starry-eyed-cynic

[starry-eyed-cynic]

the gun control debate

In the past two months, I have been nothing but upset and frustrated when reading the news. Headlines either proclaim celebrity make ups and break ups or shout about impending wars, general intolerance, and mass shootings (Oh, and there's also the debate over whether there is or isn't a Republican "War on Women" - some people argue that it's just rhetoric and propaganda used by the Democratic party. Yea, sure. It's not the Democratic party's fault that more and more Republican politicians are being vocal about their desire to oppress women and take away women's rights. But that's for another time). 

It seems that for the past couple of months, there has been some sort of shooting in the United States every week. Only two weeks after the shooting in the cinema in Aurora, Colorado, a white supremacist (read: TERRORIST) opened fire at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and now, a man shot and killed his boss in New York City, after which police fire injured another 9 people (this is not to mention the mosque that was burned down in Missouri). And what, you may ask, is the result of all of this gun violence in these good ol' United States of America? A debate has ensued, with many loud voices calling for fewer restrictions on gun control and more guns in general. The logic in this? Those who support the U.S. Constitutional "Right to Bear Arms" argue that if more people had guns or concealed weapons, those people would be able to shoot the "bad guy" before (s)he killed so many innocents. 

Lets think about this, shall we? In Colorado, the shooting occurred in a dark movie theatre at the beginning of a premiere for a movie that included violent scenes. The shooter came well prepared, detonating tear gas and smoke bombs to add to the confusion. For long moments, members of the crowd weren't sure if what was happening was part of the movie premiere or something else. Now, imagine that some "good samaritan" had a concealed weapon and decided to shoot back to "kill the bad guy"... How much higher would the death toll have been if that had happened?

And the shooting at the Sikh temple. Families had gathered to worship, and suddenly a crazed white supremacist decides to open fire. Or the man in NYC who shot his boss. If there were stricter laws governing who could and could not own a gun, if background checks were actually conducted in gun ownership applications, maybe these two men wouldn't have had guns. Countless people would still be alive today, and still more would never have been injured or otherwise affected.

Yes, there is the argument that "guns don't kill people, people do". But it would be much harder for people to kill other people, other living, breathing, human beings, if they didn't have access to guns. In fact, Marian Wright Edelman cites scientific studies (don't worry, this is nothing like the Republican science that tells us that women cannot get pregnant if they are raped) in her article, that essentially confirm that stricter regulations of gun sales "are associated with fewer guns diverted to criminals" (Daniel W. Webster, professor and co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health).

But what really got to me were some of the comments that readers left in response to Ms. Edelman's article, namely one that said "More laws are not the answer either. Just means more criminals. Next thing you will be talking about how we have such a problem with so many criminals. Wonder why? Maybe deal with the cause of the symptom and not the symptom itself." While a valiant effort to sound intelligent by offering the idea of dealing with structural issues of societal problems, this brings a whole new problem to the forefront. Why do we have such a large problem in the United States regarding criminals and the overcrowding of prisons, to the extent that judges are deciding to free prisoners just to make room? Perhaps because of structural inequalities that dictate that cocaine distributers/users, who are primarily white and wealthy, get more lenient punishments and drastically shorter prison sentences than crack cocaine distributers/users, who are primarily African Americans and other minorities, get harsher prison sentences? Or, perhaps because the system is set up in a way that almost invites convicted criminals back into the waiting arms of the (incredibly lucrative) prison industry? 

My views? Make regulations for gun sales more strict. It won't lead to more criminals, it will lead to less Americans owning guns, and hopefully less intolerant and those potentially unfit to own such deadly weapons will have such unrestricted access. As former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." If we're not careful here in the U.S., the military-industrial complex will very soon be replaced by the American complex for the right to own guns. And as harmful as the military-industrial complex has been for the international community, this new American complex will be 10 times more harmful to the domestic community.

#gun control #GOP #Aurora #Colorado #Sikh temple #Wisconsin #NYC #guns #U.S. Constitution #Right to Bear Arms #Second Amendment rights #religious intolerance

[starry-eyed-cynic]

My strange love for Law & ORder SVU

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is one of my favorite T.V. shows of all time. I've seen nearly every single episode, most of them multiple times. Why? I have no idea. Maybe I've just grown attached to the characters. What terrifies me is that when I opened up BBC News this evening, it seemed to read like an SVU marathon: "Chile child sex abuse to be investigated at 61 schools", "US clergyman sentenced over abuse", "Pope orders action on sex abuse"...

Why is it that people in power always seem to take advantage of others? Children are taught to respect their elders, but what are the children to do when their elders don't return that respect? These so-called adults that are essentially crafting the future generations have gone too far. The abuse and the cover-ups, whether at Penn State or various churches or elementary schools, must be stopped. 

