Two Sense

The Only Thing We Have to Fear...

2006-10-09T18:45:00.000-07:00

Franklin Roosevelt struck a chord when he spoke the famous words, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." At the time, Roosevelt was talking about depression, poverty, and economic insecurity; issues still pertinent in today's world. These days, this statement resonates just as strongly, but with different issues: terrorism, war, and physical insecurity. It would do this country some good if we started to ponder such a statement once again. We must ask ourselves, is the level of fear in the world today, particulary in America, really warranted? Have we been so bombarded with reasons to be afraid, that we have failed to consider the possibility that our level of paranoi might be absolutely ridiculous. And finally, what are the consequences of constantly living under a blanket of fear?

There were three things that got me thinking on this topic. The first was the the simple act of flying on an airplane. The second was the Daily Show interview with Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf. And the third was a three-part, BBC documentary called, "The Power of Nightmares". I recommend you experience all three at some point, if you haven't done so already.

Let's start with flying. What used to be a somewhat pleasant event has turned into an experience that closely resembles one's first admission into a maximum security prison. The general rule in flying these days seems to be that we are all a threat and we all need to be feared. For example, if you saw me waiting in the security line would you be afraid that I may have some C4 wedged into the sole of my birkenstock? Would you be afraid that I may brandish a set of toe nail clippers and clip my way into the cock pit to fly the plane into a cherished American symbol? Would you be afraid of my facial hair and brown skin that fits the description of a young man of Middle Eastern descent? Would you be afraid of my tube of Crest and my bottle of Tommy cologne that might be mixed together to form an explosive? Well, no need to worry my friends, I mean no harm. I am no threat. But you can't take that risk, can you? You are supposed to be afraid.

Flying just happens to be one of the more prevelent examples of our supposed need to stay alert and aware of constant threats by "evil-doers" (terrorists, jihadists, radical islamists, islamo-fascists, muslim extremists, etc., take your pick from the selection provided). Its seems we found that the best way to protect ourselves is to contemplate all the ways these evil-doers can kill us. So, in addition to the above-mentoined risk of flying, let us further expound on our potential demise at the hands of fanatics. The evil-doers could committ an act of "agro-terror" and poison our food with ecoli. They could walk down a busy street and put down a suitcase concealing a dirty bomb set to detonate at rush hour. They could send you anthrax in the mail. They could blow up a nuclear power plant spreading a murderous cloud of radioactive dust. They could place a nuclear bomb inside a shipping container and watch their destruction sail into Baltimore harbor. There are so many ways that we could be killed. Luckily for us, our government has provided a highly intricate, color-coded system that helps us decide when we should be most alert and prepared for our impending death and hence help us determine how scared we need to be. Are you afraid yet?

In all seriousness, though, I would be lying if I said I did not experience a greater level of fear after 9/11. Like most people, I felt vulnerable, I was confused, and I wanted easy, quick answers so that my anxieties could be quelled. But what has currently been more overwhelming than this fear is the idea that our paranoi might just be a manufactured emotion. But, I've gotten ahead of myself.

John Stewart interviewed Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf. After discussing the multiple assasination attempts on Musharraf's life by Al Qaeda forces, Stewart said to Musharraf, "You seem to be at the forefront of the [terrorist] threats, yet you seem much calmer about it than we [Americans] are." President Musharraf confidently replied, "Yes, I am." The audience immediately chuckled at the irony of such a statement. The President of Pakistan - having survived two separate attempts on his life by terrorists, presiding over one of the central arenas in the global war on terror, and possibly having Osama bin Laden in his very country, organizing and mobilizing future attacks - is less stressed about the terrorist threat than we are in America. Stewart, equally perturbed by the irony, brought his head out of his hands and took a giant bite out of one of America's most recognizable symbols, a twinkie. At this moment, Stewart and Musharraf, albeit briefly, elucidated the stark contrast between what is actually happening vs. how we are choosing to react. Our perception of the current global situation can be altered and tinkered with by politicians and their control over how our media portrays a story. This perception then creates an emotion that might be totally out of line with reality. Has it occured to us that the threat of terrorism only seems great because we say it is? Has it occured to us that our fear plays right into the hands of groups that rely on our paranoi to maintain power?

This brings me to my final point. The BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares," argues that two groups are vying for power, and fear is the tool they both use to garner explicit support for, or at the very least, passive acceptance of their ideologies. The first group are the American neo-conservatives, a political movement currently spearheaded by men like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, who are bent on re-affirming America's dominance and superiority across the globe. The second are the jihadists, a movement spearheaded by men like Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden, who are bent on re-affirming Islam and the Koran's role in organizing societies. It is my belief that both groups are trying to advance an idea they see as benefiting their people and the world at large. Yet, to us the jihadists are portrayed as evil people trying to destory our way of life and instill their values on us. And to them we are portrayed as evil people trying to destroy their way of life and instill our values on them. In other words, both groups are employing the same kind of rhetoric to generate a similar kind of reaction from their target audience. And their violent actions towards each other reaffirm their rhetoric in many ways. The more martyrs Al Qaeda sends into markets and buildings to blow themselves up, the more we Americans are willing to believe these jihadists will stop at nothing to spread their ideology and kill those who oppose it. The more bombs America drops and the more Arabs America imprisons and/or tortures, the more people are willing to adopt and/or accept the use of radical methods to prevent such overt acts of dominance and occupation.

To put it simply, the more we are made to fear, the more we are encouraged to hate. And the more we are encouraged to hate, the more our intolerance fuels a desire to use and accept violence as a means to an end. Fear is the source of this downward spiral which leads only to more death, more killing, and more violence; something everyone claims they want to avoid.

Well, the time has come to stop simply making claims, but start backing up calls for peace and understanding with action. The first is that we must stop being afraid, because our fears have created anything but peace. As if it were a drug, our fears has intoxicated people with hatred, made us high on vengence and created an addiction to a self-righteousness.

So we must stop being afraid. Stop being afraid of our muslim brothers who stand in the security line with us at the airport. Stop being afraif that every toiletry someone brings on a plan could be used as an explosive. Stop being afraid that your spinach may have been poisoned by a terrorist. Stop being afraid of Islam. Stop being afraid of people with brown skin and facial hair. If we stop being afraid then we will stop handing over our individual rights and securities to a government that claims they will keep us safe. If we stop being afraid then we will stop justifying the need to torture people. If we stop being afraid then we will stop waging wars, threatening wars, and supporting wars that we are told will protect us . If we stop being afraid then we will stop demonizing a religion that in actuality teaches peace and compassion. If we stop being afraid then we will stop separating ourselves from people who look different, talk different, and pray different than us and instead unify, work towards understanding, and learn from each other.

Be not afraid, my friends, because after all, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

NIE, Woodward, and Iraq

2006-10-02T07:28:00.000-07:00

This past week has been a doozy when it comes to our perceptions of the War in Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was leaked to the press, describing the War in Iraq as causing an increase in the level of extreme, anti-Americanism across the globe. Bob Woodward just came out with his book, "State of Denial," which provides a scathing analysis of the ways in which the Bush administration has handled the war and portrayed it to the American people. Of course, the spin machines are at work trying to twist and manipulate this surge of information. But such convincing spin from both angles just solidifies the fact that the War in Iraq is a quagmire.

A quagmire is a situation from which extrication is very difficult. If the most recent events have taught us anything it is that the War in Iraq for the past three years has dragged this country deeper and deeper into a situation that doesn't seem to have any clear strategy, let alone a path to success. We are mired in a situation, that when looking at it all you can say is, "damned if we do, damned if we don't."

First, the NIE is a set of long-term assessments of strategic intelligence issues put together for the president and senior administration officials. It is developed by the National Intelligence Council, a group composed of current and former senior intelligence and national security officials. Some of the most notable quotes from this year's NIE are as follows:

"The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of

U.S.

involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

"threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide."

"The underlying factors that are fueling the spread of the extremist Muslim movement outweigh its vulnerabilities. These factors are entrenched grievances and a slow pace of reform in home countries, rising anti-U.S. sentiment and the Iraq war."

"While Iran and Syria are the most active state sponsors of terror, many other countries will be unable to prevent their resources from being exploited by terrorists."

