A recent study by British researchers found yet another significant difference between your typical woman (British, at least) and your typical man. Women have more nightmares than men, and men dream about sex more often than women. And even when women do dream about sex, they are less likely to dream of actual intercourse and more likely to dream about kissing and less favorable sexual encounters than men. Great.
Add this to the fact that women, regardless of nationality, cry more often than men, and you've got yet more evidence that being female is potentially way less fun than being male. American women, in particular, cry more than their brothers, a whopping 47.8 times per year compared to 6.5 times for men. And don't forget that women get more headaches, and more migraines and severe headaches than their male counterparts. I suppose this would explain why I often wake up crying and with a headache. Maybe it's my body's way of getting it all over in one shot.
And as if we didn't have it bad enough, we end up living longer on average. Maybe this is to make sure that we truly appreciate the pain of our lot. ::sigh:: That said, men tend to be killed in war more often than women (as I reported in an earlier post), but women tend to be the victims of war more often than men (e.g. rape, torture, disfigurement). So I suppose that makes it fair.
I'm sure there's some advantage to being female, but a cursory exploration of the scientific data doesn't suggest to me what it may be. More nightmares, more tears, more headaches and rapes...hmm. Sometimes I really wish I were a boy.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
A just and sustainable peace
In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. writes that he is fed up with the
In his letter, King challenges the moderates to look beyond simply establishing order and to immersing themselves in justice. Implicit in his juxtaposition is the idea that justice is not orderly and that peace must be more than just the absence of war. Peace is an active, messy process of building ties, seeking justice, and extending active, stubborn mercy. Sometimes in order to strengthen those who have been denied access, those of privileged have to live with a bit of chaos and relinquish a tinge of control. Sometimes we must invite a bit of disorder in to break free of institutionalized and fossilized inequalities.
In doing so, in opening ourselves up to change, we must never forget the purpose of our mission. If we seek only negative peace, i.e. the absence of destruction, then our efforts will ultimately not be sustainable nor satisfying. But if we seek positive peace, i.e. the creation of a new order based in mutual justice and cooperation, then a self-perpetuating peace can be established and nurtured. To tend to the garden, we can mow down the weeds. But they will simply grow back. We can tear the weeds out by the roots. But the seeds have already been spread. Or we can change the nature of the soil, make it inhospitable to weeds. Plant new flowers and grasses to crowd out the weeds. Ultimately, the choice is not either-or. It is through some combination of these that the garden is ultimately sustained: remove the threats and change the context.
Gordon Bennet writes that positive peace-building "involves helping nations develop more just and democratic systems in which poverty, illiteracy, and other root causes of terrorism and conflict are eliminated and the poorer nations are given a 'hand up' the ladders of economic development." This path is more complex, time consuming, and (seemingly) more prone to failure than negative peace. Negative peace is relatively easier - take away the bombs, the guns, the knives and presto change-o, we have peace!
But true peace is not the absence of struggle. Rather it is the presence of perpetual struggle, struggle to join with others, to lift up and be lifted up, to prosper and grow, and there's no better time to get our hands dirty and to start planting the seeds and irrigating our minds and hearts than now.
- ...white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
In his letter, King challenges the moderates to look beyond simply establishing order and to immersing themselves in justice. Implicit in his juxtaposition is the idea that justice is not orderly and that peace must be more than just the absence of war. Peace is an active, messy process of building ties, seeking justice, and extending active, stubborn mercy. Sometimes in order to strengthen those who have been denied access, those of privileged have to live with a bit of chaos and relinquish a tinge of control. Sometimes we must invite a bit of disorder in to break free of institutionalized and fossilized inequalities.
In doing so, in opening ourselves up to change, we must never forget the purpose of our mission. If we seek only negative peace, i.e. the absence of destruction, then our efforts will ultimately not be sustainable nor satisfying. But if we seek positive peace, i.e. the creation of a new order based in mutual justice and cooperation, then a self-perpetuating peace can be established and nurtured. To tend to the garden, we can mow down the weeds. But they will simply grow back. We can tear the weeds out by the roots. But the seeds have already been spread. Or we can change the nature of the soil, make it inhospitable to weeds. Plant new flowers and grasses to crowd out the weeds. Ultimately, the choice is not either-or. It is through some combination of these that the garden is ultimately sustained: remove the threats and change the context.
Gordon Bennet writes that positive peace-building "involves helping nations develop more just and democratic systems in which poverty, illiteracy, and other root causes of terrorism and conflict are eliminated and the poorer nations are given a 'hand up' the ladders of economic development." This path is more complex, time consuming, and (seemingly) more prone to failure than negative peace. Negative peace is relatively easier - take away the bombs, the guns, the knives and presto change-o, we have peace!
But true peace is not the absence of struggle. Rather it is the presence of perpetual struggle, struggle to join with others, to lift up and be lifted up, to prosper and grow, and there's no better time to get our hands dirty and to start planting the seeds and irrigating our minds and hearts than now.
For the record
Probably one of my greatest language pet peeves is the misuse of sayings and idioms. As a linguist and grammar maven, I feel it is incumbent on me to clarify these misuses from time to time, so may I begin…
having your cake and eating it too
The correct expression, if you wish to be truthful or at least make some sense, is “You cannot EAT your cake and HAVE it too”, not the other way around.
Why? Good question.
For the semantics among us, the two expressions are propositionally equivalent. If we follow propositional logic, the ordering of phrases should not matter. “You cannot X & Y” is logically the same as “you cannot Y & X.” But we are not talking about semantic or propositional equivalence. We are talking about functional equivalence. If we take the interpretation of and to mean “and then” (and there’s psycholinguistic work to suggest that this is a ‘default’ interpretation of and), then the two expressions “you cannot have your cake and then eat it too” and “you cannot eat your cake and then have it too” are not describing the same series of events or possible worlds. Thus, they do not mean the same things.
The first assertion is just false. Of course you can have your cake and then eat it. How else could you eat something if you didn’t first have it? However, you cannot eat something and then ‘have’ it, where have means something along the lines of ‘holding’ or ‘possessing’, unless you want to count digested form as ‘possession’. So for the love of truth and function, let’s get it right: You cannot eat your cake and have it too!
having your cake and eating it too
The correct expression, if you wish to be truthful or at least make some sense, is “You cannot EAT your cake and HAVE it too”, not the other way around.
Why? Good question.
For the semantics among us, the two expressions are propositionally equivalent. If we follow propositional logic, the ordering of phrases should not matter. “You cannot X & Y” is logically the same as “you cannot Y & X.” But we are not talking about semantic or propositional equivalence. We are talking about functional equivalence. If we take the interpretation of and to mean “and then” (and there’s psycholinguistic work to suggest that this is a ‘default’ interpretation of and), then the two expressions “you cannot have your cake and then eat it too” and “you cannot eat your cake and then have it too” are not describing the same series of events or possible worlds. Thus, they do not mean the same things.
The first assertion is just false. Of course you can have your cake and then eat it. How else could you eat something if you didn’t first have it? However, you cannot eat something and then ‘have’ it, where have means something along the lines of ‘holding’ or ‘possessing’, unless you want to count digested form as ‘possession’. So for the love of truth and function, let’s get it right: You cannot eat your cake and have it too!
Monday, January 26, 2009
The American Taliban
The more I read about the Christian Right, especially the far right movements, the more sick I feel. From Joel's Army to plain-old Dominionism, the use of religion as a justification for aggression and bigotry disgusts me. In future posts, I will try to explain the beliefs of such groups, but as a foretaste, here are some of the highlights.
The "Christian" Dominionist movement contends that they have a mandate from God to prepare the world for Christ's return and that Christ will return only when the world is Christian. To make sure we are making progress on this point, good God-fearing Christians must prepare themselves politically, militaristically, and economically to wage war against non-believers. They want to establish Hebrew law in the US by using the very institution of democracy to set up a theocracy.
Hard-line Dominionists see the role of all Christian men as being the establishment of a Christian world order in which all non-Christians and all Christians who don't conform to their interpretation of scripture would be second-class citizens, at best. Some fear an even worse fate:
Like other fundamentalist religious groups, this movement contends that they are the elect, that they are wholly correct, and that those who don't agree with them must move out of the way, by force if necessary. And as we saw in the Christian Zionist's anti-peace agenda outlined in yesterday's post, war and genocide are quite likely a necessary condition for salvation.
There's a (corny) saying that whenever you point a finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you. (Look at your hand while pointing your finger, and you'll see why.) I'm personally covering my mouth so as not to vomit more so than I am pointing my finger, but I bring this saying up as a way to bridge to our condemnation of certain groups that have co-opted the West's understanding of Islam and made it seem as though Islam promotes violent, repressive, or bigoted actions. However, we allow our crazy, fundamentalist Christian cousins to go around terrorizing clinics, denying gays rights, espousing religious hate, etc. etc. etc., making Christianity look as though it promotes intolerance and violence.
The truth is that no religion has a corner on peace or violence. Sadly, all the major world religions have been both victims and aggressors. Thus, we cannot say that any one religion -- or even being religious for that matter -- leads us toward or away from hate. The enemy isn't Christians/Jews/Muslims/Atheists/etc. The enemy, if it can be called such, is fear and the human tendency toward authoritarianism.
When Americans, specifically non-Muslim Americans, wag their finger at men like Osama Bin Laden, we confuse our disdain for a certain mentality and pattern of behavior with a religion. Bin Laden speaks for all of Islam (I think) no more so then Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell (among others) speak for all of Christianity. In my opinion, these people are just branches of the same tree. This tree is based not on religion, per se, but on a personality type that Theodor Adorno marked as having the following the characteristics:
It is not any one religion or religion itself that we need to be wary of. It is the authoritarian personality that we all share elements of.
