Pause... and reconsider humanity's ongoing love affair with violence

For what it's worth, I cry for the family of the man beheaded today
for the unwillingess of the US and the Saudi Govt to "negotiate with Terrorists." I doubted though that the son's most loving plea for the US govt to bring his father home would ever happen, at least, not that they would bring him home alive. Still, it saddens me because their suffering could have been lessened, or avoided entirely, not worsened as it no doubt is now. Our govt always has options. Most importantly it ALWAYS has the option and the privilege to choose the path of least harm. Unfortunately, war is a more profittable business than safeguarding human lives, whether or not those lives happen to be American.

The mainstream media has been doing its best to blast Michael Moore's new film as "biased" "twisted" etc etc etc and yet, though I haven't seen it yet (I will!) anyone can do the research and find out this stuff for themselves. I mean, if Americans truly wanted to answer that post 9/11 question "Why do they hate us?" they would need to look no further than the US political, socio-economic history or at the very least at the reality of our countless "military interventions."
All we need do is pause for a moment and think about the devastation caused by "carpet bombing" "cluster bombing" "random shelling" etc etc. Why don't we as a nation pause to think about the psychological damage of entire nations left to clean up their devastated countries when puppet dictators fall and elected leaders face horrendous economic sanctions AND international isolation. How about a moment of silence for the children who every day risk what little health they may have digging in dumpsters to recycle hypodermic needles to be used on AIDS patients in hospitals already functioning on a subsistence level.
Why not that at least try that???

The US could do so much, so very much to alleviate massive global suffering and so very easily but noble intentions and corporate interests (according to many market strategists and "experts" in big business") do not see eye to eye. The suffering of economic terrorism safeguarded by military hegemony comes home to the people not directly responsible for it. That is truly tragic. I am sad for that man's family and for his suffering but I also think we as Americans must wake up to the fact that our government creates and sustains the conditions of terrorism for one simple reason: because in the language of "big business," it is profittable.

I wish respectful silences could solve things. I wish those honorary moments of silence where people pause to think and reflect upon the loss of life and massive suffering could actually stop such insanity.
I wish words could fill voids left by unimaginable pain and sadness.
But such concessions fail because as Ani eloquently put it, "those who call the shots are never in the line of fire" ("NOT SO SOFT" from the c.d. by the same name.

Most of all, I wish that every human being could see the value in every existence. How precious every breath and every heartbeat truly is. If this could be, perhaps then we could pause as entire nations to rethink the idea of retribution, rethink the idea of global and national wealth distribution and most importantly, pause to reconsider humanity's love affair with violence.

I will pause anyway because I have no words to give that I find valuable enough to convey respect for such loss of life.
What follows is a chant I try to say every night, may the actions follow the words. peace.

May all beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering
May all beings be whole, healthy, happy and safe
May all beings know love
May all beings be free
May all beings dwell in the space of equanimity

namaste.

human rights must include socio-economic rights

I've been thinking so much about the "virtues" of individualistic societies and of the tensions between the US (vouching for human rights, i.e. civil and political) and the "Communist bloc" (vouching for socio-economic rights rather than prioritizing civil and political).

It makes so much sense to me that one must have the basic needs (of food, shelter, clothing, water, basic health care etc) before one can even consider civil and political rights priority. At the same time, if one lives in a State (by this I mean nation state) where one has neither access to these or the means to ensure their basic needs are met, nor do they have sufficient means by which to secure them (i.e. civil and political rights) then what is left for them? Is this not the root of terrorist desperation? So then who wins by this unending distinction umbrella project of human rights advocacy if people in the US and especially those at the whim and mercy of its institutional hegemony (military, monetary, political, corporate)cannot ensure their basic needs are met? I think the next evolution in human rights advocacy must focus upon or at least include socio-economic rights.
I also think that denying people socio-economic security will only go on for so long before people start to realize that the condition of their lives is not the fault of the "immigrant" or those on "welfare"
or those "criminals" or anyone short of the richest minority who put profits before people and profit from that fact. This reminds me of Marx and Engels' call for workers of the world to unite. Indeed, no corporation or rich CEO or well-connected politician is going to watch out for your right to survive unless your life makes them money
and with the lovely habit of outsourcing, the price of lives here and abroad are increasingly less and less valuable...