An idea presented in SVU on multiple occasions, one that I can't quite wrap my head around, is the idea that pedophiles "love" the children that they abuse - they aren't hurting the children, rather they are simply showing their love for the children. Or the idea that once (well, I suppose still, unfortunately), society thought that two men or two women being in love with each other was wrong, but then society gradually learned to accept these couples. Perhaps pedophelia is next in line, and perhaps with time society will come to accept this type of "love" as well. Here's where I (literally) start to scratch my head. For me, something in this argument just doesn't click. 

Simply said, it's time for our elders, those that shape the future generations of the world, to stop abusing children and to stop covering up the abuse. It's time for our elders to grow up.

#Law and Order: Special Victims Unit #SVU #Child Sex Abuse #Vatican #sexual abuse #Catholic Church #Education system #Chile #International #BBC #BBC News

[starry-eyed-cynic]

Where are our priorities?

Briefly re-visiting Penn State:

Former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested last November on counts of sexual abuse, causing probably the biggest scandal to hit the college football scene in the last decade. Why such a big scandal? It seemed (due to large riots) that a large majority of students at Penn State were more upset that their football coaches were fired than the fact that one abused young children and that the other helped to keep the abuse a secret. Worse yet, Sandusky met these children through a charity that he himself founded!

Sandusky was found guilty of 45 of the 48 charges against him, and could spend the rest of his life in jail. Good. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sanctions against Penn State include monetary fines as well as restrictions not only on their football program, but also against other sports programs (for a full list, see here). Some people are complaining that these sanctions are too severe, but what of the 10+ boys that Sandusky abused? Doesn't their pain and suffering count here?

Where are my generations priorities?

Over and over, whether it is through reactions to scandals such as these or simply trying to talk to people on the street about issues that (in)directly affect their lives (such as Guantanamo Bay/U.S. sponsored torture, issues of the economy, etc. etc.), my generation has become apathetic. My generation cares more about partying, their appearance, and their possessions than the genuine human suffering that they have the ability to impact. I've heard many older people comment on how my generation is one of the worst, not only because of the extreme financial woes that lie ahead of us, but because of their constant consumerism. Isn't it time to change all of that?

#Penn State University #sexual abuse #football #generation Y #apathy

[starry-eyed-cynic]

What's happening in Iraq?

As I finished my internship at the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, I wrote another article for the NO Weapons NO War (NOW) project I had been working on. In May, NOW highlighted Rashad Zaydan, a doctor from Iraq. The following is the article that I wrote, published in the ICPJ May newsletter:

The history leading up to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is well known throughout the world, despite some still-hazy details about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and the relation between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers that have led to much debate recently. What tends to get overlooked is the ever-deteriorating condition that the U.S. Occupation left in Iraq, especially in terms of women’s rights.

Dr. Rashad Zaydan, a pharmacist, wife, and mother of four, founded a non-profit called Knowledge for Iraqi Women Society that serves nearly 1.5 million widows and 3 million orphans in Iraq. Her organization provides health care, education, finance, clothing, and food, as well as instruction in income-generating skills, literacy training, and micro-loans, emphasizing women’s growing role in reconstructing Iraqi society. Dr. Zaydan says of her organization, “It is gratifying to know that the society that you have founded works to help the distressed women and children of Iraq. We do not engage in politics, but are concerned with the practical task of trying to improve lives.”

But Dr. Zaydan and her organization have a long way to go. When the Bush administration began attempting to sell the War in Iraq to its domestic audience, it not only played on the fear caused by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but painted a feminist picture of the invasion as a path to women’s empowerment and liberation. In fact, the U.S.-led invasion and subsequent occupation led to an incredible decrease in women’s rights and human rights in general: the occupation not only “systematically violated Iraqi’s rights” to life, dignity, and self-determination, but it was so destructive and so violent that “one in four Iraqis are estimated to be dead of displaced”, and up to one million Iraqis have been “forcibly disappeared”.

Before the U.S. invasion, 75% of Iraqi women had college degrees and 31% had graduate level degrees (compared to 35% of European and U.S. women). Now, only 10% of women in Iraq continue to work in their professions. Since the beginning of the war in 2003, rates of abductions and kidnappings targeting women and girls, female suicides, and honor killings have increased. However now that the majority of U.S. troops have left the country, Iraqi women are in more danger than ever. Women’s situation in Iraq has deteriorated to the point that women rarely work and have pulled their children out of school due to their “complete and total loss of security”. The ineffectiveness of the Iraqi government means that the vast majority of “criminals, mafias, militias, death squads, U.S. occupation forces, and Iraq police and army forces” who commit crimes against women are not held accountable for their actions.

Rumor has it that the U.S. did indeed find remnants of weapons of mass destruction that had been “secretly moved to Syria.” In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that it found traces of uranium and other substances related to a nuclear weapons program in Iraq previous to the 2003 invasion, however it also reported that the substantial level of deterioration of the industrial capacity of these sites had direct correlation to Iraq’s ability to resume a nuclear weapons program. 

Has the level of human suffering been worth it?

(References from: http://electronicintifada.net/content/occupation-iraq-destroys-womens-lives/9174)

As Dr. Zaydan said, “As we all are born knowing nothing, we all shall leave taking nothing. Our space of life will depend on how much we learn and offer. If we excuse our previous generation for wrong behavior towards others whom they do not know, our coming generation will not forgive us for it.”