The "Christian" Dominionist movement contends that they have a mandate from God to prepare the world for Christ's return and that Christ will return only when the world is Christian. To make sure we are making progress on this point, good God-fearing Christians must prepare themselves politically, militaristically, and economically to wage war against non-believers. They want to establish Hebrew law in the US by using the very institution of democracy to set up a theocracy.
Hard-line Dominionists see the role of all Christian men as being the establishment of a Christian world order in which all non-Christians and all Christians who don't conform to their interpretation of scripture would be second-class citizens, at best. Some fear an even worse fate:
- Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion.
Like other fundamentalist religious groups, this movement contends that they are the elect, that they are wholly correct, and that those who don't agree with them must move out of the way, by force if necessary. And as we saw in the Christian Zionist's anti-peace agenda outlined in yesterday's post, war and genocide are quite likely a necessary condition for salvation.
There's a (corny) saying that whenever you point a finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you. (Look at your hand while pointing your finger, and you'll see why.) I'm personally covering my mouth so as not to vomit more so than I am pointing my finger, but I bring this saying up as a way to bridge to our condemnation of certain groups that have co-opted the West's understanding of Islam and made it seem as though Islam promotes violent, repressive, or bigoted actions. However, we allow our crazy, fundamentalist Christian cousins to go around terrorizing clinics, denying gays rights, espousing religious hate, etc. etc. etc., making Christianity look as though it promotes intolerance and violence.
The truth is that no religion has a corner on peace or violence. Sadly, all the major world religions have been both victims and aggressors. Thus, we cannot say that any one religion -- or even being religious for that matter -- leads us toward or away from hate. The enemy isn't Christians/Jews/Muslims/Atheists/etc. The enemy, if it can be called such, is fear and the human tendency toward authoritarianism.
When Americans, specifically non-Muslim Americans, wag their finger at men like Osama Bin Laden, we confuse our disdain for a certain mentality and pattern of behavior with a religion. Bin Laden speaks for all of Islam (I think) no more so then Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell (among others) speak for all of Christianity. In my opinion, these people are just branches of the same tree. This tree is based not on religion, per se, but on a personality type that Theodor Adorno marked as having the following the characteristics:
- Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong
- Respect for submission to acknowledged authority
- Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different
- A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity
- A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power
- A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days.
- Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview
- A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group
- A preoccupation with violence and sex
It is not any one religion or religion itself that we need to be wary of. It is the authoritarian personality that we all share elements of.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Sunday Edition
Back in the early 90s, my mother had a sticker that read "The Christian Right is Neither." Thoroughly confused, I asked her about it, and she said, "The Christian Right is neither Christian nor right." The older I get and the more I learn about the Christian Right, specifically the Zionists –i.e. those in the Christian Right who are obsessed with Rapture, the End of Days, and Israel—the more convinced I am that she was right: They're not Christians; they’re a f---ing crazy death cult that's going to start WW III.
I find the Christian Zionist (and by extension the political arm of the Christian Right) movement enormously troubling, especially as a religious person and baptized/confirmed Christian. It's as though someone stole my identity and is going around town kicking children in the back, punching old ladies in the gut, and crapping on faces of cancer patients.
Below is my initial attempt and figuring out what in heaven's name is going on. If I find out I am incorrect, I will update this, but for now this is the truth as I know it.
The people in your neighborhood
The USA is a religious country, to be sure, with over 80% of Americans never doubting the existence of (a) God. Though overwhelming Christian, Protestant specifically, we have our Catholics, Mormons, and non-Christians to boot. However, the Christian Right/Zionists and branches of the evangelical movement are worth particular attention, as the total number of evangelicals comprise about 1/3 of the American population. The majority of evangelicals are made up of African Americans, who tend to be the more liberal evangelicals, and white, southern conservatives. A 2003 report from Pew Research stated that nearly 50% of African Americans describe themselves as evangelicals and 28% of whites do.
Before I go any further, let me state unequivocally: being evangelical does not entail being a Christian Zionist, though being a Christian Zionist almost assuredly means being evangelical. The two terms should not be thought of as wholly interchangeable. Zionists and other evangelicals can differ drastically on their assumptions about Christianity and in their political/social agendas. The important thing to remember is that as the evangelical movement is growing so is the Christian Right and the Christian Zionist movements.
So why should we take the time to learn about these growing groups? Mainly because they have a great deal of political influence. They are overwhelmingly Republican, nearly 2-to-1 for the white evangelicals and have had the ear of D.C. and one of their own in the White House for eight years (i.e. George W. Bush). Furthermore, they are one of the fastest-growing religious voting blocks, increasing by 3% between the 2004 and 2008 elections while many other groups decreased. The Christian Right agenda has permeated all aspects of American life, leading some to compare its fundamentalist influence on the USA to that of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
While the Christian Right has influenced domestic policy (same-sex marriage rights, abortion rights, etc), it has distorted and warped foreign policy, in particular Middle Eastern policy, to suit its needs. With groups such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) joining forces and pressing policies that undermine peace efforts in the Middle East, we must attend to this segment, lest we walk blindly into WW III. And WW III is what Christian Zionists are hoping for. More precisely, they’re hoping for Armageddon. The Christian Zionist movement has its eyes set steadily on Israel usually at the expense of Palestinians. They are over three-times as likely to support Israeli aggression than moderate Americans, mostly because they see the state of Israel as necessary for the second coming of Christ.
However, they are not alone in their sentiments about Israel or their disdain for Palestine. Around 36% of Americans see the formation of Israel as a sign of the impending return of Jesus, and most Americans, regardless of political or religious affiliation, tend to lack support for Palestine or Palestinians, though one assumes this does not apply to Palestinian-Americans and the majority of Muslim-Americans. Charles E. Carlson recently wrote:
With this level of religious motivation to demonize one group and blindly support another plus the proliferation of weapons added to an extreme amount of political influence…indeed, Christian Zionists are worth our attention.
This they believe
Full disclosure: While I consider myself Christian, I debate the basic tenants of even mainstream Protestantism, so when I try to wrap my mind around the belief system of the Christian Zionists, I feel like I’m trapped in some psychic debate about characters from a demonic Dr. Suess story. I can barely recognize anything that I would define as Christian, save the use of certain names and references to scripture. It’s like they took my toothpaste, band-aids, and down comforter and made an A-bomb with them. I find it difficult to see how we could look at the same raw materials and come up with such radically different interpretations. That said, I will try to explain the differences between Zionist-bending evangelicals and your more mainstream evangelicals.
The first thing to keep in mind about Christianity (especially if you weren’t raised by a Christian theologian or aren’t one yourself) is that Christianity is based on this idea that human beings are fallen and that we broke our covenant with God. Jesus is seen as coming to address the rift between God and humanity and the status of the covenant. However, this is where things start to break down between Catholics/mainstream-Protestants and the Christian Right/Zionists.
Was Jesus the fulfillment of prophecy? Did Jesus’s life and death mark the beginning of a new covenant? Are we in an age of progression in which God’s revelation is continually unfolding or is God’s promise currently being suspended? If you agree with the former and with the idea that we are age of a new covenant, you’re a “conventionalist.” If you believe we are not and that the old covenant still applies (at least to the Jews), then you’re a “dispensationalist.” The dispensationalist view holds that there are two aspects: the church and Israel. The latter is still subject to the old covenant, which they broke, and the former is, basically evangelical Christians. Because the old covenant still holds and the world is still being tested by God (and failing), dispensationalists look toward Israel for clues of God's intentions for the world. Conventionalists, as I understand them, believe God has already made God's intentions clear and that we were given our marching orders thousands of years ago.
So how does this relate to Israel? For those dispensationalist waiting for God's final test, the story goes like this:
The end of days is upon us. Soon there will be Rapture, during which the faithful Christians will ascend directly to heaven, where they will get new immortal bodies while the rest of the world burns for seven years until the end of human history. Rapture will come when Jesus returns, but he won’t just come unannounced. No-no, there will be signs, and there are necessary conditions, and this is where Israel comes in. As good Christians in waiting, Christian Zionists believe they should work towards achieving these conditions, and here's the game plan:
The Christian Zionist movement has a vested interest in avoiding peace in the Middle East and in establishing a purely Jewish state in Israel at the expense of all other groups, Muslims, Christians, etc. This end-of-days interest gives an ominous tone to Thomas Ice’s conjecture that
That lingering feeling of doom
As a Christian, I assumed we were supposed to put loving our neighbor before inciting war, and I assumed that God was present here and now, and not waiting for the burning of some red cow before taking action on Earth. But alas, Christian Zionist have co-opted the dialog and have changed the Middle East (Israel/Palestine in particular) into the theater of some self-directed play between good and evil to bring about the end of days on their timetable. Sadly, Palestinians and Israelis are suffering as is what I consider to be the soul of Christianity.
So how do we end this insanity? How can someone fight a world view that is so damaging and so devoid of logic, that has so much sway over the political reality of the US? How do we uproot a preposterous mandate that has permeated both major parties and the very core of US foreign policy? Good question. Stephen Zunes is probably at least partially right when he states:
I find the Christian Zionist (and by extension the political arm of the Christian Right) movement enormously troubling, especially as a religious person and baptized/confirmed Christian. It's as though someone stole my identity and is going around town kicking children in the back, punching old ladies in the gut, and crapping on faces of cancer patients.
Below is my initial attempt and figuring out what in heaven's name is going on. If I find out I am incorrect, I will update this, but for now this is the truth as I know it.
The people in your neighborhood
The USA is a religious country, to be sure, with over 80% of Americans never doubting the existence of (a) God. Though overwhelming Christian, Protestant specifically, we have our Catholics, Mormons, and non-Christians to boot. However, the Christian Right/Zionists and branches of the evangelical movement are worth particular attention, as the total number of evangelicals comprise about 1/3 of the American population. The majority of evangelicals are made up of African Americans, who tend to be the more liberal evangelicals, and white, southern conservatives. A 2003 report from Pew Research stated that nearly 50% of African Americans describe themselves as evangelicals and 28% of whites do.
