Slavery still exists

This is a haunting video.



What can we do? Slavery is still so real, even in America. How do we stop it? How do we end human trafficking and sexual (and other) exploitation?

Will we stand up? Will we take this seriously?

I don't understand

I have spent a lot of time these last few years exploring issues of justice. It started my freshman year, second semester, when the ConneXions group I was in transitioned from direct service to exploring issues. I learned about all sorts of crap that is going on in the world. And I remember being overwhelmed then. There's all sorts of shit going on in the world, and what was I supposed to do? Then I went on my academic service learning semester, and my classes almost all focused around so many issues in the world. And then I came back and became a leader for ConneXions II (the second half of the program, the part that focuses on issues rather than service). And here I am, still involved in ConneXions II. This semester seems to be really hard. I think part of that is due to my classes. Not that these are particularly challenging classes. In fact, the two I'm referring to are the 2 classes I'm taking toward my major this semester, and they're taught by a professor who is a bit of a joke (which is frustrating in itself). But my Popular Culture class has talked a lot about consumerism. And my Urban Anthropology class has perpetuated stereotypes of different communities, particularly "unstable slums," of which Over-the-Rhine is one of them. And I had studies to back up my challenges to my professor when he said that they are the locus of immoral activity and so forth, but I wasn't about to get into an argument with him in the middle of class. I challenged him, and it wasn't going to turn into a discussion, but an argument; it just wasn't worth it.

So I say all that to say that I feel like I'm not getting a break from all the shit that's going on in the world. And what I don't understand is how people can be so cold-hearted. How can people just not care? It was different when I saw people get caught up in power and do things a certain way just to be "right." I see the threat of that in myself. I could so easily get caught in that trap, and that scares me. But what is different now is that there are people actually making decisions along the way to take advantage of others. I came back to my room on Halloween, and my roommate and her boyfriend were watching the movie Taken. Liam Neeson's daughter gets kidnapped in Paris by a group that kidnaps traveling teenagers for sex slavery. He has had a spy-like job for the government, so he goes after her. And after he finds her, he gets taken away and handcuffed to a pipe on the ceiling. As he's hanging there, one of the men involved in the business says that he has his own family and that it's not personal. My reaction to that scene sums up my reaction to so much of what I've been learning about. Particularly, recently, the topic has been gentrification and the displacement of people from their homes, the homes they can afford. I cannot understand that. I cannot understand how anyone could do that even once. I couldn't understand how Liam Neeson's character could go into the brothel and try to find his daughter, but leave all the other girls save the one who had his daughter's jacket and might provide a lead for him. I understood the immediate need of finding his daughter. But after the whole thing, doesn't it become so personal that you have to go back and rescue all those other girls because you know each one of them could have been your daughter? I don't understand how people can justify to themselves the fact that they've kicked a family out of their home. A family that cannot really afford to live anywhere else. A family that is the member of the community. How can someone justify that to make a huge profit for himself or herself?

How do we justify sweatshops and the use of child labor so that a large corporation such as Gap can make the kinds of profits they do? How can we justify forcing small farmers off their land so huge agribusiness can come in and create monoculture fields and destroy the soil? How do we justify government subsidies to those agribusinesses? To those companies that displace people like 3CDC? How do we justify the taking of civilian lives in any act of war? How do we justify letting those children who go to inner city public schools go without the opportunities that we afford to children born to suburban families or families that can afford public schools?

I don't understand. I have a generally good view of the human person. I believe there is good in everyone and that the good is almost always more than the bad. But I cannot reconcile that view with the evil that those in power perpetuate, or at least allow to go on. I don't understand.

Oreo Analysis

"The bread which you do not use..."

"The bread which you do not use is the bread of the hungry. The garment hanging in your wardrobe is the garment of him who is naked. The shoes that you do not wear are the shoes of the one who is barefoot. The money you keep locked away is the money of the poor. The acts of charity you do not perform are so many injustices you commit." -St. Basil the Great

You know, every once in a while I have this thought: St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Clare of Assisi, and many other saints (and I'm sure not only saints; not even only Christians - Ghandi as one example) spent large periods of their time as vagabonds. They felt called (by God) to go out with just the clothes on their backs, to beg for their food and shelter. They relied solely on the charity of others. That was considered honorable.