It is no wonder Democrats started salivating once these excerpts were released. But supporters of the Bush administration fired back with some other excerpts from the report; the most important one being:

"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

This provides a rationale for "staying the course," as Bush like to say. For, if we "cut and run," another popular Bushism, then jihadists will be able to validate their fight and instill more condfidence in their resistance.

So, what are we supposed to do? It seems like our very presence in Iraq fuels terrorism, extremism, and recruitment for jihadists. So, we should get the hell out, right? But if we just leave, it seems like we will embolden the jihadist movement. So, we should stay and fight until we are victorious, right? What are we supposed to do? One thing we can glean from these assessments is that no matter what we do now, we are emboldening the jihadist movement. Not an ideal situation in which to find ourselves.

The NIE does not provide any policy or strategy recommendations; that is left up to the President and his administration, the same people who led us into this mess in the first place. So, needless to say I have little confidence in how the Bush administration will react to the report. For example, the report was completed last April, yet Bush has done very little to alter a strategy that has created a more hostile environment in the Middle East and generated an increasing level of attacks on US forces.

Second, Bob Woodward's book, "State of Denial," doesn't provide much hope either. I have not yet read the book, but I did watch his interview on 60 minutes and read a couple segments, and it is clear to me that even as things get worse, Bush will still portray the war as a success. This is a dangerous road to go down. Wishful thinking that flies in the face of facts generates a tenuous grip on reality.

I cannot help but make the connection to Enron's downfall. Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay, and Andrew Fastow created a company based on what some people would call wishful thinking, but what most people would call outright dishonesty and lies. When things were getting worse with the company, they were reporting success. All the while, the idea of Enron was becoming a house of cards, lacking no real foundation in reality. We all know how that one ended.

The Bush administration has their lot of leaders employing the very same, dangerous tactic. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice go to their investors and employees - congress and the American people - claiming that the war is creating progress in the region, defeating terror, spreading freedom, liberating Iraqis, and making America safer. When in reality there has been an increasing level of extreme, jihadist sympathizers in the Middle East, terrorist attacks have drastically increased across the globe since 9/11, and our ideals of freedom have been eroded as our president claims that "outrages against humanity" is too vague of a statement. As a result, the American government is tasked with creating an "acceptable" definition of torture. And to top it all off, about six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, which explains why the number of attacks on American troops in Iraq has been steadily increasing since 2001 to now over 800 attacks a week. This is not success.

The most frustrating thing about this quagmire is that politicians only make it worse by refusing to engage in honest debate. Too many politicians have drunk the kool-aid of their parties. This war has got to be about more than politics and elections. The debates have got to go beyond quibbling over past votes and spouting party talking points. People should not be so concerned with refusing to admit mistakes in judgment in an attempt to secure their own power and save face, because they do it at the expense of figuring out a way to get us out of this situation, end the fighting, and bring peace to the Middle East and across the globe. We need real ideas, not an incessant barrage of the same 'ol crap.

So what do you do when stuck in a quagmire? You stop flailing your arms and stop thinking that doing the same thing over and over again will produce a new result. You re-evaluate your situation. You stop squirming and you ask for help, you reach for a branch, you try and re-set your footing. Whatever you do you stop with the same 'ol crap.

In the spirit of providing more that just criticism, I will present some of my own ideas.

1. We stop fighting the insurgency and start building more schools, roads, homes, electricity and water plants. It seems like we have been drawn further and further into multiple venues of urban warfare, which is exactly what bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri and the jihadist movement wants. If we stop shooting and stop reacting violently maybe people will stop supporting the insurgents. Maybe if we spend more time doing the valuable work of building a viable infrastructure and other things that Iraqis need, the majority of the population will support us instead of the jihadists. After all, suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, and constant machine gun fire do not help revitalize and damaged country.

2. We close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and provide legal counsel to all detainees. Our reputation has been severely tainted as a result of our treatment of detainees. Abu Ghraib speaks for itself, but Guantanmo Bay still remains a festering wound in our ideals.

3. We drastically reduce the number of US forces in Iraq to under 75,000. Its time for these troops to come home!! The remaining troops would work in conjunction with a peace and revitalization force made up of Peace Corps volunteers, non-governmental organizations, UN peace keepers, and most importantly Arabs who want to bring an end to the fighting (and believe me, there are more of them then there are those who want to keep fighting). This new deployment would help to truly rebuild Iraq's cities and communities. Construction projects would be protected by peacekeepers. We would also open a number of recruiting stations for this effort across the Arab world. The bottom line is that we NEED IRAQIS AND OTHERS IN THE REGION ON OUR SIDE! We do not have that right now.

4. We help set up a truth and reconciliation committee much like they have in Rwanda and what they had in South Africa. Right now justice is most visibly presented in the form of Saddam Hussein's trial, which has done very little to quell any hatred that exists between the different sects within the country. We need victims facing perpetrators. We need people telling their stories and we need those stories documented. We need to encourage communication and understanding within a population that was at one time kept under control by a dictator and is now engaged in a bloody and vicious civil conflict.

5. Donald Rumsfeld needs to resign. He has lost the confidence of many of the generals who are conducting this war. He has lost much of his credibility with the American people and he needs to be held accountable for his drastic errors of judgment that have continued to plagued this war.

6. The United States needs to join the International Criminal Court and any US forces or government officials (president included) that are charged with war crimes need to be tried on the world stage. The vast majority of US troops serve their country in the most noble manner, but those who discredit the integrity and hard work of the US military need not the protection of the US government; they need the world to try them. After all, this war has become part of the global war on terror, hence our efforts should be held to global standards.

Some may find my suggestions too "radical" or "idealistic", but if you do, then ask yourself why? Why do you think these ideas are so ridiculous? It may be because we have been under a blanket of pompous rhetoric. We have been living under leadership that stifles criticism within its ranks and tries to make us think that changing our minds as a result of learning from our mistakes is a sign of weakness.

Let's stop walking down what has been a treacherous path and get ourselves out of this quagmire. We are not making the progress we need in order to move this world in the right direction. New ways of thinking are required.

Here are some links to important stories used to write this entry and others related the above mentioned topics.

Released Part of Intel Study Notes New Threats, USA TODAY

US Intelligence Report: Iraq War Breeding More Terrorists, CS Monitor

Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight, Washington Post

Republican Torture Laws Will Live in History, Alternet

The Secret Buried in the Torture Bill [Video], Alternet

Peace Out,
Daryn

ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room

2006-09-30T15:44:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching "ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room" a documentary about the rise of one America's biggest companies and its ensuing collapse that uncovered the largest case of corporate malfeasance in American history. The finincial and political power that corporations hold has been analyzed for as long as they have existed, but ever since the story of Enron, people are starting to take a harder look at the level of integrity that exists, or doesn't for that matter, in some of America's largest corporations.

The documentary was frightening, to say the least; frightening in the role Enron played in the California blackouts in 2000, frightening in the close relationships certain executive have with the Bush administration, frightening in the pervasiveness of outright dishonesty, and frightening in the ways in which avarice can impel people to committ horrible acts. Stepping outside of this specific incident of corporate book cooking, the documentary got me thinking about the impact that money has on our daily lives. Looking at the above mentioned fears of corporate power and greed, we can uncover the some of the greater risks that arise from the level of importance that is placed on money and profit.

In 2000, the state of California started experiencing rolling blackouts. Entire sections of the power grid were shutting down, people were without power and nobody knew what to make of such a catastrophe. It turns out that these blackouts were connected to the de-regulation of the power grid and energy industry in California. De-regulation took power away from government regulatory committees and handed more power over to private companies who would now be the ones selling and distributing power to the consumer. Enron jumped at the opportunity to tap into California's immense energy market and began to manipulate the system, shaft the consumer, and rake in millions upon millions of dishonest profits, all based on the basic economic principle that when a desired resource is scarce, people will pay more for it.

So Enron set out to make desired energy in California scarce. The documentary plays recorded conversations of Enron traders telling power plant operators in California to find some reason to shut down their plant. The documentary also plays conversations between Enron traders revelling in the fact that rampant forest fires tearing across California were going to damage power lines and further jack up the price of energy. One trader can be heard saying, "burn baby burn." All of these incidents were uncovered long after the whole mess had been blamed on then Governor Gray Davis (who was not the Governor who approved the de-regulation deal) and who, as a result, was recalled and replaced by Arnold Schwarznegger.