#Iraq #War in Iraq #United States #women #women2012

[starry-eyed-cynic]

So what?

U.S. war veterans spent significant portions of their lives protecting the freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens - i.e. you and me - so that we can go to school, start a family, live our lives. But when they return from war, it seems that the vast majority of them are told, so what? and are pushed aside.

I recently heard a story on National Public Radio (NPR) regarding the G.I. Bill and veterans trying to go to college. According to the story on NPR, not only do most veterans feel as though they don't fit in among the crowd of "typical" college students, but they are offered only minimal services through the college or university itself. The schools, especially given recent budget cuts, simply don't have the time or the resources (or so they say - most Universities don't have any qualms about spending millions upon millions of dollars on football, but when it comes to veterans, there simply isn't any money left) Sure, the Veterans' Association has hospitals, and U.S. policy makers passed all sorts of laws that say that veterans can go to school and they'll help pay. I recently watched the movie "Music Within", which is based on a true story about a Vietnam veteran. In the movie, the main character is told that the government will not pay for his higher education as promised because he is deaf and therefore disabled - a disability he incurred while at war, serving his country...what? 

This, unfortunately, is not the only inconsistency regarding war and veterans.

The U.S. government celebrates its armed forces, and rightly so. All you have to do is turn on your T.V. to see it - commercials for the Marines, the Navy Seals, and the Army are abundant, to say the least. War is glorified, even romanticized, in these advertisements which are largely directed at high school students and recent graduates. The promise of glory and higher education are enticing to much of the youth who otherwise might not have a chance to go to college. But what the government doesn't show in these advertisements is the horror encountered in war or the mistreatment of disabled veterans upon their return. Recruits aren't told that they might have to pick up the pieces of their fellow soldiers after a bomb explodes, or that their friends might be killed in front of them. They aren't told that they will have to struggle with PTSD, artificial limbs, or joblessness.

The reality for too many veterans in the U.S.: no mental health care, no aid with education, no jobs.

While I might not always agree with the views of veterans, or their actions during the war, they did what they believed was the right thing to do. They put their lives at stake so that I don't have to - so that YOU don't have to. The least we could do in return is to thank them properly and help them to re-adjust into society. 

#NPR #war veterans #United States #Higher education #G.I. Bill #Vietnam #Music Within #war #U.S. government #jobs #PTSD #mental health care

[starry-eyed-cynic]

the biggest, most scariest monster of all

If you were to ask U.S. foreign policy experts, the biggest threat to U.S. "national security" is Al-Qaeda - even if that threat is on a different continent, and really doesn't want much to do with the U.S. I say this in light of an article that I recently read about the U.S. bounty on Somali militants (see here) - the U.S. is terrified of the alliance between Al-Shabab (the Somali militants that currently rule parts of Somalia) and Al-Qaeda, to the point of offering millions of dollars for information leading to the capture of militant leaders. As far as I know, Al-Shabab isn't even interested in the U.S., and hasn't (albiet, yet) targeted the U.S. in any way. So why is the U.S spending huge sums of money - money that could be put to helping the U.S. economy or perhaps even put back into the public education system?

I often wonder what the world would be like if George H. Bush hadn't won the U.S. Presidential elections in 2000 (thanks, Florida). While I realize that certain events would have still happened, it's hard not to imagine that life, at least in the U.S., would be better if Al Gore had become President.

For example, would there even be a "War on Terror"? Or would Gore have realized the insanity of this concept? Would Gore have plunged the U.S. into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, killing "the bad guys" at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and U.S. troops? And what about the U.S. economy - what would it look like today if Gore had been elected President in 2000? 

I know its pointless to wonder what could have been, as it will never be. And while we certainly can't change history, I do hope that we all learn something from it. 

#Al-Qaeda #USA #America #War on Terror #Al-Shabab #politics #Bush #Al Gore

[starry-eyed-cynic]

i am pregnant

At least, I'm pregnant according to a new bill passed by the Arizona legislature that declares that a woman is pregnant two weeks before conception.

Wait, what?

The bill defines "gestational age" as "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman", which corresponds with how doctors typically determine gestational age. However, this is by no means an exact science, and doctors can only determine this age to within 10-14 days. As Arizona State Representative Matt Heinz (D - Tucson), who also happens to be a physician, says, "If medical science can only determine gestational age to within 10-14 days, how can a superior court judge do it?" And moreover, why should a superior court judge do it?

But this isn't the only bill that Arizona has passed recently. Other bills passed include a bill that will prohibit abortion after 18 weeks, giving Arizona the earliest definition of late-term abortion in the country (all other states prohibit abortion after 20 weeks), a bill that protects doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that might cause a woman to consider getting an abortion (unbelievable! see more here), and a bill that requires school teachers to teach students that adoption and birth are the two "most accepted outcomes" for an unwanted pregnancy (at least we've moved away from abstinence-only sex ed?). All of these bills now head to Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, who has the power to pass the bills or to veto them. Brewer is a firmly pro-life Republican. I would hate to live in Arizona right now.

