How peaceful is your nation?

Here are a few websites that can help you gauge the state of peace and stability in countries around the world. The first two are based on a wide range of statistics that have helped categorize each nation on a spectrum. Not surprisingly, Africa is the continent which has the highest degree of instability. Out of the 177 countries that the Fund for Peace analyzed, only 13 of them qualify as "sustainable", the most secure rating. Most of those countries are northern European.

The third website I've shared focuses on 17 conflict areas. It gives a briefing of the conflict and also has a nifty section which mentions what efforts have been and are being made to build peace. It is also unique in that it personalizes each conflict with particular case studies and people's stories.

Hopefully websites like these will be able to educated us and give us a better idea of where we are heading and what areas still need the most support.

Ratings:
Vision of Humanity- Global Peace Index (GPI)
The Fund for Peace

Briefings on conflict zones:
Insight on Conflict

Spain is the (failing) champion!!!

Here in Madrid, I can hear the roaring of the crowd kilometres away from my window around 12am on a Monday night. A man is shouting on a loudspeaker as the crowd responds. I can't make out what they are saying, but I can only imagine. It sounds just like what I would imagine Rome sounded like when they hosted games in their colosseums. Then I start hearing the crowd singing this year's Coca Cola World Cup theme song. Yes, I am talking about the celebrations for Spain's victory yesterday in the 2010 World Cup held in South Africa. The crowd is welcoming their team home and have been hosting celebrations for them all day, which is now culminating to a huge rally in the city.

As a World Cup of many "firsts", Spain has definitely come out with the most profitable "first" of them all!! Spain is well-known for being one of Europe's num.1 soccer fans. Their confidence in the sport has sprung up ever since they won the Eurocup in 2008. This year's team, who refer to themselves as the "Furia Roja" or Red Rage", has been refreshing for the nation who has never even qualified for the semi-finals of a World Cup. But recently, they have qualified as having the best soccer team in Europe and now, in the World. They are "Los Campeones!" or the Champions, as they say.

Last night was a night of complete debauchery for many people who went out on the streets after the final match. The streets were filled with thousands of people baring flags, yelling, singing, dancing between honking cars and motorcycles, blowing in their vuvuzelas, holding a drink in their hand, bathing in the city's various fountains, climbing and decorating monuments... it was a sea of red and yellow. Something that I have never witnessed in the US.....

But do people seem a bit happier than they should be because other things at home aren't going too well? I'm mainly referring to Spain's status in the economic crisis. It is ranked as being on the borderline of completely collapsing. It's unemployment rate is reaching 20% and the country is in major debt. The common joke here now is that when you go out you realize that at least half the people around you are either 1. unemployed or 2. their job is seriously at risk (as many people in their company are being laid-off). But you would never guess that from being here. The bars and restaurants have been filled to the brim during this World Cup season. Why is this so important to them? Obviously, winning the World Cup is not going to bring them out of their economic misery.

So what makes this such a special event? Does the World Cup have a negative effect or a positive one? I would argue that it may have both. It does seem to unite a country in a way that no other social event does. Ironically, in Spain's case, it seems that all those anti-Spanish sentiments dissolved to a certain extent during the games. Different autonomous communities in the country regularly claim that they aren't Spanish and they constantly fight for complete independence, yet for now they are fine calling themselves Spanish. At least amongst the people. Yet, three of the four players that are from the Catalan region of Spain refused to wear the Spanish flag after their victory. Instead, they wore their region's flag. Something doesn't seem right with that picture.

So can we say that this is a good move for the country socially? Maybe. But then again, the positive effects are only ephemeral. Statistics have shown that winning a World Cup boosts people's self esteem, but only for some time. Even to the extent that men feel that they are more likely to attract women after their country has won. It allows people to escape from their troubles for a few weeks and it helps them reassert their self worth and feel like they belong to something. Yes, its just a game for some, but as one article I found states "It´s more than just a game¨ for many others. Could we even go as far as to say that the sport has in some way replaced religion?? In the present day absence of religion in many countries, belonging to a team rather than a religion can possibly be another appealing factor. *
I was speaking to a non-soccer fan here in Spain the other day and he told me he believed that those who are obsessed about soccer are people who have empty lives. That may be taking it a bit too far, but to a certain extent, I think he's right. I couldn't help to think how ridiculous people looked in Spain out in the streets. So happy about their passing victory yet seemingly oblivious to the pains their country is going through. If people are so nationalistic, why don't they actually take steps to help their nation? Unemployment is so high partially due to the people themselves. They take advantage of their own system, sometimes purposefully getting fired so they can enjoy unemployment. Others who have been naturally fired sit back and enjoy their unemployment as well, while not bothering to look for a job and instead living with their parents to avoid spending money. In their free time they complain about the system, hang out with their friends, travel, spend on shopping and going out.

