In relation to the Relay

At the writing of this piece discussions regarding the fate of the olympic torch relay are in full swing one question seems to dominate: given the recent demonstrations in several cities, notably in Paris and London, will the international relay (that envisages "to unite humanity" in preparation for the Summer Olympic Games) be suspended or not? Moreover, will such relays be held in the future?

Regardless of one's position vis-à-vis the Games and their relevance for our contemporary societies, it goes without a say that such a decision ought not to go unnoticed - what we see here is a series of "clashes" that entangle the politics and policy-making of wide range of stakeholders spanning as they do over politics, society and even sports! Tibet is, of course, central here, as is, the question of China's politics which in turn spills over to the politics of other countries towards China via (or not) the Games! One other conflict that emerges is precisely "how we are doing politics today": we have the "summits" and we have the streets. We have Monsieur Sarkozy demanding that certain "conditions" be met in order for him to attend the Opening Ceremony of the Games, we have major European countries pursuing "round-table diplomacy", we have the Tibetan diaspora communities mobilizing all over the world, we have citizens of different countries calling, amongst others, for pluralism and tolerance. And of course we have the torch which carries the Olympic flame, and not surprisingly, sets many things on fire along the way...

It matters therefore to monitor the events. Not so much for the torch- although many might find canceling the relay hard to swallow- but for the implications and actions that come along, that is, the bigger picture "behind" the torch. Whatever the outcome, whether it involves action or inaction it will be of relevance, for, the mere recognition and the pondering over the torch issue at the level of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) inevitably draws attention to questions that have long been lingering and perhaps occasionally brought to the surface but never really tackled in depth. And the latter is the responsibly of the international community.

In my view, and regardless of what the IOC will decide, there are many ways that the international community could "go about" [in dealing with the important issues] but also a danger of "not doing anything about" the issues that are at stake here by, say, opting out, covering up or perhaps by resorting to some flowery speeches or promises for "the years to come". And that would be an opportunity missed and a grave mistake at the same time. For, ultimately, what lies behind the torch, behind Tibet, behind "street and office" politics are profound questions about democracy and the meaning of this thousand-year-old term in the context of our contemporary societies. And such questions do require answers.

America on the edge, Part C: Spelling it [out]!

When I started writing "America on the edge" my focus was gun violence in the United States; nonetheless, profound social questions can seldom be confined, spanning as they do across different sectors of society. Today's post -the third and final one in the series- deals with failing schools in America: a reality that is diametrically opposed to the picture of schools painted in the previous post and arguably a source of concern for Americans, even when it comes to gun violence.

With the same ease one can find in the United States model public schools boasting exemplary facilities -absent from many private schools- and innovative curricula, one can also find failing schools with students unable to read or do basic math despite years of schooling. And such schools are not difficult to spot, located as they are in major metropolitan cities like New York and Los Angeles. The controversial "No Child Left Behind Act" is in many ways problematic [despite some good intentions] and more importantly inefficient according to a recent article published in the New York Times; Diana Schemo argues that shutting down schools -a requirement for those schools judged as failing- presents educators with few solutions as on how to deal with the major of problem of generations of children growing without receiving basic literacy skills.

Overly packed schools with failing students present America with a formidable challenge that spans well beyond the inability of students to perform on the infamous standardized tests; such schools are taking the cohesion of the social fabric to the limits. Social ills are often recruited by proponents of gun ownership as evidence to justify increasing gun violence in what is admittedly an attempt to deflect attention from the abundance of guns that circulate almost freely in society. And while it is true that poverty in conjunction with dysfunctional schools account for much of social instability it would be an unfair stretch to argue that social conditions account for the exacerbation of the gun violence we see all over; in fact, let us be reminded of the fact that many of the deadly incidents occurred in socially stable settings.

Rather than trying to draw the line between the two camps, what is a more enlightening path for the understanding of this major issue is to underline the salient feature of American society to host extreme manifestations of any given behavior. Hence for example the best of best schools and the failing schools coexisting within miles. Or, conversely, fierce proponents in either side of the gun ownership question at times refusing to sit on the same round table, let alone to engage in a meaningful discussion.