But what might be worse is that a woman, State Representative Kimberly Yee (R - Phoenix), sponsored these bills! It's one thing to complain about how old white men in power keep trying to curtail women's rights, but to have a woman jump on the bandwagon - I just can't imagine why any woman would help to move our country backwards and take away women's right to choose. It's simply outrageous. 

#Arizona #Republicans #War on Women #Women's Rights #Abortion #Pregnancy #pro-life #pro-choice #outrageous

[starry-eyed-cynic]

A step in the right direction

I have always said that I support the existence of the state of Israel, but I do not support or agree with the extreme actions of the government that (almost purposely) impede peace. Recently, the Israeli government and the Jewish settler movement agreed on a deal to delay the evacuation of Migron, an illegal Jewish settlement in the West Bank that was built on privately owned Palestinian land (yet another example of the government's and the settler movement's attempts to create "facts on the ground"). The government and the settlers appealed to Israel's Supreme Court to delay the evacuation for three and a half years, so that the settlers could build homes elsewhere. However, the Israeli Supreme Court denied the delay unanimously, describing the postponement as "unreasonable."

Personally, I think this is fantastic. Postponing the evacuation of the settlers would have simply created another barrier to peace in a conflict that has already been drawn out for over half of a century. It's time for peace, and this is a step in the right direction.

For the entire article, see here.

#Middle East #Israel #Palestine #Justice #Social Justice #Peace #Law #Jerusalem #West Bank

[starry-eyed-cynic]

A "funny joke"?

I presented at a conference this past weekend with some friends/colleagues: the 4th Annual International Conference on Religion, Conflict, and Peace, created by the Common Bond Institute and hosted by the Henry Ford Community College. It was a great experience, and I was so happy to see the large number of people that came to our session.

Everything was going beautifully, with people sharing and asking intelligent and meaningful questions, until the end. In the last five minutes of our session, two comments seemed to ruin the entire positive, peaceful environment that we had worked to create. The first comment was a "joke" - Three guys are sitting next to each other on a plane, one American Jew (sitting next to the window), one Israeli Jew (sitting in the middle), and one Palestinian (here, you can insert Muslim or Arab, whichever you prefer). So the three guys all take their shoes off and get comfortable, at which point the American Jew says, "I'm really thirsty, I could really use a glass of water", and the Palestinian says "oh, I'll get it for you." "Thanks!" says the American Jew. The Palestinian guy goes and gets the American Jew a glass of water, and while he's gone the American Jew spits in the Palestinian's shoe (at this point, the man telling the joke actually makes the noise of spitting - adding insult to injury?). A little while later, the Israeli Jew says "I'm really thirsty, I could really use a glass of water", and again the Palestinian guy says "I'll get it for you." And again, while the Palestinian is up getting the glass of water, the Israeli Jew spits in his shoe (and again with that disgusting noise!). At the end of the flight, the three men are putting their shoes back on, and as they get up to leave, the Palestinian says to the two Jewish men "You know, this whole peace thing isn't going to work if you keep spitting in my shoes and I keep pissing in your water"...Ha ha ha? What was the point of telling this joke? 

But it was the second comment that came next, the last of our session, that really created a negative atmosphere. He said, "But extremists have all of the power. How is such a small group of people actually going to make a difference in the world, especially regarding the pending war with Iran?" There was an initial hurt, angry response to the question, and with that our session ended. Feeling that it shouldn't end this way, I approached the man to discuss his question with him and his wife. As I sat next to him and started trying to explain what I thought in response to his question, he kept cutting me off, while his wife kept trying to shut him up and telling him to actually listen to my answer. My response went something like this (just imagine an interruption after every couple of sentences): It's not just us doing work like this, its people all over the world. There are new grassroots projects emerging, such as Blood Relations (http://bloodrelations.org/), and other grassroots projects working hard in places where you wouldn't even expect them - take for example, the "Israel Loves Iran" blog (that I've mentioned previously in my previous blog entries) that has gotten over 500,000 hits in just about two weeks! Iranians could be arrested, tortured, or executed because of their involvement, yet they continue to send pictures and messages of good will. Yes, the Republican Presidential candidates are rambling on and on about going to war with Iran, but its only to try and get a large enough constituency to become the Republican Presidential candidate. If one of them were actually to win in the upcoming election, I truly believe that there would be an outpouring of youth especially, and the population generally, against the war - look at the Obama 2008 election and campaign: hoards of youth came out to vote for Obama in 2008, and hoards of youth celebrated in the street when he was elected. The same will happen if a Republican tried pulling the U.S. into another war - there is such a thing as "war fatigue" and I think (and truly hope) that it has emerged in the U.S. in recent years. If the vast majority of people in the Israel, Iran, and the U.S. don't want to go to war, the politicians must listen (I hope). 

Did he listen to me, or get anything at all out of our conversation? Maybe, maybe not. But this exchange left me thinking - am I right?