Today in PolSoc we watched a lecture by Michael Parenti, discussing what he terms the "false revolution of fascism." I am struck by the parallels one can draw between the obviously fascist nations and those less obvious forms of fascism that serve to create such significant poverty in the wealthiest, industrial nations? I am also saddened to think that any equation or criticism as such is automatically struck down as being unpatriotic. It seems we have a myth of America that other nations see as plain as day but we cannot even allow ourselves to
entertain such a notion no matter how gently or intelligently argued.
Yet there is an undeniable reality that countless Americans live paycheck to paycheck, despite the fact that they work over the forty hour work week, with most of their checks going to health insurance (that often covers as little as possible) and day care costs or to such elaborate "creature comforts" as food and the occasional video rental.
Still, I am well aware that we in America live better and undoubtedly enjoy more freedom than most people in the world. I am also aware of how so much of our "freedom" and luxurious living comes at the labor of others. How do we then transition from a society full of individualism, having been spoon-fed for so long the mythic mush of patriotism, global capitalism and "democracy?" Can we move to a more collectivist society?
Can we foster a different vision of ourselves, as Howard Zinn suggested, where we are more known for our dedication to human rights than to military might???

In Hawaii, my best friend and I developed our own little "poor person" cooperative where we shared food and daycare to make sure that both of our families had enough food and that we could still work to "get by." I have tried to start that here but I have found it too difficult to try and feed my family yet alone plan meals for two... Still I crave change, some kind of collective consciousness shift in which people's lives could mean more than what they currently seem to. I truly believe you could alleviate the stress and depression that leads so many to anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds (those that are on them for situational "relief" and not medical necessity) or even (like my mother) to alcoholism and drug addiction, just by diverting the money that goes to the massive monoliths of the pharmaceutical and hospital industries into ensuring that every person has access to healthcare and every person has food, clothing and shelter.

I know that to some this sounds too idealistic and I've read plenty of criticism of those who share my opinion. I also have known countless people who seek out these quick fixes offered by Prozac, Paxil and the like not because they have severe depression but because they are severely depressed due to financial situations that seem (and most likely are) beyond their control. These people I speak of are not "lazy" or "inept" nor are they people who just neglected to pay their bills or overcharged credit cards. More often than not, they have been people who were simply unable to pay outrageous medical expenses for what the medical field terms "involuntary yet medically imperative" procedures. I always wonder how many people on anti-depressants really NEED them to function and how many doctors give these pills out like candy, the oz-like solution to all social ills. Then again, those on these meds have to able to afford them first, so they are either workers most likely being overcharged for pitiful concessionary health insurance or perhaps those "poor" enough to qualify for medicaid who haven't yet maxed out their "lifelong limit" (which is what, a couple of years???) or they are those in the middle to upper class who can afford to have pain pill addictions and still host ridiculous talk shows blaming all the wrong people for the state of the union...

It would really be amazing and most worthy of patriotism, to see the reality of America finally grow into the American mythos we have been taught and proud of for so long. I do not honestly see how this can happen though if we continue on our current path of reckless individualism and free market irrationalism masquarading as "democracy."

peace!

"The world is drowning in a sea of words..." (functional humility)

Whenever I say anything of "strong opinion" I always feel a little weary because I'm torn between feeling like I MUST speak and yet not wanting to bash others over the head with my views. I really value respecting every human being's right to feel how they feel and think how they think. At the same time, I cannot just sit idly by and watch other suffer needlessly due to the ignorance and affluence of others. I can't stand it. I read a quote though today by one of my absolute favorite authors, Derrick Jensen, that brings me back to what I call "functional humility"

He writes, "The world is drowning in a sea of words, and I add to the deluge, the hope that I can sleep that night, secure in the knowledge that I have "done my part." Sometimes I don't know how we all live with ourselves. What can I say that will give sufficient honor to the dead, the extirpated, the beaten, the raped, the little children--"I can hit the son of a bitch. Let me try him"? I don't know. In the ten minutes I have stared at this computer screen, trying to fashion a conclusion to this section, more than sixty women have been beaten by their partners, and twelve children have been killed or injured by their parents or guardians. At least one species of plant or animal has been permanently eradicated from the face of Earth, and approximately a square mile of the planet has been deforested. In the time it took me to write this last sentence, another woman was beaten by her lover" (pgs.50-51) From "A Language Older Than Words" chapter titled (LOVE THIS!) "Cultural Eyeglasses."