With the above mentioned incident, the documentary made an interesting parallel to the Stanley Millgram Experiment. A psychologist, by the name of Stanley Millgram, set out to test the human capacity to commit acts they know to be mean or out right evil. After World War II, he wanted to prove that Americans were less evil than the Nazis; that Americans would never commit horrible acts of violence and them claim that they were "just following orders." He set up a fictitious scenario using a "teacher" and a "learner." The teacher (someone who volunteered to be part of the expirement) would ask the learner (an actor located in another room) a question. If the learner gave an incorrect answer, the teacher would administer and electric shock. The "teachers" were under the impression that the expirement was testing the ways to increase someone's ability to learn. So, for every question the learner got wrong, the voltage would be increased; in most cases to levels that the teacher knew to be potentially lethal. What Millgram found out was that even though the teachers could hear the learner screaming in pain and shouting and demanding to be released, teachers would continue to administer the shocks. Even when they wanted to stop, the"official" man in the lab coat controlling the expirement would say, "it is important that you continue with the expirement" and sure enough many people did.

Since then the Millgram experiment has been used to explain not just acts of violence but general acts of corruption, exploitation, and dishonesty. People will do something they know to be wrong, especially if some "official", boss, CEO, or president tells them to do it. And in the case with Enron, traders cheated Californians out of their power not only because they were told to do it by their superiors but also because the more money they made for the company the more money they themselves made. They had a vested interested in lying to and decieving California, which almost makes it worse, because money acted as yet another stimulus. Would these traders have participated in such a scheme even if they would not have gotten rich from it?

When it comes to the hand holding between elected officials and corporate officials, the story of Enron makes you wonder how much of Bush's campaign money was a result of outright lies to investors and employees. Enron was the biggest corporate contributor to the Bush 2000 campaign. Less than two years after Bush's victory, Enron went bankrupt as execs attempted to split with millions in profits, while every employee lost their job, pensions, and 401k retirement savings. One employee who laid powerlines for Enron at one time had $384,000 in his 401k retirement plan. Once the company had been exposed for lying about its profits and as a result collapsing into bankruptcy, the employee saw his retirement savings disappear in a single day, and had to cash out for a measly 1,200 bucks.

I do not doubt the intelligence of Jeffrey Skilling (COO), Ken Lay (CEO), Andrew Fastow (CFO), and others who helped devise a scheme that was at one time rated the most successful and innovative business in the US by Fortune magazine. The depressing thing about this whole story is that intellect and hard work run the risk of turning venal in the cutthroat, corporate world of making a profit. Helping people, providing for employees, and simply making the world a better place bare no significance in many of these worlds. In most cases, companies will do anything to keep the money flowing.

What we must eventually realize, though, is that money is only a a piece of paper that has been transformed into a concept; a concept that rivals happiness. As trite as the statement may be, money does not buy, garauntee, or produce happiness. Happiness is generated through thought and action, and in most cases money is inconsequential. Money is part of a system devised to organize and facilitate the exchange and fluidity of goods and services, but it has been turned into so much more than that, and to the detriment of many societies. Money doesn't actually need to exist anymore to produce wealth. Enron is the apotheosis of such a fact. Enron was losing money in actuality, but was reporting record profits. They were actors and salesmen, convincing people that they were successful. This proves the fragile nature of wealth and success in this country and in the capitalist system that cloaks the principles of our republican democracy.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Learning Words Through Poetry II

2006-09-27T21:11:00.000-07:00

The GRE test day is only a day away. I was only able to create a handful of poems, incorporating about 70-100 vocab words, so not nearly as many as I have memorized. Either way it was fun. These are my last installments.

A Boxing Match

The unknown solvency of a manager counting money in the shadows
To profit off a pugnacious boxer who boasts to turn wives into widows.

The garrulous announcer loosens his tie as sweat coats his forehead
While the solicitous referee is fixated on the bodies and possible blood red

The opulent, old man in the front row positions his lips to sip a soporific drink
As a puissant punch is thrown by the fighter in the trunks green and pink

Fatigue starts to abate the situation in the ring
While a tacit victory is claimed as a trainer starts to sing

An erudite onlooker might cringe at such a scene
Unless they know punitive sports aren’t always clean.

Why Not Act

It is no easy task to be salubrious and genuinely care for others around the world
While our profligate lifestyles thrive on their suffering and inequality

It is no easy task to offer acumen into the role we can and should play
When we are represented by recondite policies and players bent on hegemony

It is no easy task to awaken from a reticent state of content, material abundance
When we are accustomed to the surfeit of mistaking our needs for wants

But our mendacity must not keep up from striving for the good, the fair
For we have a profusion of questions we ask and the conditions of others we face

So we cannot allow furtive deals of oppression, dominance, and control
Deny the possibility of realizing our refulgent vision of peace and equality

Send the Money

We see a young child on television suffering from some type of malady
And we brood over whether or not to alleviate his suffering by contributing financially

But does an interminable flow of checks really bring health to those without care?
Does our monetary assistance attenuate the conditions that create such despair?

We anathematize those who turn a blinds eye and change the channel on the TV
Yet it’s our avarice that convinces us that sending money is helping too informally

So we do not give our credit card number to help a macerated little baby today
And we do not become choleric knowing that no assistance is on its way

Our anemic sense of community is clouded by our prodigal concern for our “me”
And our animus for the dispassionate? Well, just look in the mirror and see

A Hard Wooden Bench

Is it odd that something can inspire and act of perfidy?
Does my magnanimity have to come from being taught dogmatically?

What do I do when specious statements are launched from the pulpit
Or a benison is designed to give innocence to a culprit?

I find myself inert, unaffected and tired from the service
And I know my implacable state of cynical sorrow is a result of this

When I see the penury of people without hope
And hear spurious remarks so that with this we can cope

I start to see the protean nature of faith and belief
And I am no longer provincial as I turn a different leaf.

Remember and Continue

She purveys a service desired by more than you know
For humanity has a salacious appetite to partake in such a show

She absconds to a hotel room and patiently waits inside
Her raiment barely covers a body advertising a source of pride

He enters the room eager and expecting no remonstrance
Yet this can be venal transaction so she postpones the performance

She is laconic in her rules and regulations
Before the play develops into a vexation

As she sloughs her garments to the side of the bed
She remembers an odious experience that was never intended

Learning Words Through Poetry

2006-09-19T17:47:00.000-07:00

I am currently in the process of studying for the GRE; a process I have been dreading ever since I came to the realization that I had not fully escaped the grips of standardized testing. Truth be told, going over some old school math has actually been kind of fun (especially when I get the answers right). And learning new vocabulary can never be a bad thing. I oftentimes find myself in front of a room full of students not having the words to explain my thoughts or better elucidate a question.

One of my new found, fun strategies for learning vocabulary is to take the words and use them in poems. It helps with knowing their proper usage and remembering their definition; all I have to do is think about the poem it was in. It's like memorizing the lyrics of a song.

Anyway, I thought I would share some of the "GRE vocab" poems I wrote today.

Aggravation Gray

He barely remembers when he was but a neophyte
Employees always ready to exonerate him for his mistakes;
Always watching, protecting, and obviating a potential fight.
In these trenchant moments he pondered all these breaks.

But when the superiors prattle on about the ethics of the company
And the tortuous bureaucracy continues to subjugate workers,
That sensation of utter disgust generates an inner cacophony;
The jarring sound of his recalcitrant ego despising such shirkers

One may desire a soft, variegated quilt of compassion in the office
But instead get the austere walls of the mundane corporate world.

She Wants to Love Herself

She leaves her urbane surroundings and elegantly struts to school.
Can her superior grades and good looks appeal to even those who are misanthropes?
She and her loquacious friends were sure to socialize that afternoon around the pool
And then inside to vituperate other girls who didn’t fit the images in the soaps.

Their glib conversations were marks of their superficial relationships
And their tenuous grip on reality was as destructive to them as it was to others.
They were credulous so as to believe all that flowed from their lips;
Although nothing that could be deemed cogent, as if delivered by their mothers

The chicanery they play on each other is for their own individual benefit
For it’s risky to amalgamate your interests in with the emotions of others.

It Won’t Last

An inchoate democracy is an exciting time.
Citizens fulminate leaders who have turned their speech into a crime.
Violent tyrants attempt to protract their own rule
In the face of polemical statements used as a power chipping tool

Outspoken critics stupefy onlookers with their action
As they launch into diatribes that give those of authority looks of consternation.
Their intrepid efforts are meant to inspire
So that together they can enervate autocrats who begin to tire.