#Common Bond Institute #Funny #Israel #Jokes #Palestine #conflict #extremism #leadership #peace #religion #Henry Ford Community College #Iran #Israel Loves Iran #grassroots #Obama 2008 #Obama 2012 #Republican Primaries #Republican presidential candidates #BloodRelations

[starry-eyed-cynic]

What the hell is going on?

As Soraya Chemaly wrote in her article 10 Reasons The Rest Of The World Thinks The U.S. Is Nuts, "I am a woman and I have these human rights: 

The right to life.  The right to privacy.  The right to freedom.  The right to bodily integrity.  The right to decide when and how I reproduce."

Yes, I know that I've already touched on this issue. But why in the world are politicians in the United States so intent on taking away women's rights? To the point where these politicians are comparing women to farm animals! The article is truly a great read, it's well-informed, well-written, and brings to the forefront key issues with politicians' ideas about women and the rights that women should or should not have. 

In the past, women did have to carry their fetuses, dead, alive, wanted, unwanted, to term. There wasn't the technology to detect the death of a fetus. Now, we have the technology to detect the death or abnormalities of a fetus, and to perform life-saving operations in the case that a woman's life became endangered due to her pregnancy. So why wouldn't we use it? Pro-lifers have really gone overboard here - to advocate to save a fetus over the life of a living, breathing woman?

For example, say a woman is pregnant, and her doctor tells her that she has developed a condition where either she will survive the pregnancy, or her fetus will. One or the other. Who should be saved? To me, this hypothetical situation seems obvious, abort the fetus and save the mother. Under some of the new laws that are being passed, however, this won't be a choice, and then what happens to the baby that has been saved? What happens if the woman had no family? Best case scenario, the baby gets adopted by a nice family. Or, seemingly more likely, the baby gets put into foster care, bounced around from family to family. Is that really the kind of life that you would want your baby to have? 

Or take this example: a woman is pregnant, happily, and sometime during the pregnancy finds out that her baby has a life-threatening condition. Some time later, the baby does, in fact, die. There are actually some laws that have been passed or are being debated that would force the woman to carry the baby to term, regardless of the physical risk of infection and the emotional scarring. And to do this because "cows and pigs do"...When did women stop being seen as human beings? Didn't women already have to go through the fight to their inalienable human rights in this country? 

And from the perspective of the politicians voting for these bills, don't they have mothers? Sisters? Wives? Daughters? Friends that are female? Do these politicians have so little respect for their female friends and family that they are willing to take away their right to choose? And what's more, these politicians are mainly men, men without uterus', men who will never get pregnant, or experience the pain of a miscarriage. Why should they interfere?

And how would they feel if this was true?:

#women's rights #human rights #pro-life #pro-choice #Politics #Politicians #fetus #abortion #pregnancy #viagra

[starry-eyed-cynic]

an inspiring use of social media

No one actually wants to go to war, or so I would hope. And yet, the media has been portraying both Israel and Iran as war-hungry nations, bent on destroying one another. While this may or may not be true on the governmental level, I've recently stumbled onto a truly inspiring project: "Israel Loves Iran" (see here or here). In an example of the true value of social media outlets, an Israeli couple, Ronny Edry and Michal Tamir, began the campaign to promote peaceful interactions between Israelis and Iranians. Currently, the project has 1000 supporters, and continues to grow. 

Edry, in an interview with Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper) said: "I thought that when you're constantly surrounded by talk of threats and war, you are so stressed and afraid that you crawl into a sort of shell and think to yourself how lucky we are to also have bombs and how lucky we are that we'll clean them out first. So I thought, 'Why not try to reach the other side; to bypass the generals and see if they [Iranians] really hate me?'"

What I find truly inspiring is this response from an Iranian citizen, especially considering that while in Israel citizens are free to do this sort of thing, Iranian citizens can be arrested and jailed:

"We also love you. Your words are reaching us despite the censorship. The Iranian people, apart from the regime, do not hold a grudge nor animosity against anyone, especially not the Israelis… We never saw Israelis as our enemies. As such, the regime cannot gain public support for war. The hatred was invented by the propaganda of the regime, which will die soon. The ayatollah will die soon. [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad will disappear. He is nothing more than an opportunist, and more than anything – an idiot. Everyone hates him. We love you, love, peace. And thanks for your message."

Hopefully, citizens of Israel and Iran can influence their respective governments and help to create a more peaceful environment. War exacts an unbelievable human toll, one that neither the Israeli nor the Iranian populations want, as is evidenced by the many posts related to the Israel Loves Iran project. If enough people become involved in the project, maybe the governments will look past their own political stances and desires and work for peace.

To view the Israel Loves Iran blog, click here, and search for "Pushpin Mehina" to find the facebook page.

#Ahmadinejad #Government #Iran #Israel #Media #Peace #Politics #Social Media #War #grassroots organizing

[starry-eyed-cynic]

Women's rights are human rights, or at least they should be

What is it about men that makes them feel as though they have to curtail the rights of women? To rape women? To abuse women? What about women is so threatening to men? (Besides our obviously superior intelligence and beauty, that is.)