Now that the Spanish government has decided to cut civil servant salaries (instead of laying them off, as they very well could have done) in an attempt to help the economy, those who work in metro system have gone on strike in protest. They completely paralyzed the city of Madrid for a few days making the country lose even more money by prohibiting normal workers to go to work! And they feel they are helping their nation?

Way to go Spain! You've won the World Cup! Your nation's soccer team has worked immensely to win the Cup for the nation. It's high time for you, the general population, to wake up and start working just as hard not to win a Cup but to save your country from economic turmoil- something that's a bit more of a priority!



*Sources used:
1) Sports Fan Psychology: It´s More Than Just a Game
2) World Cup Matches Might Boost Your Mental Health
3) Why all the excitement about the World Cup?

The Present-day Father of Peace

Tracking the Modern Human

Here are three very interesting websites that track the development of the modern human being.

• The Human Journey
• The Human Spark
  
• A History of the World
  

The first website is a project led by The Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge. The second one is a television series from PBS where they try to figure out why our species survived and what makes us so different from all other animals on the planet. And the third one is from the BBC. It's more of a fun website showing the development of human inventions since prehistoric times.

As stated in the introduction of The Human Journey website, "If we don't know our history, social and biological, we can't adapt fully to a world that we made."

This statement cannot be any more true, yet this is all too often forgotten, especially by those who should heed to it the most- the world's key decisionmakers. For some reason, most people believe that the past is seperated from the present. We forget that we are still the product of thousands of years of development and that those changes that we are experiencing right now have already been dealt with in some form by our ancestors. Of course people acknowledge the past, but they fail to see the connection. They fail to see the past as building stones. Let's face it, in hundreds of years, we humans really haven't changed that much- is this maybe because we have constantly ignored to learn from our past mistakes? We should take a look at how humans progressed, dealt with the introduction of past innovations, handled conflicts, interacted with one another, and developed socially.

Sure, you go to any natural history museum and see the prehistoric man, for example, and think "Wow! we've progressed so much since then." But have we really? We still ask the same basic questions about life, we still focus on survival (in some form or another), we still have violent conflicts with one another, we still fight for power, we still have not changed that drastically at our core, yet our surroundings have.

As the website goes on to state: "The future depends on how we understand who we are, and how the past has made us so: what is unchanging about Human Nature, and what we CAN and MUST change to face a world that is far different from our ancestors".

I hope you enjoy discovering more about our big human family!! :)

*Picture from ISHK

One way to Change Climate Change!

Finally, talk about easy and cheap solutions to climate change! Hope in a Changing Climate is a refreshing short documentary presented by John Lui, an ecological fieldwork researcher and environmental filmmaker. He presents a few cases that have already happened where regions have been able to restore their land that was previously being destroyed. Not only does he speak about saving the environment, but he shows how this it is also an efficient way to get communities to pull out of poverty and on their way to economic development.

For more information and to watch the documentary, you can go to the following link: http://hopeinachangingclimate.org/

Why NOT to donate your money to Haiti...

.... well at least not naively.

I've been quite impressed with the global solidarity that I've observed since the beginning of the disaster that struck the nation of Haiti. Here in Madrid, they have even placed announcements on the time panels in the metro pleading for riders to cooperate with the number of NGOs that are supplying aid to the region. This poor nation has already been silently festering with economic and political pains- and this latest horrific event has only exacerbated it.

Now the dilemma for me is whether to give my Euros to whoever asks me for them. Everytime I see a charity organization asking for money, I instictively want to help out and immediately- because this is urgent! But with a bit of pain in my heart, I stop myself. Sure, on one hand we would all love to collaborate in helping those who are less fortunate than us and we figure that financial contributions are the most effective and efficient way to do so. Yet this is not always the case. It makes us feel great inside when we hand over our money to an organization that has a benevolent cause- but do they all meet the ends that we imagine? I'm afraid most do not. Haiti is one of the nations with the highest concentration of NGOs in comparison to the number of inhabitants, yet there has been little or no change.

The problems that already existed should have been paid attention to decades before. If these problems hadn't existed, the hurricane would not have had such catestrophic effects on the population. The situation in Haiti is deplorable. It has reached a point where the people have been completely let down in a nation which has reached beyond poverty, hasn't managed to set up a functional government, and has become extraordinarily militarized. Now with everything destroyed all these problems will only become worse. And, as you can imagine, with the rampant amount of corruption your money will most likely not end up where you would want it to. There have been numerous articles published that have compared this crisis to Katrina that hit Louisiana a few years back. As co-director of the Louisiana Justice Institute, Tracie Washington stated,

"The real looting in Haiti is not the people trying to get food to survive. The real looting of Haiti is the economic policies of the U.S. and France, as well as institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, in addition to the disaster capitalism that is fast setting in. In Haiti, 200 years of crippling debt imposed by France, the U.S. and other colonial powers drained the country's financial resources. Military occupation and presidential coups coordinated and funded by the U.S. have devastated the nation's government infrastructure. Although the country has more than 10,000 NGOs [non-governmental organizations], many of them are profiteering off the small nation's misery, rather than lifting up people's lives."