A trait of American democracy and a product of the convoluted formation of the nation, tolerance is surely a source of strength in America; yet on occasion it may also be nothing short of a colossal vulnerability.

Reference
if registered with the New York Times:
Failing Schools Strain to meet U.S. Standard

America on the edge, Part B: Voices. Echoes?

(continued from previous post) ... like the fact that 8 year-olds openly talk about shooting.

If this statement is shocking to you (as it was to me), I am sorry to report that it actually gets worse. "Shooting" was not a random thing a young boy brought up and I happened to hear. Nor it was, of course, the subject matter of a discussion in which the little one happened to be present. It was not even a discussion about the "evils" of society. The young boy provided this response when he was asked to name a negative quality that he did not want his best friend to possess.

And now picture this: the incident happened in the local elementary school where the little one is a student. His friends and classmates were naturally present - in fact many of them were sitting just next to him as they were all participating in an activity, which was asking them to name, precisely, "the good qualities they wanted their best friends to possess" and "the bad qualities they did not wish their friends to possess".

Along with such common and anticipated answers like "I want my friend to be kind", "I want my friend to be polite", "I don't want my friend to be jealous of me" - I hear this young boy talking about shooting. And naturally I lose my voice...

I have no knowledge of or training in psychology and yet it seems bewilderingly scary to me that a young boy gave such an answer, to such a question, in a school and in the aftermath of the deadly shooting incidents that have claimed the lives of so many students and others in the United States. Again, I will refrain from taking this point further; but I must admit that I take nothing to be a more serious warning of the urgent need to delve into the issue of "shooting" as well as to dig the ground around it than the response of that 8 year old. Not next month, not next week. Today.

On a more positive now, I must mention that the children were participating in an after-school program the purpose of which is to foster peace in schools. By playing games young children learn peaceful ways to manage their anger and to resolve conflict. This excellent initiative is is the fruit of a non-governmental organization based in Boston, MA called "Peace Games".

The website of "Peace Games"

America on the edge, Part A: Facing a dead-end?

An open wound that has proved difficult to heal in America is the plight of widespread private weapon ownership - specifically high crime rates resulting from guns put into use against targeted individuals or the wide public. In fact it appears that the wound has become gravely affected; two of the most deathly incidents involving indiscriminate public shootings have occurred within the past twelve months, the first in Pennsylvania, the second in Virginia. And while the Amish killings and the Virginia Tech massacre respectively haunt our individual and collective memories, a Cleveland teenager came very close to lengthening the list of gruesome incidents: on Wednesday, October 10, he opened fire at his former high school wounding four before killling himself.

That no band-aid exists to stop the excessive bleeding and that no pill can cure the wound from inside-out is of course alarming; it is also a testimony to the fact that the ill is much more serious and complex than it is often made appear. Last week's edition of the British "Observer" features staggering statistics about deaths from shootings as well as a comprehensive analysis of the root causes of gun violence in the United States -including political, sociological, historic, legal arguments- only to conclude that weapons are intertwined with American culture and hence almost impossible to combat.

The political response to the shootings of last year centers around a Bill passed by the US House of Representatives which stipulated among others that there must be rigorous background check of prospective gun holders to reduce the probability of weapons reaching people not fit to use them. Still, the Bill is at an early stage and must go through the Senate before it reaches the President.

Of course I do not claim to have the solution to this complex problem. On the other hand, I feel extremely uncomfortable with the "hands-off" approach or the quiescence of many who refuse to even bring up the question. I am also very skeptical of the thesis that gun possession serves their owners as a means of self-defense. Is this the way to go about solving violence? Is arming people making America more safe? I highly doubt it. Not only that, but I believe that the argument is in its core flawed: suppose momentarily the proposition was correct - what about all the people that cannot afford a weapon? Would they not have the right to feel safe in their country?