Over the weekend, I attended a law school open house. The first day, they took us on a "Law Firm Crawl" so that we could ask questions about being a lawyer, attending law school, etc. etc. I was surprised to see that the attendees were split just about evenly between men and women - despite what T.V. shows would lead us to believe, the Law is a field that is still heavily male-dominated. And do you know what made me so angry? There was a group of about five or six girls who sat around the entire day talking about Kim Kardashian, Jason Segel, hair products, makeup, and other topics that should have been saved for their sorority house. These women were obviously intelligent, as they had not only been accepted into law school, but had been offered merit-based scholarships! Why do women in the United States feel such a pressing need to portray themselves as stupid, pretty girls, in order to get the attention that they want from men, or even from the women that surround them? Why can't these women just be proud that they are intelligent? 

I'm hoping that women around the United States will finally wake up and fight for their rights (literally - Republican presidential candidates seem to be competing to see who can take away more of women's rights, see here), and perhaps come to respect themselves more and be proud not only of their beauty, but of their intelligence. I'm hoping that women in the United States will come to not only appreciate, but make full use of the opportunities that they are afforded. 

I say most of this in light of an article that I've recently read about underaged women in Morocco who can be forced, under the law, to marry their rapist so that he can avoid prosecution. At this point, you must be asking yourself how women's issues in Africa even made international news: one girl was so severely beaten after being forced to marry her rapist, that she killed herself by swallowing rat poison. She was sixteen years old. Hundreds of women took to the street in Morocco; read more about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17416426, or here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17379721

Why does it take the rape-suicide of a teenage girl to bring severe abuses against women into the forefront of international news? This tragedy occurred just days after "International Women's Day", a day that is supposed to be about celebrating women around the world, mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, friends...is one day of this really going to change anything? It's a nice thought, and plenty of really great events are put together, but more concrete action must be taken if women's rights are ever to be seen as human rights (read: men's rights). Around the world, rape dishonors the woman, not the vile creature that committed the act, including in the "civilized" Western world. As long as this belief prevails and continues to be supported by the media, abuse of women will continue.

So, ladies and gentlemen, its time to get up and do something. Here's one example that should be taken to heart. If the stigma of rape is shifted from women who are raped to the men who are the rapists, we move one step closer to women being accepted as equals and deserving of rights. 

#women2012 #International Women's Day #women's rights #Law #rape #human rights #Kim Kardashian #Jason Segel

[starry-eyed-cynic]

Some ideas on religion

A few years ago, when I was younger and possibly even more naïve than I am now, I came to an important realization that has shaped my religious ideals ever since. What I realized is that while almost all religions were founded upon the ideals of peace and love, these ideals were only preached when it suited those in power. For example, in the 11th century, the Church had the power to forbid the government from waging war on certain holy days; effectively, the Church had the power to impose peace, even a temporary peace during times of war. Eventually, the Church became so powerful that it could declare not only when a country (or empire) would be at peace but also when that country would go to war; when Pope Urban II wanted to re-conquer the “Holy Land” that was then under the control of the ‘infidel’ Muslims, he told the Christian population that it would be a ‘Holy War’ to liberate the Holy Land, and that God wanted it to be so. The Pope, the religious leader and promoter of the loving and peaceful word of God, was telling Christians that God wanted them to go kill the Muslim ‘others’, and for what?  The following Crusades to “liberate” this piece of land led to the death of soldiers and civilians alike, and to the reciprocal holy war of the Muslims, or jihad. However jihad is a notion that has been distorted for the gain of political power as well; Jihad was never supposed to be about physical violence, rather it was a peaceful concept manipulated by political and expansionist ideals.

One detail that I had previously never heard, nor imagined could be true, is that because the Jews of Medina refused to accept Mohammed as a prophet, “Mohammed physically turned the prayer meeting around so that worshippers not faced Mecca rather than Jerusalem” (Kurlansky 34). When I first came across this passage in Mark Kurlansky's book, "Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea", I was incredibly shocked and somewhat dismayed that such a crucial part of a religion could be completely changed because of a blow to the ego. However now that I think about it more, it makes perfect sense, at least to me; religion, and especially religious books, seem to be a collection of stories that for some reason people believe to be true. After all, isn’t the Bible a best-seller? It is completely logical for a person with economic and capitalistic drive to write a book of stories and claim that they are God’s word – the Bible has been sold, unchanged, for thousands of years! Imagine all of the profit.

But why are people so eager to believe that there is a God? Kurlansky goes on to point out that by the time Mohammed arrived in Medina, Jewish prophecy was already thousands of years old and the Jews “viewed a man who claimed to get messages from God with the same suspicion that most people today would” (34). If people today would look upon a man claiming to have direct contact with God as crazy, why didn’t people in the 600s, or for that matter, when Judaism was created, feel the same way? Is it true that people need religion, that human beings have a religious mind? This is something that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around – is it possible that some people need to believe in a higher being that watches over us all? It just seems illogical – there is no way that one entity, no matter how powerful, could watch over and respond to the pleas and requests of, in the case only of Christians and their God, over two billion people.