Before I go any further, let me state unequivocally: being evangelical does not entail being a Christian Zionist, though being a Christian Zionist almost assuredly means being evangelical. The two terms should not be thought of as wholly interchangeable. Zionists and other evangelicals can differ drastically on their assumptions about Christianity and in their political/social agendas. The important thing to remember is that as the evangelical movement is growing so is the Christian Right and the Christian Zionist movements.
So why should we take the time to learn about these growing groups? Mainly because they have a great deal of political influence. They are overwhelmingly Republican, nearly 2-to-1 for the white evangelicals and have had the ear of D.C. and one of their own in the White House for eight years (i.e. George W. Bush). Furthermore, they are one of the fastest-growing religious voting blocks, increasing by 3% between the 2004 and 2008 elections while many other groups decreased. The Christian Right agenda has permeated all aspects of American life, leading some to compare its fundamentalist influence on the USA to that of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
While the Christian Right has influenced domestic policy (same-sex marriage rights, abortion rights, etc), it has distorted and warped foreign policy, in particular Middle Eastern policy, to suit its needs. With groups such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) joining forces and pressing policies that undermine peace efforts in the Middle East, we must attend to this segment, lest we walk blindly into WW III. And WW III is what Christian Zionists are hoping for. More precisely, they’re hoping for Armageddon. The Christian Zionist movement has its eyes set steadily on Israel usually at the expense of Palestinians. They are over three-times as likely to support Israeli aggression than moderate Americans, mostly because they see the state of Israel as necessary for the second coming of Christ.
However, they are not alone in their sentiments about Israel or their disdain for Palestine. Around 36% of Americans see the formation of Israel as a sign of the impending return of Jesus, and most Americans, regardless of political or religious affiliation, tend to lack support for Palestine or Palestinians, though one assumes this does not apply to Palestinian-Americans and the majority of Muslim-Americans. Charles E. Carlson recently wrote:
- The Judeo-Christians remain the only political faction driven directly by religious beliefs that war and the support of the state of Israel is right, that distrust, even hatred, of Israel’s perceived enemy Islam, is a necessity and prophetic.
With this level of religious motivation to demonize one group and blindly support another plus the proliferation of weapons added to an extreme amount of political influence…indeed, Christian Zionists are worth our attention.
This they believe
Full disclosure: While I consider myself Christian, I debate the basic tenants of even mainstream Protestantism, so when I try to wrap my mind around the belief system of the Christian Zionists, I feel like I’m trapped in some psychic debate about characters from a demonic Dr. Suess story. I can barely recognize anything that I would define as Christian, save the use of certain names and references to scripture. It’s like they took my toothpaste, band-aids, and down comforter and made an A-bomb with them. I find it difficult to see how we could look at the same raw materials and come up with such radically different interpretations. That said, I will try to explain the differences between Zionist-bending evangelicals and your more mainstream evangelicals.
The first thing to keep in mind about Christianity (especially if you weren’t raised by a Christian theologian or aren’t one yourself) is that Christianity is based on this idea that human beings are fallen and that we broke our covenant with God. Jesus is seen as coming to address the rift between God and humanity and the status of the covenant. However, this is where things start to break down between Catholics/mainstream-Protestants and the Christian Right/Zionists.
Was Jesus the fulfillment of prophecy? Did Jesus’s life and death mark the beginning of a new covenant? Are we in an age of progression in which God’s revelation is continually unfolding or is God’s promise currently being suspended? If you agree with the former and with the idea that we are age of a new covenant, you’re a “conventionalist.” If you believe we are not and that the old covenant still applies (at least to the Jews), then you’re a “dispensationalist.” The dispensationalist view holds that there are two aspects: the church and Israel. The latter is still subject to the old covenant, which they broke, and the former is, basically evangelical Christians. Because the old covenant still holds and the world is still being tested by God (and failing), dispensationalists look toward Israel for clues of God's intentions for the world. Conventionalists, as I understand them, believe God has already made God's intentions clear and that we were given our marching orders thousands of years ago.
So how does this relate to Israel? For those dispensationalist waiting for God's final test, the story goes like this:
The end of days is upon us. Soon there will be Rapture, during which the faithful Christians will ascend directly to heaven, where they will get new immortal bodies while the rest of the world burns for seven years until the end of human history. Rapture will come when Jesus returns, but he won’t just come unannounced. No-no, there will be signs, and there are necessary conditions, and this is where Israel comes in. As good Christians in waiting, Christian Zionists believe they should work towards achieving these conditions, and here's the game plan:
- Establish a (purely) Jewish state in the biblical, Holy Land.
- Reconstruct the Jewish temple. [This must be built on the Dome of the Rock, one of the holiest sites of Muslims and the reported site of the former Jewish temple.]
- Then, the Antichrist must desecrate the temple.
- Horrible disasters, as detailed in the Book of Revelation, will ravage the planet.
- Jesus will return, and any Jews that convert can ascend to heaven. [I assume everyone else goes to hell.]
The Christian Zionist movement has a vested interest in avoiding peace in the Middle East and in establishing a purely Jewish state in Israel at the expense of all other groups, Muslims, Christians, etc. This end-of-days interest gives an ominous tone to Thomas Ice’s conjecture that
- [It] is safe to say that there has not been a group of Christians who have cared more for the Jewish people and their destiny than dispensationalists in the 2,000-year history of the church. Previous to the rise of dispensationalism, Christians did not seem to be able to acknowledge that God had a future plan of glory for national Israel, without at the same time making the church subordinate to Judaism.
That lingering feeling of doom
As a Christian, I assumed we were supposed to put loving our neighbor before inciting war, and I assumed that God was present here and now, and not waiting for the burning of some red cow before taking action on Earth. But alas, Christian Zionist have co-opted the dialog and have changed the Middle East (Israel/Palestine in particular) into the theater of some self-directed play between good and evil to bring about the end of days on their timetable. Sadly, Palestinians and Israelis are suffering as is what I consider to be the soul of Christianity.
So how do we end this insanity? How can someone fight a world view that is so damaging and so devoid of logic, that has so much sway over the political reality of the US? How do we uproot a preposterous mandate that has permeated both major parties and the very core of US foreign policy? Good question. Stephen Zunes is probably at least partially right when he states:
- It is unlikely that [American politicians] will change, however, until liberal-to-mainline churches mobilize their resources toward demanding justice as strongly as right-wing fundamentalists have mobilized their resources in support of repression.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Et tu, Chomsky?
Now, Noam Chomsky's copyin' my style. DAMN YOU NOAM! Ok, so neither one of us was the first to contend that perhaps the US-Israel marriage is based on common, weapon interests, but come on Chomsky, syntactician to syntactican, can't you leave me some small sense of originality?
And did you have to state the position better than me? Couldn't you have at least been less informative? Ok, I'll cite the master:
- The huge flow of arms to Israel serves many subsidiary purposes. Middle East policy analyst Mouin Rabbani observes that Israel can test newly developed weapons systems against defenseless targets. This is of value to Israel and the US "twice over, in fact, because less effective versions of these same weapons systems are subsequently sold at hugely inflated prices to Arab states, which effectively subsidizes the U.S. weapons industry and U.S. military grants to Israel." These are additional functions of Israel in the US-dominated Middle East system, and among the reasons why Israel is so favored by the state authorities, along with a wide range of US high-tech corporations, and of course military industry and intelligence.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I was down with the Titanic DAYS ago
::BONUS UPDATE::
I just want to say that the BBC and other news agencies are totally ripping me off. Granted, they're talking about how nice the Brits are and how bossy Americans are, and I was talking about statistics during war and diminishing the suffering of men, but seriously, people, come up with your own topics. Stop stealin' my style. I don't have that much to spread around. Hello - "women and children first" was sooooo last week. Get with the program people!
I just want to say that the BBC and other news agencies are totally ripping me off. Granted, they're talking about how nice the Brits are and how bossy Americans are, and I was talking about statistics during war and diminishing the suffering of men, but seriously, people, come up with your own topics. Stop stealin' my style. I don't have that much to spread around. Hello - "women and children first" was sooooo last week. Get with the program people!
It's all about perspective
The mind wants unity. It wants structure, order, and wholeness. But nature and life often overload the system with sometimes purely random details. Nature hates a vacuum, but the mind hates ambiguity, and thus the battle is waged.According to gestalt psychology, the mind (especially the perceptual system) will naturally arrange information to make sense of the input. This need to organize according to basic heuristics can, according to gestaltists, explain why people see either a vase or two faces in the picture to the left (but never both concurrently) or why we have the impression that the moon is following us or why the trees in the distance seem to be still, as we race pass in a train. As is so often said, perspective is everything.
There are five basic laws for gestalt perception:
- The Law of Similarity: Things that look alike are grouped alike.
- The Law of Prananz: The mind prefers the simplest representation, also known as the foreground/background distinction.
- The Law of Proximity: Things that are close together are grouped together.
- The Law of Continuity: The mind prefers things to move in smooth, constant directions.
- The Law of Closure: Objects that are grouped together become one unit.
The effects of gestalt are found not only in our perception of pictures or distant trees but also in our perception of one another. When thinking about some of the current conflicts, it's hard for me not to think of the gestalt and wonder how our perspectives may be seriously skewed, how we've spent so long seeing vases, that we have forgotten that there are also faces (law 2), how we've spent so long assuming all things and people who look alike are alike and should be treated alike (laws 1, 3, and 5), how we assume that, just because things are a certain way today, they have always been as such and always will be as such (law 4).