But time passes and the citizenry becomes imperturbable
And the pith of this poem is that even a democracy can become incorrigible.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Chile Elects First Woman President

2006-01-16T19:16:00.000-08:00

Now this is exciting! Check out the story!

Chile Gets First Woman President

As far as the politics in South America go, Bachelet is not a Chavez or a Morales, but she and her party, which has been in power for almost two decades, is left of center,. These elections in South America are going to require the United States to rethink its strategy in the region. Morales is finishing up his world tour before his inauguration on January 22nd, and he opted not to visit the United States (link). What kind of message does that send?

Now, many people may not give a crap about what's happening with the governments of our neighbors to the south, but with EU becoming a more solidified force on the global stage, and China becoming an increasingly attractive investor, growing economies in a number of countries are not as dependent on the United States as they were 10 to 20 years ago, and many people in South America are realizing that. There are realistic alternatives to the United States as a trading partner and/or and investor in one's economy and resources.

Whether one agrees with the left-leaning policies of the leaders who are shifting the political landscape of South America or not, it is clear that a change is taking place and all through legitimate elections and a mobilized electorate. As far as I can tell, there is some healthy democracy in South America, especially in Bolivia and Chile. These are democratic forces that are going to play an increasingly important role in how the United States enacts its foriegn policy in the region because I think many of these leaders are not afraid to say, "the hell with the US, we can get a more fair deal, a better partner, and a more equitable relationship with another country."

It puts the Bush administration in an interesting position since they want to advance the interests of the United States abroad, while at the same time promoting democracy. But what many people fail to recognize is that the two do not always go hand in hand. For example, take Chavez. He has continually been elected by the people of Venezuela and the country has a fairly healthy democracy, yet his policies constantly butt heads with US. Take Morales for example. He is a huge fan of both Chavez and Castro, two leaders who the US does not particulary care for. Take Iraq, where the Shiite majority has put into powere a shiite dominated government, that will most likely form close ties to the Shiite dominated government in Iran (who is in the "Axis of Evil").

What should the US do when the type of society it promotes produces a government it loathes? In my opinion, you have to respect the wishes of the people, even if it means not getting as much oil, or not having as much control over coca production, or establishing ties with a country we do not like. A legitimate Democracy and a strong presence of people power trump economic interests.

We can let the invisible hands of capitalism guide but we cannot let those hands corall people into lives that make them miserable, lives that breed inequality, lives that are exploited, and lives that create desperation and resentment. The hands that should to the guiding are the one's that can pick up a pen and mark on a ballott here choice for leaders , the hands that flip through the pages of a newspaper, the hands that pick the fruit, the hands that slice that fruit and put on the table for breakfast. It is the hands of a citizen that should guide, not the hands of a dollar bill.

I kind of drifted off the main topic of Chile's new president, Michelle Bachelet, but such an amazing occurence is connected to so many other issues. Stay tuned, there are more elections to follow.

Peace Out,
Daryn

New President to Cut Salary in Half

2005-12-30T11:23:00.000-08:00

In one of my previous blog entries I wrote about socialist Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. Well it seems like he may have an ally in Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales. Morales was elected last week and will be Bolivia's first indigenous president (link). He ran with a strategy and platform similar to Hugo Chavez, appealing to the working class, citizens living in poverty, and challenging a free market economic system supported by the United States.

I am fascinated by Hugo Chavez, his policies, his rhetoric, and his influence in South America and around the world. After reading about Evo Morales, my interest in the region has only increased. Recently, Morales has announced that as President, he will cut his salary in half, and expects the rest of his cabinet and the parliament to follow suit (link). Seriously, read the article and tell me what you think about this move.

I think it is admirable. He is yet another South American leader that is following up his rhetoric with swift action, action that causes many people to do a double take, asking themselves, "did he really just do that?" But that question, atleast for me, is not a negative rhetorical question, but honest amazement and curiousity at policies that seem to offer a legitimate challenge to the status quo.

Another interesting reason to follow this story is that, like Chavez and Venezuela, Bolivia has enough oil for the United States to take an active interest in the outcome of elections and the implementation of specific policies. Bolivia has one of the largest oil reserves in South America second only to Venezuela. In addition, Morales says that his first trip as President will be to Cuba to visit the country he has long admired. Hmmm, a cause for concern?

How will the United States react to Morales and his policies? How will South America continue to change with leaders like Chavez and Morales filling the pages of local, national, and international newspapers? How will future leaders respond to and/or learn from the tactics and policies used and implemented by Morales and Chavez?

All I can say is that a leader who cuts his salary as president in half to further fund education (Morales), a leader who sells oil to low income residents in Boston and New York at a 40% discount during the cold winter months (Chavez), a leader who wants to use the revenue from resources on his country's land to benefit the poor who live on that land (Morales), and a leader who hands management and decision making power of factories over the workers in those factories (Chavez), are interesting individuals.

I will be honest, I hope both these presidents are successful in their efforts. And by success I mean I hope the promises behind their policies actually produce. Chavez may be struggling to get his citizens out of poverty but I hope things change. I think that "third world" countries have for too long been exploited by an elite, wealthy minority, both in and out of their countries, and it is about time that these wealth and opportunity gaps are addressed by revolutionary policies and leadership. Those who have traditionally been in positions of power and influence attempt to stifle and discredit these efforst for fear that they will lose those very positions.

Morales will be an interesting story to follow. Tell me what you think...

Peace Out,
Daryn

Honolulu Marathon 2005

2005-12-30T11:19:00.000-08:00

Last Sunday (12/11/05) I ran in the Honolulu marathon. This was my third marathon and my second with the AIDS marathon training program. The AIDS marathon training program is not just a six month training program the prepares runners to finish a marathon, it is also a fundraising program that, for the DC area participants, benefits the Whitman-Walker Clinic, a local organization that helps and assists people living with HIV/AIDS. There are number of AIDS marathon training programs across the country, in places such as Chicago and LA, all of which benefit a local AIDS clinic.

As far as the training goes, the AIDS marathon training program is a great way to leisurely tackle 26.2 miles. The first thing that makes this program great is that you are assigned to a pace group depending on the speed at which you feel comfortable running. So, each weekend, when all the participants gather to do a long distance run, you are always with your pace group, chatting, hanging out, never feeling rushed or competetive. I have done other programs, and I prefer the AIDS marathon training program in large part because they put you in a pace group. During the week you are only asked to run two times on your own for about 40 minutes each time. It is the weekend runs, with your pace group, when you tackle the longer runs.

The other great thing about the AIDS marathon training program is the amazing way in which they prepare you both physically and mentally for the marathon distance. Many people who sign up to do the training program are reluctant early on to face the challenge of the training because 26.2 miles can seem very daunting. Many participants have never run more than a mile at one time and do not beleive that they can actually complete a marathon. But the type of training makes 26.2 a managable and reachable goal. The cool thing about this program is that at the beginning of the training, a 6 mile run seems daunting, but before you know it you are 4 months into the program and 10 mile runs are considered "short runs" are a piece of cake.

The training is designed around a method created by the famous marathoner, Jeff Galloway, where you intersperse running and walking. Depending on your pace you will run for a set amount of time and then walk for a set amount of time. Over long distances this method helps many runners maintain there posture, form, and endurance. For instance my pace group would run for 5 minutes and then walk for 1 minute. When I did my first marathon with the AIDS marathon training program, I was hesitant to do this run/walk method but after trying it, I found myself run/walking longer distances faster and more comfortably than I had run them. When running long distances, for a novice runner like myself, I tired easily and my form deteriorated towards the later miles and when I finished I was exhausted and in pain, opening up the potential for injury. When I started the run/walk method, I was finishing those same longer distances much faster and was feeling and looking much better at the end. For those thinking of doing a marathon, look into the run/walk method because you would be surprised at the results in can produce.

And finally, the great thing about the AIDS marathon program is that you are fundraising for a really great organization. Fundraising is oftentimes more challenging than the training but it can also be surprisingly fun and is always rewarding. Depending on where the marathon is being held, runners have to raise anywhere from $1,700 to $4,000. To compete in the Honolulu marathon, all of us had to raise $3,400. Most of this money goes to the clinic, but some of it is also used to pay for the participants' airfare and hotel stay for two nights in the marathon destination.