The reality Jensen points out does manage to keep me humble and at the same time, sufficiently pissed off. Yet I think what he's getting at here is the tension every activist faces, in knowing what to do to effect the most good and what to do to cause the least harm (to yourslf, others and the environment). How do you find that balance?
I think of this as functional humility because it keeps me rooted in the realization that the world is far bigger than me and yet you and I do share many of the same fears and same loves and same desires. There is nothing alive that does not want for its own well-being and happiness. There is nothing alive that does not suffer. These are basic truths (paraphrased here) that the Buddha taught and you can hear (if you listen non-judgementally) echoes of this across all major religions. What you neither hear nor see if any of those is the proclamation or commandment that man should only care about himself and his own happiness at the expense of his environment and of the rest of humanity or to please his God. It is easier not to think about the reality of suffering that we all endure to varying degrees of functionability. It is easier not to think about the beaten, raped, starving, bombed, mutilated, kidnapped, tortured, illegally detained/arrested...It is easier not to think about any of that at all. Statistics prove Jensen is right and yet we all like to think another world is possible. So what is stopping us?

peace!

odd links

I just noticed that the banner above my blog always reads: related searches and that those searches always vary but today this included a "pro-death penalty" link which disturbs me. I am not for the death penalty and I haven't advocated that anywhere on this blog so I am wondering why that was chosen (obviously arbitrarily) as a possible "related search."

On a different note, this blog has taken a bit of a side seat to my applying for the undergrad research grant (or at least rewriting my proposal for it, as I haven't actually applied yet) and to summer school, work and life in general. Last week alone, I took my first political soc exam, read three books (in their entirety), worked and studied. This seems to be the tempo for the next six months as I will have only a weekend off between the summer and fall semesters. I am really happy though about the amount of fascinating work that comes from reading so many conflicting views on human rights advocacy, activism and academia. I differentiate between these primarily because not every person who advocates for human rights likes to be labeled an "activist." One of the books I finished last week was the "Opposing Viewpoints: Human Rights" and I recommend it highly but must add that it needs to read very critically. One thing that fascinated me about it is how so many of the essayists featured in opposition to one another had credentials that matched their stereotypical "liberal" or "conservative" policies. I'm including here an excerpt of my response paper for this book to show the depth of their arguments and my analysis as well. I'm off to finish my soc reading now. Peace!

Many of those arguing against the idea of or support for universal human rights, were either "experts" belonging to those entities cited
as human rights violators, such as Fred Smith who wrote "Consumer Boycotts are a Misguided Response to Sweatshops" and who just happens to be the founder of the "Competitive Enterprise Institute, which provides market-based solutions to public policy problems" (133). One should also consider the background of Charles Jacobs who is actually arguing for the eradication of African slavery but who focuses on only that slavery condoned/committed by Arabs and those enslaved who "are forcibly converted to Islam" (112). Jacobs just happens to champion the cause of "Christian Solidarity International" that attempts to buy these back slaves from slaveholders and reunite them with their families and he is the president of an NGO called "The American Anti-Slavery Group," and Jacobs, according to the essay by David Hoile, "...has been accused of "Muslim baiting" and has referred to the Prophet Muhammed as a swindler" (121).

While their credentials alone do not discredit their arguments outright, I still find the "strength" and passion of their arguments fascinating when put in the context of their professional and personal connections. Another (my favorite, actually) example, is that of John Gentry (who wrote an article titled "The Cancer of Human Rights" and the editors list as "a former CIA analyst who researches and writes on defense and national security" (49). The title of his essay? "Defining Human Rights Too Broadly Can Destroy Nations." His argument? Chiefly, that "excessive human rights" lead Americans to believe they are
simply entitled to their rights (which he terms the entitlement ethic) and yet not willing to exercise "personal responsibility" for such rights. It is most ironic that Gentry's argument actually echoes parts of an essay by Blair Gibb (titled "Human Rights are not necessarily
universal") in which Gibb is critical not of the attempt to ensure every human being has certain safeguarded rights, but that the US model is highly problematic in its hyper pro-individualism and prioritization of civil and political expressive "freedoms" over the advocacy of socio-economic and environmentally conscientious policies that promote
social cohesion and personal responsibility.(29-30)