It may be human nature to use gestalt perception as a way to structure and comprehend our world, but it is also human nature to fight our human nature and challenge our assumptions about our world. In thinking about the current conflict in Israel/Palestine, we should we wary of our gestaltist nature. It is not true that the Middle East has always been or must always be a place of tragedy and religious/national intolerance. It is not true that all Israelis or Palestinians think or feel the same or should be lumped together. It is not true that only one side is blameless or at fault ubiquitously. Just as there is a vase, so are there faces. Just as there is true pain, so is there equal possibilities.
While I feel odd saying it's just a matter of perception, in someways it is just a matter of perception. We must never forget that both truths are equally as present and equally a valid and that it is our current perspective that leads to the illusion of all-or-nothingness. We have stared so long at the situation with the perspective of "Who started it?" and "Who's terrorizing whom?" that we've forgotten that we have the ability to change our perspective to "Who is going to end this?" and "Who is going to heal whom?"
Although we may have to go cross-eyed for awhile, and although we may get a bit of a headache, we can change the context and can change the meaning. It may take a bit of effort, but we can see the forgotten possibility. And we can choose to make the image we have of each other and questions we ask of each other the ones that are most likely to bring us peace. We can choose to move from seeing only death to seeing beauty instead.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Open Letter to the Honorable Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois
Dear Honorable Senator Durbin,
I would like to thank you and your staff for your correspondence and your total disregard for my opinion. I am honored that you didn’t take the time to read even the subject line of my emails or attend to even one phrase of my phone call. You and your staff must be very well trained in either filtering out any comment from a constituent that does not echo your own position or completely disregarding the messages your constituents are trying to relay. This is truly a clear demonstration of representational democracy in action, and I am proud to be a meaningless cog in the state’s machine.
Despite the indifference your response suggests, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you intended to send a message that would express some minimal level of awareness of my opinions, but you misplaced it. So I will try once more to make my position clear, and with any luck your next letter will demonstrate that someone in your office at least attempted to address my concerns.
First off, you state in your letter, “I appreciate hearing from you and share your concern for Israel's security and the safety of its citizens.” I clearly wrote and called in regards to the security and safety of Palestinian civilians. I know this is an easy mistake to make: Palestinian…Israel pretty much exactly the same, i.e. a group of people living in fear of their neighbors and feeling hated and forgotten by the rest of the world. And while I agree with your conjecture that “No cause or grievance can justify the deliberate killing of innocent civilians,” I am deeply concern about the context of this sentence, as it was couched in terms referring strictly to Israelis while flagrantly disregarding the deliberate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians seeking shelter in UN schools and hospitals, for timely example.
Secondly, I think you accidentally deleted a sentence or two in the following paragraph:
But I think one of my greatest concerns is the pride you take in cosponsoring S. Res. 10, the resolution I called explicitly to denounce. I find this resolution one-sided, reactionary, and lacking in vision. Rather than focusing on finding real solutions and acknowledging the humanitarian crisis caused by reckless bombing of civilian sites, it persists in our policy of blind, unilateral support for Israeli, whose adherence to the ceasefire is also dubious at best and whose track record of listening to the UN is spotty at best.
Furthermore, the $30+ billion military aid package that you mention in your letter is not something we should take pride in for multiple reasons, one obvious one being the current recession. Nor do I want you to support such packages. Perhaps you forgot previous letters I sent in which I fervently questioned the wisdom of such aid in light of other needs, e.g., stemming the rise of HIV/AIDS in Africa or reconstructing Afghanistan and Iraq. Finally, you express approval of President Obama’s former statements for support of Israel. I have also been writing him since he was a senator expressing my opinions against this position. I hope he and his staff listen better to the opinions and ideas of their constituents.
Please be(come) aware that, even if American politicians are of one mind about Israel/Palestine, the American people are not. We question our history and our future in the Middle East, and many of us doubt the intelligence and sincerity of our current policies. Seeing as how our names are on the bombs Israel is buy from the US to drop on Gaza, we would like to have our dissent acknowledged. This conflict and our position in it are not improving the situation for anyone. We have not helped to bring more safety to Israelis. We have not helped support the sovereignty of Palestinians. We have not improved our security abroad either. In fact, I would contend that we have undermined all of these goals by not approaching the situation with a well-rounded perspective that takes both sides’ humanitarian needs into account in equal measure.
I hope this letter more fully explains my position and helps to direct our conversation more clearly. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Meredith Larson
Chicago, IL
I would like to thank you and your staff for your correspondence and your total disregard for my opinion. I am honored that you didn’t take the time to read even the subject line of my emails or attend to even one phrase of my phone call. You and your staff must be very well trained in either filtering out any comment from a constituent that does not echo your own position or completely disregarding the messages your constituents are trying to relay. This is truly a clear demonstration of representational democracy in action, and I am proud to be a meaningless cog in the state’s machine.
Despite the indifference your response suggests, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you intended to send a message that would express some minimal level of awareness of my opinions, but you misplaced it. So I will try once more to make my position clear, and with any luck your next letter will demonstrate that someone in your office at least attempted to address my concerns.
First off, you state in your letter, “I appreciate hearing from you and share your concern for Israel's security and the safety of its citizens.” I clearly wrote and called in regards to the security and safety of Palestinian civilians. I know this is an easy mistake to make: Palestinian…Israel pretty much exactly the same, i.e. a group of people living in fear of their neighbors and feeling hated and forgotten by the rest of the world. And while I agree with your conjecture that “No cause or grievance can justify the deliberate killing of innocent civilians,” I am deeply concern about the context of this sentence, as it was couched in terms referring strictly to Israelis while flagrantly disregarding the deliberate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians seeking shelter in UN schools and hospitals, for timely example.
Secondly, I think you accidentally deleted a sentence or two in the following paragraph:
- The Israeli people deserve safety and security. Palestinians should have a safe and sovereign homeland and a voice in deciding their own destiny. But these goals for Palestinians cannot be achieved at the expense of Israel's sovereignty or the safety of its citizens. The establishment of a Palestinian state must come through peaceful negotiations, not violence.
But I think one of my greatest concerns is the pride you take in cosponsoring S. Res. 10, the resolution I called explicitly to denounce. I find this resolution one-sided, reactionary, and lacking in vision. Rather than focusing on finding real solutions and acknowledging the humanitarian crisis caused by reckless bombing of civilian sites, it persists in our policy of blind, unilateral support for Israeli, whose adherence to the ceasefire is also dubious at best and whose track record of listening to the UN is spotty at best.
Furthermore, the $30+ billion military aid package that you mention in your letter is not something we should take pride in for multiple reasons, one obvious one being the current recession. Nor do I want you to support such packages. Perhaps you forgot previous letters I sent in which I fervently questioned the wisdom of such aid in light of other needs, e.g., stemming the rise of HIV/AIDS in Africa or reconstructing Afghanistan and Iraq. Finally, you express approval of President Obama’s former statements for support of Israel. I have also been writing him since he was a senator expressing my opinions against this position. I hope he and his staff listen better to the opinions and ideas of their constituents.
Please be(come) aware that, even if American politicians are of one mind about Israel/Palestine, the American people are not. We question our history and our future in the Middle East, and many of us doubt the intelligence and sincerity of our current policies. Seeing as how our names are on the bombs Israel is buy from the US to drop on Gaza, we would like to have our dissent acknowledged. This conflict and our position in it are not improving the situation for anyone. We have not helped to bring more safety to Israelis. We have not helped support the sovereignty of Palestinians. We have not improved our security abroad either. In fact, I would contend that we have undermined all of these goals by not approaching the situation with a well-rounded perspective that takes both sides’ humanitarian needs into account in equal measure.
I hope this letter more fully explains my position and helps to direct our conversation more clearly. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Meredith Larson
Chicago, IL
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Be not far from me...come quickly, O my God, to help me
"But as for me, I will always have hope; I will praise you more and more. My mouth will tell of your righteousness, of your salvation all day long, though I know not its measure." Psalm 71:14-15
I'm currently watching, actually listening, to live coverage of the inauguration. This is the first one that I've actually wanted to see. The past two made me sick. This one gives me cautious hope.
I've always been a sentimentalist, and it's a painful path to tend to. There are many thorns and many holes to stumble in, but the destination is (hopefully) blessed. Today's post is just a list of some of the things I hope for.
I'm currently watching, actually listening, to live coverage of the inauguration. This is the first one that I've actually wanted to see. The past two made me sick. This one gives me cautious hope.
I've always been a sentimentalist, and it's a painful path to tend to. There are many thorns and many holes to stumble in, but the destination is (hopefully) blessed. Today's post is just a list of some of the things I hope for.
- That Obama gives an awesome speech.
- That everyone in D.C. is safe and has a wonderful time.
- That we take this opportunity to see ourselves as potential agents of change.
- That our leaders inspire us to do (1).
- That we make a substantial change in our awareness of and involvement in the conflicts that ravage our world from Zimbabwe, to Israel/Palestine, to Detroit.
- That we look at the ways we are in bondage to our past and to our fears through our addiction to oil and money, through our fear of others, through our lack of regard to our own inherent worth and the inherent worth of all life and that we free ourselves from them.
- That I am able to continue to have hope in the face of my neurotransmitters, the economy, and the tragedies that surround me.
- That Obama makes significant moves in foreign and national policies during his first 100 days and that these moves are in keeping with what is most merciful and best for all.
- That I don't sell out. That Obama and his administration don't sell out.
- That the snow (literal and metaphoric) melt and don't drown us in the process.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Hey brother, can you spare a D.I.M.E?
More reports are coming out of Gaza about strange "mysterious wounds" , confounding and frightening doctors. But there is nothing truly mysterious about them. The medical community has seen them before.(Scroll down for an in-text example, if you'd like.)They're called Dense Inert Metal Explosion (D.I.M.E.) bombs.