"As we saw in the aftermath of Katrina, some politicians, corporations and think tanks see disasters as opportunities for profiteering. Author Naomi Klein reported that within 24 hours of the earthquake, the influential right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation was already seeking to use the disaster as an attempt at further privatization of the country's economy. The Heritage Foundation released similar recommendations in the days after Katrina, calling for 'solutions' such as school vouchers."*

It is upsetting that people would take advantage of others misery, however we can help prevent this from happening if we just try to stop doing things blindly. So please, when donating your money to an organization don't just take the easy way out and give it to the first one that asks you for it. Make sure it is an organization that will actually make good use of your money. Or better yet, wait a bit until all the novelty of this disaster has faded- Haiti will be needing support for many years to come and they will certainly need it more in the long-run than today.

*Source: Institute for Public Accuracy

Listening to MLK's message carefully

As the day to celebrate Martin Luther King rolls around this year, I am perplexed that even though an entire day has been dedicated to this honorable man- his message hasn't really been listened to. The words he used in the hopes of changing society back then, continue to be very applicable to today. Why is it that it is so hard to learn from the past? Even when we recognize the importance of something, it seems enough to so many people to just nod their heads and on one hand and say, " oh yes, that man speaks the truth" but on the other hand do or tolerate the complete opposite.

MLK's message was not just about having a black man and a white man holding hands together while singing "Kumbaya" and believing that the problems of the world would be solved (which is how this is often present to children in US schools). He had a much more global message that hit deep into the heart of a severe economic, political and most of all moral problem that effects the world. He was very much against the use of the military to solve problems and heavily criticized his own government about the things that it continues to do today such as, abandoning the effort to make drastic changes in the government in order to prevent so much poverty in one of the richest countries in the world. Despite his criticism, it is admirable to observe that MLK did this all while loving his nation.

The following is a powerful example that I came accross from a speech he made on April 4, 1967 at Riverside Church in New York City:

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. ... A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, 'This is not just.' It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, 'This is not just.' The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

One Man Changing His Country Through Peace Education

Ebenezer Mainlehwon Vonhm Benda is making a very admirable effort to introduce Peace Education in his native country Liberia, which has been war torn for many years. He started his own organization dedicated to this and hopes to eventually form an entire department in his government focused on teaching the young generation about peace and get them out of the war-set mentality.

Below is a short interview with him:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQDahkuFiA

"What are we doing here?"

This is a recent documentary created by four brothers from the US. They decided to cover the poverty problem in Africa on their own by going there themselves, traveling around the continent and talking to people to find out where they believe the problem comes from. Why is it that with some much charity money pouring in, the problem continues to go on and even seems to get worse? In "What are we doing here" the Klein brothers tell us about their journey and their conclusions in an attempt to bring a wider awareness to the situation on the ground. Here is a preview:

And a link to the documentary website:
http://www.whatarewedoinghere.net/?_c=1

Obama, a symbol of Peace???????

Along with the rest of the world, I have to say that I was shocked to find out that President Obama was chosen as the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. More than shocked I was disappointed by the committee's choice. I think it has almost under-valued this most prestigious award.

My first reaction was, "What has Obama done so far?" yes, I agree that he has been a symbol of fomenting transnational relations, of dialoging of trying to open up the US's doors to the rest of the world- a big change from the last administration. In the committee's words they said that: "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" is what earned him the award. I have said as much, does anyone want to give me a Nobel Peace Prize? Or can I not win it because I'm not as high-profile as Obama and don't have as much influence? That's not fair!

My next reaction was... "ahhh, so the committee is just trying to throw this into the face of the last administration and all their supporters." It seems more like a political message to the world, saying "never again have the same mentality as the the last administration, it is obviously unpeaceful". To me this is not really called for and I think there were hundreds more people out there who deserved the award for them to lose this opportunity to a massive political message. To the committee, maybe they felt it was their time to shine and to use the leverage they had to bring this message indirectly to the world.

If I were Obama, I think I would've refused the award. Although I did read that he said he felt he didn't deserve it and instead would take it as a "call to action" to continue acting the way he has. All in all, I don't think Obama doesn't deserve the award... I just think he didn't at this time- it was a bit too precipitated. How many leaders have said the same things he has and it has all gone down the drain? How do we know the same won't happen with this one?

Is he really different? We don't know yet! I guess we'll see how accurate Nobel's honor was once he's on his way out of the White House.