Though both men are arguing against notions of universality, their reasons for doing so are entirely different (Gentry does so because he feels "excessive human rights" weakens nations and Gibb views such universality as yet another dangerous Western (meaning here, American) export meant to subvert any attempts at "Third World" nations
to be socialist rather than capitalist). This is why critical thinking is key to even engaging these arguments. It would be easy and convienent to dismiss the "other side" of my preferred beliefs without even engaging their arguments and especially after having read
them. Still, to do so blanketly, would be a detriment as each "opposing viewpoint" in the book does offer very valid points for consideration.

One of the most powerful and provocative debates the book covers is that of defining and enforcing human rights in the face of what Jack Donnelly terms "moral relativism and universalism." Donnelly advocates (in his essay titled "Human Rights are Universal") what he terms a "weak relativism" that reverses the emphasis of culture as a
determinant of human rights enforcement. He recommends that the concept of human rights be placed in highest regard with "justifiable modifications" as rare deviations of the "human rights norms" (23).
Blair Gibb stands in opposition to this (as previously mentioned) chiefly because he, like many in the "Third World" and non-socialist countries, view this universality as a dangerous neo-cultural imperalism. Donnelly also recognizes this, as he argues against this notion, explaining "Even if we are not entitled to impose our values on others, they are our own values. Sometimes they may demand that we act on them even in the abscence of agreement by others" (25). Here, Donnelly's argument falls apart to the critique (of an essay not even in the same section of the book) of NGO's by Robert Hayden who sees them as having been "co-opted" by the state into a direct opposition of their intended purpose (often due to financial reasons) for having "become proponents of the massive application of force by stronger states against weaker ones, since that is what "humanitarian intervention" means, at least when coupled with the realist limitation that it should be done "where we can do it," meaning without suffering losses or risking retaliation" (149). Hayden's sharp (although at times, hypercritical) analysis of the action taken on behalf of defending such universality (which he argues, varies according to the desire of the State and the dollar) critically challenges the effectiveness of Donnelly's assumptions, as does Gibbs's. The problem though is how do we find a crossroad or interference point where everyone can be happy, or at the very least, everyone can be protected (as the UDHR attempts to ensure)?

I find the tendency to lapse into "liberal bashing" the most difficult aspect of this book. Most of the essays that can be catagorized as "against" some aspect, document or declaration of universal human rights, do slip into the nasty habit of sizing up the proponents of such rights as idealistic idiots who have no real concept of the effects of their liberal fantasies or moral advocacy. Notably, those arguing "for" universalization typically do not, when space or time permits a lag in argument, sink into such muckraking. I was most impressed and relieved by those few essayists who did argue against universality and still managed to refrain from lumping every activist and advocate in the "damned stupid liberals" catagory. Hayden, Gibb and even Richard D. Lamm ("Health care is not a human right") were the few, the proud, and the brilliant who managed to refrain from gross and rampant liberal bashing and this, I think, made the strength of their sentiments even more powerful, even if I don't agree with them.

memory as a weapon

I've been working on reading Edwidge Danticat's "The Dew Breaker" over the past few days. I say working on, because I've rarely slowed down enough to simply sit and read. Still, the first 60 or so pages I've read offer a rather fascinating question, what happens to the perpetrators of violence, the torturers and killers that are state sanctioned and belief they are simply doing their job? Well her story isn't that simple nor are the emotions raised by her delicate writing.
What I enjoy about the story so far is the humanity in it. We learn about a man who used to torture prisoners through the eyes of his now adult daughter who always believed her father was the one tortured. This is all I've read so far but I'm amazed and in awe of the premise of it. What do you do? How do you live with that? How does anyone?