It is true that weapons alone cannot be held responsible for the form of urban violence one sees today. But they do trigger some very nasty situations - and this should concern people. It should not take another tragedy in some other state to take serious action. When we speak of safety in America, it should not involve terrorism discourse only. Threats need not result from the outside, they can very much originate inside America.

Sadly, the answers seem no longer/not anymore [pending your perspective] satisfactory. Worse still, there are a number of other things that should concern like... (to be continued...)


Reference

Guns take pride of place in US family values

"We are all Hokies now"

"Hokie"

Just like in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, French daily Le Monde had published the famous "On est tous Americains" [We are all Americans], students and more broadly Americans sympathize with the plight of students and the entire community at Virginia Tech after the massacre of this past Monday. To signal their compassion, sympathy and sorrow students from all over the US will largely participate in the events of Friday, April 20 to commemorate and honor the victims and will be wearing orange and maroon clothes given that such are the official colors of Virginia Tech.

"Hokie" is the bird mascot of Virginia Tech; yet unlike many other school mascots whose task is primarily to foster school spirit in athletic competitions and appear on school logos and insignia, Hokie has been charged with the unsurmountable task of raising up the morale in what has been a tragedy of "monumental proportions" to quote Virginia Tech President, Dr. Charles Steiger. And indeed it will take time and effort in order to heal - the quick passing of the US President from Virginia Tech is important, but will not do the job in itself.

I perceive the Virginia Tech tragedy as part of a bigger question on the culture of violence and weapons in the US. While this does little, if anything, to mitigate my profound distress and sorrow for the 32 murdered at Norris and Ambler Johnston Halls, I cannot but see in this tragedy pictures from the Amish killings or the Columbine tragedy, all infamous cases involving shooting and innocent deaths. Treating the Virginia Tech massacre outside its true context may speed up the healing process and may enable an easier archiving of the case. But it will not honor the victims.

It is breathtaking really to see the level of support and sympathy from colleges all across the US who stand by Virginia Tech students: using modern technology and social networks such as Facebook.com or more traditional means and ways all stand by the students and the community at Virginia Tech. Most schools have a letter of sympathy and solidarity published in their website. Students organize vigils and raise funds for the Virginia Tech memorial fund. And it is not surprising this really given how vibrant student communities in the US are. For one thing, if students do something other than studying and studying hard this is to be compassionate individuals and produce tangible results to better the world they live in. To date, no one forgets that the Free Speech movement started in 1964, in the University of California at Berkeley...












"Hybrid logos" of students from Stanford University, George Mason University and Tufts University [all from www.facebook.com; VT logo from "A tribute to those who passed at the Virginia Tech Shooting"; Stanford and George Mason logos from "Remembering Virginia Tech Students 4/16/07" and Tufts logo courtesy of Mike Sidebottom)]

Top of the post: "The Hokie", the mascot of Virginia Tech
(http://www.hokiesports.com/hokiespirit/)

A price for what -we were told- is priceless

A bouquet of gladiola in my left arm, I enter a pharmacy (non-Americans read: supermarket) this morning for some needed supplies. As I was strolling past the ostentatious aisles stocked with luring merchandise I came across an older gentleman, who, having pushed his half-empty cart on the side was counting -with religious devotion I might add- a handful of single dollars. Prescriptions are getting more expensive I said to myself.

And this got me thinking. If there is something I have been struggling to come to terms with in my five years in the United States is this expanded notion of unpredictability of human life: you live today, you die tomorrow. Bearing striking resemblance to narratives about everyday life in post-Saddam liberated Iraq, this statement describing life in Massachusetts and other (wealthy) US states is neither a puzzle nor a trap: it is true and should be read literally - this is what makes it also very disturbing. Because health insurance is largely privatized -with the burden of responsibility befalling to the citizens and (increasingly less) to employers- those citizens unable to pay the fees -which can be anywhere around $3,000 upwards- may have no coverage whatsoever and hence, simply, die.