Now, we often place judgment on those who rely on the charity of others. We condemn as lazy those who receive payments from social welfare programs. We are taught to save money (or to go into significant debt, depending on who teaches us/whom we listen to). We are taught to invest, to have money saved for a rainy day.

It just makes me wonder: Which way of thinking is right? And this quote from St. Basil makes me think that in many ways, a total surrender is the only way to go. But at the same time, "common sense" and our worldly wisdom make so much sense. Maybe in a way it's because we don't like to rely on others. I don't know if it's pride or guilt/thinking we don't deserve anything unless we earn it. I know I'm there almost all the time.

Which age's world view is correct? Is there a balance? (I'm one who generally promotes balance as the best way to look at things - the middle way.) I don't know.

Damn Politics

I hope this doesn't sound partisan, but I am sick and tired of Republicans/conservatives spreading blatant lies about what the health care bills contain.

If it were Democrats/liberals, I would feel the same way. In fact, I do on some issues.

Sarah Palin is the latest: Politifact reports that she says seniors would have to go in front of Obama's bureaucratic panel which would decide whether or not to euthanize them. http://bit.ly/3bvr7i

Glenn Beck has also been on the list, and there is an email circulating that has all these accusations (and cites page numbers), many of which were concluded to be "Pants on fire!" "False," or "Barely true" (by Politifact). Granted, some were true. But that doesn't excuse the statements that weren't true.

These types of shenanigans do not advance the debate. I don't expect all sides to agree because not all sides have the same political philosophy. But to propagate blatant lies is shameful.

As a concerned citizen, I want to have the opportunity to make my decision as to my opinion on this issue or any other based on the facts. There's no other way for me to make the best decision. And, quite frankly, all of those spreading the falsehoods (even unintentionally, since there are so many easy fact-check sites such as politifact or snopes) should be ashamed of themselves. You're taking the partisan 'easy way' out. The easy way isn't always the best way. So either don't share your opinion or try to have an educated (with facts) opinion.

(Note: I'm not asking you to know everything, just to not base your arguments on falsehoods. I'm not even asking you to agree with me. Just don't tell me that health reform will force taxpayers to pay for abortions or to force seniors to end their lives.)

Health Care Reform

Alexandria, VA - In response to inaccurate online media reports, Catholic Charities USA states unequivocally that it does not support any plan to reform health care and/or any proposed legislative provision that allows or promotes the funding of abortions or that compels any health care provider or institution to provide such a service. In fact, Catholic Charities USA will continue to work with the Catholic Health Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to ensure that any health care reform legislation will not include such provisions. All media accounts or public comments that misrepresent this position are inaccurate.

"These attacks appear to be politically motivated by opponents of health care reform. They are distortions of the truth and disingenuous. Catholic Charities USA will continue to work to reform health care in a way that is consistent with the teachigns of our faith." said Fr. Larry Snyder, President.

-http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1796

That was a statement on the Catholic Charities website.

I'll be up front in stating that I honestly don't know enough about the specifics of the plans before either house of Congress right now. I don't know the perfect solution, either.

I also want to clarify that I'm not condemning the Catholic Charities' statement of standing firm in their values.

A while ago, I ran across this quote: "What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers." -Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary

If we provide better health care in general, even if it does include the funding of abortion, I wonder how much it would reduce abortions due simply to that better access to affordable health care. I don't know, but I suspect that is part of what would happen. I could be very wrong. I don't know.

Also, health care reform would help to provide life-saving care for people who currently cannot afford it. So what if the public funding of abortions (which may be reduced through the provision of health care) is the trade off of saving other lives? It seems to me either way, we're going to be a loss of some lives and the saving of others.

I honestly wish that there wouldn't be public funding for abortions, but if that's the trade off to get an otherwise good health care bill, I think I would have to be willing to make that compromise. Then again, I have always been an advocate of reducing abortions one person at a time, through love and support, emotional and financial. I honestly don't think very many people truly want to have abortions.

I just think health care reform is too important to completely pass up for one possible provision. I think health care is an important life issue, just like abortion.

So, please, let this incite respectful conversation/reflection. I would love to hear your thoughts!

What I Saw

I just stumbled across this video, and I really like it.