Some participants have no problem raising the money, while others, unfortunately, end up dropping out of the program because they are unable to reach the fundraising deadlines. With a little creativity and some free time though, anyone can raise the money. It is amazing to see how creative people get in order to raise money. People have parties, bake sales, date auctions, get restaurants to sponsor them, sell doughnuts at the metro, sell parts of their bodies (depending on the amount of money someone donates the runner wil write the donors name on a part of their body for race day, such as 100 bucks gets the donors name is on the runner's arm, 500 bucks gets a name on a leg, and 1,000 bucks gets a name on a forhead etc.).

Anyway, the Honolulu marathon was a great experience and spending time with the friends I met during the six month training program made it even that more special. The run itself, started at 5am, which meant that most of us were up at 2:30am to eat a quick breakfast, meet up with our pace groups, walk to the shuttle pick up area, take the shuttles to the starting line, use the porto potties, line ourselves up in the appropriate corral, and then wait anxiously for the marathon to start.

Since it started so early, the first 2 1/2 hours of the marathon were in the dark. During this time I was wishing the sun would come up quicker so I could enjoy the beautiful scenery, but when it finally did rise I soon wanted it to go back down. It was around 81 degrees for the last 10 miles of my run, which made for a very dehydrating, sweaty, exhausting, please kill me now, experience. During miles 21 through 26 my body was overheating and running on empty. Every time I doused myself in cold water the cooling sensation lasted only a few seconds until I again fell victim to the sweltering heat.

I was pleased when I finally crossed the finish line. But, I must say, despite the torture through which I put my body, the best part of this whole experience in Hawaii was meeting up with the other members of my pace group at the end and just lying in the cool grass near the finish tent, talking about the pain we were in, about how are run had gone, and figuring out which bar we were going to go to that night.

To train and fundraise for, run, and complete a marathon is a very rewarding experience especially when it is shared with others. Setting challenging goals linked to a good cause, and then adjusting and discplining your lifestyle to reach those goals is a beneficial experience for anyone and I highly recommend the AIDS marathon training program for those interested. I can tell you one thing...no matter who you are...you can run a marathon! And that is why I love this event.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Coach Mac and a Learning Environment

2005-12-30T11:18:00.002-08:00

Teaching and learning are amazing things, which is why I am a firm believer that the best teachers are the best learners and the best learners make the best teachers. There should always be a recipricol relationship between the "teacher" and the "student". Each must feel respected and appreciated in order for the magic of learning to take place. A key part of this relationship is the importance of a learning environment, a place where this recipricol relationship can flourish.

Too often I hear arguments complaining about how our government spends too much time, money and energy trying to reach young people who, "just don't want to learn," and who "don't appreciate their education." Oftentimes, young people from underserved communities are given as examples of students who "just don't want to learn," and would rather be dealing drugs, having sex, or getting into trouble.

Individuals who make such arguments clearly do not understand the idea of a learning environment or the need to appeal to different learning styles; styles that are developed through one's upbringing, background, home life, life experiences, and genuine interests. Everybody wants to learn. I will repeat...EVERYBODY WANTS TO LEARN. Everybody appreciates an education. I repeat...EVERYBODY APPRECIATES AN EDUCATION. The challenge is young people are faced with multiple opportunities to learn each day and to receive an education. They can learn to read or learn to play XBox. They can learn to deal drugs or they can learn to multiply. They can learn how to be better at sex or they can learn how a bill becomes a law. They ask themselves how to reach the balance of, which education is the most fun? vs. which education will provide me with the most opportunities? vs. which education interests me? vs. which education can I relate to?

The human mind absorbs things, especially young minds, and it is the job of an educator to create an environment where a student's education makes them feel appreciated, respected, like their on a path to greatness, like their existence and thoughts matter and make a difference. That is the challenge educators face.

It is a wonderful challenge I face while working for the Close Up Foundation. The organization works with students of a wide variety and from all walks of life. We engage them in what has traditionally, and unfortunately been one of the most drab subjects, government and civics.

A former program instructor for the Close Up Foundation, named Shana McClanaghan, recently became a DC Teaching Fellow. She took her skills to the next level and started teaching in one of the country's most troubled and failing school districts; a school disctrict filled with students who, to some, "just don't want to learn."

After Shana left the foundation for DC Public Schools, I really wanted to get her perspective and hear some of her stories about what her experience had been like thus far. It took a while for her to respond, but finally, I heard from her. What she wrote to me elucidated the point that DCPS is not doing good enough in creating a learning environment for students. Shana is battling to reach young people that have been swallowed up in a school district that is either struggling to demonstrate there appreciation for young people. Here is what she wrote:

"Anyway, I have story after story to tell you about my teaching job. It is the hardest job that I have ever had; hands down. I am working in Anacostia and teach special education to 15 boys who have disabilites across the board. The main disability (which isn't really a disability) is their behavior. Out of control. I am called a white b**ch every day and have 7 boys who are in gangs (opposing gangs). They have found ammunition in my room (which has no walls) and 2 of my students have been suspended for 10 days (not expelled?) for bringing in guns. Fights were breaking out in my room at least 3 times a day in the beginning, although that is subsiding (I guess I'm getting better at building a community environment in my room). I have been hit (accidentally) by a student and questioned by the FBI who are investigating gang violence in SE. Luckily, overall, I think the kids respect me...believe it or not. I cried everyday for the first 2 months and wine was becoming my best friend! I didn't think I was reaching them at all, because I could not even teach them anything. The only thing I could do was break up hostilities all day long. Then, I realized that I just have to do the best that I can do and in the end I will hopefully feel that I made a difference.

"Julie was telling me how you use preseason and postseason in your speech to the students....incorporating sports into learing....and I do the same thing! Because I have 15 boys obsessed with football, everything is associated with sports. They call me Coach Mac.

"You really don't have any restrictions teaching in DC. You could do whatever you wanted and administration wouldn't care or even know. You have no choice but to be creative because you don't have paper, a copy machine, books...etc. No one has asked me for the students reports cards yet...."

I admire Shana for taking a step in the right direction of creating that learning environment. I admire her for sticking with a school system that constantly sends the message, to both students and teachers, to just give up. The district's education system demonstrates, time and time again, to both teachers and students, that a satisfactory learning environment will not have materials, books, walls, clean hallways, or a decent wage. There are teachers in this system, like Shana, who realize that they must overcome such oppression from the top and work with one of the best tools that we all have, the creative mind. It is not that young people "just dont appreciate their education" it is that they just dont want to learn in an environment that disrespects their willingness to learn. Fortunately, there are people like Shana who can reach students, even in a troubled learning environment.

Young people are natural learners, we just need more people like Shana to let them know that their education understands that, takes advantage of that, appreciates and respects that.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Hugo Chavez and the Revolution

2005-12-30T11:18:00.001-08:00

Last week, the president of Venzuela, Hugo Chavez, continued his campaign to help poor people by selling gas at drastically lower prices to low-income residents in Boston, MA and New York City. Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and has worked out a deal with New York and Massachusettes lawmakers that would cut heating costs for low-income residents in Boston and New York City by over 40% (link). This decrease in gas prices will prevent many people from choosing between paying heating bills and buying food and clothes for their families during New England's cold winter months. Far more than the United States, Venezuela suffers from high levels of unemployment and struggles with its own issues of poverty. So, some might ask why Chavez is helping citizens of the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world.

Chavez is a self-proclaimed socialst and populist, whose leadership is making attempts to close the huge gap between the rich and poor, not only on Venezuela, but all over Latin America, the Caribbean, and to some extent, the rest of world. He has often made revolutionary claims of shifting the world order and creating a more multi-polar dynamic between nations. As a result the United States and more specifically the Bush administration has be a constant target for Chavez. He often refers to the U.S. and the the Bush administration as an imperial power bent on dominating the world. Some of his speeches and political antics have even spurred some, like Pat Robertson, to suggest that Chavez should be assasinated. Check out this article about that story.