Apparently a few thousand individuals -those on the very bottom of the income echelon- will be spared the 'death' sentence in Massachusetts [capital punishment does not have to do necessarily with one's moral standing] thanks to a recent state initiative to fully cover the insurance costs of those making less than $9,800 a year. At the same time, the "rest of the poor" may well contemplate whether it is better to die of a disease or of an accident overnight as opposed to suffering a slow painful psychological death, such as the one that comes along with loans, interests, eviction, homelessness... and mind you the latter guarantees death in freezing Massachusetts.

If in reformist Massachusetts one can spot a modern Hamlet contemplating "to live or not to live", news from France comes as a soothing, much-needed, reminder of the fact that humans have not crossed communal life off of the dictionary - yet. As of December 1st, 2008, homeless and all those living in a poor housing situation will be entitled to some decent housing.

To compare France and the United States on an equal footing would be unfair and a proof of ignorance of the different paths that the countries have taken with respect to social policies. Conversely, it would be wholly wrong to overly accentuate the particularistic elements that account for the American experience by not being critical vis-à-vis what constitutes a direct assault on human dignity; or how differently could one describe the fact that "the little less poor" -those not covered under said legislation- "decide" not to buy insurance because the cost of the penalty is cheaper than the monthly payment for the insurance?

Part of the confusion arises from the fact that Massachusetts is "reformist" or "different" and hence requires that people buy insurance. Similarly, the proposition for free insurance for the poorest of the poor is considered too "advanced" and costly by other states with greater proportion of poor. Interestingly so, many such states voted President Bush a second time into office, aware of his agenda priorities: let us not forget that John Kerry was, after all, a senator from Beantown [a nickname for Boston].

References and Links

I thank Dimitris Stefosis for the link and the original idea: Massachusetts spurs health-care debate

On housing in France: Un toit pour tous. Enfin, peut-être...

From Maryland all the way...

On February 1, The Washington Post published an interesting editorial on Martin O'Malley, the incumbent governor of Maryland. A few weeks into office only, the former mayor of Baltimore is already making his voice heard: O'Malley calls for a staunch position against capital punishment - to the surprise of many who would have never predicted such an initiative based on his electoral campaign. O'Malley swift policy U-turn justifiably draws quite some attention for yet another reason: the state and the country remain divided along -at times stiff- fault lines over a number of social (policy) issues - the death penalty is only one of many controversial topics.

For what it really is, O'Malley's position is important as it constitutes an endorsement of human rights principles in what is a long struggle for the implementation of a human rights culture. Conversely, it becomes crucial in the context of the American culture as the United States is still struggling with concepts of justice attribution and punishment. One of the very few consolidated democracies that is still resorting to the death penalty as a correction method, the United States distinguishes itself from its liberal counterparts by engaging in a practice to be found primarily in nondemocratic countries, or, [to imitate a phraseology popular among US government officials,] "in countries failing to espouse liberty and such fundamental virtues". Still, the consistent use of death penalty by the world's most fervent proponent of human rights is problematic and counterintuitive in itself.

For all the controversy it may spur and all the praise it will receive, O'Malley's decision holds a further connotation as it becomes the embodiment of what "standing by one's principles" truly means. A long-time campaigner against capital punishment, O'Malley neither abandoned his core principles nor decided to hide himself behind them once in power. In a cost/benefit structured framework, O'Malley's deviation is highly dissonant to the ears of many political advisers or policy makers and perhaps even justifiably so. Yet at the same time one wonders whether the exemplary valor embedded in a courageous act, as this one, could in fact be providing with a raison d'être: to the rational scornful conclusion that rejects this line of thought one juxtaposes the alternative standpoint common to those who see corrosion and saturation in politics, corruption and individualism aspiring primarily, if not solely, to re-election - all frequent occurrences in many countries. Not surprisingly therefore one might feel inclined to give at least a chance to something different, something genuine. Against the sour taste of decadent politics, risk may acquire an unprecedented sweetness.

In the merciless battlefield we conventionally call politics, one hopes that ingenuity and initiative will be given some room to breathe. That Maryland borders congested Washington D.C. is a source of concern and a reason for hope at the same time.

------

Reference

The Washington Post Editorial: A governor stands up