Reaching forgiveness through pain

Here is the story of two extraordinary men who have come to realize the power of forgiveness and how they can work together to avoid having others go through the same pain they went through. These men are showing that there is another way to deal with ones pain instead of seeking revenge only. They are trying to spread their message to show that the "enemy" is really just another human being, and if you can reach to see him that way he will cease to be an enemy. A reaction of revenge will only make the other more of an enemy. Although they are currently a minority in the region acting that way, they hope to overcome the discrimination they are facing by some people in their respective communities and continue spreading their message and inspiring people around them to embrace it.

Measuring Poverty: One person's story

I was pleased to see this on my Skype this morning... heads up for the 21st of Sept.

It's not common to see these types of advertisements. Why? Well, we all know peace doesn't sell so well. Most people don't even realize that a Peace Day exists, so I was happy to see this little reminder on Skype!

Peace One Day

How about a peace year?? Hah!

Europe in 2020??

Could this be what we can expect western Europe to look like in the near future? Honestly, I'm rather skeptical.

Swine flu? Why is no one talking about Sri Lanka?

Almost 500 people have died up to now in Sri Lanka and no one seems to care as much as the pig flu that's been grasping the world's attention. Are we seeing a great manipulation of the masses by the media before our eyes. How many people have actually died from this silly swine flu? Less than 10, I think......

A Human or an Animal? An Animan!

What does it mean to be a human or part of the human race? What is humanity? Are humans animals? Where does one draw the line? What makes us distinct from the animal kingdom?

Often times when faced with the reality of violent human conflicts, one ends up concluding that humans are all animals. What does this mean? That we are savage, violent, void of emotion and compassion? I almost never see crude violence around me everyday in my immediate environment. So does this make only some humans more animal-like than others? What is the difference really? I think there needs to be another word invented for “our species”- something that is between a human and an animal. Maybe we can call ourselves Animanes?

Let me explain myself a little more. Most would generally agree that the main characteristic that distinguishes us from animals is our elevated capacity to use our brains. This implies our capacity to engage in the creative process to invent things, to find solutions to problems, to express intense emotions, to think profoundly and try to understand that which is beyond our current reality- the metaphysical or supernatural world. No other animal, besides the human (at least to our current knowledge) has been able to demonstrate similar characteristics to such a degree. So if humans are the only ones that have such major characteristics that differentiate them from the rest of the animal kingdom, why is it that we still fall in the animal category? We only refer to humans as animals once they tend to show their human side less. Obviously, humans are placed from one end of the “Humane/Animal” spectrum to the other. So why don’t we create another word in between? Something that defines us as animals but still capable of being human?

This can explain our capacity to change from one end to the other depending on our environment. This is our delicate and dangerous position as “intellectually advanced animals” capable of acting as savage animals however with the advantage of using our intellect to cause even greater damage. The creation of nuclear arms can be a prime example of this. I think if we were to create another name to describe “our kind” some of us would be more tempted to reach the category of ‘human’. It would be clearer to us that we have a choice to either be more animal-like to being more human-like. For now, we assume that humans are just animals- justifying our use for violence, our acts of greed, revenge and selfishness. We often ignore the fact that as humans we also have an immense capacity for compassion, emotional understanding, and support even under the most difficult situations. We can surpass these ugly “animal-like qualities” if we work hard enough to develop them.

It’s incredible how we can be capable of switching our minds completely. One minute you can be living life filled with love, compassion for others, interest in developing your life and your society. But then let’s say a war breaks out. Suddenly you are faced with constant violence around you, with divisions, categorizations and a threat to your survival. With no escape- it becomes nearly impossible to hold on to your humanity. I remember a conversation I had once with one of my friend’s aunts who lives in the south of Lebanon. She lived there through the civil war, through the several conflicts with Israel in the region, including the most recent confrontation they had with Hezbollah. She said “It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to be part of politics of the conflict- you have no choice! If you want to be neutral, people despise you for it and you are considered an enemy by all sides.” With this mentality, you are obliged to be part of the violent momentum around you. This is exactly how military groups are formed. Either you join or you die. Either you lose your humanity or you die. Most people choose to lose their humanity.

That’s how we end up many times with these vicious military commanders who perform unbelievably grotesque actions against humanity. These are humans who have been conditioned to appease to their savage animal side- making them capable of killing hundreds of people around them. I was reading a book written by Mia Ghoussoub (Leaving Beirut). She gave a very telling excerpt of an ex-war criminal’s testimony:

Hannah Arendt repeats a dialogue recorded by an American journalist in Nov. 1944

Q: Did you kill people in the camp?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you poison them with gas?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you bury them alive?

A: It sometimes happened.

Q: Were the victims picked from all over Europe?

A: I suppose so.

Q: Did you personally help kill people?

A: Absolutely not, I was only paymaster in the camp.

Q: What did you think of what was going on?

A: It was bad at first but we got used to it.

Q: Do you know the Russians will hang you?

A: (Bursting into tears) Why should they? What have I done?