Chavez does not jus talk to the talk though, he backs up his philosophies with action. Some of his programs have included:

1. Setting up co-management structures inside Venezuelan industries, where the workers decide who manages them, how production is carried out, and what kind of technology is used. (link)

2. Starting a regional oil initiative where the Venezuelan government will provide cheaper fuel to 15 Caribbean nations. (link)

3. Instituting land reform policies designed to seize lands that have historically been controlled by a small amount of wealthy families, and redistributing it amongst the poorer farmers who have worked on the land but have not owned it. (link 1 and link 2)

4. Supporting a Latin American news channel called Telesur that would rival networks like CNN. This network is in part inspired by Venzuela's community TV movement, where members of poorer communities are taught to make programs for themselves, allowing them to tell their own stories. (link)

5. Seizing private companies that are lying idle and failing to re-open. The workers at these firms will then be given help to set up co-operatives for the benefit of the community. (link)

All of these programs have a clear socialist flavor to them, with a focus on the "betterment and welfare" of the community, a self-sustaining economy, a mistrust of highly concentrated wealth and power, and a dislike of capitalistic theories that hail private property and free market competition as ways to build economic wealth in a society.

Do any of these programs actually work? I hesitate to comment because I just recently started researching Chavez and his policies. From what I have read from others interested in Chavez, the reviews are mixed. Many people from Venezuela, who comment via the internet, obviously have access to a computer and an internet connection, which means they are probably wealthy and hence do not benefit greatly from Chavez' leadership and policies. But I have also read just as many comments in support of his efforts to help citizens of poorer nations, and in this most recent case, poorer citizens of a wealthy nation.

Chavez is often refered to as a dictator, but that title is misleading. He is not the same as a Hussein, a Stalin, or a Hitler whose concentrations of power have resulted in humanitarian atrocities and violence. Chavez may be concentrating a lot of power in a government that he runs, but he does not seem to be profiting from this aside from a growth of support from those who elect him. Is that not what a democratically elected official is supposed to do? In fact, he is taking the one hugely profitable resource his country has, oil, and selling it at extremely low prices, and not to people who can give him weapons or other types of kickbacks, but to people who need it, can benefit from it, and can use it to build up their own families, communities, and nations. He does not align himself with the powerful and wealthy of Venezuela who could most certainly gaurantee him power and prosperity. He instead aligns himself with the working class, those who have historically been disempowered and economically disadvantaged.

On the other hand, Chavez does fit into some of the dictator stereotypes. He has his own television show, his public speeches are often given in front of a giant banner or painting of himself, and he did come to power through a military coup.

I think it is widely understood that poverty and unemployment have not decreased since Chavez took power in 1998. This may reflect poorly on his policies, but at the same time families that at one time worked the land for some rich landowner, can now work the land for their own families. Low-income families that were facing rising heating costs can now rest assured this winter that they can heat their home and put food on the table. Workers that at one time made the products but had no input into the environment in which they produced these goods, can now take ownership over the conditions of their job. Countries that at one time felt captive to an oil market, in large part, dominated by obsessive U.S. consumption that drives up demand and prices, can now separate themselves from a high priced market they did little to create. World citizens who were at one time looking for ways to challenge a world order that just felt unfair to them, can now look to Chavez as a revolutionary who says what other leaders don't dare speak, and institutes policies other governments don't risk trying for fear of disrupting the status quo.

I am intrigued by Chavez, although I do not assert that he has been a complete success. I just think the world needs more leaders like Chavez who push the envelope and challenge the status quo, without brutalizing his citizens. If his revolution fails, we will have learned something, but atleast there are people out there who at one time felt powerless, but now know there some people out there who are looking out for their interests.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Eyob's Mother

2005-12-30T11:18:00.000-08:00

For the past three Thanksgivings my family has flown to Minnesota to visit my mom's side of the family. This year, on the flight up, I had the pleasure of sitting next to one of the most amazing and inspirational individuals I have ever met.

As I entered the plane I was prepared for a crowded, cramped flight. I found my seat, and sure enough, it was a middle seat. The man to my right said hello, but did not give off the impression that he was going to be an avid conversationalist. Not a problem, considering I had planned on catching up on some reading. I sat and waited for the person on my left to show up.

Finally, a woman with a baby cuddled up in blanket positioned herself into our row of seats. My first thought was, uh oh, this could disrupt my reading plans if the child starts crying or making a stink in his pants. I was intrigued by this woman/child duo, though, because the child was clearly not born from the woman. So we struck up a conversation and I soon learned that the 16 month old child, named Eyob, was from Ethiopia and had been adopted, and this woman, Sarah (her name has been changed to protect her identity), had gone to Ethiopia to pick up Eyob and bring him to his new adoptive mother. This bit of information sparked my interest even further.

It turned out Sarah worked for the adoption agency, Children's Home Society and Family Services, and that she and her partner had two adopted children of their own, a 4-year-old daughter from Cambodia and a 2-year-old son from Ethiopia. The way Sarah talked about her two adopted children and the reasons why she and he partner decided to adopt and adopt internationally was truly inspirational and admirable. She had a clear compassion for all children and a good heart that realized she and her partner had the love and the means to raise children even if they did not give birth to them. The other amazing thing about her story is that same-sex couples, unfortunately, are clearly discriminated against when it comes to adoption and therefore have to overcome more obstacles in establishing that kind of family, or any family for that matter. The sad thing about this type of discrimination is that even though there are people out there who love each other, have good hearts, and are more than capable of being great parents, they are in many ways discouraged all over the world to form a family.

For example, when Sarah went to Ethiopia to pick up her new adopted son she went by herself. Ideally, her partner and her daughter would have accompanied her on this journey, but they would have had to lie and get their young daughter to lie so that the adoption agency in Ethiopia would not know they were a same-sex couple.

Finally, Sarah told me that she had gone to pick up Eyob because his adoptive mother was handicapped and in a wheelchair, unable to make the journey herself. Eyob's new mother may not have been able to fly all the way to Ethiopia, but she would be waiting at the airport, and I soon realized that I would get the unique opportunity to see this new mother see her adopted child in the flesh, for the very first time.

The way this adoption worked is that in Ethiopia, Eyob was introduced to a picture of his adoptive mother and began to bond with the picture so that at his early age, he could start associating with a mother figure even though she was not yet a physical presence. It seemed to have been working becasuse, when Sarah told me that when she was resting with Eyob during a layover in Rome, she brought out a picture of Eyob's adoptive mother and he looked at it and said, "mama".

When the plane finally landed, Sarah, relieved to be at the end of her long, emotional, arduous journey back from Ehtiopia, was eager to finally get home, take a shower, and most importantly put Eyob in the arms of his new mother. I stayed in the plane for a while, in order to get my bag from an overhead compartment a few rows back. When I finally did get off the plane I saw one of the most beautiful scenes: Sarah, tired and exhausted, on her knees looking up at Eyob in the arms of his new mother. As this new mother sat in her wheel chair cradling her new baby, I slowly walked past this magical moment and took in every possible angle to experience the look on her face; the turn of her smile and the warmth of her eyes tucked behind the soft, happy squint of her eyelids. I will never forget the love I witnessed at the Northwest arrivals gate at Minneapolis airport the day before Thanksgiving, 2005.

I have always found adoption to be a beautiful thing but this put adoption into a whole new light for me and I am so happy to have gotten that three hour experience with Sarah and Eyob on the plane, and that 15 second walk past Eyob's new mother.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Not The Party We Expected

2005-12-30T11:17:00.001-08:00

A friend of yours invites you to a party that he is helping to organize. He tells you that this is going to be one of the best parties of the year: lots of cool people, great music, and an amazing venue. Your friend gets you so excited about this party that you start telling your friends about it, encouraging them to come. There are a couple people who refuse to believe the stories about how cool this party is going to be, but for the most part a lot of your friends tell you they are going to come.

So the day of the party finally arrives and a few hours into it you start to realize that this is not at all what it had been cracked up to be. The party has no real theme, people are not having fun, fights are breaking out, the music is horrible, and a lot of people start to regret their decision to come.

What would you say to your friend who organized the party and told you it was going to be amazing?

Would you regret your decision to attend the party?

How would you feel if your friend kept insisting it was a good party even though your experience was negative?

Would you feel that your friend mislead you in the way he described how awesome the party would be?

War is not a party in the sense that I have just described, but there are some broad similarities. We live in a country where Presidents, no matter their political persuasion, pride themselves on leading during wartime. President Bush has boasted the fact that he is a “wartime” president and continually references his decision to wage war.