They're made with a lovely cocktail of metals that not only tunnel through armor but have extra bonus of also melting of skin, burrowing through limbs, and contaminating the entire site where the bomb landed. ((go science!!!)) The bomb was created to minimize collateral damage and to make it possible for armies to attack previously "off-limits" areas, i.e. those with civilians. The bomb was supposed to destroy only a small radius and kill everything within it and nothing outside of it, but it also has a nasty habit of causing cancer, oops. This smart bomb was supposed to make war more civilized and to avoid the unfortunate accident of killing innocent bystanders. Here's a thought: if you want war to be less deadly - don't wage one. And here's a question for ya: how can a bomb be smart if the people ordering that they be dropped are idiots?
These bombs, lovingly crafted and shared by the US, have been used on Gazans before. Back in 2006, the Israeli army dropped a couple bombs which led to the death of at least 200 people and serious injuries, many of which were barely treatable and which led to amputations. We here in the US may not have heard anything about it were it not for a few brave Italian reporters and scientists who ignored Israeli and US pressure.
Back in 2006 when the use of this type of weapon first came to light, Israel fiercely denied that it was using illegal weapons, which may technically have been true at the time, seeing as how the weapons were too new to have been deemed illegal by international law. These days, the effects of D.I.M.E. bombs is quite well known, though I am still unsure on their legal status. Of course, there are a lot of things that people aren't "sure" about when it comes to D.I.M.E. bombs, like -- oh -- say the fact that the metals used in them will give you cancer (FYI: I'm being sarcastic). More ethical hair-splitting, really. Scientists had evidence that the heavy metal–tungsten alloys (HMTAs) used in these bombs would cause tumors at least as early as 2001, but according to the military's scientists, the evidence was "incomplete," and therefore, I assume, ok to use until the evidence conclusively proved the bombs were evil.
So we know where this insanity is being played out most currently: Gaza. But where did it begin? In our own backyard. The Manhattan Project to be more specific. People have always been trying to make bigger and better bombs, and we here in the states have made an art of it. With each new weapon, we push ourselves to improve it, make it more deadly, make it more stealth, more sexy. Can we increase the kill ratio? Can we streamline the production? Can we market this baby?
Yes we can!
And so we do. Each question asked becomes a question answered, leading to greater and greater evil possibilities for our weaponry. Sooner or later, we'll need to test these theories and inventions. Perhaps this helps to explain the strange relationship between the US and Israel. Rather than sully our own hands, we have our friends run experiments for us. Or maybe we can split the work! We'll drop some chemical agents on Iraqis, and they'll drop other bombs on Palestinians! Oooo, and just because we're such good scientists, we can have the Israeli's replicate our results by dropping even more chemicals on Palestinians!
The sheer extent of this insanity makes me sick. It makes me hate being a scientist and hate being an American and hate knowing that my name is on those bombs and hate being so helpless to stop any of this.
Like most American children, I grew up knowing who Satan was and knowing that devils were short, red-skinned beings with horns, hooves, and tails. Evil was a sort of communicable disease and something that was external, something that took control over us. But the older I get, the more sure I am that evil doesn't exist, at least not in this form. Evil isn't something that finds us; it comes from us. Evil is the sum total of local, independent random acts of self-delusion. Each time someone exerts his or her will without pausing to consider the wisdom of the act, it is an evil. Every time someone has to rationalize his or her behavior and tell him or herself that this is really ok despite that little tingle in the gut, it's an evil. Yes, evil exists, but not in little red demons or some monstrous fallen angel. The source is much closer to home, and the face is a bit more familiar.
They're made with a lovely cocktail of metals that not only tunnel through armor but have extra bonus of also melting of skin, burrowing through limbs, and contaminating the entire site where the bomb landed. ((go science!!!)) The bomb was created to minimize collateral damage and to make it possible for armies to attack previously "off-limits" areas, i.e. those with civilians. The bomb was supposed to destroy only a small radius and kill everything within it and nothing outside of it, but it also has a nasty habit of causing cancer, oops. This smart bomb was supposed to make war more civilized and to avoid the unfortunate accident of killing innocent bystanders. Here's a thought: if you want war to be less deadly - don't wage one. And here's a question for ya: how can a bomb be smart if the people ordering that they be dropped are idiots?
These bombs, lovingly crafted and shared by the US, have been used on Gazans before. Back in 2006, the Israeli army dropped a couple bombs which led to the death of at least 200 people and serious injuries, many of which were barely treatable and which led to amputations. We here in the US may not have heard anything about it were it not for a few brave Italian reporters and scientists who ignored Israeli and US pressure.
Back in 2006 when the use of this type of weapon first came to light, Israel fiercely denied that it was using illegal weapons, which may technically have been true at the time, seeing as how the weapons were too new to have been deemed illegal by international law. These days, the effects of D.I.M.E. bombs is quite well known, though I am still unsure on their legal status. Of course, there are a lot of things that people aren't "sure" about when it comes to D.I.M.E. bombs, like -- oh -- say the fact that the metals used in them will give you cancer (FYI: I'm being sarcastic). More ethical hair-splitting, really. Scientists had evidence that the heavy metal–tungsten alloys (HMTAs) used in these bombs would cause tumors at least as early as 2001, but according to the military's scientists, the evidence was "incomplete," and therefore, I assume, ok to use until the evidence conclusively proved the bombs were evil.
So we know where this insanity is being played out most currently: Gaza. But where did it begin? In our own backyard. The Manhattan Project to be more specific. People have always been trying to make bigger and better bombs, and we here in the states have made an art of it. With each new weapon, we push ourselves to improve it, make it more deadly, make it more stealth, more sexy. Can we increase the kill ratio? Can we streamline the production? Can we market this baby?
Yes we can!
And so we do. Each question asked becomes a question answered, leading to greater and greater evil possibilities for our weaponry. Sooner or later, we'll need to test these theories and inventions. Perhaps this helps to explain the strange relationship between the US and Israel. Rather than sully our own hands, we have our friends run experiments for us. Or maybe we can split the work! We'll drop some chemical agents on Iraqis, and they'll drop other bombs on Palestinians! Oooo, and just because we're such good scientists, we can have the Israeli's replicate our results by dropping even more chemicals on Palestinians!
The sheer extent of this insanity makes me sick. It makes me hate being a scientist and hate being an American and hate knowing that my name is on those bombs and hate being so helpless to stop any of this.
Like most American children, I grew up knowing who Satan was and knowing that devils were short, red-skinned beings with horns, hooves, and tails. Evil was a sort of communicable disease and something that was external, something that took control over us. But the older I get, the more sure I am that evil doesn't exist, at least not in this form. Evil isn't something that finds us; it comes from us. Evil is the sum total of local, independent random acts of self-delusion. Each time someone exerts his or her will without pausing to consider the wisdom of the act, it is an evil. Every time someone has to rationalize his or her behavior and tell him or herself that this is really ok despite that little tingle in the gut, it's an evil. Yes, evil exists, but not in little red demons or some monstrous fallen angel. The source is much closer to home, and the face is a bit more familiar.
Palestinian boy killed as he lay sleeping by an unidentified weapon used by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip (The WE/www.kawther.info)
For where your treasure is, there will be your heart also
There was a short article on the BBC News online today about a recent archelogical find in the UK. They found 840 gold coins dating back to somewhere between 40BC and 15AD. The approximate value of the coins at the time: £500,000 t0 £1m or $746,000 to $1.5m. It's worth considerably less now.
They are thought to have belonged to Boudica, the Queen of the Iceni tribe of Wales. She's actually quite an interesting woman. Her husband had been a client king of the Roman empire, and when he died, he left his kingdom to be split according to his will between his daughters and Nero (our favorite emperor). Needless to say, the Romans scoffed at the idea of a woman inheriting a kingdom, so they sent troops to claim it. Boudica was flogged, her daughters raped, and the kingdom was taken from them. She led an uprising against the Romans and did a pretty decent job, all in all. But ultimately, she lost. She put up a good fight though.
History has a way of circling back and tripping us up all over again. Buried treasure, in particular, has a way of bending back on itself and smacking us in the face with our weakness and greed. Things so seemingly precious at the time lose their value and lose their meaning. The people that sought after it, that died for it, that buried it far away from some enemy are long since dead, worm food eaten by worms eaten by worms. The treasures of the past are now quaint little tokens that we put in museums and nod at.
But we continue to do the same thing, century after century . Scrambling to collect things, to hoard them, to polish them up and set them in precious metals, to adorn ourselves, to fatten ourselves. Like squirrels who instinctively bury nuts without any hope of remembering where they are or why they're burying them.
They are thought to have belonged to Boudica, the Queen of the Iceni tribe of Wales. She's actually quite an interesting woman. Her husband had been a client king of the Roman empire, and when he died, he left his kingdom to be split according to his will between his daughters and Nero (our favorite emperor). Needless to say, the Romans scoffed at the idea of a woman inheriting a kingdom, so they sent troops to claim it. Boudica was flogged, her daughters raped, and the kingdom was taken from them. She led an uprising against the Romans and did a pretty decent job, all in all. But ultimately, she lost. She put up a good fight though.
History has a way of circling back and tripping us up all over again. Buried treasure, in particular, has a way of bending back on itself and smacking us in the face with our weakness and greed. Things so seemingly precious at the time lose their value and lose their meaning. The people that sought after it, that died for it, that buried it far away from some enemy are long since dead, worm food eaten by worms eaten by worms. The treasures of the past are now quaint little tokens that we put in museums and nod at.