That’s how we can become completely desensitized- completely disconnected with our humanity. Shortly after having read this passage I saw the Francis Bacon expo and found it interesting that one of the greatest themes in his art was his comparison of humans as animals. He believed that without God, man was susceptible to the same tendencies as animals. For this reason, he often made comparisons in his art to humans’ animal instinct. Above is his painting: "The Body, the Meat and the Spirit: Becoming Animal"

Cartoons in Semitic Lands

Was the uproar caused as a result of the posting from the Danish cartoonist portraying the Prophet Mohammad, have been more of a cultural thing? Indeed.

In the history of Semitic lands there is almost no tradition of using political cartoons to express opinions. Both the Jewish and Muslim traditions especially, use pictures sparingly and even more so when it comes to depicting any parts their religions. As we know, many aspects of what we (in the Western world) consider to be parts of daily life are considered in the East to be taboo. It is no wonder that the Danish cartoonist had to go in hiding after having severely offended an entire religion and cultural tradition. Sure, it shouldn't have been taken so seriously, and Muslims should have understood that cartoons are a very common form of expression in the West. But, can we expect that? Especially at a time when the religion already felt attacked by the entire world?People in the west have built a strong tolerance for criticism through cartoons- because everything and practically everyone is criticized at one point or another. But we can't expect another culture that is not used to this to take cartoons with a grain of salt. A cartoonist in the west wouldn't survive very long if he were "Mr. Nice Guy". He has to be witty, aggressive and ABOVE all, critical.

But traditions are changing a bit in the Semitic world. It is verrrry slowly starting to open up to using cartoons as a way to bring out social criticism. According to a BBC article, the British Council is hosting a tour in the Middle East of an exhibit of political cartoons, from cartoonist who are from the region mainly, in order to show the impact that they can have.

For now, the anarchist, Mr. Kurt Westergaard, who lacked a bit of cultural understanding has come out from hiding. Can we claim its a matter of freedom of speech, or is it a matter of respect for traditions? It will be interesting to see how the Middle East develops their tolerance to the slow introduction of more critical cartoons.

Mi región esta enferma

Mi región esta enferma,
necesita un medico, pero también los médicos parecen enfermos

Mi región esta enferma,
con un virus tan fuerte,
tan infeccioso y casi incurable

Mi región esta enferma,
de orgullo, egoísmo y
ningún respecto por el otro-
ningún respecto por la humanidad

Mi región esta enferma,
y por eso esta desfigurada.
Veo la muerte, la depresión,
la desesperación.
Veo la injusticia y la estupidez-
cosas que matan a mi región.

Mi región esta enferma,
ayuda por favor!
Escuchad por favor, porque los médicos parecen muertos!

Mi región esta enferma,
lo veo claro, hay una gran diferencia
entre lo que era
y lo que es.
Era una maravilla,
con una historia- tan bella.
Ahora solo veo
un futuro feo.
Necesita un remedio:
esperanza, paz y entendimiento

Mi región esta enferma,
enferma de ella misma
enferma del miedo
enferma de la inseguridad.
Ayuda por favor!
Escucha por favor, porque los médicos parecen muertos
y pronto me muero yo...

Gaza: Why does it seem helpless?

What would holocaust victims think of the events going on in Gaza right now? I cannot imagine that they would condone them. I fail to understand how a people who preaches to the world not to forget and ever repeat the atrocities of the WWII Holocaust, commit the same acts on another people. How is this justified? The government keeps claiming to be protecting the country's security, but when you see death ratios like 500:11, you know there's something that's not right. When you actually look into the details of those being killed and it's mainly civilians on one end and on the other end over half of them are military, there's another clue of some injustice going on. And yet another clue? When your own citizens are telling you to STOP attacking the "enemy". When some refuse to fight and instead choose to go to prison because they realize the damage the military is doing to their country.

I was in Lebanon on vacation when the attacking began. Being in the region, it was clear to see that the biggest accomplishment the Israeli government has made for its country through these actions is create more hatred toward them. More passionate anger, more people willing to fight against them. They have essentially created more enemies (or what they label as terrorists) and thus further ensured their insecurity in the region.

What is their long term goal? Are they trying to completely annihilate the Palestinian population so they won't have to deal with the prospect of sharing the land any longer? Why is the international community not putting an end to this? How is collective punishment being tolerated by the biggest representatives of democracy? Just as culpable, if not more so, are the other Arab countries who do nothing to help stabilize the region and call for justice.

This siege on Gaza is all too familiar to the 2006 war in Lebanon.

According to the Edward Peck, the former chief of mission in Iraq and Mauritania and deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan administration, "The U.S. has a legal definition of international terrorism: Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2331. The list includes intimidating and coercing a civilian population, kidnapping and assassination, an accurate description of what Israel has done and is doing." Unfortunately, the international attitude toward this conflict is heavily biased and tends to ignore these actions conducted by the state. As a result, we have a frustrated population faced with using the only means they know how to defend themselves with: more violence. So who's to blame? Shouldn't the international community know that terrorism breeds more terrorism? Then why is there so much tolerance?