I've been thinking too of what an interesting month this has been. The anniversary of Tiananmen Square on June 3-4, Reagan's death...how will we remember the past, honestly and with all of it's most unforgivable flaws or will it be something more of a textbook memory--where history is re-written to be more palatable and more patriotic? One of my favorite quotes is by Milan Kundera, "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." I think no image could speak of this struggle more than that of the Chinese man putting his body in front of a tank or even Rachel Corrie putting herself in between a tank and a Palestinian home (unfortunately losing her life beneath that Israeli tank.) Still, what does it mean when memory is sanitized, denied, wiped clean? Can it still serve as a weapon against power...against forgetting?

peace!

disarming silence

What better way to combat your own anger than listening to Rage Against the Machine? Actually one of my favorite songs of theirs is "Freedom"
and I'm listening to it right now, still churning that stupid term "rules of proportionality" in my brain...

"What does the billboard say? Come and play. Come and play.
Forget about the movement
Forget about your selves
Forget about your country
Forget about your history and just buy...just buy."

"Your anger is a gift!"

I love that song because of the questions it raises for me. The relationships of money as a tool of "freedom" and its uses and abuses in terms of creating economic political prisoners and ensuring our jails are disproportionately full of non-white inmates. Also though, I love the paradox of freedom, when freedom of speech is at times the only intervention against the tyranny of silence and apathy. Rage (the band) always spoke out on behalf of one of America's own political prisoners, Mumia Abu Jamal so this song for me, is very inspirational.
Mumia once said (in the film, All power to the people) that Revolution is speaking truth to power. Anger can indeed be, a gift and a force for good.

On that note, I'm wondering how to create a global and national space for rage to be heard, healed, and not just repressed or reactive while still refusing to be silent? Another article in the Opposing Viewpoints bok on human rights is written by a man excerpted from his book titled "The Cancer of Human Rights." I'm not going to mention his name yet because his argument (not to mention the title of his book) really disgusts me and yet it is worth noting that he was, according to the book, at one point an analyst for the CIA who now writes and researches on national security and defense. An "expert" opinion no doubt...

Well, my personal way of disarming silence is through writing and so here's my little poetic attempt to express my anger in a hopefully non-destructive manner. So I'm including here a poem I wrote after reading the argument that the U.S. treatment of "detainees" in Cuba is simply a matter of "national security."

Peace!

"Violation"
Welcome to
the most lucrative business adventure yet--
The Transnational
Translation of Skin
into
Transcribed
Identity
according to
parameters of nationality,
national security,
and humanity
mapped onto bodies
catagorized,
denied,
dehumanized
by definitions.

Didn't you know?
your body is land
a country to be taken,
bombed, infiltrated, conquered, claimed--
it is a number, a statistic that if counted at all,
matters only when you're on the right side,
playing for the home team,
praying for victory against that ever present enemy.

But what happens when that enemy
happens to bear your skin? What then?

What options remain
in this world without rain
where language muddies itself
to surround you
as a noose
as a chicken wire cage
pulled tighter
cutting deeper
depending on definitions,
official confidences,
silences,
and defenses
that are so quick to betray?

dilate (opening to include "opposing viewpoints")

oh yes. I DO like Ani's song "Dilate." Though here I'd like to use the title in relation to combating "cultural myopia"

I came across two books from the "Opposing Viewpoints" series, one is "Human Rights" and the other is titled "Third World" and they
offer exactly what the title promises: Opposing viewpoints on debates that I think often become paralleled because of limited dialogue and tunnel vision. At first read (and they do read quick because they are really small books) I felt that the arguments presented were too brief, too "conclusive" in their simple rebuttal formats. That said, these tiny books do offer a jumping off point for further debate, which is crucial and sadly lacking in the "Expert" opinions I've come across so far. For example in the "Human Rights" book, Richard Lowry
argues "The U.S. has not violated the Geneva Convention in its
treatment of Terrorist suspects" because of what he calls "Rules of proportionality" while Michael Byers argues that the U.S. of course
has violated the Geneva Convention and is trying to manipulate the language to fit their needs: detainees are "unlawful combatants" not
prisoners of war. So why the need to differentiate, in a sense, excusing the treatment (potential human rights violations???) if the Geneva convention protocol is to be followed? For Rumsfield, the detainees have no rights, in large part due to where they are being held (Guantanamo Bay is "foreign territory" thus theoretically and conveinently out of the jurisdictional safety of U.S. laws) but once again, if there are no "violations" going on, what is there to hide?
Why can the detained not have visitors to ensure their health? What rights do they have to legal counsel and access to advocacy by non-military groups?