But we continue to do the same thing, century after century . Scrambling to collect things, to hoard them, to polish them up and set them in precious metals, to adorn ourselves, to fatten ourselves. Like squirrels who instinctively bury nuts without any hope of remembering where they are or why they're burying them.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Chapter One: Outside of the acupuncture clinic
To all the homeless and crazies I have known: A love letter to Chicago
I had an appointment one Saturday morning maybe back in October at the acupuncture clinic off of Broadway. When I parked my car, there were these two obviously drunk homeless men sitting against the wall consoling one another as only drunken men can at 9:00 a.m. When I came back out to my car, one was still there though he was lying in a fetal position on the sidewalk unmoving. I walked by, as did about two other people, each of us giving the man plenty of room. I unlocked my car and watched another person pass. Then the guilt set in. What if he was dead? What if he was sick? Maybe I should find a police officer and tell him. Maybe I should see if he’s just sleeping. But if he is dead, I’d have to do something about it. And I don’t really want to touch him. And you can’t just kick a person, even if he is dead. What if he isn’t dead and I kick him or poke him with a stick or something? That’d be rude. But I couldn’t just drive away either.
The guilt and curiosity were killing me. So I got out of my car, walked passed him again, and went into the Walgreens. I walked up and down the food isle and decided on whole wheat bread, a package of turkey meat (I couldn’t bring myself to buy ham – what if he were Jewish or something?), and cheese sticks (in case he was a vegetarian), and a bottle of water. I paid for the items and walked back outside holding the groceries, which I was prepared to take home if – God forbid – the guy was actually dead.
I came up to him and first waited to see if he was breathing. I couldn’t tell, so I kicked his foot gently. He moved a little bit but didn’t wake up. So I kicked his foot again and said, “Hey, wake up. I got something for you.” At this he woke up. I handed him the bag and said, “Drink the water first. I think you could use it. I hope wheat’s ok.” He gave me this rather weird look, took the bag, and then pulled out the meat and the bread and seemed confused. I think he said “thanks,” but I can’t remember for sure. I was just happy he wasn’t dead. I didn’t want to have to make a police report.
- The following is part one of what may well be a theme running through this blog. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with being crazy or homeless, though from the title of this section, I could see why one would get the impression that I do. "Crazies" are a vital part of the community. They help hold up the other end of the bell curve. As for the homeless, they don’t deserve pity per se, but they do deserve the right to use public restrooms. Having a stable and consistent home is rare in the animal kingdom, so we should be in awe that any of us have managed to get one. Seriously, how many of us could actually build their own livable shelter? Damn few. We’re all lucky to have a roof over our heads.
I had an appointment one Saturday morning maybe back in October at the acupuncture clinic off of Broadway. When I parked my car, there were these two obviously drunk homeless men sitting against the wall consoling one another as only drunken men can at 9:00 a.m. When I came back out to my car, one was still there though he was lying in a fetal position on the sidewalk unmoving. I walked by, as did about two other people, each of us giving the man plenty of room. I unlocked my car and watched another person pass. Then the guilt set in. What if he was dead? What if he was sick? Maybe I should find a police officer and tell him. Maybe I should see if he’s just sleeping. But if he is dead, I’d have to do something about it. And I don’t really want to touch him. And you can’t just kick a person, even if he is dead. What if he isn’t dead and I kick him or poke him with a stick or something? That’d be rude. But I couldn’t just drive away either.
The guilt and curiosity were killing me. So I got out of my car, walked passed him again, and went into the Walgreens. I walked up and down the food isle and decided on whole wheat bread, a package of turkey meat (I couldn’t bring myself to buy ham – what if he were Jewish or something?), and cheese sticks (in case he was a vegetarian), and a bottle of water. I paid for the items and walked back outside holding the groceries, which I was prepared to take home if – God forbid – the guy was actually dead.
I came up to him and first waited to see if he was breathing. I couldn’t tell, so I kicked his foot gently. He moved a little bit but didn’t wake up. So I kicked his foot again and said, “Hey, wake up. I got something for you.” At this he woke up. I handed him the bag and said, “Drink the water first. I think you could use it. I hope wheat’s ok.” He gave me this rather weird look, took the bag, and then pulled out the meat and the bread and seemed confused. I think he said “thanks,” but I can’t remember for sure. I was just happy he wasn’t dead. I didn’t want to have to make a police report.
Friday, January 16, 2009
My sister, Florida
Just over a year ago, I stumbled upon an article on Salon.com about the women of the Congo. Horrified by the stories of doctors trying to recreate women's vaginas and digestive tracks that had been shot out by rapist, asshole 'soldiers', I did the typical 30-something, tech savvy thing and posted an article on Facebook. For some reason, this just didn't feel fulfilling.
So I poked around a bit more, and found this organization called Women for Women International. I have a few qualms about the name, as it seems to suggest that only women are for women and that men, well...they're hopeless. But that aside, the organization itself seemed to do pretty decent things, and it gets pretty decent ratings. And being a woman and being generally pro-woman (pro-humanity, actually), I figure what the hell and decided to work with them.
I rehearsed my plan aloud, as is my custom, with a friend of mine (let's call her Lynn) and talked about how I was going to sponsor a woman in the Congo. I'd always wanted a sister, and now Women for Women was going to give me one. Lynn thought this was a good idea, so we decided to co-sponsor a sister and, thus, became related to Ms. Florida Fuaha M'maumbuko, mother of two, wife, farmer, and (thanks to W4W) student. For the past year, she was studying at their facilities learning about soap making and other job skills. She recently graduated from the program, and with a somewhat heavy heart, I say "goodbye" to the sister I have not ever met.
I worry about her future, and the future of her children. In her exit interview, she said that relations with her husband and children have improved and that she was able to buy medicine, clothing, food, two rabbits and ten guinea pigs with the money she received from the program. I'm happy for her, but damn, it just doesn't feel like enough. She lives in the Congo, for Christ's sake! The country with the second-highest rate of war deaths in 2002, THE most deadly conflict since WWII, a country that hope seems to have forgotten all together. But life is as it is, I suppose.
Florida is now (God willing) in a better position, even if her geography is hell. And Lynn and I have a new sister for a year, Ms. Jeanne Gurhahoza Mmutagoyola, born 1968, wife and mother of 8 (7 girls, 1 boy), an internally displaced farmer looking forward to the opprotunity to develop vocational and literary skills, and with any luck, she'll have enough change left over to buy a couple rabbits and maybe some guinea pigs.
It never feels like enough. I'd like to wax all poetic about how at least she has a name, at least she was treated with some regard, that at least we were able to extend some small amount of human decency. But really...I'm just some soft, over-fed, bleeding-heart intellectual trying to pinch myself out of complacency one electronic transfer at a time. But at least I had/have a little sister now.
So I poked around a bit more, and found this organization called Women for Women International. I have a few qualms about the name, as it seems to suggest that only women are for women and that men, well...they're hopeless. But that aside, the organization itself seemed to do pretty decent things, and it gets pretty decent ratings. And being a woman and being generally pro-woman (pro-humanity, actually), I figure what the hell and decided to work with them.
I rehearsed my plan aloud, as is my custom, with a friend of mine (let's call her Lynn) and talked about how I was going to sponsor a woman in the Congo. I'd always wanted a sister, and now Women for Women was going to give me one. Lynn thought this was a good idea, so we decided to co-sponsor a sister and, thus, became related to Ms. Florida Fuaha M'maumbuko, mother of two, wife, farmer, and (thanks to W4W) student. For the past year, she was studying at their facilities learning about soap making and other job skills. She recently graduated from the program, and with a somewhat heavy heart, I say "goodbye" to the sister I have not ever met.
I worry about her future, and the future of her children. In her exit interview, she said that relations with her husband and children have improved and that she was able to buy medicine, clothing, food, two rabbits and ten guinea pigs with the money she received from the program. I'm happy for her, but damn, it just doesn't feel like enough. She lives in the Congo, for Christ's sake! The country with the second-highest rate of war deaths in 2002, THE most deadly conflict since WWII, a country that hope seems to have forgotten all together. But life is as it is, I suppose.
Florida is now (God willing) in a better position, even if her geography is hell. And Lynn and I have a new sister for a year, Ms. Jeanne Gurhahoza Mmutagoyola, born 1968, wife and mother of 8 (7 girls, 1 boy), an internally displaced farmer looking forward to the opprotunity to develop vocational and literary skills, and with any luck, she'll have enough change left over to buy a couple rabbits and maybe some guinea pigs.
It never feels like enough. I'd like to wax all poetic about how at least she has a name, at least she was treated with some regard, that at least we were able to extend some small amount of human decency. But really...I'm just some soft, over-fed, bleeding-heart intellectual trying to pinch myself out of complacency one electronic transfer at a time. But at least I had/have a little sister now.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The unconscionable
Apathy(n): (1)lack of feeling or emotion; (2) lack of interest or concern; from the Ancient Greek apatheia impassibility, insensibility, freedom from emotion; apathes not suffering or having suffered, without experience of suffering; apatheĊ to be free from suffering.
A popular bumper sticker around these parts reads "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention." It captures this underlying belief that moral outrage is a necessary condition and a logical consequence of basic social awareness and that, given the news and the reality of the world, only the comatosed or deliberately ignorant would be anything but vacillating between despair and rage. Indeed, the world gives us plenty to despair about and plenty of stories that should enrage us. But all too often, one man's moral outrage is met by another man's apathy.
Back in 2005, the Belgian arm of UNICEF aired a commercial in which a happy, little village of peace-loving-three-apple-high Smurfs was carpet bombed. It starts off smurfily enough, with happy, hopping bunnies, a Smurf band playing as the village of Smurfs danced around. Only to cut to a sky full of bombs and a shot of Smurfette laying dead next to blue body buried under rubble and crying baby Smurf. The ad was intended to help raise money to address the needs of child soldiers. Needless to say, it generated both contributions and controversy. Viewers were horrified (save Smurf-haters, still getting over the smurfiness of the 1980s), and some pundits were smugly pleased with the response. The irony of public outrage to the needless Smurf-focused violence wasn't lost on them.