For the sake of innocent people on both ends of the conflict I hope- this carnage ends soon!

Your stuff

Do you know where all your stuff comes from? Where it goes? How it is produced? What actors are involved from the time of its preconception to its destruction?

I had a vague idea, but watching this documentary taught me quite a lot. Annie Leonard manages to creatively tell the story in this very entertaining and informative 20-minute video.

In The Story of Stuff, she has been able to transmit her message and call-to-action to millions of people in the hopes of bringing about some change to the current corrupt policies that are deteriorating our environmental conditions.

Thank you George Dubbya Bush!!!

Yesterday, November 4, 2008. Such a historic day would've never happened had we not had someone like George Dubbya Bush in office prior to the elections. The United States of America has elected a half-black man to be the President of the country! A man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama!!! Not a John Douglas, Peter Johnston nor a Henry Rogers, but a Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Something that without G. W. Bush's existence, would have at least waited many decades to occur.

To think that a country where racism was blatantly rampant less than 50 years ago has elected (what many just see as) a black president. A country where a large percentage of the population and/or their parents can remember the era of segregation- of the legal acceptance of racism have elected Obama. A half-black president with a Muslim name. The most recent "enemy" of the US. The Muslim Osama (obviously similar to the name Obama) who is culpable for the September 11th attacks on the US and the Muslim Hussein who was killed in Osama's place with a convenient manipulation of the truth.

Against all odds, Obama has still been able to pull through. With a population of Americans that are hungry for something different, hungry for some positivism in such a downward spiraling era. They have allowed the situation to get so bad and now shown the world that they are open to changing their image. Despite all the fear that was fed to voters to have them not choose a candidate who was "not American enough", or who was "a terrorist", or didn't have "enough executive experience"- whatever the propaganda was, it surprisingly didn't work this time. This doesn't mean there still isn't a race problem in the US- that is still a grave issue that needs to be addressed. However, it does represent that something different clicked with the American people this time.

Seeing this from Europe, we feel the big sigh of relief on this end too (or should I say 'especially'?). As was commented to me by a Spaniard not too long ago "The results of the US elections affects the entire world, we feel it too, and in some way we should participate in the elections as well". Now I don't see when that day will happen and I'm not so sure it should, but beyond that, why have we permitted only one country's election results to so heavily affect the rest of the world? Are we now approaching an era where we will no longer be speaking of just one superpower? Can we soon expect to have at least a few actors balancing each other out? Or will the US continue to be the world's dictator (as the US likes to so lightly use the term)?

So finally something decent has come out of all the embarrassment we have had to put up with. Now, all I fear is that our expectations are too high. Can the hopes that we have for the future be delivered? Will Obama truly be what he represents?

"Oops, I attacked the neighbor"

Wow, the US sure knows how to make enemies! As though it didn't have enough. It has committed its first illegal attack on Syrian grounds, 8 kilometers (about 5 miles) from the Iraqi border. There still hasn't been a decent explanation for the attack, but it is assumed that the US government has targeted the area for suspicion of an Al Qaeda connection. Syria has been accused of harboring "terrorists" and insurgents within its borders, but does this justify an illegal attack on civilians? After all, Syria isn't the only country suspected of harboring terrorists and it had been improving its relations with the US somewhat compared to other countries on the "black list". Syria was recently commended by US officials for strengthening efforts in diminishing the flow of foreign fighters. It has initiated plans for a peace deal with Israel and has recently made the big step of recognizing an international border with Lebanon.

Nevertheless, four US helicopters violated Syrian airspace as they flew into Abou Kamal on the eastern border of the country. Soldiers came out and attacked civilians in a construction site, killing eight people, including four children and severely injuring two others (who are not expected to survive). What has the US gained from this attack? Not sure, but at a time when they should be trying to make friends with their enemies it seems the Bush administration has decided to flex its muscles again instead. One last big show of might before they are to leave the office for good?

What implications does this hold for the coming administration? Whether its Obama or McCain who will lead next, they will now have to deal with a rather upset Syrian government. Could it be that Bush and his friends are a bit scared of Syria's recent diplomatic moves with its neighbors? The current administration just doesn't cease to disappoint me. Just more proof that they have completely thrown diplomacy out the window.

Modern-day slavery, worse than ever

We're living in a high-tech world with no need for slavery anymore. Slavery is now a thing of the past, something we study about in our history books. Those dreadful days when humans were sold, used and treated as animals to perform physical labor are now a thing of the past. Today, this only MAY happen in remote parts of the world where they barely have any technological advances. Where they still have a "primitive" mentality. Humanity has generally learned from its past mistakes. We have learned from our history. We have apologized to each other and moved on to a path where slavery is no longer an issue..... or is it?