Perhaps these "experts" are both right in a sense. Byers in that the U.S. has violated the human rights of those being detained and Lowry in that the U.S. is using "rules of proportionality" to determine who has rights and who doesn't...

Lowry suggests that the Geneva convention protects "innocent civilians" but this logic assumes that those in power could and would choose to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty before violations occur, would it not? Is this like pre-emptive war where you strike first, based on the possibility of future attacks? There is a quote in Lowry's rebuttal that absolutely nauseates me. The quote is actually from Robrt L. Maginnis from "Insight on the News" July 15, 2002" who argues:
"Human-Rights violations did not end with World War II. We still see genocide, repression of political and ideological dissent, disregard for religious freedom, class discrimination, persecution of ethnic minorities, unjustifiable emigration controls and inhumane punishments. All of these human-rights violations will be tragically expanded around the world if terrorists are not defeated. So the United States has gone to war for the sake of human rights and freedom. This surely is a just cause. And America is respecting human rights even as she prosecutes a war to defend human rights--our military operations distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and use proportional force. On these criteria, the United States has performed admirably. Our precision weapons have spared innocent civilians and minimized collateral damage as much as possible" (74).

My first response:What planet is he living on??????
My calmer response...You have to be joking right? Our precision weapons are so smart they end up killing our service men and women along with PLENTY of civilians. Oh and look at his list of "violations" linked to terrorism, doesn't our own history mirror this list as well? What
is proportional force any way???? Proportional to what? To whom?
To the one "carpet bombing?" or to the one deciding which group of terrorists, enemy combatants, potential terrorists is the next target, the correct target or the accidental one?????
My final response...well these books certainly DO deliver on what they promise. The back cover reads: Those who do not know their opponent's arguments do not completely understand their own.

The editors of this series are right. It is so difficult to pause
(and refrain from shouting) long enough to listen to the "other side." I think though it is critical to do so, even (and perhaps especially) when what they are saying goes against every thing you believe.
Please read these books and then learn more for yourself. As I said, they are really I think a nice spring board into deeper contemplation and discussion, certainly not an end point for debate. We need the debate. We need to be able to talk about these things because silence is certainly no solution and the political rhetoric encourages an apathy equally useless. Perhaps we need to call them on their manipulations as they are as equally ignorant and laughable as Clinton's infamous "It depends on what your definition of is, is"
and stop settling for the choice between the "lesser of two evils." These articles argue along the lines of what defines America, what makes this nation great or hegemonic (depending upon your point of view) and yet these definitions are our mythology masquarading as historical truths. They are stories we tell ourselves and yet, if we don't question them and if we refuse to look honestly, openly and not avert our eyes to that which is undeniably real and at times beautiful and other times, unforgivably ugly, America's "committment" to human rights and freedom will remain exactly that...a nice story.

Peace!

please check out these websites

I'm working on compiling a list of human rights online resources and I came across some cool websites I wanted to share here. This is only a tiny fraction of the list I've got so far but these are different and yet complimentary to the "usual suspects" (such as AI, Human Rights Watch etc)

Please check them out.

Captive Daughters (dedicated to ending sex trafficking)
http://www.captivedaughters.org

Child labor Coalition (to stop child labor)
http://www.stopchildlabor.org

International Labour Office (ILO):
http://www.ilo.org

National Mobilization Against Sweatshops (NMASS):
http://www.nmass.org

Prevent Genocide International:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/

Peace!

"economics of empire"

I'm reading this article (which is actually from the Progressive magazine May 03 edition) called "Economics of Empire" which dissects what the author terms "market fundamentalism" a.k.a. "The Washington Consensus".
While I haven't read but four pages (of the 25 total) what really struck me is that the Bush administration not only enjoys blurring history and Hollywood(perhaps he's taking lessons from Reagan here?)
but that Bush in particular seems to make odd links in his answers to tough or touchy questions. When asked (according to the article)
about why the rest of the world questions the Bush Administration's view of Saddam Hussein's "threat" to America, he (Bush) brings up free trade as a defense...

You can find this article online by typing into google: "economics of empire" and remember to include the quotations marks or you'll get all kinds of garbage. I'll post my thoughts on the article once I get through the whole thing.

peace!
jen