President Bush and his administration launched a huge campaign convincing the American people and congress that this was an essential war to wage and that it was going to be a huge success. Now we can debate forever whether or not the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power, but I think it is abundantly clear that this war has not panned out the way George W. Bush had hoped. No weapons of mass destruction were found even though Bush, Rice, Powell, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, and others swore up and down that Saddam possessed them and posed a grave threat to the United States. No ties to 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, or Al Qaeda were found or substantiated even though the above mentioned people suggested such a connection. We were not greeted like liberators to the extent that the administration officials had been predicting. And I would venture to say that not many Americans, Iraqis, and soldiers would say – despite what the president says on an aircraft carrier – that the “mission is complete” or that “major combat operations are over”. Essentially the war party George Bush organized, advertised, and we are all currently experiencing, is not the party we were told we'd get.

So, should any politician feel guilty about regretting their decision to go to this president’s party? Are people justified in feeling as though the president painted an inaccurate picture of what his party would look like? Are people justified in their frustration with the fact that this president keeps on insisting that his war party is a success?

Another point I want to make is related to Rep. Murtha from Pennsylvania, who was initially a strong supporter of this war effort, and has just recently come out criticizing the way in which the Bush administration has carried out this war. He has called for a quick (6 months I believe) withdrawal of troops from Iraq, arguing that our military has done all that it can and that now our presence in Iraq is only fueling anger and resentment in the region towards Americans and therefore weakening our efforts in the global war on terror. Other elected officials, republicans and democrats, have supported similar measures and have made similar arguments. These arguments have been receiving unwarranted backlash from administration loyalists. The main rebuttal to these concerns is that someone who initially supported the war, saw and believed the same intelligence, cannot now decide that they think the war was either a mistake or that a new course of action needs to be taken.

When we look at this war as the president's party: the lead up, the convincing, the pictures that were painted, and the current status of Iraq, how can we not sympathize with people who are regretting their decision to attend? How can we not understand that some people see a miserable party whose organizers are in denial and insisting that everything has been as successful as they had planned? How can we not see that some people are justified in feeling mislead?

Finally, the Bush administration is right about one thing; the Clinton administration did have the same intelligence and did make similar statements concerning Saddam's military and weapons capability. The main, glaring difference is that the Clinton administration did not feel that intelligence warranted the need to engage in a full scale war. 9/11 may have changed our perspectives, but it did not put new Iraqi intelligence in our CIA headquarters.

The Bush administration decided to throw a party, convinced people that is was going to be a success, and now those who are currently attending are starting to resent the fact that they are trapped in a party that does not look, sound, or feel anything like the organizers said it would.

I found this article, written by an Iraq war veteran, that I thought was particulary interesting. He uses a similar analogy that paints the situation a little more eloquently than I do. Also, considering he is an Iraq war veteran, he has a little more credibility than I or even the president and most of the people who designed and organized this war strategy do.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Riots in France and Minority Identity

2005-12-30T11:17:00.000-08:00

I mentioned in my very first blog entry that I wanted to write something about the difference between being a minority in the United States vs. being a minority in Europe. I read a very interesting essay in Ishmael Reed's book, Multiamerica, which is a collection of essays about race and identity in the U.S. This excerpt from Calvin Hernton's essay,"Minorities in England: A Report", I found to be of particular interest.

Compared with the United States, there are differences in the way these "minorities" are treated in England and how they get along with each other. The differences may be related to the different historical relations that have existed between dark-skinned people and white people of each country.

For example, while the United States colonized and enslaved Africans within the territory boundaries of North America, England has ruled over a vast empire of colonies stretching from the East Indies to West, East, and Southern Africa. England's empire included, moreover, the West Indies and Ireland, as well as the land, resources, and people destined to become the United States of America. The point is that the historical relations between English people and the people colonized by England have taken place outside of England. The relations took place in the lands of the conquered people.

On the other hand, the Africans in the United States were brought out of Africa to America. The Africans became Negroes, or African Americans. They are historically the largest minority group in the United States. Within the territorial boundaries of the United States, this minority has been subjected to nearly three hundred years of slavery, and another one hundred and fifty years of "Jim Crow" segregation and discrimination, plus a draconian ideology of racism that continues even today.

I found this to be a very insigtful history lesson and an important distinction concerning the experience of dark-skinned people in this world. After hearing about the riots in France though, I started to rethink my position on this theory. No longer does the U.S. / Europe distinction appear so clearly. In an increasingly globalized world, black and brown people are becoming more aware of their marginalization in a world society that is visibly controlled by white people of European descent.

France is not England, but France does have a similar history of colonizing and oppressing people in foreign lands (Ivory Coast, Algeria, Vietnam, Senegal, etc.). The riots that are happening all throughout the surrounding Paris suburbs have been opening up a debate about the minority identity in Europe and that identity has shown itself as being similar to the angst found in the minorities of America.

Certain cultures and traditions are treated as inferior to the marvels, advancements and traditions in the West. When it comes to education in the United States, clear signs of disrespect are shown when requirements to graduate most colleges and universities require taking classes in the three following regions: United States, Europe, and Other. To clump the rest of the, essentially non-white, world into an "other" category is a clear indication of how the history of black and brown people does not merit that same attention.

France seems to be so concerned with French identity and incorporating immigrants into their national identity, but there still exists and arrogance that denies the worth of the cultures that immigrants bring into their country.

The wealth and power of the United States and Europe was cultivated on land not belonging to them, and those lands were sewn by the hands of black and brown people, most of which were slaves. Theivery, oppression, and exploitation have fueled the dominance of European culture in world history. Most of European society today does not favor such practices, but that's not to say that they fully acknowledge the tumultuous nature of their past.

In James W. Loewen's book, Lies Across America he writes, "...a rosy view of the past can help make injustice in the present seem more acceptable," and that is exactly what is happening across the globe, especially in Europe and the United States.

Officials in France have been speaking about working on ways to better assimilate immigrant communities into the French identity. This is exactly the kind of attitude that exposes European and U.S. arrogance. There is less of a need for immigrant populations to assimilate to a "white/European" culture and more of a need for Europe and the United States to assimilate and embrace the histories and cultures of the immigrant communities entering their borders.

Black minorities in America may have been forced to live on the land and in the very society that enslaved them, but all dark-skinned people live in a world that for the last 300 years has scribbled there cultures, religions, and heritage into the margins of present day.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Lower the Voting Age

2005-12-30T11:16:00.001-08:00

On Friday, I just finished working with some of the most amazing high school students. I work for the Close Up Foundation, the country's largest civic education non-profit (www.closeup.org). Each week, throughout the school year, high school and middle school students make the trip to Washington D.C. to participate in one of many programs the foundation has to offer. In short, our mission is to empower, inspire, and inform young people to become more active paricipants in our democracy. We make current issues, history, and government, relevent, fun, and engaging. We show how politics and government actually have a serious impact on their lives and help them realize that they need to take ownership of the whole process so that their issues can best be met by decision-makers.

Anyway, young people are an untapped resource in making this country and this world a better place. The students I had the pleasure to work with this past week were all from the Tulsa area in Oklahoma. They were taking part in the foundation's Great American Cities program, which is designed specifically for students from underserved communities. During their program week they are trained in how to be successful community activists. We do not teach them about community service (painting a fence, raking leaves, serving soup in a homeless shelter). These are important roles for citizens to play, but this specific program focuses on the need for more people to hold decision-makers accountable. The GAC program trains young people in how to identify and issue in their community, research and define that issue, gain public awareness and support for that issue, write a policy that addresses the issues and develop an advocacy plan that persuades decision-makers to implement the policy, and finally how to evaluate the entire process. The young people from Tulsa took this process and made it their own. They blew me away with the level of intensity they showed for making changes in their schools, neighborhoods, communities, and state.

I want young people to know that no one knows their issues better than they do. I do not expect and 85 year old to tell decision-makers how to fix up schools. I expect students to tell decision-makers how fix up schools. Students know which books fail to interest young people. Students know what kind of academic environment they want to be a part of. Students know how and why gangs get created. Students know these issues and they know how to address these issues. The problem is that that are constantly made to feel like they cannot or should not address these issues. Young people are too often told that the adults are more equipped to address these issues. This has plagued the democratic process because it limits the input from some of our countries most influential and effective citizens. So, I say it again, young people are an untapped resource in making this country a better place. Check out this website to read some great stories about young people taking action. www.youthactivism.com...click on success stories.