Unfortunately, I wish this were all true. Instead, we are living in an era where the rate of slavery is at its highest ever! Surprising, isn't it?

Human sex trafficking is now the largest form of slavery. It has become a major problem lately that has been overshadowed by other world problems such as the war in Iraq. Because of this is has been festering. Sex trafficking is not the only thing humans are enslaved for, there is also the example of small children being used as camel jockeys in the Middle East, those working in rich company's sweatshops, or laborers from neighboring countries working to build up Dubai and living in extremely poor conditions- just to name a few. All this adds up to what Professor Ethan Kapstein calls the "New Global Slave Trade". There have been a few pockets of people and organizations trying to eliminate this crime, but as most things go- when there are such huge profits being made somewhere, it becomes that much harder to wipe out the crime. It is now a big business and many of the world's governments seem to be condoning it.

Lately, celebrities have also started to become active . Call + Response is a new documentary that has come out addressing this issue. The title alludes to the African American 'call and response' that inspired slaves to pull through their suppression. The documentary is meant to use music again as a social movement to help liberate our modern day slaves. It is meant to be the "Call" that will receive a "Response" from its viewers. Below are links to a short history and a trailer of the documentary.

History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7NsSQlBa4Y

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zaBMOdCoo

And after a small lapse... I'm back

Yes, I've somehow not signed onto my blog in a couple months!!! Have I become a victim of the problem that I created my blog to prevent??? Unfortunately, I think I may have a little. I guess that just goes to show how easy it is.....

I have to admit that I have barely even dedicated half an hour a day to what's going on in the world. Since I have no TV at home, I don't get the quick fix of taking in the news thats fed to us either. Internet is my only outlet to the world, but I barely spend time doing personal work whenever I'm online. I sometimes go days without even responding to emails. I've become too occupied with my work and social life- Yes, that's everyones excuse, I know- pathetic. But I'm back!!! And I'm happy to be back. :-)

Where the Hell is Matt?

Refreshing, clever and funny! Matt left his job to travel across the globe where he has shared his little dance and had others join him. As a result he compiled the shots taken in each location and made this short film. It's so simple yet quite moving!




For more go to: Stride link (has a video of cuts that didn't make it- its worth seeing); Official Website (includes journal of the places he has been to)

Tasting violence: "Buns and Guns"

Is this really so tasteful? I'm sure this would cut many people's appetite more than anything else. A restaurant in the southern suburb (Hezbollah strong-hold) of Beirut called "Buns and Guns" has recently opened up.

The motif? A military post.

Menu? In the shape of a bullet

The dishes served? Terrorist bread, Rocket-propelled granade, Kalashnikov, Dragunov, Viper, B52 etc.

Waiter outfit? Military uniforms

Acoustic? Digital sounds of military helicopters swooping overhead and rockets crashing

Their motto? "A sandwich can kill you"

Clever and humorous! The owner insists that his main goal was to make people laugh.... and we all know that good humor and creativity sells. That's just what the owner, Yousef Ibrahim is experiencing.

What are your thoughts on this? Does this just encourage and inspire pride for those who are using violence? Does it seem to ridicule the use of violence? Or do you think there really isn't any effect at all? Interestingly, they decided to put "terrorist bread" on the menu, thus labeling themselves as terrorists, a label that they fight against. Ibrahim states, "They accuse us of terrorism, so let's serve terrorist bread, why not?" This reminds me of Freedom Fries for some reason. Who knew food could get so political?!


Source: BBC

The side of Lebanon that the World doesn't see

Two Men, One War, 33 Years On

West Bank Story: Shall we laugh it off?

"West Bank Story" is a 2007 Oscar-winning short film. If you haven't seen it maybe you can still share your opinions. Just to explain it a bit:

It is a parody of the musical "The West Side Story", where a young Palestinian girl and a young Israeli boy fall in love. They are each relatives of rival falafel restaurant owners, one called the Kosher Kings (Israeli) and the other called Hummus Hut (Palestinian). According to the director, who is of Israeli origin, it was meant to show how ridiculous the real situation is because in the end both sides share such similarities, yet they still live in hatred.

Is comic relief for such a serious conflict appropriate? Is it something that is lacking? Are people taking the conflict too seriously and just need to take a step back to look at it from a different angle as this short film suggests? Do you feel this over simplifies the conflict and gives an inaccurate portrayal of the real situation for those who aren't well informed of it? Please share your thoughts!

Here is the link to a news coverage of the film: Coverage
And a link to the official website:West Bank Story
(The film used to be available online but has been taken off for some reason.)

Les réfugiés de Cherbourg

The men aren't being drafted to Algeria in this story, instead men are fleeing from Iraq to find refuge in Europe. They are in fact known as "The ghosts of Cherbourg".