I understand believing in the message of Christ, or Mohammad, or whomever. I understand believing in the peaceful and loving message that forms the basis of most religions. I even respect those people who believe in organized religion if they do not attempt to push that religion on non-believers. It is the political extremists – those who distort religion, use it for political gain, and further incite already angered and vulnerable groups – whom I do not and cannot understand. The extremists cannot be subdued by violence, as demonstrated by the recent history of the very country we currently reside in, but for some reason that seems to be the only response they receive. Meeting violence with violence only instigates more violence (for lack of a better word) and hatred within not only the extremists but also within the other citizens of whatever country is being invaded. And this is why terrorism and tactics involving fear, violence, and death persist, because leaders of countries refuse to learn from the past. And those who refuse to learn from the past are indeed doomed to repeat it.

#Bible #Christianity #Crusades #God #Islam #Jihad #Judaism #Mohammed #Nonviolence #extremism #profit #religion #history

[starry-eyed-cynic]

Have we learned nothing?

In July 2010, "Reverend" Terry Jones announced that he would burn 200 Qurans on the 2010 anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.  His threats sparked international outrage, with leaders of the international community calling on Jones to cancel, as well as deadly protests in the Middle East and Asia. In early September 2010, Jones did cancel the burnings, and promised never (ever) to burn a Quran. 

Fast-forward to March 2011, when Jones re-ignited the controversy: Jones put the Quran "on trial", and decided that the Quran and its teachings are guilty of crimes against humanity. He then proceeded to burn a Quran in his church. So much for his promise. As a Christian clergyman, shouldn't Jones have been preaching Jesus' message of tolerance? of love? Jones' Quran burning became international news, again, sparking deadly protests around the world, again. Jones refused to acknowledge his role in the violence.

Almost one year later, February 2012, U.S. soldiers burned copies of the Quran at the Bagram air base near Kabul. Western news media sources claim that the copies had been "confiscated from terror suspects" and "inadvertently put...into a rubbish incinerator" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17218152). Over 30 people died in the following protests, including four US soldiers. 

OK, say that it really was an accident: why should the Afghanis believe that the U.S. is sincerely apologetic? The last time that someone threatened to burn a Quran, then cancelled and promised never to do it, he reneged! But more importantly, the Western world has seen the consequences of Quran burnings in the past (after all, General John Allen said that he was "not surprised in the least" at the reaction to the burning - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17216173); if this incident truly was an accident, it is also an example of utter carelessness and inattention to detail that should be reprimanded. NATO troops should have been thoroughly briefed not only on the incidents involving "Reverend" Terry Jones, but also on the consequences, and how to prevent a similar (and deadly!) situation. Why do people refuse to learn from the past?

U.S. leaders condemn the killings of soldiers, but I wonder, how would the United States react to people of other religions burning a Bible?

#Politics #History #United States #Afghanistan #Religion #Koran #Taliban #Quran

[starry-eyed-cynic]

(very) Brief thoughts on the crisis in the Congo

As part of an ongoing project that I'm working on for the NO Weapons, NO War (NOW) "task-force" at my internship with the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, I've been researching and writing about women peace-makers from around the world. As you may know, women and their role in peace-making, etc. has become very popular since Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee, and Yemeni peace activist Tawakel Karman won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 - and it's about time! I've read time and again about how women are more suited to peace in all its forms, and I'm glad that women's roles are finally beginning to not only be recognized, but documented (see "Women, War, and Peace", a series by PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/women-war-and-peace/). 

In February, ICPJ highlighted women peace-makers from Africa, namely Sylvie Maunga Mbanga, and the article that I wrote ended up in the ICPJ March newsletter! Apart from writing this article about the Democratic Republic of Congo for ICPJ, I'm also researching and writing a paper about the African Great Lakes region, which includes the DRC, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, and north-western Kenya and Tanzania (more information to come!). The article that I wrote is in no way an exhaustive history of the DRC, but an attempt to alert people to the enduring conflict, and to perhaps spark some thought about it. It's interesting, and complicated, stuff, to say the least. 

Without further ado, my article (with a few additions and alterations):

Sylvie Maunga Mbanga is a lawyer who works to end sexual violence against women in the eastern region of Congo. She is the coordinator of the program against sexual violence for the Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation and Church in Action, as well as the program officer for peace-building and conflict transformation program at the Life and Peace Institute. She also provides counseling and legal services to victims of rape and sexual violence.

Ms. Mbanga develops strategic and holistic interventions to assist victims, including the provision of psychological counseling and medical care, legal services and access to the judicial system, and economic support in the form of income-generating activities and skills building.

For more information on Ms. Mbanga, see Healing the Wounds of War.