UNICEF specifically chose the Smurfs because "traditional images of suffering in Third World war zones had lost their power to move television viewers". For some reason, real blood-covered 6-year olds crying next to the corps of their dead mother just don't have the same kick as they used to. So send in the Smurfs to remind us of our moral outrage, to reawaken our humanity. Thus, the smug among us (rightfully) pointed out that compassion is easy to find for little blue characters but so hard to muster for real victims.
But apathy isn't necessarily soulessness. No one, not even victims themselves, can live in perpetual sorrow or fury. Continually identifying with or as the victim is difficult. For we observers, it lead us to adopt suffering that isn't ours and to invite another's fear into our lives. Emotionally, psychologically, maybe even spiritually, we need to protect ourselves from extreme pain, even if it means distancing ourselves from victims and wearing a cloak of ambivalence and apathy. In order to function in a world that won't let us forget how brutal it can be, we must distance ourselves from victimhood (even our own) and not identify too much or too often with victims, as empathy for the victim entails experiencing some aspect of the trauma yourself.
Judith Herman (1992) reminds us that studying trauma "means bearing witness to horrible events. When the traumatic events are of human design, those who bear witness are caught in the conflict between the victim and the perpetrator....The bystander is forced to take sides. It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden or the pain." (p 8)
It is emotionally and physically taxing to be a victim, even by proxy. Thus, we distance ourselves from pain. This need for distance may explain why female jurist can be more likely to blame rape victims or why some PTSD victims can't remember the trauma. We want the victims to be "them" or the event to never have occurred.
So are we lost? Are we doomed to be desensitized to pain in order to function? Herman (1992) continues, writing, "In the absence of strong political movements for human rights, the active process of bearing witness inevitably gives way to the active process of forgetting. Repression, dissociation and denial are phenomena of a social as well as individual consciousness." Only through vigilance can we keep the victims and horrors in sight. Only with willful effort can we continuously extend our compassion and empathy. Without it, we suffer a sort of emotional entropy, a sort of Second Law of Emotionaldynamics.
This effort comes at a cost, and eventually we all must rest. Enter in apathy. Rest is meant to reinvigorate us, to prepare us for another day, but sleep is so tempting and complacency so soothing. We must allow ourselves occasional moments of apathy, and pray that someone (perhaps a Smurf) will come to wake us up.
A popular bumper sticker around these parts reads "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention." It captures this underlying belief that moral outrage is a necessary condition and a logical consequence of basic social awareness and that, given the news and the reality of the world, only the comatosed or deliberately ignorant would be anything but vacillating between despair and rage. Indeed, the world gives us plenty to despair about and plenty of stories that should enrage us. But all too often, one man's moral outrage is met by another man's apathy.
Back in 2005, the Belgian arm of UNICEF aired a commercial in which a happy, little village of peace-loving-three-apple-high Smurfs was carpet bombed. It starts off smurfily enough, with happy, hopping bunnies, a Smurf band playing as the village of Smurfs danced around. Only to cut to a sky full of bombs and a shot of Smurfette laying dead next to blue body buried under rubble and crying baby Smurf. The ad was intended to help raise money to address the needs of child soldiers. Needless to say, it generated both contributions and controversy. Viewers were horrified (save Smurf-haters, still getting over the smurfiness of the 1980s), and some pundits were smugly pleased with the response. The irony of public outrage to the needless Smurf-focused violence wasn't lost on them.
UNICEF specifically chose the Smurfs because "traditional images of suffering in Third World war zones had lost their power to move television viewers". For some reason, real blood-covered 6-year olds crying next to the corps of their dead mother just don't have the same kick as they used to. So send in the Smurfs to remind us of our moral outrage, to reawaken our humanity. Thus, the smug among us (rightfully) pointed out that compassion is easy to find for little blue characters but so hard to muster for real victims.
But apathy isn't necessarily soulessness. No one, not even victims themselves, can live in perpetual sorrow or fury. Continually identifying with or as the victim is difficult. For we observers, it lead us to adopt suffering that isn't ours and to invite another's fear into our lives. Emotionally, psychologically, maybe even spiritually, we need to protect ourselves from extreme pain, even if it means distancing ourselves from victims and wearing a cloak of ambivalence and apathy. In order to function in a world that won't let us forget how brutal it can be, we must distance ourselves from victimhood (even our own) and not identify too much or too often with victims, as empathy for the victim entails experiencing some aspect of the trauma yourself.
Judith Herman (1992) reminds us that studying trauma "means bearing witness to horrible events. When the traumatic events are of human design, those who bear witness are caught in the conflict between the victim and the perpetrator....The bystander is forced to take sides. It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden or the pain." (p 8)
It is emotionally and physically taxing to be a victim, even by proxy. Thus, we distance ourselves from pain. This need for distance may explain why female jurist can be more likely to blame rape victims or why some PTSD victims can't remember the trauma. We want the victims to be "them" or the event to never have occurred.
So are we lost? Are we doomed to be desensitized to pain in order to function? Herman (1992) continues, writing, "In the absence of strong political movements for human rights, the active process of bearing witness inevitably gives way to the active process of forgetting. Repression, dissociation and denial are phenomena of a social as well as individual consciousness." Only through vigilance can we keep the victims and horrors in sight. Only with willful effort can we continuously extend our compassion and empathy. Without it, we suffer a sort of emotional entropy, a sort of Second Law of Emotionaldynamics.
This effort comes at a cost, and eventually we all must rest. Enter in apathy. Rest is meant to reinvigorate us, to prepare us for another day, but sleep is so tempting and complacency so soothing. We must allow ourselves occasional moments of apathy, and pray that someone (perhaps a Smurf) will come to wake us up.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The monster under your bed
Nothing bothers me more than hate cloaked in compassionate concern, and nothing demonstrates this bastardization of compassion more than Arkansas's Initiative 1, which states that no individual cohabiting outside of a valid marriage can adopt or foster a child under 18. The passage of this proposition (57% to 43%)creates a state constitutional law that was intended to (and does)prohibit gays and lesbians and other unsavory couples from adopting or fostering children.
The logic, if it can be called such, is not new. The basic gist is that homosexual parents will raise homosexual children. And since being homosexual is inherently evil, well, then forcing otherwise good, heterosexual children to be gay is double-plus evil. The number of levels that this is wrong on makes arguing against it pointless. But for many of those who supported the bill, some form of this logic made sense to them. Save the children! Keep them safe from those dirty, nasty, corrupting gays! But it was not love for children that truly motivated them. Rather, it was hate for other adults.
And as always, when hate leads, children and families suffer.
Nationwide, there were over 490,000 children in foster care in 2007. 130,000 were waiting for adoption. 51,000 were actually adopted. In 2006 in Arkansas, there were around 3400 children in foster care, with about 28% of them waiting for adoption. The numbers may be even higher these days with nearly three times the number of children waiting to be adopted as the number of people willing to adopt them and at least 500 children waiting on any given day. Many of these children have been abused, neglected, and/or abandoned by their (probably) heterosexual parents, but still two straight abusive idiots who abandoned the child are better for a his or her wellbeing than two non-married or homosexual adults who wish to create a stable, loving home. If given the choice between a loving committed homosexual couple or the warmth of a state institution, I think most children would choose the homosexual household. Even monkeys know that a soft and comforting caretaker is worth clinging too, even if it can't provide a "normal" lifestyle.
Homophobia is not new. We've been burning homosexuals at the stake since at least the 4th century when it became a policy of the Christian state. And today we still wage war against the threat of some sort of gay insurgency. Proposition 8 reminds us that all institutions need to be protected from them. While I may not agree with the effects of Proposition 8, it somehow seems like a more fair injustice than Initiative 1. At least in California it was adults attacking adults about adult behavior rather than holding out the most vulnerable wards of the state as sacrificial lambs to punish non-heterosexuals.
But let's not lose site of the wording of this Initiative. It never explicitly says "No fags or dykes can adopt", though that may have been the translation some voters were working with. It prohibits individuals cohabiting outside of a valid marriage. This includes not just homosexuals but numerous heterosexual couples, as even the supporters admit. People wishing to adopt or foster are always subjected to interviews and training, but now having that wedding ring on your finger becomes crucial. People may choose not to marry, such as elderly couples who do not want to risk government benefits, but now they are denied the opportunity to adopt their grandchildren along side of homosexual relatives who may wish to adopt an orphaned niece or nephew. So much for honoring families or protecting children.
This Initiative (now an Act, I believe) and those like it are simply hate wrapped in the rhetoric of love - pure propaganda for a campaign of prejudice. The concern for the wellbeing of children may be real and probably honestly exists in the hearts of those who voted for this Initiative. But by tapping into this love in order to single out "deviant" adults and perpetuate fear and hate, it lost all hope of being anything but a knife at the throats of children.
We all agree, I believe, that children need love and that adults should provide this and protect them from adults who may harm them. But loving children is very easy and does not require constitutional amendments. Are they warm? Are they fed? Are they stimulated intellectually, artistically, and socially? Are they comforted and reassured? Then they are loved. Job done. And who has a right to love children? According to Arkansas law, anyone who's married and no one who isn't.
The logic, if it can be called such, is not new. The basic gist is that homosexual parents will raise homosexual children. And since being homosexual is inherently evil, well, then forcing otherwise good, heterosexual children to be gay is double-plus evil. The number of levels that this is wrong on makes arguing against it pointless. But for many of those who supported the bill, some form of this logic made sense to them. Save the children! Keep them safe from those dirty, nasty, corrupting gays! But it was not love for children that truly motivated them. Rather, it was hate for other adults.