No Kid Hungry

"Internet technology brings more to our fingertips than downloadable music and sophisticated video games. It brings the opportunity to learn and know how other people live across town and across the world. With that comes a responsibility to engage as a citizen, locally and globally, in new and more powerful ways.... If the poor are invisible to us now, they are invisible by our choice, our lack of curiosity, our lack of civic engagement and commitment. Social media can’t ensure social justice. But it can affect the invisibility that is the first barrier to achieving it."
~http://tinyurl.com/kjqbhy

What an incredible opportunity that we have because of the internet. This widespread access to information has created the Invisible Children revolution, in which many high schools have formed chapters to fight the use of child soldiers in Uganda. It has formed a movement around the book Not For Sale to fight all types of slavery, including slavery that still exists in the United States. It has created an awareness of poverty and water issues that have organizations like ONE, Oxfam, and Heifer International working to solve those issues.

Twitter and facebook are possibly the latest additions to the great opportunity to widely disseminate information. With a small comment of a description, I can post a link to an article that provides more information or an opportunity to work for change. And I can follow organizations such as ONE and Catholic Charities and Not For Sale to learn about their projects and their campaigns. We can form coalitions of those asking for our government to do something and those willing to do something themselves. It enables grassroots movements to take hold.

And that's a great responsibility. We have no excuse for not addressing issues of poverty. We have no excuse for not addressing injustice. The poor are visible. The oppressed are visible, if we are only willing to stop ignoring their plights. Whether we want government action or individual action, we can stand up and say "Not this time!" This time, I'm not buying cheap goods on the backs of sweatshop laborers who have no other options. This time I'm not buying into oppressive economic systems. This time, you don't get to earn record profits from the sweat of children. Not this time!

I, for one, am glad that I have the opportunity to know about these issues that I help to contribute to. So that way I can work to reduce my contribution to everything from environmental devastation to the abuse of workers. I'm not perfect, but by knowing about it and about alternatives, I can start to do better.

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices

That's the title of a good movie that really details how Wal-Mart destroys communities and draws heavily on taxpayer subsidies.

Today's post, however, is Jib Jab style. It's an accurate representation, but it's much shorter and much more entertaining.

Who's Responsible?

"If we are to go on living together on this earth, we must all be responsible for it." -Kofi Annan

The big debate: Who is responsible for poverty? Who is responsible for providing safe drinking water in areas that don't have any? Who is responsible for decent working conditions? Who is responsible for giving food to those who have none? Who is responsible for taking care of the environment?

The answer: all of us. Liberals tend to expect the government to set regulations or outlaw certain practices. Conservatives want the government to stay out of it. Several times I have heard statistics of conservatives giving more money to charities, while more often I hear of liberals writing to government officials and/or staging protests. So what?

Does it matter how you go about working to make a more just world? I would argue that two avenues are equally important. I recently sent out an email about writing to representatives about the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, and one of the recipients replied with links to places through which you could donate to help get sanitary water to places in which water is scarce. Both ways of working for justice are vitally important.

Same is true for environmental concerns. We as individuals must be conscious of our energy uses and the things we buy. We must be aware of where our energy comes from and reduce consumption. We should buy local goods as much as possible. But the government may be necessary to regulate the companies who seek to make a profit at the cost of our environment. We bear the cost; they get the profit. As individuals, we can only do so much to stop this. But we must do what we can. Part of that includes asking our representatives to represent what is important to us. The other part that is just as important is to use our time and money to play our role, to buy fair trade products, to donate to organizations that work with those issues.

If you feel that much of this is the responsibility of the government, you can easily fall into the trap of expecting someone else to do it. But that is simply unacceptable. You too must do your part. If you always wait around expecting someone else to do something, nothing will ever get done. You must take charge. I must take charge.

It doesn't matter your political philosophy. What matters is that we come together to create a world in which children don't die from unsanitary drinking water, in which people can work hard and earn a livable wage, in which we don't need all the biggest and best for the cheapest prices at the expense of those who can hardly afford to feed their families (if they can). Are we ready to rise up and put an end to poverty?

One by one... we can do it if we choose.

Partisan Havens

This morning I walked downstairs to see my dad watching some cable news talk show. During the minute that I listened I heard the host begin to talk about how conservatives listen to conservative talk radio or watch conservative news shows and liberals listen to liberal talk radio or watch liberal news shows. Everyone just gets information that reinforces the ways he or she already thinks.