In order to take advantage of this we need to allow young people to hold their decision-makers accountable. People as young as 15 should be able to vote in all elections. I think the current voting age of 18 and higher does serve a specific purpose. I think 18 years of age brings with it certain responsibilities and voting should be one of them. There are many young people out there though, younger than 18, that know far more about politics, policy, and government, and are affected far more by government policies than those who currently vote, hence these young people should be able to cast their vote with all the other citizens.

Young people, 15 and older, have jobs and they pay taxes on their income which in turn goes into government spending. Young people are affected by policies such as No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants, minimum wage, social security, health insurance, welfare reform, travel bans, gun laws, abortion, ...I could go on. Essentially, every policy affects young people because they are either currently a product of it (public education) or will soon be entering an age where they will start to be affected by them. Young people have the most at stake when it comes to electing decision-makers, because the decisions these people in power make will most likely have the largest impact, in the long run, on young people.

We just don't do good enough of a job in this country making politics, government, and civics interesting for young people. Most young people are not given the opportunity to see how our government is a piece of art where everyone can paint their style into the growing picture as long as they are given a brush and some paint.

So, here is my suggestion. I think the voting age should stay the same concerning a gauranteed right to vote at the age of 18. What I would change would be allowing the opportunity for people 15 to 18 to earn the right to vote. Here is how it would work.

If you are a motivated young person, below the age of 18, you should be able to make a request to your state or federal representative, to recieve voting rights at an earlier age. Students 15-18 would write a letter and get support from teachers, parents, or community members who would vouch for their ability to accept and exercize the right to vote at an earlier age. This would not only bring more people into the process, it would bring more dedicated people into the process.

If you are an excellent government/civics student you could ask your teacher to write a letter of recommendation. If you have worked on a campaign, you can ask the candidate to write a recommendation. If you are active in a community service organization, you can ask the other participants for their support.

The main thing here is, experience and getting a clear sense of caring for the way in which government responds to the needs of the people. A written test demonstrating learned knowledge is not what identifies a good citizen. What identifies a good citizen is people giving testament to one's engagement in the process. Being informed is a key part in successful engagement, but it is only one of many signs to how one can successfully enhance their role in the democratic process.

The sooner we get people investigating specific issues and communicating with their elected officials, the more accountable the government will be to the citizens of this country, and hence the better it will function.

Anyway, this is just the beginning of an idea that I think would make government more accountable to the citizens, and more informed on how issues can be resolved in specific communities.

TIme and time again, I meet young people that make me wonder why they are not able to vote yet. Let's not waste a passion for government by holding willing citizenship back until 18. There are obviously other ways to be an engaged citizen besides voting. But I think voting is the most basic right and if you are motivated enough to exercise the other responsibilities as a citizen before you are 18, you should be able to vote before you are 18.

Peace Out,
Daryn

Clashes Cultivate a Campaign

2005-12-30T11:16:00.000-08:00

Dividing and conquering is a strategy employed by not only soldiers in a foreign land, but by our very own political system, where two dominant political parties grapple for power. With a changing Supreme Court, it is amazing how blind justice can paint such political divisiveness.

Background: This week President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Alito's clear conservative philosophy has many Bush supporters smiling. President Bush's first choice, Harriet Miers, just couldn't cut it when it came to pleasing the president's religious, conservative base. The religious right did not have much confidence in her philsophy towards key social issues, most predominantly abortion. Any evidence towards how she might work to reshape the direction of the court would have required congress to dig into her job at the White House and her work with the president. Miers' reason for leaving was her unwillingness to allow congress to delve into those private matters of the white house and infringe on the president's "executive priviledge". So, who is this other guy...

Alito is essentially the exact opposite of Miers when it comes to figuring out how he might rule on certain issues. Not to say Miers was not qualified, but Alito has a much more traditional resume when it comes to being a judge on the Supreme Court. He went to Princeton and Yale, he has argued many cases in front of the Supreme Court, he is currently a judge on an Appeals Court, yadda yadda yadda. The guy is obviously qualified, smart, and can perform the job as a Supreme Court Justice. But the conversation about Supreme Court Justices always turns into the question on abortion.

Should abortion be legal? The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, YES. It was argued that the fourth amendment gives citizens the right to privacy and with that a woman has the right to decide what she does with her own private body. Hence, a women has the right to decide whether or not she wants to have an abortion. The government can not make a law preventing her from making a choice concerning her own private body. But then there are all the intricate, sub questions? Should there be a time limit on when a woman can get an abortion? First, second, third trimester? What if the mother's health is at risk? What if the women was raped? Should an underage girl have to ask her parents for permission? Does a woman have to consult her husband?

The issue of abortion, is obviously more than just the procedure. The issue of abortion has become a culture in itself. People rally behind both sides. They are about women's rights, they are about morality, they are about life, they are about choice. You could be "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice" and be about any of these, but you fight to promote and/or preserve these from whatever perspective you come from.

With this in mind, abortion is a powerful political tool. It gets people to pick up a sign, march together, go to the voting booth, rally supporters, and even employ terror tactics by blowing up clinics. On NPR's morning addition (www.npr.org), Nina Totenberg raised a very intrigueing point. The question was posed: if Samual Alito, a clear judicial conservative, is confirmed and replaces Sandra Day O'Connor, will Roe v Wade be overturned? She said, no. She said she did not think there were enough justices to reverse Roe v. Wade, a case that has set a precedent. She said even if it was, it might even be a bad thing for conservatives republicans. Why is this?

The little intricacies of the abortion issue, give talking points to politicians to cast out amongst the populus as cattle prods to rally potential supporters. The intricacies of abortion create the clashes that cultivate a political campaign. If abortion was illegal, the "pro-life" conservative, religious, mostly single issue voters would have no battle to fight anymore and find little reason to go to the voting booth, put a sign in their yard, or rally their friends; for in their minds the war is over. Pro-choicers, on the other hand, would be encouraged even more, to mobilize their troops and elect people, most likely liberal democrats, and get them in power.

If you keep the people fighting, you turn them against eachother, you fan the fires, you get power.

It is sad that the choices a woman or a couple has to make gets used to generate power for those so far removed from a decision that wants to be made in private.

Peace Out,
Daryn

So, I Was Thinking...

2005-12-30T11:14:00.000-08:00

So, I have been thinking about doing this blog thing for a while now. I am intrigued by them. I read a story in Time Magazine about soldier blogs and I figured it would be a good way to get a new perspective on what soldiers actually experience while in Iraq and Afghanistan. I learned a lot reading these journal entries. But I kept asking myself, what the hell am I going to write about that woudn't be totally unprofessional, my own private business, or without any value. But then I had a thought as I was driving home from work today...

I hear, read, and learn interesting things everyday and I am always amazed at how fast I forget them, or rather how I fail to process them thouroughly. I like writing (I was an English/Philosophy Joint Major) and I like remembering things so I can draw on them and learn from them later in life. Why not start a journal, recording the interesting things I learn each day. It will help me remember, it will help me process, and it will help me practice my writing. If my friends and family care to read, then great, if not, so be it. Either way I am looking forward to taking notes on life and on learning because that what I like to do...learn!

A few of the stories, issues, and things I was thinking about recording, and will be blogged in greater detail later, are as follows: the Alito nomination and its possible effect on the Roe v. Wade/Abortion issue and how it might actually threaten conservative republican politicians (NPR story), the difference between being a black "minority" in the United States vs. being a black "minority" anywhere else in the world (an interesting thought from the book "Multiamerica"), the need to gain a new perspective on religious fundamentalism (a thought I had after reading a story about the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda), and being a Police Officer (and interesting tperspective I gained after having done a ride-a-long my friend Burke Brownfeld - check out his friendster page).

Anyway, there are other thoughts, but they fade in and out of my memory. So, the next time them fly by, I now have a place to capture them, record them, and continue learning from them. And hopefully, my writing skills will make noticable progress throughout this whole process.

The other reason why I think this blog will be cool is that my job puts me in new situations every single day, it requires creativity, flexibility, and a constant ability to engage in conversation about crucial current issues. I get new perspectives everyday and new experiences...so why not blog em up.

Anyway, I hope I enjoy this process and I hope other people will enjoy reading some of these discoveries!

Peace Out,
Daryn