And as always, when hate leads, children and families suffer.
Nationwide, there were over 490,000 children in foster care in 2007. 130,000 were waiting for adoption. 51,000 were actually adopted. In 2006 in Arkansas, there were around 3400 children in foster care, with about 28% of them waiting for adoption. The numbers may be even higher these days with nearly three times the number of children waiting to be adopted as the number of people willing to adopt them and at least 500 children waiting on any given day. Many of these children have been abused, neglected, and/or abandoned by their (probably) heterosexual parents, but still two straight abusive idiots who abandoned the child are better for a his or her wellbeing than two non-married or homosexual adults who wish to create a stable, loving home. If given the choice between a loving committed homosexual couple or the warmth of a state institution, I think most children would choose the homosexual household. Even monkeys know that a soft and comforting caretaker is worth clinging too, even if it can't provide a "normal" lifestyle.
Homophobia is not new. We've been burning homosexuals at the stake since at least the 4th century when it became a policy of the Christian state. And today we still wage war against the threat of some sort of gay insurgency. Proposition 8 reminds us that all institutions need to be protected from them. While I may not agree with the effects of Proposition 8, it somehow seems like a more fair injustice than Initiative 1. At least in California it was adults attacking adults about adult behavior rather than holding out the most vulnerable wards of the state as sacrificial lambs to punish non-heterosexuals.
But let's not lose site of the wording of this Initiative. It never explicitly says "No fags or dykes can adopt", though that may have been the translation some voters were working with. It prohibits individuals cohabiting outside of a valid marriage. This includes not just homosexuals but numerous heterosexual couples, as even the supporters admit. People wishing to adopt or foster are always subjected to interviews and training, but now having that wedding ring on your finger becomes crucial. People may choose not to marry, such as elderly couples who do not want to risk government benefits, but now they are denied the opportunity to adopt their grandchildren along side of homosexual relatives who may wish to adopt an orphaned niece or nephew. So much for honoring families or protecting children.
This Initiative (now an Act, I believe) and those like it are simply hate wrapped in the rhetoric of love - pure propaganda for a campaign of prejudice. The concern for the wellbeing of children may be real and probably honestly exists in the hearts of those who voted for this Initiative. But by tapping into this love in order to single out "deviant" adults and perpetuate fear and hate, it lost all hope of being anything but a knife at the throats of children.
We all agree, I believe, that children need love and that adults should provide this and protect them from adults who may harm them. But loving children is very easy and does not require constitutional amendments. Are they warm? Are they fed? Are they stimulated intellectually, artistically, and socially? Are they comforted and reassured? Then they are loved. Job done. And who has a right to love children? According to Arkansas law, anyone who's married and no one who isn't.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Women and children first
As the Titanic slipped deeper and deeper into the sea, the boats were lowered down to the B deck, where the women and children were waiting to be shepherded onto the lifeboats. One by one, they got on the boats, probably clutching their confused, groggy children, wondering if they would see their husbands, brothers, and fathers when the ordeal was done. Major Butt stood guard, gun in hand, keeping eye on the pacing men smoking cigars looking anxiously as each successive boat was filled and cast off. Some men tried to jump aboard, overcome by fear (a natural response to imminent death). One such bloke tried to make a run for it, only to be grabbed by the back of the next (so reports say) by Major Butt and thrown back on deck to wait his rightful turn to die like a man.
Needless to say, the night did not end well for most of the people on board, men, women, children or rats. But -- by Jove! -- the women and children went first. God bless chivalry. Perhaps not always valued or fully appreciated in life, the women and children were allowed to go first.
Being a woman, I can't say I wouldn't have appreciated a bit of that consideration as the Titanic married the icy waters, were I there. Who wouldn't want to be insured safe passage when things get rough? Still, we pooh-pooh the rich and those of privileged who feel entitled to special consideration and access. But we embrace the ideal that the gentler sex and the innocent children need special protections, though maybe only at the very very end of life.
During day-to-day living, children are kidnapped and forced into armies, forced to shoot their parents and strangers, to rape and be raped, to become walking bombs, little boys and little girls.
And women are calculated pawns, raped and disfigured to make a point and to shame their villages and families. But war is war. Women and children first, you know.
More recently, I have been troubled by the way the media presents the casualty statistics for the current war in Gaza. The number is, of course, saddening in and of itself, but the way the numbers are arranged is also troubling. Currently, we stand at at least 900 dead, 270 children 95 women, according to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization. I've seen different numbers, some say closer to 100 women dead and around 1/4 of all the causalities children. I suppose this is to be expected, seeing as how the fighting is taking place in large urban areas where families tend to be big, the population young, and women mostly house-bound. The Israeli deaths are sometimes given (currently 3 civilians and 7 soldiers, some killed by friendly fire). But just as saddening as the violence and needless endings of their collective lives is so is the way we read these numbers, or rather, the way we read lives as numbers and do arithmetic with flesh and blood.
900:10, hmm...that seems out of proportion (as if tit-for-tat murder would make it somehow more fair or expectable). 270 children plus 95 women out of 900, leaving 535 men dead. Of these, at least some must have been armed, but some of them were probably much too old or not mentally stable enough to fight. Maybe 100 (random guess). Let's be generous to both the Israel intelligence and Hamas' desire to be a formidable armed force and say half of the remaining were 'soldiers'. That would leave us with about 218 'fair' targets, 316 civilian men (elderly and young alike) and then a few women and children to boot. Ah math and statistics, the final refuge of a mind too ashamed to face horrors.
But after all these calculations, I keep coming back to the presentation. 900 dead. 270 children and 95 women. Oh, the humanity! Oh, the heartless Israeli army and its slaughter of the poor, weak, frightened women and children! As if the men being shot at and bombed weren't equally as scared, weren't equally as likely to piss themselves or cry for their mothers while bleeding out. As if soldiers weren't equally as likely to wonder where God is when their intestines are staring back at them.
Let us not kid ourselves. All human life, male or female, young or old, Palestinian or Israeli, is equally as valuable or worthless. Still we put the women and children first. First in line for the boats, first to be held up as evidence to shame the aggressors or to horrify the international audience. While more men may die and while more women and children may be victims, the truth is that no one on any side or from any walk of life escapes war without some wounds.
It's not that I don't want people to pause and offer a hand to those segments of society who may need assistance. We should help and be helped in proportion to need. But let us never forget that all humans share the same desire to live and let live, to die peacefully, to not be shot at, to not hold a dying child, to not slip into the freezing waters. Desire for life and fear of death transcends gender, nationality, age, class, or religion.
Needless to say, the night did not end well for most of the people on board, men, women, children or rats. But -- by Jove! -- the women and children went first. God bless chivalry. Perhaps not always valued or fully appreciated in life, the women and children were allowed to go first.
Being a woman, I can't say I wouldn't have appreciated a bit of that consideration as the Titanic married the icy waters, were I there. Who wouldn't want to be insured safe passage when things get rough? Still, we pooh-pooh the rich and those of privileged who feel entitled to special consideration and access. But we embrace the ideal that the gentler sex and the innocent children need special protections, though maybe only at the very very end of life.
During day-to-day living, children are kidnapped and forced into armies, forced to shoot their parents and strangers, to rape and be raped, to become walking bombs, little boys and little girls.
And women are calculated pawns, raped and disfigured to make a point and to shame their villages and families. But war is war. Women and children first, you know.
More recently, I have been troubled by the way the media presents the casualty statistics for the current war in Gaza. The number is, of course, saddening in and of itself, but the way the numbers are arranged is also troubling. Currently, we stand at at least 900 dead, 270 children 95 women, according to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization. I've seen different numbers, some say closer to 100 women dead and around 1/4 of all the causalities children. I suppose this is to be expected, seeing as how the fighting is taking place in large urban areas where families tend to be big, the population young, and women mostly house-bound. The Israeli deaths are sometimes given (currently 3 civilians and 7 soldiers, some killed by friendly fire). But just as saddening as the violence and needless endings of their collective lives is so is the way we read these numbers, or rather, the way we read lives as numbers and do arithmetic with flesh and blood.
900:10, hmm...that seems out of proportion (as if tit-for-tat murder would make it somehow more fair or expectable). 270 children plus 95 women out of 900, leaving 535 men dead. Of these, at least some must have been armed, but some of them were probably much too old or not mentally stable enough to fight. Maybe 100 (random guess). Let's be generous to both the Israel intelligence and Hamas' desire to be a formidable armed force and say half of the remaining were 'soldiers'. That would leave us with about 218 'fair' targets, 316 civilian men (elderly and young alike) and then a few women and children to boot. Ah math and statistics, the final refuge of a mind too ashamed to face horrors.
But after all these calculations, I keep coming back to the presentation. 900 dead. 270 children and 95 women. Oh, the humanity! Oh, the heartless Israeli army and its slaughter of the poor, weak, frightened women and children! As if the men being shot at and bombed weren't equally as scared, weren't equally as likely to piss themselves or cry for their mothers while bleeding out. As if soldiers weren't equally as likely to wonder where God is when their intestines are staring back at them.
Let us not kid ourselves. All human life, male or female, young or old, Palestinian or Israeli, is equally as valuable or worthless. Still we put the women and children first. First in line for the boats, first to be held up as evidence to shame the aggressors or to horrify the international audience. While more men may die and while more women and children may be victims, the truth is that no one on any side or from any walk of life escapes war without some wounds.
It's not that I don't want people to pause and offer a hand to those segments of society who may need assistance. We should help and be helped in proportion to need. But let us never forget that all humans share the same desire to live and let live, to die peacefully, to not be shot at, to not hold a dying child, to not slip into the freezing waters. Desire for life and fear of death transcends gender, nationality, age, class, or religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)