In addition, some sides of an issue show only the arguments or evidence for something, while the opposing viewpoints show only the evidence against something. One example would be the issue of global climate change. It seems that nobody will consider the other viewpoint. How can we ever find the truth if we only consider one side and dismiss the other side?

On the other hand, opposing viewpoints type of arguments or debates often don't effectively add to the conversation either. Too much of the success of an argument has to do with how the issue is presented by whoever is presenting that viewpoint. Meanwhile, there are some issues that don't legitimately have multiple viewpoints, but we present multiple viewpoints. Although the majority of, say, the scientific community believes one way, presenting both sides leaves the impression that the scientific community that directly studies that issue is evenly split.

Another example that I would like to address is the issue of abortion. I'm honestly quite sick of talking about this issue, but I'm going to for just a minute, especially since it's been in the news lately with the Pres. Obama speech at Notre Dame and the murder of the late-term abortion provider Dr. Tiller. I refuse to identify with either side on this issue because both sides refuse to acknowledge the very important and valid concerns of the other side. The pro-choice crowd has to argue that the fetus is not living to be able to say that it's okay to abort it, but spontaneous abortions occur all the time. And do we then charge a mother with manslaughter for a miscarriage induced by the mother not properly taking care of herself? That's part of where the issue gets sticky. But it is very obvious that the fetus is human (it is composed of human cells, what else could it be?) and that it is living because it is growing and changing. On the other hand, the pro-life crowd seems to think, despite evidence suggesting to the contrary, that outlawing abortion is the way to reduce abortions. In doing this, they demonize otherwise well-intentioned people with whom they happen to disagree. They make those who identify as pro-choice out to be intrinsically evil and selfish. But isn't it better to treat the whole issue with love? Isn't it better to create a society in which a woman is not punished for having a child, in which she is treated with love and given any help she needs? Isn't it better to have a society in which the father is just as responsible as the mother? I see the way to reduce abortions most clearly through providing women with alternatives and helping with the emotional and material support they need.

As someone who was involved in the pro-life club in her high school, briefly identified as pro-choice, and now cannot find a label that fits on this particular issue, I ask both sides of the debate to seriously and honestly consider the other side. I feel I can most clearly ask this on this issue because I disagree with both major groups in this debate. I know many will disagree with me on something. I'm sure that I'll be asked how I can justify keeping the killing of a living being legal if I believe it's living. The answer is this: the way the laws in our country work make it hard to make abortion illegal. Furthermore, what other ramifications will that have (like charging a mother for manslaugher for not taking care of herself while carrying her child)? It would be more loving and possibly more productive to fight abortions from a grass-roots level - that is, provide necessary services for women who need them (particularly free or cheap health care options and diapers and supplies needed to care for a baby).

So the question is, What is your real goal? Is it to be right or to have found the truth (or at least be working toward finding the truth)? Or maybe not the truth, but the best way to solve the problem?

This brings us back to the media. How can we find the truth if we just keep listening to the arguments in favor of our positions while dismissing the arguments against our positions? If truth is objectively true, how can we find the truth only through our own experiences not listening to the experiences of others? At the same time, I recognize that it's not possible to ignore our own experiences, but that we must recognize that our own experiences affect us and look beyond them, still including those experiences but recognizing the validity of others.

So what I want to know, what I cannot figure out, is how do we fix this media quandry that we have? Oh, by the way, I think it's a perfect example of this problem that liberals call the mainstream media too conservative and conservatives call the mainstream media too liberal. I just think it's incomplete and too focused on entertainment, but that's my opinion. What can you and I do? What can we ask of our media outlets? What can we ask of our government? Should we ask anything of the media or the government?

P.S. I appologize. I suck at keeping my blogs short. I guess that's something I'll be working on.

In My Name...

"Can we be the generation to end poverty?"

We'll never know if we don't try. Just put it in perspective. Our competitive comforts or the basic needs of others.

Be the Change

This is from an organization called Free the Children that works to provide schools and clean water and other necessities to people in developing children. Michel Chikwanine and Katie Meyler from Free the Children came here on Monday, and I got to spend some time with them in a workshop and have dinner with them before they gave their presentation. Michel was a child soldier in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Katie has lived in areas of Africa and South America. They are so inspiring.