furious.  The studio audience were all morons, the announcer was a moron, the sponsors were morons, and I just damn well wasn’t going to shine my shoes for them, I told Seymour.  I said they couldn’t see them anyway, where we sat.  He said to shine them anyway.  He said to shine them for the Fat Lady…..I don’t care where an actor acts.  It can be in summer stock, it can be over a radio, it can be over television, it can be in a goddam Broadway theatre, complete with the most fashionable, most well-fed, most sunburned-looking audience you can imagine.  But I’ll tell you a terrible secret—there isn’t anyone who isn’t Seymour’s fat lady.”
 
Franny and Zooey convicts me every time I think of others—the less educated, the lazy, the shallow—with scorn.  Even if we’ve got differences in ideas on every kind of policy you can mention, even if we’ve thought through our ideas so much more than others, those others have a voice.  Isn’t America a glorious democracy?  May God bless it.

I was really glad that Chris posted Obama’s speech from Tuesday.  It may honestly be the most inspiring modern political text that I’ve read or witnessed.  As soon as I read it, I knew it would be a speech that really stuck with us.  Obama’s phrases will likely be haunting racial issues for decades.  However, in spite of this certainty, I was a bit skeptical when I read the New York Times article “Obama’s Talk Fuels Easter Sermons.”  I didn’t believe that pastors and preachers and ministers and reverends would have the guts to mix religion with politics, even though racial prejudice is so clearly a moral issue.

 I was wrong.  In my 84% white hometown of Conway, AR, I heard an Easter sermon about prejudice this morning.  I wanted to stand up and cheer.  The preacher at the Robinson and Center Church of Christ (just a visiting speaker, mind you, so perhaps he felt he had some extra leeway) used the Resurrection story of Luke to discuss inclusion and tolerance.  After all, Luke, a gentile himself, focuses on including the outsiders like Samaritans, Gentiles and women all throughout his gospel account.  Obama was never explicitly mentioned, but it was as if his name and his words were in the air, just waiting to materialize. 

The preacher also told us a story about an African American actor named Desi Arnaz Giles who had the audacity to play the role of Jesus in a Passion Play in Union City, NJ.  When groups found out that a black man was playing the role of Jesus, some cancelled or switched their reservations to the night when a white actor was playing Jesus.  One potential play-goer was quoted as asking for the date, “when the White actor is playing. I don’t want to see that Black thing.”  Giles actually received death threats for having the courage to portray Jesus.  The irony is killing me.  Imagine what white Christians would do to a Jew who plays Jesus in one of our passion plays.  The sticking point for me was when the preacher asserted that we must still love those who harbor prejudice.  This is exactly what Obama was talking about when he mentioned that fact that his white grandmother, whom he loves dearly, occasionally “has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made [him] cringe.”  It’s a tall order to be both unprejudiced and not at all self-righteous about your own lack of prejudice. 

I was just curious: did anyone else hear an Easter sermon about race?  And if you did, did it bother you that Easter Sunday was mixed with current events?

Well. I’ve never blogged before, so this is a big day for me. Before I get started, let me just say that I really love being in classes with David, Steve, and Chris. They challenge me to think more critically, read more thoroughly, participate more actively, and really just keep up with them! I am quite honored to be invited to contribute to this blog. I was a bit hesitant at first because I’m rather a private person. I’m not sure how I feel about having my thoughts thrust into cyberspace for anyone to read. However, I think it’s important to not only come to conclusions about tough topics, but also to share those conclusions and thus make the world around me a little bit brighter, and just a little bit more truthful. This first foray of mine into the blogosphere represents my own personal resolve to live the life of an active, instead of a contemplative, philosopher.

The dilemma of the philosopher goes all the way back to Plato, but I was first introduced to it when reading Thomas More’s Utopia. More asks, should a wise philosopher waste his precious time by advising political leaders? Many leaders simply surround themselves with false flatterers who care for nothing but the advancement of their own careers, so the philosopher’s wisdom might be completely ignored. His time would be much better devoted to personal study and growth. On the other hand, who is in a better position to advise political leaders than a wise philosopher, who constantly devotes herself to study? Society’s dull-witted and downtrodden have a natural right to be served by their own best and brightest. What good is the personal growth of the philosopher if he never shares his conclusions with those in power?

More suggests a sort of compromise. He argues that truly wise philosophers will not waste their time talking about ideas that will not be listened to, but will rather try to influence policy indirectly as best they can. He writes, “What you cannot turn to good, you may at least make as little bad as possible.” Making something “as little bad as possible” may not be very idealistic, but at least it’s a step in the right direction. The philosopher or intellectual who isolates herself from the world she studies becomes the worst sort of hypocrite; she is more detrimental to society than someone who never noticed its ills in the first place. Plato wrote that there will “never be a perfect state or society or individual until some chance compels this minority of uncorrupted philosophers to take a hand in politics.”

Let’s keep our hands in, shall we? And maybe one day soon, we’ll be blessed with political leaders who are willing to listen.