History of Conflict in the Congo

From European colonization and military coups, to rebellions and CIA operations to overthrow democratically elected officials, the history of the Congo has been a story of violence and armed conflict. The Congo is situated in the Great Lakes region of Africa, an area that has been plagued by the spillover effect of conflict, which has involved countries such as Uganda, Rwanda, the Sudan, and Burundi. For this reason, the conflict in the Congo has been called Africa’s World War by some.

The current conflict in the Congo, perhaps the forgotten humanitarian crisis, is the deadliest since the Second World War. Since 1998, more than six million people have died, over two million people have been forced to flee their homes, and over 40,000 Congolese have sought refuge in neighboring countries. Unfortunately, as Alfred Grosser put it, “a massacre of Africans is not felt in the same way as a massacre of Europeans. Would we find it wise if an African considered slaughter in Europe a normal product of a civilization that produced Auschwitz and had already produced Verdun?”

Hundreds of thousands of women and girls, some as young as just nine months, have been kidnapped, raped, and tortured in the Congo. However, sexual violence has not been confined to the female gender, and has started to be used against men in an effort to emasculate them. Even though a peace deal was signed and a transitional government formed in 2003, armed militias, gangs, and the army continue to terrorize the country.

The way in which sexual violence is used in the Congo is unspeakable – women and children are being attacked by multiple men, often in public and in front of their husbands, children and neighbors, and after, the rapists sometimes fire their guns in to the women’s vaginas. The purpose is not just to abuse women, but also to destroy the Congolese community, and to traumatize and humiliate people. 

In a majority of cases, once women are raped, their husbands, and often their communities, will shun and even disown them. Thousands of women are forced to carry pregnancies cause by rape to term, and they and their children carry additional stigma. One reason that armed groups use violence and rape to force civilians to leave mining areas is so that they can exploit the lucrative minerals – specifically coltan (also known as tantalum), as well as tin and tungsten, known as the “3 T’s”.

Armed groups earn hundreds of millions of dollars every year by trading these conflict minerals, money that is used for both personal profit and to further the violence by purchasing arms and ammunition. Conflict minerals are smuggled out of the Congo through neighboring countries such as Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda, shipped to smelters around the world for refinement, and end up in consumer products.

Processed and converted coltan is sold to companies such as Nokia, Motorola, Compaq, Dell, IBM, Ericsson and Sony, among others. Like the blood diamonds in Sierra Leone, these conflict minerals perpetuate the violence, and our demand for electronic goods such as cell phones and smart phones, laptops, digital cameras, pagers, TVs, iPods, iPads, game consoles such as Xbox, Nintendo and Playstation, connects consumers all over the world to the suffering.

#Africa #Democratic Republic of Congo #Peace #Politics #Sexual Assault #Women #consumerism #Consumerism #Coltan

[starry-eyed-cynic]

Who is this girl?

My name is Shahar Ben-Josef. I was born in Tel-Aviv, Israel, to two of the most wonderful people I've ever met (although they sometimes drive me crazy!), both with distinct family backgrounds: My mother's family has been in Israel since the early 1400s, while my father and his parents emigrated to Israel from Romania in the Cold War era. When I was a baby, much to my grandparents' dismay, my parents, my older sister and I moved to the United States, and have remained here ever since. 

I graduated recently from the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, from which I received my B.A. in Middle Eastern and North African Studies, with a minor in Peace and Social Justice. My PSJ minor came from the University's Residential College, home of the weird-o's. But really, the RC enhanced my college experience in ways that I couldn't have even imagined, and helped me grow both personally and academically. I am eternally grateful to those who impacted my life via the RC, including friends, classmates, and especially professors.

I planned to take some time off after I graduated from UofM, find a job somewhere, and then return to graduate school to get a Masters. This is when I realized that I live in Michigan, and had wanted to stay in Michigan (I have a great boyfriend who I want to remain geographically close to), and that there are very, very few jobs in Michigan, especially in the non-profit sector. So instead, I continued working as a research assistant at the UofM Office of InterGroup Relations, found an unpaid internship at a local non-profit called The Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, and started shopping around for graduate programs. What I found seemed like a perfect fit: A Masters in Dispute Resolution and a JD (in International Law) in 3 1/2 years, plus a graduate certificate in Peace and Security Studies at Wayne State University, in Detroit, MI. Now enrolled, I'm working part-time at IGR, interning at ICPJ, interning with another organization called the Public Conversations Project, and taking two classes towards my Masters. 

You might be asking yourself, why do I care? or, why did this girl start this blog? Truthfully, I needed a space to think things through, to elaborate on what I'm learning in my classes and at my internships so that I can more fully understand the inner workings of the international arena. I've also always thought it'd be pretty cool to have a blog. Some of what I post will be political, some will be theoretical, and some of it will be papers that I've previously written for classes that I've always wanted to share or continue working on. I want to make it clear, I don't consider myself an expert on anything (yet). But maybe one day.

So, while you don't have to care about what I have to say, I hope that you'll at least enjoy it or find it somewhat interesting. And while you're here, leave some comments, start a discussion - I'm always interested in hearing what other people think.

#University of Michigan #Wayne State University #Politics #Peace #Michigan