I was just in Cherbourg located on the coast of Normandy, France to visit my family for Spring break. As I was talking to my aunt in the kitchen, she pulled out a huge pot of soup and started telling me that it was for the Iraqis. "The Iraqis?!?!" I asked in shock, "What Iraqis?" She began to explain to me that there is a group of Iraqi refugees just hanging out at the ports looking for a chance to get to England by sneaking as stowaways on the ferries. My cousin and my aunt volunteer some of their time to go feed them whenever they can.

I was shocked by this. "So there is a group of refugees with nothing, just laying outside in the cold hoping for an opportunity to go to England and the government doesn't want to do anything about it?" I assumed that this has been going on since the beginning of the war, so how come it's still a problem that hasn't been dealt with? "And why England? Why not just try to settle in France?" "I don't know" my aunt commented, "they dream of going to England, to them it's much better than France!"

I ended up finding this article from The Guardian, explaining a little of the background of the situation. Turns out that the policies to stay in England are much more lenient than in France. As the number of refugees keeps increasing, many are not able to make it over and if they do they risk being sent back if caught. Tension is rising especially among the ferry owners and truck drivers (who load their trucks on the ferries) because they are the ones who suffer the consequences. They are responsible to pay a rather hefty fine for each stowaway that is found.

Is there really not a better way to deal with this situation? Under international law, they aren't allowed to be sent back to their country because it is at war. That's one step toward guaranteeing human rights, but what happened to the follow up? Are they really expected to be able to legally establish themselves wherever they end up if there are no laws to provide this luxury? This, to me, is just as much of a human rights violation. Some have died in the attempt of fleeing and there has even been a shooting at the port from angry locals toward refugees!

I still can't understand why nothing has been done about this serious problem. It's mind boggling to see how the effects of war can ripple to people and places that had never expected to be effected by it. Maybe this can open peoples mind to realize the fact that nothing in this world happens in isolation. A war in someone else's country is not something that should be shrugged off- it should be considered a problem for you too.

Transsexuals in Iran

Yes, it's legal to be a transsexual in Iran. Since being gay is seen as a medical problem, Iranian law has permitted gays to have sex changes. Clearly, homosexual relationships are strictly forbidden, but it has been justified (as the argument goes) to 'modify' one of God's creations.... just as you turn wheat into bread, you turn a male into a female and Voila!

Be Like Others is a recent documentary that came out this year, following the lives of a few transsexuals in Iran. The director, Tanaz Eshaghian, has won three awards so far for her film. The last screening was at the Berlin International Film Festival.

Are we living in an 'Era of War'?

"According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the number of inter state wars is lower than it has ever been and the number of civil wars has been declining for at least fifteen years."

-Jonathan Power, "The Confidence to Say 'No' to Would-be Warmakers"

Despite all the reports you see on the news everyday, the world has not been having more wars than in the past. Now, there is also the consideration that we are now experiencing a new type of ‘warfare’- random terrorist attacks, but these don't kill nearly as many as when there is a full blown war. At the same time, however, our weapons today can cause much more destruction and result in the loss of many more lives than in the past. So does this mean that although we are having less wars, more people are dying? Most definitely.

Nevertheless, we should recognize the fact that (as the author in the article above points out) there has been a great accomplishment, to have a once-upon-a-time region of warring nations to stabilize. Europe! A great example to the rest of the world. Of course, it still has its issues (eg. separatists groups like ETA in Spain, and the past conflict in Ireland etc.), but we can be pretty sure that Germany and France won't go to war tomorrow. There is time now for the region to heal, to produce several generations who are aware enough of their past and at the same time experience a life of peace and stability. Something that many regions haven’t had the chance to experience for long enough. If you had told any European citizen 100 years ago that a European Union would be created in the near future, he/she would've laughed in your face and probably called you a lunatic.

So why has this progress in the history of humanity been greatly under-appreciated? Why has it not been seen as a stepping stone to further global unification? Or used as an example to other warring nations to help pull them out of their misery? Maybe because, as I have pointed out in several of my postings and as is mentioned in the above article, the realist view has permeated current politics and thus come to justify the high spending on security measures. Cause a sense of paranoia and nations will be more likely to stack up on arms.

Therefore, according to the study, our conundrum may not be that we are producing more conflicts, but rather that we aren't getting rid of the arms that are prolonging conflicts and as a result causing a rising number of casualties. The efforts to solve conflicts are being undermined by the fact that weapons are giving countries a false sense of security. As the advancement in arms technology becomes more sophisticated with biological, chemical and nuclear arms, the accessibility of them has not become any more difficult. That is the scary part. Now we are seeing the interplay between the different countries pointing fingers at each other. Each is playing their part in the blame game and in the meantime the arms collection keeps increasing. For what? Has the lesson not been learned yet?

So, for as much as I appreciate the tad bit of positive news that our current era is not necessarily one of increased warfare; I remain concerned with the prospect that our military power has increased its destructive potential and that practically no restrictive measurements have been put in place.

[Picture taken in Berlin]